Jump to content

Around the NFL III - The NFLiest Yet


Should the Seahawks move to the CFL?  

37 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Seahawks move to the CFL?

    • Yes, be gone with them already.
    • No, I want see the Seahawks get beat down in the NFC West for years to come.
    • No, because then poor RudyZ might be stuck with them.
    • No, because I am a proud toothless member of the 12th Man which you all know means I became a fan in 2012. It's also the last year I took a shower, because my hygiene is lacking.


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, 49ersfan said:

That was an in-season trade and the Raiders were desperate. They had just lost their starting QB Jason Campbell to a season ending injury. The trade was executed literally 1-2 days before the trade deadline. And Hue Jackson had been on the Bengals staff for 3 seasons so he had a personal relationship with Palmer. 

 

But he also wasn't exposed to an open market. The Bengals just shut it down, that's why he was holding out and not playing. Depseration drives market, as does an open market / competition. It's a wash between the two. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Forge said:

But he also wasn't exposed to an open market. The Bengals just shut it down, that's why he was holding out and not playing. Depseration drives market, as does an open market / competition. It's a wash between the two. 

There is an open market for Stafford, you're right, but there's a lot of other options available too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 49ersfan said:

There is an open market for Stafford, you're right, but there's a lot of other options available too.

Not really though. Free agency? That's not a thing outside of Dak, and we will have to wait and see what happens there with Dallas which doesn't mesh well with a drop dead date on Stafford due to roster bonus.  

Draft? What's the cost for a team like Washington Indy to get up there and try and draft a QB? First this year, first next year, second this year + maybe more? How often do we see teams move up that high and are willing to move down that low? Not unprecedented but certainly not common. 

Do teams like Washington / Indy have the ammo for Watson? 

There is no direct competition for Stafford because of the variances in cost and the differences in the guys available.  Watson and Stafford are not in the same stratosphere. Signing a guy like Winston / Trubs isn't the same stratosphere. One of the top 4 rookie QBs (Lance), probably doesn' thave a ton of appeal for a team trying to win now. 

Stafford kind of has his own sweet spot of top 10 starter who is considerably more affordable than Watson, but can come in and immediately boost a team like 9ers / Indy / Washington that have pieces in place (you can maybe include Denver in that). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, we could maybe include Wentz in the discussion, but honestly I thikn that the Eagles made that decision when they fired Pederson. I think he's probably going to stay now (still a mistake imo). But he'd be a guy that could directly compete with Stafford in my opinion in terms of marketability. Cousins I don't think is going anywhere because of the huge guarantee that will hit, and Matt Ryan is definitely staying in Atlanta with a 40 million dollar cap hit if traded. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Forge said:

Not really though. Free agency? That's not a thing outside of Dak, and we will have to wait and see what happens there with Dallas which doesn't mesh well with a drop dead date on Stafford due to roster bonus.  

Draft? What's the cost for a team like Washington Indy to get up there and try and draft a QB? First this year, first next year, second this year + maybe more? How often do we see teams move up that high and are willing to move down that low? Not unprecedented but certainly not common. 

Do teams like Washington / Indy have the ammo for Watson? 

There is no direct competition for Stafford because of the variances in cost and the differences in the guys available.  Watson and Stafford are not in the same stratosphere. Signing a guy like Winston / Trubs isn't the same stratosphere. One of the top 4 rookie QBs (Lance), probably doesn' thave a ton of appeal for a team trying to win now. 

Stafford kind of has his own sweet spot of top 10 starter who is considerably more affordable than Watson, but can come in and immediately boost a team like 9ers / Indy / Washington that have pieces in place (you can maybe include Denver in that). 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 757-NINER said:

And that's kind of where I am with Stafford tbh. Would LOVE to have him. But I just think #12 is a little too steep for me. Especially with his injury history and no assurance Trent will be a Niner in 2021. And with how we like to shop at the bargain bin for interior O-Lineman, not sure if we can keep him upright for 16 games and a playoff run. And with no viable back-up QB in sight idk...alot of our success would be riding on his health. 

 

I mean if the Niners don't trade for him and Stafford ends up in Indianapolis, if I'm Trent Williams I'd be very interested in going there. If the Niners do trade for Stafford though and free up space by re-signing him, I'd much rather stay here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Forge said:

Not really though. Free agency? That's not a thing outside of Dak, and we will have to wait and see what happens there with Dallas which doesn't mesh well with a drop dead date on Stafford due to roster bonus.  

