|
|
|
| Quote: |
| 17 Deshaun Watson trade proposals, ranked from least likely to most likely to happen in the 2021 NFL offseason #12) New York Giants Giants send: 11th overall pick in 2021, 2022 first-round pick, 2023 first-round pick, QB Daniel Jones Texans send: 2023 fourth-round pick, QB Deshaun Watson Jones showed virtually no growth in his second season, as his numbers stagnated or declined across the board. He missed two-plus games with injuries and led the league in fumbles for the second consecutive season. The best arguments that he's an NFL-caliber starting quarterback consist of his frame and the fact that at least one team thought he was worth the sixth overall pick in the 2019 draft. I'm not sure anybody is higher on Jones than the guy who would be trading him away, Giants general manager Dave Gettleman. Jones is still young enough to improve, but he hasn't been good enough for the Texans to plan their future around him, which leaves the Giants in a bind. Would they be willing to send three first-rounders and Jones to get a deal done? And after seeing one former Pats coach sink his franchise, would Watson want to go play for another Bill Belichick disciple in Joe Judge? |
Beyond stupid trade for a guy who hasn't won shit
Quote:
is not to get a better QB. It's to build a better team.
That trade proposal accomplishes the former, but hinders the latter.
you are totally mistaken. The point of the new NFL, the game within the game, is to get a better QB above all else, because this is more of a QB league than ever before. Look at the teams in the final 8. Look at the semis. Look at the Super Bowl matchup. It's the teams with the best QBs. I know you guys want to squabble over this LB prospect and that TE prospect... great teams get their QB - period. When Mahomes came out Andy Reid had a perfectly fine QB in Alex Smith, he traded him in for Mahomes and went from a good team to a champion. The Saints were going to add Mahomes if he fell to them and Drew Brees was breaking records. Wise up. QB is most of the reason the successful teams are successful.
Yes the teams in the Conference Championships all had great QB's, but the teams that WON those games were the more complete teams overall. Rodgers is probably a better QB than 43 year old Tom Brady, but ultimately did not win the game because of his defense and the fact that when the game was on the line his only reliable options were Davante Adams and Robert Tonyan. To paraphase Belichik,"this is still a [Tonyan] and [Adams] game - make them go to [Lazard], make them go to [St. Brown]." The playcalling did not do them any favors, but somebody else needed to step up and it just was not there. Green Bay's management doubles down on that by using their top 2 picks on a back-up QB and a third-string RB (who rarely saw the field). I think if Green Bay had Aiyuk, Higgins, or Pittman as their WR2, they win against Tampa.
Quote:
In comment 15136268 Victor in CT said:
Quote:
and Staubach all rolled into one. Amazing.
Love the Mike Lynn analogy Bill L. Spot on.
Just for fun, say you are picking players to start an NFL franchise. Who would you pick over 25 year old Watson? It gets kind of tough after Mahomes, and maybe Allen, doesn’t it?
But you're only getting one pick.
and as a new franchise your not trading any picks to get him, and you have a full cap allotment and all your future picks in hand.
But you need to be in the hunt to compete for the biggest prize. And those QBs were/are usually in the hunt. Right?
Quote:
Do Dan Marino and Dan Fouts have? Aaron Rodgers has one.
But you need to be in the hunt to compete for the biggest prize. And those QBs were/are usually in the hunt. Right?
I can't recall that far back. Were they always in the hunt. Also, serious question because I really can' recall circumstances; how did SD with Drew Brees (1st ballot guy) have the Eli pick?
Quote:
Do Dan Marino and Dan Fouts have? Aaron Rodgers has one.
But you need to be in the hunt to compete for the biggest prize. And those QBs were/are usually in the hunt. Right?
Depends what usually means.
Dan Fouts made the playoffs 4 times. The only years they finished 1st or 2nd in their division. For reference, they finished last 5 times while he was there.
Fouts would be considered a massive failure by you if he were a Giant.
