What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Kizer vs. Watson (1 Viewer)

Who do you think will be a better NFL QB?

  • Kizer

    Votes: 15 25.4%

  • Watson

    Votes: 44 74.6%
  • Total voters
    59
F

FF Ninja

Footballguy
Indulge me a bit here... As a Texans fan I was dismayed when we traded away a 2018 2nd, apparently in an attempt to create cap space for Romo, and then failed to land Romo. But I was even more dismayed when we traded away our 2018 1st to trade up for Watson. It's not that I think he's a certain bust, but I'm not optimistic about his odds of being a mediocre long-term NFL starter (Eli, Flacco), much less a top 16 NFL QB (Carr, Stafford). I understood that we painted ourselves in a corner by not landing a single FA QB and were going to predictably take a QB with our 1st pick, but I was hoping that would be it. Maybe take a shot at another QB later in the draft. But I hadn't realized our 2018 1st was in jeopardy. 

I don't see a large gap in potential between Kizer and Watson, so I obviously would've been MUCH happier if the Texans had stood pat and drafted Kizer with their 1st. I'd be even more elated if they'd traded back and still landed him, seeing in hindsight Kizer didn't go until the 52nd pick, but I'm not getting greedy in my hypothetical. So I'm trying to figure out if I'm alone here. If it was your favorite NFL team or if you were an NFL GM, which would you rather have? Watson or Kizer + your 2018 1st?

Additionally, am I the only one who views them as similar rolls of the dice? They have different skill sets, but I'm purely speaking from a standpoint of odds of NFL success.

 
Word has it, Kizer is extremely immature and cocky for a guy who's college team just went 4-8. 

Not a good sign for a rookie QB, imho.

 
Felt weird to vote Kizer for the first part and Watson for the second, but I think it's because I don't feel that strongly about this QB class.  I wouldn't have traded away an extra first to get any of these QBs, but I am not an NFL GM.  

I do however feel that Watson is the safest bet to be an NFL starter.  Mahomes and Kizer probably have more upside, but no guarantee that the stars align for them.  

 
I think they both may struggle a bit at the pro level because of flaws that may not be fixable.  Both guys have some issues with seeing the whole field, anticipation, and ball placement.  Those are not good flaws in the NFL and can take a long time if ever to fix.

Watson's lack of arm strength concerns me as well, but he has great athleticism which offsets some of his issues.  Kizer has great arm strength but sometimes that leads him into bad judgment making throws he shouldn't.  Real plus/minus problem there.

I think both guys may end up being mediocre, and possibly bench QBs.  Both are going to get their chance to start.  Neither one has very formidible competition that if they can't beat out will pretty much lock them into being clipboard holders.  Both are going to have substantial growing pains and frustrate their fans, IMO.

I like Watson's leadership, athleticism, and stepping up in big games but I don't know if that's enough to cover his flaws long term.  I like Kizer's arm and his willingness to challenge Ds, but that and his mental toughness along with his other flaws may doom him long term.

I see Watson as a poor man's RGlll and Kizer as a poor man's Cutler.  That doesn't really bode well for either I guess.  Hope I'm wrong because the NFL needs a serious influx of talent at QB, and the air raid crap at the college level is wrecking a lot of potentially strong prospects.

Not sure I'm answering the question.  I guess I'd take the Kizer end only because I don't have to surrender a 1st for him and I'd rather have the big arm rather than the athleticism at the NFL level.  The QB's primary job is to distribute the ball.

 
jmo87usc said:
Felt weird to vote Kizer for the first part and Watson for the second, but I think it's because I don't feel that strongly about this QB class.  I wouldn't have traded away an extra first to get any of these QBs, but I am not an NFL GM.  

I do however feel that Watson is the safest bet to be an NFL starter.  Mahomes and Kizer probably have more upside, but no guarantee that the stars align for them.  
Click to expand...
It shouldn't feel weird. I am expecting a lot of votes like that (if nothing else, based solely on where they were drafted). To me, it's like if someone asked you, are you more likely to hit a single 20-foot jumper or one of two 3-pointers? Gimme the two shots!

And yeah, I agree Kizer has more upside but Watson is safer, but I wanted to keep the poll simple.

 
Bronco Billy said:
I guess I'd take the Kizer end only because I don't have to surrender a 1st for him and I'd rather have the big arm rather than the athleticism at the NFL level.  The QB's primary job is to distribute the ball.
Click to expand...
Good post. Thanks. This quoted portion pretty much sums up my exact feelings on both of my poll questions.

