Jump to content

Watson trade talk!!!!!!


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

I get that. But Wilson and Fields are question marks as well. 

They are question marks but at least they have that going for them. Sam is also a question mark but with poor results. I guess a rookie would be the lesser of two evils. But again, if the team thinks keeping Sam is the best move, I will defer to their judgement. But if it backfires, it could be bad. At least with a rookie they have the option of using time/experience as an excuse. There will be no excuse for a bad Sam next year. 

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

Yes he did which gave us all hope. Then with similar awful players and the same crappy coach he regressed and won two games. I’ll even make it 3 games because GW lost us the Oakland game.

I offer proof as to why he may not be a good QB. What do you have that suggests otherwise?  Where is this talent you say he has?  I have seen flashes but they are rare.

I think no matter who we have at QB what we have won’t help a QB. No big time offensive FA are signing here IMO with us moving on from Darnold. Not Bc they value Darnold so much. But Bc a WR isn’t joining a team he doesnt know who the QB is. Doesn’t make sense for them. If we draft a QB at 2... unless we go offense with our next 4 picks on top of that... that WB won’t be in a good situation either. So until we change the situation around the QB is quite frankly doesn’t matter who is QB IMO. I think sticking with Darnold and trading back a couple spots and adding a legit WR and having extra picks is only helps the talent around the QB. If Darnold can’t perform with that. Then move on. But to draft let’s say Wilson and have what we have around him... I doubt he’s much better than Darnold 

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

They are question marks but at least they have that going for them. Sam is also a question mark but with poor results. I guess a rookie would be the lesser of two evils. But again, if the team thinks keeping Sam is the best move, I will defer to their judgement. But if it backfires, it could be bad. At least with a rookie they have the option of using time/experience as an excuse. There will be no excuse for a bad Sam next year. 

No if they’re wrong. We’re drafting high again next year and still have an extra 1st to try and trade up if we want to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll be on board either way....

I just would hate to see us so what we’ve done with every QB we draft. And that’s not give them anything around them. And obviously being able to use that pick to still get a top WR and add a high 2nd rounder and more. Helps a QB. Drafting Wilson of Fields and not doing a ton besides that to help them. And thinking the results will be vastly different... I just don’t see. And as I said... I don’t see FA coming here without knowing who our QB will be. Or even sold on a rookie QB for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

No if they’re wrong. We’re drafting high again next year and still have an extra 1st to try and trade up if we want to. 

Such flawed logic.  Now you are just assuming whoever has a high pick next year will want to trade down with us?  It takes two to tango and if a team is drafting high most likely they are in the QB market.  They aren't just going to help us out if they need a QB too.

And then let me get this straight.  Your plan is to pass on a QB because they are a huge question mark in favor of another huge question mark but then next year pay a premium to move up for a huge question mark if the huge question mark doesn't pan out?  That sounds terrible.

Why again are we not just taking one this year, keeping our draft capital, and using that to build around him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

I’ll be on board either way....

I just would hate to see us so what we’ve done with every QB we draft. And that’s not give them anything around them. And obviously being able to use that pick to still get a top WR and add a high 2nd rounder and more. Helps a QB. Drafting Wilson of Fields and not doing a ton besides that to help them. And thinking the results will be vastly different... I just don’t see. And as I said... I don’t see FA coming here without knowing who our QB will be. Or even sold on a rookie QB for that matter.

Why are we not giving our new QB something to work with again?  You think Douglas is gonna invest a top pick and not use his other assets to make his QB look good?  We have 4 other picks in the top 100 and a boat load of cap space.  We can draft a QB at two and be more then equipped to surround him with help immediately.

No idea why you think we would help Sam but not help our number 2 pick?

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

My point wasn’t that they want to play with Darnold. My point was that you at least have a guy at QB to tell a FA who your QBs is. If we decide to move on from him. We are selling a guy we don’t even know who we’re drafting to them. Good look getting AR15 or whoever to sign a deal without knowing who there QB will be. Where if we stick with Darnold... we have a selling point to them. Explain how he has a future and that it was a system and coach that hurt him. And the focus is to get him help.

Darnold isn't a selling point.  He is terrible.  Hey AR15 come play with a terrible QB.  Yeah I know he sucks but at least you know who it'll be.  

Let's just cut Sam and sign Fitz back he played well last year.  Maybe AR15 will want to play with him.  He's a known commodity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, xrade said:

They are question marks but at least they have that going for them. Sam is also a question mark but with poor results. I guess a rookie would be the lesser of two evils. But again, if the team thinks keeping Sam is the best move, I will defer to their judgement. But if it backfires, it could be bad. At least with a rookie they have the option of using time/experience as an excuse. There will be no excuse for a bad Sam next year. 

JD doesn't recover from that move if Darnold bombs.  It's career suicide putting your reputation on the line for Sam.  

JD gets 4 years if he takes a QB or trades for Watson.  If Sam bombs next year he's on the hot seat immediately.  If he's going to stick with Sam he better be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

JD doesn't recover from that move if Darnold bombs.  It's career suicide putting your reputation on the line for Sam.  

JD gets 4 years if he takes a QB or trades for Watson.  If Sam bombs next year he's on the hot seat immediately.  If he's going to stick with Sam he better be right.

It’s not though. As I said... is he’s as awful as you say. Then we’d be drafting very high again next year. If you don’t think that. The you can’t think he’s that bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Why are we not giving our new QB something to work with again?  You think Douglas is gonna invest a top pick and not use his other assets to make his QB look good?  We have 4 other picks in the top 100 and a boat load of cap space.  We can draft a QB at two and be more then equipped to surround him with help immediately.

No idea why you think we would help Sam but not help our number 2 pick?

How much did Perine, Mims and Clarke help out this year? You think who we draft in those spots are guaranteed guys to help out the rookie QB? For all we know. Nearly all the picks could be used on defense

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Darnold isn't a selling point.  He is terrible.  Hey AR15 come play with a terrible QB.  Yeah I know he sucks but at least you know who it'll be.  

Let's just cut Sam and sign Fitz back he played well last year.  Maybe AR15 will want to play with him.  He's a known commodity.

You talk like Wilson (who I know you love) is a sure thing. He’s not

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobby816 said:

It’s not though. As I said... is he’s as awful as you say. Then we’d be drafting very high again next year. If you don’t think that. The you can’t think he’s that bad

We can still win 6 or 7 games with Sam being as bad as he was. The new coaching staff, improved weapons and improved D will see to that. Point is we will be a better team with Sam at QB, but if he continues to play as he has been, we won’t be much more successful than a .500 team.

Last I saw, there were 10 other players on O, 11 players on D and 11 on ST. The QB is but one of 25 starters; certainly the most important, but it is still a team game. So, a great QB can’t win them by himself (Watson) just as a bad QB can’t lose them by himself (Trubisky).

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

We can still win 6 or 7 games with Sam being as bad as he was. The new coaching staff, improved weapons and improved D will see to that. Point is we will be a better team with Sam at QB, but if he continues to play as he has been, we won’t be much more successful than a .500 team.

Last I saw, there were 10 other players on O, 11 players on D and 11 on ST. The QB is but one of 25 starters; certainly the most important, but it is still a team game. So, a great QB can’t win them by himself (Watson) just as a bad QB can’t lose them by himself (Trubisky).

If we win 6-7 games... Darnold isn’t the problem

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...