Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Gantt weighs in on Deshaun Watson and Matt Stafford


Zod
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, spizike99x said:

Last I checked a healthy Deshaun Watson, who’s team went 10-6 lost to the Kyle Allen/Ron Rivera Panthers 16-10. Didn’t throw a single TD. Went 21-33 with 160 yards. So why are you guys trying to rip on Stafford that had a thumb injury and played for the Lions that were clearly not on board with Matt Patricia anymore. I’m not trying to be a Matt Stafford apologist here but a lot of the stuff people say on here is clearly biased. 

I literally laughed out loud after reading this post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

https://theathletic.com/2341968/2021/01/24/detroit-lions-nfl-mock-draft-matthew-stafford/

 

This has us trading the 8 pick for Stafford. 

 

Needless to say I would lose my mind if we did this

Unfortunately I think its going to take a 1st, I just think ours it too high.

It makes a lot of sense for a team like Indy or the Patriots or the 49ers.  Spend a 1st on Stafford or Trask?  Spend a 1st on Stafford or Jones?  You can see why that wouldn't be too hard to convince yourself to do.

In some ways it is going to be hard for us to make that trade.  We might feel like our #8 is to much, but what do we give instead.  Next years 1st? 

Honestly I think Detroit is probably wanting a first this year that they can package with 7 and move up this year for a QB.  A 2021 1st probably will be more attractive for that than a future one or multiple lower picks this year.  I don't think a player is really that enticing for Detroit unless they can use that player to move up, but then the team you are trading with might not player.  Just seems like a 1st this year is the best currency they can want if their goal is to move up in the draft.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how in this thread the article was saying that Watson isn't vastly...I can repeat for the Huddle since Huddle do what it do but *vastly* better than Stafford. And that is a true statement. Then we have someone posted stats that confirmed that and then said the opposite somehow lol.

vast·ly
/ˈvas(t)lē/
adverb
  1. to a very great extent; immensely.

Then we had someone knock the idea of value rofl. This poo is always great.
If we got Stafford for just one first round pick that is a much better deal than trading at minimum 3 first round picks. Given our new GMs take we would still be drafting QBs to develop while we had a hypothetical Stafford. We could also expect to see some trade downs given that we have a higher 2nd and 3rd round pick this year to get us more selections.

As a Clemson fan I'd love to get Watson but it's just inarguable that Staffords price tag is a better deal and it's laughable at some of the trade ideas in addition to 3 first rounders that some on here have put forth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

Stafford will want to be traded to a playoff contending team, we are not that. 

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE:

If we sign Stafford, trade back for a few picks, address OT, CB, LB, TE---and we get CMC back, and we sign a G--

And Brees has retired, Brady and Ryan not far behind...I would think this could be a situation a vet QB might like.

I think we can compete for a playoff spot in 2021.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE:

If we sign Stafford, trade back for a few picks, address OT, CB, LB, TE---and we get CMC back, and we sign a G--

And Brees has retired, Brady and Ryan not far behind...I would think this could be a situation a vet QB might like.

I think we can compete for a playoff spot in 2021.

Not say the win now approach will not work going after a veteran QB, it just doesn't set up for long term success.  If going that route, we would have to get a lock down CB in FA to go on the other side of the ball. Our porous secondary is about a putrid as the QB play, so one need would necessitate the other going for the quick fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 45catfan said:

Not say the win now approach will not work going after a veteran QB, it just doesn't set up for long term success.  If going that route, we would have to get a lock down CB in FA to go on the other side of the ball. Our porous secondary is about a putrid as the QB play, so one need would necessitate the other going for the quick fix.

Stafford isn't even the win now approach as that term is usually applied. It just doesn't fug our first round picks going forward and gives us an actual QB for the next 5 years while we draft and groom a QB for the system Rhule wants to run as even the OC will be gone sooner rather than later. We will still draft a QB within the first three rounds with Stafford as QB.