Miami with Marino got the '85 SB v the 9ers and Montana. And seemed to always be lurking in the playoffs but struggled with the right D and running game. But I'll have to check.
And Rodgers speaks for himself.
Quote:
In comment 15136288 LauderdaleMatty said:
Quote:
Do Dan Marino and Dan Fouts have? Aaron Rodgers has one.
But you need to be in the hunt to compete for the biggest prize. And those QBs were/are usually in the hunt. Right?
I can't recall that far back. Were they always in the hunt. Also, serious question because I really can' recall circumstances; how did SD with Drew Brees (1st ballot guy) have the Eli pick?
My point is two of the best QBs ever didn't win a SB and while on some good teams didn't really challenge for a SB much.
SD was a mess. And I don't think. Brees played much at all that year
Made the playoffs 4 times.
Finished last in the division 5 times.
Finished next to last 5 times.
Yeah, I think more posters would vote "aye" on that instead...
And I'm willing to bet that Watson will never be as a good a QB as Fouts
Made the playoffs 4 times.
Finished last in the division 5 times.
Finished next to last 5 times.
Wasn't most of that pre-Coryell?
So, in that case to move up from 27 to 10 and get Mahomes (a better QB than Watson) cost just a 3rd and next year's 1st realistically.
KC already had Kelce, Hill (two of the best in the NFL at their position) and solid pieces elsewhere.
Price matters.
What the OP suggested the Giants do to get Watson would cost:
pick #11, two more 1st's and Daniel Jones and the Giants don't already have the core in place that KC did making it hard to surround Watson with winning talent. Plus Watson has a high $$$ contract unlike Mahomes at the time to allow KC to build in other areas (Marcus Peters, Frank Clark, Tyrann Mathieu, etc.)
At some point the cost to get the QB prevents you from being competitive. Add to it the cost to pay the QB makes it even harder since he's not on a rookie deal.
And the cost in the OP IMO is too steep for the Giants to overcome (without a shit load of luck) and as they say in my business hope and luck isn't a strategy.
Worked out just fine. Just saying.
Jones did show growth this season. HE won more games than he did in year 1. That counts, even if it's slight.
Quote:
the QB 14 years. He lost a year to injury.
Made the playoffs 4 times.
Finished last in the division 5 times.
Finished next to last 5 times.
Wasn't most of that pre-Coryell?
With Fouts/Coryell - went to the playoffs 4 times. Finished 4th or 5th in the division 4 times.
I'm not sure why that distinction is made. Great QB's rise above and elevate the team, right?
Worked out just fine. Just saying.
Jones did show growth this season. HE won more games than he did in year 1. That counts, even if it's slight.
Some people just can't comprehend the difference between QB's on rookie deals and veteran QB contracts.
Or maybe you can and I missed it.
Trades change things, but Watson's cap hits:
2021 $15M
2022 $40.4M
2023 $42.4M
2024 $34.7M
2025 $32M
A trade accelerates the guarantees, but Jones cap hits:
2021: $7M
2022: $8.3M
People will say "you can always create cap space"
sure, but at a cost, this is not a good trade for the Giants unless the goal is upgrade QB. This would end poorly.
I hope the Jets or WFT does it, not the Giants.
Worked out just fine. Just saying.
Jones did show growth this season. HE won more games than he did in year 1. That counts, even if it's slight.
There is always a point at which the cost becomes too much. The Giants almost didn't complete that trade because Accrosi wouldn't include Osi in the deal.
The Giants gave up a lot, but they did not just give up whatever it took.
For the acquiring team in a trade...that is.
Quote:
In comment 15136288 LauderdaleMatty said:
Quote:
Do Dan Marino and Dan Fouts have? Aaron Rodgers has one.
But you need to be in the hunt to compete for the biggest prize. And those QBs were/are usually in the hunt. Right?
Depends what usually means.
Dan Fouts made the playoffs 4 times. The only years they finished 1st or 2nd in their division. For reference, they finished last 5 times while he was there.
Fouts would be considered a massive failure by you if he were a Giant.
