I want QB Mathew Stafford here, but how much would it cost to get him?

[RSkinGM]

Keep Allen and Heiny. Draft one at 19 if you like who's left, otherwise take BPA and draft a QB somewhere down the line. Scott Turner's dink and dunk offense doesn't need an elite QB and it fits with our defense. Ball control, keep them other team off the field even if you don't score 40 points a game. 

Maybe bring in another vet like Mariota-kick the tires oh Josh Rosen . Just see what's out there without the Big Mortgage .

Stafford is fun to watch, very talented but aging. A lot of his stats were against prevent D's when trailing in the 4th quarter. I've always been a fan - Heck he's 4-0 against us but I just don't want him here. 

[offbyone]

9 hours ago, turtle28 said:

we are trading for Stafford it may cost us one of our DTs (probably Payne)

You simply don't do this.  You don't force the Stafford trade, it has to make sense.  Sure, trade a 1st rounder, but you don't even think about giving up a proven guy like Payne who is part of the reason we are a team on the rise.  That is no way to build a football team.

We can't get stuck on Stafford.  He is an option, nothing more.  He is good but he certainly isn't the long term future.  He is maybe 2-3 years so the trade has to match this.  He is old, always nicked up and not mobile.  Yes, he would be a good option if we could get him for his current reasonable contract.  Now if you trade for him and suddenly rewrite his contract to be tied to him long term and jack up the salary, then this makes no sense.

We have to remember, Stafford is one of many possible options.  Some of these guys will also be available: Darnold, Carr, Trubisky, Winston, Garropolo, Matt Ryan, Prescott, Newton, Hill, etc.  No need to be mono focused on Stafford.  

Honestly, now that they brought Mayhew in, it makes me less interested in Stafford as this just feels similar to bringing Newton in.  Don't bring the band back together.  Move forward, not backward!

[LoganF89]

22 minutes ago, offbyone said:

You simply don't do this.  You don't force the Stafford trade, it has to make sense.  Sure, trade a 1st rounder, but you don't even think about giving up a proven guy like Payne who is part of the reason we are a team on the rise.  That is no way to build a football team.

We can't get stuck on Stafford.  He is an option, nothing more.  He is good but he certainly isn't the long term future.  He is maybe 2-3 years so the trade has to match this.  He is old, always nicked up and not mobile.  Yes, he would be a good option if we could get him for his current reasonable contract.  Now if you trade for him and suddenly rewrite his contract to be tied to him long term and jack up the salary, then this makes no sense.

We have to remember, Stafford is one of many possible options.  Some of these guys will also be available: Darnold, Carr, Trubisky, Winston, Garropolo, Matt Ryan, Prescott, Newton, Hill, etc.  No need to be mono focused on Stafford.  

Honestly, now that they brought Mayhew in, it makes me less interested in Stafford as this just feels similar to bringing Newton in.  Don't bring the band back together.  Move forward, not backward!

I dont want to trade our 1st for a qb unless we are moving up for a rookie qb or if we are moving back and get good value for it. If we are talking FA I think we honestly need to look at Jaemis and Trubisky, and the reason I say that is bc 1 they will be cheap and short term and if they pan out we can extend them and 2 if they dont pan out we can roll with heinicke and allen the rest of the year and cut our losses with the FA signing

[Uncle Buck]

On 1/14/2021 at 12:20 PM, MikeT14 said:

Weren’t you the one that posted the no fat face QB theory?

That's one of the funniest things I've read in quite a while. 

[e16bball]

I’m reading articles from legitimate news sources suggesting the reasonable price is a 1st PLUS other stuff of value for Stafford. That’s crazy. 

I was interested in him at a SECOND plus other stuff of value. That would have made sense, given the age and the recent injury history and the short-term contract that will likely have to be extended after this coming season. And given his status as sort of a third-tier “star” QB. I would give up a big deal like a 1st and a 3rd for an aging legitimate superstar QB, but we’re talking about a guy who would have to make an argument just to get placed in the top 10-15 QB range. This is not acquiring Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady we're talking about here. 

Pick 19 alone is probably too rich for my blood, and I’m only saying “probably” because I don’t particularly love anything I think will be there at 19. Anything beyond that is a rock hard pass. At that point, you might as well just make a bigger move for a higher upside, like a massive Watson trade or a big trade-up for Wilson/Fields/Lance. If you’re in for a penny, go on ahead and be in for a pound. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by e16bball

[lavar703]

1 minute ago, e16bball said:

I’m reading articles from legitimate news sources suggesting the reasonable price is a 1st PLUS other stuff of value for Stafford. That’s crazy. 

