Justin Fields and his Steelers

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I described it as a salary dump, same as the article. The article asks why DET is even bothering with Goff, but for that reason. Few felt Goff would be the long term solution in DET. This all points to him being a bust more or less. I wager and I am probably right, see if you agree, most any team could have traded for Goff from LAR. Flip a mid round pick, and take on that contract. This of course, would had to have been prior to LAR unloading him (prior to McVay heading to Cabo). You are right, his contract was viewed by LAR as more than his game. That all lines up with him being a bust more or less. Or at least, he could have been had, for far less draft investment, than how LAR acquired him.

Thanks to his play in DET he's rehabbed a lot of that value. DET will probably pony up and pay him again.

You said he was a bust in plain language, man. 'i would argue he was viewed as a bust'.

A two time pro bowler. Multiple division titles. Multiple playoff wins. SB appearance.

Definitely agree that he wasn't viewed as the longterm guy in Detroit. That's the part where I said he wasn't viewed as a franchise QB lol. That's not a bust. I can see why people criticized you for being inconsistent in the Jimmy thread. Sheesh.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I described it as a salary dump, same as the article. The article asks why DET is even bothering with Goff, but for that reason. Few felt Goff would be the long term solution in DET. This all points to him being a bust more or less. I wager and I am probably right, see if you agree, most any team could have traded for Goff from LAR. Flip a mid round pick, and take on that contract. This of course, would had to have been prior to LAR unloading him (prior to McVay heading to Cabo). You are right, his contract was viewed by LAR as more than his game. That all lines up with him being a bust more or less. Or at least, he could have been had, for far less draft investment, than how LAR acquired him.

Thanks to his play in DET he's rehabbed a lot of that value. DET will probably pony up and pay him again.

You said he was a bust in plain language, man. 'i would argue he was viewed as a bust'.

A two time pro bowler. Multiple division titles. Multiple playoff wins. SB appearance.

Definitely agree that he wasn't viewed as the longerm guy in Detroit. That's the part where I said he wasn't viewed as a franchise QB lol. That's not a bust. I can see why people criticized you for being inconsistent in the Jimmy thread. Sheesh.

The bold is inconsistent in my view. If you are a stop gap, or bridge QB, as #1 overall. That may indeed be a bust. Hard to know what else to call it. Perhaps there's degrees of bust. Trey was more of a bust sure. I think as a #1 overall, you should be the FQB for your squad. Or else you are a bust, probably. I don't know all the rules of being a bust, but he was in that direction. When he was traded out and regarded as a salary dump, yeah he was flirting with bustville, how about that?

This does circle back to my idea tho, why invest with #1 overall? Guys like Baker and Goff, got a lot cheaper, in terms of draft capital needed to acquire. Neither of them was a great pick at 1 overall, I would say, for their original squad.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
The bold is inconsistent in my view. If you are a stop gap, or bridge QB, as #1 overall. That may indeed be a bust. Hard to know what else to call it. Perhaps there's degrees of bust. Trey was more of a bust sure. I think as a #1 overall, you should be the FQB for your squad. Or else you are a bust, probably. I don't know all the rules of being a bust, but he was in that direction. When he was traded out and regarded as a salary dump, yeah he was flirting with bustville, how about that?

This does circle back to my idea tho, why invest with #1 overall? Guys like Baker and Goff, got a lot cheaper, in terms of draft capital needed to acquire. Neither of them was a great pick at 1 overall, I would say, for their original squad.

I'd describe that as a disappointment. Not reaching the height of your projection. Definitely not a bust. I've posted with you on a near daily basis and can't recall you applying this standard elsewhere. Alex Smith, Sam Darnold, Jimmy G (in the context of his contract)… probably many other examples I could cite with more time. Definitely other positions.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
The bold is inconsistent in my view. If you are a stop gap, or bridge QB, as #1 overall. That may indeed be a bust. Hard to know what else to call it. Perhaps there's degrees of bust. Trey was more of a bust sure. I think as a #1 overall, you should be the FQB for your squad. Or else you are a bust, probably. I don't know all the rules of being a bust, but he was in that direction. When he was traded out and regarded as a salary dump, yeah he was flirting with bustville, how about that?

This does circle back to my idea tho, why invest with #1 overall? Guys like Baker and Goff, got a lot cheaper, in terms of draft capital needed to acquire. Neither of them was a great pick at 1 overall, I would say, for their original squad.

I showed you why and you ignored it. The reason you invest high draft picks in QBs is because that gives you the best chance to get one. See: the NFL for many many years. You can miss on the investment as well, as I agreed with many times.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
The bold is inconsistent in my view. If you are a stop gap, or bridge QB, as #1 overall. That may indeed be a bust. Hard to know what else to call it. Perhaps there's degrees of bust. Trey was more of a bust sure. I think as a #1 overall, you should be the FQB for your squad. Or else you are a bust, probably. I don't know all the rules of being a bust, but he was in that direction. When he was traded out and regarded as a salary dump, yeah he was flirting with bustville, how about that?

This does circle back to my idea tho, why invest with #1 overall? Guys like Baker and Goff, got a lot cheaper, in terms of draft capital needed to acquire. Neither of them was a great pick at 1 overall, I would say, for their original squad.

I showed you why and you ignored it. The reason you invest high draft picks in QBs is because that gives you the best chance to get one. See: the NFL for many many years. You can miss on the investment as well, as I agreed with many times.

I'm not convinced of this. This year's MVP convo is Brock (Mr Irrelevant), Lamar (dead last round 1), Dak (I think round 4). The GOAT is round 6 and the 49ers GOAT is round 3.

If you are saying pick 1 has better odds than pick 140 historically, ok sure. That's a far cry from saying it's the best tactic, to draft at the top a QB. There is a lot of opportunity cost with pick 1, the fail rate is high, and there are other ways to get QBs. Ways where you can take on far less risk. I'd almost like to see a thesis on the topic, risk management type convo. The Rams SB winning strat ended up being essentially 'eff them picks'. Acquire known commodities. Ironically enough as we have noted, they pivoted away from QB at pick 1, to go that route. That trade will be revisited with the WC round

He's a great option for a Fantasy Football QB.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
The bold is inconsistent in my view. If you are a stop gap, or bridge QB, as #1 overall. That may indeed be a bust. Hard to know what else to call it. Perhaps there's degrees of bust. Trey was more of a bust sure. I think as a #1 overall, you should be the FQB for your squad. Or else you are a bust, probably. I don't know all the rules of being a bust, but he was in that direction. When he was traded out and regarded as a salary dump, yeah he was flirting with bustville, how about that?

This does circle back to my idea tho, why invest with #1 overall? Guys like Baker and Goff, got a lot cheaper, in terms of draft capital needed to acquire. Neither of them was a great pick at 1 overall, I would say, for their original squad.

I'd describe that as a disappointment. Not reaching the height of your projection. Definitely not a bust. I've posted with you on a near daily basis and can't recall you applying this standard elsewhere. Alex Smith, Sam Darnold, Jimmy G (in the context of his contract)… probably many other examples I could cite with more time. Definitely other positions.

We are getting into semantics. Bust is a very inexact term. For the record, I have said Alex was a bust in SF, but he redeemed himself over time, with late SF, KC and WAS. Darnold was a bust for NYJ. Jimmy I've never referred to or considered a bust. In my view, LAR was moving on from Goff cuz he had some rough tape in the big game, they wanted someone to hit the stuff he left on the table. So it was in some sense an incitement on the player. JG was traded out of NE for no reason other than his contract was up, and TB was still playing, Brady had enough longevity to outlast JGs rook deal, and then some. Again tho this is semantics, i think we agree Goff did some good in LA, but not enough good to avoid being replaced.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'm not convinced of this. This year's MVP convo is Brock (Mr Irrelevant), Lamar (dead last round 1), Dak (I think round 4). The GOAT is round 6 and the 49ers GOAT is round 3.

If you are saying pick 1 has better odds than pick 140 historically, ok sure. That's a far cry from saying it's the best tactic, to draft at the top a QB. There is a lot of opportunity cost with pick 1, the fail rate is high, and there are other ways to get QBs. Ways where you can take on far less risk. I'd almost like to see a thesis on the topic, risk management type convo. The Rams SB winning strat ended up being essentially 'eff them picks'. Acquire known commodities. Ironically enough as we have noted, they pivoted away from QB at pick 1, to go that route. That trade will be revisited with the WC round

By trading for a former #1 overall pick. Whoops.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'm not convinced of this. This year's MVP convo is Brock (Mr Irrelevant), Lamar (dead last round 1), Dak (I think round 4). The GOAT is round 6 and the 49ers GOAT is round 3.

If you are saying pick 1 has better odds than pick 140 historically, ok sure. That's a far cry from saying it's the best tactic, to draft at the top a QB. There is a lot of opportunity cost with pick 1, the fail rate is high, and there are other ways to get QBs. Ways where you can take on far less risk. I'd almost like to see a thesis on the topic, risk management type convo. The Rams SB winning strat ended up being essentially 'eff them picks'. Acquire known commodities. Ironically enough as we have noted, they pivoted away from QB at pick 1, to go that route. That trade will be revisited with the WC round

By trading for a former #1 overall pick. Whoops.

When you get him after being in the league for a decade, you have a lot better handle on his worth. It makes for a lot easier evaluation. We too were in on Stafford, if you listen to Shanny. College prospects like your Wilson, Fields, Lance, that's a harder evaluation. That's the point I am making. Once you are in the league a long time, no one cares what round you are.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I'm not convinced of this. This year's MVP convo is Brock (Mr Irrelevant), Lamar (dead last round 1), Dak (I think round 4). The GOAT is round 6 and the 49ers GOAT is round 3.

If you are saying pick 1 has better odds than pick 140 historically, ok sure. That's a far cry from saying it's the best tactic, to draft at the top a QB. There is a lot of opportunity cost with pick 1, the fail rate is high, and there are other ways to get QBs. Ways where you can take on far less risk. I'd almost like to see a thesis on the topic, risk management type convo. The Rams SB winning strat ended up being essentially 'eff them picks'. Acquire known commodities. Ironically enough as we have noted, they pivoted away from QB at pick 1, to go that route. That trade will be revisited with the WC round

You're still ignoring my post and all the great QB's league wide and where they were drafted. It's just funny because not only is this an obvious point to anyone who watches the NFL, but the information you want to see (the thesis comment) is readily available online. You're effectively hiding behind one year's MVP race and ignoring easily available information. That's not even factoring that 3 of the top 5 QBs in the MVP race are 1st rounders and two were top 10 picks. I would hope you don't think Dak is an elite QB though it's convenient for your argument in this moment.

Your Rams example is pretty silly. They traded multiple firsts and their own highly drafted QB (who was solid) for another highly drafted QB who was great. Nobody is saying it's not a good idea to trade for one or sign one in Free Agency. I specifically said it would make sense if the Bears acquired a proven starter like Cousins and then traded out of the first pick. That's a hell of a lot different than pretending its a sound strategy to sign fringe starters/backups and trying to find competent QB's late in the draft, while sticking with a 'bust' (especially using your bust definition).

For clarity, I didn't say drafting a QB with a high pick is the safest way to get a great QB period. It's the best way to find one in the draft. If one is available via trade or free agency… there's no doubt that's safer. You probably understand it's rare to have good/great QB's available in trade or through free agency. Which established good/great QB will be available to the Bears? Almost certainly none.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You're still ignoring my post and all the great QB's league wide and where they were drafted. It's just funny because not only is this an obvious point to anyone who watches the NFL, but the information you want to see (the thesis comment) is readily available online. You're effectively hiding behind one year's MVP race and ignoring easily available information. That's not even factoring that 3 of the top 5 QBs in the MVP race are 1st rounders and two were top 10 picks. I would hope you don't think Dak is an elite QB though it's convenient for your argument in this moment.

Your Rams example is pretty silly. They traded multiple firsts and their own highly drafted QB (who was solid) for another highly drafted QB who was great. Nobody is saying it's not a good idea to trade for one or sign one in Free Agency. I specifically said it would make sense if the Bears acquired a proven starter like Cousins and then traded out of the first pick. That's a hell of a lot different than pretending its a sound strategy to sign fringe starters/backups and trying to find competent QB's late in the draft, while sticking with a 'bust' (especially using your bust definition).

For clarity, I didn't say drafting a QB with a high pick is the best way to get a great QB period. It's the best way to find one in the draft. If one is available via trade or free agency… there's no doubt that's safer. You probably understand it's rare to have good/great QB's available in trade or through free agency. Which established good/great QB will be available to the Bears? Almost certainly none.

