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

Redskins of old wanted to trade up for Sanchez a few years back but got out bid by the Jets. I'm just not sure this current crew will sell the barn and half the farm for RG3. I will cry when we have to take Tanninhill at 6th

The talk about the Redskins "interest" in Sanchez was a bluff to increase the likelyhood that a certain Defensive End would fall. It worked. The interest was primarily about Orakpo all along.

We won't take Tannehill at 6.

Countertrey wrote:We won't take Tannehill at 6.

We will if we want him. There are a couple teams in the first half of the first round like the Dolphins who might be interested. I doubt we can trade back and get him later in the first round.

We won't take Tannehill at 6. He is too much of a project. The Shanahans need results faster than he will be ready. They will not draft him in the top 10.

Countertrey wrote:We won't take Tannehill at 6. He is too much of a project. The Shanahans need results faster than he will be ready. They will not draft him in the top 10.

I guess that's a possibility. I'm just saying IF they want him, I doubt he's going to be there later in the first round. They would have to get him at #6.

I don't personally have any inside info on how much the Shanahans like him, but I'm not sure I agree with you on their needing results faster than he will be ready. You seem to be saying they have to draft a QB who can be ready to start Game 1. That's really only like two guys this year most likely, isn't it? What if they aren't able to get Luck or RGIII?

IMO I think just drafting a first round QB to groom would buy them some time. How much time I guess depends on how well they can play in the meantime with a stop gap QB.

riggofan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:We won't take Tannehill at 6.

We will if we want him. There are a couple teams in the first half of the first round like the Dolphins who might be interested. I doubt we can trade back and get him later in the first round.

c'mon guys - we're not taking Tannehill at the 6 pick

this FO will find a way to get RGIII or we are trading down

NOW - if we can trade down and still get help is one thing ....

there's a lot of smoke and mirrors stuff going on - I would be stunned if Tannehill has wowed these guys enough to take him that high

BOT - I'd love it if we could get the Rams pick soon - I just don't see that happening until closer to the draft

OR at least until we see what happens with Manning and Flynn

SkinsJock wrote:

riggofan wrote:

Countertrey wrote:We won't take Tannehill at 6.

We will if we want him. There are a couple teams in the first half of the first round like the Dolphins who might be interested. I doubt we can trade back and get him later in the first round.

c'mon guys - we're not taking Tannehill at the 6 pick

this FO will find a way to get RGIII or we are trading down

NOW - if we can trade down and still get help is one thing ....

there's a lot of smoke and mirrors stuff going on - I would be stunned if Tannehill has wowed these guys enough to take him that high

Yeah I don't see how he could have wow'ed anybody yet either. He does have a pro day on March 29.

I guess we'll see what happens. I'm not ruling anything out though. Nobody was expecting Shanahan to draft Jay Cutler either.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:Thank God! Now I have a reason NOT to puke when I hear that slogan...

Hopefully he doesn't bust like the person that was the motivation for that slogan

Lounge talk?

DarthMonk

emoses14 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

There you go, Hogster... Safe flight!

Awesome!

Hopefully he doesn't have to deal with the kind of *sh$t* the originator of that slogan has.

Ah .... the other side of the Lounge!

DarthMonk

Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

This team has serious needs outside of the QB position. They need 3 OLs, at least 1 pass rushing DL, 1 or 2 CBs, another WR, another safety, and another solid contributing LB. There is just too many holes in this team to give up such a large amount of picks. If they do this, they set the rebuilding process back anywhere from 1 to 2 years -- all on an unproven QB that hasn't played in an NFL type system. We have seen the results of a franchise who trades away their 1-4 round draft picks. Vinny and Danny did with unparralleled consistency for close a decade.

It's wonderful to have "hope" that RGIII will magically come and save this franchise -- but that will just not happen. Football is a team game and RGIII will need support. Right now adequate support for a ROOKIE QB is just not here -- and if we give up 5 of our 6 picks in rounds 1-3 over the next 2 years, that support will not get here for a long time. He will be unable to develop. He WILL fail regardless of his abilities. It won't matter whether we have time to "groom" him. As a team, we will not be able to improve without our 1-3 round picks -- therefore waiting for our first round QB to "develop" (which is oxymoron) would be futile.

I think people tend to disregard the details. Drafting a highly rated QB doesn't instantly solve your problems. Especially when they are completely unproven. Life is not that easy.

We need those 5 picks to draft OL, DE, WR, and CBs. If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome, but mortgaging the franchises' next 2 years (not including the ripple effect from basically not having 1-3 round draft picks for 2 years) on RGIII is just dumb.

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

Not sure where you heard two first, two seconds and a third at, Shanny doesn't have a second round pick on the table. It was two first, a third and a fourth the last I heard. I think throwing in a second round pick from either year should have this deal done. I'd want to keep the third round pick if it would be this second or the fourth round pick if they gave up next year's second.

