A.M- Life After Marcus Watch (options?)

[titanrick]

1 hour ago, ragevsuall17 said:

But we also need an Edge rusher... and potentially a RT... maybe a RG... a RB... I don't know.  But I'm not in love with taking a QB in the 1st this year.  So Brady and a mid round development guy sounds great... but I'm not 100% sold on that either... if its even an option.

[KingTitan]

I only like Burrows and kind of Eason. And that like isn't too strong. 

I don't know either. Starting to feel like the Locker year. Just gotta take someone and that sucks.

I'd rather take an 2nd round guy or a late 1st guy than sell out to move up to get a "top" guy.

 

 

[KingTitan]

2 hours ago, ragevsuall17 said:

Tom Brady for most of the past 20 years has... does this version of Brady still do that?

I'm conflicted on the possiblity of bringing him in. I would like to see what he's got left on a team like ours... especially if it means he brings a coordinator that he's comfortable with and would help the team develop a QB behind him.  I don't know if McDaniels would come with him as an OC... so I don't know who his hand picked OC would be.  I also don't think Brady comes here if they're replacing Vrabel with McDaniels (or anyone else)... it takes away that angle of Vrabel and Brady being "friends"... so that's not an option.

The other option is to get one of those veteran OC's to develop a rookie.  No matter what, we'll end up with 7+ wins... which puts us somewhere in the low teens picks.  We wouldn't necessarily have to trade up to get the QB we would target, but we may want to jump a few spots to ensure we get our guy.  

But we also need an Edge rusher... and potentially a RT... maybe a RG... a RB... I don't know.  But I'm not in love with taking a QB in the 1st this year.  So Brady and a mid round development guy sounds great... but I'm not 100% sold on that either... if its even an option.

We need an edge rusher. 
Kelly could be re-signed for cheaper if we decide to let Conklin walk.
RG...maybe an OC change helps, if not I'd spend money on the dude from Washington or admit a mistake and resign Spain who is a FA after this year.
RB's are always easier to find.

 

1st-Edge
2nd- QB
3rd-RB
 

I think that would be solid.

[SerenityNow]

BRING ME TEDDY! (Yes, I still haven't let him go.)

[KingTitan]

30 minutes ago, SerenityNow said:

BRING ME TEDDY! (Yes, I still haven't let him go.)

Lol

I never liked him. Didn't hate him but felt he was more backup or bridge ( no pun intended) QB

[SerenityNow]

4 minutes ago, KingTitan said:

Lol

I never liked him. Didn't hate him but felt he was more backup or bridge ( no pun intended) QB

I feel like we're in such a damned if we do damned if we don't situation this year with QB that outside of the Brady situation I'd probably look into Teddy as an option, because most of the top QBs in the draft have me less than enthused. I don't wanna hitch our wagon to a guy for 5 years that we really don't believe in just because we feel like we have to. I wouldn't break the bank for Teddy, but I'd be willing to bring him in as a bridge/potential long term starter if things go well, and wait on drafting a QB until we end up in a position to draft a guy that we really believe is the long term answer. Maybe we find that guy in this year's draft that we fall in love with, but there are so many factors leaving me gun shy about all the QBs this year mainly Vrabel still being in the mix.

[ragevsuall17]

IF we're in the top 15, I don't see us passing on a QB in the 1st.  But with Mariota's contract no longer an expected expense, we can splurge a little in FA.  Von is on a team option, although I'm sure it'll be picked up.  Ngakoue, Clowney and Fowler are FA , and I'd look at any of those, obviously, although all 3 could be tagged.  Barrett and especially Judon could be our targets... and they both would pair nicely with Landry.  If we can't land either of these, a next tier option could be brought in while also looking at the position in the 2nd round. 

The only FA I think we need to bring back is Ryan.  Henry would be nice, but only on a team friendly deal... as RBs are really a dime a dozen.  So we should have enough money for Ryan and an Edge, if we decide to splurge... or a RT if that's the route we decide to take.  