 
FF Ninja said:
Good post. Thanks. This quoted portion pretty much sums up my exact feelings on both of my poll questions.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not sure I'd trust my judgment too much on this.  If you want to hear crazy, I like Peterman better than both these guys and thought he was the 3rd best QB prospect in the class, and would have ranked him 2 if Mahomes hadn't landed with a coach like Reid, McCarthy, or Belichek.

I see Peterman as having lesser arm strength than Kizer but better than Watson.  I see his leadership and athleticism as lesser than Watson but better than Kizer.  Plus he seems to read the field better and understand Ds more, and can throw receivers open.

He doesn't have that one great physical feature or trait that makes him stand out, but when you look at the amalgam I think he's really a very solid starter at the NFL level.  Kind of an Alex Smith who is willing to challenge the D and throw deep some.  I like his chances long term better than either choice here.

How's that for selling crazy?

 
I think Kizer is more talented than Watson, but Watson is more consistent. I'd personally almost always prefer the more talented player, and trust that my coaching staff could teach/create consistency. That said, I expect Watson to have a better career, simply because he went to Houston, which is a FAR better situation, with an elite WR who can win lots of 50-50 passes. 

 
The first poll being the same team plus the first makes me choose Kizer. 

For the second, the fit is huge.  Of course their careers could be long but for the first few years Watson is in a great place to succeed within his ability.  Kizer is not.  I might vote against any qb in Cleveland.

 
If I were the '17-'18 Texans I'd rather have Watson and his ready-made leadership skills than Kizer and his potential physical skills.

 
-OZ- said:
The first poll being the same team plus the first makes me choose Kizer. 

For the second, the fit is huge.  Of course their careers could be long but for the first few years Watson is in a great place to succeed within his ability.  Kizer is not.  I might vote against any qb in Cleveland.
Click to expand...
I'd like to challenge your thinking on this. I suspect there might be some bias in there just because Cleveland has historically been an awful landing spot, but I believe things are really looking up for them. Cleveland does not have a great defense, BUT I'd say everything else is actually very QB friendly:

  • Hue Jackson is a plus coach, IMO
  • Hue Jackson likes to run the ball which takes pressure off of the QB
  • Crowell and Duke are good RBs (and both catch the ball well)
  • Coleman and Britt are good WRs
  • Cleveland just invested in a rookie TE, can't know if he's good or not yet
  • Last, but definitely not least, Cleveland just shored up their OL - is currently projected as a top 5 unit
 
Andy Dufresne said:
Well the first question doesn't necessarily ask that. 

I'd still take Watson over Kizer and kept 1st. And I kind of like Kizer.
Click to expand...
If you're an NFL GM or a fan of the team, I'd hope you'd be thinking long-term! Also, I wasn't sure if you meant '17-'18 as a single season (since playoffs span into '18) or if you meant two seasons. Since this question includes the 2018 draft, I'd hope you'd at least be thinking about both full seasons. 

 
FF Ninja said:
If you're an NFL GM or a fan of the team, I'd hope you'd be thinking long-term! Also, I wasn't sure if you meant '17-'18 as a single season (since playoffs span into '18) or if you meant two seasons. Since this question includes the 2018 draft, I'd hope you'd at least be thinking about both full seasons. 
Click to expand...
That's rarely true in today's NFL.

 
I take from the OPs comments that he liked Kizer prior to the draft or think he 'might' develop into a decent starter and isn't high on Watson or isn't pleased about giving up a first round pick for him.

I'm not sure if Watson or Kizer will turn into solid starters or that one will perform exceptionally than the other.

What Houston did at quarterback this offseason was unusual and you are missing the Brock Osweiler component.  We know what happened so a third poll would simply ask the following question seeing exactly what assets were given up and acquired since both trades were between Houston and Cleveland we can see what both teams got and gave up.

Which would you prefer?

------------------------------------------

  • Brock Osweiler + an extra 2nd round pick + an extra 1st round pick + DeShone Kizer
  • - $16 million in cap space yet still own the 3rd most cap space in the NFL.
OR

  • DeSean Watson + $16 million in cap space
  •  - 2nd round pick - 1st round pick
--------------------------------------------

 
Bronco Billy said:
It is with the teams that continue to win year after year.  Very different models between say NE, GB, and PIT for example, but definitely long term thinking.
Click to expand...
Those teams' models would be quite different if they didn't have the QB situation resolved.

If you're the Texans, for example, and you have possibly the best defense in the league, then while you're in that window you roll the dice on finding the QB that can help sooner rather than later. At least, that's what I do. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
Well, I'm not sure I'd trust my judgment too much on this.  If you want to hear crazy, I like Peterman better than both these guys and thought he was the 3rd best QB prospect in the class, and would have ranked him 2 if Mahomes hadn't landed with a coach like Reid, McCarthy, or Belichek.

