NFL 2021: The Week 17 thread

Enix wrote:
UpToIsomorphism wrote:

I would even take a flyer on two or three journeyman and see who wins the job ...

You sure about this? It's the Carolina Way, and I do not recommend it.

Tannehill worked. Not sure if I can reference many other examples.

I think part of the problem is inflating QB salaries for guys who are arguably replacement level. I'm not sure what contract tipped us over the edge but it might of been Kirk Cousins. The perfect combination of capable but why are you paying him that much.

Tyler Huntley probably deserves a real shot. Previously mentioned Minshew cause why the f*ck not and for our entertainment.

jowner wrote:

Tannehill worked.

Tannehill is less sexy Jimmy Garoppolo. They are 30th (Jimmy) and 31st in Intended Air Yards this season. They're the dink-and-dunk passers carried by a strong running game.

ukick wrote:

Ya, I don't really get all the love for Teddy around these parts. He isn't good. He's a top tier backup like how New Orleans used him, not a starter.

Teddy was 5-0 as the starter in New Orleans 2 seasons ago. If they had kept him instead of Hill they would be safely in the playoffs instead of hoping for wild card miracle next week.

He took the Vikings to the playoffs. He led a game winning playoff drive where the kicker shanked a closer than XP distance FG. He's good enough to be a playoff winning QB still, on the right team.

As enix can attest, Carolina is not that team.

Teddy is one of those low-ceiling QB purgatory passers, but he's one of the best ones of that group, and he's simultaneously one of the cheapest.

Teddy is the guy you get to hold down your QB position while you look for the guy to swing the fences for. And if you have a good team across the rest of your roster, he could be to your team what Garoppolo was to the 2019 49ers, or Tannehill is to the Titans now. Good enough to make things happen from time to time, and let the rest of your roster shine and charge into the playoffs.

Stele wrote:
ukick wrote:

Ya, I don't really get all the love for Teddy around these parts. He isn't good. He's a top tier backup like how New Orleans used him, not a starter.

Teddy was 5-0 as the starter in New Orleans 2 seasons ago. If they had kept him instead of Hill they would be safely in the playoffs instead of hoping for wild card miracle next week.

He took the Vikings to the playoffs. He led a game winning playoff drive where the kicker shanked a closer than XP distance FG. He's good enough to be a playoff winning QB still, on the right team.

As enix can attest, Carolina is not that team.

Counter point: Denver would easily be in the playoffs with a good QB this season. 3rd in points allowed so the D is good enough, but 23rd in points scored. 23rd isn't good enough with all the weapons Denver has on offense (Williams/Gordon & Sutton/Jeudy/Fant is a great skill position set). He's made Courtland Sutton completely invisible.*

*this is not an endorsement of Drew Lock as he is even worse, but it may be influenced by me having Sutton in Dynasty... lol

Yeah he's been hurt 4 or 5 games this season. Lock is bad. Think they would have been in had Teddy stayed healthy.

Considering Denver went like 20-something straight games without scoring (or maybe just scoring a TD?) on their opening drives the last couple seasons... And he did finally break that streak... There could be a problem with the offense in Denver.

*Legion* wrote:
jowner wrote:

Tannehill worked.

Tannehill is less sexy Jimmy Garoppolo. They are 30th (Jimmy) and 31st in Intended Air Yards this season. They're the dink-and-dunk passers carried by a strong running game.

As in worked I mean he's starting QB while not murdering the teams cap space. But ya that number seems to be ballooning next year and 14 picks this year (career most) isn't pretty.

The Kirk Cousins contract seemed like a perfect example of unless he morphed into an elite QB the cap # was going to hand cuff the Vikings.

Jimmy sweep stakes might be a real thing this offseason. Problem for the 49ers is as you mentioned if no team believes he can stay healthy enough it doesn't matter.

Denver coming after Rodgers again this offseason with a boat load of picks is fine by me.

jowner wrote:

As in worked I mean he's starting QB while not murdering the teams cap space. But ya that number seems to be ballooning next year and 14 picks this year (career most) isn't pretty.

Yeah, the big difference between Tannehill's deal and Garoppolo's is that the 49ers front-loaded Garoppolo's money to pay him big while the team was still bad, while Tennessee has back-loaded Tannehill's deal to pay him the big money next year, when they're trying to compete.

The Kirk Cousins contract seemed like a perfect example of unless he morphed into an elite QB the cap # was going to hand cuff the Vikings.

I understand the deal Minnesota signed Cousins to in 2018. I don't understand the contract extension they did with him in 2020. He's got $35m of guaranteed salary in 2022 on top of the $10m prorated bonus, meaning they either need to find a trade partner, allow him to wreck their cap in 2022, or June 1st cut him and allow him to half-wreck their cap in both 2022 and 2023.

Jimmy sweep stakes might be a real thing this offseason. Problem for the 49ers is as you mentioned if no team believes he can stay healthy enough it doesn't matter.