Any trade up will mean most holes will have to be filled in free agency. Free agency starts next week so the mystery will end soon based on who they bring in before the draft

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

1. It's not giving up two first round picks. We swap one with the Rams — a much better pick than our #6, as it happens. When you say "giving up 2 firsts" that makes it sound like we are on the "losing" side of both 1st round picks. In fact we're on the winning side of one of them.

2. Whose numbers are you going by for next year's 1st, two 2nds, and one 3rd? That's way higher than the latest numbers actually being reported in the media.

Look, with Peyton now on the market, and with Flynn and a few others following close behind, the Rams' #2 pick is actually dropping in value the longer they hold onto it. If Manning ends up in Miami, watch out. The Skins have the command on acquiring that pick, and you'd better believe we won't have to overpay for it.

This team has serious needs outside of the QB position. They need 3 OLs,

Nah. Well, maybe if you include backups.

We only need one more starter, and even that might not be necessary. There is a myth going around that the Redskins have a terrible offensive line. That might have been true as recently as last year and certainly the year before that. I guess it's understandable that the talking heads are just repeating it, but really a Redskins fan ought to know better.

In reality, the Skins' OL was (by best statistical estimates) top-10 in run blocking effectiveness and in the middle of the pack in pass protection. (See here for the breakdown.) We are currently moving in a positive direction as Shanny's scheme takes hold. Not only that, but all else being equal, a good quarterback tends to improve both of those numbers. So if we acquired RGIII, it's reasonable to think our offensive line would look even more impressive next year than it did during the last half-dozen games of this season. (Remember when we pushed around the Giants, in New York?)

at least 1 pass rushing DL,

Helloooo, Jenkins.

1 or 2 CBs,

Probably our biggest area of need. I'd lump in safeties here and say we need 2-3 starters. But our depth isn't terrible here.

another WR

One has to believe that we will address this in FA. The talent is there, and we have the salary cap room. Possibly ditto for:

and another solid contributing LB.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Best I can tell, if we can get even one starter from our draft, and make the obvious FA moves before then, we will have almost all of our major holes plugged. And as an added bonus, we'll fix the biggest problem the Redskins have had for the last five years: quarterback! If we don't make the trade, brace yourself for another season of inaccurate throws, whoever we eventually find to take the snaps. Orton, Rex, whoever.

I don't think there are as many holes to fill as you are claiming. But all of this is somewhat beside the point, because you're relying on draft-pick-trade data that is outdated and off the mark.

all on an unproven QB that hasn't played in an NFL type system.

Of all the tropes, I have to admit this one gets on my nerves the most. By this logic, the Colts are literally insane to be letting Peyton Manning go and thinking Luck will replace him. It is, again, quite literally, the worst personnel move in the history of the NFL. Letting the (perhaps) best player ever to play the game walk, and picking up some unproven no-name as a replacement.

Think about that for a minute. I really think that's where your logic must lead you.

How is RGIII "unproven"? Aside from the tautology that he hasn't proven he can play in the NFL because he hasn't played in the NFL, this argument really lacks substance. If college play is irrelevant, why have a draft? If all college players are "unproven," why do pro bowl players tend to correlate strongly with 1st round draft choices versus the other rounds?

Worst of all, the "unproven" line is exactly the kind of argument made to move us back toward the status quo: an endless line of washed up veterans who flop just as badly as any rookie QB we might have brought in. I guess the washed up veterans cost less than a top-10 pick — so there's some upside there — but at some point we need to take decisive action to acquire actual talent to lead this offense.

We have seen the results of a franchise who trades away their 1-4 round draft picks.

When's the last time Washington traded 1-4 draft picks to move up to a top-5 slot to select their man?

It's wonderful to have "hope" that RGIII will magically come and save this franchise -- but that will just not happen. Football is a team game and RGIII will need support.

It looks to me like he's got it. We've got an offensive line that's mostly put together. We've got a real run game for the first time since Portis' prime here. We've got very solid depth at WR and a couple of very good TEs. We are basically missing a stud #1 wideout and quarterback at this point. By far the quarterback is the most important piece to fill.

It's there. Or, at least, it's "there" enough to support RGIII. Keeping the pick and taking one extra OL isn't going to make us that much more ready for a QB next year. I believe the team is ready to make that next step, and in order to do so, we will need someone capable under center.

I think people tend to disregard the details.

I agree, but let's not conflate rational thinking with skepticism of trading up for RGIII. Some of us have thought long and hard about it and come to the reasonable conclusion that now is the time to trade up.

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome,

And if I win the lottery tomorrow, even though I've never bought a ticket in my life, awesome. Both share similar odds.

There's really nothing quite like FFA when he gets on a roll... is there?

Markshark said:

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome

See... here's the thing. Now, I have only my gut on this... but I think that Shanahan wanted to grab his quarterback last year... with the 10 pick. He was blindsided... when Tennessee took Jake Locker, the quarterback that he wanted. The trade down was plan B... IMHO.

He won't take that chance again. He will have his quarterback... this year.

