Move on from QBs quickly

[sb1]

Way too soon to jump to conclusions about Stid either way. And no a 4 pass sample size in garbage time isn’t relevant to form those conclusions.

 

[sb1]

If Newton was going to be that guy he would have shown it by now. He isn't if he plays well this year we should trade him for value. I don't think Stiddy is the guy either. If he is they wouldn't have got Newton. This is a dead year. Could still be fun to watch at times, but we aren't winning.

Cam hasn’t won the job yet.

I think if the coaching staff really believed Stidham is not the guy he would be gone already... and they would have backed up the Brinks truck to jump to a spot to get Tua or another elite college QB.

 

[Elijah]

I think there's a difference between keeping a guy on your team for years and years hoping he'll improve and acquiring a player who couldn't make it happen on his old team.

Who's to say Newton was on the right team to succeed? I know that point is kind of silly considering he's 31, but crazier things have happened.

Also, Newton may not have a ring, but his overall body of work is as good as some QBs who do have a ring. Maybe those QBs (like Flacco, Eli, Foles) wouldn't be the answer either, but it seems pretty fallacious to say Newton hasn't proven *anything*. Dude won MVP.

We aren't talking about a career where he kept getting the starting job out of indifference/complacency. It's a guy who's been close to the pinnacle but for a few different converging reasons didn't get all the way there.

I don't think he's our probable answer, especially long term. I feel that way about Stidham as well. But to frame this as the QB equivalent of hiring Jeff Fisher is dishonest.

 

[Hyped]

I think a good QB to use in this discussion would be Drew Bledsoe.

Let's say for argument's sake that Bledsoe was in his 4th year going into the 2020 season....would we all feel that we had a shot at winning? I say yes. Bledsoe never became "great", but was "good" and more than enough to win with a team that had a loaded secondary/solid OL/good RB corps.

 

[Captain Cliche]

Franchise QB contracts are approaching "crippling" levels.
Would it be better to have adequate QB's on their rookie contracts and field a more complete team?
This is not an original idea. I have seen it put out somewhere.
Defenses still win championships.
If anyone could work that system, it's BB.

I believe that is exactly what Lamar Jackson is.
I think the Ravens will wear him out and move on.

 

[Vindicate]

My point is year 2 matters and year 3 doesn't. Cut bait before year 3. Holding out hope that year 3 will be different just doesn't pay off in my analysis. GMs are almost certainly wasting that precious year and not trading a guy while they could still get value.

Look at these 2 options and see what I mean

A) Hold on for that 3rd year? 99% failure rate and no value on the prospect. Lose 1 year.

B) Trade before 3rd year. Save 1 year. Get value back. Draft again in an area where a prospect has a 10-11% rate of hitting.

Keep in mind I have no proof that 99% failure rate. It could be a little lower. But certain it isn't as good as drafting again. There is no reason to hold on past year 2 from a value perspective and I think the evidence backs that up.

So I'll admit right out of the gates: a lot of words have been posted, a lot of which I haven't read. Lol. So if you've covered this, sorry.

But I'd imagine a big reason teams won't move on as quickly as you suggest is they're either not in position to make a move for another QB, OR there simply aren't many to pick from. If I have a QB who hasn't shown to be that x-factor by year 4, but my team has been winning enough, I'm out of position to draft a promising QB and because if cap space and player availability, or both, it makes sense to keep what I've got and try to make it work while building great positional units and biding time for a QB transition.