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

To be honest, I dont care. We have so many needs right now that QB is just mashed in with everything else. But yes, it would be nice to get a future QB to groom until the team is ready to compete. Either way I think you'll be seeing the sex pot that is Rex Grossman starting next year. We realistically need bonafide starters at the following positions:

QB
LG
C? (I cant stand Rabach, but dont know what the coaches think)
RG
RT? (Depending on Brown's status in the offseason)
RB? (I personally think Torain can start next yr but some dont agree)
WR
DE
NT
OLB
MLB
CB? (Im assuming Rodgers walks, maybe Buchanon can step in?)
FS

This is assuming Rocky and LOS walk. Thats a hell of alot of starters we need for next year. To say we HAVE to draft a QB is not realistic, we need to draft the best player available at a position of need IMO. If Locker happens to be there at 10, and Shanny feels he is the best player available then snag him. BUT if all QBs are taken before we pick, dont reach and pick a QB just to do it. Either trade back or draft a position of need. Just my 2 cents...

Irn-Bru wrote:Also, trading down doesn't necessarily mean very much if your scouting department isn't up to the challenge. See Redskins, 2008 for an example of that. Yes, we got some role players, but also a few busts and certainly no diamonds in the rough.

I agree that the scouting has to be there. The Draft is part of the reason I HATE the Salary Cap.... one poor choice in the first round and your cap situation can be messed up for two or three years to come. Especially at the TOP end of the first round. That's why I don't EVER want the 'Skins REACHING for a player at that #10 position in the first round.

Whoever we get there HAS TO BE an IMMEDIATE IMPACT STARTER, and should be someone at a position of NEED, not want, not like, not "it would be nice to upgrade the.... " position.

As I look at our current NEEDS, compared to the players who are WORTH that #10 pick, and who are likely to be selected in the nine positions in front of us, I am NOT confident, comfortable, or even remotely happy with what I see. Nor am I confident, comfortable, or happy with the idea of the people who are going to be making the choice at that position (Shanahan, Allen, etc....).

I really think this has the POTENTIAL to be a major league disaster if Shanahan, Allen, and company don't get it right. Especially if the new salary cap structure is tightened and strengthened following agreement on the new CBA.

2) You're way underestimating the impact of Brady, Manning and Brees. All three joined losing teams, and almost immediately turned all 3 franchises completely around. Looking it up, the turnarounds are actually pretty shocking. The Colts, Saints, and Pats weren't playoff teams before the QBs joined them...they were gutter teams. Awful teams.

Not to mention all three have hardware. If you want to include the other Manning that makes four actually.

I wouldn't worry so much about the cost of this pick. I'm confident that any new CBA is going to include a rookie wage scale.

Deadskins wrote:... Not saying those QBs didn't turn those teams around, but those franchises also had front office/coaching turnovers in the exact same time periods that could be the explanation for the turnarounds. Most likely, it's a combination of both.

I agree with the 'Dead' man - the NFL of today is seeing guys like Bradford come in and make a difference much more quickly than they used to - not saying you don't take a QB that you like with that #10 pick but we do need to get a lot younger and we do need a lot of help along the offensive line and we do have many needs on the defensive side as well

I am not at all interested in just addressing ANY position but rather I'm suggesting making additions to so many areas of need should be the mantra here

I do think the QB position is very important but I'd rather continue re-making this franchise to suit what offense and defense we want to use

I think that Bruce and Mike will be focusing on getting someone in here that can start for a while at least and IF there is a QB in the draft that Mike feels can be a very good QB then we should bring him in and hope that he can play soon

Deadskins wrote:I wouldn't worry so much about the cost of this pick. I'm confident that any new CBA is going to include a rookie wage scale.

Yep, and that's part of the reason why I'm going to have an even harder time following NFL football after the new CBA is in place than I do now. I HATE what the NFL has become since the 1994 CBA, and this new 2011 CBA has the potential to make it even worse so far as I am concerned.

I say it's about time. I think it's criminal that untested rookies get to be the amongst the highest paid players in the league every year without ever having played a down in the NFL.

Deadskins wrote:I say it's about time. I think it's criminal that untested rookies get to be the amongst the highest paid players in the league every year without ever having played a down in the NFL.

Personally, I'm against the Salary Cap in all forms and I always have been. It's among the things that have made me much less a fan of the NFL in the last 15 years.

If you look at the NFL over the past 4 or 5 years, the money invested to less than desirable players is ridiculous while proven vets are fighting for merely a fraction of these untested players coming out of college. 60+ million for a kid who's shown he's a talented college player doesn't equate to a guaranteed stud in the NFL. If you're going to have a salary cap, at the rate the rookie pay scale is increasing every year, you've got to put the slot system in there. It works in other sports. Not sure why it can't work here.

frankcal20 wrote:Build the team from the inside out. Start with both sides of the line and then get key weapons. There's enough guys on the street who can keep things a float if protected behind the line.