I see Peterman as having lesser arm strength than Kizer but better than Watson.  I see his leadership and athleticism as lesser than Watson but better than Kizer.  Plus he seems to read the field better and understand Ds more, and can throw receivers open.

He doesn't have that one great physical feature or trait that makes him stand out, but when you look at the amalgam I think he's really a very solid starter at the NFL level.  Kind of an Alex Smith who is willing to challenge the D and throw deep some.  I like his chances long term better than either choice here.

How's that for selling crazy?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a little out there, but fair enough. So if you were the Texans GM, would you have passed on all those 1st/2nd round guys and taken Peterman in the 3rd/4th (to be safe since we know he went in the 5th), or would you have grabbed someone in the 1st also to hedge your bets?

Bracie Smathers said:
I take from the OPs comments that he liked Kizer prior to the draft or think he 'might' develop into a decent starter and isn't high on Watson or isn't pleased about giving up a first round pick for him.

I'm not sure if Watson or Kizer will turn into solid starters or that one will perform exceptionally than the other.

What Houston did at quarterback this offseason was unusual and you are missing the Brock Osweiler component.  We know what happened so a third poll would simply ask the following question seeing exactly what assets were given up and acquired since both trades were between Houston and Cleveland we can see what both teams got and gave up.

Which would you prefer?

------------------------------------------

  • Brock Osweiler + an extra 2nd round pick + an extra 1st round pick + DeShone Kizer
  • - $16 million in cap space yet still own the 3rd most cap space in the NFL.
OR

  • DeSean Watson + $16 million in cap space
  •  - 2nd round pick - 1st round pick
--------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
No, I wasn't particularly high on Kizer before the draft. Just thought that if we're going to use our 1st on a QB that I'd be ok with him if that's who was available at our pick.

And no, I'm not missing the Brock component... I talked about it. I was fine with it IF we got Romo. But you seem to be on the same page with your comment about 3rd most cap space. The fact that we traded away a 2nd round pick and still haven't spent that cap money on anything useful (it appears we're $31MM under the cap right now) is just further proof of how inept Rick Smith is. We need to be reworking some contracts to front load them, but I haven't heard anything about that. I don't know wtf Rick is doing. Actually, it's obvious Rick doesn't either.

 
FF Ninja said:
So if you were the Texans GM, would you have passed on all those 1st/2nd round guys and taken Peterman in the 3rd/4th (to be safe since we know he went in the 5th), or would you have grabbed someone in the 1st also to hedge your bets?

23 minutes ago, Bracie Smathers said:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Peterman would have been a solid play. They didn't just "grab someone in the 1st and hedge", they spent very heavily on their future after they already F'd up and gave away their 2nd round pick for cap space to get a guy they never got.

They essentially compounded 2 bad moves together.

If Watson sucks, and with a 49mph fastball, it's a good bet he will,  there will be a house cleaning.

 
Andy Dufresne said:
Those teams' models would be quite different if they didn't have the QB situation resolved.

If you're the Texans, for example, and you have possibly the best defense in the league, then while you're in that window you roll the dice on finding the QB that can help sooner rather than later. At least, that's what I do. 
Click to expand...
That's a good point about the QB situation for all those teams.

Personally, I'd have rather traded that 2nd for a QB rental than used it to free up cap space we don't even need. Rent Jimmy G while Kizer learns (JG is on rookie contract, so cap isn't an issue). If Kizer isn't getting it after a year, franchise JG and spend the 2018 1st on another rookie.

 
Ojaays said:
Peterman would have been a solid play. They didn't just "grab someone in the 1st and hedge", they spent very heavily on their future after they already F'd up and gave away their 2nd round pick for cap space to get a guy they never got.

They essentially compounded 2 bad moves together.

If Watson sucks, and with a 49mph fastball, it's a good bet he will,  there will be a house cleaning.
Click to expand...
Um, I obviously agree. I was asking theoretically what Bronco Billy would've done given his take on Peterman. 

If Bob McNair cleans house (fire Rick Smith a decade too late), the hole Rick has dug will be very difficult for any GM to get out of before 2020.

 
FF Ninja said:
I'd like to challenge your thinking on this. I suspect there might be some bias in there just because Cleveland has historically been an awful landing spot, but I believe things are really looking up for them. Cleveland does not have a great defense, BUT I'd say everything else is actually very QB friendly:

  • Hue Jackson is a plus coach, IMO
  • Hue Jackson likes to run the ball which takes pressure off of the QB
  • Crowell and Duke are good RBs (and both catch the ball well)
  • Coleman and Britt are good WRs
  • Cleveland just invested in a rookie TE, can't know if he's good or not yet
  • Last, but definitely not least, Cleveland just shored up their OL - is currently projected as a top 5 unit
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what a "plus coach" means, but I'll assume it means above average, as in he's more a benefit to the team (or QB) than half the other head coaches.  I like Hue and am actually cheering (quietly) for him to succeed but I don't know that I'd rank him above average.  He did help Flacco develop his first year, and I'll even give him a pass for last year as his first with bottom 5 talent (which may be generous).  His time in Cincy was solid but not spectacular.  Basically I don't see enough evidence to call him a plus coach.

