Sooo two or three. firsts for a qb…is it still too much?

[Shanemansj13]

The champion year, he never threw that expected pick 6 in the postseason. All he did was

View attachment 349476

Well that isn’t this year so yeah. He is two years older now.

The issue is nobody is giving up multiple picks for him at his age so that is why the Rams did not trade him

 

[shopson67]

A proven commodity vs a chance at potential. Age old question, but who is going to give up a true proven QB in his prime for 2 1st round picks after the Wilson and Cutler deals? Probably now need to up the ante to 2 1st rounders and what??? On the flip side, what exactly have Wilson and Cutler done that make it worth it?

Just mentioning Cutler as an argument points more to picking a VALID qb target than the validity of trading picks for a qb in general. Such a trade should only be made if your team is otherwise pretty well built. Denver clearly wasn't as ready as they thought (coaching wise and roster wise) to take full advantage of acquiring Russ. If your team is close, adding rookies won't give that same quick boost as a vet via trade.

The Rams also didn't stop there, trading other early picks for a shutdown CB and edge rushing help.

 

[shopson67]

It's fine as long as it's the right QB. If it's not, you probably fucked yourself. Unless you're the 49ers, the NFL's version of Mr. Magoo as of late.

Their offense doesn't require an elite QB. People really hate the term game manager, so just call Purdy a point guard.