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!

     

No quarterbacks in the draft


Mr. Scot

Recommended Posts

Not this year anyway. Having thought it over, I just can't get behind it.

I've previously been willing to accept the notion of a guy in the later rounds (no one interests me in the first or second, for sure) but for now, even that is off the table for me.

Why?

Youth.

We've already got two young quarterbacks in the mix from last year's draft. What's the real point of throwing yet another youngster in if he's not a franchise caliber guy (and with Luck staying in school, none of those are available) :nonod:

I'd much rather pick up a vet like Billy Volek, re-sign Matt Moore and give him a shot in camp, and go from there.

If it doesn't work out, maybe you can engineer a shot at another franchise quality QB in the draft or free agency. But for this year, there was only one franchise QB in the draft, and he's not coming. The free agent class may not be great, but at least it offers a little balance in the age department.

Sorry fans of Newton, Gabbert, Locker, Mallett, Taylor and anyone else. I just can't get behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pretty much what I've said. Nobody this draft is polished enough to be worth it. They are all projects. Some have more upside, some look damn fine and many have very good chances of being great QBs down the line but we already have a QB analysts thought could be a great QB down the line and is a project... so meh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what I been saying for months. We got a rookie qb throwing to rookie wr and you want to go out and get another rookie qb and expect us to be better next year. Really?

Get someone who has played for a while and can actually read a defense and understand what he sees on the field and audible into a good play every now and then. Even if Luck would have come out we still need to get a qb with some experience for next year (if there is a next year).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also add there's no one I want to see us trade for, either (no one we could realistically get, anyway, unless Denver comes way down on Kyle Orton's asking price).

Right now my vote is for Billy Volek. He's likely the best stopgap available.

and Rex Grossman :D would make for some entertaining games at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is on the roster or potentially obtainable that would be better?

It depends how good you think McNabb is. I loved him in Philly and thought he was a top 5 QB. Out of that system, he doesn't cut it. He's old and when he talks he doesn't sound like he wants to mentor anyone. Can you imagine the poo storm if he actually got benched for Clausen?

Currently his talents aren't worth his cost and potential headache. Plus I doubt he comes to a 2-14 team at the end of his career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...