Doctor wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 12:57 pm
CannonFire wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2024 7:49 am
You did? When? Or were those when you making random posts that people can miss so that they don't answer you... so you can make posts like you just did here?
You're replying now, clearly you didn't miss it. You act like this is some crazy active board.
But sure, here is me asking you again, quoting the first time I asked you, and also tagging you.
viewtopic.php?p=186284&hilit=Curious#p186284
But hey, you got the mic now. Please answer. We'd love to know.
Well, you didn't reply to me with that, you replied to him, so that didn't come up as a notification and I didn't see it.
I mentioned a few prior to that post and I didn't feel it necessary to repeat myself and figured you didn't agree with them. Obviously, unless I said Pat Mahomes, you wouldn't agree with anyone, so what was the point in repeating myself.
But, I'll say them here for you, just so that you can't say that I balked at the challenge. For the price we gave Mayfield to be "bleh", I'd rather have given Cousins that money he got with Atlanta, IF the organization truly felt we could be a Super Bowl contender with a good QB (note: Mayfield isn't "good", he's mediocre to below average), then he should've been targeted. I believe that 3 other players could've been given 3 year deals at less money (overall... even if guaranteed was similar), and we could've gotten similar results as to what Mayfield would give us... Minshew, Fields, and (
@Grahamburn per my prior post), Ryan Tannehill... who's still a free agent. Now of course, you'll say none of them are good, blah blah blah, but you won't find any data out there that shows Mayfield has been historically all that much more productive than either of those 3. I also suggested Russell Wilson, because he was free. Pretty sure we could've got him here for the deal that he signed with Pittsburgh. Could've probably got him here on a 3-year deal worth $50M, with Y1 being league minimum. Note, that $50M is what Mayfield is getting... but it wouldn't be guaranteed.
So, there's 4 QB's that would've either cost the Bucs more money for a better QB or cost less money over 2 to 3 years, and yielded similar to better results. Another deal I'd have done was sign Flacco to a 1 year deal to backup Trask. According to our FO and coaches, Trask and Mayfield were neck and neck last off-season. If that's the case, give Trask the job and see if he's a franchise QB and drop $5M on Flacco to back him up. Worst case scenario is we win 4 or 5 games (which is only 2 or 3 less than what I expect from Mayfield). In either case, we still miss the playoffs, but in one of those... we have a higher draft pick that increases our chances of a franchise QB.
The biggest problem in all of this, is that YOU (and some others), have this delusion that Baker Mayfield is better than what he really is. News Flash! Baker Mayfield has never been a good QB. At best, he's average, but he really is slightly below average. He's not "good"... "Good", being top 7 to 12 (which... back on topic, is where Goff falls). Mayfield is around 16 to 20 (maybe lower).