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

PulpExposure wrote:Man I wish Barkley was still in the draft. This is setting up to be a very bad offseason for us. We need a QB, and the only one available who is young with potential is Matt Flynn (he of the whole 2 games started). However, by the time the draft rolls around, he will have already signed with a team. Nightmare scenario; they don't sign Flynn, and both Luck and RG3 get drafted. What then? Pick a guy like Tannehill who has played a whole 1.5 years of QB in college?

smh. I really don't think I can take another year of Rex and Beck.

1niksder wrote:[I think the Rams are set with Bradford, most reports have the Vikes and Hawks out of the QB hunt stating open competions in 2012 between Ponder and Webb / Hasselbeck and Locker.

Titans /= Hawks...

+1

Yeah Canes caught that earlier

at this point we have to do whatever it takes to get Luck or RGIII. we've been trying to scrape by for decades without a great QB and it has to stop. i don't want to give up picks more than anyone else but what good are adding other players if people like Grossman and Beck or a washed up McNabb are your QB? it won't matter how good the rest of your team is.

x2 I'm ready for a real qb the rest will fall in place ie trades FA and later rounds. Can't wait to have a qb that makes all our recievers look better and the good one play that much better

RayNAustin wrote:Has it ever occurred to the "draft pick savers" that for a team like Indy, who has more roster holes than the Redskins ... when they choose to use their #1 overall pick, they are doing EXACTLY the same damned thing as giving up several draft picks to trade up?

How so? Last time I checked Indy gets the #1 pick, therefore they don't need to trade away anything. I get what your saying, BUT Indy does NOT need to give up draft picks to get a "stud" QB like Luck, but the Redskins will have to. Indy loses nothing and gains everything by taking Luck. Because then they can use him as a bargaining tool to trade away for other draft picks. They're in a very enviable position.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Has it ever occurred to the "draft pick savers" that for a team like Indy, who has more roster holes than the Redskins ... when they choose to use their #1 overall pick, they are doing EXACTLY the same damned thing as giving up several draft picks to trade up?

How so? Last time I checked Indy gets the #1 pick, therefore they don't need to trade away anything. I get what your saying, BUT Indy does NOT need to give up draft picks to get a "stud" QB like Luck, but the Redskins will have to. Indy loses nothing and gains everything by taking Luck. Because then they can use him as a bargaining tool to trade away for other draft picks. They're in a very enviable position.

But the point is Luck is worth at least 3 1st rounders.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Has it ever occurred to the "draft pick savers" that for a team like Indy, who has more roster holes than the Redskins ... when they choose to use their #1 overall pick, they are doing EXACTLY the same damned thing as giving up several draft picks to trade up?

How so? Last time I checked Indy gets the #1 pick, therefore they don't need to trade away anything. I get what your saying, BUT Indy does NOT need to give up draft picks to get a "stud" QB like Luck, but the Redskins will have to. Indy loses nothing and gains everything by taking Luck. Because then they can use him as a bargaining tool to trade away for other draft picks. They're in a very enviable position.

Not trying to be snarky here ... but Jesus ... this is really simple logic. There is not one iota of difference. If the Redskins offered the Colts 3 #1 picks to get Luck, and the Colts said no thanks, they would ultimately be spending those three picks the Redskins offered them for Luck, since they said no thanks. REGARDLESS of who owns the pick .... if the pick is worth 3 #1s, then that is what the pick will ultimately cost the team that uses it, whether or not they were the original owner of the pick or traded for it. If you trade it ... you get 3 #1s for it. If you don't trade it .... you lose those 3 #1s you could have gotten for it. GET IT?

RayNAustin wrote:GET IT?

#raiseshand lol

GoSkins wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Has it ever occurred to the "draft pick savers" that for a team like Indy, who has more roster holes than the Redskins ... when they choose to use their #1 overall pick, they are doing EXACTLY the same damned thing as giving up several draft picks to trade up?

How so? Last time I checked Indy gets the #1 pick, therefore they don't need to trade away anything. I get what your saying, BUT Indy does NOT need to give up draft picks to get a "stud" QB like Luck, but the Redskins will have to. Indy loses nothing and gains everything by taking Luck. Because then they can use him as a bargaining tool to trade away for other draft picks. They're in a very enviable position.

But the point is Luck is worth at least 3 1st rounders.

Really?

Do you already know what 1st rounders would you be trading in exchange?

No? How come? You would not be making such an irresponsible proposition if you do not know what you are trading away, would you?

Interesting fact is: the Redskin Nation is desperate and frustrated after over a decade of losing seasons and disappointments (with the exception of 2 Gibbs II seasons). The fans will trade ANYTHING for a desperate measure which might restore any hope and give them anything to develop their interest.

Thing is: It is BEST not to depend on a single player and a potential injury EVEN if you assume that he will truly be worth that many picks. The last Draft was the best we have had in a couple of decades. Why change that philosophy now? Get younger, better and DEEPER at key positions and then others will want to come and play in DC.

There used to be a time when a player considered himself fortunate and privileged to come and play for Joe Gibbs I. Not because money was great, quite the opposite, the old man was stingy, BUT because of the work ethic, the TEAM effort and yes, CHAMPIONSHIPS.

If one of the two top QBs is available within reasonable reach in this Draft, grab him. Trade down and stay the course with the past Draft philosophy otherwise.

My question is .... are there any rules prohibiting teams from negotiating draft trades now?

If not, I'd be trying to strike a deal prior to the free agency period ... and I'd start with Indy .... if we could secure the #1 pick now, then we could address other needs with FA, and be loaded for bear come training camp.

RayNAustin wrote:My question is .... are there any rules prohibiting teams from negotiating draft trades now?

If not, I'd be trying to strike a deal prior to the free agency period ... and I'd start with Indy .... if we could secure the #1 pick now, then we could address other needs with FA, and be loaded for bear come training camp.

Yeah! Sure!

Show your cards ahead of the game. Close the door to Free Agency and discourage other QB from even showing an onterest to play here. Bargain away at least three years of Draft picks plus some current good players and ... maybe ... maybe ... if the QB of your dreams lives to YOUR expectations right awy, and he is not injured because we cannot draft a good OL for him, and ...

Never mind.

You are beyond the point of reasoning. This has become an emotional battle. Your mind is made up: It is either Luck or suck forever, Right?

Assuming the Colts take Luck, I really don't see Cleveland passing up RGIII. Colt McCoy is not going to get it done, they know that. Even if they do he could get grabbed by somebody else. It's not like any of the teams before us have elite qb's. But it is early in the process at least, maybe he'll be kinda short at the combine and drop to us.

RayNAustin wrote:Not trying to be snarky here ... but Jesus ... this is really simple logic. There is not one iota of difference. If the Redskins offered the Colts 3 #1 picks to get Luck, and the Colts said no thanks, they would ultimately be spending those three picks the Redskins offered them for Luck, since they said no thanks. REGARDLESS of who owns the pick .... if the pick is worth 3 #1s, then that is what the pick will ultimately cost the team that uses it, whether or not they were the original owner of the pick or traded for it. If you trade it ... you get 3 #1s for it. If you don't trade it .... you lose those 3 #1s you could have gotten for it. GET IT?

Ok...

Indy has the #1 pick, you realize this right? Therefore, Indy has the OPTION in taking Luck and keeping him, or trading him away to stock their team with other draft picks. And the Redskins? The have the #6 pick. What options do they have other than trading away draft picks to acquire Luck? And who's to say those draft picks don't turn out to become superstars? The Redskins do NOT HAVE AN OPTION to keep the #1 like Indy. That's why it's a win win situation for them. Do you GET IT?!

Redskin in Canada wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:My question is .... are there any rules prohibiting teams from negotiating draft trades now?

If not, I'd be trying to strike a deal prior to the free agency period ... and I'd start with Indy .... if we could secure the #1 pick now, then we could address other needs with FA, and be loaded for bear come training camp.

Yeah! Sure!

Show your cards ahead of the game. Close the door to Free Agency and discourage other QB from even showing an onterest to play here. Bargain away at least three years of Draft picks plus some current good players and ... maybe ... maybe ... if the QB of your dreams lives to YOUR expectations right awy, and he is not injured because we cannot draft a good OL for him, and ...

Never mind.

You are beyond the point of reasoning. This has become an emotional battle. Your mind is made up: It is either Luck or suck forever, Right?

What free agent qbs? It's a bunch of Rex/Beck retreads and an overhyped system qb in Flynn.

Redskin in Canada wrote:
Thing is: It is BEST not to depend on a single player and a potential injury EVEN if you assume that he will truly be worth that many picks. The last Draft was the best we have had in a couple of decades. Why change that philosophy now? Get younger, better and DEEPER at key positions and then others will want to come and play in DC.

And using the same QBs, we made the most of that great draft by putting all that talent to good use ... improving from 6-10 last year to 5-11 this year! Yeah baby .... now that's progress!

Great plan!!!

StorminMormon86 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:Not trying to be snarky here ... but Jesus ... this is really simple logic. There is not one iota of difference. If the Redskins offered the Colts 3 #1 picks to get Luck, and the Colts said no thanks, they would ultimately be spending those three picks the Redskins offered them for Luck, since they said no thanks. REGARDLESS of who owns the pick .... if the pick is worth 3 #1s, then that is what the pick will ultimately cost the team that uses it, whether or not they were the original owner of the pick or traded for it. If you trade it ... you get 3 #1s for it. If you don't trade it .... you lose those 3 #1s you could have gotten for it. GET IT?

Ok...

Indy has the #1 pick, you realize this right? Therefore, Indy has the OPTION in taking Luck and keeping him, or trading him away to stock their team with other draft picks. And the Redskins? The have the #6 pick. What options do they have other than trading away draft picks to acquire Luck? And who's to say those draft picks don't turn out to become superstars? The Redskins do NOT HAVE AN OPTION to keep the #1 like Indy. That's why it's a win win situation for them. Do you GET IT?!

Of course Indy has the pick and we don't. I think everyone knows that. Congratulations for having such a firm grasp on the situation.

As to the finer point I failed to explain adequately enough ... I don't know of any way of simplifying it further.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Redskin in Canada wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:My question is .... are there any rules prohibiting teams from negotiating draft trades now?

If not, I'd be trying to strike a deal prior to the free agency period ... and I'd start with Indy .... if we could secure the #1 pick now, then we could address other needs with FA, and be loaded for bear come training camp.

Yeah! Sure!

Show your cards ahead of the game. Close the door to Free Agency and discourage other QB from even showing an onterest to play here. Bargain away at least three years of Draft picks plus some current good players and ... maybe ... maybe ... if the QB of your dreams lives to YOUR expectations right awy, and he is not injured because we cannot draft a good OL for him, and ...

Never mind.

You are beyond the point of reasoning. This has become an emotional battle. Your mind is made up: It is either Luck or suck forever, Right?

What free agent qbs? It's a bunch of Rex/Beck retreads and an overhyped system qb in Flynn.

We're going to take "Joe Shotgun" in the 7th round .... and let them fight it out in training camp, silly. Joe's a sleeper .... you'll see.

Well, Polian seems to think he was fired for not having a capable backup QB to step in for Manning .... so that may be an indication that Indy is unlikely to trade the #1 pick.

RayNAustin wrote:As to the finer point I failed to explain adequately enough ... I don't know of any way of simplifying it further.

Here's what you explained "adequately"...

RayNAustin wrote:the Redskins offered the Colts 3 #1 picks to get Luck, and the Colts said no thanks, they would ultimately be spending those three picks the Redskins offered them for Luck, since they said no thanks. REGARDLESS of who owns the pick

By your logic, if someone offered you a million dollars for an apple and you said, "NO", you just got done spending a million dollars...for an apple that you already own...?

