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

Yes. There is no feasable way we will land both Flynn and RGIII. I am fairly confident that Flynn (who is 26; Hasselback is in his late 30s -- which may be one of the reasons he was ok with the Locker pick) will not be keen on the skins drafting a QB with the #6 pick after signing him to a deal in the 30-60M range. I am sure the potential of drafting RGIII will be discussed in the Flynn contract negotiations and if the skins even come close to saying there is a possibility of drafting RGIII, Flynn will go elsewhere. After all, contracts can be terminated and Flynn won't want to be in a situation were he has a young highly-touted rookie breathing down his neck -- especially when other teams will be willing to provide him with more security. His agent will tell him to take the deal where he (1) is the unquestioned starter, (2) has the best supporting cast to produce, and (3) get the most $$$$.

As far as RGIII, we will more likely than not need to use additional picks to gaurantee our drafting of him. I don't see our FO giving up next years #1 in addiiton to tihs years -- since it would be just dumb on their part and MS/BA don't have a history of doing so. We have serious holes in our OL and no QB in the league can produce without an adequate OL -- not even a runner like RGIII so get that idea out of your head.

Flynn's not getting anywhere close to $30M, much less $60. The Kolb and Cassel contracts aren't comparable. Both of those were based on two factors: GMs unwilling to let a trade acquisition walk after one year, and QBs/agents unwilling to sign long-term deals for a much lower average than current salary. Hasselbeck's deal is his probable ceiling. 2-3 years, $5-ish million a year sounds more likely. He just hasn't earned his big payday yet.

I also think you're overestimating the number of teams in the market for a veteran QB without much of a resume. The Skins and the Dolphins are pretty much the only teams in the NFL with no incumbent starter going into 2012. Everybody else has somebody, good or bad, who has been the deliberate #1 and would be expected to at least compete for the 2012 job. Even if Cassell or McCoy or Tebow is on a short leash, Flynn's not the kind of guy a GM can go after. The expectation for a fifth year FA acquisition is immediate impact, and Flynn doesn't have the resume to convince many to take that kind of risk given its potential impact on the fanbase and locker room.

Most likely outcome is that Flynn gets paired with at least a rookie backup and probably a journeyman vet as well. Him/Rex/rookie TBD seems like a huge upgrade for the Skins to me.

Paralis wrote:Most likely outcome is that Flynn gets paired with at least a rookie backup and probably a journeyman vet as well. Him/Rex/rookie TBD seems like a huge upgrade for the Skins to me.

+1

skinsfan#33 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

skinsfan#33 wrote:

StorminMormon86 wrote:I'm worried that Cleveland will land Flynn and RGIII. Then what!?

I'm sorry but why in the fraks sale would Cleveland sign Flynn and then draft RG3! They have McCoy as a back up if Flynn bombs.

That's why Washington should get both of them... the other options have already bombed

That makes a little more sense, except Flynn will get stater money and you HAVE to play the #6 overall pick, I don't care what possition he is. So then you would have two QBs you have to start, but you can only start one.

Don't agree with that at all.

Deadskins wrote:don't agree with that at all.

I agree with you. It's better if you can let him sit for a year or more.

Paralis wrote:Flynn's not getting anywhere close to $30M, much less $60. The Kolb and Cassel contracts aren't comparable. Both of those were based on two factors: GMs unwilling to let a trade acquisition walk after one year, and QBs/agents unwilling to sign long-term deals for a much lower average than current salary. Hasselbeck's deal is his probable ceiling. 2-3 years, $5-ish million a year sounds more likely. He just hasn't earned his big payday yet.

I also think you're overestimating the number of teams in the market for a veteran QB without much of a resume. The Skins and the Dolphins are pretty much the only teams in the NFL with no incumbent starter going into 2012. Everybody else has somebody, good or bad, who has been the deliberate #1 and would be expected to at least compete for the 2012 job. Even if Cassell or McCoy or Tebow is on a short leash, Flynn's not the kind of guy a GM can go after. The expectation for a fifth year FA acquisition is immediate impact, and Flynn doesn't have the resume to convince many to take that kind of risk given its potential impact on the fanbase and locker room.

Most likely outcome is that Flynn gets paired with at least a rookie backup and probably a journeyman vet as well. Him/Rex/rookie TBD seems like a huge upgrade for the Skins to me.

In terms of the salary -- I should have been more transparent. I meant 30-60M with incentives and the contract being a 6 year deal. So I was actually think of an inclining 6 year deal.

In terms of other teams, I have read there is interest by not only us and Miami, but also Seattle, KC, and Cleveland. This may all be rumor, but that is what I read/heard. If even 2 or 3 of those teams really go after him, he stock will rise and increase his contract amount.

And while I typically would agree with you on the 5th year veteran instant contributor statement, it is different with QBs. Flynn, at age 26, is still considered quite young. QBs can play into their late 30s, so he has 10+ years left.

Would you guys be upset if we got Flynn in FA, drafted Khalil from USC to play RT, picked up the top OG in the 2nd and then drafted Foles in the 3rd? If we did that, would you guys be upset?

frankcal20 wrote:Would you guys be upset if we got Flynn in FA, drafted Khalil from USC to play RT, picked up the top OG in the 2nd and then drafted Foles in the 3rd? If we did that, would you guys be upset?

We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens. I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb, and if are going to go for a second tier qb, it should be Tannehill, who has far more upside than Foles. If Tannehill had one more year under his belt he'd be a sure-fire first rounder. I also don't see Shanahan taking a lt in the first rounder bc he would then essentially be admitting that he was wrong about Trent.

CanesSkins26 wrote:
We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens.

+1

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb,

You've said this in multiple post, even if he is a system QB, he looks good in the system AND it's the same basic system that Kyle runs

1niksder wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens.

+1

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb,

You've said this in multiple post, even if he is a system QB, he looks good in the system AND it's the same basic system that Kyle runs

I'm fine with signing Flynn if we draft a reasonable qb, as well. I don't think that Foles fits that at all. If we signed Flynn and drafted Tannehill I'd be fine with it, as long as Tannehill gets a shot at the starting job. I think Flynn wont be much of an improvement, if at all, over Rex. Not particualrly mobile, weaker arm than Rex.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens.

+1

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb,

You've said this in multiple post, even if he is a system QB, he looks good in the system AND it's the same basic system that Kyle runs

I'm fine with signing Flynn if we draft a reasonable qb, as well. I don't think that Foles fits that at all. If we signed Flynn and drafted Tannehill I'd be fine with it, as long as Tannehill gets a shot at the starting job. I think Flynn wont be much of an improvement, if at all, over Rex. Not particualrly mobile, weaker arm than Rex.

Canes, you're the same dude who thought we should draft Blaine Gabbert last year too. You're the same guy who also said that Kerrigan had BUST written all over him and couldn't play 3-4 LB. While I am not salivating over Matt Flynn like some are, I don't think you can stay definitively that he's a system QB. At least not with any credibility.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:Would you guys be upset if we got Flynn in FA, drafted Khalil from USC to play RT, picked up the top OG in the 2nd and then drafted Foles in the 3rd? If we did that, would you guys be upset?

We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens. I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb, and if are going to go for a second tier qb, it should be Tannehill, who has far more upside than Foles. If Tannehill had one more year under his belt he'd be a sure-fire first rounder. I also don't see Shanahan taking a lt in the first rounder bc he would then essentially be admitting that he was wrong about Trent.

I am not sure anyone truly knows what type of NFL QB Flynn is at this point. I have not heard many people consider him to be a system QB. If you mean he is a "system" QB because he's playing behind a top OL and throws to top WRs, then I understand your point -- but I don't see him as a QB that can't run certain offenses due to skill limitations such as accuracy, inability to read defenses, or arm strength (although his arm strength is not that great -- but I am of the opinion that as long as you possess adequate NFL arm strength, anything more will not increase likelihood of success). I think of Tebow or Tommy Chang or even Keenum as system type QBs. Flynn ran a strictly pro-style offense against a good Detroit defense. He ran plays from shotgun, behind center, play action, etc. GB doesn't consistently apply 5 receiver sets or bunch style formations.

