PFM18 Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 43 minutes ago, Broncofan said: Cousins, Carr, JimmyG, Wentz - all are being dangled by teams looking to price-check. If teams can find a buyer willing to pay a premium - sure, they'll listen. But that availability also likely drives the market down. Undoubtedly, this is a measure to try and leverage the most interested teams. That's probably only going to work if the serious demand outstrips the supply. Overall demand definitely outstrips supply - but premium demand (willingness to pay premium prices) - for everyone outside Watson, that's probably a different story altogether. It's probably more 1 interested team, maybe 2 (SF & Cousins, IND & Wentz or Carr, etc.)... Just out of interest @Broncofan, do you see Paton picking up the phone seriously for any of these? I know we have 1.9 and could get a QB at that point, but Paton must be thinking if one of the above is available for cheaper draft capital, he'll pursue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 (edited) 46 minutes ago, PFM18 said: Just out of interest @Broncofan, do you see Paton picking up the phone seriously for any of these? I know we have 1.9 and could get a QB at that point, but Paton must be thinking if one of the above is available for cheaper draft capital, he'll pursue. I don’t think he will - because he’s looking for a difference maker at value. Stafford he knew well from his Viking days. And at 2/43M and age 33 he had value for the deal and contract. Keep in mind Paton asked for DET 2.9 back. I think he’s going to make an offer on Watson. Pretty clear Watson is very willing to go to Denver. Watson is in that Josh Allen level tier. That’s worth way more. Spending a 1st round pick on a guy who’s not a top 8-10 guy and who can’t win at all parts the game - not worth it. Watson costs more but he’s an elite QB. Paton may not end up offering the best deal - but he’s been clear he’ll be thinking value and long term. His hedge on Stafford asking for 2.9 back likely reflected the uncertainty on Stafford being peak level for 4-5 years. Spending a 1st on a guy who doesn’t win in all areas (JimmyG), and who are priced at nearly the same salary (Wentz is 4/98M, Cousins 2/54M, Watson is 5-147.5M ) - don’t see it. At an AAV of less than 30M - Watson is likely going to be a bargain esp after the new TV deal comes in. I think it’s Watson, bargain FA vet, bargain trade (Darnold for 3.7), or rookie Rd1. The heavy pick / salary investment only makes sense if you are getting elite play or value for the contract. Stafford wasn’t elite but was an enormous value at 2/43M and offered complete play (short / deep / intermediate). No other vet offers the complete skill set or are priced way more expensively. And Paton asked for 2.9 back, too. So no, I don’t see 1.9 going for another QB unless it’s part of a bigger Watson deal. Edited February 4, 2021 by Broncofan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted February 4, 2021 Share Posted February 4, 2021 The guy who started the wild speculation last year, that Luck could reconsider - owner Jim Irsay - confirms what the plugged-in reporters already said - Luck's nowhere close to returning. Indy's very much in the buyer market this offseason, folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrry32 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 On 1/31/2021 at 4:57 PM, Forge said: It's hard to say. I listened to people who were acting like they had to give up a first to get out from under goff and that's not the way I read it at all. People seemed to fail to realize that the picks given up (the first rounders) were futures, which are typically discounted. I mean, while the trade talk was going on I asked the niners forum if they'd rather give up 12 or a first in 22 & 23 because I felt like those two things were fairly equivalent in value. The Rams' 2022 first round pick doesn't hold the value of Washington's #19 pick this year, so of course they had to kick in something more. 2 future firsts actually makes sense to me in terms of just straight up value for Stafford. I thought Goff had positive trade value, just grossly discounted because of the future year guarantees which are toxic in negotiations The subsequent news about the offers has vindicated me imo. Considering the reported Panthers' offer, it appears Goff did have positive trade value (valued at an early to mid second to beat out the Panthers' offer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 Wentz > Indie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoundrel Posted February 5, 2021 Share Posted February 5, 2021 3 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: Wentz > Indie 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.