Peon Awesome

It genuinely baffles my mind that a team might offer something of value for Wentz. Philly has to be desperate to get rid of him and that terrible contract. There must be some kind of media manipulation to make it look like there's a bidding war for him. They talked about a trade being imminent before the super bowl and yet there still is none. Why? Because no one is offering anything close to what they hoped I'm sure. I mean this with all sincerity; the only way I would even consider a Wentz trade is if the deal involved sending Teddy and GETTING at least a day 2 pick (2nd or 3rd). I'm not stupid to think Philly would actually do that but any other scenario and I'm getting the hell out of that. Getting Wentz adds $25 million to our 2021 cap. Even with trading Teddy back, our cap hit goes up by $15 million. Good luck building an offensive line for Wentz. We saw how abysmal he looked under pressure last year. At least Teddy would check down or pull the ball down and run for 4 yards. For kicks let's even compare their stats on a per game basis in 2020: Wentz: 57.4% completions, 241.3 total yards (218.3 passing), 1.75 total tds (1.33 passing), 1.25 int, 0.83 fumbles, 4.2 sacks taken. Bridgewater: 69.1% completions, 267.5 total yards (248.9 passing), 1.33 total tds (1 passing), 0.73 int, 0.4 fumbles, 2.1 sacks taken. Don't get me wrong. I want to upgrade from Teddy. It's just not objectively clear that the current version of Wentz actually accomplishes that.

You're right that Kalil's contract wasn't exactly a devastating albatross that crippled our cap. The anger of it when directed at that specific aspect is overblown. But it was awful nonetheless. Most of our other bad contracts are for players that got paid more than they're worth or got injured but when healthy, made our team better. Shaq is a good example. Spending $13 million on a coverage linebacker not named Luke Kuechly is not the best use of that money. But he's still a plus on defense over whoever else might step in to replace him. Meanwhile we were significantly better signing a guy off his couch to replace Kalil than when he played. Kalil was so laughably bad, we probably would've been better lining up Manhertz in that spot and foregone a LT altogether than trot him out there. You mention we were 11-5 his 1st year. That makes it worse. Imagine if we had a competent LT or used his $12 million that year to sign someone at another position of need. We were a play from beating the Saints. Hell we probably win a couple more games and host them rather than go on the road. Do we make a run at another super bowl? And the next year, do we have someone more competent to stop TJ Watt from nearly ending Cam's career? Whatever way you look at that, that Kalil contract was abysmal. It may have averaged out to $6.25 million per year over 4 years, but he was only on the team for 2 of those years and the 2 he was there, we were a better team without him.

He's actually pretty complimentary of the Panthers, saying we've had "a solid span of drafts", but I agree the analysis is lacking. I'd say trading up and drafting Little was the worst, followed by taking Butler in the 1st to ride the bench for 4 years. Both of those were more detrimental than anything that happened in the later rounds.

I'll echo others' sentiments. Either a 5th-7th round draft pick or a minimum salary free agent. We've got far bigger concerns to waste resources on WR 3, especially when we have McCaffrey.

For the record, I agree with you. These scenarios we would be trading 2/multiple 1sts. I think it's the other people that are being obtuse. There's no given that we have to give up pick 8 to get pick 2 or 3. What if we traded DJ Moore and a 3rd rounder for pick 3? If swapping 1sts doesn't count as trading a 1st, how do you differentiate that from trading DJ, pick 8 and our 3rd?

Brutal injury makes him a bit of a wildcard but I'd much rather offer a backloaded contract for Dak than give up 5 picks for Watson. We could make the numbers work by doing something like 5 years $170 million, $30 million signing bonus, $30 million guaranteed base salary in 2022 and $20 million guaranteed in 2023 after a certain date (so $80 million total guaranteed) but only a $2 million base in 2021 for a 2021 cap hit of only $8 million. Not sure what kind of actual contract he'll demand but given the injury, that seems at least competitive given the possibility he won't return to pre-injury form.

The problem is that someone is likely to offer Samuel a contract more befitting of a solid #2/borderline #1 than a slot/gadget guy that he is and we don't need to be getting in a bidding war at that rate. McCaffrey also needs some slot reps. Hell, I'd rather dumpster dive for my WR3, get a solid 2nd rb and play more 2 RB sets with McCaffrey as a receiver.

It's at least a debate who was more deserving but no way it should've been that lopsided. Chase Young was also playing alongside a defensive line full of 1st rounders. Chinn was playing with mostly scrubs in the backfield and between him and Burns, carried our defense to respectability. Bias aside, he would've gotten my vote.