Countertrey wrote:There's really nothing quite like FFA when he gets on a roll... is there?

Markshark said:

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome

See... here's the thing. Now, I have only my gut on this... but I think that Shanahan wanted to grab his quarterback last year... with the 10 pick. He was blindsided... when Tennessee took Jake Locker, the quarterback that he wanted. The trade down was plan B... IMHO.

He won't take that chance again. He will have his quarterback... this year.

Totally agree. He can't afford to have this position filled by anything less than a top tier QB this year. RG3, Manning, or bust, in that order

Countertrey wrote:There's really nothing quite like FFA when he gets on a roll... is there?

Markshark said:

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome

See... here's the thing. Now, I have only my gut on this... but I think that Shanahan wanted to grab his quarterback last year... with the 10 pick. He was blindsided... when Tennessee took Jake Locker, the quarterback that he wanted. The trade down was plan B... IMHO.

He won't take that chance again. He will have his quarterback... this year.

That's interesting.... Never really thought about that. Was Shanahan a fan of Locker then...?

If that is true then it'd strengthen his resolve to make sure he got his man this time, you're right.

Plus eleven!

DarthMonk

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

1. It's not giving up two first round picks. We swap one with the Rams — a much better pick than our #6, as it happens. When you say "giving up 2 firsts" that makes it sound like we are on the "losing" side of both 1st round picks. In fact we're on the winning side of one of them.

2. Whose numbers are you going by for next year's 1st, two 2nds, and one 3rd? That's way higher than the latest numbers actually being reported in the media.

Look, with Peyton now on the market, and with Flynn and a few others following close behind, the Rams' #2 pick is actually dropping in value the longer they hold onto it. If Manning ends up in Miami, watch out. The Skins have the command on acquiring that pick, and you'd better believe we won't have to overpay for it.

This team has serious needs outside of the QB position. They need 3 OLs,

Nah. Well, maybe if you include backups.

We only need one more starter, and even that might not be necessary. There is a myth going around that the Redskins have a terrible offensive line. That might have been true as recently as last year and certainly the year before that. I guess it's understandable that the talking heads are just repeating it, but really a Redskins fan ought to know better.

In reality, the Skins' OL was (by best statistical estimates) top-10 in run blocking effectiveness and in the middle of the pack in pass protection. (See here for the breakdown.) We are currently moving in a positive direction as Shanny's scheme takes hold. Not only that, but all else being equal, a good quarterback tends to improve both of those numbers. So if we acquired RGIII, it's reasonable to think our offensive line would look even more impressive next year than it did during the last half-dozen games of this season. (Remember when we pushed around the Giants, in New York?)

at least 1 pass rushing DL,

Helloooo, Jenkins.

1 or 2 CBs,

Probably our biggest area of need. I'd lump in safeties here and say we need 2-3 starters. But our depth isn't terrible here.

another WR

One has to believe that we will address this in FA. The talent is there, and we have the salary cap room. Possibly ditto for:

and another solid contributing LB.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Best I can tell, if we can get even one starter from our draft, and make the obvious FA moves before then, we will have almost all of our major holes plugged. And as an added bonus, we'll fix the biggest problem the Redskins have had for the last five years: quarterback! If we don't make the trade, brace yourself for another season of inaccurate throws, whoever we eventually find to take the snaps. Orton, Rex, whoever.

I don't think there are as many holes to fill as you are claiming. But all of this is somewhat beside the point, because you're relying on draft-pick-trade data that is outdated and off the mark.

all on an unproven QB that hasn't played in an NFL type system.

Of all the tropes, I have to admit this one gets on my nerves the most. By this logic, the Colts are literally insane to be letting Peyton Manning go and thinking Luck will replace him. It is, again, quite literally, the worst personnel move in the history of the NFL. Letting the (perhaps) best player ever to play the game walk, and picking up some unproven no-name as a replacement.

Think about that for a minute. I really think that's where your logic must lead you.

How is RGIII "unproven"? Aside from the tautology that he hasn't proven he can play in the NFL because he hasn't played in the NFL, this argument really lacks substance. If college play is irrelevant, why have a draft? If all college players are "unproven," why do pro bowl players tend to correlate strongly with 1st round draft choices versus the other rounds?

Worst of all, the "unproven" line is exactly the kind of argument made to move us back toward the status quo: an endless line of washed up veterans who flop just as badly as any rookie QB we might have brought in. I guess the washed up veterans cost less than a top-10 pick — so there's some upside there — but at some point we need to take decisive action to acquire actual talent to lead this offense.

We have seen the results of a franchise who trades away their 1-4 round draft picks.

When's the last time Washington traded 1-4 draft picks to move up to a top-5 slot to select their man?

It's wonderful to have "hope" that RGIII will magically come and save this franchise -- but that will just not happen. Football is a team game and RGIII will need support.

