Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011

All those guys you pictured were busts, no doubt about it. But, those teams didn't plan on loosing out to get on of those guys.


That's because NO ONE does that. They're professionals. Even the Bengals TRY to win. The Lions TRIED to win games in the season prior to getting Stafford. Anyone who thinks teams actually intentionally tank seasons for draft picks is living in la-la land.

There MAY be a rare case where teams will bench some starters at the end of the season for playoff positioning or simply not caring if they win because a spot is locked up and health of stars takes precedence, but in pro sports, I do not believe any team loses on purpose. The 1919 White Sox tried that and it did not end well.

However, these QBs I posted were targeted with high picks and teams invested and lost their futures by investing too much in a QB.

Notice there are a few Redskins QBs on there. Lets not make that mistake again. Our last two Super Bowl teams had some things in common...a SOLID O-line, WR corps, running game and a previously unproven, almost mediocre QB. With support around him, a QB can outplay his talent level. Mortgaging a team's future for 5+ years on a risky QB draft pick is not the road to success. It does work out occasionally, but there is not an Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning in every draft. There are however, many more of the guys I posted above in every draft. It's better to take lower-risk guys to make a QB better than taking a high-risk QB (even if it looks like the sure thing *cough Ryan Leaf*) and forcing him to carry more of the burden on his own because his supporting cast is less talented.

So even if we had the #1 pick in 2012, I'm not sure I'd want Andrew Luck to be taken. A left tackle would be a smarter choice, then move Trent Williams over to fill the RT hole.

It's worked well for the Jets. They've dug themselves out from decades of losing to become contenders with mainly 1st-round offensive line picks. A solid O-line will open up the running game, passing game...and success. The Hogs were proof of that. The Jets' current line is the modern version of the Hogs.



type-o

lose

In 2 separate posts? :cheeky-sm

Loose out?

type-o

lose

That's because NO ONE does that. They're professionals. Even the Bengals TRY to win. The Lions TRIED to win games in the season prior to getting Stafford. Anyone who thinks teams actually intentionally tank seasons for draft picks is living in la-la land.

There MAY be a rare case where teams will bench some starters at the end of the season for playoff positioning or simply not caring if they win because a spot is locked up and health of stars takes precedence, but in pro sports, I do not believe any team loses on purpose. The 1919 White Sox tried that and it did not end well.

However, these QBs I posted were targeted with high picks and teams invested and lost their futures by investing too much in a QB.

You think you know, but you don't know. Teams won't go out and say they want to lose or tell there players that. And if they did they'd be fined and docked draft picks by Goodell. As a matter of fact, lets pay attention to the Dolphins Bills game later this and see what their records are, if they both have the same losing records, that could be the first game we see were both teams are like "No, you win"

You think you know, but you don't know.

We'll just have to believe what we want to and drop the subject then. I just do not buy that a pro team would tank on purpose. These guys are professionals with HUGE egos, even on a bad team, they want to win. You think the Lions players are happy that they're forever be known as the losers who went 0-16?

Luck is a very good college Qb. But all I keep hearing is the current crop of college Qb's is one of the best and deepest in a long time. Luck is not the only current QB in college ball that will do well in the NFL. We do not have to tank a season or trade away value to get one of these guys. Also, don't be lazy and identify the current 'most popular' college QB and get your panties in a bunch to get him. That mentality and desperation is how bad FO moves are made (see Atlanta 2010 draft trade and New Orleans trade to get Ricky Williams).
Don't be shocked if A. Luck ends up NOT being the best NFL QB in his draft class. Stranger things have happened (see Tom Brady).

We'll just have to believe what we want to and drop the subject then. I just do not buy that a pro team would tank on purpose. These guys are professionals with HUGE egos, even on a bad team, they want to win. You think the Lions players are happy that they're forever be known as the losers who went 0-16?

No but they got a good QB, who's beaten us trying skins twice now

...Does no one pay attention to why most of the quarterbacks who have been successful over the past three years have been successful?

Really. I'm asking honestly.