The good news for teams looking to buy is that he isn't TOO expensive at $24.5m next year for the buying team (a couple mil stays behind as dead money in SF). There might even be an opportunity to have the 49ers eat a few more million by renegotiating his deal prior to triggering the trade, which is exactly what the Dolphins did to facilitate trading Tannehill to the Titans. Given the 49ers will only be paying Trey Lance $7.7m next year, they can afford to take a few mil off Garoppolo for trade purposes and still have a relatively low cash spend at the QB position for the year.

There's definitely a number of starting QBs in the league for whom I'd rather take a risk on Jimmy's health than play those guys that I know for certain are bad.

*Legion* wrote:

Teddy is the guy you get to hold down your QB position while you look for the guy to swing the fences for.

Yep, and Teddy was potentially that guy for Carolina, especially because there were a ton of good QB prospects in the 2021 draft. But Matt Rhule is the Smartest Guy in the Room and ...

... oh, you've heard this rant before. I'll stop.

Here are your top 10 FA quarterbacks for 2022 (ranked by 2021 salary); see if you want any of these guys as your starting QB:

Ryan Fitzpatrick
Andy Dalton
Nick Foles
Cam Newton
Tyrod Taylor
Jameis Winston
Jacoby Brissett
Teddy Bridgewater
Marcus Mariota
Joe Flacco

Here's the full list, which also includes Mitchell "Mitch" Trubisky (rumored to be headed to Carolina, of all places), Blaine Gabbert and Mike Glennon.

That's why the Browns might end up keeping Baker. This is reportedly a quarterback-poor draft (Sam Howell? Really?!), and these FAs are poor. The devil you know ...

Jalen Hurts wrote a very nicely worded letter asking the WFT and the NFL to take action to make sure Sunday's incident doesn't happen again. The WFT decided to respond with actions rather than words and ziptied the railings.

Matt Corral twisted up his ankle in his bowl game, which doesn't help the draft QB pool. Supposedly it isn't severe enough to impact his draft status, but that's exactly what they would say even if it was worse than indicated, as long as it was something they thought he could work through without surgery. So we'll see.

Enix wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Teddy is the guy you get to hold down your QB position while you look for the guy to swing the fences for.

Yep, and Teddy was potentially that guy for Carolina, especially because there were a ton of good QB prospects in the 2021 draft. But Matt Rhule is the Smartest Guy in the Room and ...

... oh, you've heard this rant before. I'll stop.

Here are your top 10 FA quarterbacks for 2022 (ranked by 2021 salary); see if you want any of these guys as your starting QB:

Ryan Fitzpatrick
Andy Dalton
Nick Foles
Cam Newton
Tyrod Taylor
Jameis Winston
Jacoby Brissett
Teddy Bridgewater
Marcus Mariota
Joe Flacco

Here's the full list, which also includes Mitchell "Mitch" Trubisky (rumored to be headed to Carolina, of all places), Blaine Gabbert and Mike Glennon.

That's why the Browns might end up keeping Baker. This is reportedly a quarterback-poor draft (Sam Howell? Really?!), and these FAs are poor. The devil you know ...

I would take a ride with Fitzmagic.

Rat Boy wrote:
Enix wrote:

Monday night: Browns at Steelers (with ManningCast!)

Yeah, about that:

IMAGE(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIC1gsvVgAERKAn?format=jpg&name=900x900)

"Well, I guess I'll watch the regular MNF broadcast to avoid platforming/apologizing for bad... oh for f*ck's sake."

Looks like Washington Football Team is going to announce their new team name on Feb 2. Wolves or Red Wolves would have been a cool name but those will not be chosen.

My Browns preferred 2022 starting QBs

Tier 1: I would be on here talking smack

Kaep
?
Andrew Luck?
A clone of Otto Graham?

Tier 2: I would be secretly happy:

Some Day 2 pic that looked good in Preseason
Russel Hussel Man Muscle Wilson
Gardener Minshew
Marcus Mariota
Jameis Winston

Tier 3: We win a few games and I'm on board

Davis Mills
Ryan Fitspatrick
Baker Mayfield
Qaaron Rogers
Case Keenum
Ben Rapelisberger
Teddy Two-Gloves

Tier 4: Trust the Process?

AJ McCarron
Mitchell Trubitsky
Any other combination of replacement-level QBs

Tier 5: I burn my Browns gear and start finding a new team

Deshaun Watson

whispa wrote:

Looks like Washington Football Team is going to announce their new team name on Feb 2. Wolves or Red Wolves would have been a cool name but those will not be chosen.

I was hoping for the Washington RedTails.

I was hoping for Dan Snyder to get tossed.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:
whispa wrote:

Looks like Washington Football Team is going to announce their new team name on Feb 2. Wolves or Red Wolves would have been a cool name but those will not be chosen.

I was hoping for the Washington RedTails.

That's actually a good one too. Admirals and Groundhog are meh.

Mike Zimmer is "not interested" in seeing Kellen Mond play in week 18.

