Jump to content

Future QB Discussion


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Hmm. That's tough.

Probably? 

For the record I think he is, but still nothing special as a head coach by any means. He rode the defense to wins and held the team back with his offense. 

I wouldnt want to make a trade for Watson unless he was gone, I think he'll still limit the offense unless we have a ridiculous KC talent pool to choose from.

14 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

It's not the same. BOB had Watson under his rookie contract and didn't have to give up a ton of capital to get him.

My point was that it takes much more than a QB to win a SB. You still have to surround him with talent. 

Either have a historically good offense paired with an average defense or a historically good defense paired with an average offense.  

If you fall anywhere in-between either of those then you need to be able to build efficiently, and that's very hard to do without any cap space or capital. Remember, we have some key players who are close to the end of their contracts too.  It's going to be hard to pay them when your QB is taking up ~18-20% of the effective cap space.

Is this defense still elite without Hicks, Mack, and still need another pass rusher? 

Our defense wasnt elite with them this year so I doubt it. 

The other difference is we aren't looking only at a 2-3 year window with Watson. He has 10 years or so left, so with time to draft, grab FAs, and such shouldn't Pace be able to ****** up the NFC North or at least ACTUALLY contend with GB without a fluke year? He has shown zero aptitude with QBs and Nagy has shown even less in developing and using them to their fullest abilities, so any first we throw at a rookie is likely dead in the water as is. 

Watson had a worse cast around him than Tru/Foles had and was significantly better. We'd lose ARob but Mooney, Kmet, Monty, etc should be able to do much better with him. Miller likely has a better year and nets us a comp pick. We get to dump Leno and Massie and have an upgrade, I'd put Ifesi at RT if it allowed us Watson. We are likely trading away someone for picks too, maybe Hicks or someone else. If they're able to develop players around a franchise QB then go for it. He's had a mediocre record in the 1st anyway so we aren't losing much imo. 

I'm not worried about Watsons cap hits. We spend something like 40% of our cap space on an inept offense again. He helps raise the bar significantly. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

For the record I think he is, but still nothing special as a head coach by any means. He rode the defense to wins and held the team back with his offense. 

I wouldnt want to make a trade for Watson unless he was gone, I think he'll still limit the offense unless we have a ridiculous KC talent pool to choose from.

Our defense wasnt elite with them this year so I doubt it. 

The other difference is we aren't looking only at a 2-3 year window with Watson. He has 10 years or so left, so with time to draft, grab FAs, and such shouldn't Pace be able to ****** up the NFC North or at least ACTUALLY contend with GB without a fluke year? He has shown zero aptitude with QBs and Nagy has shown even less in developing and using them to their fullest abilities, so any first we throw at a rookie is likely dead in the water as is. 

Watson had a worse cast around him than Tru/Foles had and was significantly better. We'd lose ARob but Mooney, Kmet, Monty, etc should be able to do much better with him. Miller likely has a better year and nets us a comp pick. We get to dump Leno and Massie and have an upgrade, I'd put Ifesi at RT if it allowed us Watson. We are likely trading away someone for picks too, maybe Hicks or someone else. If they're able to develop players around a franchise QB then go for it. He's had a mediocre record in the 1st anyway so we aren't losing much imo. 

The thing is though, it's easy to say that if we got Watson tomorrow that we're automatically set at QB for the next decade, but that's not necessarily true either for the reasons already given.  I do think with Watson we would still only have a 2-3 year window.  3 years at best because we will have to pay Kmet, Mooney, Monty, Daniels, etc (when Watson in making 37 and 40M)

Like I said, I get the appeal. I really do. If we ended up with him tomorrow I would probably be just as excited. But that's ALOT of money and capital to give up for a short term plan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, abstract_thought said:

Trading lots of picks for a veteran player pretty much never works out in the long-run.

I was trying to think of any time in history that a team gave up so much for a QB and it ended up working out and I came up blank. But I didn't do any research on it or anything.....just nothing comes to mind. 

If this were 2006 or 2018......then I would give HOU 4 1st round picks YESTERDAY.  But as it stands now....unless you are ONLY a QB away from a SB, that's just too much for any team IMO . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

You make alot of good points. 3 firsts would be way too much for my taste.

I would not do that trade because I agree with your reasoning.

Two firsts and a second and some mid round picks however sign me up. I know that's a pipedream but hey you never know.

Sometimes when a player forces a teams hand they may be available for less than we think

2 firsts and a 2nd (even this year) would be fine with me (edit: or strongly consider it--looking at the capital and contract is still hard). Unfortunaly, like you said though, that's not realistic. Not with the 20th pick this year anyhow. 

