Jackofalltrades

Teddy is a first class guy and would be a great mentor to help Sam learn the offense, but that contract makes moving him a must. 

With the price I think it was a smart move. If he busts you’re not out of much, but if he plays well it’s a steal. 
 

I don’t know much about him but I won’t judge anyone for not performing while with the Jets, that’s just what they do. 
 

My expectations are low going in, I hope we can keep him upright and give him a real chance. 

16 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

Yes it's speculation. The words potential and if make that clear. 

Yet people will run with it as though it was inevitable.

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'd say it was already a need even when we had him.

Fair point. Replacing him and saving money shouldn’t be too hard. 

I’m torn, I’m glad but it’s another need to be addressed. 

22 hours ago, Seltzer said:

We can make plenty of cap for the right person.  The issue is not spending on guys we're going to regret after a year like Teddy, Matt Kalil, etc.

Anybody who watched a Steelers game down the stretch knows Big Ben is washed, way more than Cam even.

We need a QB, but hard, hard pass on Big Ben.  He still has an arm, but he's been hit too many times and makes awful decisions at this point to keep from getting hit.

I don't blame him for not wanting to get hit as someone approaching 40 myself, but he needs to retire.

I think his only real option beside that is going somewhere with a legit OL. Being in a similar age group I definitely get it but I do think he could thrive in the right environment.

5 minutes ago, ChibCU said:

You list no empirical data to arrive at these conclusions. You also willfully omit the fact that drafted players have a relatively minimal cap hit as opposed to veteran, top-tier QBs.

1/10.

What kind of empirical data would adequately represent values that are subjective in nature?

I agree he didn't give any support to his claim but I fail to see where empiricism plays a significant role. How do you empirically validate things like football IQ, instincts, leadership, etc? You could rely on stats but unless you have a standard and exhaustive means of analytics that doesn't mean much either. Example, RB is supposed to run through the A gap but Star closes the gap forcing the runner to look outside where he meets the DE, who do you credit with that tackle? What if on tape it looks like it was designed to go to the A gap but was indeed a counter, can you even make such a determination without knowing the play that was called? 

That's why I love football, it takes all 11 guys on the field. 

If Cam isn't a freak that play never happens. If Smith doesn't embarrass a trio of defenders Cam goes down well short of the goal line. If Olsen misses his block then the play never gets back to the line of scrimmage.

37 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Look at it like this. How many first round picks will it take to find a franchise QB in the draft like Watson over the next 5-10 years?

It would be a miracle to land an elite QB with our first this year. 
 

Say we trade up for fields this year (two 1sts) or get Lance at 8 (one first).

What’s the chance they bust or are just meh? 60%? More?

So we try again next year or the year after.

There goes another 1st round pick or two.

The point is, we’re going to spend multiple first rounders finding a QB either way. That’s nfl life.
 

I don't disagree with any of that. I guess my concern is wasting him.

It's a trade off either way. On one hand we gamble on a rookie and have the resources to build around him though with the significantly higher risk of said rookie underperforming. On the other hand you sell the farm for a guy who's young but proven but can't build around him because of the cost of getting him.

In either camp your relying on luck. Luck Watson assimilates to the new system with new players and coaches with superior skill players but deficient protection and subpar D. With a rookie you can given him better protection but that in no way guarantees he'll be able to play in the NFL.

For me the best course was someone like Stafford or Wentz who allowed you to both upgrade at QB and continue to work on other areas of the roster, mainly OL. Alas, that ship seems to have sailed. There may be a few other possibilities along those lines where you can try to win now, still draft your QB of the future and not give up a lot of draft capital. Wishing does no good but I would have loved to see what Cam could have done with someone like Brady as OC.

I don't see the value in an elite QB with no supporting cast. Yes they can elevate the play of their teammates but I'm doubtful we have enough pieces to keep him upright.

We had an elite QB in Cam and while we made it to the Super Bowl we didn't win it and his tenure here was marred by inconsistency. Because of both his style of play and a sub-par OL he got beaten up and "ruined." Watson doesn't have the size and stature advantage that Cam had. If we had either a decent OL or the money to build one I'd be far more willing to gamble on him.

I do think Watson is an elite QB and I'd love to have him here, but given the lack of talent and the constraints of our current salary commitments I don't think it makes sense to give up so much. I don't know that he is special enough to overcome all the obvious obstacles. I don't have faith that we could keep him healthy long enough for such an investment to pay dividends.

I hate it but it makes too much sense. Doesn't matter how talented you are if you can't get on the field. Add in the cap hit and it makes this a no brainer. I wish him nothing but the best...so long as he leaves the division.

On 1/31/2021 at 7:59 PM, BurnNChinn said:

Wow that sucks now we are stuck with Teddy and no qb out of the draft. That’s awesome 

That seems a little premature.

On 1/31/2021 at 11:02 AM, AceBoogie said:

Matt has had more than Cam in his career and he went to the super bowl with a MVP. He’s always had a solid #1 and legit #2. Just hasn’t gotten it done. They’ve changed everything in that franchise except Matt, he deserves some of that blame. 

He definitely deserves some of the blame, but you make it seem like he was the one holding them back. Seems to me that falls on the owners for a ridiculous history of bad decisions at the top.

4 hours ago, AceBoogie said:

He has that now lol. Y’all need to stop with the “he’s been on bad teams his whole career crap” he’s always had decent options to throw the ball too, ALWAYS. He’s just never gotten it down. He’s Jay Cutler that cares about football a little more. 

Yeah, Stafford has been the problem. They’re probably the worst team in the history of the NFL, go through HC’s like Marshawn goes through Skittles, have had just a couple of viable offensive weapons and a poor OL for the last several decades, but Matt is definitely the reason they suck.  

I’d rather have him than Watson just because of the cost. You don’t have to mortgage the next 2-3 years but can still have some capital to add other pieces. 
 

I love Watson, but the price I’ve seen speculated is insane. Matt’s used to shoddy OL but at least he’ll have options at the skill positions. 

I love Watson and the thought of him coming here makes me giddy, but man it's going to be expensive.

Good news for him. 

Proehl is a huge asset and I see KG paying huge dividends. I like that he's extremely driven but remains humble. The thought of him realizing his potential with KB and Funch is exciting. 

Hell yes. 

Yes please. 

4 minutes ago, Riverboat Ron said:

Fingers crossed for you getting Superbowl passes.

This.

Love. 

Woooooooooooo! 

So damn hot.

I'm so giddy right now, it's ridiculous.