Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793510]The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? Great QB play covers up a lot of holes. They move the ball and keep the defense off the field...they make quick decisions with the ball that makes their OL look better then it really is...they keep the 8th man out of the box and improve the running game. The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

The reason I want them to be aggressive is because this position does not just fall to you. they are incredibly hard to find. The Redskins have been looking for a QB for most of the last 25 years.

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's.[B] Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB.[/B] Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.[/quote]

Umm, not neccessarily. Next year we will have a full complement of picks. We can throw in our 1st round pick and 2nd round pick to move up to the #1 spot and get the QB we want. No?

You would have us throw away our only two good picks plus what to move up to #2 to get Gabbert, when all I want the team to do is trade out of our #10 spot to maybe the 20's, pick up a second round 2 pick, take an OL, then take a DL or vise versa, and pick up Dalton, Ponder, or Kaepernick. Throw away 2 + picks for one player or give up one mid round pick for 2 picks? I'll take the latter.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793509]I think based on what Shannahan said he was worth it.[/quote]

Must not have been worth selling the farm for, otherwise he'd be here.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SBXVII;793528]Umm, not neccessarily. Next year we will have a full complement of picks. We can throw in our 1st round pick and 2nd round pick to move up to the #1 spot and get the QB we want. No?

You would have us throw away our only two good picks plus what to move up to #2 to get Gabbert, when all I want the team to do is trade out of our #10 spot to maybe the 20's, pick up a second round 2 pick, take an OL, then take a DL or vise versa, and pick up Dalton, Ponder, or Kaepernick. Throw away 2 + picks for one player or give up one mid round pick for 2 picks? I'll take the latter.[/quote]

A 2nd round pick is not nearly enough to get up to the #1 spot. We pick 10th this year and it would cost us 1300 points to move up to #1. That is equal to at least next years #1 and this years #2.

I am not necesarily saying to trade up to get gabbert. I am saying if Shanny thinks he is a franchise QB he should do it. If he only views him as a pretty good prospect then he shouldn't.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SBXVII;793525]I guess I just don't get the panick mode mentality? "OMG, MS is one year removed from his 5 yr deal." "OMG, MS might not be able to complete his work unless we get a QB this yr."

I'm just baffled. MS still has 4 yrs to include this one. Get the OL and DL set and any supporting staff, use Grossman and Beck this yr, next yr 2012 throw your picks in to get Luck, and pick up a WR and RB. Then they would still have 3 yrs to develope and make a SB run. I'm sure if they do well and this team is on the right track Snyder will most likely resign MS or hire his son as HC to allow the completion of the work already done.[/quote]

First off...if you assume no QB this year then you can consider him 2 years in with no QB. How long in your estimate will it take to get a 1st or 2nd round QB ready to play on average? 1 full year maybe 2 is probably a fair estimate. So assume we get the QB next year and then he spends year 3 and part of Shannys year 4 learning. Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.

Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work. At this point he is such a highly rated prospect that I doubt the team holding the pick will even entertain offers. Only chance of him being on the market would be if somehow a team with a young established QB somehow has a rash of injuries and ends up going 1-15. Not at all likely.

Also...I am not saying i want them to force a QB pick on a guy they don't love. All I am saying is that if there is a QB in this draft that they love...I believe they should be aggressive about getting him. I don't get why every Redskins fan would not think the same way...

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793533]A 2nd round pick is not nearly enough to get up to the #1 spot. We pick 10th this year and it would cost us 1300 points to move up to #1.[B] That is equal to at least next years #1 and this years #2. [/B]

I am not necesarily saying to trade up to get gabbert. I am saying if Shanny thinks he is a franchise QB he should do it. If he only views him as a pretty good prospect then he shouldn't.[/quote]

That is what I'm talking about. For us to move up this year we would have to atleast offer our #10 pick this year and our 2nd rounder. Two picks just to get one player we like? Plus we don't have a round 3 or 4 pick. I just don't see that happening for us.

However next year, when Luck will be in the draft and he was rated higher then all the ones this year or would have been, we will have a full complement of picks. If the team wants to throw their 1st round and 2nd round draft pick at a team to get Luck or whoever is rated second best then I'm all for it. Because we will still have the 3 through 7 round picks to go after other players.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793534]First off...if you assume no QB this year then you can consider him 2 years in with no QB. How long in your estimate will it take to get a 1st or 2nd round QB ready to play on average? 1 full year maybe 2 is probably a fair estimate. So assume we get the QB next year and then he spends year 3 and part of Shannys year 4 learning. Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.

Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work. At this point he is such a highly rated prospect that I doubt the team holding the pick will even entertain offers. Only chance of him being on the market would be if somehow a team with a young established QB somehow has a rash of injuries and ends up going 1-15. Not at all likely.

Also...I am not saying i want them to force a QB pick on a guy they don't love. All I am saying is that if there is a QB in this draft that they love...I believe they should be aggressive about getting him. I don't get why every Redskins fan would not think the same way...[/quote]

Wow, ok

[B]1st para;[/B] It is common knowledge that it takes about 3 yrs for any new HC to get his team back to playing well and into the playoffs... thats rebuilding. Were not rebuilding. But.... if MS gets his QB in next yrs draft then they would essentially have 3 yrs to prove something. The whole team would know the offense and only the QB would have to be on the fast track or don't play him and let him sit the 1st year and learn the offense. Then MS has 2 yrs to actually play him and get to the playoffs and hopefully a SB. If after all this the team is in the SB or close then my money is on that DS resigns MS if MS is willing to keep being the HC.

[B]2nd para; [/B]"Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work?" are you making this stuff up? Supposedly according to all the experts had Luck come out this year he would be labled the best QB of the bunch and been expected to go first. Over all the QB's in this yrs draft. Yet you seem to think Gabbert is worthy of a team moving up to take or "throwing picks at?" Ok. I'm at a loss for words almost. All I'm suggesting is the Skins should try to trade out of the #10 spot ... if feasable, and get more picks in the first two rounds or three rounds. Build up the OL and DL some more and next year when we can afford to throw away picks go after the top ranked QB. I'd still go after Dalton or Ponder this year in the second round though. Then we would have two young QB's who can hopefully step up to the occassion.

