2021 FA and Trade Talks

[Bobby816]

13 minutes ago, xrade said:

If Watson wants out of Houston bad enough, he won’t be that picky. It would be one thing if gase was still here, but almost any new coaching staff will certainly make us more desirable. Couple that with the very short list of suitors and that no trade clause is almost useless. If he were to invoke the clause against the Jets then we could assume he does not want out that bad and he is just playing games. 

No doubt his list of suitors will be small Bc of money, draft capital and his desire to play for that team.

[Rockice_8]

It's not so cut and dry with Watson.  He's going to be expensive on multiple levels.

Of course you want him on your team but it's going to put a two win team in win now mode which really isn't ideal.  We're gonna have to gut all of our picks plus a huge chunk of our cap.  I feel like that team isn't really a contender so again it's not as easy a decision as it would seem.

[KingOfNewYork]

Would you do both firsts this year for Watson?

[jetsfan4life51]

1 minute ago, KingOfNewYork said:

Would you do both firsts this year for Watson?

Wouldn't think twice.  Although I don't know the cap ramifications, but you make it work.  Still have a 2nd, still have a Darnold trade, two 3rds and next years picks.  

[Rockice_8]

41 minutes ago, KingOfNewYork said:

Would you do both firsts this year for Watson?

Of course.  I don't think that gets it done though.  I think we are looking at 3 first at least for him.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Rockice_8

[KodiakThunder]

32 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Of course.  I don't think that gets it done though.  I think we are looking at 3 first at least for him.

Ofcourse! He can throw to the worst WR core in the nation and this time we can ruin an already established QB. 

We dont have the pieces in place to trade two 1sts for a QB when we have minimal talent at the skill positions... Mark Sanchez toom us to the AFC title game.... MARK SANCHEZ. You dont need Watson to compete, just talent. Talent wins out and makes QB's look better or worse.

Stop trying to trade away the teams future for 1 superstar. Have real patience and let JD build a team.

[Bobby816]

5 hours ago, KodiakThunder said:

Ofcourse! He can throw to the worst WR core in the nation and this time we can ruin an already established QB. 

We dont have the pieces in place to trade two 1sts for a QB when we have minimal talent at the skill positions... Mark Sanchez toom us to the AFC title game.... MARK SANCHEZ. You dont need Watson to compete, just talent. Talent wins out and makes QB's look better or worse.

Stop trying to trade away the teams future for 1 superstar. Have real patience and let JD build a team.

You trade #2 and let’s say our 1st next year for Watson pre FA. Offensive players will want to come here in FA. And we’d still have plenty of money to throw around

[Bobby816]

I have a feeling HOU hires Brady and that hire convinces Watson to stay.

[Rockice_8]

9 hours ago, KodiakThunder said:

Ofcourse! He can throw to the worst WR core in the nation and this time we can ruin an already established QB. 

We dont have the pieces in place to trade two 1sts for a QB when we have minimal talent at the skill positions... Mark Sanchez toom us to the AFC title game.... MARK SANCHEZ. You dont need Watson to compete, just talent. Talent wins out and makes QB's look better or worse.

Stop trying to trade away the teams future for 1 superstar. Have real patience and let JD build a team.

Are you serious?  We are likely to use that 2nd pick on a QB so you are seriously telling me that you wouldn't just add the 23rd to ensure that QB is a top 5 QB?  We can still take a WR or OL at 34 and can easily still spend about 40 mil in FA comfortably to account for Watson's contract escalation in 2022.  We could easily bring in a guy like A Rob too but you'd rather run the risk of having another QB at 2 bust at the expense of the 23rd pick?  I'm sorry but that is crazy.

I'm not 100 percent on board with trading for Watson and was the one who said pump the brakes because of the cost it will take to land him.  However if the cost is that cheap we'd be a fool not to do that for a top 5 QB who isn't even in his prime yet.

Edit: Oh and I forgot can still trade Sam and have two 2nds to improve the offense.  It's really a no brainier.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Rockice_8

[KimuraGod]

40 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Are you serious?  We are likely to use that 2nd pick on a QB so you are seriously telling me that you wouldn't just add the 23rd to ensure that QB is a top 5 QB?  We can still take a WR or OL at 34 and can easily still spend about 40 mil in FA comfortably to account for Watson's contract escalation in 2022.  We could easily bring in a guy like A Rob too but you'd rather run the risk of having another QB at 2 bust at the expense of the 23rd pick?  I'm sorry but that is crazy.