Probably Zach Wilson, Lance, Jones, they will all be available soon, or are avail now.

Not sure what post I am ignoring, I thought I was responding to all your posts. Maybe give a post number, and I'll check it out

My view would be if you QB proof your lineup, the QB will fall in place magically. Darnold can probably be a Goff, put him with those weapons, and OL DET has and he would do just fine. He's freely available. As was Baker who Tampa got. Buy low is my viewpoint, both in draft or FA. And if you build up your roster, you only help your odds of the guy flourishing. No matter who he is. Unless you are sitting on a can't miss, like Manning or Elway. I have yet to deep dive on Caleb Williams but I watched a game or so and didn't like him. I'll have to check him out more, as we go forward.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Probably Zach Wilson, Lance, Jones, they will all be available soon, or are avail now.

Not sure what post I am ignoring, I thought I was responding to all your posts. Maybe give a post number, and I'll check it out

My view would be if you QB proof your lineup, the QB will fall in place magically. Darnold can probably be a Goff, put him with those weapons, and OL DET has and he would do just fine. He's freely available. As was Baker who Tampa got. Buy low is my viewpoint, both in draft or FA. And if you build up your roster, you only help your odds of the guy flourishing. No matter who he is. Unless you are sitting on a can't miss, like Manning or Elway. I have yet to deep dive on Caleb Williams but I watched a game or so and didn't like him. I'll have to check him out more, as we go forward.

That top part of the post is just disingenuous. You want to drill down on 1st round misses while ignoring the fact that the bulk of the good/great and even the average starters are 1st round picks. I've responded to this point multiple times. Said multiple times you can miss on the investment.

You'd think you'd focus on the litany of late rounders and bargain free agents that didn't work out, like you are doing with high picks, but of course not. This is suddenly a sound strategy against all available evidence because a couple teams lucked out over multiple decades. Lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Maybe Burrow does? Lmao.

Again, nobody is saying you can't miss up there. You obviously can.

Now do the best QBs in the league:

Mahomes - top 10
Allen - top 10
Burrow - top 10
Herbert - top 10
Lamar - round 1
Rodgers - round 1
Stafford - top 10
Stroud - top 10

Even Tua was top 10.

Next group would include Cousins and Dak. Lower round picks. Never been seriously considered elite players but very good starters. Exceptions to the typical QBs drafted in their draft slots. Same with Wilson and Tom Brady. Wild hits in the draft that statistically have next to no chance of replication.

At least we finally got you off talking about Bears backups, as if they were ever the subject of the conversation instead of Fields and the QB1 position going forward for multiple seasons.

^

QB proof the lineup? Yah hard pass.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Here's the round 1s less than a decade old; the ones overall I mean

Bryce Young
Lawrence
Burrow
Kyler Murray
Baker
Goff
Winston

Hard for me to say those guys justify an insane outlay of draft capital. Maybe Burrow does.

Maybe Burrow does? Lmao.

Again, nobody is saying you can't miss up there. You obviously can.

Now do the best QBs in the league:

Mahomes - top 10
Allen - top 10
Burrow - top 10
Herbert - top 10
Lamar - round 1
Rodgers - round 1
Stafford - top 10
Stroud - top 10

Even Tua was top 10.

Next group would include Cousins and Dak. Lower round picks. Never been seriously considered elite players but very good starters. Exceptions to the typical QBs drafted in their draft slots. Same with Wilson and Tom Brady. Wild hits in the draft that statistically have next to no chance of replication.

At least we finally got you off talking about Bears backups, as if they were ever the subject of the conversation instead of Fields and the QB1 position going forward for multiple seasons.

We can agree to disagree. Even Mahomes, the irony CHI did move up in that draft to take Trubisky. Mahomes was not QB1 in his class. So it's an inexact science. Even on your own list, you have guys like Lamar and Rodgers who sat near all of round 1. Rodgers famously in the green room. We put him there.

So your idea, that pick 1 they should invest in a QB, I am inclined to say fall back. One thing we agreed on, with TL, is the investment was sky high. Understand that is an opportunity cost to pick 1. Even falling back from pick 1, to pick 2, they would get a haul.