Edited by JAF-N72EX
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

The thing is though, it's easy to say that if we got Watson tomorrow that we're automatically set at QB for the next decade, but that's not necessarily true either for the reasons already given.  I do think with Watson we would still only have a 2-3 year window.  3 years at best because we will have to pay Kmet, Mooney, Monty, Daniels, etc (when Watson in making 37 and 40M)

Like I said, I get the appeal. I really do. If we ended up with him tomorrow I would probably be just as excited. But that's ALOT of money and capital to give up for a short term plan. 

 

I'd bank on Watson giving us a bigger window than Kmet, Mooney, Monty, and Daniels all being worth big deals. Kmet had small flashes and I like his attitude and effort, but he's not going to be Kelce or Kittle. Let's see him show he is worth a big deal before assuming he will be. Mooney showed flashes but so did Miller his rookie year, I'm not assuming he will be a stud yet, even if I am hopeful. HBs are easy enough to find, especially if we are attacking with a RBC. No reason to throw big money at that position unless you get a Henry or some other stud. OGs rarely are worth big deals to me, OTs are for sure but if someone wants to overpay an interior OL then let them and take the comp pick.

After the 2-3 year window you're speaking of Pace would have his full set of picks to try and get more talent around him, he could trade down to garner more and with a real QB there may be vets trying to win a ring. I think if you have a good GM and HC that Watson allows you to build around the hardest position to get right (for once in my life  lol) and should be able to do so accordingly. If they can't get it done with them, we aren't getting it done in Bear purgatory. Going 8-8 repeatedly keeps you away from the elite talents anyway.

 

For what its worth I don't have an issue with your points, nor do I think we are contenders for him in any way. Just fun to discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

 

I'd bank on Watson giving us a bigger window than Kmet, Mooney, Monty, and Daniels all being worth big deals. Kmet had small flashes and I like his attitude and effort, but he's not going to be Kelce or Kittle. Let's see him show he is worth a big deal before assuming he will be. Mooney showed flashes but so did Miller his rookie year, I'm not assuming he will be a stud yet, even if I am hopeful. HBs are easy enough to find, especially if we are attacking with a RBC. No reason to throw big money at that position unless you get a Henry or some other stud. OGs rarely are worth big deals to me, OTs are for sure but if someone wants to overpay an interior OL then let them and take the comp pick.

After the 2-3 year window you're speaking of Pace would have his full set of picks to try and get more talent around him, he could trade down to garner more and with a real QB there may be vets trying to win a ring. I think if you have a good GM and HC that Watson allows you to build around the hardest position to get right (for once in my life  lol) and should be able to do so accordingly. If they can't get it done with them, we aren't getting it done in Bear purgatory. Going 8-8 repeatedly keeps you away from the elite talents anyway.

 

For what its worth I don't have an issue with your points, nor do I think we are contenders for him in any way. Just fun to discuss.

That's true. Kmet and Mooney are far from set in stone and Monty (like most Rbs) can kick rocks after his rookie deal, and Daniels has suddenly became a health concern. So that's a fair assessment at this time.

However, lets assume for a second that Mooney takes a dive like Miller did, Daniels keeps getting injured for long periods of time, and Kmet turns into Shaheen. How is our offense going to look, even with Watson? 

You still have to replace those guys and how are you going to do that? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

2 firsts and a 2nd (even this year) would be fine with me (edit: or strongly consider it--looking at the capital and contract is still hard). Unfortunately, like you said though, that's not realistic. Not with the 20th pick this year anyhow. 

As I said in the Watson thread, it all depends on Watson, and where he's willing to go. (Provided he's determined TO go, that is.)

If he is dead set on a trade, and really wants to be a Bear, the 20th pick is far from an outrageous starting point. 

Let's be real, if Watson really, truly wants out of Houston, they're going to trade him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Heinz D. said:

As I said in the Watson thread, it all depends on Watson, and where he's willing to go. (Provided he's determined TO go, that is.)

If he is dead set on a trade, and really wants to be a Bear, the 20th pick is far from an outrageous starting point. 

Let's be real, if Watson really, truly wants out of Houston, they're going to trade him. 

I don't know about that though. They JUST gave Watson a HUGE extension. A new GM (trying to make a name for himself) is not going to trade Watson AND be without a chance to get Fields, or at least Wilson. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

That's true. Kmet and Mooney are far from set in stone and Monty (like most Rbs) can kick rocks after his rookie deal, and Daniels has suddenly became a health concern. So that's a fair assessment at this time.