You’re not really comparing Watson and his winning pedigree and outlook to Foles and Garrapolo are you? You think he’s just another QB? C’mon, he’s a burgeoning young superstar who could give you a leg up on the rest of the NFC for the next 5 years or more.
So you think the Giants with Watson, no 1st or 3rd, and needing to cut people to create cap space are contenders?
because after 2021 his cap # increase significantly.
2) Giants giving up that much for Watson doesn't make sense
3) Jones can improve and become a really good QB, and we keep all of our assets
This. Watson is a very good QB, but he hasn’t won anything. Why do some people on here think this is a good idea? So he goes from one crappy team to another one that now has no first round picks for the next few years. We’re not a QB away from winning. We need all the draft picks we can get.
Made the playoffs 4 times.
Finished last in the division 5 times.
Finished next to last 5 times.
Quote:
pro bowl, dual threat QB who has never had a bad season since he stepped on an NFL field.
yeah he won all of 4 games this season. Apparently he can't do it alone therefore he must suck.
Yeah, but some of those losses were so close that, if they'd been Giants losses, many on here would be saying they were virtually wins.
I am also not sure how bringing up qbs from the early 2000s (who never won squat again) or from the 70s/80s has any relevance to the current NFL? You might as well be comparing the modern NFL to cage fighting, it is a completely different game now that favors offensive explosiveness - generally spearheaded by top qbs.
*THREE* 1st round picks and Jones who was one himself???
GTFO, ESPN! LOL
Quote:
cap hit is $10M+.
So you think the Giants with Watson, no 1st or 3rd, and needing to cut people to create cap space are contenders?
because after 2021 his cap # increase significantly.
Quote:
...For the team trading for Watson, the situation is slightly different. Watson would count just $10.54 million against their salary cap in 2021. That number would rise significantly in 2022 to $35 million and again to $37 million in 2023 before decreasing slightly to $32 million in each of the final two years of his contract. The hopes are that the league will be closer to normal circumstances in the 2021 season than they did in 2020. Therefore, the cap in 2022 and 2023 would be expected to rise above the 2021 figure, giving more flexibility to teams in the future....
Yes, I think Watson would make the Giants contenders because that biggest piece of the puzzle is solved. But I concede other hard work would need to be done. So the GM would have to be on their "A game" to figure it out...but that is their job description, right?
And, yes, the out-years of Watson's contract are higher, but you would have to re-negotiate those to alleviate some of the cap strain.
I am also not sure how bringing up qbs from the early 2000s (who never won squat again) or from the 70s/80s has any relevance to the current NFL? You might as well be comparing the modern NFL to cage fighting, it is a completely different game now that favors offensive explosiveness - generally spearheaded by top qbs.
the salary cap makes it difficult to absorb the contract of a veteran QB (like Watson) and add quality players.
Giants need to re-sign Williams and/or Tomlinson just to keep the D as good as last year. And then they don't have a 1st round pick. Need WR's a TE, another CB, you are hamstringing the team from improving by both trading premium draft picks and paying the QB so much.
this is not a good trade for the Giants.
Quote:
Drafting or trading (very rarely happens) for an elite qb precludes a team from continuing to add quality players. I do not think anyone here advocating for finding an elite qb, is also suggesting to stop adding quality players.
I am also not sure how bringing up qbs from the early 2000s (who never won squat again) or from the 70s/80s has any relevance to the current NFL? You might as well be comparing the modern NFL to cage fighting, it is a completely different game now that favors offensive explosiveness - generally spearheaded by top qbs.
the salary cap makes it difficult to absorb the contract of a veteran QB (like Watson) and add quality players.
Giants need to re-sign Williams and/or Tomlinson just to keep the D as good as last year. And then they don't have a 1st round pick. Need WR's a TE, another CB, you are hamstringing the team from improving by both trading premium draft picks and paying the QB so much.
this is not a good trade for the Giants.
Fair enough, its a legit point. I think it makes drafting critical. And makes the early years of an elite qb contract critical.