[B]3rd para; [/B]I see what your saying. I don't agree with it but I see what your saying. I will say that I think everyone here would feel almost the same way and that is "IF" MS see's a QB that he absolutely thinks is the right QB for this scheme and will become great or can be coached to greatness then I don't think any one of us would have a problem with him going after said QB. The problem is all the QB's have some sort of issue, not a one is standing so far out there that they should be looked at, and we all know any position is a 50/50 crap shoot. Simply look at Thomas and Kelly, both rated high and expected to do well over time. Thomas looks more like a bust and Kelly can't stay healthy long enough. How about Campbell, were his issue's QB developement or a team reaching too high for him? or both.

I'll agree we have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by moving closer to the #1 pick but all I'm saying is lets do it when the team has more picks to work with vs. handicapping us further by throwing two more picks away just to get 1 player and not get any other quality players until the following year because some here would believe the only quality players are between the 1st and 4th round.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

^ Also....
[QUOTE]Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.[/QUOTE]

Is there something wrong with this thought process? I think your exagerating to the extreme of not having quality QB play until yr 5, and I might be exagerating to the extreme in thinking that the Rookie QB could start next year after being drafted. Somewhere in the middle the truth lies. Is it wrong to say we draft frachise QB next year to learn the system, he plays year 4 and gets us to the playoffs/SB year 5? I'll except that. or are you expecting the team to draft Gabbert this year and go to the SB... this year?

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SBXVII;793536]Wow, ok

[B]1st para;[/B] It is common knowledge that it takes about 3 yrs for any new HC to get his team back to playing well and into the playoffs... thats rebuilding. Were not rebuilding. But.... if MS gets his QB in next yrs draft then they would essentially have 3 yrs to prove something. The whole team would know the offense and only the QB would have to be on the fast track or don't play him and let him sit the 1st year and learn the offense. Then MS has 2 yrs to actually play him and get to the playoffs and hopefully a SB. If after all this the team is in the SB or close then my money is on that DS resigns MS if MS is willing to keep being the HC.

[B]2nd para; [/B]"Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work?" are you making this stuff up? Supposedly according to all the experts had Luck come out this year he would be labled the best QB of the bunch and been expected to go first. Over all the QB's in this yrs draft. Yet you seem to think Gabbert is worthy of a team moving up to take or "throwing picks at?" Ok. I'm at a loss for words almost. All I'm suggesting is the Skins should try to trade out of the #10 spot ... if feasable, and get more picks in the first two rounds or three rounds. Build up the OL and DL some more and next year when we can afford to throw away picks go after the top ranked QB. I'd still go after Dalton or Ponder this year in the second round though. Then we would have two young QB's who can hopefully step up to the occassion.

[B]3rd para; [/B]I see what your saying. I don't agree with it but I see what your saying. I will say that I think everyone here would feel almost the same way and that is "IF" MS see's a QB that he absolutely thinks is the right QB for this scheme and will become great or can be coached to greatness then I don't think any one of us would have a problem with him going after said QB. The problem is all the QB's have some sort of issue, not a one is standing so far out there that they should be looked at, and we all know any position is a 50/50 crap shoot. Simply look at Thomas and Kelly, both rated high and expected to do well over time. Thomas looks more like a bust and Kelly can't stay healthy long enough. How about Campbell, were his issue's QB developement or a team reaching too high for him? or both.

I'll agree we have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by moving closer to the #1 pick but all I'm saying is lets do it when the team has more picks to work with vs. handicapping us further by throwing two more picks away just to get 1 player and not get any other quality players until the following year because some here would believe the only quality players are between the 1st and 4th round.[/quote]

1st paragraph: What your saying makes sense...i agree that it could unfold the way you are laying it out. the logic is sound but the only potential problem is that the longer you wait on the qb the more pressurer there is to find him as each year passes.

2nd paragraph: You clearly did not read my 2nd paragraph based on your reply. I said Luck was rated very high and the team that drafts #1 would likely not entertain offers on the pick. I was simply saying that we should not bank on having a shot at Luck next year. And also i never said i like or dislike Gabbert and i never said I would trade up for him. What i said was that if Shanny has a very high grade on him i would be aggressive about moving up for him.

3rd paragraph: this is essentially all i am saying and you just said you agreed with me. The stuff you said at the end about all these qbs having this or that wrong with them...that is all irrelivant and based on what we are hearing in the media. [B]The only evaluation of these QBs that matters is Shannahan and the the Redskins scouting department.[/B]

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SBXVII;793537]^ Also....


Is there something wrong with this thought process? I think your exagerating to the extreme of not having quality QB play until yr 5, and I might be exagerating to the extreme in thinking that the Rookie QB could start next year after being drafted. Somewhere in the middle the truth lies. Is it wrong to say we draft frachise QB next year to learn the system, he plays year 4 and gets us to the playoffs/SB year 5? I'll except that. or are you expecting the team to draft Gabbert this year and go to the SB... this year?[/quote]

I may have exagerated a bit on the year 5 thing, but my point is that the longer we wait to identify the QB the less time he has to develop. This team is not going to the super bowl this year no matter what moves they make. This discussion is only about rebuilding and what priority we should place on finding the young QB.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

Essentially my point is this:

Hypothetically, Lets say you had access to the Redskins scouting reports on all the draft prospects and their big board rankings. Thier #1 overall prospect was for the sake of argument Blane Gabbert. The report on him was glistening to the point that there was no doubt in the Redskins eyes that Gabbert had franchise QB potential in thier eyes.

Which course of action would you want the Redskins to take based on this information?

[B]A.[/B] Draft Gabbert if he falls to #10...otherwise if Gabbert is off the board fill another need with the next highest rated prospect left on your board.

[B]B.[/B] Trade up from #10 to #2 to ensure getting Gabbert. This would require 1300 points or lets just say it would cost our #10 pick plus this years #2 and next years #1 pick.

I hate giving up draft picks, but knowing how strongly they felt I would easily choose option B.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793510][B]The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? [/B] ... The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

...

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's. [B]Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB.[/B] Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.[/quote]

Well, let's look at last year's playoff teams and see how those "non-average" QB's were acquired - Had those teams made drastic moves to get to the top of the draft in order to reach up and grab QB? hmmm.....