That said, 4 of his 6 TD throws resulted in TDs that were scored due to excellent WR run-after-catch or WR leaping ability plays; only 2 were direct results of a Flynn pass. The GB offense is unreal and it was obvious that Flynn's performance directly benefited from that.

While I don't think signing Flynn would be a "disaster", I do think Foles is NOT a smart draft pick. Foles lead his team to a 4-8 record. Like Tannehil, he did not produce against better teams. Take away Northern Arizona and LA-Lafyette -- Foles had 20 TDs and 13 INTs. This may be due to his supporting cast (which is why drafting QBs is so difficult), but I don't like to see QBs production significantly drop off when playing against good teams OR when QBs pad their stats against bad teams. I also am not high on Tannehil, although he appears to be the better prospect. I am not sure, however, what your "if he had another year" point was about seeing that Tannehil is 23 years old and used up his eligibility. Especially since Tannehil's numbers did not improve from his junior to senior seasons. That said, we would have to use our 2nd rounder on him -- which I would prefer to use on a top OG, CB, or OT, one of which should be available.

I do agree that Kalil will be LONG gone by the #6 pick. I would think that STL or MINN or TB would draft him at #2 or 3. In terms of the skins not drafting a LT, I am not so sure. I could see MS saying that Williams is better suited at the RT position (which would ultimately be side-skirting a "failure") -- and the fact that rumors have quickly spread of Brown's departure/trade bait causes me to believe MS/BA may draft either the OT from Iowa or Stanford.

But Frank -- after all this, I would be VERY happy with your draft scenario with the exception of Foles -- well, even with Foles if Kalil feel in our laps at #6 (highly unlikely since STL , MINN, and potentially TB will most likely draft an OT) and then we were able to pick up the top OG in the draft (again highly unlikely since Decastro AND Glenn are projected first rounders). If we were able to get Kalil and Decastro, I would go crazy -- it would be a miracle. In terms of Foles -- while he may go in rounds 2-3, I consider him a reach (due to my opinion of him) until the 5th. I don't see a great difference between Crompton and Foles, IMHO.

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think Flynn wont be much of an improvement, if at all, over Rex. Not particualrly mobile, weaker arm than Rex.

You're joking right?

The Hogster wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

1niksder wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:
We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens.

+1

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb,

You've said this in multiple post, even if he is a system QB, he looks good in the system AND it's the same basic system that Kyle runs

I'm fine with signing Flynn if we draft a reasonable qb, as well. I don't think that Foles fits that at all. If we signed Flynn and drafted Tannehill I'd be fine with it, as long as Tannehill gets a shot at the starting job. I think Flynn wont be much of an improvement, if at all, over Rex. Not particualrly mobile, weaker arm than Rex.

Canes, you're the same dude who thought we should draft Blaine Gabbert last year too. You're the same guy who also said that Kerrigan had BUST written all over him and couldn't play 3-4 LB. While I am not salivating over Matt Flynn like some are, I don't think you can stay definitively that he's a system QB. At least not with any credibility.

I'd be perfectly happy with Gabbert on our team, I think he develops into a legit starter. As for Kerrigan, one year doesn't make a career. Orakpo as a rookie looked like he would be a perennial All-Pro and he hasn't turned into that player yet. I'll wait more than one year to pass judgement on rookies. Also, regarding Gabbbert, even as a rookie with almost no help on offense, he managed to throw more tds than int's, something our starter was totally incapable of.

CanesSkins26 wrote:Also, regarding Gabbbert, even as a rookie with almost no help on offense, he managed to throw more tds than int's, something our starter was totally incapable of.

He also had a worse QB rating that Wrecks.

StorminMormon86 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:I think Flynn wont be much of an improvement, if at all, over Rex. Not particualrly mobile, weaker arm than Rex.

You're joking right?

Not at all. He could be better, but he could also be much worse. See the Beck experiment. I understand the rationale for signing Flynn and drafting a second tier qb, but it's a huge risk. People say that trading picks for RGIII, but what if we sign Flynn and draft Foles, like Frank suggested, and both turn out to be busts? Then what? Sure, there is risk with RGIII, but I think he has a much better chance of turning into an elite passer than a Flynn/second tier combo working out.

markshark84 wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

frankcal20 wrote:Would you guys be upset if we got Flynn in FA, drafted Khalil from USC to play RT, picked up the top OG in the 2nd and then drafted Foles in the 3rd? If we did that, would you guys be upset?

We'd have to trade up for Khalil so I don't see how that happens. I think that qb scenario is a disaster too. Flynn is a system qb, and if are going to go for a second tier qb, it should be Tannehill, who has far more upside than Foles. If Tannehill had one more year under his belt he'd be a sure-fire first rounder. I also don't see Shanahan taking a lt in the first rounder bc he would then essentially be admitting that he was wrong about Trent.

I am not sure anyone truly knows what type of NFL QB Flynn is at this point. I have not heard many people consider him to be a system QB. If you mean he is a "system" QB because he's playing behind a top OL and throws to top WRs, then I understand your point -- but I don't see him as a QB that can't run certain offenses due to skill limitations such as accuracy, inability to read defenses, or arm strength (although his arm strength is not that great -- but I am of the opinion that as long as you possess adequate NFL arm strength, anything more will not increase likelihood of success). I think of Tebow or Tommy Chang or even Keenum as system type QBs. Flynn ran a strictly pro-style offense against a good Detroit defense. He ran plays from shotgun, behind center, play action, etc. GB doesn't consistently apply 5 receiver sets or bunch style formations.

That said, 4 of his 6 TD throws resulted in TDs that were scored due to excellent WR run-after-catch or WR leaping ability plays; only 2 were direct results of a Flynn pass. The GB offense is unreal and it was obvious that Flynn's performance directly benefited from that.

While I don't think signing Flynn would be a "disaster", I do think Foles is NOT a smart draft pick. Foles lead his team to a 4-8 record. Like Tannehil, he did not produce against better teams. Take away Northern Arizona and LA-Lafyette -- Foles had 20 TDs and 13 INTs. This may be due to his supporting cast (which is why drafting QBs is so difficult), but I don't like to see QBs production significantly drop off when playing against good teams OR when QBs pad their stats against bad teams. I also am not high on Tannehil, although he appears to be the better prospect. I am not sure, however, what your "if he had another year" point was about seeing that Tannehil is 23 years old and used up his eligibility. Especially since Tannehil's numbers did not improve from his junior to senior seasons. That said, we would have to use our 2nd rounder on him -- which I would prefer to use on a top OG, CB, or OT, one of which should be available.

I do agree that Kalil will be LONG gone by the #6 pick. I would think that STL or MINN or TB would draft him at #2 or 3. In terms of the skins not drafting a LT, I am not so sure. I could see MS saying that Williams is better suited at the RT position (which would ultimately be side-skirting a "failure") -- and the fact that rumors have quickly spread of Brown's departure/trade bait causes me to believe MS/BA may draft either the OT from Iowa or Stanford.

But Frank -- after all this, I would be VERY happy with your draft scenario with the exception of Foles -- well, even with Foles if Kalil feel in our laps at #6 (highly unlikely since STL , MINN, and potentially TB will most likely draft an OT) and then we were able to pick up the top OG in the draft (again highly unlikely since Decastro AND Glenn are projected first rounders). If we were able to get Kalil and Decastro, I would go crazy -- it would be a miracle. In terms of Foles -- while he may go in rounds 2-3, I consider him a reach (due to my opinion of him) until the 5th. I don't see a great difference between Crompton and Foles, IMHO.

I mean "system" in the sense that he is in he best offense in the NFL. Take away that line and those receivers, give him the Skins' mediocre offensive talent and I think he struggles much the same way Rex did. Nothing in what he did in college or so far in the pros shows that he is the type of qb that can lift an offense.

I don't think that Flynn would be a disaster, I meant the combo of Flynn/Foles.

