Schefter: WAS should trade Cousins now

[miloofcroton]

Hey man, just got done reviewing his tape as a pro.

for a 16 game season he projects out to:

16 games, Zero wins, 55% completed passes, 2490 yards, and 11tds to 16 ints.

Good luck with those 10 superbowls in 10 years.

Not a single team in the league, seeing what they saw of Goff would choose Goff over any of the starters in the league right now under 29.

Bad rookie stats for first overall QBs are not unprecedented. Not only are they rookies and learning everything (hard enough), but they're generally surrounded by the least talent with some of the worst coaching.

Again: The history of first starts for quarterbacks drafted No. 1 overall | FOX Sports

> Not a single team in the league, seeing what they saw of Goff would choose Goff over any of the starters in the league right now under 29.

Not sure if serious...

 

[BlacknGold77]

I want to win 10 Super Bowls in 10 years, and for that I need a QB who can throw for 5,000 yards in a season, is always a threat to score 28 points in a half, kind of like we witnessed in the Super Bowl this year, and is at the top of his game in the playoffs. I know Wilson can't lead this type of offense. And for all of his great traits, I don't think those requirements can be met by Carr either. On the other hand, Goff has the potential to get there, so I'm going to take him, despite being a less-sure thing.

you have a better chance of accomplishing the above with Mark Sanchez than with Goff.

Let's prove you wrong...once again...with stats:

Russell Wilson's 5 yrs at QB, the Hawks are 9, 8, 10, 4, 18 in the NFL in points scored.

For his career (80 games) he has 18,193 yds, 127 td, 64.7 comp%, 99.6 rating. Plus another 2,689 yds rushing and 13 rushing td

Derek Carr has, in 47 games, 11,194 yds, 81 td, 87.9 rating. And has turned around the Raiders.

year 1: 31st in points, 3-13 record
year 3: 7th in points, 12-4 record

You keep ignoring the fact that there are multiple young QBs that were put into situations just as bad as Goff was and have completely blown him out of the water in production.

Winston in Tampa, Mariota in Tenn, Carr in Oakland. All 3 have run laps around Goff in equally bad situations as rookies.

Goff is projecting to top out as the next Josh McCown...

 

[miloofcroton]

you have a better chance of accomplishing the above with Mark Sanchez than with Goff.

Let's prove you wrong...once again...with stats:

Russell Wilson's 5 yrs at QB, the Hawks are 9, 8, 10, 4, 18 in the NFL in points scored.

For his career (80 games) he has 18,193 yds, 127 td, 64.7 comp%, 99.6 rating. Plus another 2,689 yds rushing and 13 rushing td

Derek Carr has, in 47 games, 11,194 yds, 81 td, 87.9 rating. And has turned around the Raiders.

year 1: 31st in points, 3-13 record
year 3: 7th in points, 12-4 record

You keep ignoring the fact that there are multiple young QBs that were put into situations just as bad as Goff was and have completely blown him out of the water in production.

Winston in Tampa, Mariota in Tenn, Carr in Oakland. All 3 have run laps around Goff in equally bad situations as rookies.

Goff is projecting to top out as the next Josh McCown...

Your counter examples don't refute my examples of QBs that had terrible rookie showings and went on to great careers.

 

[varjao]

No... Wentz and Dak are in the same tier as Goff, so there's no reason to choose Goff over them. I'm not saying I would or wouldn't. That's a closer call that I would have to think about.

Wilson and Carr? Wilson is an easy decision. Carr less so. However, let's go back and look at my priors... I want to win 10 Super Bowls in 10 years, and for that I need a QB who can throw for 5,000 yards in a season, is always a threat to score 28 points in a half, kind of like we witnessed in the Super Bowl this year, and is at the top of his game in the playoffs. I know Wilson can't lead this type of offense. And for all of his great traits, I don't think those requirements can be met by Carr either. On the other hand, Goff has the potential to get there, so I'm going to take him, despite being a less-sure thing.

1st Bold:
Wentz is in a tier above Goff, he did show much more from the get go and actually won some games. Goff in 7 starts has 7 L's. I'm not even going to bring Prescott in the conversation, he's 2 or 3 tiers above Goff if that's possible, in terms of QB we have 3-5 tiers depending on how you want to label things, but there is no comparison right now.

2nd Bold:
Man you are insane, what Goff has shown in the NFL that makes you believe in that? Potential? I do have that potential as well, if I were an NFL player, we are going so subjective here that this conversation makes no sense.

Mr. Goff Senior, control yourself. Your son right now is practice squad material.

 

[chasa]

Bad rookie stats for first overall QBs are not unprecedented. Not only are they rookies and learning everything (hard enough), but they're generally surrounded by the least talent with some of the worst coaching.

Again: The history of first starts for quarterbacks drafted No. 1 overall | FOX Sports

> Not a single team in the league, seeing what they saw of Goff would choose Goff over any of the starters in the league right now under 29.

Not sure if serious...

Want to know how serious i am?

Even his OWN team is considering starting someone else. Sean McVay: Jared Goff has improved but the best QB will play for Rams

 

[Alternator]

The only answer that makes sense is to trade Brissett, unless you're suggesting Brissett could be better than Jimmy G. You want to keep the better QB talent no matter what you can get in return in a trade.

(that's assuming you wanted or had to trade one of the two)

Brissett is on a rookie contract, Jimmy G would require a franchise tag or long-term contract worth similar dollars per year, which should land somewhere around $22m/year. The motive behind trading Jimmy instead of Jacoby isn't that Jacoby would be better - it's that he's cheaper, and would only be serving as a backup for now. (We're ignoring for now that nobody WANTS to trade for Jacoby - this is purely a hypothetical, and can be equally well used to justify why the Patriots would prefer Jacoby next year.)

Would you rather have Jimmy G as backup/future QB, or would you rather have Brissett + sign Butler long-term at 14m/year + cover 70% of the cost to re-sign Solder at $11m/year + whatever some team would give up for a half-season of Jimmy (say a mid-round pick, with a conditional second mid-rounder)? How much safer do you have to believe Jimmy is as the future QB before that trade balances out?

 

[miloofcroton]

Brissett is on a rookie contract, Jimmy G would require a franchise tag or long-term contract worth similar dollars per year, which should land somewhere around $22m/year. The motive behind trading Jimmy instead of Jacoby isn't that Jacoby would be better - it's that he's cheaper, and would only be serving as a backup for now. (We're ignoring for now that nobody WANTS to trade for Jacoby - this is purely a hypothetical, and can be equally well used to justify why the Patriots would prefer Jacoby next year.)

Would you rather have Jimmy G as backup/future QB, or would you rather have Brissett + sign Butler long-term at 14m/year + cover 70% of the cost to re-sign Solder at $11m/year + whatever some team would give up for a half-season of Jimmy (say a mid-round pick, with a conditional second mid-rounder)? How much safer do you have to believe Jimmy is as the future QB before that trade balances out?

You're definitely asking the right questions.