 

[TitanSS]

15 minutes ago, ragevsuall17 said:

IF we're in the top 15, I don't see us passing on a QB in the 1st.  But with Mariota's contract no longer an expected expense, we can splurge a little in FA.  Von is on a team option, although I'm sure it'll be picked up.  Ngakoue, Clowney and Fowler are FA , and I'd look at any of those, obviously, although all 3 could be tagged.  Barrett and especially Judon could be our targets... and they both would pair nicely with Landry.  If we can't land either of these, a next tier option could be brought in while also looking at the position in the 2nd round. 

The only FA I think we need to bring back is Ryan.  Henry would be nice, but only on a team friendly deal... as RBs are really a dime a dozen.  So we should have enough money for Ryan and an Edge, if we decide to splurge... or a RT if that's the route we decide to take.  

 

Even if we're drafting a QB i think we're bringing one back, assuming that to be Tannehill.

Not sure how much he makes as an assumed starter on the team.

[ragevsuall17]

4 hours ago, TitanSS said:

Even if we're drafting a QB i think we're bringing one back, assuming that to be Tannehill.

Not sure how much he makes as an assumed starter on the team.

I don't know. I think both guys could be starting next year. Chicago and Denver make sense for each. If we're going qb in the 1st, I'd rather they go more value with the FA qb, and save the cap space for other positions. I expect the rookie qb to start sooner rather than later. 

It's all moot unless they get a staff that can help develop a QB, though. Is anyone really confident that Vrabel, Smith, and O'Hara can develop a young qb?! 

[TitanSS]

11 minutes ago, ragevsuall17 said:

I don't know. I think both guys could be starting next year. Chicago and Denver make sense for each. If we're going qb in the 1st, I'd rather they go more value with the FA qb, and save the cap space for other positions. I expect the rookie qb to start sooner rather than later. 

It's all moot unless they get a staff that can help develop a QB, though. Is anyone really confident that Vrabel, Smith, and O'Hara can develop a young qb?! 

The fact that we don't have an infrastructure in place to facilitate a young QB makes me all the more inclined to bring Tannehill back as a starter. We're not getting a top 3 pick most likely, so whichever QB we draft likely has flaws in most people's eyes and isn't going to be a plug and play guy day 1.

[ragevsuall17]

7 hours ago, TitanSS said:

The fact that we don't have an infrastructure in place to facilitate a young QB makes me all the more inclined to bring Tannehill back as a starter. We're not getting a top 3 pick most likely, so whichever QB we draft likely has flaws in most people's eyes and isn't going to be a plug and play guy day 1.

Tannehill's showed he's not very good though. The offensive performances these past 2 weeks have been worse... Or at least less efficient than they had been to that point. 2 weeks ago, we were aided by 2 TDs we had to go less than 10 yards on...and last week we didn't get anything going until we were down 17-0. Tannehill is not good enough to overcome the coaching and ol... And I wouldn't give him what it's going to cost to bring him back. Unless he take something line 5M, a number I'd be surprised he takes before hitting the open market. 

But whatever, without a big shake up on the offensive coaching staff, I'm not confident anyone we bring in or keep will make a difference.

[Daniel]

12 hours ago, TitanSS said:

Even if we're drafting a QB i think we're bringing one back, assuming that to be Tannehill.

Not sure how much he makes as an assumed starter on the team.

IIRC, we have Tannehill under contract next season as our stop gap, which is good because I don't think we'll be in play for the really legit QBs (Burrow and Tua).  He'd be a pretty good stop gap option while we get a rookie ready to go.

At this point, I think I have a pretty good idea of how I feel about the QBs of the class outside of Herbert.  He still confounds me, and I can't explain why.

Tua I feel like compares to a less mobile Mike Vick.  He can move, he's a little small, and he's got a big arm and a quick throwing motion.  Issues he may have will be durability, and how well he can actually perform in bad situations.  He hasn't faced a ton of adversity as a player, and usually everything goes his way.  That won't happen as the first overall pick, and if he stumbles at all in the offseason, it could give a team pause.  Still probably the first pick.

Burrow I feel is like a Matt Stafford/Jay Cutler combo.  He's a big pocket passer with a big arm, and is pretty accurate, but will probably have some accuracy issues in the pros.  He's doing great this season, but he also has a great group of receivers to throw to and looks a lot better than in previous seasons, which is always a concern.  He looks like Stafford now, but I think he'll be more of a Cutler in the pros.  I expect him to be a top 5 selection.

