GET USED TO THESE FACES

[Deadskins]

I'm just not sold that it's worth it for us to give up what it will take to jump 2-3 spots. WE AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH YET.

Which is exactly why you have to make the move now. If you wait until we are good enough, the price goes way, way up. Plus that addition of a top flight QB is the piece that will get us to that next level.

[1niksder]

These fans are killing me. We talk trash about Vinny Cerrato and his flagrant, idotic disregard of draft picks, but every year, we want them team to trade draft picks. WTF am I missing

Vinny, and also Gibbs, traded picks for other teams' players, like Lloyd who busted or Duckett who barely played. There is a big difference between doing that and trading up to take a young stud at the most important position on the field. Trading up for a qb is not comparable to boneheaded moves of Cerrato. And its not like Shanahan has shown some great reverence for draft picks. Yes, we accumulate more picks last year, but we also traded multiple picks for McNabb, a pick for Brown, a pick for Beck, and swapped picks for Carriker. In Denver he was also no stranger to trading draft picks.

The Brown trade was a swap of picks, they moved down two rounds... for a guy that's been the starter whenever healthy enough to play

Beck was traded for a practice squad player there were no picks involved...

The pick they swapped for Carriker was a swap of picks in the same round, they dropped 28 spots.....he's started since he been here

that's 2 third round picks and corner that's out the league for two starters, Beck, a 3rd round pick and a 5th. He also recouped a 6th rd pick for McNabb

[SkinsJock]

don't be bringing in stuff like that - Canes doesn't consider facts that don't suit his agenda

[The Hogster]

I'm just not sold that it's worth it for us to give up what it will take to jump 2-3 spots. WE AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH YET.

Which is exactly why you have to make the move now. If you wait until we are good enough, the price goes way, way up. Plus that addition of a top flight QB is the piece that will get us to that next level.

What the heck are you talking about?? What is "The Move" for one? The move to get Luck? Or the move to get Griffin? You do realize they aren't the only 2 QBs in the draft this year right??

And, how does the "price" go up when we are good?? Teams don't base trade value on whether you are good or not dude. What on God's green earth are you talking about?

We need a QB. Yes. But, 1) there are more QBs in the draft than Luck and Griffin - if history holds true, one or more of them will become good QBs, and 2) we need more talent. Giving away draft picks is the same as giving away talent.

[GoSkins]

I'm just not sold that it's worth it for us to give up what it will take to jump 2-3 spots. WE AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH YET.

Which is exactly why you have to make the move now. If you wait until we are good enough, the price goes way, way up. Plus that addition of a top flight QB is the piece that will get us to that next level.

What the heck are you talking about?? What is "The Move" for one? The move to get Luck? Or the move to get Griffin? You do realize they aren't the only 2 QBs in the draft this year right??

And, how does the "price" go up when we are good?? Teams don't base trade value on whether you are good or not dude. What on God's green earth are you talking about?

We need a QB. Yes. But, 1) there are more QBs in the draft than Luck and Griffin - if history holds true, one or more of them will become good QBs, and 2) we need more talent. Giving away draft picks is the same as giving away talent.

The better your record the less value your draft picks are.

[cowboyhater4life]

We need more talent. We need depth at too many positions to trade away picks. We need to continue the process of building through the draft and not trade picks and over pay FA.

[The Hogster]

We need more talent. We need depth at too many positions to trade away picks. We need to continue the process of building through the draft and not trade picks and over pay FA.

+1

Also, people act like we can't get a franchise QB unless we draft Luck or Griffin. Like I'm saying, one of the other QBs drafted this year is going to be a stud for someone.

[Deadskins]

I'm just not sold that it's worth it for us to give up what it will take to jump 2-3 spots. WE AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH YET.

Which is exactly why you have to make the move now. If you wait until we are good enough, the price goes way, way up. Plus that addition of a top flight QB is the piece that will get us to that next level.

What the heck are you talking about?? What is "The Move" for one? The move to get Luck? Or the move to get Griffin? You do realize they aren't the only 2 QBs in the draft this year right??

That may be, but I'd rather wager this pick on one of those two than any other QB in this draft or free agency.

And, how does the "price" go up when we are good?? Teams don't base trade value on whether you are good or not dude. What on God's green earth are you talking about?

