The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I think we all agree that we need a "Franchise" QB. I think we disagree on how we will acquire them. Of course, RG3 or Luck would be huge. But, realistically, what would it take to get them? And, is it worth it.

We act like simply packaging a trade together that loosely correlates to the Value Chart will be all we need. No. We need a willing trade partner, and a market for the pick that is cool enough not to drive the price sky high.

I am of the mind that while RG3 and Luck are the closest players to a "sure thing" there are other players in this draft who can lead the Skins for the next decade to winning seasons if we develop the team around them. All I want is for fans to be educated in addition to being excited. It's excitement that leads fans get tunnel vision and want to trade up at all costs to get the hot guy. But, a little education might lead us to other players that can build a contender that won't cost the farm to acquire.

Put simply, Joe Flacco is no Aaron Rodgers, or Drew Brees but he's playing this weekend and they're watching him from the couch.

Everyone seems to agree that the Redskins need a good QB, a "franchise QB", and that the neither of the best QBs are likely to be around when the Redskins draft.

That does not mean that the first or second team is likely to trade down. Everybody wants the next Peyton Manning, and there is a point at which it becomes self-destructive to trade up even if some team is willing.

What can anyone say until the draft is made?

welch wrote:Everyone seems to agree that the Redskins need a good QB, a "franchise QB", and that the neither of the best QBs are likely to be around when the Redskins draft.

That does not mean that the first or second team is likely to trade down. Everybody wants the next Peyton Manning, and there is a point at which it becomes self-destructive to trade up even if some team is willing.

What can anyone say until the draft is made?

And what else is the majority of Redskins fans going to talk, write, discuss, fight, argue, repeat, comment and, yes, repeat and repeat and repeat about???

It is very clear that the Redskins do not control alone the future of their 1st round pick. Top teams may ask for a fortune to trade-up or they may make the picks and simply take the top two QBs in the Draft.

Some fans are so desperate to get some HOPE that they have convinced themselves that the addition of a single player, no matter what the cost might be, is going to take this franchise to a Superbowl.

We understand and share their frustration. Redskins fans have suffered the pain and sorrow inflicted upon us over the ownership of Dan Snyder and and a couple of years beyond it.

You are absolutely right. Not a single "bullet-proof" formula is in the hands of the Redskins FO. They have to have a number of options available to them in light of the decisions and potential offers that other Teams can make to us to trade-up, trade-down or stay at 6th pick.

BUT ...

... What are Skins fans to do during the post- and off-season but to give relentless advice and sharing their know-it-all source of wisdom???

Only a few fans in this board have really examined this topic over the RANGE of options available under different scenarios. Other fans should read the Blogs posted in this same website before posting too.

Watch us go into next season singing the praises of Jonathan Crompton as a franchise quarterback. He knows the system!

Not to beat the dead horse here, but I'm going to beat the dead horse.

This weekend two relatively unbalanced teams with superior offenses and marquee quarterbacks played two more-balanced teams with exceptional / very good defenses, respectively. Counter to what is apparently the "educated" prediction, both teams with the offensive power and better QB won. (Now I know those were just the conference championship games and so they didn't "matter." But if we can put that concern aside for just one moment . . .)

We are not a perfectly balanced team, but we are finally good enough at this point that a franchise QB is the bottleneck to greater success. I think we should be willing to trade a very high amount of value to get one of the two top QBs or one of the young FA / tradeable QBs that will be available this spring.

It's obvious Shanny/Allen are going to do something about our quarterbacks this offseason, but if it's the equivalent of bringing in another Rex Grossman / John Beck combo — even under the guise of building a foundation before acquiring a franchise QB — that could be a DC-careerbreaker for the pair.

I also think it's not uneducated or mere wild excitement to see it this way. A high-powered offense is more important in today's NFL than a great defense or even an equal distribution of both. The stats have long been trending in that direction, and this year's regular season and playoffs are no exception to that trend. At some point we need to start making big moves. I know our options became very limited when two suitable QB prospects decided not to enter the draft, but that doesn't mean a high price isn't worth moving up to get our guy.