I'm not 100 percent on board with trading for Watson and was the one who said pump the brakes because of the cost it will take to land him.  However if the cost is that cheap we'd be a fool not to do that for a top 5 QB who isn't even in his prime yet.

Edit: Oh and I forgot can still trade Sam and have two 2nds to improve the offense.  It's really a no brainier.

To be fair it’s the #2, #23, next years first and either mid round picks or Sam that’s then becoming too much. 
 

I think k most if not all of us would give #2 plus another first but it’s the 3 first round picks and change that then makes the #2 pick seem like a throw in when in fact it’s highly lucrative. 

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, xenajets said:

To be fair it’s the #2, #23, next years first and either mid round picks or Sam that’s then becoming too much. 
 

I think k most if not all of us would give #2 plus another first but it’s the 3 first round picks and change that then makes the #2 pick seem like a throw in when in fact it’s highly lucrative. 

HOU isn't taking Sam if we are giving them the 2nd pick. If they're wanting that 2nd pick... its more than likely to just draft a new QB. Only way that #2 pick is big time useful for them if Darnold is included, is if they are trading that pick away to acquire more picks.

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, Rockice_8 said:

Are you serious?  We are likely to use that 2nd pick on a QB so you are seriously telling me that you wouldn't just add the 23rd to ensure that QB is a top 5 QB?  We can still take a WR or OL at 34 and can easily still spend about 40 mil in FA comfortably to account for Watson's contract escalation in 2022.  We could easily bring in a guy like A Rob too but you'd rather run the risk of having another QB at 2 bust at the expense of the 23rd pick?  I'm sorry but that is crazy.

I'm not 100 percent on board with trading for Watson and was the one who said pump the brakes because of the cost it will take to land him.  However if the cost is that cheap we'd be a fool not to do that for a top 5 QB who isn't even in his prime yet.

Edit: Oh and I forgot can still trade Sam and have two 2nds to improve the offense.  It's really a no brainier.

Ya at that price its a no brainer. But I do think it will cost more to get him. It will take an offer to blow away HOU to get him. And 2 and 23 aren't a knock your socks off offer.

[KimuraGod]

4 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

HOU isn't taking Sam if we are giving them the 2nd pick. If they're wanting that 2nd pick... its more than likely to just draft a new QB. Only way that #2 pick is big time useful for them if Darnold is included, is if they are trading that pick away to acquire more picks.

Sorry I should of said the results of a Sam trade rather than Sam himself. Sorry it’s been a long day!!! 

[KodiakThunder]

12 hours ago, Rockice_8 said:

Are you serious?  We are likely to use that 2nd pick on a QB so you are seriously telling me that you wouldn't just add the 23rd to ensure that QB is a top 5 QB?  We can still take a WR or OL at 34 and can easily still spend about 40 mil in FA comfortably to account for Watson's contract escalation in 2022.  We could easily bring in a guy like A Rob too but you'd rather run the risk of having another QB at 2 bust at the expense of the 23rd pick?  I'm sorry but that is crazy.

I'm not 100 percent on board with trading for Watson and was the one who said pump the brakes because of the cost it will take to land him.  However if the cost is that cheap we'd be a fool not to do that for a top 5 QB who isn't even in his prime yet.

Edit: Oh and I forgot can still trade Sam and have two 2nds to improve the offense.  It's really a no brainier.

Umm no. Two 1sts against 1st. And the timing is terrible. You have to pay watson a ton. I also dont even know if I agree with drafting a QB at #2, let alone using two picks. 

Watson wont make this team a winner. Look at how the packers did with no talent around Aaron Rodgers. It's the mistake this franchise keeps making, trying to rush a rebuild. 

[Rockice_8]

4 hours ago, KodiakThunder said:

Umm no. Two 1sts against 1st. And the timing is terrible. You have to pay watson a ton. I also dont even know if I agree with drafting a QB at #2, let alone using two picks. 

Watson wont make this team a winner. Look at how the packers did with no talent around Aaron Rodgers. It's the mistake this franchise keeps making, trying to rush a rebuild. 

To each his own I suppose.  Again I'm against Watson because of the price tag so I guess we're on the same page but for that price I think it's a no brainier but carry on sir.

As for the 2nd pick what do you want to do with it then?  Please don't say draft Sewell.