You don't underestand the concept that your draft position is determined by how well you do the previous season? Ok, I'll explain it to you. If you are good, then you will draft in a lower position. If you are drafting in a lower position, then that pick is less valuable as trade fodder. Therefore (read slowly here), the price to trade up to get a top prospect goes up relative to what you have to offer as compensation for the higher pick. For example: you would need to add less to a #6 pick to get up to #3, than you would have to offer in addition to a #20+ pick to get up to #3.

We need a QB. Yes. But, 1) there are more QBs in the draft than Luck and Griffin - if history holds true, one or more of them will become good QBs, and 2) we need more talent. Giving away draft picks is the same as giving away talent.

Which is exactly why you should do it while the price is reletively low. And yes, you are correct that there will be a QB taken with a lower pick than Luck or RGIII that will have a good NFL career, but if it's necessary to pay such a high price for a single player, I'd rather they gamble as little as possible.

[The Hogster]

Deadskins wrote:

You don't underestand the concept that your draft position is determined by how well you do the previous season? Ok, I'll explain it to you. If you are good, then you will draft in a lower position. If you are drafting in a lower position, then that pick is less valuable as trade fodder. Therefore (read slowly here), the price to trade up to get a top prospect goes up relative to what you have to offer as compensation for the higher pick. For example: you would need to add less to a #6 pick to get up to #3, than you would have to offer in addition to a #20+ pick to get up to #3.

DISCLAIMER: I get so sick of schooling people on this site who obviously either know nothing about football, never played any kind of physical sport, and obviously have no concept of talent evaluation or professional team building. Here goes once again. After this, will the big boys please jump in more on these threads. As of right now, 1niksder is the only person who knows football who consistently gets involved in these threads. There are more of you out there, but guys like 'Deadskins' dominate these discussions and it drags down the maturity of these topics.

Okay Skippy. Listen once here. I would point you to read the rest of the thread, but it would obviously take you too long. As for your highlighted text above. Duh. No sh.t Sherlock. It costs more to move up from a lower draft pick to a Top 5 draft pick. Thanks for breaking news buddy.

But what you're apparently too dense to understand is the overall point that YOU DON'T HAVE TO PICK IN THE TOP 5 TO LAND A FRANCHISE QB. If you READ you would see the example of that I posted on this site. The average draft position of this year's Top 10 rated passer's is 16th overall. And that's giving you the benefit of the doubt by removing guys like Brady & Romo because they are anamolies.

Accordingly, you don't get that. You probably gather most of your football knowledge from Colin Cowherd, some Fantasy Football pundit, or Mock Drafts because you keep saying the same logical fallacy "LETS TRADE UP NOW TO GET OUR QB BECAUSE DER ITS EASIER NOW, DER AND IT WILL BE HARDER WHEN WE ARE GOOD DER."

Dude, get a grip. Look around. Learn something. Aaron Rodgers was the 24th pick. Drew Brees was the 32nd pick. Joe Flacco was the 18th pick. T.J. Yates was the 152nd pick. Guess what. THEY'RE STILL PLAYING IN THE PLAYOFFS. WHY?? BECAUSE THEY PLAY ON GOOD TEAMS. You build a good team by DRAFTING GOOD PLAYERS.

DeadCells wrote:

Which is exactly why you should do it while the price is reletively low. And yes, you are correct that there will be a QB taken with a lower pick than Luck or RGIII that will have a good NFL career, but if it's necessary to pay such a high price for a single player, I'd rather they gamble as little as possible.

This makes no sense whatsoever. On the one hand, you say that I'm right. One of the QBs from the Tannenhill, Weeden, Wilson, Foles group will have a good NFL career, but we should NOT gamble by trading up??

That's ridiculous because you have obviously bought into the same flawed and incorrect logit that says that the TOP QBs are CANT MISS prospects. Do you know how many 'can't miss' prospects have 'missed' in recent history?? I don't know what you do for a living, but whatever it is, I assume you get paid to do it. Well, NFL GMs, Coaches, & Scouts are paid to identify players who can play and play well in their systems. They are paid to find those players and coach them.

What you are essentially saying is let's not gamble on the scouts being able to do what they're paid to do. Let's just trade up for Griffin or Luck because they're like the hot picks. They're like Supermen. It's like no chance for them to bust because, like the media says so!!

Before you fly off the handle and respond. Look around and learn something. Find a mentor if you have to. Thanks in advance.