Philly: Vick (Not Drafted By Team)
Green Bay: A. Rodgers (1st Rnd/24th pick)
Chicago: Cutler (Not Drafted By Team)
Atlanta: Ryan (1st Rnd/3rd Pick)
New Orleans: Brees (2nd Rnd/1st pick)
Seattle - Hasselback (Not Drafted By Team)
New England - Brady (6th Round)
New York Jets - Sanchez (1st Rnd/5th pick)
Indianapolis - P. Manning (1st Rnd/1st pick)
Baltimore - Flacco (1st Round/18 pick)
Pittsburg - Roethlesburger (1st Rnd/11th pick)
Kansas City - Cassell (Not Drafted By Team)

In addition, I am going to throw out a couple other teams that have been solid winners recently or are otherwise relevant to this analysis:

New York Giants: E. Manning (1st Rnd/1st Pick)
San Diego: P. Rivers (1st Rnd/4th Pick)
Dallas (bear with me folks!): T. Romo (undrafted)

First, I want to look at the “Not Drafted By Team” and "Non-First Rounder" categories:

[B]Brady[/B]: Let’s start with the guy who wrecks the curve. Look, guys like this happen once in a blue moon. At the same time, Brady had huge advantages by coming to the Patriots. Remember, his first year they were a playoff team with Bledsoe at QB. That said, you simply can’t base your team’s future by betting that lightning will strike. BUT, if you build a solid team, when lightning does strike, [I]that's[/I] when you have the makings of a dynasty.

[B]Brees[/B]: New Orleans spent how much on one of the most prolific passers of recent years? Oh, that’s right. He was a free agent. On top of that, when Brees was drafted, San Diego actually traded back from taking Vick and then Brees fell into their lap in the second round after they got Tomlinson in the 1st – let’s see, trade down from a drafting highly rated QB, draft amazing RB who will take heat off rookie QB and get more picks.

[B]Vick[/B]: Pretty unique situation. Regardless of baggage, and realizing there is a lot of back and forth on his ability to “Win the Big One”, it is pretty clear that a “Franchise QB” fell into their lap who was able to take advantage of all the draft picks spent on “supporting cast” players.

[B]Cutler[/B]: I think you have to say the jury is still out on this one. For this analysis, not sure Chicago’s acquisition of him is relevant as he was a known commodity going to a mediocre team for a high cost. Will he be worth what Chicago gave up for him? I doubt it.

[B]Cassell[/B]: Much like Cutler, the jury is still out on this one. He didn’t come cheap and he didn’t do much. But he is younger than Cutler. Less of a known quantity and Chiefs were in a state of transition when he was acquired. At the same time, prior to obtaining Cassel, the Chiefs had some fairly good drafts, obtaining a lot of quality young players.

[B]Romo[/B]: Look, I don’t particularly like the guy. I certainly don’t think he is an all time elite QB like Manning or Brady. I am not even convinced he is a “short-term” elite QB like Rivers or Brees is right now. BUT, he is a solid starting QB and, w/ a good team around him, he could probably (gagging as I say this) win a SB. Again, he cost them [I]nothing[/I]. As with us, the ‘pukes big problem is their O-Line which they ignored (like us) for years. Unlike us, they found a (quasi) starting QB and didn’t trade the farm to get him. (McNabb, Campbell)

[B]Hasselback[/B]: umm, okay, whatever … moving on.

Okay, let’s look at those first rounders and, yes, there are a lot. But wait --- did these playoff teams spend tons of picks to get those 1st Round QB's? The Magic 8 Ball says “Very Doubtful”.

[B]Sanchez[/B]: The Jets traded their 17th place pick, their 2nd round pick and 3 back-ups to move to the 5th spot. When they did it, they had a team that had been to the play-offs three years earlier and was 9-7 the prior year. Additionally, as it turned out, in Sanchez's rookie year, the Jets had a punishing ground attack, a fantastic O-line and a killer defense. Even so, Sanchez has not exactly lit up the world. In recent years, he is your best case scenario for trading up. I would humbly suggest, we are not nearly as good as the 2009 Jets were when they drafted him and, further, he has yet to show he can take this team to the promised land rather than be the guy who simply drives the bus.

[B]P. Manning[/B]: You say he is the best example of a QB transforming a team. Okay. I grant you he does so. BUT - very simply, did the Colts trade to get him? Nope. He landed in their laps and they built around him. [I][B]On the other hand[/B][/I], the same year Indi drafted Manning, San Diego spent big time draft points to move up one slot (trading two first round picks, a second round pick, and four time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf) to move from the 3rd to the 2nd pick to grab that all-time great bust (and absolute proof of my argument against trading up) Ryan Leaf. A move that crippled their team for the near future.

[B]Flacco[/B]: Again, a solid team builds defense and offense line through smart drafting and, when a solid QB prospect falls to them, they take him. Does anyone doubt the Ravens could win it all with Flacco?

[B]A. Rodgers[/B]: Green Bay drafts QB’s well. They take’em where they can get them and trade’em away for picks. Yes, he had time behind Farve. But you know what? They knew Farve time was coming to an end and waited for the right opportunity. No panic mode drafting - Just keep drafting solid supporting cast and, again, when a highly rated QB falls to you, grab him.

[B]Ryan[/B]: Solid pick. A team two years from the Michael Vick trauma and one year from the Bobby Petrino debacle. In terms of picks, he was just the right guy in the right place and it worked for them. Given the flux in Atlanta at the time of his pick, I am not sure he really adds anything to either of our positions except that you just don't know when a quality QB’s will “happen” (they were a mediocre team that had a bad year, creating the lucky break of being in the right place at the right time). In light of that, you just don’t need to go reaching for QB's.

OKAY, THAT BRINGS US TO THE 2004 DRAFT. Three QB’s all solid. One team traded up and won a SB, one team traded down and got a truly franchise QB but no SB, and one team stuck to its guns waited for a QB and has since won two SB’s, been to a third and is easily posed to win more.

[B]The Trade DOWN -- Rivers[/B]: Yes, he was a first rounder – BUT San Diego traded down, to get him and got S. Merriman and N. Kaeding out of the deal. He hasn’t won a SB, but is there any doubt that he is an elite QB? In getting Rivers, San Diego not only got a franchise QB by trading down, they passed up the highest rated QB in the draft. Which brings us to …

[B]The Trade UP – E. Manning[/B]: [Yes, SD drafted Manning but it was clearly a “raft and trade scenario”] Hard to knock a team that grabs a SB winning QB (but don’t worry, I will). In 2004, Eli was the top rated QB coming out of college – easily. The Giants wanted him and sold the farm to get him. As you now argue, they believed he was “the guy” and went after him. Contrary to what we have in place, however, the Giants were a solid team before he showed up. It’s not like Eli transformed the team. Yes, he threw the miracle pass - But what got that team to the SB? The Giants amazing D-Line which featured multiple draft picks from recent years. And finally ....