I was interested in him at a SECOND plus other stuff of value. That would have made sense, given the age and the recent injury history and the short-term contract that will likely have to be extended after this coming season. And given his status as sort of a third-tier “star” QB. I would give up a big deal like a 1st and a 3rd for an aging legitimate superstar QB, but we’re talking about a guy who would have to make an argument just to get placed in the top 10-15 QB range. This is not acquiring Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady we're talking about here. 

Pick 19 alone is probably too rich for my blood, and I’m only saying “probably” because I don’t particularly love anything I think will be there at 19. Anything beyond that is a rock hard pass. At that point, you might as well just make a bigger move for a higher upside, like a massive Watson trade or a big trade-up for Wilson/Fields/Lance. If you’re in for a penny, go on ahead and be in for a pound. 

The reason I’m willing to part with pick 19 is because I don’t think we’re getting anything that we truly need there. Maybe JOK or Collins at that point but they might even be gone. Pitts is certainly gone and I have no interest in a first round TE. My dark horse would be Waddle but I’m not sure he falls anywhere close and I’d be ecstatic with Toney there but that still leaves us with no QB lol. 

[turtle28]

7 hours ago, RSkinGM said:

Keep Allen and Heiny. Draft one at 19 if you like who's left, otherwise take BPA and draft a QB somewhere down the line. Scott Turner's dink and dunk offense doesn't need an elite QB and it fits with our defense. Ball control, keep them other team off the field even if you don't score 40 points a game. 

Maybe bring in another vet like Mariota-kick the tires oh Josh Rosen . Just see what's out there without the Big Mortgage .

Stafford is fun to watch, very talented but aging. A lot of his stats were against prevent D's when trailing in the 4th quarter. I've always been a fan - Heck he's 4-0 against us but I just don't want him here. 

I’d rather trade for an elite QB like Stafford rather than for a back up QB like Marriota. And yeah, I don’t care what Rivera or anyone says, Kyle Allen & Heinicke are very likely not QBs that will lead this team to the playoffs. 
 

I mean they’ve not even shown to be as consistent as Alex Smith. 
 

If this franchise is going to go young and continue the rebuild I’d be all for going with Allen, Heinicke and say Mac Jones or Trey Lance at 19 to develop behind one of the other QBs, then I’m for it.

What bothers me is that last year was the perfect year to get another top 10 pick to take Fields or Wilson and we blew it to win one more game than the Giants and go to the playoffs thus, losing 9 or 10 spots in the draft where we may have been able to draft a future franchise QB to change the projection of this offense & also this franchise for decades just like Chase Young has done for the defense.

Edited January 26, 2021 by turtle28

[RSkinGM]

14 minutes ago, turtle28 said:

I mean they’ve not even shown to be as consistent as Alex Smith. 
 

Look at his first 2 or 3 years in the league - awful ! They are young and may still have upside. I'm just tired of other teams discards.

[ripsean21]

2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I’d rather trade for an elite QB like Stafford rather than for a back up QB like Marriota. And yeah, I don’t care what Rivera or anyone says, Kyle Allen & Heinicke are very likely not QBs that will lead this team to the playoffs. 
 

I mean they’ve not even shown to be as consistent as Alex Smith. 
 

If this franchise is going to go young and continue the rebuild I’d be all for going with Allen, Heinicke and say Mac Jones or Trey Lance at 19 to develop behind one of the other QBs, then I’m for it.

What bothers me is that last year was the perfect year to get another top 10 pick to take Fields or Wilson and we blew it to win one more game than the Giants and go to the playoffs thus, losing 9 or 10 spots in the draft where we may have been able to draft a future franchise QB to change the projection of this offense & also this franchise for decades just like Chase Young has done for the defense.

Good things can come from losing those ten spots. To me it’s clear the players here believe. I don’t think we have to force this. You never know what we can come away with and honestly there’s been a lot of picks that outplayed their selection. I know I bring up Mond but what if it was Ridder or Jones. It’s not where your picked it’s where you go and what you do there. Heck Fields maybe plays his way into a scenario where we might move up those ten spots and yes it costs picks to get up there but that’s what KC and Houston both did to get Watson and mahomes. Imagine what that could do for Fields falling because he played and then had a team come get him. I believe in him mentally. I think if we did that I believe we could probably contend next year and you have a guy that’s playing even more motivated then if he just started falling and we took him at 9. Imagine getting taken at 9 and you go to a playoff team that realistically just needed competent and consistent QB play and you come to a team that have a ton of guys you either played with or against? Idk I love the idea of it who knows it could happen

[offbyone]

2 hours ago, turtle28 said:

I’d rather trade for an elite QB like Stafford

This is where I think there are two different views on this situation.  Almost everyone thinks Stafford is a good qb and would like him on our team.  But some people think he is elite. 

IMO elite qbs are guys like Aaron Rodgers, Brady, Watson, Mahomes, and Allen.  Stafford is not elite.  Stafford is certainly above average.  But not elite.  

[turtle28]

4 hours ago, RSkinGM said:

Look at his first 2 or 3 years in the league - awful ! They are young and may still have upside. I'm just tired of other teams discards.

Why does that matter a decade later?

[turtle28]

2 hours ago, offbyone said:

This is where I think there are two different views on this situation.  Almost everyone thinks Stafford is a good qb and would like him on our team.  But some people think he is elite. 

IMO elite qbs are guys like Aaron Rodgers, Brady, Watson, Mahomes, and Allen.  Stafford is not elite.  Stafford is certainly above average.  But not elite.  

Well however you want to characterize it, it’s whatever that’s just semantics. We get him and he’s the most naturally/physically talented QB we’ve had in this franchise since Sammy Baugh.

So yeah, I’d trade a 1st for that and I’d trade Allen or Payne along with the 19th pick for that too.

If you have a chance to get a QB who’s a top 10 QB for a DT & a late 1st round pick you do it 10 times out of 10. Ioannidis will be back & they can’t extend Tim Settle as well.
 

Sure they loose a little there in losing Allen or Payne but the gains of having a top 10 QB who will throw for 4500 plus yards and near or over 30 TDs will make us a certain division contender again and probably an outside Super Bowl contender. And Stafford is 33, he probably had at least 5 more years in the league - this isn’t trading for a pretty much washed up McNabb.

[turtle28]

2 hours ago, ripsean21 said:

Good things can come from losing those ten spots. To me it’s clear the players here believe. I don’t think we have to force this. You never know what we can come away with and honestly there’s been a lot of picks that outplayed their selection. I know I bring up Mond but what if it was Ridder or Jones. It’s not where your picked it’s where you go and what you do there. Heck Fields maybe plays his way into a scenario where we might move up those ten spots and yes it costs picks to get up there but that’s what KC and Houston both did to get Watson and mahomes. Imagine what that could do for Fields falling because he played and then had a team come get him. I believe in him mentally. I think if we did that I believe we could probably contend next year and you have a guy that’s playing even more motivated then if he just started falling and we took him at 9. Imagine getting taken at 9 and you go to a playoff team that realistically just needed competent and consistent QB play and you come to a team that have a ton of guys you either played with or against? Idk I love the idea of it who knows it could happen

We’re literally talking about a one game difference to get a yippee 7 games!! Let’s not act like we won 10 or 11 games last year.

I mean the difference is huge. It’s the difference between being in range to take Zach Wilson or Justin Fields - or make a reasonable trade up for them. Being able to take Devonta Smith, Kyle Pitts, Micah Parsons, Farley, Darrisaw or Wyatt Davis and instead discussing taking Bateman, Toney, Rondale Moore, Leatherwood, Zaven Collins, Nick Bolton, Moering, Mac Jones or Kyle Trask.

Edited January 27, 2021 by turtle28

[offbyone]

1 hour ago, turtle28 said:

Well however you want to characterize it, it’s whatever that’s just semantics. We get him and he’s the most naturally/physically talented QB we’ve had in this franchise since Sammy Baugh.

So yeah, I’d trade a 1st for that and I’d trade Allen or Payne along with the 19th pick for that too.

If you have a chance to get a QB who’s a top 10 QB for a DT & a late 1st round pick you do it 10 times out of 10. Ioannidis will be back & they can’t extend Tim Settle as well.
 

Sure they loose a little there in losing Allen or Payne but the gains of having a top 10 QB who will throw for 4500 plus yards and near or over 30 TDs will make us a certain division contender again and probably an outside Super Bowl contender. And Stafford is 33, he probably had at least 5 more years in the league - this isn’t trading for a pretty much washed up McNabb.

IMO if he is a top 10 qb, it is just barely.  At one point, he was solidly in that group, but now he is more in the 10-15 range.

I think trading a 1st plus a premium player on the rise like Allen/Payne is about as crazy talk as I can imagine.  There is no value equation that makes sense there.  You don't build a team by throwing away its best young players for an old player who has an expiration date coming.  Now if you want to do that for Aaron Rodgers or Watson, that is a different conversation.  

I want to get a qb as much as you and am happy to toss that #19 out there for a solid guy like stafford, but that is it.  

[RSkinGM]

11 hours ago, turtle28 said:

Why does that matter a decade later?

The point is - THEY may develop as well as Smith did .