Peon Awesome

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.

For the record, McCaffrey had 2392 scrimmage yards and 19 tds in 2019. Mike Davis had 1015 scrimmage yards and 8 tds in 2020. You may have meant 40% when you wrote 80%. I'm not saying dollar for dollar it's the best investment but let's not ignore all of McCaffrey's value as a player. I'd love to see what he can do with a good qb in our new scheme.

I'm not opposed to the idea in theory about having a player like McCaffrey in a trade for Watson. The reason it's not practical is we would lose cap space by doing it. We're not flush with cap space as is; you take away the bit we have, add Watson's hit (despite being reasonable in 2021) and then still have to replace all of McCaffrey's production with somebody, likely a free agent, if not a 1st or 2nd round draft pick (whoops those went to Houston in the trade). Just not at all practical. A player like DJ Moore unfortunately makes a lot more sense since we'd actually save $2 million trading him. I'm not saying I'd want to do that but it's at least feasible to have a 53 man roster and do that. Impossible to have one, at least competitive one, by trading CMC and his dead cap.

Yikes I hope not for that team's sake. You'd give a raise to the 2nd highest paid qb in the NFL that will be taking up 20% of your cap after next, after giving away all your most valuable draft capital in the next 3 years that you could have desperately used to build affordable pieces around him?

You know the good thing about terrible posts on the Huddle is that if you're feeling doom and gloom about our qb prospects for next year, at least you can tell yourself "Well it could've been worse. Can you imagine if we had given up the 8th pick for Jordan Love?"

I'm on board with throwing our hat in the ring for Stafford at the right cost. My biggest issue with this proposed trade is that you don't know if Stafford will stay healthy. Say he's out more than half of the year and we stumble to another 5 wins and have to give Detroit a top 10 pick next year. If you can guarantee his health, I would say it's not unreasonable although more than I prefer. But you have to think in a weakened NFC south and the return of McCaffrey, we get at least 8 wins and the 1st rounder probably won't be better than 16 or so. That's just a big if given his recent injury history.

Look I realize I'm risking setting the Huddle record for most poo reactions, but is there any doubt Teddy Bridgewater would have taken off on that 3rd and goal and ran it in for the TD? He wasn't good for much but he was surprisingly ok at taking advantage of some space in the redzone.

What in the world was the returner doing? Terrible decision. Gotta think that's on the coaching staff too to not stress trying to run out the clock to the 2 minute warning.

When you fail to see the irony of trading the farm to get a qb who just led his team to a 4-12 record.

It's hard to judge any of these options without knowing the cost. I'd be willing to give as high as our 2nd for Stafford but I have a feeling a team like Indy might decide giving away this year's 1st for Stafford makes sense since they're not missing much outside of a qb. Personally my preference would be this: Offer up to 2 1sts and a 2nd (not Moore or Burns) for Watson (very unlikely to be enough but you have to at least throw your name in). Then offer up to our 2nd for Stafford (may not be enough) Then wait and see who is available at 8 and draft one of the top qbs. If no one is avaiable that you like, trade back and with a later 1st or early 2nd, take a chance on someone in the next tier if available and you like their potential (Jones, Trask, etc). If that doesn't work out, build up the team as best you can and look into low-priced veterans to compete with Teddy (Winston, Trubisky) with an offer in the single digits (e.g. $5 million) and wait till 2022 to come up with your long-term qb plan. Notably not in play at all for me would be trading up for a rookie qb. We have no idea if any of these qbs will translate. If you screw up, you set your team back years because you've not only wasted this year's pick, you wasted multiple other picks including next year's 1st at minimum which will inevitably end up being a top 10 pick if the rookie doesn't work out. It's one thing to gamble a single top 10 pick on a rookie that doesn't live up. But multiple top 10 picks is crippling especially when you're already missing multiple pieces (including an entire O line). We can pretend we have faith in our new management but essentially every single team in the league had high initial grades on players like Sam Darnold and Blake Bortles (in most cases, higher than Zach Wilson or Justin Fields).

Poor McCaffrey being injured making people forget he's currently the only bona fide star on the team. Burns and Moore should be there but haven't received the national attention they deserve (highlighted by their zero pro bowl/all pro bowl nods). But McCaffrey was the talk of the nation in 2019. Despite having crap qb and O line play, he was the most impressive offensive player in the league. I won't begrudge anyone for picking anyone else; there are a couple good candidates. But if McCaffrey stayed healthy, I have to think he'd have a lot more than a few honorable mentions on here. And if we're fortunate enough to nab a great qb, I bet he'll remind people very quickly in 2021.

If we're trading Burns, we better be getting the 2 1sts!

That's fine. I don't think it's impossible to think some team with loads of cap space, and room for a qb on the roster might take on the $17 million for an extra draft pick. What about the Colts? They have zero qbs and at least $65 million in cap space. They've got an elite defense and talented young rb. You're telling me we offer to throw in a draft pick to take Teddy on a 2 year, $39 million contract with only $10 million guaranteed all in the 1st year when they have more room than they know what to do with and no qb and they wouldn't even consider it? Especially when they don't have many attractive alternatives. Anyhow I honestly don't care if no one bites for a 5th. I'm perfectly content keeping him as pricy insurance/mentoring like I said and then getting rid of him in 2022 with minimal dead cap. I'm just not eager to give away valuable draft picks just to save a little money this year.