[B]The Non-Trade: Roethlesburger[/B]: In the years leading up to 2004, the Steelers had won 6 (03), 10 (02) and 13 (01) games. In addition, they had Bettis and Hines Ward. Unfortunately, they had a retread XFL player at QB (Tommy Maddox). So, with several highly rated QB’s did they go chasing anyone? Nope. They had a solid team and let the QB come to them.

I WOULD CONCEDE that Eli is a solid QB. The Giants gave up a lot to get him. They did exactly what you suggest we do now. BUT - Let me ask you something, if you had your choice today – Would you take Manning, Rivers or Roethlesburger? Or, better yet and more accurately, would you take (1) Manning; (2) Roethlesburger; or (3) Rivers and Kaeding & the past 4 years of Merriman? I suggest that, in any reasonable poll, Eli is the last choice. Further, and more importantly, which of these teams are built for longer term success? Again, I think the Giants rank 3rd.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, only one team that was in the play-offs last year (the Jets) traded up to get a highly rated rookie QB and Sanchez has a long way to go (IMHO) before I would classify him as more than "the driver of the bus". The Jets often won [I]despite[/I] Sanchez, rarely [I]because[/I] of him.

MY POINT through all of this (yes, I get there eventually) is that the best teams in the league didn’t reach for QB’s or trade away lots of picks. They built solid teams and let the QB position come to them. The Patriots, the Steelers, Ravens, Green Bay, San Diego, New Orleans, Philadelphia all have franchise QB’s b/c they created a team where a good QB could thrive.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793550]Essentially my point is this:

Hypothetically, Lets say you had access to the Redskins scouting reports on all the draft prospects and their big board rankings. Thier #1 overall prospect was for the sake of argument Blane Gabbert. The report on him was glistening to the point that there was no doubt in the Redskins eyes that Gabbert had franchise QB potential in thier eyes.

Which course of action would you want the Redskins to take based on this information?

[B]A.[/B] Draft Gabbert if he falls to #10...otherwise if Gabbert is off the board fill another need with the next highest rated prospect left on your board.

[B]B.[/B] Trade up from #10 to #2 to ensure getting Gabbert. This would require 1300 points or lets just say it would cost our #10 pick plus this years #2 and next years #1 pick.

I hate giving up draft picks, but knowing how strongly they felt I would easily choose option B.[/quote]

For the Skins - as their roster exists today? I would choose [B](A)[/B] everyday of the week and twice on Draft Day. For the Minnesota Vikings (a much more complete team), I would choose B in a heartbeat. First round QB's are boom/bust bets. Best thing to do is to build so you can hedge that bet as best as you can.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793552]Well, let's look at last year's playoff teams and see how those "non-average" QB's were acquired - Had those teams made drastic moves to get to the top of the draft in order to reach up and grab QB? hmmm.....

Philly: Vick (Not Drafted By Team)
Green Bay: A. Rodgers (1st Rnd/24th pick)
Chicago: Cutler (Not Drafted By Team)
Atlanta: Ryan (1st Rnd/3rd Pick)
New Orleans: Brees (2nd Rnd/1st pick)
Seattle - Hasselback (Not Drafted By Team)
New England - Brady (6th Round)
New York Jets - Sanchez (1st Rnd/5th pick)
Indianapolis - P. Manning (1st Rnd/1st pick)
Baltimore - Flacco (1st Round/18 pick)
Pittsburg - Roethlesburger (1st Rnd/11th pick)
Kansas City - Cassell (Not Drafted By Team)

In addition, I am going to throw out a couple other teams that have been solid winners recently or are otherwise relevant to this analysis:

New York Giants: E. Manning (1st Rnd/1st Pick)
San Diego: P. Rivers (1st Rnd/4th Pick)
Dallas (bear with me folks!): T. Romo (undrafted)

First, I want to look at the “Not Drafted By Team” and "Non-First Rounder" categories:

[B]Brady[/B]: Let’s start with the guy who wrecks the curve. Look, guys like this happen once in a blue moon. At the same time, Brady had huge advantages by coming to the Patriots. Remember, his first year they were a playoff team with Bledsoe at QB. That said, you simply can’t base your team’s future by betting that lightning will strike. BUT, if you build a solid team, when lightning does strike, [I]that's[/I] when you have the makings of a dynasty.

[B]Brees[/B]: New Orleans spent how much on one of the most prolific passers of recent years? Oh, that’s right. He was a free agent. On top of that, when Brees was drafted, San Diego actually traded back from taking Vick and then Brees fell into their lap in the second round after they got Tomlinson in the 1st – let’s see, trade down from a drafting highly rated QB, draft amazing RB who will take heat off rookie QB and get more picks.

[B]Vick[/B]: Pretty unique situation. Regardless of baggage, and realizing there is a lot of back and forth on his ability to “Win the Big One”, it is pretty clear that a “Franchise QB” fell into their lap who was able to take advantage of all the draft picks spent on “supporting cast” players.

[B]Cutler[/B]: I think you have to say the jury is still out on this one. For this analysis, not sure Chicago’s acquisition of him is relevant as he was a known commodity going to a mediocre team for a high cost. Will he be worth what Chicago gave up for him? I doubt it.

[B]Cassell[/B]: Much like Cutler, the jury is still out on this one. He didn’t come cheap and he didn’t do much. But he is younger than Cutler. Less of a known quantity and Chiefs were in a state of transition when he was acquired. At the same time, prior to obtaining Cassel, the Chiefs had some fairly good drafts, obtaining a lot of quality young players.

[B]Romo[/B]: Look, I don’t particularly like the guy. I certainly don’t think he is an all time elite QB like Manning or Brady. I am not even convinced he is a “short-term” elite QB like Rivers or Brees is right now. BUT, he is a solid starting QB and, w/ a good team around him, he could probably (gagging as I say this) win a SB. Again, he cost them [I]nothing[/I]. As with us, the ‘pukes big problem is their O-Line which they ignored (like us) for years. Unlike us, they found a (quasi) starting QB and didn’t trade the farm to get him. (McNabb, Campbell)

[B]Hasselback[/B]: umm, okay, whatever … moving on.

Okay, let’s look at those first rounders and, yes, there are a lot. But wait --- did these playoff teams spend tons of picks to get those 1st Round QB's? The Magic 8 Ball says “Very Doubtful”.

