Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Now, I'm confused!



BTW, Welcome Luke4:20!

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675663]Sure, but "The Hogs" weren't built on first round picks

Russ Grimm (3rd round)
Mark May (1st round)
George Starke (11th round)
Jeff Bostic (undrafted)
Joe Jacoby (undrafted)
Jim Lachey (1st round-Chargers; joined Redskins in 5th season)
Raleigh McKenzie (11th round)
R.C. Thielemann (2nd round-Falcons; joined Redskins in 8th season)
Mark Schlereth (10th round)
Ed Simmons (6th round)[/quote]

Your point is well taken Smoot, and I agree. My main point of contention concerns mainly the LT position, a position generally associated with a top draft pick because of it's importance. It's the most important position on the O-line and commands special attention.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

^ One might argue that the QB pickings this year are slim. After Bradford and Clausen, every other QB has serious red flags.

One might also argue that the tackle class this year is fairly deep. That is, one could pick up someone like Ducasse in the second round and turn him into a very reasonable LT, with seasoning time.

If these two arguments are true, then if we are to build a new offense around a new QB and new LT, drafting QB first and T second might be the best choice.

All that said, I'll dance if we come home from the draft with Okung instead of a first round QB.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Understand the backup thing, but just thought we could get a backup that had more of an upside. Younger, bigger arm, more tools. As far as the "system", Rex played one year in it...not like he is an expert. Not a JC hater or supporter...lol. Jury still out on that one, just think we should take the best player at that pick.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675711]Because at every opportunity, we need to beat to death the argument of #4 QB vs. #4LT. This is becoming the Campbell supporters vs. the Campbell haters of the offseason.[/quote]

Hate is a strong word

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675712]"When" would be the right word. This is what I get for typing too fast. Not every draft is deep in QBs going in the first round.

And second rounders are obviously expected to fail on a more frequent basis than first rounders, although what actually happens depends on the individual players.[/quote]

Your post still makes no sense.

The 2001 NFL Draft saw Michael Vick go as the #1 quarterback. Drew Brees was second at #32. The 2001 NFL Draft produced no other meaningful quarterback. How was that draft deep enough at the quarterback position that would lead you to make such a bold statement?

"Good 2nd round QBs probably come around when the QB draft class is deep."

Do you have any evidence of this?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675706]I meant teams in similar situations as us in general. Coming from a losing season, having strong defenses, and trying to rebuild. And by similar I mean similar, not the same situation. Well, the Dolphins are just about the same situation as I'm advocating for, drafting a franchise LT, and then taking a 2nd QB (Henne).

[/quote]

ruhskins, im sorry to be commenting on so many of your posts today buddy.

a good counter point to the miami scenario are the falcons. who selected matt ryan then sam baker.

who would you rather have? matt ryan and sam baker or chad henne and jake long? imo i dont really look at history or what worked or didnt work for other teams. nothing is the similar enough to warrant giving much weight to comparison analysis imo.

for every manning, there is a leaf. for every chris samuels, there is a mike williams. for every brady, there is a well .... a shit ton of 6th round qbs who didnt make it.

but i think you get my point. what worked or didnt work for the dolphins or falcons in 2008 or 2007 doesnt carry much weight to me when im making my fan opinion of how the skins should proceed.

ps/edit - i thought the qb v lt debate has been one of the more intriguing ones going on the past few months.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

The whole thing is a crap shoot anyway. Take Berry at 4, a LT later, and see how JC does under Shanny.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=over the mountain;675724]ruhskins, im sorry to be commenting on so many of your posts today buddy.

a good counter point to the miami scenario are the falcons. who selected matt ryan then sam baker.

who would you rather have? matt ryan and sam baker or chad henne and jake long? imo i dont really look at history or what worked or didnt work for other teams. nothing is the similar enough to warrant giving much weight to comparison analysis imo.

for every manning, there is a leaf. for every chris samuels, there is a mike williams. for every brady, there is a well .... a shit ton of 6th round qbs who didnt make it.

but i think you get my point. what worked or didnt work for the dolphins or falcons in 2008 or 2007 doesnt carry much weight to me when im making my fan opinion of how the skins should proceed.[/quote]

I'd be thrilled if we had the Falcons scenario, of having the luxury of two first round picks. As I've said, I'm not like some folks who think it'd be the end of the world if we drafted a QB. I just look at it this way....offensive line has been hands down a big issue for the team. Whereas QB, I don't think you could find a consensus, even among the pundits. With that in mind, I think the course of action should be to draft a franchise LT.

Now, could the Redskins draft Bradford and a 2nd round LT? Sure. To me it'd be the 3rd best option after drafting a LT at #4 and trading down from #4. I think we could find a tackle at the top of the 2nd round that could potentially start for us. I just feel more confident on a top 5 tackle being able to start right away, and let a second round QB sit on the bench for a year (as oppose to having Bradford sit on the bench for year or get behind the line that we have right now).

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675705]Well with Levi Jones we technically would. We'd have Jones and Mike Williams[/quote]

But everyone say's they can't play and shouldn't even be on the team.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675700]If you agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson, then the argument is over. They took Ferguson because he was rated higher, not because they decided on a philosophy of LT over QB. Thanks for proving my point.[/quote]No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675738]No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?[/quote]

My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675740]My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.[/quote]

A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

was just listening to the fan

rocky mac was asked about grossman/brennan

rocky was like we've played against grossman, doesn't look too good on film

said he's a fan of brennan, even before he came to the skins

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675749]A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?[/quote]

1. Buster said David Carr is a good example of taking a QB before addressing the offensive line.

2. I asked if Mike Williams should have been taken instead.

3. You brought up Ferguson.

4. I said that was a bad example because there was no comparable quarterback rated as high as Ferguson.

5. Dirtbag said Leinart was the better prospect.

6. I cite Polian's commentary as to why that is probably not true.

7. After much-ado about what Polian meant, you finally say that Leinart is rated lower than Ferguson, which confirms what I said at point #4.

That's all there is to it. I can't help if you are having a disconnect and having one of your "Brees in a deep QB class" moments.