Jump to content

What to do at QB?


What is your preference for the QB spot?  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. What is your preference for the QB spot?

    • Keep Drew Lock as the starter for 2021
      19
    • Draft a rookie in the 1st round and make him the starter
      13
    • Trade for/sign an established vet (Stafford, Wentz, Ryan)
      13
    • Trade for/sign a journeyman vet (Fitz, Tyrod) to compete with Lock
      6


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

By your logic earlier, it cost the Rams an extra FRP to deal Goff as part of that Stafford deal.  So by that logic, shouldn't the cost to deal Goff separately have been a FRP?

If only that's how it works...and what logic are you referring to ?

Edited by Cutler06
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AkronsWitness said:

I’m not giving up a 1st rounder for every year Rodgers plays for the Broncos.

I could get on board with this...we’ll give GB our first round pick for each year we play in the SB with Aaron The Rogers at the helm. If he plays 10 more years and we keep going to the SB, you still get our #1 pick. But, if we never make the SB you get nada.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw over in the GB thread, one GB fan says we should give Surtain, Chubb, Sutton, Fant AND a #1 pick....almost fell off my chair with laughter and astonishment at the delusions on that one. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cutler06 said:

Saw over in the GB thread, one GB fan says we should give Surtain, Chubb, Sutton, Fant AND a #1 pick....almost fell off my chair with laughter and astonishment at the delusions on that one. 

LOL wtf. Ya no way Rodgers would fetch all that

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cutler06 said:

Saw over in the GB thread, one GB fan says we should give Surtain, Chubb, Sutton, Fant AND a #1 pick....almost fell off my chair with laughter and astonishment at the delusions on that one. 

I don’t think that was a serious offer...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cutler06 said:

Saw over in the GB thread, one GB fan says we should give Surtain, Chubb, Sutton, Fant AND a #1 pick....almost fell off my chair with laughter and astonishment at the delusions on that one. 

Lol that's the guy who said the 49ers offered the #3 pick and two other first round picks they don't have anymore, so he's not really working from a foundation of reality. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Agreed.  Really don't think Paton even entertains a Surtain trade.  But the notion that Stokes was a reach is a really bad take as well.

I mean, look, I get it, we all over-value our players. ESPECIALLY our draft picks. But a *gigantic* LOL if you don’t think Stokes was a reach. He was 45th on the consensus rankings with a peak(!) of 35. The difference between where he was ranked and where you took him is the equivalent of a late 3rd rounder. You wasted the equivalent of a late 3rd rounder. It’s a reach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jolly red giant said:

The Stafford package is irrelevant - half the package was for unloading Goff and his contract.

I would’ve thought that too, but the Lions had a prime opportunity to get their QB in the draft if they didn’t have belief in Goff. Not saying he’s Their Guy just yet, but he must be thought of at least in some regard there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I don’t think that was a serious offer...

Problem is, that's about what most Packer fans think, if you go over to the GB thread you'll see they think offers should START at 2 #1's + and at least one starting player,,,,all for a 38yo QB

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, broncosfan_101 said:

I mean, look, I get it, we all over-value our players. ESPECIALLY our draft picks. But a *gigantic* LOL if you don’t think Stokes was a reach. He was 45th on the consensus rankings with a peak(!) of 35. The difference between where he was ranked and where you took him is the equivalent of a late 3rd rounder. You wasted the equivalent of a late 3rd rounder. It’s a reach. 

Except that's really not how drafts work.  You've got 10-15ish players that are largely viewed similarly throughout the forum, but it starts to differ after that because teams value different skillsets differently.  Just because draftniks value a player one way doesn't mean that the player was a reach.  You're largely grading out players based on tiers, and Stokes likely would have been drafted relatively early on Day 2 if he wasn't taken in the first round aside from the Packers.  And especially when he was largely viewed as a better pro prospect than his teammate, Tyson Campbell, that supports that idea.  I had an early Day 2 grade on him, and I think I had roughly ~20ish prospects with first round grades.  I believe I only had 3 first round grades left on the board (JOK, Azeez Ojulari, and Travon Moehrig), two of which had medical issues for their "fall" in the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cutler06 said:

If only that's how it works...and what logic are you referring to ?

You are the one who said that the Stafford deal included an extra value because Goff was included.  How much do you think it cost to unload Goff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Cutler06 said:

Problem is, that's about what most Packer fans think, if you go over to the GB thread you'll see they think offers should START at 2 #1's + and at least one starting player,,,,all for a 38yo QB

It's really not.  The "trade" offer you made includes what would be 4 starters PLUS a FRP.  I think the general consensus is that the Packers would need roughly 3 FRPs in order to move Rodgers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

It's really not.  The "trade" offer you made includes what would be 4 starters PLUS a FRP.  I think the general consensus is that the Packers would need roughly 3 FRPs in order to move Rodgers.

Well, that's a Packer view, I can see 2 FRP's and a player (probably not named Surtain or Jeudy, my opinion) getting it done, and that feels fair to me, guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, here.

 

And for the record, that "trade offer" was made by a Packer fan, not me.

Edited by Cutler06
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd much rather trade the three 1st round picks than two 1st round picks and a core young player. Trading for Rodgers means gong all in for the next year or two. I want the roster as loaded as possible now. 

  • Like 3
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...