It looks to me like he's got it. We've got an offensive line that's mostly put together. We've got a real run game for the first time since Portis' prime here. We've got very solid depth at WR and a couple of very good TEs. We are basically missing a stud #1 wideout and quarterback at this point. By far the quarterback is the most important piece to fill.

It's there. Or, at least, it's "there" enough to support RGIII. Keeping the pick and taking one extra OL isn't going to make us that much more ready for a QB next year. I believe the team is ready to make that next step, and in order to do so, we will need someone capable under center.

I think people tend to disregard the details.

I agree, but let's not conflate rational thinking with skepticism of trading up for RGIII. Some of us have thought long and hard about it and come to the reasonable conclusion that now is the time to trade up.

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome,

And if I win the lottery tomorrow, even though I've never bought a ticket in my life, awesome. Both share similar odds.

DarthMonk wrote:Plus eleven!

DarthMonk

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

1. It's not giving up two first round picks. We swap one with the Rams — a much better pick than our #6, as it happens. When you say "giving up 2 firsts" that makes it sound like we are on the "losing" side of both 1st round picks. In fact we're on the winning side of one of them.

2. Whose numbers are you going by for next year's 1st, two 2nds, and one 3rd? That's way higher than the latest numbers actually being reported in the media.

Look, with Peyton now on the market, and with Flynn and a few others following close behind, the Rams' #2 pick is actually dropping in value the longer they hold onto it. If Manning ends up in Miami, watch out. The Skins have the command on acquiring that pick, and you'd better believe we won't have to overpay for it.

This team has serious needs outside of the QB position. They need 3 OLs,

Nah. Well, maybe if you include backups.

We only need one more starter, and even that might not be necessary. There is a myth going around that the Redskins have a terrible offensive line. That might have been true as recently as last year and certainly the year before that. I guess it's understandable that the talking heads are just repeating it, but really a Redskins fan ought to know better.

In reality, the Skins' OL was (by best statistical estimates) top-10 in run blocking effectiveness and in the middle of the pack in pass protection. (See here for the breakdown.) We are currently moving in a positive direction as Shanny's scheme takes hold. Not only that, but all else being equal, a good quarterback tends to improve both of those numbers. So if we acquired RGIII, it's reasonable to think our offensive line would look even more impressive next year than it did during the last half-dozen games of this season. (Remember when we pushed around the Giants, in New York?)

at least 1 pass rushing DL,

Helloooo, Jenkins.

1 or 2 CBs,

Probably our biggest area of need. I'd lump in safeties here and say we need 2-3 starters. But our depth isn't terrible here.

another WR

One has to believe that we will address this in FA. The talent is there, and we have the salary cap room. Possibly ditto for:

and another solid contributing LB.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Best I can tell, if we can get even one starter from our draft, and make the obvious FA moves before then, we will have almost all of our major holes plugged. And as an added bonus, we'll fix the biggest problem the Redskins have had for the last five years: quarterback! If we don't make the trade, brace yourself for another season of inaccurate throws, whoever we eventually find to take the snaps. Orton, Rex, whoever.

I don't think there are as many holes to fill as you are claiming. But all of this is somewhat beside the point, because you're relying on draft-pick-trade data that is outdated and off the mark.

all on an unproven QB that hasn't played in an NFL type system.

Of all the tropes, I have to admit this one gets on my nerves the most. By this logic, the Colts are literally insane to be letting Peyton Manning go and thinking Luck will replace him. It is, again, quite literally, the worst personnel move in the history of the NFL. Letting the (perhaps) best player ever to play the game walk, and picking up some unproven no-name as a replacement.

Think about that for a minute. I really think that's where your logic must lead you.

How is RGIII "unproven"? Aside from the tautology that he hasn't proven he can play in the NFL because he hasn't played in the NFL, this argument really lacks substance. If college play is irrelevant, why have a draft? If all college players are "unproven," why do pro bowl players tend to correlate strongly with 1st round draft choices versus the other rounds?

Worst of all, the "unproven" line is exactly the kind of argument made to move us back toward the status quo: an endless line of washed up veterans who flop just as badly as any rookie QB we might have brought in. I guess the washed up veterans cost less than a top-10 pick — so there's some upside there — but at some point we need to take decisive action to acquire actual talent to lead this offense.

We have seen the results of a franchise who trades away their 1-4 round draft picks.

When's the last time Washington traded 1-4 draft picks to move up to a top-5 slot to select their man?

It's wonderful to have "hope" that RGIII will magically come and save this franchise -- but that will just not happen. Football is a team game and RGIII will need support.

It looks to me like he's got it. We've got an offensive line that's mostly put together. We've got a real run game for the first time since Portis' prime here. We've got very solid depth at WR and a couple of very good TEs. We are basically missing a stud #1 wideout and quarterback at this point. By far the quarterback is the most important piece to fill.

It's there. Or, at least, it's "there" enough to support RGIII. Keeping the pick and taking one extra OL isn't going to make us that much more ready for a QB next year. I believe the team is ready to make that next step, and in order to do so, we will need someone capable under center.