Yep, makes sense.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:As to the finer point I failed to explain adequately enough ... I don't know of any way of simplifying it further.

Here's what you explained "adequately"...

RayNAustin wrote:the Redskins offered the Colts 3 #1 picks to get Luck, and the Colts said no thanks, they would ultimately be spending those three picks the Redskins offered them for Luck, since they said no thanks. REGARDLESS of who owns the pick

By your logic, if someone offered you a million dollars for an apple and you said, "NO", you just got done spending a million dollars...for an apple that you already own...?

Yep, makes sense.

Yep ... that would be correct. If you offered me a Million bucks for this nice apple, and I said no ..... KEEPING THAT APPLE and EATING THAT APPLE would be costing me roughly $50,000 bucks per bite. That's a fact.

And if that makes no sense to you .... seek a professional, IMMEDIATELY.

RayNAustin wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:

RayNAustin wrote:As to the finer point I failed to explain adequately enough ... I don't know of any way of simplifying it further.

Here's what you explained "adequately"...

RayNAustin wrote:the Redskins offered the Colts 3 #1 picks to get Luck, and the Colts said no thanks, they would ultimately be spending those three picks the Redskins offered them for Luck, since they said no thanks. REGARDLESS of who owns the pick

By your logic, if someone offered you a million dollars for an apple and you said, "NO", you just got done spending a million dollars...for an apple that you already own...?

Yep, makes sense.

Yep ... that would be correct. If you offered me a Million bucks for this nice apple, and I said no ..... KEEPING THAT APPLE and EATING THAT APPLE would be costing me roughly $50,000 bucks per bite. That's a fact.

And if that makes no sense to you .... seek professional help, IMMEDIATELY.

we're not getting Andrew Luck - this FO will continue to build this franchise
we are already seeing a better attitude here & the players recently added will show better production this season

To say that we are worse because the record went from 6 wins to 5 wins shows that you really do not have an eye for progress


we need to keep adding players and hopefully these guys can have another draft as good as the last one

we do need a good QB and this FO will find one - we are lucky that guys that know what they are doing are in charge

some here seem to think that we can be instantly competitive - this franchise was in a terrible mess - they have done fairly well in the 2 years and it will take another year or so until we have a consistently competitive product on the field in B&G



I'm in favor of building - Snyder's going to give these guys the time to get it all right again

CanesSkins26 wrote:What free agent qbs? It's a bunch of Rex/Beck retreads and an overhyped system qb in Flynn.

Patience.

Has anybody thought of a scenario where Rams take Luck or RG III?

They would have to unload Bradford, .... whom Shanahan truly likes.

Just sayin'

Redskin in Canada wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:What free agent qbs? It's a bunch of Rex/Beck retreads and an overhyped system qb in Flynn.

Patience.

Has anybody thought of a scenario where Rams take Luck or RG III?

They would have to unload Bradford, .... whom Shanahan truly likes.

Just sayin'

I thought about it but then I wondered why anyone would want to get rid of a really good QB. I would be extremely happy with Bradford.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:What free agent qbs? It's a bunch of Rex/Beck retreads and an overhyped system qb in Flynn.

Patience.

Has anybody thought of a scenario where Rams take Luck or RG III?

They would have to unload Bradford, .... whom Shanahan truly likes.

Just sayin'

The Rams aren't getting rid of Bradford, they have far too much money tied up with him. If they don't trade out of that pick they are taking Kalil.

RayNAustin wrote:Yep ... that would be correct. If you offered me a Million bucks for this nice apple, and I said no ..... KEEPING THAT APPLE and EATING THAT APPLE would be costing me roughly $50,000 bucks per bite. That's a fact.

And if that makes no sense to you .... seek professional help, IMMEDIATELY.

The fact that we're talking about losing money by eating apples should be a tell tale sign that we both need professional help.