That ice bowl-like game they played in Cincinnati in '81 for the AFC Championship was a killer for them. They beat Miami the week prior in 80 degree weather. So they went from that to minus 30.
But that was a very good team.
^This.
Agree with you on this. If the Giants were a QB away, which is essentially where we were when we made the Eli trade I’d be tempted by it. But we need 1-2 WR’s, a TE, possibly a RG, possibly a RT, to resign at least one of LW and Tomlinson, another corner. I mean that’s a lot of needs to consider trading away three years of first round picks.
I’d happily trade the 11th pick, 43rd pick, Jones, and any other player on the team Houston wanted (Bradberry, Lawrence, Barkley).
But then you need to start building the team around Watson, and 2 more number ones is too much.
10-15 Graham defense, continued development of the young OL, the return of Saquon, and the addition of some real weapons from some combo of the draft/FA that 2021 will be better. Not sure the NFC East has ever been weaker, fingers crossed Jones flourishes.
Quote:
Agree with you on this. If the Giants were a QB away, which is essentially where we were when we made the Eli trade I’d be tempted by it. But we need 1-2 WR’s, a TE, possibly a RG, possibly a RT, to resign at least one of LW and Tomlinson, another corner. I mean that’s a lot of needs to consider trading away three years of first round picks.
I’d happily trade the 11th pick, 43rd pick, Jones, and any other player on the team Houston wanted (Bradberry, Lawrence, Barkley).
But then you need to start building the team around Watson, and 2 more number ones is too much.
well nobody wants our spare parts and damaged goods. We over-rate Barkley, other teams don't. They will want three #1s and a smart team will give it to them because the opportunity to get a top-6 QB is rare.
Quote:
of getting the QB to not be able to add to the team for 3 years. Would just be spinning the wheels. We are not a QB away. would much rather have Jones and 3 1st rd picks
^This.
How is not having a first round pick means the team wouldn't be able to add talent? That's crazy talk.
That would push our ability to compete into what, 2024, 2025, assuming we drafted the right one? Meh what’s a decade between friends. Fingers crossed on Jones ....
I don't think Houston would accept that trade, but I also don't think Houston gets 3 no. 1's and a former top 10 pick.
Watson gets to pick his destination and the team has to be willing to pay. Houston doesn't have a ton of leverage.
Quote:
well nobody wants our spare parts and damaged goods. We over-rate Barkley, other teams don't. They will want three #1s and a smart team will give it to them because the opportunity to get a top-6 QB is rare.
I don't think Houston would accept that trade, but I also don't think Houston gets 3 no. 1's and a former top 10 pick.
Watson gets to pick his destination and the team has to be willing to pay. Houston doesn't have a ton of leverage.
Most folks see the risk of acquiring a top QB just starting his prime in the assets we give up and his cap hit. I see the risk in Jones himself, who if he doesn’t develop into a top QB will leave us in limbo and maybe back to drafting a QB again or overpaying for a FA (see eg the Bears).
Quote:
well nobody wants our spare parts and damaged goods. We over-rate Barkley, other teams don't. They will want three #1s and a smart team will give it to them because the opportunity to get a top-6 QB is rare.
I don't think Houston would accept that trade, but I also don't think Houston gets 3 no. 1's and a former top 10 pick.
Watson gets to pick his destination and the team has to be willing to pay. Houston doesn't have a ton of leverage.
Neither does Watson
Only hope for now is Daniel Jones. If. Daniel has another year like he had this year; he and Getty are out.
Only hope for now is Daniel Jones. If. Daniel has another year like he had this year; he and Getty are out.
Personally, I think it would be a foolish trade on its own that would do more harm to the future of the team than good. But, I just think that; I don’t *know* it. But I do know that DG would not give a rats ass about looking like anything or admitting anything if he thought it would be the best move possible for the team.
I find the argument of this team not being close to contending even with Watson to be a more compelling reason not to do a trade like this, even if I don’t totally agree.