I think people tend to disregard the details.

I agree, but let's not conflate rational thinking with skepticism of trading up for RGIII. Some of us have thought long and hard about it and come to the reasonable conclusion that now is the time to trade up.

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome,

And if I win the lottery tomorrow, even though I've never bought a ticket in my life, awesome. Both share similar odds.

. Plus Eleventy

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

Yeah I haven't heard that trade scenario ANYWHERE. In fact, I just read a couple days ago that the Rams want our #2 this year and the Skins are already balking at that. If we're going after RGIII, I expect the Skins to be aggressive, but not stupid. No matter how good RGIII is, we're only talking about moving up four spots. The Rams are still going to get a top 10 draft pick this year in a trade with us.

That's an interesting comment about Jake Locker. I noticed that Tennessee was one of the teams listed as have inquired about Peyton Manning. Kind of a head scratcher with both Locker and Hasselbeck already on the roster.

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

1. It's not giving up two first round picks. We swap one with the Rams — a much better pick than our #6, as it happens. When you say "giving up 2 firsts" that makes it sound like we are on the "losing" side of both 1st round picks. In fact we're on the winning side of one of them.

2. Whose numbers are you going by for next year's 1st, two 2nds, and one 3rd? That's way higher than the latest numbers actually being reported in the media.

Look, with Peyton now on the market, and with Flynn and a few others following close behind, the Rams' #2 pick is actually dropping in value the longer they hold onto it. If Manning ends up in Miami, watch out. The Skins have the command on acquiring that pick, and you'd better believe we won't have to overpay for it.

This team has serious needs outside of the QB position. They need 3 OLs,

Nah. Well, maybe if you include backups.

We only need one more starter, and even that might not be necessary. There is a myth going around that the Redskins have a terrible offensive line. That might have been true as recently as last year and certainly the year before that. I guess it's understandable that the talking heads are just repeating it, but really a Redskins fan ought to know better.

In reality, the Skins' OL was (by best statistical estimates) top-10 in run blocking effectiveness and in the middle of the pack in pass protection. (See here for the breakdown.) We are currently moving in a positive direction as Shanny's scheme takes hold. Not only that, but all else being equal, a good quarterback tends to improve both of those numbers. So if we acquired RGIII, it's reasonable to think our offensive line would look even more impressive next year than it did during the last half-dozen games of this season. (Remember when we pushed around the Giants, in New York?)

at least 1 pass rushing DL,

Helloooo, Jenkins.

1 or 2 CBs,

Probably our biggest area of need. I'd lump in safeties here and say we need 2-3 starters. But our depth isn't terrible here.

another WR

One has to believe that we will address this in FA. The talent is there, and we have the salary cap room. Possibly ditto for:

and another solid contributing LB.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Best I can tell, if we can get even one starter from our draft, and make the obvious FA moves before then, we will have almost all of our major holes plugged. And as an added bonus, we'll fix the biggest problem the Redskins have had for the last five years: quarterback! If we don't make the trade, brace yourself for another season of inaccurate throws, whoever we eventually find to take the snaps. Orton, Rex, whoever.

I don't think there are as many holes to fill as you are claiming. But all of this is somewhat beside the point, because you're relying on draft-pick-trade data that is outdated and off the mark.

all on an unproven QB that hasn't played in an NFL type system.

Of all the tropes, I have to admit this one gets on my nerves the most. By this logic, the Colts are literally insane to be letting Peyton Manning go and thinking Luck will replace him. It is, again, quite literally, the worst personnel move in the history of the NFL. Letting the (perhaps) best player ever to play the game walk, and picking up some unproven no-name as a replacement.

Think about that for a minute. I really think that's where your logic must lead you.

How is RGIII "unproven"? Aside from the tautology that he hasn't proven he can play in the NFL because he hasn't played in the NFL, this argument really lacks substance. If college play is irrelevant, why have a draft? If all college players are "unproven," why do pro bowl players tend to correlate strongly with 1st round draft choices versus the other rounds?

Worst of all, the "unproven" line is exactly the kind of argument made to move us back toward the status quo: an endless line of washed up veterans who flop just as badly as any rookie QB we might have brought in. I guess the washed up veterans cost less than a top-10 pick — so there's some upside there — but at some point we need to take decisive action to acquire actual talent to lead this offense.

We have seen the results of a franchise who trades away their 1-4 round draft picks.

When's the last time Washington traded 1-4 draft picks to move up to a top-5 slot to select their man?

It's wonderful to have "hope" that RGIII will magically come and save this franchise -- but that will just not happen. Football is a team game and RGIII will need support.

It looks to me like he's got it. We've got an offensive line that's mostly put together. We've got a real run game for the first time since Portis' prime here. We've got very solid depth at WR and a couple of very good TEs. We are basically missing a stud #1 wideout and quarterback at this point. By far the quarterback is the most important piece to fill.