[B]Sanchez[/B]: The Jets traded their 17th place pick, their 2nd round pick and 3 back-ups to move to the 5th spot. When they did it, they had a team that had been to the play-offs three years earlier and was 9-7 the prior year. Additionally, as it turned out, in Sanchez's rookie year, the Jets had a punishing ground attack, a fantastic O-line and a killer defense. Even so, Sanchez has not exactly lit up the world. In recent years, he is your best case scenario for trading up. I would humbly suggest, we are not nearly as good as the 2009 Jets were when they drafted him and, further, he has yet to show he can take this team to the promised land rather than be the guy who simply drives the bus.

[B]P. Manning[/B]: You say he is the best example of a QB transforming a team. Okay. I grant you he does so. BUT - very simply, did the Colts trade to get him? Nope. He landed in their laps and they built around him. [I][B]On the other hand[/B][/I], the same year Indi drafted Manning, San Diego spent big time draft points to move up one slot (trading two first round picks, a second round pick, and four time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf) to move from the 3rd to the 2nd pick to grab that all-time great bust (and absolute proof of my argument against trading up) Ryan Leaf. A move that crippled their team for the near future.

[B]Flacco[/B]: Again, a solid team builds defense and offense line through smart drafting and, when a solid QB prospect falls to them, they take him. Does anyone doubt the Ravens could win it all with Flacco?

[B]A. Rodgers[/B]: Green Bay drafts QB’s well. They take’em where they can get them and trade’em away for picks. Yes, he had time behind Farve. But you know what? They knew Farve time was coming to an end and waited for the right opportunity. No panic mode drafting - Just keep drafting solid supporting cast and, again, when a highly rated QB falls to you, grab him.

[B]Ryan[/B]: Solid pick. A team two years from the Michael Vick trauma and one year from the Bobby Petrino debacle. In terms of picks, he was just the right guy in the right place and it worked for them. Given the flux in Atlanta at the time of his pick, I am not sure he really adds anything to either of our positions except that you just don't know when a quality QB’s will “happen” (they were a mediocre team that had a bad year, creating the lucky break of being in the right place at the right time). In light of that, you just don’t need to go reaching for QB's.

OKAY, THAT BRINGS US TO THE 2004 DRAFT. Three QB’s all solid. One team traded up and won a SB, one team traded down and got a truly franchise QB but no SB, and one team stuck to its guns waited for a QB and has since won two SB’s, been to a third and is easily posed to win more.

[B]The Trade DOWN -- Rivers[/B]: Yes, he was a first rounder – BUT San Diego traded down, to get him and got S. Merriman and N. Kaeding out of the deal. He hasn’t won a SB, but is there any doubt that he is an elite QB? In getting Rivers, San Diego not only got a franchise QB by trading down, they passed up the highest rated QB in the draft. Which brings us to …

[B]The Trade UP – E. Manning[/B]: [Yes, SD drafted Manning but it was clearly a “raft and trade scenario”] Hard to knock a team that grabs a SB winning QB (but don’t worry, I will). In 2004, Eli was the top rated QB coming out of college – easily. The Giants wanted him and sold the farm to get him. As you now argue, they believed he was “the guy” and went after him. Contrary to what we have in place, however, the Giants were a solid team before he showed up. It’s not like Eli transformed the team. Yes, he threw the miracle pass - But what got that team to the SB? The Giants amazing D-Line which featured multiple draft picks from recent years. And finally ....

[B]The Non-Trade: Roethlesburger[/B]: In the years leading up to 2004, the Steelers had won 6 (03), 10 (02) and 13 (01) games. In addition, they had Bettis and Hines Ward. Unfortunately, they had a retread XFL player at QB (Tommy Maddox). So, with several highly rated QB’s did they go chasing anyone? Nope. They had a solid team and let the QB come to them.

I WOULD CONCEDE that Eli is a solid QB. The Giants gave up a lot to get him. They did exactly what you suggest we do now. BUT - Let me ask you something, if you had your choice today – Would you take Manning, Rivers or Roethlesburger? Or, better yet and more accurately, would you take (1) Manning; (2) Roethlesburger; or (3) Rivers and Kaeding & the past 4 years of Merriman? I suggest that, in any reasonable poll, Eli is the last choice. Further, and more importantly, which of these teams are built for longer term success? Again, I think the Giants rank 3rd.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, only one team that was in the play-offs last year (the Jets) traded up to get a highly rated rookie QB and Sanchez has a long way to go (IMHO) before I would classify him as more than "the driver of the bus". The Jets often won [I]despite[/I] Sanchez, rarely [I]because[/I] of him.

MY POINT through all of this (yes, I get there eventually) is that the best teams in the league didn’t reach for QB’s or trade away lots of picks. They built solid teams and let the QB position come to them. The Patriots, the Steelers, Ravens, Green Bay, San Diego, New Orleans, Philadelphia all have franchise QB’s b/c they created a team where a good QB could thrive.[/quote]

dude...:goodjob:

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793553]For the Skins - as their roster exists today? I would choose [B](A)[/B] everyday of the week and twice on Draft Day. For the Minnesota Vikings (a much more complete team), I would choose B in a heartbeat. First round QB's are boom/bust bets. Best thing to do is to build so you can hedge that bet as best as you can.[/quote]

Exactly my thoughts. This team is not at the point where we can throw everything into one single player, even if that player is a QB. We've seen it all too often with teams that aren't a QB away from the SB/Playoffs breaking the bank to get the QB and a few years later that team has a new coach, and a new QB.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

BTW:

[B]Cutler: [/B] Chicago traded two firsts, a third and Kyle Orton for Cutler and a 5th. Definitely not worth it IMHO.

[B]Cassel:[/B] Kansas City gave up the 34th pick in the draft for Cassel and Mike Vrabel. I thought they had given up much more.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

Re: Cassel, still a bad deal for KC. His value to the Chiefs for this season alone will exceed everything he offers the Chiefs over his time there.

In games where Cassel is beaten by the defensive scheme, he just melts down in front of everyone. He's a one to two read guy.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793552]Well, let's look at last year's playoff teams and see how those "non-average" QB's were acquired - Had those teams made drastic moves to get to the top of the draft in order to reach up and grab QB? hmmm.....