Eric Eager on PFF went off a bit on this during one of their podcasts. I don't know why these YouTube embeds screw up the timing so much, but skip to 47:48 if this embed doesn't take you directly there:

(At least on MacOS, the embed in Chrome is not reflecting the timecode at all, while in Firefox it takes it about a minute short of where the timecode is supposed to be. WTF)

This is pretty much the exact same thing that happened with Stidham and the Pats last year and everything that guy is saying is beyond stupid. The idea that you need to play a QB in a regular season game to "see what you've got" is talk show nonsense. The implication that if you don't it's because their coaches suck or are not committed to him is even dumber. I can understand that fans would like to "see what they've got" and the media would love to have something to write about and talk about in the next talk show, but that's not what coaches do.

The NFL is lining up AT&T Stadium as an emergency replacement SB venue. I think it would be a scandal if it happens but it seems reasonable for the league to have a plan B ready in case CA goes on some kind of lockdown.

Pink Stripes wrote:

The idea that you need to play a QB in a regular season game to "see what you've got" is talk show nonsense. ...

#Wellactually, Matt Rhule is doing exactly this with HEY DARNOLD and ...

... yep, "talk show nonsense" checks out.

*Legion* wrote:

Mike Zimmer is "not interested" in seeing Kellen Mond play in week 18.

Eric Eager on PFF went off a bit on this during one of their podcasts. I don't know why these YouTube embeds screw up the timing so much, but skip to 47:48 if this embed doesn't take you directly there:

(At least on MacOS, the embed in Chrome is not reflecting the timecode at all, while in Firefox it takes it about a minute short of where the timecode is supposed to be. WTF)

Pink Stripes wrote:

This is pretty much the exact same thing that happened with Stidham and the Pats last year and everything that guy is saying is beyond stupid. The idea that you need to play a QB in a regular season game to "see what you've got" is talk show nonsense. The implication that if you don't it's because their coaches suck or are not committed to him is even dumber. I can understand that fans would like to "see what they've got" and the media would love to have something to write about and talk about in the next talk show, but that's not what coaches do.

Enix wrote:
Pink Stripes wrote:

The idea that you need to play a QB in a regular season game to "see what you've got" is talk show nonsense. ...

#Wellactually, Matt Rhule is doing exactly this with HEY DARNOLD and ...

... yep, "talk show nonsense" checks out.

I, honestly, think Mond just sucks.

Pink Stripes wrote:

This is pretty much the exact same thing that happened with Stidham and the Pats last year and everything that guy is saying is beyond stupid. The idea that you need to play a QB in a regular season game to "see what you've got" is talk show nonsense.

I disagree. Mond has likely had very few reps since the end of training camp. That's the reality of a season where the starting QB takes all of the practice reps, and probably Sean Mannion has been taking the scout team reps.

Stidham was a second year player last year, and I'm pretty sure he was the scout team QB for both his rookie year and last year. And, frankly, I think the Patriots wasted an opportunity by playing Cam Newton in week 17 last year too. Newton is gone, Stidham is still on the roster, and if Stidham ever has to enter a meaningful game, the Patriots will wish he had that meaningless week 17 game experience under his belt.

With the playoffs out of reach, and Cousins possibly on his way out next offseason, putting the ball in Kellen Mond's hands had value not only for evaluation, but simply for experience for Mond. There's no value in playing Kirk Cousins in a meaningless game.

And if the reason they're dead set against playing Mond is because, as garion supposes, he "just sucks" (and that's certainly a possibility), then yes, that was a failure of evaluation on the front office's part.

It's almost certainly more like this:

Zimmer is the oldest of the old school thinkers in the NFL.

Mond is a rookie.

Therefore, Mond doesn't play before the vets.

Mannion is a vet.

Therefore, Mannion starts.

*Legion* wrote:

Stidham was a second year player last year, and I'm pretty sure he was the scout team QB for both his rookie year and last year. And, frankly, I think the Patriots wasted an opportunity by playing Cam Newton in week 17 last year too. Newton is gone, Stidham is still on the roster, and if Stidham ever has to enter a meaningful game, the Patriots will wish he had that meaningless week 17 game experience under his belt.

I think you vastly overestimate the value of playing one meaningless regular season game. Also, Newton was not gone by week 17 of last year.

*Legion* wrote:

And if the reason they're dead set against playing Mond is because, as garion supposes, he "just sucks" (and that's certainly a possibility), then yes, that was a failure of evaluation on the front office's part.

Not necessarily. Draft picks and evaluations are not a slam dunk. Maybe you think there's a 60% chance he sucks and a 40% chance he is good, and you decide to take a risk given the value of the position and the value of the pick. It's not like Trey Lance and Mac Jones were available. If it turns out that he sucks, it just means the calculated risk did not pay off, not that you blew the scouting. Or maybe a mid round pick QB needs more time in the oven than a season as the third QB. Those are some of the many things the coaches know and we don't and why it doesn't make sense to make these judgements.