It's there. Or, at least, it's "there" enough to support RGIII. Keeping the pick and taking one extra OL isn't going to make us that much more ready for a QB next year. I believe the team is ready to make that next step, and in order to do so, we will need someone capable under center.

I think people tend to disregard the details.

I agree, but let's not conflate rational thinking with skepticism of trading up for RGIII. Some of us have thought long and hard about it and come to the reasonable conclusion that now is the time to trade up.

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome,

And if I win the lottery tomorrow, even though I've never bought a ticket in my life, awesome. Both share similar odds.

1+ Right On!

Just to add ... when I hear someone say ... I'd do XYZ ... but if they want a 2nd round pick on top of that ... no way ... too much. So, 2-1's, 1-3rd, and 1-4th ... but no 2nd rounder? Why should you lose the deal over one 2nd round pick? What could you possibly do with that 2 that would provide more value than a franchise QB? Crazy talk.

Make that deal ... sign a top flight WR in FA to complement RG3, and any other FA that can shore up certain areas of weakness, and use the remaining draft picks to add depth.

This, for the Redskins is a no-brainer

the Rams are trying to get the most out of the trade for the rights to RGIII

we are lucky that the Redskins have this FO as they will make the best deal possible to get RGIII
I just think that Mike & Bruce are going to make sure we get the chance to beat the Browns offer



RGIII or Andrew Luck are most likely not going to be really good for a year or 2 but .....

it's the 10 years after those first 2 seasons that make this trade so important for our franchise


all will be revealed soon, as we see where some of these free agent QBs end up going

it gets to be a game of chicken ... do you wait to maximize the value or just take the deal

Irn-Bru wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Personally, I think this would be insanity. Giving up 5 draft picks (2 firsts, 2 seconds, and 1 third) in the first 3 rounds over the next two years puts up a MAJOR roadblock in the rebuilding process.

1. It's not giving up two first round picks. We swap one with the Rams — a much better pick than our #6, as it happens. When you say "giving up 2 firsts" that makes it sound like we are on the "losing" side of both 1st round picks. In fact we're on the winning side of one of them.

2. Whose numbers are you going by for next year's 1st, two 2nds, and one 3rd? That's way higher than the latest numbers actually being reported in the media.

Look, with Peyton now on the market, and with Flynn and a few others following close behind, the Rams' #2 pick is actually dropping in value the longer they hold onto it. If Manning ends up in Miami, watch out. The Skins have the command on acquiring that pick, and you'd better believe we won't have to overpay for it.

This team has serious needs outside of the QB position. They need 3 OLs,

Nah. Well, maybe if you include backups.

We only need one more starter, and even that might not be necessary. There is a myth going around that the Redskins have a terrible offensive line. That might have been true as recently as last year and certainly the year before that. I guess it's understandable that the talking heads are just repeating it, but really a Redskins fan ought to know better.

In reality, the Skins' OL was (by best statistical estimates) top-10 in run blocking effectiveness and in the middle of the pack in pass protection. (See here for the breakdown.) We are currently moving in a positive direction as Shanny's scheme takes hold. Not only that, but all else being equal, a good quarterback tends to improve both of those numbers. So if we acquired RGIII, it's reasonable to think our offensive line would look even more impressive next year than it did during the last half-dozen games of this season. (Remember when we pushed around the Giants, in New York?)

at least 1 pass rushing DL,

Helloooo, Jenkins.

1 or 2 CBs,

Probably our biggest area of need. I'd lump in safeties here and say we need 2-3 starters. But our depth isn't terrible here.

another WR

One has to believe that we will address this in FA. The talent is there, and we have the salary cap room. Possibly ditto for:

and another solid contributing LB.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? Best I can tell, if we can get even one starter from our draft, and make the obvious FA moves before then, we will have almost all of our major holes plugged. And as an added bonus, we'll fix the biggest problem the Redskins have had for the last five years: quarterback! If we don't make the trade, brace yourself for another season of inaccurate throws, whoever we eventually find to take the snaps. Orton, Rex, whoever.

I don't think there are as many holes to fill as you are claiming. But all of this is somewhat beside the point, because you're relying on draft-pick-trade data that is outdated and off the mark.

all on an unproven QB that hasn't played in an NFL type system.

Of all the tropes, I have to admit this one gets on my nerves the most. By this logic, the Colts are literally insane to be letting Peyton Manning go and thinking Luck will replace him. It is, again, quite literally, the worst personnel move in the history of the NFL. Letting the (perhaps) best player ever to play the game walk, and picking up some unproven no-name as a replacement.

Think about that for a minute. I really think that's where your logic must lead you.

How is RGIII "unproven"? Aside from the tautology that he hasn't proven he can play in the NFL because he hasn't played in the NFL, this argument really lacks substance. If college play is irrelevant, why have a draft? If all college players are "unproven," why do pro bowl players tend to correlate strongly with 1st round draft choices versus the other rounds?