Fromm is my next guy again, and he looks like a better Josh McCown.  Fromm is a game manager type, but seems to excel as he's in a better situation.  He usually doesn't make mistakes, and in shootouts, he seems to pour it on in the end.  He's a little small too, and his arm isn't impressive, but it's sufficient.  I'd take a late first on him, but probably no earlier.

Eason looks like an Andy Dalton with worse decision making to me.  He does everything pretty well, but he still makes mistakes in every aspect of his game more than he should.  I also don't think there's anything he does that wows me.  I'd take him over Fromm if I trusted my staff to develop a QB and could sit him for some time.  Otherwise, I have him under Fromm, even though he's got more potential.  He's in the same range as Fromm, but a worse fit for this staff.  If he slipped to the early second, I'd go ahead and grab him.

Hurts and Love I'd only take as backups.  I don't think they're starter material, so spending an early pick on them would be foolish.

[TitanSS]

2 hours ago, ragevsuall17 said:

Tannehill's showed he's not very good though. The offensive performances these past 2 weeks have been worse... Or at least less efficient than they had been to that point. 2 weeks ago, we were aided by 2 TDs we had to go less than 10 yards on...and last week we didn't get anything going until we were down 17-0. Tannehill is not good enough to overcome the coaching and ol... And I wouldn't give him what it's going to cost to bring him back. Unless he take something line 5M, a number I'd be surprised he takes before hitting the open market. 

But whatever, without a big shake up on the offensive coaching staff, I'm not confident anyone we bring in or keep will make a difference.

I didn't say he was good enough to overcome this offense. I'm saying a 12th overall pick rookie definitely isn't either and thrusting him into a starting position on day 1 isn't ideal to me.

Tannehill isn't good enough to overcome this offense, but he's been an improvement over the QB play from the first four weeks. Depending on what he costs, I could see it worthwhile to delay a rookie starting until they're ready.

I think Blaine Gabbert was getting like 5 mil correct? That's the veteran we're getting to pair with our rookie for that price.

[ragevsuall17]

5 hours ago, TitanSS said:

Tannehill isn't good enough to overcome this offense, but he's been an improvement over the QB play from the first four weeks.

Is he though?

Mariota weeks 1-4 was 74/119, 62.2%, 933, 7:0, 106.2 rating, 7.84 y/a, 9.02 ay/a, 17 sacks/122, 17 rushes/112, 2-2 record

Tannehill in his 3 starts is 71/101, 70.3%, 836, 6:3, 102.6 rating, 8.28 y/a, 8.13 ay/a, 9 sacks/57, 13 rushes/42, 2-1 record

To me, the needle hasn't moved much.  Tannehill is more accurate and has thrown for more yards, but is worse on his efficiencies (td and int %'s), hence why Mariota had a higher QB rating.  Mariota took more sacks, but also created more yards running.

 

What I'm saying is that if we're keeping our staff, then it doesn't matter if Tannehill or someone like Keenum is the placeholder... neither are good enough to overcome the staff.  Tannehill has been better in our broken system... he's faster getting rid of the ball, and that's huge here.  But he's also more careless and forces things.  

We need to upgrade the offensive staff... and at that point, we're hoping anyone will have a better shot of sustained success.... 

 

Signing RT won't be the end of the world... but he also won't make a difference over someone else holding the seat warm for a rookie.  I'll take him over Bridgewater.  But if someone like Keenum is available at a cheaper price, I'll take him and spend that extra money on the Oline.

[ragevsuall17]

5 hours ago, TitanSS said:

I think Blaine Gabbert was getting like 5 mil correct? That's the veteran we're getting to pair with our rookie for that price.

That's a figure I threw out there to just throw out there.  Fitz and Taylor both got 11M over 2 years... Bridgewater got over 7M... all of those guys for back up spots.  But Keenum got 3.5 to start in Washington, after they traded for him.  

I'll say RT goes for somewhere along the lines of those first 3 guys... something around 6M... unless someone sees him as a shoe in starter.  But if I can get Keenum at 3.5M, I'd take him over RT at 6+M.