[Chris Luva Luva]

but guys like 'Deadskins' dominate these discussions and it drags down the maturity of these topics.

Your constant proclamations about how everyone's knowledge (except that loser Redskin1) is inferior to your own is more than likely just as detrimental to the health of this thread as anything you're complaining about.

[The Hogster]

but guys like 'Deadskins' dominate these discussions and it drags down the maturity of these topics.

Your constant proclamations about how everyone's knowledge (except that loser Redskin1) is inferior to your own is more than likely just as detrimental to the health of this thread as anything you're complaining about.

Really. How? Maybe you like combing through drivel, I don't. It's true. Care to add anything? I've had my share of beef with 1niksder, but at least he says things that actually matter to real life like instead of saying "Let's cut Player X" He might say "Cutting player X would cost X against the cap."

One comment is stupid, the other is factual.

I'm tired of the stupid comments. I can't say you did any better with that one.

[cowboyhater4life]

The QB that we need is out there. I just get nervous when people freak out about needing the supposly best QB out there then giving up 3 years to get him. Back to the Vinny days.

[The Hogster]

The QB that we need is out there. I just get nervous when people freak out about needing the supposly best QB out there then giving up 3 years to get him. Back to the Vinny days.

+1

Exactly

[Chris Luva Luva]

Really. How? Maybe you like combing through drivel, I don't.

And who is forcing you to do it? Nobody. If you don't like it, you can leave.

I'm tired of the stupid comments. I can't say you did any better with that one.

Yet you read it and replied to it. Just like you'll do to this post.

[The Hogster]

Really. How? Maybe you like combing through drivel, I don't.

And who is forcing you to do it? Nobody. If you don't like it, you can leave.

I'm tired of the stupid comments. I can't say you did any better with that one.

Yet you read it and replied to it. Just like you'll do to this post.

Nobody is forcing me to come here. Is someone forcing you to? Better yet, is anyone forcing you to have Carlos Rogers in your avi?

I come here to talk football, Redskins football. Maybe you come here to get your news, or look at pictures. I don't run from challenges, so I won't leave. I'll just keep doing charity work here until my pupils grow up into knowledgable football fans. I'm something like a martyr.

[Deadskins]

That's ridiculous because you have obviously bought into the same flawed and incorrect logit that says that the TOP QBs are CANT MISS prospects.

And you obviously don't understand the word "gamble" in my post, or gamblig in general. If your going to go all in, you should probably be confident you have the winning hand. Luck and RGIII are the two best QBs in this draft. Sure, there will be someone else who does well, maybe even better, than either of them, but was taken lower. And if Mike and Bruce determine that's the case, they should draft that person when it is most adventageous for the Redskins. Luck and RGIII are just names to me. What I'm trying to get across to you is that, if you do need to move up to get your guy, it's better to do it now, than wait until you have a much worse position. You asked what "the price goes up when you are good," meant, and so I told you.

I highlighted the two finer points of my post for you, so you wouldn't get lost.

[Chris Luva Luva]

Is someone forcing you to?

All mods are held as captives inside of the Sippy-Cup.

Maybe you like combing through drivel, I don't.

No, I don't like reading your posts either.

I'll just keep doing charity work here until my pupils grow up into knowledgable football fans. I'm something like a martyr.

I find your self-appointed sense of of worth amusing though.

[The Hogster]

That's ridiculous because you have obviously bought into the same flawed and incorrect logit that says that the TOP QBs are CANT MISS prospects.

And you obviously don't understand the word "gamble" in my post, or gamblig in general. If your going to go all in, you should probably be confident you have the winning hand. Luck and RGIII are the two best QBs in this draft. Sure, there will be someone else who does well, maybe even better, than either of them, but was taken lower. And if Mike and Bruce determine that's the case, they should draft that person when it is most adventageous for the Redskins. Luck and RGIII are just names to me. What I'm trying to get across to you is that, if you do need to move up to get your guy, it's better to do it now, than wait until you have a much worse position. You asked what "the price goes up when you are good," meant, and so I told you.

I highlighted the two finer points of my post for you, so you wouldn't get lost.

I'm not sure how we can discuss what is a gamble this year versus next without knowing (i) where we will be drafting next year, and (ii) who will be available then. Nonetheless, I don't subscribe to the view that you must draft in the Top 3 in order to land a franchise QB.

