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

MTK
03-17-2010, 04:21 PM
If anything Colt is the odd man out. I think we're looking at JC, Rex, and a rook.

Ruhskins
03-17-2010, 04:23 PM
i hear what your saying ruhskins but theres a flip side to it: sitting at the no 4 spot, this draft may be our best bet at actually being in position to land a potential franchise qb.

honestly, im going to trust shanny and allen's evaluations of whats best for the team. all things equal thoo, id prefer a potential franchise qb over a potential franchise LT.

i forgot who coined this phrase of most important positions to a football team but it goes:

qb
guys who protect the qb
guys who rush the qb

I'd be fine with taking a QB if we had JaMarcus Russell at QB last season, but we didn't. We can still pick up a damn good QB with the 2nd rounder, and let him learn for a year before he starts. I just hate for the team to once again go into the season with a suspect line and hoping that a bunch of older guys stay healthy. As I said, I know a first round LT is not going to fix the team right away, but you basically solidify the most important position in the offensive line for the next 9-10 years.

And as I said, I'm not sold on Bradford, everytime I hear the positives about him, I keep thinking 2.5 games played, twice injured shoulder. I'm sure he can be a very good QB, I just don't think he can be a good QB here nor do I want the team to gamble this high pick on him.

tryfuhl
03-17-2010, 04:24 PM
If anything Colt is the odd man out. I think we're looking at JC, Rex, and a rook.

If we sign a rookie higher than the 6th or 7th round it's going to be hard to justify keeping Colt

Ruhskins
03-17-2010, 04:26 PM
If anything Colt is the odd man out. I think we're looking at JC, Rex, and a rook.

Agreed. I think if Colt had been able to beat out Collins for the #2 spot things would have been different. But he didn't. On to the next preseason favorite I guess.

Audi
03-17-2010, 04:28 PM
I'd be fine with taking a QB if we had JaMarcus Russell at QB last season, but we didn't. We can still pick up a damn good QB with the 2nd rounder, and let him learn for a year before he starts.

The Vikings took Tarvaris Jackson in the 2nd round. The Jets took Kellen Clemens in the 2nd round.

Neither have amounted to much despite the offensive lines put in front of them.

tryfuhl
03-17-2010, 04:31 PM
The Vikings took Tarvaris Jackson in the 2nd round. The Jets took Kellen Clemens in the 2nd round.

Neither have amounted to much despite the offensive lines put in front of them.

Jackson looked good in preseason last year haha

Monkeydad
03-17-2010, 04:33 PM
The Vikings took Tarvaris Jackson in the 2nd round. The Jets took Kellen Clemens in the 2nd round.

Neither have amounted to much despite the offensive lines put in front of them.

If you want to cite the Jets, they almost went to the Super Bowl with a horrible, turnover-prone, innaccurate, rookie QB who only had to throw a dozen passes a game (and still threw 20 picks). This was because of their line and despite of a bad QB.


More proof what a top o-line can do for a team.

Audi
03-17-2010, 04:35 PM
If you want to cite the Jets, they almost went to the Super Bowl with a horrible, turnover-prone, innaccurate, rookie QB who only had to throw a dozen passes a game (and still threw 20 picks). This was because of their line and in spite of a bad QB.

More proof what a top o-line can do for a team.

But why would you want to follow the exception rather than the rule?

That's like saying you rather not wear your seat belt because a few guys survived car crashes because they chose not to wear their seat belt.

If you look at not only last season, but the last ten seasons, it becomes obvious what the formula is for success.

tryfuhl
03-17-2010, 04:38 PM
If you want to cite the Jets, they almost went to the Super Bowl with a horrible, turnover-prone, innaccurate, rookie QB who only had to throw a dozen passes a game (and still threw 20 picks). This was because of their line and despite of a bad QB.


More proof what a top o-line can do for a team.

and a top defense

and good rushing

so maybe that would've worked for us, who knows

Longtimefan
03-17-2010, 04:40 PM
Indeed...

such as in the early 2000s on

what'd we do with a good line?

if you can make the argument that the line is our only weakness that's fine, hell even the biggest, it arguably is.. but a line alone won't do it

either way, we'll see offensive improvements with a better line.. does it mean we have to use pick 4 on it? nope

The last real celebrated success this team has known was mainly due to the play of the offensive line. "The Hogs" you remember them. Some have gone as far as to say the entire group should be inducted into the HOF. I will never underestimate the importance of a great O-line, and how much it means to the success of a football team. That's why I will continue to sugest that Chris Samuels replacement be drafted because it's not likely we'll find him under any other circumstance.

Now I'll agree we don't neccessarily NEED to use the #4 pick for it to be mission accomplished, but it's a position that definitely has to be addressed, and I'm sure you would agree.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum