Mage

Deshaun Watson will either be a Cleveland Brown or Seattle Seahawk by Wednesday.

He went 11-5 and 10-6 in his 2 full seasons before 2020. It is far more likely 2020 was an aberration rather than it ever being the norm. Great QBs like Watson almost always lead competitive teams.

Hot garbage player

The NFL is a business. They punish people for making the shield look bad, not because of criminal things they may have done. That is the law's job.

Lol any player can get hurt. So why ever trade for a player?

Exactly. I can't think of a single 3-year stretch where I'd take our 1st round picks over Watson (exc. Cam, obviously). I'd even trade McCaffrey/Moore/Burns for Watson.

He'll get 10 games at the most. More than likely 4 or 6 games. Ben got 4 games. Rice got 2 games, and the only reason it ever got made into a season-long thing is because the video got released and the public outrage was too bad of a PR problem for the league.

Ya'll are overvaluing draft picks Are you telling me you wouldn't trade Brown, Burns, and Horn for Watson? Because those are our last 3 1st round picks. Hell we had a stretch where our picks were Benjamin, Thompson, and Butler. You telling me you wouldn't have traded those picks for a franchise QB? There are other ways to improve your team outside of the draft, and a team with a franchise QB is almost always MUCH more aggressive and willing in free agency than a team without a QB. It would absolutely be worth it, IF Watson never got in trouble again.

If Watson never gets in trouble again the rest of his career, then he absolutely is worth that trade package. I think some of ya'll are really underestimating how much a franchise QB changes things. Even the Texans who have never been a well-ran organization and even behind horrible OLs, he led them to 10+ wins in 2018 and 2019. And he's 26 with near-elite accuracy, he'll be great for a long, long time. Now yes the off-the-field issues are a massive concern and a good reason to not be for the deal. But if we're strictly talking the value of a young QB, the deal itself is fine if you trust and believe Watson will learn from all of this.

Out of the 4 players, I'd probably do Brown and Chinn. Maybe Horn if you have questions about his rehab, but a man corner is more important than a box safety. I still think Brown can be a great player, but Burns is the safer player to stick with going forward.

Tagging Reddick would be dumb. Very skilled pass rusher and seems like a solid leader, but we don't need him. I'd rather see that money committed to the OL or hell, the safety position. We really need a playmaking safety who can play over the top, allowing Chinn to drop down more. Gilmore isn't worth re-signing unless he's taking a huge discount, and why would he do that? Jackson, I'm iffy about. If all he wants is #2 CB money, then hell yeah. I think he's a great corner to pair with Horn. But anything more than that and it is a hard pass.

So then you agree, it doesn't matter if a QB has to sit for the first 2 years, all that matters is how good they ultimately end up being?

The trade for Sam Darnold was not a bad idea. The physical talent was/is there and while his final year with New York was terrible, he showed a lot of promise in his 2nd year. 19 TDs in 13 games. All of his years in New York were better than his year with us, actually. The fact of the matter is sometimes, you have to take risks to get a QB. Trading for Darnold was a relatively low-risk move. The problem was, and always has been, picking up the 5th-year option. We could have gotten around not having a 2nd round pick this year - a 2nd round pick does not make or break a football team. But to make that financial commitment to Darnold was stupid as hell both at the time and in retrospect. We're in a position now where the move that makes the most sense is to just ride with him as a starter, but the team won't do that because they know the fans will revolt. But like I said, I don't think the trade itself was bad. It was a risky trade at a QB of importance. We aren't the only team that has done that. I'd argue the Colts have been a very well-run organization over the last several years since hiring Reich (not implying that we are one, because we aren't currently) and they traded a 1st-round pick for a QB they are probably going to have to cut. I can't hate a team for taking a risk on a former top-five pick. They just should have never, ever picked up his option.

This is such a flawed, misguided way of thinking. If a guy turns into an elite QB, who cares if it took him 2 years of learning on the sidelines?

Nothing changed, because he never said that It was only the same few posters who kept pushing the, "Watson doesn't want to come here" narrative. It was never reported that Watson wouldn't waive his no-trade clause for Carolina. All that was ever said was that as of the moment, Watson hadn't waived it (not that he would never do it). Because guess what? Miami was his #1 choice. It never had anything to do with him flat-out not wanting to come to Carolina... but the same posters kept pushing that same narrative no matter how many times it was disputed.

.... Okay? What does that have to do with my post?

I'm not saying I want us to trade for Cousins, because I don't. But he's definitely way better than mediocre. 124 TDs to 36 INTs since 2018. Even if you argue he is not as good as the numbers he puts up, and I think there is a fair argument there, he's still a lot better than mediocre. Cousins to me is in that 12-14 range for QBs, which is pretty good. And for all his faults, he was far from the reason the Vikings missed the playoffs last year.

Horrible

A lot of people on this forum are going to be looking real stupid if DJ Moore ever gets to play in a functional offense with a good QB.

I miss the days when this was one of the biggest reasons to complain about the Panthers.

The thing is, every single 1st round guy last year is a much better prospect than Pickett. Jones as a prospect gets super underrated. His accuracy was unbelievable. Great mechanics. Your prototypical pocket passer. You question his ceiling, but he was a very safe prospect. Pickett is risky as hell, and I'd also argue his ceiling is limited too. I think Pickett maxes out as a top 12 kind of guy. Which if he hits that, is worth taking in the 1st, but LIS that is his max to me. More than likely I see him being a Daniel Jones kind of guy. Someone who shows flashes but never puts it all together.

If Kenny Pickett is the best QB on the board, then we do not need to be drafting a QB in the 1st. And I like Pickett. I really do. His play-style is exciting and easy to love as a fan. But I wouldn't take him in the 1st.

I thought Fox took over more control of the defense down the stretch that year, but I could be wrong.

I have no dog in this fight However, an NFL ball is bigger than a college ball. So how Pickett managed to protect the ball in college isn't what concerns scouts (not to mention he wore gloves). It is if he can consistently and effectively grip the larger NFL ball. Which is why his combine and/or Pro Day will be important. Again, no dog in the fight. I really have no idea how he'll look throwing. I think it is a wait-and-see kind of thing.

How does that not more or less prove what I'm saying? It falls down to luck. The same team you are praising for drafting Aaron Rodgers, also drafted scrubs like Brian Brohm, Huntley, and in all likelihood, Love. I mean you really think the Patriots drafting Tom Brady has anything to do with anything other than mostly luck? Get real lol if the Patriots had any idea Brady would turn out the way he did, he wouldn't have fell to the 6th. Yeah sure they probably had a solid evaluation on him vs other teams, but again it was a lucky pick that they ended up with the GOAT. You made a post implying smart teams can do it in 1 pick. I replied giving you examples of organizations who needed to trade up to get the guy they want. It comes down to luck and where you are at in the draft. Yes you can obviously get a guy later in the draft, but your chances of hitting are greatly diminished. Then for some reason you responded saying, "smart teams have to make the right evaluation," as if that was ever what was being disputed. But yeah I'm "arguing for the sake of arguing," when my initial post was me just giving you a list of examples of teams lol And why don't you answer my questions? You said teams that need to use less resources to get their QB are smarter than teams who do. So are the Bengals, who fell into the #1 overall pick, a smarter team than the Bills? And don't try and backtrack and add context now, considering this is what you flat-out said: This is a point-blank statement made by you, suggesting that it makes you smarter if you can get a QB while expending fewer resources. Bengals used fewer resources to get said QB than the Bills or Chiefs did. So the Bengals are smarter. Correct?