He might like to run but the Browns ran the fewest attempts in the league last year.  They were effective when they did, but that's probably because the defense was playing more of a prevent type D.  (admittedly, I'm guessing here based on how rarely the Browns led a game)

Crow and the Duke are decent, sure.  

Coleman has talent.  Britt is okay for yardage and big plays but hardly the kind of receiver QBs can rely on to actually catch the ball. (he's below 60% for his career).  FWIW I actually like DeValve and Njoku, and you're right about the backs being decent receivers so there are players to throw to in Cleveland. 

Fair on the OL with Joe. 

If you compare the situations between the top 4 QB prospects, and I'd even add Peterman (like BB, I think Peterman should be part of the conversation long term), Cleveland is the worst or perhaps 2nd worst of the bunch for career progression.  Watson gets to play for a team with the best WR of the lot and one of the best defenses in the league.  His RBs are good, his role will be more of a game manager which plays well for his strengths.  Mahommes is on perhaps the best team of the bunch and doesn't need to start for a year or two.  He'll have time to develop before being cast to the wolves and he has the best coach of the lot.  Buffalo has many issues but with McCoy, Watkins (can he stay healthy) and the rest of the team is solid.  Plus Peterman won't be rushed out there. 

I wouldn't argue for Chicago being better than Cleveland right now, but I'd put Fox above Hue and the Browns are cursed.  (said half jokingly)

 
FF Ninja said:
Yeah, that's a little out there, but fair enough. So if you were the Texans GM, would you have passed on all those 1st/2nd round guys and taken Peterman in the 3rd/4th (to be safe since we know he went in the 5th), or would you have grabbed someone in the 1st also to hedge your betts.
Click to expand...


If I'm an NFL GM and I want to keep my job, I think my pathway is to grab Kizer Rd 2 (price on Watson given the bust potential is too high for my taste and job security) and then land Peterman in Rd 4 and hope one develops into a starter.  I'd also better make damned sure I'm adding a special consultant to the OC/QB coach to help develop 2 rookies at the same time, and then let them battle it out with Savage.

If I manage to develop both into competent starters, I get to pick my keeper and trade the other for future draft capital, and look like a freakin genius.  That's a significant raise and job security for me.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
If I'm an NFL GM and I want to keep my job, I think my pathway is to grab Kizer Rd 2 (price on Watson given the bust potential is too high for my taste and job security) and then land Peterman in Rd 4 and hope one develops into a starter.  I'd also better make damned sure I'm adding a special consultant to the OC/QB coach to help develop 2 rookies at the same time, and then let them battle it out with Savage.

If I manage to develop both into competent starters, I get to pick my keeper and trade the other for future draft capital, and look like a freakin genius.  That's a significant raise and job security for me.
Click to expand...
FWIW, there is a sentiment that Rick bought himself a few years with this trade/pick because he's now hitched to the Watson train and we have to give him 2-3 years to pan out. 2-3 years is exactly when we'll be feeling the pain from giving up our 2018 draft  :kicksrock:

 
FF Ninja said:
Personally, I'd have rather traded that 2nd for a QB rental than used it to free up cap space we don't even need. Rent Jimmy G while Kizer learns (JG is on rookie contract, so cap isn't an issue). If Kizer isn't getting it after a year, franchise JG and spend the 2018 1st on another rookie.
Click to expand...
If Garoppolo was available for a 2nd I don't think he'd be on the Patriots right now. The reason he wasn't traded was because the price was way too high. It was probably the same price Houston payed for Watson - 2 1sts - and the Texans get Watson for a few years instead of a trial period.

I don't know of any other QB available for rent. Minnesota renting Bradford last year did not work out great. Outbidding for Glennon or McCown, or getting Hoyer back, are all bad moves. They can still sign Kaepernick if they want.

 
-OZ- said:
I'm not sure what a "plus coach" means, but I'll assume it means above average, as in he's more a benefit to the team (or QB) than half the other head coaches.  I like Hue and am actually cheering (quietly) for him to succeed but I don't know that I'd rank him above average.  He did help Flacco develop his first year, and I'll even give him a pass for last year as his first with bottom 5 talent (which may be generous).  His time in Cincy was solid but not spectacular.  Basically I don't see enough evidence to call him a plus coach.

