Redskins Sign Grossman

Jason will not get traded and no one will be willing to give up a first round pic for him. The signing of Rex is a clear sign the we will draft an offensive tackle (Okung) with the first pic maybe even trading up and gaining a pic and still getting our tackle. We need to solidify the offensive line first and foremost. Jason is not going anywhere.........

I'm sorry I just don't see it as "clear". All the Rex signing is, is a replacement for Collins. Yes it gives them some options and your theory could be correct but I don't think it's clear cut. If anything it makes JC expendable to settle for whatever they can get out of him if they don't get what they want. Rex's deal is only for 1 year meaning it gives them a chance to see what the Rookie can do in his first year during practice and preseason and if he's taking longer to get the system down they have Rex to fall back on.

For those of you thinking Colt is gone... I don't see that either. I'm thinking they team offers a trade with the Rams throwing JC in the mix to get "their" QB Bradford or whoever it may be and keep Rex, and Colt.

I wouldn't be surprised what Polian actually meant is that since teams choose players based on an "IF...THEN" algorithm and teams try to be ready as many potential ways the order can play out, that's why they wouldn't be surprised. The order of the players selected is not bound by some faux-determinism. I wouldn't be surprised if Allen isn't surprised the Rams take Suh OR Bradford this draft because those are both plausible possibilities.

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.
Well the lottery is high risk high reward. But if you don't have the winning ticket, no worries just play again next week.

But for a QB taken #1 overall. Your organization will invest MILLIONS in him. And IF he does work out, you get your reward.

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.

A team can win and survive if you select a DE, DT, OL, RB, any other position on the field #1 and they end up being a bust.

But the QB position, no way. Once you are committed to this kid, thats it, you are in bed with him for the long haul.

I'm not ignoring the reward part. I just don't think it is worth the high of a risk or gamble selecting a QB that high.

Any other position that busts, and it just affects that position. But if you bust on your QB, that affects all 53 players on that roster.

I would take Suh or McCoy (DT) over Bradford/Clausen with the top pick of the draft for just the reasons I stated. if Suh or McCoy (DT) turn out to be a bust, well that is a lot better risk than if my QB is a bust.

Your tie to Leinart made it seem like you were well.. tying it to him.

Are there surprises? Sure.. some 1st round players turn out to be huge busts

hell anyone can say are you surprised a number 4 ended up being a great player? why would you argue that? he was picked top 5

there are plenty of surprises in the 1st and plenty of teams that would've jumped on the bust had the original team not

As I already explained before, what Bill Polian is talking about is not how the player pans out as a success or failure in the NFL.

He's referring to the order the players are drafted in the NFL. Therefore, there is little to no reason to believe that Matt Leinart "fell" from the Top 4.

We're not talking about who busts and who doesn't. We're talking about why the Jets took Ferguson instead of Leinart. And the reason is because Leinart ranked that much lower.

This whole Shanahan likes Brennan thing has been way overblown. As of two weeks ago he hadn't even seen film of him playing in preseason games.

Of course, but that's a gigantic IF.

As I said, Bradford does not seem like a sure thing, I don't think we should risk it, especially with more pressing needs...mainly O-Line.

Buster our argument is shared by many, but for some it will continue to fall on death ears. You do however, have the right idea about how to build a football team.

There are plenty of ways to build up the offensive line beside spending the 4th overall pick on an offensive lineman

Burter our argument is shared by many, but for some it will continue to fall on death ears. You do however, have the right idea about how to build a football team.

Thanks for the compliment. Balances out the "YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOOTBALL" one I had earlier today. :D

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.


I've asked this before. Which teams does history show (and make sure the quantity is a "substantially high number") are stuck due to picking a quarterback?

I wouldn't be surprised what Polian actually meant is that since teams choose players based on an "IF...THEN" algorithm and teams try to be ready as many potential ways the order can play out, that's why they wouldn't be surprised. The order of the players selected is not bound by some faux-determinism. I wouldn't be surprised if Allen isn't surprised the Rams take Suh OR Bradford this draft because those are both plausible possibilities.

No, he's referring specifically to players "rising" and "falling".

“The so-called ‘fallers’ didn't have that outstanding ability or had one major flaw,” Polian said.

Therefore we can insinuate that Matt Leinart was not taken in the Top 4 for a reason.