Regarding Tannehill, what I meant by "another year" was in reference to his switching g from qb to wr and then back to qb. The main knock on him is that he only played about 2 years of qb in college. If he had not made the temporary switch to wr I think he'd be a more highly touted prospect. A completion percentage of over 60 percent and an approximate 2-1 td/int ratio on that A&M team is damn good.

markshark84 wrote:

I do think Foles is NOT a smart draft pick. Foles lead his team to a 4-8 record. Like Tannehil, he did not produce against better teams. Take away Northern Arizona and LA-Lafyette -- Foles had 20 TDs and 13 INTs. This may be due to his supporting cast (which is why drafting QBs is so difficult), but I don't like to see QBs production significantly drop off when playing against good teams OR when QBs pad their stats against bad teams.

Dude, Nick Foles played for Arizona in the Pac 12. That's the equivalent of playing for Vanderbilt in the SEC.

Jay Cutler was 11-35 during his tenure there. That doesn't mean he will suck in the NFL. That's the point of scouting.

The Hogster wrote:markshark84 wrote:

I do think Foles is NOT a smart draft pick. Foles lead his team to a 4-8 record. Like Tannehil, he did not produce against better teams. Take away Northern Arizona and LA-Lafyette -- Foles had 20 TDs and 13 INTs. This may be due to his supporting cast (which is why drafting QBs is so difficult), but I don't like to see QBs production significantly drop off when playing against good teams OR when QBs pad their stats against bad teams.

Dude, Nick Foles played for Arizona in the Pac 12. That's the equivalent of playing for Vanderbilt in the SEC.

Jay Cutler was 11-35 during his tenure there. That doesn't mean he will suck in the NFL. That's the point of scouting.

While I agree that your record does not indicate whether a prospect will be successful in the NFL or not, I wouldn't exactly say AZ is a football equivalent to Vandy. Vandy has only had 1 winning season over the past 30 years. AZ has had 16 winning seasons in as many years, including 12 bowl games. Vandy has historically had issues recruiting top players, AZ has not. As such, Vandy only has 9 players in the NFL (only 1 prior to Cutler coming to Vandy); AZ has 15 -- which is a respectable number for a team outside the SEC.

That said, I am not sure you can blindly compare Jay Cutler (everyone on here seems to LOVE comparing players to Cutler and Brees) to Foles merely because they both played on loser teams. Cutler was in a far more difficult conference with far less talent surrounding him compared to Foles. Cutler was named SEC offensive player of the year in 2005. I think the differences between Cutler and Foles are obvious -- which is why Cutler was considered a top 10 pick and Foles is a late 2nd, early 3rd guy.

Regardless, Foles just didn't have good games (comparatively) against stiffer competition. In looking at Cutler, his numbers weren't inflated due to 2 or 3 games against inferior opponents. Cutler put up similar numbers against Florida, Kentucky, SC, and Tennesse as he did against Richmond, Midd Tenn, and WF. With Foles, his best two games came against Nor AZ and LA-Lafeyette (30% of his total TD passes came in those 2 games). Foles did play well against USC, but outside of USC there was clear drop off in TDs, increase in INTs, and overall rating against stronger competition.

CanesSkins26 wrote:I mean "system" in the sense that he is in he best offense in the NFL. Take away that line and those receivers, give him the Skins' mediocre offensive talent and I think he struggles much the same way Rex did. Nothing in what he did in college or so far in the pros shows that he is the type of qb that can lift an offense.

That's a fair point man, and I agree with what you're saying. But you can almost say that about any QB you bring in here who isn't Cam Newton. Whatever QB you bring in is going to have to deal with our mediocre offensive talent.

I also don't think he will struggle the same way Rex did. Grossman's big issue was the ludicrous number of interceptions. If somebody like Flynn or Kyle Orton or whoever can come in, play better than Beck did and turn the ball over less than Rex that is an upgrade, don't you think?

riggofan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:I mean "system" in the sense that he is in he best offense in the NFL. Take away that line and those receivers, give him the Skins' mediocre offensive talent and I think he struggles much the same way Rex did. Nothing in what he did in college or so far in the pros shows that he is the type of qb that can lift an offense.

That's a fair point man, and I agree with what you're saying. But you can almost say that about any QB you bring in here who isn't Cam Newton. Whatever QB you bring in is going to have to deal with our mediocre offensive talent.

I also don't think he will struggle the same way Rex did. Grossman's big issue was the ludicrous number of interceptions. If somebody like Flynn or Kyle Orton or whoever can come in, play better than Beck did and turn the ball over less than Rex that is an upgrade, don't you think?

Having an improvement over Beck or Rex would be good, but I don't want another good or OK QB. I want to be one of those teams that didn't have think about their starting QB for ten years. I want a guy that can be considered a franchise QB.

Is it too much to ask that my team can find a franchise QB in the draft once every 75 years?

I am not one of those people that thinks it is a good ideas to mortgage the future to get the chance to draft a player that MIGHT be a franchise QB, but I'm sick and tired pf not having a QB that I can call a Probowl quality player.

So I'm starting to feel desperate. Think about it. How many QBs have we had that we can call a franchise qb? Joey T (barely), Sonny (yes but we traded for him), and Sammy (75 freaking years ago).

Sure we drafted Norm Snead who we traded for Sonny and he was better than anything we have draft since, so maybe you count him, but that was still about 50 years ago!

We HAVE to find a franchise qb! Our team will never be consistently good w/o one. Think about how many SBs Gibbs would have won of he had had Montana, Simms, Boomer, Kelly or Kosar?

With that said, if MS feels that there is a Franchise QB there and he can put together a deal to get him, he should do it!

But unlike everyone spouting, "RG3 well be long gone before #6". Well let me point out it is January and a ton can change between now and the end of Aprill. Also, there are almost always QBs that drop a lot farther than people expect. Gabbert was definitely hoping to be gone by #10 last year so if we wanted him we needed to move up. Wrong. Aaron Rodgers was possibly going to be the 1st player drafted, but he went 23rd ish. Same for Brady Quinn.

There are very real situations where RG3 could fall to #6 and even worse we pass on him.

Now I'm sure I'm going to get a ton of the "no way he will be there" and "if he's there its a lock we're taking him" post, but don't waste your time, because...

There is NO WAY YOU CAN KNOW THAT FOR SURE! So save your breath, or fingers.

riggofan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:I mean "system" in the sense that he is in he best offense in the NFL. Take away that line and those receivers, give him the Skins' mediocre offensive talent and I think he struggles much the same way Rex did. Nothing in what he did in college or so far in the pros shows that he is the type of qb that can lift an offense.

That's a fair point man, and I agree with what you're saying. But you can almost say that about any QB you bring in here who isn't Cam Newton. Whatever QB you bring in is going to have to deal with our mediocre offensive talent.

I also don't think he will struggle the same way Rex did. Grossman's big issue was the ludicrous number of interceptions. If somebody like Flynn or Kyle Orton or whoever can come in, play better than Beck did and turn the ball over less than Rex that is an upgrade, don't you think?

Having an improvement over Beck or Rex would be good, but I don't want another good or OK QB. I want to be one of those teams that didn't have think about their starting QB for ten years. I want a guy that can be considered a franchise QB.

Is it too much to ask that my team can find a franchise QB in the draft once every 75 years?

I am not one of those people that thinks it is a good ideas to mortgage the future to get the chance to draft a player that MIGHT be a franchise QB, but I'm sick and tired pf not having a QB that I can call a Probowl quality player.

So I'm starting to feel desperate. Think about it. How many QBs have we had that we can call a franchise qb? Joey T (barely), Sonny (yes but we traded for him), and Sammy (75 freaking years ago).

Sure we drafted Norm Snead who we traded for Sonny and he was better than anything we have draft since, so maybe you count him, but that was still about 50 years ago!

We HAVE to find a franchise qb! Our team will never be consistently good w/o one. Think about how many SBs Gibbs would have won of he had had Montana, Simms, Boomer, Kelly or Kosar?

With that said, if MS feels that there is a Franchise QB there and he can put together a deal to get him, he should do it!