I don't envy Shanny/Allen's position. This will be a tough maneuver to pull off.

Irn-Bru wrote:Not to beat the dead horse here, but I'm going to beat the dead horse.

This weekend two relatively unbalanced teams with superior offenses and marquee quarterbacks played two more-balanced teams with exceptional / very good defenses, respectively. Counter to what is apparently the "educated" prediction, both teams with the offensive power and better QB won. (Now I know those were just the conference championship games and so they didn't "matter." But if we can put that concern aside for just one moment . . .)

We are not a perfectly balanced team, but we are finally good enough at this point that a franchise QB is the bottleneck to greater success. I think we should be willing to trade a very high amount of value to get one of the two top QBs or one of the young FA / tradeable QBs that will be available this spring.

It's obvious Shanny/Allen are going to do something about our quarterbacks this offseason, but if it's the equivalent of bringing in another Rex Grossman / John Beck combo — even under the guise of building a foundation before acquiring a franchise QB — that could be a DC-careerbreaker for the pair.

I also think it's not uneducated or mere wild excitement to see it this way. A high-powered offense is more important in today's NFL than a great defense or even an equal distribution of both. The stats have long been trending in that direction, and this year's regular season and playoffs are no exception to that trend. At some point we need to start making big moves. I know our options became very limited when two suitable QB prospects decided not to enter the draft, but that doesn't mean a high price isn't worth moving up to get our guy.

I don't envy Shanny/Allen's position. This will be a tough maneuver to pull off.

Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

Irn-Bru wrote:Not to beat the dead horse here, but I'm going to beat the dead horse.

This weekend two relatively unbalanced teams with superior offenses and marquee quarterbacks played two more-balanced teams with exceptional / very good defenses, respectively. Counter to what is apparently the "educated" prediction, both teams with the offensive power and better QB won. (Now I know those were just the conference championship games and so they didn't "matter." But if we can put that concern aside for just one moment . . .)

We are not a perfectly balanced team, but we are finally good enough at this point that a franchise QB is the bottleneck to greater success. I think we should be willing to trade a very high amount of value to get one of the two top QBs or one of the young FA / tradeable QBs that will be available this spring.

It's obvious Shanny/Allen are going to do something about our quarterbacks this offseason, but if it's the equivalent of bringing in another Rex Grossman / John Beck combo — even under the guise of building a foundation before acquiring a franchise QB — that could be a DC-careerbreaker for the pair.

I also think it's not uneducated or mere wild excitement to see it this way. A high-powered offense is more important in today's NFL than a great defense or even an equal distribution of both. The stats have long been trending in that direction, and this year's regular season and playoffs are no exception to that trend. At some point we need to start making big moves. I know our options became very limited when two suitable QB prospects decided not to enter the draft, but that doesn't mean a high price isn't worth moving up to get our guy.

I don't envy Shanny/Allen's position. This will be a tough maneuver to pull off.

+1

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

So where are the Saints and Packers genius?

The Hogster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

So where are the Saints and Packers genius?

1. What does that have to do with the Ravens and the Patriots? Because that is who I was commenting on and who you inaccurately spoke of.

2. This is your first warning today about the way in which you speak to people on the forum. Chill out with the demeaning language.

The Hogster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

So where are the Saints and Packers genius?

Aren't they also unbalanced and at home? Have the Pats thus far been the exception? Are they playing their best defense of the year, i.e., have they been more balanced in the playoffs? Didn't they even run on the Ravens?

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

1. Playing defense very well and being adequate on offense does not equal balanced to me.
2. Yes, special teams blunders gave the G-strings the win, but had the 49ers been able to muster any offense at all (not one 3rd down conversion all day, and several missed opportunities on wide open receivers), those two (only one with no OT) miscues by Williams wouldn't have made any difference at all. The G-strings did not play very well at all yesterday, but the 49ers weren't good enough to capitalize on it.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

The Ravens D allowed 17 pts per game and their offense scored 20 points per game. That sounds balanced to me.

The Patriots D allowed 21 points per game and their offense scored 34 points per game. I don't think the Patriots defense is nearly as bad as their ranking. They gave up a lot of passing yards for some reason this season which killed their overall defensive ranking.

Irn-Bru wrote:We are not a perfectly balanced team, but we are finally good enough at this point that a franchise QB is the bottleneck to greater success. I think we should be willing to trade a very high amount of value to get one of the two top QBs or one of the young FA / tradeable QBs that will be available this spring.

Completely agree with this. Actually, more with the draft QBs than the FA ones, but that's another discussion.

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

So where are the Saints and Packers genius?

1. What does that have to do with the Ravens and the Patriots? Because that is who I was commenting on and who you inaccurately spoke of.

2. This is your first warning today about the way in which you speak to people on the forum. Chill out with the demeaning language.

I'm not tiptoeing around here to avoid hurting your feelings. I stand by what I said. The most balanced team generally prevails in the NFL Playoffs and Superbowl. The Patriots are a balanced team. So are the Ravens. They're basically mirror images of each other.

Ravens had the #2 Ranked Defense and #15 Ranked Offense. The Pats have the #3 Ranked Offense, and #15 Ranked Defense.

They are both balanced teams. Balance doesn't mean mediocre at everything. It means that if you have an average defense or offense, that the other phases of your team are productive enough to BALANCE the team out.

The Hogster wrote: I'm not tiptoeing around here to avoid hurting your feelings. I stand by what I said.

As long as U adhere to the rules, idc.

The Hogster wrote:Balance doesn't mean mediocre at everything. It means that if you have an average defense or offense, that the other phases of your team are productive enough to BALANCE the team out.

Um, no. Balanced would mean that the team is ranked in the same range on both offense and defense. Top three on one side of the ball and middle of the pack on the other is NOT balanced.

I would prefer it and it might be a bit more interesting to read these arguments if you guys put SCENARIOS under which you would agree to trade-up for one of the two top QBs.

Let me draw my line on the sand and avoid the aggravation of GENERIC and UNDEFINED positions on the Draft:

1) If RB III is available by the THIRD pick in the first round, I would agree to trade-up to get him. I would not agree to move up to the 2nd spot which is TOO expensive.

2) IF RB III is NOT available by the Third pick anymore because Rams picked him or some other team did in the second spot (e.g., Cleveland moved up to 2nd spot to get him because they have far mor picks to trade than we do) I would then check three options:

2.1) IF Blackmon is available by the 6th pick, I take him first.
2.2) IF Blackmon is NOT available, I take Claiborne with the 6th pick.
2.3) IF NONE of the two players above are available, I try to TRADE -DOWN for more picks and try to get my guy in FA.

These theories about whether "balance" is and how it is evaluated or whether "offense prevails" and defense is less important makes NO SENSE to me. All of you have BOTH examples of unbalanced teams and supposedly balanced teams winning and moving ahead or losing and out of the playoffs already. You can bring examples to support either view.

Instead, why would we not try to elevate the nature of the debate and put forward actual SCENARIOS under you would do or would not do certain trades???

The Hogster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:

Chris Luva Luva wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

The Ravens are more of a balanced team than the Patriots. The Patriots offense and defense are a tale of extremes. The Ravens defense is great, the offense is middle of the pack. That's more balanced.

So where are the Saints and Packers genius?

1. What does that have to do with the Ravens and the Patriots? Because that is who I was commenting on and who you inaccurately spoke of.

2. This is your first warning today about the way in which you speak to people on the forum. Chill out with the demeaning language.

I'm not tiptoeing around here to avoid hurting your feelings. I stand by what I said. The most balanced team generally prevails in the NFL Playoffs and Superbowl. The Patriots are a balanced team. So are the Ravens. They're basically mirror images of each other.

Ravens had the #2 Ranked Defense and #15 Ranked Offense. The Pats have the #3 Ranked Offense, and #15 Ranked Defense.

They are both balanced teams. Balance doesn't mean mediocre at everything. It means that if you have an average defense or offense, that the other phases of your team are productive enough to BALANCE the team out.

The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

Pat's defense did enough to stop the Ravens yesterday.

That is to say:

The ratio of Pats offense versus Ravens defense contrasted against the ratio of Ravens offense versus Pats defense was won by the Pats.

If the Pats defense had stunk as you argue it does, Ravens would have scored more points than the Pats offense did.

BUT MY POINT is that this is a silly argument. Redskins should only trade-up if the price is RIGHT. To me, trading up to 3rd pick is RIGHT but trading up to 2nd pick is TOO EXPENSIVE and wrong.

Deadskins wrote:

The Hogster wrote:Weak. The Giants are a balanced team. Their defense has played very well in the playoffs, and their offense has been adequate enough to get the job done. Funny thing is BOTH of the losing teams in the Championship games lost the game on Special Teams errors and not ineptitude on offense. Give me a break. Balance still prevailed. The Ravens are one of the worst offensive teams in the NFL--which means they lack Balance. Refer to the definition of balance again please.

1. Playing defense very well and being adequate on offense does not equal balanced to me.
2. Yes, special teams blunders gave the G-strings the win, but had the 49ers been able to muster any offense at all (not one 3rd down conversion all day, and several missed opportunities on wide open receivers), those two (only one with no OT) miscues by Williams wouldn't have made any difference at all. The G-strings did not play very well at all yesterday, but the 49ers weren't good enough to capitalize on it.

The Giants were far more than "adequate" on offense this season. They were 9th in the NFL in scoring with 24.6 ppg and 8th in yards per game. They were also 7th in time of possession.

Individually, Eli was 7th in qb rating, 6th in td's, and 4th in yardage. He played an elite level qb this season. They also had two receivers with over 1,100 yards.

In the playoffs their offense has also been much more than "adequate". An "adequate" offense doesn't average 27 points per game in the playoffs.

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

They scored 34 points per game and allowed 21 points per game. They won nine of their games by 14 or more points. Sorry, their balance was just fine.

That passing yards stat is just COMPLETELY misleading. The Pats were hanging 34 points on teams and playing with huge leads all season long. So of course their opponents were passing like crazy to try to catch up. You know who had the #30 ranking in pass defense for much the same reason? THE SAINTS.

riggofan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

They scored 34 points per game and allowed 21 points per game. They won nine of their games by 14 or more points. Sorry, their balance was just fine.

That passing yards stat is just COMPLETELY misleading. The Pats were hanging 34 points on teams and playing with huge leads all season long. So of course their opponents were passing like crazy to try to catch up. You know who had the #30 ranking in pass defense for much the same reason? THE SAINTS.

My view: Shanny will continue to make questionable personnel decisions for the rest of his career, just as he always has. We'lll fail to bring in a franchise quarterback, thus we will lose big, and Danny will be looking for a new coach and GM.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:The Pats gave up 411 yards a game, which was 31st in the NFL. Their rushing D was 17th in the NFL and their passing D was 31st. That's not balanced.

Pat's defense did enough to stop the Ravens yesterday.

That is to say:

The ratio of Pats offense versus Ravens defense contrasted against the ratio of Ravens offense versus Pats defense was won by the Pats.

If the Pats defense had stunk as you argue it does, Ravens would have scored more points than the Pats offense did.

BUT MY POINT is that this is a silly argument. Redskins should only trade-up if the price is RIGHT. To me, trading up to 3rd pick is RIGHT but trading up to 2nd pick is TOO EXPENSIVE and wrong.

Just curious...why are you stating the 2nd pick is too expensive? It's obviously more expensive but why too expensive?

Redskin in Canada wrote:To me, trading up to 3rd pick is RIGHT but trading up to 2nd pick is TOO EXPENSIVE and wrong.

Unless you know what the actual deal is, you can't make this statement. How do you know moving up to the #2 spot is too expensive? Maybe Mike can make a deal for the #2 for what you think it will take to get the #3.