Philly: Vick (Not Drafted By Team)
Green Bay: A. Rodgers (1st Rnd/24th pick)
Chicago: Cutler (Not Drafted By Team)
Atlanta: Ryan (1st Rnd/3rd Pick)
New Orleans: Brees (2nd Rnd/1st pick)
Seattle - Hasselback (Not Drafted By Team)
New England - Brady (6th Round)
New York Jets - Sanchez (1st Rnd/5th pick)
Indianapolis - P. Manning (1st Rnd/1st pick)
Baltimore - Flacco (1st Round/18 pick)
Pittsburg - Roethlesburger (1st Rnd/11th pick)
Kansas City - Cassell (Not Drafted By Team)

In addition, I am going to throw out a couple other teams that have been solid winners recently or are otherwise relevant to this analysis:

New York Giants: E. Manning (1st Rnd/1st Pick)
San Diego: P. Rivers (1st Rnd/4th Pick)
Dallas (bear with me folks!): T. Romo (undrafted)

First, I want to look at the “Not Drafted By Team” and "Non-First Rounder" categories:

[B]Brady[/B]: Let’s start with the guy who wrecks the curve. Look, guys like this happen once in a blue moon. At the same time, Brady had huge advantages by coming to the Patriots. Remember, his first year they were a playoff team with Bledsoe at QB. That said, you simply can’t base your team’s future by betting that lightning will strike. BUT, if you build a solid team, when lightning does strike, [I]that's[/I] when you have the makings of a dynasty.

[B]Brees[/B]: New Orleans spent how much on one of the most prolific passers of recent years? Oh, that’s right. He was a free agent. On top of that, when Brees was drafted, San Diego actually traded back from taking Vick and then Brees fell into their lap in the second round after they got Tomlinson in the 1st – let’s see, trade down from a drafting highly rated QB, draft amazing RB who will take heat off rookie QB and get more picks.

[B]Vick[/B]: Pretty unique situation. Regardless of baggage, and realizing there is a lot of back and forth on his ability to “Win the Big One”, it is pretty clear that a “Franchise QB” fell into their lap who was able to take advantage of all the draft picks spent on “supporting cast” players.

[B]Cutler[/B]: I think you have to say the jury is still out on this one. For this analysis, not sure Chicago’s acquisition of him is relevant as he was a known commodity going to a mediocre team for a high cost. Will he be worth what Chicago gave up for him? I doubt it.

[B]Cassell[/B]: Much like Cutler, the jury is still out on this one. He didn’t come cheap and he didn’t do much. But he is younger than Cutler. Less of a known quantity and Chiefs were in a state of transition when he was acquired. At the same time, prior to obtaining Cassel, the Chiefs had some fairly good drafts, obtaining a lot of quality young players.

[B]Romo[/B]: Look, I don’t particularly like the guy. I certainly don’t think he is an all time elite QB like Manning or Brady. I am not even convinced he is a “short-term” elite QB like Rivers or Brees is right now. BUT, he is a solid starting QB and, w/ a good team around him, he could probably (gagging as I say this) win a SB. Again, he cost them [I]nothing[/I]. As with us, the ‘pukes big problem is their O-Line which they ignored (like us) for years. Unlike us, they found a (quasi) starting QB and didn’t trade the farm to get him. (McNabb, Campbell)

[B]Hasselback[/B]: umm, okay, whatever … moving on.

Okay, let’s look at those first rounders and, yes, there are a lot. But wait --- did these playoff teams spend tons of picks to get those 1st Round QB's? The Magic 8 Ball says “Very Doubtful”.

[B]Sanchez[/B]: The Jets traded their 17th place pick, their 2nd round pick and 3 back-ups to move to the 5th spot. When they did it, they had a team that had been to the play-offs three years earlier and was 9-7 the prior year. Additionally, as it turned out, in Sanchez's rookie year, the Jets had a punishing ground attack, a fantastic O-line and a killer defense. Even so, Sanchez has not exactly lit up the world. In recent years, he is your best case scenario for trading up. I would humbly suggest, we are not nearly as good as the 2009 Jets were when they drafted him and, further, he has yet to show he can take this team to the promised land rather than be the guy who simply drives the bus.

[B]P. Manning[/B]: You say he is the best example of a QB transforming a team. Okay. I grant you he does so. BUT - very simply, did the Colts trade to get him? Nope. He landed in their laps and they built around him. [I][B]On the other hand[/B][/I], the same year Indi drafted Manning, San Diego spent big time draft points to move up one slot (trading two first round picks, a second round pick, and four time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf) to move from the 3rd to the 2nd pick to grab that all-time great bust (and absolute proof of my argument against trading up) Ryan Leaf. A move that crippled their team for the near future.

[B]Flacco[/B]: Again, a solid team builds defense and offense line through smart drafting and, when a solid QB prospect falls to them, they take him. Does anyone doubt the Ravens could win it all with Flacco?

[B]A. Rodgers[/B]: Green Bay drafts QB’s well. They take’em where they can get them and trade’em away for picks. Yes, he had time behind Farve. But you know what? They knew Farve time was coming to an end and waited for the right opportunity. No panic mode drafting - Just keep drafting solid supporting cast and, again, when a highly rated QB falls to you, grab him.

[B]Ryan[/B]: Solid pick. A team two years from the Michael Vick trauma and one year from the Bobby Petrino debacle. In terms of picks, he was just the right guy in the right place and it worked for them. Given the flux in Atlanta at the time of his pick, I am not sure he really adds anything to either of our positions except that you just don't know when a quality QB’s will “happen” (they were a mediocre team that had a bad year, creating the lucky break of being in the right place at the right time). In light of that, you just don’t need to go reaching for QB's.

OKAY, THAT BRINGS US TO THE 2004 DRAFT. Three QB’s all solid. One team traded up and won a SB, one team traded down and got a truly franchise QB but no SB, and one team stuck to its guns waited for a QB and has since won two SB’s, been to a third and is easily posed to win more.

[B]The Trade DOWN -- Rivers[/B]: Yes, he was a first rounder – BUT San Diego traded down, to get him and got S. Merriman and N. Kaeding out of the deal. He hasn’t won a SB, but is there any doubt that he is an elite QB? In getting Rivers, San Diego not only got a franchise QB by trading down, they passed up the highest rated QB in the draft. Which brings us to …

[B]The Trade UP – E. Manning[/B]: [Yes, SD drafted Manning but it was clearly a “raft and trade scenario”] Hard to knock a team that grabs a SB winning QB (but don’t worry, I will). In 2004, Eli was the top rated QB coming out of college – easily. The Giants wanted him and sold the farm to get him. As you now argue, they believed he was “the guy” and went after him. Contrary to what we have in place, however, the Giants were a solid team before he showed up. It’s not like Eli transformed the team. Yes, he threw the miracle pass - But what got that team to the SB? The Giants amazing D-Line which featured multiple draft picks from recent years. And finally ....