What did the Jets, Falcons, Ravens, Rams have in common? Solid offensive lines, a strong running game and running back, and average to above average defenses that could save their quarterback's asses when they struggled. With the Bucs, Josh Freeman sat on the bench for a year while they got him that things. With Matthew Stafford they've surrounded him with top end talent on both sides of the ball, even though he's been injured.

You DON'T draft a quarterback until you're sure you can put him on the field and he can have success. Period. And if you ARE going to draft a quarterback to a bad football team then you had better hope and pray that he's above average because if he's not, you end up with a shellshocked quarterback for four or five years that's not worth crap.

I can't Andrew Luck. I really do. I will cry next season if we do get him. Because there is no way the kid can possibly live up to the impossible expectations fans and media have put on him, especially if we don't have the pieces around him to succeed.

But beyond that, if you think the Redskins are going to tank to get him, you're wrong. If you think The Redskins are going to go into the season with the same offensive line they had and pick up no one to at least improve them team, you're wrong. If you think Mike Shanahan is going to play anyone but the best quarterback on his roster, you're wrong. If you think the only way to get better is to lose, you're wrong.

You're wrong. That's the bottom line. And if you want to root for a team to lose, kindly know your role, shut your mouth, and pick another team to cheer for. Because the Redskins have enough pessimistic arm chair head coach/GM/QB's that piss and moan about things needing to get better while continually make the sort of assertions and suggestions that even a nub like Vinny Cerrato would go "wait a minute, really dude, you want to make that move?". Thank God most fans aren't general managers.

I want winners. I want people who want to win. I want fellow fans who want to win, and can quit friggin' crying when we win while also not dooming the whole team to losing as some sorta way to protect themselves from when they do lose.

I'm sick of hearing about the o-line. I'm sick of hearing about John Beck and the defense and how there's no way we can possibly improve. Eff that noise. Mike's going to do what he feels gives him the best chance to WIN. He WLL improve the offensive line, he won't put John Beck on the field unless he's sure he can win and the defense WILL be improved.

Christ...can we go back to talk about free agency now?

^ All those teams you mentioned haven't won super bowls to date, the Steelers, Packers, Patriots and Colts are all teams that have proven that you can have a Great or Awful OL, But an Amazing QB, that it doesn't matter. Also those teams have solid defenses, something we're going to eventually have again. We can win with the OLine we have if we have a smart QB who knows how/when to get rid of the ball.

The whole you feel bad for Luck thing because of the pressure he's facing, I wouldn't worry about. He knows what to say when the media faces him, just like manning. Lucks got something called balls.

Now if you want to improve our team in FA, specifically OLine, then go after Ryan Harris of the Broncos or Davin Joseph of the Bucs.

The Steelers are the only team on that list that really have a "bad" offensive line in terms of pass protection, and they get away away with it because Ben is impossible to tackle. I don't care who the hell you are, for most quarterback's, you don't have at least a decent offensive line, then everything you do is going to be a lot harder, and if you don't know that then you're not paying attention.

The Jets and Falcons have both been to the playoffs. Last year the Bucs and Rams were knocking on the door. The Lions have said themselves up to make a run next year. There's a blueprint on how to do these things just based on the success of those teams.

Luck has balls...the guy has never stepped on an NFL field and already people want to crowned him the friggin' annointed one. He can't match the hype. Period.

And how can you say in one sentence "we can win now if we have a quarterback that knows how to get rid of the ball quickly" when the entire basis of your argument has been that if we start John Beck or Rex Grossman, both of whom get the ball out of their hands faster than McNabb did (which, coincidentally, made the offensive line look better than it was), there is no way we can win and will end up in a position to draft Luck? Because it's going to take either the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft to get him. If we're not in the top five to get him, we have no chance. Hell, if we're not in the top three there's no chance.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

^You cannot sit here and tell me that the Colts OLine is good without manning.
Luck is more mature than half the players in the NFL. He's not a guy that's going to be in nightclubs or knocking up girls left and right. Beck hasn't played in years, so how can you say he gets the ball out quicker than McNabb. Theres a reason McNabbs been starting longer than both of them combined. Worst case, Luck is Matt Schaub, best case he's better than Manning. I think you're the one talking out of more than two holes.