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!

     

If We Don't Go QB in the 1st Round, Who is Your QB?


Proudiddy

Recommended Posts

honestly my biggest issue with alex smith is his inconsistency. He can look great one minute and terrible the next. I do wonder if a great QB coach and solid OC couldn't resurrect his career.

However, I don't know if I want to take that risk with this team. He's an intriguing option, and certainly an upgrade over Clausen, but I'm not certain what he'd cost and I don't know he'd be our best long-term option. I would almost have an older QB as a mentor for our younger guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a clausen fan either but the fact is luck is staying in Standford and it is very unlikely we acquire him in next years draft because i truly believe we will not be the worst team in the nfl we have to groom the young qbs we have. So hopefully we will pick up a young efficient passer in FA or the draft maybe make a move for Matt Flynn QB from Green Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a bit of value in a player who is always brought back to be on the roster, despite young players being drafted. Whilst he might not have the skills on the field, it would suggest he has the right skills off the field, or is at least a very good second pair of eyes.

Like most have said, you bring in a Volek or Bulger IF you are sold on clausen, because you want the best safety net you can get. If you are not sold on Clausen you take a chance on someone like Smith etc as they might have just needed knew scenery to blossom.

The point is, you pick up the Qb who suits what you need. If you want to give Clausen the start, then you need a QB who can teach him and fill in in a pinch.

if you are going to have a vet QB on the sidelines, i would rather it be someone with some actual playtime. he has been in the league for 10 years and started 10 games...most of which he has lost. sorry, thats not somehting that is appealing to me. i would rather have someone who has won in the league than a lifetime scrub helping our QBs.

I don't get the opposition to Volek. He obviously isn't a long-term answer but we're not looking for one from a FA. He's in the black on TD/INT ratio, has a career completion percentage in the neighborhood of 60%, and any time he's been given significant time he's been solid. He'd be pretty good for the stop gap/mentor role while we get our poo together on offense.
i don't see what is so appealing about a guy that has a 3-7 career record who has been in the league for 10 years. sorry, i would not consider that solid. why the appeal? he's just that guy you mention when you a desperate for a scrub QB backup and you can't think of anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way you changed the context of my post you seem to be saying that Alex Smith should not be an option.
you would be correct. i don't want anything to do with him. not even for cheap.

i'm tired of piss poor QB ideas. i'm tired of looking at failed QB projects and hoping that we could make something out of it. really, it's embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's surreal how much people reject drafting and developing in this fanbase.

oh, that's right, because they're looking for the easy way out of here. QBs you don't have to develop in your system, don't spend too much, blah blah blah. We got incredibly lucky with Delhomme, and everyone thinks it's going to be that easy again. Moreover, we had two awful QB coaches. Rip Scherer did a terrible job coaching this unit, and Mike McCoy barely did anything and skated by for so long only because Jake played decent enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orton is the most successful QB on the market and has put up good numbers.. especially his TD/INT ratio the past 2 years.. not horrible either his last year in Chicago (considering there was no real offense to help him out)

Clausen (as should be expected) is going to take 2-4 years to develop and may turn out to be a real solid QB..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orton is the most successful QB on the market and has put up good numbers.. especially his TD/INT ratio the past 2 years.. not horrible either his last year in Chicago (considering there was no real offense to help him out)

Clausen (as should be expected) is going to take 2-4 years to develop and may turn out to be a real solid QB..

Orton is not a free agent. Denver are reportedly asking for a 2nd...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...