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!

     

Would you trade for Russell Wilson if it's a better deal than trying for Watson?


musicman
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, top dawg said:

Wilson hasn't really said anything on that scale. He's let the speculation linger out there though. He seems like he's posturing more than anything else. But, you never know. TB12's move and success with the Bucs probably got a lot of the 30+-year-old signal caller's minds to thinking.

 

Neither one has really "said" anything so I was probably a bit sloppy in my response. The PR coming from the Wilson camp seems more about getting him more power within the organization whereas the PR coming from Watson's camp seems more genuinely about getting out of Houston. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not interested. I personally believe that Wilson is approaching a decline. He isn't the biggest in structure, and has had to consistently scramble and taken sacks for many years years now. If you go back and see how he started the season compared to how he finished, I actually thought he slowed down last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ivan The Awesome said:

I'm going to try and answer this objectively. 

Given the parameters of your structured inquiry. I would have to say yes. If it costs less than Watson, age be damned. Depending on the cost, the value is high for Wilson and with this offense, if CMC, WR corp is kept in this scenario. Yes. I would absolutely want Wilson for a lesser cost than Watson. 

If you're talking about a 1st and a second next year. Yes. Does not break the bank and he would still theoretically be available at least 5 years. Not selling the farm for him, with at least 4 years to build around him. But given the fact that this defense is young and the offense is not as bad as some may think, Wilson would turn this franchise around. If we are talking about 3 1st, then no..I do not want him. 

That’s pretty much where I’m at with this too. I don’t like him, but having good QB play again is far more important and at a less crippling cost, we could be competitive right away

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ready 2 Win said:

I would jump all over that if we had a decent O-Line to protect him. Cam and his mobility allowed us to seemingly neglect the O-Line for years.  If we are not going to put some big boys with talent up in front then I want the youngest and fastest QB option possible.

Our Oline was decent last year. With the picks we save this way we can treat the oline like we treated the defense in the draft last year. Resign, or at least tag, Moton, draft LT with our first pick (hell, if someone we like is still there in the mid to late first I wouldn’t mind trading next years first to trade back into the first). Then the next few picks get spent on the interior oline.  With that strategy we could be even better than last year on the oline

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2021 at 10:59 PM, Udogg said:

 

Me too.. I just can't put my finger on why.  He just seems so ...so... 

As a person he seems like a good dude.  Does a lot of charity work. good family man etc.. 

But I don't like him... that about it.  

Thats because it's all an act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
    • Not a chance the SEC could compete with the NFL.  In the large cities that are not in the Southeast, (LA, NYC, Chicago, SF) College football is an afterthought.  
×
×
  • Create New...