He might like to run but the Browns ran the fewest attempts in the league last year.  They were effective when they did, but that's probably because the defense was playing more of a prevent type D.  (admittedly, I'm guessing here based on how rarely the Browns led a game)

Crow and the Duke are decent, sure.  

Coleman has talent.  Britt is okay for yardage and big plays but hardly the kind of receiver QBs can rely on to actually catch the ball. (he's below 60% for his career).  FWIW I actually like DeValve and Njoku, and you're right about the backs being decent receivers so there are players to throw to in Cleveland. 

Fair on the OL with Joe. 

If you compare the situations between the top 4 QB prospects, and I'd even add Peterman (like BB, I think Peterman should be part of the conversation long term), Cleveland is the worst or perhaps 2nd worst of the bunch for career progression.  Watson gets to play for a team with the best WR of the lot and one of the best defenses in the league.  His RBs are good, his role will be more of a game manager which plays well for his strengths.  Mahommes is on perhaps the best team of the bunch and doesn't need to start for a year or two.  He'll have time to develop before being cast to the wolves and he has the best coach of the lot.  Buffalo has many issues but with McCoy, Watkins (can he stay healthy) and the rest of the team is solid.  Plus Peterman won't be rushed out there. 

I wouldn't argue for Chicago being better than Cleveland right now, but I'd put Fox above Hue and the Browns are cursed.  (said half jokingly)
Click to expand...
Yeah, plus generally means above average. But specifically looking at Cincy, Dalton only averaged 29.9 att/gm under Hue. As a team they ranked 27th in pass attempts over those 2 years. To me, that's a good thing for a young QB. And I really don't think we can hold him accountable for Cleveland last year. All coaches should get a rebuilding year unless they're taking over a winning team (I'm looking at you, Norv, who took a 14-2 SD team and made them 10-6).

I think the Browns tended to abandon the run when they got behind, so I don't think that's why the were effective running the ball when they did. Crowell actually compiled over half his carries and all 7 TDs in the first two quarters of play. Duke also had over half his carries in the first two quarters.

Sure, Britt is below 60% for his career, but there's a strong correlation between QB completion % and receiver catch % and also an inverse relationship between aDoT and catch %. Britt has both been plagued with poor QB play over his career and he's been the deep threat for his teams. So I don't think catch % is a fair criticism of him.

Joe Thomas is great, but they just signed two new starters (Kevin Zeitler is the big name) and are developing some young guys from the last two drafts, I believe. This really could be a top unit.

And you can't be serious about John Fox. To me, he's a minus coach! I would much rather have Hue than Fox. But as for Houston, BOB runs a complicated offense. I think that will be hard for a young QB. Additionally, I think Hopkins is good, but not elite, I'm pretty down on Fuller (speaking of crappy catch %), and our TEs are nothing to write home about. I honestly think Cleveland might be a better spot than Houston for a rookie QB. Nobody is expecting Cleveland to make the playoffs, but the expectation in Houston is to do more than beat the hapless Bengals in the first round again and then get trounced in the divisional (again). 

 
@FF Ninja good points all around and I actually do hope the Browns improve a lot. It's usually a good thing when perennial doormats get good.  

With britt, I'm not saying he's a bad wr. He showed last year that he can be pretty good after having an poor career to date.  But that's one year out of 8. (Yes, he suffered from poor qb play)

Fox isn't great but he's more of a known quantity.  I give some credit for that even if he rode Peyton. 

Again though, I really am cheering for hue to succeed.  Just wish that didn't mean cheering for Kizer.  

 
jmo87usc said:
Felt weird to vote Kizer for the first part and Watson for the second, but I think it's because I don't feel that strongly about this QB class.  I wouldn't have traded away an extra first to get any of these QBs, but I am not an NFL GM.  

I do however feel that Watson is the safest bet to be an NFL starter.  Mahomes and Kizer probably have more upside, but no guarantee that the stars align for them.  
Click to expand...
Same here

 
-OZ- said:
@FF Ninja good points all around and I actually do hope the Browns improve a lot. It's usually a good thing when perennial doormats get good.  

With britt, I'm not saying he's a bad wr. He showed last year that he can be pretty good after having an poor career to date.  But that's one year out of 8. (Yes, he suffered from poor qb play)

Fox isn't great but he's more of a known quantity.  I give some credit for that even if he rode Peyton. 

Again though, I really am cheering for hue to succeed.  Just wish that didn't mean cheering for Kizer.  
Click to expand...
Similarly, I'm not saying Britt is a stud. But I think he's at least above average/good for an NFL starter and I like Coleman. I think they make for a nice tandem of outside WRs and the TEs and RBs make for nice safety valves. Combine that with a solid line and a run heavy game plan and I think that's a nice situation for a rookie to learn in.