I'm with frank on this one. We need a solid foundation. We can get pieces to fit later instead of building a foundation around the pieces we have.

Only three coaches in the SuperBowl era have won without Hall Of Fame caliber QBs, Joe Gibbs, Bill Parcells, Tom Flores. None of those wins was after 1991. Teams need a franchise QB in the salary cap era. Therefore, I believe we need to sign free agents to correct the line issues and draft the QB of the future.

TCIYM wrote:Only three coaches in the SuperBowl era have won without Hall Of Fame caliber QBs, Joe Gibbs, Bill Parcells, Tom Flores. None of those wins was after 1991. Teams need a franchise QB in the salary cap era. Therefore, I believe we need to sign free agents to correct the line issues and draft the QB of the future.

Are you talking about teams that won the Super Bowl without having Hall of Fame caliber QB's? If so you might include the 1972 Dolphins (Earl Morrall), the 1985 Chicago Bears (Jim McMahon), the 2000 Baltimore Ravens (Trent Dilfer) and the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). There's also plenty of teams that came up short in the Superbowl that could have just as well been champions: 2000 New York Giants (Kerry Collins), 2002 Oakland Raiders (Rich Gannon), 2003 Carolina Panthers (Jake Delhomme), 2004 Philadelphia Eagles (Donovan McNabb), 2005 Seattle Seahawks (Matt Hasselbeck), 2006 Chicago Bears (Rex Grossman) and others.

QB is obviously the most important position in all of sports, but you're making the argument without admitting there's been teams to have success with a journeyman or middle of the road type.

well played skinsfan55, well played

Skinsfan55 wrote:Are you talking about teams that won the Super Bowl without having Hall of Fame caliber QB's? If so you might include the 1972 Dolphins (Earl Morrall), the 1985 Chicago Bears (Jim McMahon), the 2000 Baltimore Ravens (Trent Dilfer) and the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). There's also plenty of teams that came up short in the Superbowl that could have just as well been champions: 2000 New York Giants (Kerry Collins), 2002 Oakland Raiders (Rich Gannon), 2003 Carolina Panthers (Jake Delhomme), 2004 Philadelphia Eagles (Donovan McNabb), 2005 Seattle Seahawks (Matt Hasselbeck), 2006 Chicago Bears (Rex Grossman) and others.

QB is obviously the most important position in all of sports, but you're making the argument without admitting there's been teams to have success with a journeyman or middle of the road type.

Coaches who won more than one SuperBowl. I failed to include that in my post. I would hope we would not be operating under a "One And Done" philosophy as was the case with the teams you mentioned.

To everyone saying that we need to draft an OL in the first round....who exactly is it that you think we should take with the 10th pick overall? It's really nice to just say "draft OL", but this is a down year for OL in the draft and there there really isn't an offensive lineman that is worthy of being so high. The best offensive linemen available this year is Nate Solder and he is projected to go in the second half of the first round.

well, looks like the QB field just got a little narrower. Andrew Luck decided to stay in school.


http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/feed/20 ... -nfl-draft

TCIYM wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:Are you talking about teams that won the Super Bowl without having Hall of Fame caliber QB's? If so you might include the 1972 Dolphins (Earl Morrall), the 1985 Chicago Bears (Jim McMahon), the 2000 Baltimore Ravens (Trent Dilfer) and the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). There's also plenty of teams that came up short in the Superbowl that could have just as well been champions: 2000 New York Giants (Kerry Collins), 2002 Oakland Raiders (Rich Gannon), 2003 Carolina Panthers (Jake Delhomme), 2004 Philadelphia Eagles (Donovan McNabb), 2005 Seattle Seahawks (Matt Hasselbeck), 2006 Chicago Bears (Rex Grossman) and others.

QB is obviously the most important position in all of sports, but you're making the argument without admitting there's been teams to have success with a journeyman or middle of the road type.

Coaches who won more than one SuperBowl. I failed to include that in my post. I would hope we would not be operating under a "One And Done" philosophy as was the case with the teams you mentioned.

OK, but now you're narrowing to a pretty small list because you're tossing out coaches who won both with and without HOF caliber QB's (Shula) as well as teams that won multiple but with different head coaches (e.g., Raiders)

For everyone against a first round qb when is it we fill that void? FA? 2nd rounder??? Another trade? Mybe get the right qb from Philly this time? Lol
Bottom line we won't have a higher draft pick EVER again! At least I can hope
This team is on the rise and I see this as our only chance to try drafting the future qb.
Or?