In any event, the Superbowl winning QBs over the last 10 years:



Kurt Warner Undrafted
Trent Dilfer 6th
Brady 199th
Brad Johnson Round 9 227th
Brady 199th
Brady 199th
Roethlesberger 11th
Peyton Manning 1st
Eli Manning 1st
Roethlesberger 11th
Brees 32nd
Rogers 24th

Over the last 10 years, we have had 2 QBs win the Superbowl who would be undrafted Free Agents today. Kurt Warner, and Brad Johnson who was drafted in the 9th Round.

Over the last 10 years, 5 Superbowls were won by a QB selected in the 6th round or lower. HALF.

Over the last 10 years, only 2 QBs won the Superbowl who were 1st overall picks. The same number of undrafted free agents who won it.

The rest of the winners were drafted in the mid to late first round. Like I said before, we could trade up to take one of the Hot Guys. Or we could attempt to trade down and get another quality guy along with MORE TALENT.

We can disagree. That's fine. But, I like to backup my opinion with facts.

[The Hogster]

Is someone forcing you to?

All mods are held as captives inside of the Sippy-Cup.

Maybe you like combing through drivel, I don't.

No, I don't like reading your posts either.

I'll just keep doing charity work here until my pupils grow up into knowledgable football fans. I'm something like a martyr.

I find your self-appointed sense of of worth amusing though.

It's whatever then. It costs you nothing. Pay me no mind.

[DarthMonk]

Hogster - I thought this was a terrific post - unlike your drivel in the Gano thread.

Anyway, I honestly lean toward Tannehill, Foles, and Wilson (in that order) from your original list but would like to throw these 2 names in the hat ahead of Weeden:

Kirk Cousins, Michigan State, 6' 3", 202#:

Cousins has an enough of an arm to be a starting NFL quarterback. He is a good game-manager who could be a good quarterback to install in a play-action-based passing attack with a strong running game. When given time to throw Cousins is very effective. He struggles and makes bad decisions when he gets defensive linemen in his face. Cousins will have to improve that to have a shot at sneaking into the first round. He has good leadership skills. For the season, Cousins completed 65 percent of his passes for 3,016 yards with 24 touchdowns and seven interceptions.

Brock Osweiler, Arizona State, 6' 8", 240#:

Osweiler is big-armed pocket passer who has surprising mobility. The former basketball player has good athletic ability for being so tall. Looking at him, one would think he would be a statue in the pocket, but that is definitely not the case. As a junior this year, Osweiler completed 63 percent of his passes for 4,036 yards with 26 touchdowns and 13 interceptions. He also ran for 298 yards and three touchdowns. Osweiler set the school record for yards, completions and attempts. Osweiler has real arm strength and the gun to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. He is very raw and needs some work. If Osweiler goes to a good coaching staff that can develop him for a few years, he could turn into something.

With the news that Landry Jones is staying in
school, some of you Trade Up or Bust fans may as well take a gander at these faces of other draft eligible Quarterbacks who may become the future of the Burgundy & Gold.

I happen to like Brandon Weeden most of all. But, I also have good feelings about Tyler Wilson (if he comes out), Ryan Tannenhill (despite his limited experience), and Nick Foles (who could be a Joe Flacco/Matt Schuab type).

If I am the Redskins, I am looking to move down into the Mid first & pick up another 2nd round pick--the same strategy employed last year. I think a QB and 2 other good players to fill needs could be acquired with the first 3 picks. And, one of these guys could be our Franchise. Get used to it.



Brandon Weeden
Oklahoma State
6'4 220LBS

Pros: Accuracy, Maturity, & Leadership. Holds school records for: yards, total offense, completions, & completion percentage, among others.

Cons: He's 28 years old. He would likely be considered a Top 15 pick if he were 5 years younger. But, as a former baseball player, it's not like he's walking wounded. No wear and tear.



Ryan Tannenhill
Texas A & M
6'4 222lbs

Pros: Athleticism. Very Mobile & Elusive. Played WR for first 2 years of college career. Can get out of the pocket, and run fast. Mobility is somewhere above Ben Roethlesberger but below Cam Newton. Leadership. Teammates & coaches rave about his leadership skills and passion for the game. Big upside.

Cons: Has only played QB for 2 seasons.