And yeah, I'm rooting for the Browns, too. That's a tough division and they've been the doormat for a long time. It'll be interesting to see what Gregg Williams can do with Myles Garrett and Jabill Peppers as he transitions the team to a 4-3. The first year of transitions are typically rough, but you don't usually get to kick off a transition with that kind of talent infusion. I think they also drafted a DT to help up front.

 
Five minutes ago..

Kizer taking 1st reps over Kessler.

------------------------------------------

Nate Ulrich‏ @NateUlrichABJ  5m5 minutes ago

More

#Browns open team drills with QB DeShone Kizer going first. Had been Cody Kessler throughout spring

 
In the case of the Texans I take Watson and give up the first. Obviously it that means I also took Watson in the second poll too. 

The Texans are just way too close to being a true contender. They went to the playoffs without arguably the best defensive player in the league and with Brock Osweiler as their starting QB. They get Watt back and on the other side of the ball Fuller and Miller should improve and they added Foreman in the backfield. Watson can make a few more plays with his legs than Kizer. It seems he is also a better leader and that he would be more used to the added pressure of playoff games. 

As for the idea that every team should be building long term, I don't think that really works. The salary cap hinders this a bit and the Patriots have proven for over a decade that you can bring in short term players to win. Plus, based off of the Texans team (and division) they probably won't be picking in the top half of the draft. A QB saviour won't be available there. 

I don't agree with a lot of the Texans moves but Watson was a solid/logical move.

 
Borden said:
In the case of the Texans I take Watson and give up the first. Obviously it that means I also took Watson in the second poll too. 

The Texans are just way too close to being a true contender. They went to the playoffs without arguably the best defensive player in the league and with Brock Osweiler as their starting QB. They get Watt back and on the other side of the ball Fuller and Miller should improve and they added Foreman in the backfield. Watson can make a few more plays with his legs than Kizer. It seems he is also a better leader and that he would be more used to the added pressure of playoff games. 

As for the idea that every team should be building long term, I don't think that really works. The salary cap hinders this a bit and the Patriots have proven for over a decade that you can bring in short term players to win. Plus, based off of the Texans team (and division) they probably won't be picking in the top half of the draft. A QB saviour won't be available there. 

I don't agree with a lot of the Texans moves but Watson was a solid/logical move.
Click to expand...
Cousins, Wilson, Dak, and Carr would disagree. Obviously the odds are better in the top half of the first round, but they're still not excellent. At this point, I'd settle for a Dalton or Flacco.

The Patriots are not really a fair example. They've got BB and a history of success. Thus, they are able to appeal to veterans looking to win, so not only do they get discounts, but these guys are driven. Teams without a history of success tend to get stuck (over)paying guys looking to cash in one last time.

 
FF Ninja said:
Cousins, Wilson, Dak, and Carr would disagree. Obviously the odds are better in the top half of the first round, but they're still not excellent. At this point, I'd settle for a Dalton or Flacco.

The Patriots are not really a fair example. They've got BB and a history of success. Thus, they are able to appeal to veterans looking to win, so not only do they get discounts, but these guys are driven. Teams without a history of success tend to get stuck (over)paying guys looking to cash in one last time.
Click to expand...
The QBs that you mentioned were all worse prospects than Watson. You took my comment wrong or I explained it wrong. I wasn't saying that the Texans (or any team) can't find a franchise QB outside the top 2 picks. I was just saying that the saviour/can't miss QBs typically aren't going to be available where Houston is likely to pick. I think many people (myself included) still think Watson is the best QB in this draft and the Texans got him at 12. To get the QB best prospect (in many opinions) in a draft at 12 is awesome. Like you said, the farther down in a draft you go the less likely the prospect is to pan out. It's the kind of the same think as when these non-elite QBs (like Flacco) get the giant contract. They likely aren't "worth" it but when the position is that important and there's so few decent options that it makes they worth it.

I'm not talking about the Pats bringing high priced guys like Gilmore this season. I'm referring to Rodney Harrison and guys like that. Even if you chosen not to use that example, the Broncos bringing in Manning was another example. They are a team that is built strong in every area except QB.

Watson is winning the straight up poll and the draft community almost unanimously had Watson ranked higher than Kizer. Not that it guarantees success but it is better odds of success.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Borden said:
The QBs that you mentioned were all worse prospects than Watson. You took my comment wrong or I explained it wrong. I wasn't saying that the Texans (or any team) can't find a franchise QB outside the top 2 picks. I was just saying that the saviour/can't miss QBs typically aren't going to be available where Houston is likely to pick. I think many people (myself included) still think Watson is the best QB in this draft and the Texans got him at 12. To get the QB best prospect (in many opinions) in a draft at 12 is awesome. Like you said, the farther down in a draft you go the less likely the prospect is to pan out. It's the kind of the same think as when these non-elite QBs (like Flacco) get the giant contract. They likely aren't "worth" it but when the position is that important and there's so few decent options that it makes they worth it.