If there was ever a time for an entire unit to win MVP, it's now. The entire Bucs defense deserves it. It's unbelievable what they did to a seemingly unstoppable Chiefs offense.

The 2 games have a lot of similarities. One team getting the brunt of favorable calls but at the same time, their defense just completely manhandling the opposing team to the point it's not clear if it would've mattered. Panthers game would've been a lot more competitive than this at least.

He could cure COVID and cancer and you'd hate him more than Clausen and Weinke? Seems a bit extreme but we're all entitled to our opinions. I think it's a bit emblematic of some of the Huddle histrionics. Bridgewater is a great backup, below average starter. The way some people present him, you'd think he makes Clausen look like Mahomes.

Up until recently I would have said it was obvious that we would have to give a little something (probably a day 3 pick) to entice someone to take Teddy. Perhaps the extra 5th was that for Stafford. But now with the news, if you believe it, that there's an actual trade market for Wentz, who by most metrics looked worse than Teddy this year and whose contract is so so much worse, I'm no longer 100% sure.

Hopefully Teddy is not that dense that the news that he was involved in a trade for Stafford, a guy who's career and production massively dwarfs his own is some "shake me to my core" shocking revelation after everything else the organization has said and done this offseason. I mean if it does, oh boy, he has to be the most obtuse person on the planet. But I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I don't think this news changes a thing. It also doesn't exclude the very real possibility of Teddy starting week 1, particularly if we draft a guy like Lance.

What's he up to these days? You gotta think he almost has to sell it unless he's managed to have a profitable career post-football. Property tax alone has to be +$30,000 per year, not to mention several thousand per year in upkeep like heating and cooling the 9000 square feet. And that's even assuming he's actually paid it off, rather than still stuck with another $15,000 per month in mortgage payments. If not, you're talking over $200,000 per year just to keep living there. I don't care how smart he could've been with his money; that's hard to do for too long when you're living off savings alone. Really nice house though.

The problem is that trading 1st rounders doesn't cripple your immediate future if you're ready to compete. It's 3 or 4 years afterwards you have to worry about. Philadelphia is seeing the after effects of losing that 1st round capital. They didn't have the cheap talented players from the 1st round to maintain their super bowl caliber team after their veterans either aged out or became too expensive to keep. New Orleans is about to enter complete cap hell plus their 2 1sts are like late 20s. Chicago didn't trade multiple 1st; they gave like a 4th round pick to move up 1 spot. Imagine if they didn't trade anything and took Watson or Mahomes at their spot. Kansas City is obviously the model, but they again traded 2 picks in the late 20's and already had a playoff team. As far as the Rams, do you really want to use them as an example? They just used multiple 1st round picks to get rid of the qb they used multiple 1st round picks on. Imagine if they were smarter, they could have won multiple super bowls in that time. You can also point to a team like the Redskins, who've spent years recovering from the Robert Griffin fiasco. Or even look at the Panthers and how much trading 2 1sts for Sean Gilbert set us back.

No wonder they turned it down. Did we offer to give them Marvin Jones and Frank Ragnow to sweeten the pot?

Burns is worth at least 2 1sts by himself. An elite pass rusher already, not even in his prime yet, with 3 cheap years left. He would get over $20 million per year as a free agent. No way you include him with 2 1sts and 2 2nds; I don't care if your 2nd player is Tre Boston. Personally if Burns is involved, I'm not giving more than pick 8. I don't give a damn if Houston laughs and walks away. Good riddance. Burns is literally the next most valuable asset outside a franchise qb.

Goff's massive contract was cool but Teddy's 2 year $39 million with only $10 million guaranteed was where they drew the line?

Possibly. But the Lions have already publicly said they're in full rebuild mode. In that setting, I could see the Rams package as more useful. If you think you're several years from contention, pushing those 1st round picks later when you're ready to make the leap makes sense. Detroit may have decided they need more than 2 top 10 picks to turn the team around. If they see this as a 5 year rebuild, by the time they are ready to compete, those two top 10 picks are suddenly in line for a major extension. Harder to keep the core together. It's also possible their front office isn't as high on the qbs in this draft as other teams. They might've decided they would rather buy super low on Goff and gain ammunition to move up in 2022 or 2023 than pick a qb this year. Not sure any of this went into their thinking but those are ways I could justify it. Plus there's the unknown value of the Ram's picks. They've given up all their 1st round picks for years. They're primed to implode at some point. If it happens by 2023, that 1st could become super valuable. It's a gamble but who would've expected Houston to have the 3rd worst record this year despite having a healthy Watson in his prime.