Worst of all, the "unproven" line is exactly the kind of argument made to move us back toward the status quo: an endless line of washed up veterans who flop just as badly as any rookie QB we might have brought in. I guess the washed up veterans cost less than a top-10 pick — so there's some upside there — but at some point we need to take decisive action to acquire actual talent to lead this offense.

We have seen the results of a franchise who trades away their 1-4 round draft picks.

When's the last time Washington traded 1-4 draft picks to move up to a top-5 slot to select their man?

It's wonderful to have "hope" that RGIII will magically come and save this franchise -- but that will just not happen. Football is a team game and RGIII will need support.

It looks to me like he's got it. We've got an offensive line that's mostly put together. We've got a real run game for the first time since Portis' prime here. We've got very solid depth at WR and a couple of very good TEs. We are basically missing a stud #1 wideout and quarterback at this point. By far the quarterback is the most important piece to fill.

It's there. Or, at least, it's "there" enough to support RGIII. Keeping the pick and taking one extra OL isn't going to make us that much more ready for a QB next year. I believe the team is ready to make that next step, and in order to do so, we will need someone capable under center.

I think people tend to disregard the details.

I agree, but let's not conflate rational thinking with skepticism of trading up for RGIII. Some of us have thought long and hard about it and come to the reasonable conclusion that now is the time to trade up.

If RGIII fell to us at #6, awesome,

And if I win the lottery tomorrow, even though I've never bought a ticket in my life, awesome. Both share similar odds.

I will try to make this as short as possible here.

In terms of your first comment, that was my understanding of the trade. It appears I was incorrect -- but regardless, giving up multiple top 1-3 round picks isn't in the best interest of the team. I do agree that with Peyton and Flynn on the market, the pick has been downgraded a bit, so we'll see. Even still -- giving up 2 firsts and a 2nd and a 3rd is just dumb in the grand scheme of things. Good teams don't make those types of trades -- and for good reason. It pains me to see this franchise waste away their future picks via FA or to get a high first (such as the JC trade).

Second Comment: In terms of OL, we need 2 starters one tackle and one guard (and that is if you like and believe Lichensteiger will come back 100% after his injury; if not, we need 3). There is no question that the OL is the most commonly injured position in football. You need serious depth at the position. We currently don't have that. As such, we need at least 3 OL -- 2 starters at OT and OG and a backup OT. And the skins line is not as good as you make it appear. I am a very objective guy and I can agree that it is improving. I believe we just have difference in opinion on the type of OL we want. I WANT A TOP 10 OL. You may be satisfied with an adequate one. If that is the case, you would think our current line is "fine". I don't want fine; I want GOOD. Therefore, I believe we need 3 OL. Regardless, to say that we may not need any new starters, is ridiculous -- no matter what we need a new OT.

Also, I agree that a QB makes a line look that much better -- but as a person living in TX and watching most of RGIII games (including going to a couple), I can tell you that he was never under tremendous pressure at the QB position. He played in an incredible spread offense -- even crazier than UHouston, TX Tech or Oregon. How RGIII is under pressure is not proven. He is fast, but this is the NFL. Speed is the major difference between the games -- at least that is what I have been told by a number of NFL players first hand.

Third Comment: Hello Jenkins..........And how many NFL games has he played......and how many games has he missed due to injury. Sorry, but I don't like to roll the dice. Jenkins is unproven at the NFL level. As such, he needs to prove himself before I will go out and say that he is an effective pass rusher at the NFL LEVEL. Sorry. That said, a pass rushing DL shouldn't be taken with our top pick, but to disregard it as a need is questionable.

4th, 5th, 6th Comment: Not sure if you got the total numbers right. If you have 1-3 OL to fill, 1 DL, 2-3 CB/DB, 1 WR, and 1 LB (5 - 9 players depending) -- how does that get to only needing 1 starter from the draft when you only stated that we get 1 DL in Jenkins, 1 LB non starter and 1 WR via FA. No matter what, we need to replace LL if he leaves, 1 OT, 1 CB at minimum -- and that is if we can get a "stud" WR, which would be difficult. Regardless, that is 3.....assuming everything in your scenarios works. Those are BIG IFs.

7th Comment: First off, your comment about Manning is insane in that you didn't take into consideration the $28M bonus he was due in a week or so. If they didn't have to pay Manning close to $35-40M this year (including salary), I think things may have gone differently. Oh, and Manning is not the best player ever to play the game. That is just a crazy comment.

In terms of "unproven", I in no way shape or form want us to revert to signing vets. I have been adamantly against that for over a decade. You build through the draft -- but I don't like to trade a plethora of picks for an unproven guy. And yes he is unproven -- he comes from a spread offense and has been a spread QB since his days in high school. I remember when he originally signed with U of Houston before their coach left to Baylor. He wanted a spread offense. That is what he is most comfortable with. He will have to make drastic changes to the way he plays QB. He is not a ready-made NFL QB -- Luck is. Luck is an NFL style QB and very little needs to be adjusted to transition his game. RGIII will have to make serious changes to his game. How many snaps did RGIII take under center??? That is why Luck is the unquestioned first pick. If Luck were not in the draft this year, Manning would still be a Colt.