I'm not talking about the Pats bringing high priced guys like Gilmore this season. I'm referring to Rodney Harrison and guys like that. Even if you chosen not to use that example, the Broncos bringing in Manning was another example. They are a team that is built strong in every area except QB.

Watson is winning the straight up poll and the draft community almost unanimously had Watson ranked higher than Kizer. Not that it guarantees success but it is better odds of success.
Click to expand...
How many can't miss/savior QBs have there been? I'd say there is maybe one every ten years. Even guys that are consensus #1 picks are maybe 70/30 odds to be good and maybe a 5% chance of being a savior. Matt Ryan is good, but he can't do it alone. Same could be said for Stafford. I don't think anyone considers Eli a savior. Jamarcus Russell and Alex Smith were busts (Smith wasn't decent until after his rookie contract and has career highs of 23 PTD and 3502 yards in different years). To me, the only "can't miss" prospects I've ever seen are Peyton and Luck. Everyone else varies from "likely to succeed at the next level" to "Al Davis is an idiot", but none of the others were truly "can't miss."

As for Watson being the best QB prospect in the draft, that could be true (although I'm not conceding that) and he could still disappoint. I'd much rather draft two QBs this year and another with the 2018 first than to put all our eggs in one possibly over-hyped basket.

And I wasn't talking about Gilmore with the Pats. I was talking about guys like Corey Dillon. Guys that have made their money and now they want to win. That's a selling point that few other teams are able to make, so I don't think they're a good example.

And Denver/Peyton is an even worse example. He was a huge risk. It worked out, but if a 60 year old guy came into the casino and bet his life savings on red and hit, you wouldn't say "See? That's how smart people retire well." A risky plan that worked in one instance is still, at its root, just a risky plan rather than a recipe for success. 

Watson won a college championship (winning a team game always elevates people's individual ratings of a QB) a few months ago and he was drafted 30+ spots earlier. Of course he's winning the poll. I knew he would, but I wanted to see the ratio. 

 
I feel like if you don't have a shot at a truly top notch prospect, then you need to take a lot of swings trying to find a QB. Like you should be picking up a QB most every year until you think you've found a guy. Not a 1st every year, but maybe you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd one year, then guys in the 3rd or 4th, repeat, until you find someone.

So I'd probably value taking multiple shots over giving up too much to trade up.  But that said, some have made a good point that if you are going to give up multiple picks like that... there is some synergy in doing it when you have a potential window like the Texans do with a strong defense, enough other weapons on offense, and what has been a weak division. Though, I think the weak division part is probably past tense or will be very soon.

Edit to add:  And I don't think Watson is truly a top-notch prospect worth moving up that high for. Giving up two 1sts... ok you might not be able to get a guy who checks off everything on the list for just that. But the thing that worries me about Watson is the things I think are most important (accuracy, progression, anticipation, reading defenses) are on his list of weaker points, and the things that people seem to overdraft for, like college success and "intangibles" are the ones viewed as his strong points.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FF Ninja said:
Indulge me a bit here... As a Texans fan I was dismayed when we traded away a 2018 2nd, apparently in an attempt to create cap space for Romo, and then failed to land Romo. But I was even more dismayed when we traded away our 2018 1st to trade up for Watson. It's not that I think he's a certain bust, but I'm not optimistic about his odds of being a mediocre long-term NFL starter (Eli, Flacco), much less a top 16 NFL QB (Carr, Stafford). I understood that we painted ourselves in a corner by not landing a single FA QB and were going to predictably take a QB with our 1st pick, but I was hoping that would be it. Maybe take a shot at another QB later in the draft. But I hadn't realized our 2018 1st was in jeopardy. 

I don't see a large gap in potential between Kizer and Watson, so I obviously would've been MUCH happier if the Texans had stood pat and drafted Kizer with their 1st. I'd be even more elated if they'd traded back and still landed him, seeing in hindsight Kizer didn't go until the 52nd pick, but I'm not getting greedy in my hypothetical. So I'm trying to figure out if I'm alone here. If it was your favorite NFL team or if you were an NFL GM, which would you rather have? Watson or Kizer + your 2018 1st?