If we could get a deal done for the 8th pick plus Teddy, I'd totally be on board. We'd save $13 million on our 2020 cap, eliminate the pressure to make a big play at qb in the draft and focus on building the rest of the team, and have all of our future draft picks. The chance we get a better qb than Stafford at 8 is what, 10% at most? Would you rather have Stafford and the rest of your draft to build a team, or forfeit multiple picks including a future 1st to move up for a qb that is still at best 50/50 to be an upgrade over Stafford? If I was sure Trey Lance would be available at 8, I'd probably sit tight and roll the dice on him, but if I have to choose between Stafford or Mac Jones, how many people would take Jones? If our goal is immediate contention this is honestly the most likely avenue for it. Hope for a healthy Stafford that can master Brady's scheme, knock the rest of the 2020 draft out of the park, resign Moton and make a couple other free agent signings to round out the team with the $13 million you saved from trading Bridgewater and you've got a team that can make some noise.

For those saying some non-qbs have fetched 2 1sts, it's a terrible comparison. 1) Those were moves by teams who expected to be in super bowl contention and were banking on being 1 piece away. In their minds, the 2 picks they'd give up would be in the mid-20's or lower, and certainly didn't have a pick like #8 known to be included. The Rams have given up picks 20 and 25 in back to back years for Jalen Ramsey; debatable on merits but at least defensible when getting a 1st team all pro corner. No way a team with a 5-11 record in the midst of a rebuild would give away 2 1sts for a non-qb. 2) Just because a team has given up 2 1sts for a non-qb, doesn't mean it's smart. How much does Houston wish they had those 2 1sts back for Tunsil? They could have taken Sewell at 3, kept their 1st last year and saved the $22 milion per year they have tied up in Tunsil. If you're justifying a decision cause someone else has made an even bigger boneheaded decision, that isn't a good basis for it. Bottom line, if you think swapping Bridgewater for Watson makes us immediate super bowl contenders without upgrading our 2020 team at all, then you do it. Otherwise if the goal is a super bowl, then we've set ourselves back at least 4 years with the trade. Because we will struggle to improve our team beyond the qb position this year without our 1st and 2nd, plus the need to replace 4 offensive lineman and Samuel as a free agent, and with $11 million less of our cap space from Watson. And in the next couple years, key pieces like DJ and Burns will be in line for extensions and we'll be out the high draft picks to build a competitive cheap roster to afford them. If you trust you have a great GM to build a team around Watson with late round draft picks, then perhaps you can also trust he might find a qb at 8 or elsewhere.

Huddle: I don't care what it takes! You have a chance at Watson, you give up whatever you have to! I'd give up those 3 1s and a 2, and more if I have to. Me: How come Houston was only 4-12 with a 100% healthy Watson last year? Huddle: He's only one guy!

When the rest of your line are free agents you don't jettison your only remaining starter to save $4.9 million. It will be difficult to replace him in free agency for that much without dumpster diving, and spending an entire draft on offensive line when we have a half dozen other needs isn't ideal either. Plus a line with 3 rookies is going to have major growing pains. I agree with those saying to draft an interior lineman, start him at guard and consider sliding him to C in 2022. Also what can't be overstated is that Paradis was very solid last year. He was a nightmare in 2019, but it seems he's recovered well from his injury. Look at Daryl Williams. He was an atrocious tackle for us coming off his knee injury and turned into a decent starting right tackle for Buffalo this year. I guess coming back from a horrific injury takes time. Whoda thunk?

For those balking at a 2nd, what are the chances a qb in the 2nd is better than Stafford? 1%? Stafford is 32 years old, not 50. You could easily keep him playing at a high level for the 4 years you'd have a rookie qb under contract for (assuming 2nd rounder). Then save pick 8 for a bona fide stud non-qb that could be a fixture for the next 5 years. I'd be surprised if he goes for a 2nd but we would be fools not to give that.

I would guess something like converting base salary into unguaranteed incentive money he has a low chance of earning (e.g. bonuses for a super bowl victory or 1st team all pro selection). Or they could tack on a low cost voidable dummy year that spreads the cap hit over 2 years. But I think it makes sense for both sides. I don't think they have an heir apparent on the roster and there are too many teams in the qb market with more ammunition for them to get in a bidding war. But you can't keep him at a $41 million cap hit.