Watson not the only big name vet at QB that we're looking at?

[TheRumGone]

3 minutes ago, Verge said:

People should definitely get it out of their minds that CMC wouldn't be potentially involved in the trade for Watson. Everything is on the table right now.

Have you heard some rumblings?

[Jon Snow]

2 minutes ago, Verge said:

People should definitely get it out of their minds that CMC wouldn't be potentially involved in the trade for Watson. Everything is on the table right now.

He won't be involved because nobody but Hurney would give CMC a contract like he has.  He's great but that contract makes him virtually untradable to any sane GM.  But stranger things have happened.  We would still be in the hook for the bonus money.  I just don't see any reasonable way you can pull it off.

[onmyown]

28 minutes ago, BigCat#1 said:

I'll take anything over teddy

Which is this forums biggest problem. It’s not about last year or even this coming year, it’s the bigger picture.

Need to draft the next franchise QB and have patience.

Edited January 20, 2021 by onmyown

[blackcat]

Always liked Stafford, he's the antithesis of Teddy, which makes me like him more.

[LinvilleGorge]

Stafford would probably be another bridge type QB, but a helluva lot better bridge than Teddy.

[NAS]

No thanks,  Stafford is on the back end of this career.

[WarHeel]

1 hour ago, joemac said:

Now thats interesting.  I would be totally fine with Stafford and the weapons we have on offense.  He could put up video game numbers in our system.

Would likely be a whole helluva lot cheaper than Watson as wel.

This. I don’t think we need a Watson caliber player to compete for a Lombardi with the weapons we have as long as we protect the QB and don’t become anemic on defense. This move makes a lot of sense.

[AU-panther]

30 minutes ago, SOJA said:

Here would be my ideal power ranking of the options

1: Teddy, 8th this year, future first, and CMC for Watson 

2: Trade up to 2nd overall with #8, future first, and second this year. Draft Wilson

3: Trade a second rounder for Stafford 

Everyone keeps offering too little.  Jamal Adams went for two 1st, a safety.  Go look at the RG3 trade or the Mack trade.

Watson -  more like three 1st and a good player such as CMC or Burns, maybe a 2nd also or another player

2nd pick - Probably our next three 1st, RG3 was three 1st and and a 2nd.

Stafford - depending on where the team is picking, possible a 1st

 

[BurnNChinn]

39 minutes ago, @bonafidebanter said:

lol @ Matt Stafford

Did you mean to laugh at us playing Turdy Bridgewater, because Stafford is a whole hell of lot better.

[BurnNChinn]

36 minutes ago, Verge said:

People should definitely get it out of their minds that CMC wouldn't be potentially involved in the trade for Watson. Everything is on the table right now.

And that is dumb as hell, just like when u thought Little should have been a first round pick for the Panthers.

[@bonafidebanter]

1 minute ago, BurnNChinn said:

Did you mean to laugh at us playing Turdy Bridgewater, because Stafford is a whole hell of lot better.

Nah, I'm lol'ing because Matt Stafford isn't the answer. That's some short sighted ish, but go ahead.

[kungfoodude]

16 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Stafford would probably be another bridge type QB, but a helluva lot better bridge than Teddy.

About the same price as Teddy too.

[BurnNChinn]

1 minute ago, @bonafidebanter said:

Nah, I'm lol'ing because Matt Stafford isn't the answer. That's some short sighted ish, but go ahead.

Stafford is not bad at all plus I can quit hearing these dumb people say get rid of cmc.

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

Everyone keeps offering too little.  Jamal Adams went for two 1st, a safety.  Go look at the RG3 trade or the Mack trade.

Watson -  more like three 1st and a good player such as CMC or Burns, maybe a 2nd also or another player

2nd pick - Probably our next three 1st, RG3 was three 1st and and a 2nd.

Stafford - depending on where the team is picking, possible a 1st

 

Remember that Watson can tank his trade value with that no trade clause. It isn't a "free market" trade scenario