Draft? What's the cost for a team like Washington Indy to get up there and try and draft a QB? First this year, first next year, second this year + maybe more? How often do we see teams move up that high and are willing to move down that low? Not unprecedented but certainly not common. 

Do teams like Washington / Indy have the ammo for Watson? 

There is no direct competition for Stafford because of the variances in cost and the differences in the guys available.  Watson and Stafford are not in the same stratosphere. Signing a guy like Winston / Trubs isn't the same stratosphere. One of the top 4 rookie QBs (Lance), probably doesn' thave a ton of appeal for a team trying to win now. 

Stafford kind of has his own sweet spot of top 10 starter who is considerably more affordable than Watson, but can come in and immediately boost a team like 9ers / Indy / Washington that have pieces in place (you can maybe include Denver in that). 

3 rookie QB's who can start day one. 

Watson on the market, Rodgers likely will be too.

Teams can also opt to keep their starters. Cowboys with Dak, Eagles with Wentz, Dolphins with Tua, Jets with Darnold, Rams with Goff/Wolford, Saints with Winston/Hill. We could also stick with Jimmy G, and if we do, i think we'd go after Darnold (if available) or Minshew to actually provide some competition/ be a reclamation project, and/or Lance to sit a year and learn.

He'll go for less than Palmer due to the different circumstances. I think it'll just be a 1st round pick, but lets see. 

Edited by 49ersfan
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AustrianNiner said:

I mean if the Niners don't trade for him and Stafford ends up in Indianapolis, if I'm Trent Williams I'd be very interested in going there. If the Niners do trade for Stafford though and free up space by re-signing him, I'd much rather stay here.

And guess who just lost their starting left tackle? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 757-NINER said:

How's their cap though? Do they have enough space to pay what Trent will command??

They have like 90 million in space 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Forge said:

They have like 90 million in space 

Wuttttttt? Even with Mahomes and Jones exstentions set to kick in next year??

Edited by 757-NINER
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, 49ersfan said:

3 rookie QB's who can start day one. 

Watson on the market, Rodgers likely will be too.

Teams can also opt to keep their starters. Cowboys with Dak, Eagles with Wentz, Dolphins with Tua, Jets with Darnold, Rams with Goff/Wolford, Saints with Winston/Hill. We could also stick with Jimmy G, and if we do, i think we'd go after Darnold (if available) or Minshew to actually provide some competition/ be a reclamation project, and/or Lance to sit a year and learn.

He'll go for less than Palmer due to the different circumstances. I think it'll just be a 1st round pick, but lets see. 

3 rookie qbs who will cost a ton for teams like Washington and Indy to go get and one who is simply not available because he'll go #1 . 

Watson and Stafford aren't competing. Those are two completely different stratospheres. I don't know how Rodgers is "likely" to be on the market. 

If teams keep their starters, that just helps his value because it gives less options while not solving the problems of the teams who are most likely going to be in on Stafford. All those teams you just named are not the names of teams who are currently being looked at as in on Stafford. I think the general assumption is that Wentz stays with Philly. Dak with the Boys, Tua with the Dolphins. With fewer available options, teams like the Colts, Washington, Denver are going to be more likely to push for Stafford (Denver is better off going up and getting their guy. They can make that work given where they are drafting). Goff is not going anywhere. 

Just because there are certain people on the market doesn't mean that they are competing for the same suitors. Rookie QB trade ups may be more Carolina / Denver as opposed to Washington / Indy / Chicago, etc. Watsons suitors may be Miami / New York as opposed to Washington / Indy / SF / Chicago. Just because Watson is on the market doesn't mean that the target audience is the same. Getting 3 late first round picks for Watson is not a thing that is going to be overly appealing. 

Nobody is saying he goes for more than Palmer (who hit certain conditions to make the conditional pick a second), but the original claim was that they wouldnt' give up a first for stafford which is how Palmer's name got brought up. 

Basically, we hold the trump card becasue we have #12 which is worth Washingtons 1 & 2 (same for Indy and Chicago). So if we put 12 on the table, those teams have to go up. I'd say 1 + 3 + next year 2. If we don't put 12 on the table, they could probably get away with something like a 1 + 4 and that will get it done pretty easily because the top end of the market isn't there. Honestly, we are the one driving this market. If 12 is off the table, his trade value is vastly different. If Stafford ends up with us, it could easily be only a first round pick because of the value of that pick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 757-NINER said:

Wuttttttt? Even with Mahomes and Jones exstentions set to kick in next year??

He was referring to the Colts 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...