8th Comment: The skins have a history of trading away their top pick for either one pick (JC) or FAs.

Since 2000, the skins have had a total of 29 draft picks in rounds 1-4 (they should have had nearly 50 sans trades). From 2005-2010, they only had a total of 13 between rounds 1-4 (they should have had 24). Out of those 13, only 6 are currently on the roster. Rounds 1-4 are crucial in building a franchise.

Between 2010-2005 the skins had a total of 39 draft picks -- of which 33% were selected in rounds 1-4. Comparatively:
- GB: 58 picks; 50% selected in rounds 1-4.
- Pitt - 51 picks; 49% selected in rounds 1-4.
- NE - 57 picks; 51% selected in rounds 1-4.
- BAL - 47 picks; 60% selected in rounds 1-4.
- SF: 50 picks; 50% selected in rounds 1-4.

And it gets worse going back for prior years in the Snyder era. If we traded multiple picks for RGIII, we would just be doing the same thing as the stats above indicate. I am not sure what other information you need on this.

9th Comment "hope": I understand your inclination to remain positive about RGIII being the savior of washington, but we are not one player away -- which it appears you are saying given you believe we have a good line, WR depth, solid TEs, and only need a QB. A back to back 6-10 is not one player away. We will have to agree to disagree if you think otherwise.

RGIII is not the type of QB that can come in and carry an NFL team by himself -- very few QBs are. And I don't care about taking an OL with the pick more than I am giving away multiple picks for RGIII. The support is not there for a QB such as RGIII and "good enough" won't cut it. Sorry, I am not an "ok, I guess that's good enough" kind of guy. Maybe you are -- but in the NFL -- good enough doesn't get you SB rings.

markshark84 wrote:Even still -- giving up 2 firsts...

Dude! What is it you don't understand about swapping 1st round picks this year? Any time you draft a player you give up a pick. In this case, the price for swapping first round picks is 1 first rounder next year + the other round picks involved. We are NOT giving up 2 first round picks, we will be using one of those to draft RGIII.

how 'bout - we will be picking second instead of sixth - how does that work for you

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Even still -- giving up 2 firsts...

Dude! What is it you don't understand about swapping 1st round picks this year? Any time you draft a player you give up a pick. In this case, the price for swapping first round picks is 1 first rounder next year + the other round picks involved. We are NOT giving up 2 first round picks, we will be using one of those to draft RGIII.

I understand the concept, but this is how I rationalize it: RGIII in exchange for our first this year (being used to select RGIII) and our first next year (plus the other picks). Yes, I understand we would be using STL's pick on RGIII in a first round swap -- so at the end of the day we will only be losing one first round pick . Sorry, that's how I feel when giving up picks -- regardless of the situation (which, more or less, provides better insight into my stance on trading picks in exchange for any player). But honestly, did you not think I understood that??? Sorry, I just assumed people understood my concept.

When I evaluate picks I typically ask myself the question (e.g., we draft a player 41st in the second round): "would you trade "insert selected NCAA player" for the 41st pick"? I find this type of question/rationale to be a solid tool for purposes of understanding value on draft day -- both for the player and pick.

markshark84 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

markshark84 wrote:Even still -- giving up 2 firsts...

Dude! What is it you don't understand about swapping 1st round picks this year? Any time you draft a player you give up a pick. In this case, the price for swapping first round picks is 1 first rounder next year + the other round picks involved. We are NOT giving up 2 first round picks, we will be using one of those to draft RGIII.

I understand the concept, but this is how I rationalize it: RGIII in exchange for our first this year (being used to select RGIII) and our first next year (plus the other picks). Yes, I understand we would be using STL's pick on RGIII in a first round swap -- so at the end of the day we will only be losing one first round pick . Sorry, that's how I feel when giving up picks -- regardless of the situation (which, more or less, provides better insight into my stance on trading picks in exchange for any player). But honestly, did you not think I understood that??? Sorry, I just assumed people understood my concept.

When I evaluate picks I typically ask myself the question (e.g., we draft a player 41st in the second round): "would you trade "insert selected NCAA player" for the 41st pick"? I find this type of question/rationale to be a solid tool for purposes of understanding value on draft day -- both for the player and pick.

I think the only danger in that view of the draft is that you've got to use the pick on someone, right? So if you think "would I trade x player for y draft pick" what you're leaving out of the equation is "and you must use x draft pick on some player, trade it for a different draft pick or lose it" That seems obvious, I know, but this situation highlights why I think you have to think about it in those terms. We have the picks we have, and for each of them our only options are; (a) select player, (b) trade pick, or (c) lose pick. That's it. So if we swap 6 for 2, we've selected option b AND not any other option. THEN when we exercise that #2 for player x (let's call it "RGIII"), then you have selected option a. I know you get all of that. But the "evaluation methodology" you're using sounded a little simplistic.