But unlike everyone spouting, "RG3 well be long gone before #6". Well let me point out it is January and a ton can change between now and the end of Aprill. Also, there are almost always QBs that drop a lot farther than people expect. Gabbert was definitely hoping to be gone by #10 last year so if we wanted him we needed to move up. Wrong. Aaron Rodgers was possibly going to be the 1st player drafted, but he went 23rd ish. Same for Brady Quinn.

There are very real situations where RG3 could fall to #6 and even worse we pass on him.

Now I'm sure I'm going to get a ton of the "no way he will be there" and "if he's there its a lock we're taking him" post, but don't waste your time, because...

There is NO WAY YOU CAN KNOW THAT FOR SURE! So save your breath, or fingers.

Here's the bottom line. If Shanahan see's a perfect fit for his offense, then draft him. Trade up, drop down, whatever. If option 1 is the top two and option 1 b has dropped down, then take option 1b.

It is clear that we have not been very good at finding QB's, so grab the one you like and let's move on

Most here feel the same way about the fact that we have not had a very good QB for a long while and we need a good QB
A very good QB is hard to find - this year we don't have a bunch of QBs available that look like being very good QBs

IF Mike & Bruce can find one - great - if not, we need to improve the play from the QB position and keep re making this franchise


DO NOT give up draft picks - get more draft picks if possible

STICK WITH THE PLAN

skinsfan#33 wrote:

riggofan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:I mean "system" in the sense that he is in he best offense in the NFL. Take away that line and those receivers, give him the Skins' mediocre offensive talent and I think he struggles much the same way Rex did. Nothing in what he did in college or so far in the pros shows that he is the type of qb that can lift an offense.

That's a fair point man, and I agree with what you're saying. But you can almost say that about any QB you bring in here who isn't Cam Newton. Whatever QB you bring in is going to have to deal with our mediocre offensive talent.

I also don't think he will struggle the same way Rex did. Grossman's big issue was the ludicrous number of interceptions. If somebody like Flynn or Kyle Orton or whoever can come in, play better than Beck did and turn the ball over less than Rex that is an upgrade, don't you think?

Having an improvement over Beck or Rex would be good, but I don't want another good or OK QB. I want to be one of those teams that didn't have think about their starting QB for ten years. I want a guy that can be considered a franchise QB.

Is it too much to ask that my team can find a franchise QB in the draft once every 75 years?

I am not one of those people that thinks it is a good ideas to mortgage the future to get the chance to draft a player that MIGHT be a franchise QB, but I'm sick and tired pf not having a QB that I can call a Probowl quality player.

So I'm starting to feel desperate. Think about it. How many QBs have we had that we can call a franchise qb? Joey T (barely), Sonny (yes but we traded for him), and Sammy (75 freaking years ago).

Sure we drafted Norm Snead who we traded for Sonny and he was better than anything we have draft since, so maybe you count him, but that was still about 50 years ago!

We HAVE to find a franchise qb! Our team will never be consistently good w/o one. Think about how many SBs Gibbs would have won of he had had Montana, Simms, Boomer, Kelly or Kosar?

With that said, if MS feels that there is a Franchise QB there and he can put together a deal to get him, he should do it!

But unlike everyone spouting, "RG3 well be long gone before #6". Well let me point out it is January and a ton can change between now and the end of Aprill. Also, there are almost always QBs that drop a lot farther than people expect. Gabbert was definitely hoping to be gone by #10 last year so if we wanted him we needed to move up. Wrong. Aaron Rodgers was possibly going to be the 1st player drafted, but he went 23rd ish. Same for Brady Quinn.

There are very real situations where RG3 could fall to #6 and even worse we pass on him.

Now I'm sure I'm going to get a ton of the "no way he will be there" and "if he's there its a lock we're taking him" post, but don't waste your time, because...

There is NO WAY YOU CAN KNOW THAT FOR SURE! So save your breath, or fingers.

I understand exactly what you're saying. My only point is that there are possibly other "franchise" qbs in this draft not named Griffin or Luck. And, as fans, we'd be better served to take a look at those other guys because "franchise" qbs are not all drafted in the Top 6.