Opportunity cost. Whether we draft a QB only to stick them on the bench in favor of Fields or whether we pick up Fields's option only to pay him to sit on the bench, we'd be using resources that could have been put toward a player who could provide a much more direct and immediate impact to us. Sure we could trade whoever loses the QB competition, but then every team would know that whoever we're trading lost the QB competition.
stormstopper
joined 2 years ago
If we win games down the stretch (particularly in these next three), it means we found something that works and that can only be a good thing. We're in the fortunate position where our record will not affect what's likely to be our best pick in the draft.
If we lose our next three, more than okay with the two after that being a business decision. I want to beat the Packers no matter what though.
It just means that you stop taking risks because you're afraid one of those risks might cause you to lose, but in turn you also sacrifice the rewards that make you more likely to win. The optimal strategy usually involves taking those risks, because otherwise you wouldn't have taken those risks for the first three quarters of the game.
The difference is that a field goal against Denver would have turned a tie into a lead with 3 minutes to play, which is extremely difficult to pass up.
Wasn't the late field goal to go up 26-14 on 4th and 5, not 4th and 1? The kick on 4th and 1 was much earlier in the fourth quarter and going for it would have hardly put the game away.
We probably still should've gone for it on 4th and 1 and arguably on 4th and 5, but still.
Punting isn't "playing the smart game," you need points and haven't had a lot of opportunities to move the ball down the field.
I wish these teams would have the courtesy of being an interesting kind of bad. Bust some coverages, turn the ball over, whiff a punt. None of this "three yards, three yards, incompletion, punt" nonsense.
I think that's more just a case of the map getting it wrong. Virginia's not really hated at all in North Carolina. Not even by UNC fans--they have the South's Oldest Rivalry, but it's not a particularly hateful rivalry compared to how UNC feels about Duke or State.
I think they avoided picking any in-state options, otherwise the answer should have been UNC or Duke (and in my view UNC is more hated in-state but Duke is more hated nationally). Excluding in-state possibilities, it should be the Saints or Falcons. Maybe even the Cowboys or Patriots. Even among college basketball programs I'd probably put Kentucky and Maryland above Virginia, but that might be my Duke fan bias.
If an established quarterback comes onto the market, that's absolutely an option we should be considering. That's just rarely the case, especially not at a reasonable price. The last time we were in the QB market was when Deshaun Watson and Russell Wilson were reportedly on the block. Obviously we're now glad we didn't get Watson, and Seattle ultimately decided against trading Wilson that offseason at all.
Additionally, none of the people who will be involved in the process of evaluating our QB options this offseason--regardless of who we do or don't retain--were involved in picking Fields or Trubisky or any other QB this franchise has ever selected unless the McCaskeys get themselves involved. Different OC, different coach, different GM, different team president, different eyes, different processes.