However, lets assume for a second that Mooney takes a dive like Miller did, Daniels keeps getting injured for long periods of time, and Kmet turns into Shaheen. How is our offense going to look, even with Watson? 

You still have to replace those guys and how are you going to do that? 

I'm always for taking on cheap one year deals like what they did with Ifedi. For OL I've been a broken record that failed 1st and 2nd round OTs with power are prime candidates to kick inside. I'm also of the position that you should be able to see if there is enough talent/physical gifts to contribute. I'm not banking on Thielen coming from our PS, but I will bet I can find a spot for a burner who fills a role or a big guy that just does nothing but hold his gap. Maybe a RB has a trait but is very one dimensional (like I felt Holyfield was for example) and attack other PS players that you felt were draftable.

You have to be aggressive, in going after FAs that aren't the top of the class (like Hicks was as the top you will be able to go for, but more roleplayers like Gipson, Ifedi, etc). You'll have to aggressively cut poor contracts ASAP, and then trading back to gather more swings and get more cheap depth. Maybe Pace would have to look at higher risk players, ones that fell from their projected round due to injuries or personal issues. At some point you will have to lose a talented player, or may have to try to trade talented guys. But Pace has shown he can find value in middle rounds and in FA. His big swings have been some of the biggest issues. Assuming Watson doesn't suddenly go Wentz, this is a positive to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I'm always for taking on cheap one year deals like what they did with Ifedi. For OL I've been a broken record that failed 1st and 2nd round OTs with power are prime candidates to kick inside.

Okay. I agree. 

26 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I'm not banking on Thielen coming from our PS, but I will bet I can find a spot for a burner who fills a role or a big guy that just does nothing but hold his gap. Maybe a RB has a trait but is very one dimensional (like I felt Holyfield was for example) and attack other PS players that you felt were draftable.

This is a big risk but I get what your saying. I would even take it a step further and start looking at other players drafted in rounds 6 or 7. And this is all up to the coaching staff and scouts to spot the talent and go after it too. 

26 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

You have to be aggressive, in going after FAs that aren't the top of the class (like Hicks was as the top you will be able to go for, but more roleplayers like Gipson, Ifedi, etc). You'll have to aggressively cut poor contracts ASAP, and then trading back to gather more swings and get more cheap depth. Maybe Pace would have to look at higher risk players, ones that fell from their projected round due to injuries or personal issues. At some point you will have to lose a talented player, or may have to try to trade talented guys. But Pace has shown he can find value in middle rounds and in FA. His big swings have been some of the biggest issues. Assuming Watson doesn't suddenly go Wentz, this is a positive to me.

And see, this is why it's such a big risk to give up so much for a single player.  You are ultimately putting yourself in such a tight position that you have to resort to relying on alot of low probabilities and for your QB (Watson in case) to elevate those players and that just doesn't usually work out. Especially to this extent. Expecting Watson to make a few players better...sure....that's reasonable (especially with what we gave up and are paying him), but not the entire team. 

We've seen how Brees hasn't been back to a SB since he had defense because he carried the offense and the defense was historically bad. Rodgers hasn't been back to a SB since he had a defense and carried the offense and the defense has been bad. And these teams didn't even have to give up anything for these guys.....they still had their draft picks. 

It's just a lot of pressure to put one player.  it would just be much easier to draft/develop our own QB for a change (and I know....I know...no words needed). 

IMO, take a QB/OT in the 1st 2 rounds. If we bomb next year....we bomb. Pace/nagy are gone and the next GM can choose what do with said drafted QB and he would be in good position to draft his own. Maybe the QB that Pace/Nagy drafted is not good enought to be a starter but maybe he's good enough to be a solid backup. Then we end up with a good starter from the new regime and a solid backup from the Pace regime. And without having to give up anything for it. 

 

Edited by JAF-N72EX
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WindyCity said:

We will have lots of cap space in 2-3 years. The defensive contracts wilL be coming off the books.

I have no issues with paying Watson. It is the draft picks that makes this painful.

Not as much space if our QB is making 40M/yr and that cap space also comes with losing alot of talent that can't be obtained if said trade is made. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that concerns me about Watson is his whole apparent beef with Houston is that he wasn't included in the conversation to pick the next gm /coach

Which umm... He shouldn't be he's a player, not an owner. 

That kind of entitlement is deeply concerning. 

  • Like 1
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...