Redskins Sign Grossman

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Monkeydad
03-17-2010, 01:32 PM
Dont forget David Carr!

He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

Audi
03-17-2010, 01:34 PM
He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

joethiesmanfan
03-17-2010, 01:34 PM
BigHairedAristocrat, why did you choose that name? Big Haired Aristocrat = immoral, corrupt, worthless, cowardly, and lazy.

Lotus
03-17-2010, 01:35 PM
Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

Lotus
03-17-2010, 01:37 PM
Wouldn't surprise me either if Grossman doesn't make the final roster...but then I also wouldn't be surprised if he's the opening day starter.

OMG. I spent so much time laughing at the Bears for starting Grossman. Now I might have to laugh at us. :)

Bakerman
03-17-2010, 01:38 PM
New Blood here,


O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man.

Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer.

I am so glad Vinnie is gone.

Dirtbag59
03-17-2010, 01:41 PM
I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

That does seem to be happening a lot lately.

SirClintonPortis
03-17-2010, 01:43 PM
So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

Dirtbag59
03-17-2010, 01:50 PM
So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

So the Raiders should have taken Gallery over Rivers :D

tryfuhl
03-17-2010, 01:50 PM
New Blood here,


O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man.

Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer.

I am so glad Vinnie is gone.

welcome to thewarpath man

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum