I See QB Rumors (2012 QB Thread: The Sixth Sense)

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.There are plenty of constants that aren't QB play within this organization. And really, the years of bad QB play over the last 20 years were pretty much (with obvious exception to 2004) contained to the Schottenheimer/Spurrier years, and now the Shanahan years. You've had your bad quarterbacks: Shuler, Wuerffel, that one Ramsey/Brunell season, Grossman, Beck. But it's not like the quarterback play has been consistently bad. That doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Turner and Gibbs/Zorn didn't have any issue solving the quarterback position. In fact, the coaches who did have trouble are infamous for their bad QB decisions in Washington.

Only two franchises in the last 20 hasn't endured a period of bad quarterback play: New England, who went right from Bledsoe to Brady (and even Brady had a lean year or two), and Green Bay, who went right from Favre to Rodgers. For 30 other teams, they've had the same kind of issue with quarterabcks the Redskins have had with quarterbacks. The Cowboys hardly went right from Aikman to Romo, they suffered through Chad Hutchinson, Quincy Carter, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Henson, and Bledsoe. Teams like the Lions and Bears have actually had it far worse.

Complaining about the QB situation is old and tiring. Sure, Shanahan gutted the roster and hasn't offered a viable solution. I get that. I have been critical of him for doing that. It's not like there aren't guys out there who can play the position well who can be acquired easily if Andrew Luck proves too elusive. It's obvious to me at least that there are much bigger issues with this organization that were causing us many losses even before Shanahan got here. Those issues have not been fixed.

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

Agreed,
It's just the reality of today's rules. It's how you have to build a team right now until there are rules changes again.

Here's your Eli Manning conundrum: Manning spent a lot of his career playing with stiffs like Amani Toomer and Plaxico Burress, and his biggest weapon for a while was either Tiki Barber on screen passes, or Jeremy Shockey. He got his first true no. 1 WR (at least by the standards of the modern game; Toomer and Burress were adequate for the 2005 passing environment) in 2009. The best receiver he ever played with is Victor Cruz, who was undrafted and signed in Manning's seventh season, then spent a year on IR.

You must be joking with this statement. Toomer and Burress were legit big receivers. Hakeem Nicks is not a bad player. Plus they always had a strong power running game backing them up.

You must be joking with this statement. Toomer and Burress were legit big receivers. Hakeem Nicks is not a bad player. Plus they always had a strong power running game backing them up.What are you basing any of this on? A vague memory of the 2005 Giants?

Agreed,
It's just the reality of today's rules. It's how you have to build a team right now until there are rules changes again.It's been easier for everyone at the quarterback position the last four years, not just the elite guys. Everyone is benefiting from the relaxed passing environment. It's why you can compare 2006 Rex Grossman to 2011 Rex Grossman and think that maybe the Redskins have a better player (even though its the same guy with the same skill set).

What are you basing any of this on? A vague memory of the 2005 Giants?

The 2008 Giants were a well-oiled machine...until Burress literally shot himself. Toomer, sure, was not that good anymore.

Toomer was a damn good wr man and so was pb

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

Toomer was a damn good wr man and so was pbToomer's last 1000 yard season for the Giants came in 2003. Manning was drafted in 2004. His best season with Eli: 59 catches, 760 yards. Michael Crabtree this season: 72 catches, 874 yards.

Burress had 2 1,000 yard seasons for Eli, but Plaxico Burress is a career 50% catch rate guy. One of the most overrated careers in recent memory. Not a particularly good player, with the isolated exception of his red zone performance, a place where he had three really good seasons.

The Giants, when they won the super bowl in 2007, were kind of like this year's 49ers. If you looked hard enough, you could see good offensive talent, but they went as their defense went.

Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

Actually irish's claim was not about teams bettering themselves. His claim was that teams never give up a lot to get a QB. I simply pointed out that that was not true, whether such deals end up being smart or not.

As for whether giving up a lot for a QB is worth it, I agree that you must look on a case-by-case basis. I agreed with you on the argument about Eli the other day. But in Eli's case the Giants had other easy options. That is not always the case. So we might look at the Bears' acquisition of Cutler differently than we look at trading for Eli. And until we see more the jury remains out on folks like Palmer and Gabbert. If Palmer tears it up next year and the Raiders win the Super Bowl (I said IF), the Palmer trade looks a lot more respectable.