I don't think many are against getting a QB with the #10 pick - I think most are just trying to find the best way to use the draft picks we have and how we can add to those picks - we have a lot of holes and while the QB is the most important position we are not suddenly going to be a good team with a young, potentially really good QB
we have a lot of holes to fill


I would not gamble on the QB - if they have someone in mind that can be very good, so be it, but we need to have all the other pieces too


these guys are getting there but not much of what they have done has greatly added to this roster - we have a ways to go

PATIENCE - we're getting better

KazooSkinsFan wrote:OK, but now you're narrowing to a pretty small list because you're tossing out coaches who won both with and without HOF caliber QB's (Shula) as well as teams that won multiple but with different head coaches (e.g., Raiders)

The point was exactly that. It is a very small list of teams that have had more than one year of success without a franchise, Hall Of Fame caliber QB. There have been a lot of one-year wonders, as has now been pointed out by more than one person but find me a New England or an Indianapolis or any team that makes the playoffs every year without a franchise QB.

TCIYM wrote:The point was exactly that. It is a very small list of teams that have had more than one year of success without a franchise, Hall Of Fame caliber QB. There have been a lot of one-year wonders, as has now been pointed out by more than one person but find me a New England or an Indianapolis or any team that makes the playoffs every year without a franchise QB.

I would suggest that Tom Brady is NOT a franchise QB. He is simply an assistant manager of a Quickie Mart. He is NOT required to do much of anything in that offense. The only thing he has to do is not turn the ball over, and their SYSTEM puts him in the position to do just that. They don't gamble. They don't look to make big plays. They are the proverbial mayonaisse on white bread sandwich with the crust trimmed off. It's ALL about the SYSTEM in New England.

Exhibit "A" of that is the fact that Brady stepped in as a sophomore QB, having only 3 passing attempts in a single game in his rookie season and that team went to the Super Bowl.

Exhibit "B" would be Matt Cassel, who stepped in when Brady went down in 2008 and had a 63% completion percentage and an 89.4 QB Rating. That team was 11-5 with a guy who nobody had ever heard of at QB.

Brady certainly makes big plays. This year he's #10 in 40+ yard plays for QBs, #5 in 20+ yard plays, and leads the league with 36 TDs. If you look at some of his previous years (esp. 2007) you'll find a remarkable number of big plays.

It's a credit to the Patriots that they can have more than one quarterback fill in and be successful in that offense. But Brady is a bigger part of that equation than you are giving him credit for.

Irn-Bru wrote:Brady certainly makes big plays. This year he's #10 in 40+ yard plays for QBs, #5 in 20+ yard plays, and leads the league with 36 TDs. If you look at some of his previous years (esp. 2007) you'll find a remarkable number of big plays.

It's a credit to the Patriots that they can have more than one quarterback fill in and be successful in that offense. But Brady is a bigger part of that equation than you are giving him credit for.

Trust me. I have to sit here and listen to the Patriots sicophants seven days a week. I would suggest that the offense the Patriots run is really not designed to hit the "Home Run". It's designed to force the other team to make mistakes and to capitalize on them. It's a REACTIVE offense rather than one which forces the defense to react to it. That's something I find completely and totally disgusting and unacceptable.

The comment here in NE is "Who is Tom Brady's favorite receiver?" the answer.... "Whoever is open." Of course it is, because there are no true #1 or #2 caliber receivers on that team and haven't really ever been. Moss was too much of a headcase to be a true #1.

The New England Patriots are to the NFL what Eli Whitney was to the industrial revolution. Whitney it most well known for the Cotton Gin, but he also was a pioneer of the concept of "Interchangable Parts" along with Samuel Colt. Until Whitney/Colt parts had to be custom manufactured for every machine. With the invention of interchangable parts and mass production of such, anyone could repair, replace or even build technical machines that worked reliably. It made the custom tool and die maker very much a thing of the past.

Likewise the system the Patriots use is designed for any bum to be able to come in and effectively produce in BECAUSE it does not require anything special or any significant level of talent from the players beyond simply being able to make the same reads to the same defense that the other 10 guys do. It's not ART, it's PAINT-BY-THE-NUMBERS.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:I would suggest that Tom Brady is NOT a franchise QB. He is simply an assistant manager of a Quickie Mart. He is NOT required to do much of anything in that offense. The only thing he has to do is not turn the ball over, and their SYSTEM puts him in the position to do just that. They don't gamble. They don't look to make big plays. They are the proverbial mayonaisse on white bread sandwich with the crust trimmed off. It's ALL about the SYSTEM in New England.

Exhibit "A" of that is the fact that Brady stepped in as a sophomore QB, having only 3 passing attempts in a single game in his rookie season and that team went to the Super Bowl.

Exhibit "B" would be Matt Cassel, who stepped in when Brady went down in 2008 and had a 63% completion percentage and an 89.4 QB Rating. That team was 11-5 with a guy who nobody had ever heard of at QB.

Wow, how can a post have so many words and so little content? It's preposterous to think that any system can succeed without a quality quarterback. Or you could just watch the guy play and come to the same conclusion, he's a great quarterback.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:Trust me. I have to sit here and listen to the Patriots sicophants seven days a week

Sycophants? I'm trying to figure out how that makes sense. I just mean from an English perspective. And you're confusing hating the Patriots with evaluating them.