Predict Who Will Be The Next Redskins QB (Not Necessarily the QB You Want)

I'd think that plays a big part in the argument. If you give up a lot of high picks for a quarterback, I think an adequate return on investment would be at least a decade of quarterback stability and recurring trips to the playoffs, as well as 2+ SB trips. Eli has mostly given them that. Now, granted, he hasn't played at an elite level all these years, but he has played like an elite qb this year and this is his second trip to the SB. I don't think he's HOF worthy but I'd say his return on investment has been worth it.Well, I think that's an adequate answer to the question "Eli Manning as Giants QB: success or failure?"

And I wouldn't argue otherwise. But what I am saying is if you're going to try to support the idea that trading up for a quarterback can be smart (which I think is sometimes the case, othertimes not), the 2004 SD-NYG trade is not a good example. That was a pretty decisive San Diego win. And you don't really have to look too much further past the career paths of Manning/Rivers/Roethlisberger to prove that.

The truth is that a lot of times, trading up into the top ten for a quarterback hasn't worked. It didn't make Mark Sanchez a better player, it didn't really work for the Falcons with Vick, and the Jags trade to land Gabbert looks questionable at this point.

On the other hand, Shanahan's move to get Cutler in the 2006 draft still looks pretty good right now. That wasn't the top ten, but it was the 11th pick. I think it can work if you play the market right. But if you're grading the Giants trade for Manning, it's tough to argue that they played the market right. They payed a ransom for the second or third best QB in the 2004 draft.

It's because there is.

Cox Telephone Nerd - YouTube

I don't see any way around the fact that a big part of the Giants' Manning gamble was that they were worried that Eli Manning was the only potential franchise QB in the 2004 draft. Which is a legitimate worry. But to give up two first rounders and a third rounder (and something late, either a fourth or a fifth), that's not just something you do because you are unsure of yourself. That's something that you do when you are confident in your evaluation that Eli has the goods and Rivers and Roethlisberger will be out of the league in five years.

Well, I think that's an adequate answer to the question "Eli Manning as Giants QB: success or failure?"

And I wouldn't argue otherwise. But what I am saying is if you're going to try to support the idea that trading up for a quarterback can be smart (which I think is sometimes the case, othertimes not), the 2004 SD-NYG trade is not a good example. That was a pretty decisive San Diego win. And you don't really have to look too much further past the career paths of Manning/Rivers/Roethlisberger to prove that.

The truth is that a lot of times, trading up into the top ten for a quarterback hasn't worked. It didn't make Mark Sanchez a better player, it didn't really work for the Falcons with Vick, and the Jags trade to land Gabbert looks questionable at this point.

On the other hand, Shanahan's move to get Cutler in the 2006 draft still looks pretty good right now. That wasn't the top ten, but it was the 11th pick. I think it can work if you play the market right. But if you're grading the Giants trade for Manning, it's tough to argue that they played the market right. They payed a ransom for the second or third best QB in the 2004 draft.

I guess you could make the argument that if the Giants had kept Rivers, they could have had the same or better results with him as their QB. The same could be said about Big Ben, especially since he went on to win two SBs with the Steelers. I wonder if Eli would have had the same success he's had with the Giants in San Diego or Pittsburgh.

I don't see any way around the fact that a big part of the Giants' Manning gamble was that they were worried that Eli Manning was the only potential franchise QB in the 2004 draft. Which is a legitimate worry. But to give up two first rounders and a third rounder (and something late, either a fourth or a fifth), that's not just something you do because you are unsure of yourself. That's something that you do when you are confident in your evaluation that Eli has the goods and Rivers and Roethlisberger will be out of the league in five years.

Yes. The trade would be a lot easier to evaluate as a Giants win if Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers had been busts. But that is not the case.

If someone else could have taken the Giants to the same destinations but without the trade costs, that's a Giants loss.

With age, injury, roster bonus due, and the fact that Luck may not want to sit for a few years Payton Manning is as good as gone. It's an no-brainer from a business standpoint. Given this I highly doubt the Colts would be willing to trade the 1st over all pick for anything less than an entire draft class or 3 first round picks. Even if you don't think Luck is all that great you simply have to take him because not taking him is the kind of mistake that will get your fired real quick if you don't win games or he turns out to be the real deal.

Forget about Andrew Luck, he won't be on the Skins...worry about the real possibility that another team might trade into a top 5 spot and steal Griffin.

Anyone else want to change their pick?....
Senior Bowl: South Team Practice Report Day Three - Hogs Haven (http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/1/25/2734975/senior-bowl-south-team-practice-report-day-three)

•Oklahoma State quarterback Brandon Weeden again looked comfortable and composed, showing pretty good arm strength and accuracy. Weeden is clearly the best quarterback in Mobile for me, and I think he'll probably work his way up to the second round before draft day (at worst early third). From a Redskins point of view, I noticed Weeden and Redskins offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan appeared to get along really well, I saw a few clips of them together laughing and smiling while Kyle gave Weeden the play. Kyle looked a lot more serious with Foles and Lindley from what I saw. Also another thing I picked up on - and maybe I'm reading too much into this - was that Criner, Rainey and Weeden all saw time on field together. Every time I saw Weeden come in on offense against defense, Rainey and Criner also came in. Yesterday, JimmyK told us how he saw Redskins scouts talking to both Criner and Rainey. Again, I could be (and probably am) reading too much into it, it could just be that they are all listed as starters on Saturday. But I thought I would share a few things I had picked up on.

Really? The Giants disagree.

I'm sure they do. The difference with the Giants when they got Eli is that they were a consistently good team with talent that was only missing a QB so they could afford to give up picks to make the move. The Skins are not a good team and have so many holes that need fixing that they just cant afford to lose a bunch of picks.

I'm sure they do. The difference with the Giants when they got Eli is that they were a consistently good team with talent that was only missing a QB so they could afford to give up picks to make the move. The Skins are not a good team and have so many holes that need fixing that they just cant afford to lose a bunch of picks.

If the team has isentified THE Franchise QB for the future....go get him.

Plug holes around him later.

I would be happy with Rainey as our slot WR, 3rd down RB and return specialist. As well as kick blocker.