[B]The Non-Trade: Roethlesburger[/B]: In the years leading up to 2004, the Steelers had won 6 (03), 10 (02) and 13 (01) games. In addition, they had Bettis and Hines Ward. Unfortunately, they had a retread XFL player at QB (Tommy Maddox). So, with several highly rated QB’s did they go chasing anyone? Nope. They had a solid team and let the QB come to them.

I WOULD CONCEDE that Eli is a solid QB. The Giants gave up a lot to get him. They did exactly what you suggest we do now. BUT - Let me ask you something, if you had your choice today – Would you take Manning, Rivers or Roethlesburger? Or, better yet and more accurately, would you take (1) Manning; (2) Roethlesburger; or (3) Rivers and Kaeding & the past 4 years of Merriman? I suggest that, in any reasonable poll, Eli is the last choice. Further, and more importantly, which of these teams are built for longer term success? Again, I think the Giants rank 3rd.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, only one team that was in the play-offs last year (the Jets) traded up to get a highly rated rookie QB and Sanchez has a long way to go (IMHO) before I would classify him as more than "the driver of the bus". The Jets often won [I]despite[/I] Sanchez, rarely [I]because[/I] of him.

MY POINT through all of this (yes, I get there eventually) is that the best teams in the league didn’t reach for QB’s or trade away lots of picks. They built solid teams and let the QB position come to them. The Patriots, the Steelers, Ravens, Green Bay, San Diego, New Orleans, Philadelphia all have franchise QB’s b/c they created a team where a good QB could thrive.[/quote]

First off let me say that you did a real nice job on this post. I think you gave examples of teams finding diffferent ways to get a franchise QB. however, I dont think I ever said trading up was the only way to get. What I do know is that I am 39 years old and fan for about 34 years and I am still waiting to see a franchise QB fall into the Redskins lap. I think we will just agree to disagree.

One thing though...didnt Baltimore trade up to get Flacco?

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793612][/quote]

Yes they did...this after trading up for Boller failed on them

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SmootSmack;793615]Yes they did...this after trading up for Boller failed on them[/quote]

Say what you want about Lockers accuracy but at least he was over 50% for 3 years. In 3 years at Cal Boller had 2 years throwing under 50%. Of course he still threw for 28 TD's against 10 Int's his last year but still. Plus Billick lost his QB mojo after leaving Minnesota.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;793619]Say what you want about Lockers accuracy but at least he was over 50% for 3 years. In 3 years at Cal Boller had 2 years throwing under 50%. Of course he still threw for 28 TD's against 10 Int's his last year but still. Plus Billick lost his QB mojo after leaving Minnesota.[/quote]

Did you hear Billick the other day talking about Boller? It was pretty interesting, he basically said they kept making excuses for Boller leading up to the draft to convince themselves he was the guy to take because they wanted to take a QB.

Easy to say in hindsight, but I never-even in college-saw what the big deal about Boller was. I thought the Ravens were making a big mistake in drafting him, and an even bigger one in trading up for him.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793612]First off let me say that you did a real nice job on this post. I think you gave examples of teams finding diffferent ways to get a franchise QB. however, [B]I dont think I ever said trading up was the only way to get.[/B][/quote]

First, Thanks. Second - To be clear, it seemed to me you were saying that, with our roster in its current condition, it was an acceptable and even advisable strategy to trade up in order to get a highly rated QB that Shanahan thought was perfect for his system. My point was to say that, historically, this is not something that the consistent winners do (i.e. Packers, Patriots, Eagles, Steelers, Saints, San Diego, Ravens (they actually traded down - see below)) and that chasing after potential "Franchise QB's" in the draft has not been a particularly successful strategy even for good teams (i.e Jets, Giants) and could be disasterous (i.e. Ryan Leaf).

[quote=celts32;793612]What I do know is that I am 39 years old and fan for about 34 years and I am still waiting to see a franchise QB fall into the Redskins lap. [B]I think we will just agree to disagree.[/B][/quote]

Fair enough. I have been a fan for 39 years and would agree that, I too, am still waiting for that Franchise QB. [I]BUT[/I] - Didn't we win 3 Super Bowls with a CFL reject, a USFL reject and a 4th round project - All of whom had solid supporting cast players? FURTHER, since 2000, when have we had a team or team culture in which a good QB would thrive?

[quote=celts32;793612]One thing though...didnt Baltimore trade up to get Flacco?[/quote]

Oops! I did miss the Flacco trade scenario. Actually, however, they first traded down. The Ravens had the [I]8th[/I] spot in the draft and switched with Jacksonsville to the [I]26th [/I]spot, gaining two 3rd rounders in the process. [I]THEN[/I] they traded up to the 18th spot giving up the 26th pick, one of the 3rd's, and a 6th rounder. So ultimately, they traded the 8th pick and a 6th rounder for the 18th pick and a 3rd rounder. If we could pull that off with the 10th pick and get someone like Locker in the process, I would be fine with that.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SmootSmack;793620].... Easy to say in hindsight, but I never-even in college-saw what the big deal about Boller was. I thought the Ravens were making a big mistake in drafting him, [B]and an even bigger one in trading up for him.[/B][/quote]

I just can't think of the last time trading up in the draft for a QB ever paid off in a really transformational way. Like I said, not sure Eli counts but will give you that it's debatable. Certainly not Sanchez.

Boller, Losman, Quinn, Campbell. All trade-ups that just didn't pan out and cost each team youth and talent at other positions.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

Well define transformational here. Are we talking winning a Super Bowl?

And why not Sanchez? In my opinion, once they started to trust him more he made significant strides this year and I'm not sure that team gets as far as it did without him. And I think they're in better shape moving forward with him than if they didn't go after him

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

Okay. You may be right about Sanchez. He clearly did show improvement. I am just not yet sold on the guy - is he a "Franchise QB". Not now, but he looks like he may yet be one. As for Eli, they have had good records and a SB with him. Not sure they wouldn't have been better off with Rivers and the extra picks.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

And by "transformational" I mean a guy who makes the team significantly better (i.e. A. Rodgers, M. Ryan).