Tyler Wilson
Arkansas
6'3 220lbs

Pros: Mature leader. Carries himself like a professional even in college. Good football knowledge. Fairly mobile and can throw on the run. HOlds school records for passing yards in a game: 510, Consecutive Completions: 19, Competions in a game: 32, and Pass Attempts without an interception: 184. Big Upside.

Cons: Has not yet declared, and said he intended to return to school before Landry Jones & Barkley decided to stay. If I'm his agent, I'm telling him to come out. He'd immediately be a Top 5 QB prospect with a chance to go late 1st.



Nick Foles
Arizona
6'5 240lbs

Pros: Big, strong QB. Good passer from the pocket. Not elusive, but is athletic enough to extend plays being a former basketball star. Keeps eyes down field in pressure. First in Pac-12 in passing with an average of 361 yards of offense per game--a conference record. Fairly accurate passer. Will be playing in the Senior Bowl.

Cons: Might not be as accurate on the run as MS would like, but then again, have you ever seen Matt Schuab run for a first down? I like his skills even if others limitations.


This might sound harsh, but it's true. A lot of fans wouldn't even know how to rank QB prospects if the media didn't tell you every year who the top guys are. As a result, it really irks me how people get all hot and bothered over Luck & RG3 just because they are the consensus "can't miss" pros. That may be right, but that doesn't mean these guys won't become good pro QBs who can lead a good team to the playoffs. We need to get better as a TEAM, and one of these guys just might lead the way.

[chiefhog44]

That's ridiculous because you have obviously bought into the same flawed and incorrect logit that says that the TOP QBs are CANT MISS prospects.

And you obviously don't understand the word "gamble" in my post, or gamblig in general. If your going to go all in, you should probably be confident you have the winning hand. Luck and RGIII are the two best QBs in this draft. Sure, there will be someone else who does well, maybe even better, than either of them, but was taken lower. And if Mike and Bruce determine that's the case, they should draft that person when it is most adventageous for the Redskins. Luck and RGIII are just names to me. What I'm trying to get across to you is that, if you do need to move up to get your guy, it's better to do it now, than wait until you have a much worse position. You asked what "the price goes up when you are good," meant, and so I told you.

I highlighted the two finer points of my post for you, so you wouldn't get lost.

I'm not sure how we can discuss what is a gamble this year versus next without knowing (i) where we will be drafting next year, and (ii) who will be available then. Nonetheless, I don't subscribe to the view that you must draft in the Top 3 in order to land a franchise QB.

In any event, the Superbowl winning QBs over the last 10 years:



Kurt Warner Undrafted
Trent Dilfer 6th
Brady 199th
Brad Johnson Round 9 227th
Brady 199th
Brady 199th
Roethlesberger 11th
Peyton Manning 1st
Eli Manning 1st
Roethlesberger 11th
Brees 32nd
Rogers 24th

Over the last 10 years, we have had 2 QBs win the Superbowl who would be undrafted Free Agents today. Kurt Warner, and Brad Johnson who was drafted in the 9th Round.

Over the last 10 years, 5 Superbowls were won by a QB selected in the 6th round or lower. HALF.

Over the last 10 years, only 2 QBs won the Superbowl who were 1st overall picks. The same number of undrafted free agents who won it.

The rest of the winners were drafted in the mid to late first round. Like I said before, we could trade up to take one of the Hot Guys. Or we could attempt to trade down and get another quality guy along with MORE TALENT.

We can disagree. That's fine. But, I like to backup my opinion with facts.

Maybe I need more schooling on this, so can you please answer the following? Sorry to be taking your time on this. Didn't most of these QB's...if not selected pretty high, sit behind a QB for a length of time and grow into a great QB? Meaning, the list you have created, is full of developed players right? Even Manning sat behind Warner for half the year (even though he was drafted 1st). So unless you want to keep Grossman/Beck to help the development for 2-6 years, I'm not sure how your "draft down and find a gem strategy" is really going to work without a QB in place. And maybe that's just it. Are you proposing that we draft one, and develop him behind one of these two idiots for 2 years on the bench? Could work I guess, but don't think this coaching staff will be able to survive that, in which case, we (and the QB) start all over. I would assume that you would find that to be detrimental to a QB's development...but maybe not. I even think RGIII needs a year to develop. How are you proposing to deal with that? The teams that went with a high draft pick on a QB played them out of the gates for the most part because they were NFL ready. So who exactly (because you are a self appointed guru on this) is NFL ready day 1 that we can find in the mid first round or a lower round?

I'm also not going to accept any of the rookies as evidence that it can be done. It's WAY to early to make them examples. You wouldn't do that I know (you obviously know that about short term results can be very misleading), but some on here continue to point to them as examples...which is troubling

The other concept that I may not have thought about is that you do not think we need a QB this year if one's not available at 6. That what we have is sufficient. That this coaching staff will survive another year of this and get one in next years draft. Who knows. All I hear from you though is that other great QB's in past drafts have been available later in the draft. A) Were they not mostly all developed, B) what QB can we take who is NFL ready out of the gates.

[The Hogster]

Chiefhog44 wrote:

Maybe I need more schooling on this, so can you please answer the following? Sorry to be taking your time on this. Didn't most of these QB's...if not selected pretty high, sit behind a QB for a length of time and grow into a great QB? Meaning, the list you have created, is full of developed players right? Even Manning sat behind Warner for half the year (even though he was drafted 1st). So unless you want to keep Grossman/Beck to help the development for 2-6 years, I'm not sure how your "draft down and find a gem strategy" is really going to work without a QB in place. And maybe that's just it. Are you proposing that we draft one, and develop him behind one of these two idiots for 2 years on the bench? Could work I guess, but don't think this coaching staff will be able to survive that, in which case, we (and the QB) start all over. I would assume that you would find that to be detrimental to a QB's development...but maybe not. I even think RGIII needs a year to develop. How are you proposing to deal with that? The teams that went with a high draft pick on a QB played them out of the gates for the most part because they were NFL ready. So who exactly (because you are a self appointed guru on this) is NFL ready day 1 that we can find in the mid first round or a lower round?

I'm also not going to accept any of the rookies as evidence that it can be done. It's WAY to early to make them examples. You wouldn't do that I know (you obviously know that about short term results can be very misleading), but some on here continue to point to them as examples...which is troubling

The other concept that I may not have thought about is that you do not think we need a QB this year if one's not available at 6. That what we have is sufficient. That this coaching staff will survive another year of this and get one in next years draft. Who knows. All I hear from you though is that other great QB's in past drafts have been available later in the draft. A) Were they not mostly all developed, B) what QB can we take who is NFL ready out of the gates.
_________________

Great Question.

I think the answer to that question is the more complicated part. If we were to draft Luck or Griffin, then I would argue that we should start that QB right away. In that situation, bringing Rex Grossman back as the undisputed backup (nothing more) would be my decision given our options. Rex is not a starter. But, he is a vet who knows this offense, he's got a limited market so signing him would be cheap, and his presence wouldn't pose any kind of QB controversy if the rookie struggled.

But, if we were to take say Ryan Tannenhill or one of the other QBs. Then you open up the ability to sign a guy like Matt Flynn. Here's why.

The way rookie contracts are, drafting a QB in the later 1st round or early 2nd requires very little financial investment. Basically, you can afford to pay a QB to sit now because they're only making between 5-15 million guaranteed over several years at those positions. There's no political pressure to start them right away.

But perhaps even better, having a guy like Tannenhill on the bench wouldn't scare away a free agent like Matt Flynn if we decided to bring him in. It would be understood that the annointed starter would be the starter.
Given the thin Free Agent market for QBs this year, you'd be essentially deciding whether to sign Matt Flynn to play while the rookie learns, or whether you re-sign Rex for that same role.

My thought is that you plan to have the rookie play at some point during Year 1. In that regard, I would bring Rex back. I know that makes some of us want to vomit, ME INCLUDED, but given the market, I'm not convinced we have much other choice. But, if we did sign Matt Flynn, I think it's a good move for the Redskins if he's the guy while the young guy learns. I lean away from that option because they both would be learning the offense at the same time, so you might as well go with Rex & the Rookie with the chance of simply starting the Rookie right away.

And, to be clear, I do think we need a QB. For sure. But, we have to deal with the reality of the situation. What we can realistically do to fix this problem without making ourselves into the St. Louis Rams minus the draft picks.