I would rather have either of those guys than a rookie 8th pick and Watson is worth 3 firsts I honestly don't see this current regime giving up more than that. I don't get the impression at all that Tepper/Rhule/Fitterer feel it's Watson or bust or that they aren't smart enough to get someone on their own. Would be interesting to see how much Hurney taught them about what not to do lol. Tepper didn't exactly sing his praises when we retained him and as poo as Hurney is Tepper is even less experienced so he even said he used this time to learn.

I like a lot of what I've heard from this owner and that is independent of how it actually turns out. I've seen smart people make decisions that don't pan out and I've seen it a lot. The stuff he says and the way in which he has been conducting this isn't incompetent. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, philit99 said:

I think Stafford would give us a better chance to compete quickly. Watsons contract and trade requirements would set us back 4-5 years. We could compete with Stafford in 1-2 years. Longevity is the big problem, Stafford has 5 years left tops, Watson has 10-12 years left. Question is do we want to win now and need to retool faster, or take the 5 year plan?

I dune know what have yall the idea that these are valid points. But i don't care what we get rid of, DeShawn won't be down for long. Then, the staff is responsible to make It happen right along wth Watson cuz he is the truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • A lot of people have been slobbing all over this last draft but I hate the way that Fitterer/Morgan have built this offense since drafting Bryce. Anyone with eyes knew our IOL was crap but we didn't invest there and instead took project receivers and an injured RB. If you want a lesson in how build for your QB wrong, IMO, this was it. Draft him, protect him, THEN get him weapons. Its pretty much a rule, draft interior linemen, pay tackles. We're paying everyone. We had the opportunity to draft a center instead of Brooks, or perhaps instead of trading up for XL, trade back and take 2 guards/center. We could have paid Lewis and still drafted 2, but Hunt at 100m was just an overpay. And it's not like the guys many of us were begging us to draft were long shots. They're solid starters from day 1. Injuries happen. That's why all your starters can't be high value players. You need rookie contracts mixed in to be able to absorb those inevitable losses on the line. An offensive line playing an entire season together is an abnormality.  Factor into that also paying Moton 44m this offseason with a huge signing bonus when we didnt need to do right now to do him a "solid".  Now we have to sign Icky and possibly Bryce and it's a mess with more money tied up in the offense, inevitable cuts and dead cap coming. That's not even factoring in shifting Corbett to C last year after major injury to start at a position he's never played for an NFL season. It's all stuff that was foreseeable and pretty easily avoided.  The $$ and picks we've spent trying to surround Bryce outside of Tmac (Mitchell and Horn are TBD) have been used inefficiently IMO. Smarter drafting and FA with the line could have let us get more reliable weapons than XL and Sanders in FA. It might not be popular opinion, but I'll take a Bersin with hands that can get 6-8 85% of the time vs a big play XL with greasy fingers.  The part about hitting guys in stride was more about placement, which Bryce has struggled with. Obviously not every route is run to be hit in stride, but they do need to have the ball placed well to give the receivers a chance to do something after the catch. I just used Hill as an example because he's the biggest YAC threat I could think of over the past 5 years.   Receivers can feast on dink and dunk if it's schemed right. But to make it work, that vertical threat has to be there, if not the deep pass then the high speed routes that can spring someone for the huge YAC to keep the safeties from cheating into that 20 yard box all game.  I hope DC and Bryce can keep up what they did in the last game and it isnt just an Atlanta thing. But no matter what, I really want to see some better long term strategy coming from the FO. 
    • Eh. Don't speak it into existence lol. We've got enough on our plate just trying to overcome the bad juju of what has been our historically bad perfomances more often than not in primetime over the course of 30 years. We're overdue for a statement primetime game!
    • Passing chart had 3 over 20 I think. The Legette TD and another completion and an incompletion. All over 20 yards.  An incompletion at 19 or maybe 20 yards. So you could technically probably say 4 throws 20 or more.     That seems high to me compared to the norm. 45 throws and 10 YPA are both way high.   
×
×
  • Create New...