Additionally, am I the only one who views them as similar rolls of the dice? They have different skill sets, but I'm purely speaking from a standpoint of odds of NFL success.
Click to expand...
As a Giants' fan I agree Eli is kind of mediocre..but I'll take a 'mediocre' Eli over schlubs like Philip Rivers and Andrew Luck anytime.. guys who never win anything and are nothing but stat compilers. Ill take Flacco over either of these guys too.Flacco had ice in his veins in postseason.look at his stats hes off the charts good in the playoffs..he's a stud qb with NO supporting  cast..but seriously, in regards to Kizer..are we REALLY singing the praises of yet another ND qb? jeez I thought we learned after Paulus and Mirer ..the only thing worse than a modern era ND qb moving to the NFL is one from fla..or Miami..

but Watson can flat out play, man. he's a stud in the biggest games. youre going to be pleased with him in Houston !!

hes mentally tough hes a workaholic and a great student of the game. he cant be worse than Osweiler..so you get an Alex Smith type qb..with the Texans' defense, thats perfectly fine..

Kizer will bust faster than bob griffin 3rd..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tanner9919 said:
As a Giants' fan I agree Eli is kind of mediocre..but I'll take a 'mediocre' Eli over schlubs like Philip Rivers and Andrew Luck anytime.. guys who never win anything and are nothing but stat compilers. Ill take Flacco over either of these guys too.Flacco had ice in his veins in postseason.look at his stats hes off the charts good in the playoffs..he's a stud qb with NO supporting  cast..but seriously, in regards to Kizer..are we REALLY singing the praises of yet another ND qb? jeez I thought we learned after Paulus and Mirer ..the only thing worse than a modern era ND qb moving to the NFL is one from fla..or Miami..

but Watson can flat out play, man. he's a stud in the biggest games. youre going to be pleased with him in Houston !!

hes mentally tough hes a workaholic and a great student of the game. he cant be worse than Osweiler..so you get an Alex Smith type qb..with the Texans' defense, thats perfectly fine..

Kizer will bust faster than bob griffin 3rd..
Click to expand...
Despite what Brady fans will have you believe, it's a team game. Additionally, one game playoffs are a joke. We don't like to admit it, but it's true. That's the novelty of the NCAA bracket. Just about anything can happen when one game playoffs are involved. Football is a brutal game so it is a necessity, but we too often forget that teams are advancing and eliminated based off of about 11 minutes of play, totaling maybe 50-75 offensive snaps. So I'm sorry, but I would not take Eli or Flacco over Rivers or Luck. Going out on a limb, I know, but you're basically giving Eli and Flacco credit for super bowl victories when (1) it's a team game and (2) their teams were clearly not the best in the NFL when they won. If 7 game playoffs were somehow magically possible, Rivers and Shottenheimer would have at least one title and Eli and Flacco would have zero. 

Obviously it would be difficult for Watson to be worse than Oz, but that's really not saying much given just how bad Oz was. I hope you are right about his work ethic and that he's a student of the game, because BOB's offense isn't easy to learn...

 
GregR said:
I feel like if you don't have a shot at a truly top notch prospect, then you need to take a lot of swings trying to find a QB. Like you should be picking up a QB most every year until you think you've found a guy. Not a 1st every year, but maybe you take a guy in the 1st or 2nd one year, then guys in the 3rd or 4th, repeat, until you find someone.

So I'd probably value taking multiple shots over giving up too much to trade up.  But that said, some have made a good point that if you are going to give up multiple picks like that... there is some synergy in doing it when you have a potential window like the Texans do with a strong defense, enough other weapons on offense, and what has been a weak division. Though, I think the weak division part is probably past tense or will be very soon.

Edit to add:  And I don't think Watson is truly a top-notch prospect worth moving up that high for. Giving up two 1sts... ok you might not be able to get a guy who checks off everything on the list for just that. But the thing that worries me about Watson is the things I think are most important (accuracy, progression, anticipation, reading defenses) are on his list of weaker points, and the things that people seem to overdraft for, like college success and "intangibles" are the ones viewed as his strong points.
Click to expand...
Could not agree with this more (especially the bolded), except for the part about giving away picks for a rookie during a potential window. That's exactly how you end up rebuilding in 3 years. And like you said, our division appears to be getting better. I mean, I'd have been totally down to trade a 1st for a guy like Rivers (since we've got the cap space), who is being wasted on a poorly managed team, and draft some young QBs (in the next few years) late to develop. But trading away two 1sts for a rookie... I can't get on board with that. Seems like a desperate move by a bad GM. But hey, maybe it'll work out. Every once in a while a blind squirrel finds a nut...

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Deshaun Watson vs. Jared Goff
Replies
9
Views
2K
-OZ-
-OZ-
ignatiusjreilly
How many first-round QBs will actually pan out?
Replies
12
Views
359
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
RC94
FBG Mock Draft
14 15 16
Replies
797
Views
19K
rockaction
rockaction

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top