[chiefhog44]

Chiefhog44 wrote:

Maybe I need more schooling on this, so can you please answer the following? Sorry to be taking your time on this. Didn't most of these QB's...if not selected pretty high, sit behind a QB for a length of time and grow into a great QB? Meaning, the list you have created, is full of developed players right? Even Manning sat behind Warner for half the year (even though he was drafted 1st). So unless you want to keep Grossman/Beck to help the development for 2-6 years, I'm not sure how your "draft down and find a gem strategy" is really going to work without a QB in place. And maybe that's just it. Are you proposing that we draft one, and develop him behind one of these two idiots for 2 years on the bench? Could work I guess, but don't think this coaching staff will be able to survive that, in which case, we (and the QB) start all over. I would assume that you would find that to be detrimental to a QB's development...but maybe not. I even think RGIII needs a year to develop. How are you proposing to deal with that? The teams that went with a high draft pick on a QB played them out of the gates for the most part because they were NFL ready. So who exactly (because you are a self appointed guru on this) is NFL ready day 1 that we can find in the mid first round or a lower round?

I'm also not going to accept any of the rookies as evidence that it can be done. It's WAY to early to make them examples. You wouldn't do that I know (you obviously know that about short term results can be very misleading), but some on here continue to point to them as examples...which is troubling

The other concept that I may not have thought about is that you do not think we need a QB this year if one's not available at 6. That what we have is sufficient. That this coaching staff will survive another year of this and get one in next years draft. Who knows. All I hear from you though is that other great QB's in past drafts have been available later in the draft. A) Were they not mostly all developed, B) what QB can we take who is NFL ready out of the gates.
_________________

Great Question.

I think the answer to that question is the more complicated part. If we were to draft Luck or Griffin, then I would argue that we should start that QB right away. In that situation, bringing Rex Grossman back as the undisputed backup (nothing more) would be my decision given our options. Rex is not a starter. But, he is a vet who knows this offense, he's got a limited market so signing him would be cheap, and his presence wouldn't pose any kind of QB controversy if the rookie struggled.

But, if we were to take say Ryan Tannenhill or one of the other QBs. Then you open up the ability to sign a guy like Matt Flynn. Here's why.

The way rookie contracts are, drafting a QB in the later 1st round or early 2nd requires very little financial investment. Basically, you can afford to pay a QB to sit now because they're only making between 5-15 million guaranteed over several years at those positions. There's no political pressure to start them right away.

But perhaps even better, having a guy like Tannenhill on the bench wouldn't scare away a free agent like Matt Flynn if we decided to bring him in. It would be understood that the annointed starter would be the starter.
Given the thin Free Agent market for QBs this year, you'd be essentially deciding whether to sign Matt Flynn to play while the rookie learns, or whether you re-sign Rex for that same role.

My thought is that you plan to have the rookie play at some point during Year 1. In that regard, I would bring Rex back. I know that makes some of us want to vomit, ME INCLUDED, but given the market, I'm not convinced we have much other choice. But, if we did sign Matt Flynn, I think it's a good move for the Redskins if he's the guy while the young guy learns. I lean away from that option because they both would be learning the offense at the same time, so you might as well go with Rex & the Rookie with the chance of simply starting the Rookie right away.

And, to be clear, I do think we need a QB. For sure. But, we have to deal with the reality of the situation. What we can realistically do to fix this problem without making ourselves into the St. Louis Rams minus the draft picks.

I don't think this coaching staff survives this scenario you set up. That is why I don't think it happens.

What I did want answered by Inkster is how much compensation would we have to give up to get RGIII or Luck. Don't fly off the handle, I just don't know that side of this business, and I want to see if I can piece this together. I've played, I've coached, I know talent, and I'm an expert on putting a plan in place, but don't know jack about trades or salary cap.

[The Hogster]

I don't think this coaching staff survives this scenario you set up. That is why I don't think it happens.

If it works they do. I don't think this staff is nearly as skittish as the fans are. This coach went into the year with Rex & Beck at QB after passing on several other options. They're obviously committed to building, not appeasing.

[Countertrey]

I don't think this coaching staff survives this scenario you set up. That is why I don't think it happens.

If it works they do. I don't think this staff is nearly as skittish as the fans are. This coach went into the year with Rex & Beck at QB after passing on several other options. They're obviously committed to building, not appeasing.

Concur... there has not been hint 1 of any dissatisfaction or impatience from the Danny. He's going to let this ride for a while.