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793621]First, Thanks. Second - To be clear, it seemed to me you were saying that, with our roster in its current condition, it was an acceptable and even advisable strategy to trade up in order to get a highly rated QB that Shanahan thought was perfect for his system. My point was to say that, historically, this is not something that the consistent winners do (i.e. Packers, Patriots, Eagles, Steelers, Saints, San Diego, Ravens (they actually traded down - see below)) and that chasing after potential "Franchise QB's" in the draft has not been a particularly successful strategy even for good teams (i.e Jets, Giants) and could be disasterous (i.e. Ryan Leaf).



Fair enough. I have been a fan for 39 years and would agree that, I too, am still waiting for that Franchise QB. [I]BUT[/I] - Didn't we win 3 Super Bowls with a CFL reject, a USFL reject and a 4th round project - All of whom had solid supporting cast players? FURTHER, since 2000, when have we had a team or team culture in which a good QB would thrive?



Oops! I did miss the Flacco trade scenario. Actually, however, they first traded down. The Ravens had the [I]8th[/I] spot in the draft and switched with Jacksonsville to the [I]26th [/I]spot, gaining two 3rd rounders in the process. [I]THEN[/I] they traded up to the 18th spot giving up the 26th pick, one of the 3rd's, and a 6th rounder. So ultimately, they traded the 8th pick and a 6th rounder for the 18th pick and a 3rd rounder. If we could pull that off with the 10th pick and get someone like Locker in the process, I would be fine with that.[/quote]

A couple things...we did win without great QB's in the past but it was a different league then. There was no free agency and it was possible to build truely great teams and keep them together which we did. We also had the greatest coach in NFL history then. I believe in todays NFL more then ever the consistent winners are the teams that have great QB's. Just look at the recent Super Bowl winners...almost all of them have a franchise QB. Obviously there are many ways to get one and the scenario that most teams seem to have used is getting lucky, but regardess of how you go about it, all the consistent winners have one. So far in my life we have not been so lucky in this department. And since luck is not on our side that is why i said that if i knew Shanny loved a QB so much I would take luck out of the equation and just go get him. but lets be clear...I am not advertising that the only way to get a QB is to trade up and I am not even saying that i want them to do it regardless. The best scenario for me would be that Shanny loves Locker and we draft him at #10 and call it a day. That's what i want but what i want doesn't much matter down at Redskins park...

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793624]Okay. You may be right about Sanchez. He clearly did show improvement. I am just not yet sold on the guy - is he a "Franchise QB". Not now, but he looks like he may yet be one. As for Eli, they have had good records and a SB with him. Not sure they wouldn't have been better off with Rivers and the extra picks.[/quote]

You can definitely win a Super bowl with Eli every season...he's clearly a franchise QB. Even if Rivers and Ben are better then him that doesn't mean he is not a franchise QB. That draft was very unusual in that the top 3 QBs were all franchise QBs. I guess you can say the gmen fkd up by giving up extra picks for Manning when ben and Rivers were as good or better...but i hope to live to see the day when the redskins can fk up and end up with a player like Eli...

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793612]First off let me say that you did a real nice job on this post. I think you gave examples of teams finding diffferent ways to get a franchise QB. however, I dont think I ever said trading up was the only way to get. What I do know is that I am 39 years old and fan for about 34 years and[B] I am still waiting to see a franchise QB fall into the Redskins lap. [/B]I think we will just agree to disagree.

One thing though...didnt Baltimore trade up to get Flacco?[/quote]

Some of us older fans have seen it thought. Sonny Jurgensen, Billy Kilmer, *Joe Theismann- hired to be the KR and became starting QB, Doug Williams. I stop there because honestly the rest through the Gibbs era seemed dumber then a box of rocks but Gibbs was able to work with them. Rypien and Schroeder never struck me as being the brightest crayon in the box.

I'm not sure if the rest were simply in the wrong scheme at the wrong time or just were second string QB's. Brad Johnson was not bad but he was past his prime when we picked him up.

I have heard that MS is infatuated with several QB's not just any single one. My issue is not the fact that the HC might have some one in mind as the future franchise QB of this team but the fact of throwing all our eggs in one basket to get one player, no matter what position they play.

My second issue is I obviously like Dalton and Ponder more then the rest so seeing you claiming MS is infatuated with Gabbert or commenting on the team throwing picks to move up just to get him set me off. :) Sorry. If MS has a specific player in mind at QB and thinks we need to jump to get him then by all means I'm for it. Whether it's Locker, Gabbert, or whoever. I hope they don't and do a better job of trying to move back to get more picks but if not so be it. Because honestly I could see more then 3 teams going after a QB.

Panthers
Buffalo
Bengals
Cardinals
49ers
Titans
Redskins.

I doubt they all go after QB's in the first round but if they have eyes on one QB and he falls to them I could see them picking one.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793655]A couple things...we did win without great QB's in the past but it was a different league then. There was no free agency and it was possible to build truely great teams and keep them together which we did. We also had the greatest coach in NFL history then. I believe in todays NFL more then ever the consistent winners are the teams that have great QB's. Just look at the recent Super Bowl winners...almost all of them have a franchise QB. Obviously there are many ways to get one and the scenario that most teams seem to have used is getting lucky, but regardess of how you go about it, all the consistent winners have one. So far in my life we have not been so lucky in this department. And since luck is not on our side that is why i said that if i knew Shanny loved a QB so much I would take luck out of the equation and just go get him. but lets be clear...I am not advertising that the only way to get a QB is to trade up and I am not even saying that i want them to do it regardless. The best scenario for me would be that Shanny loves Locker and we draft him at #10 and call it a day. That's what i want but what i want doesn't much matter down at Redskins park...[/quote]

Fair enough. I think I understand what you are saying - if Shanny absolutley loves someone and can get him, then he should do so. I just think, despite possible Shanny love, we have too many holes to go chasing rookie QB's in the draft given the inherent risks and the historical lack of success for teams doing so. We simply disagree as to the advisability of trading up and I am good with that.

Your comment: "Obviously there are many ways to get one and [I]the scenario that most teams seem to have used is getting lucky[/I]." I thought particularly insightful. It really sums up my team by team analysis pretty well. Lots of teams have traded up and failed, traded down and failed, or stuck to their guns and failed.

Hopefully, one of these days, we get "The Guy" - an era defining QB who's name is linked to Championships. Of course, we did have one of those - Unfortunately for us, it was Sammy Baugh.

As to this draft, my preference would be to pull something off like what the Ravens did to get Flacco. If a good QB that Shanny likes is there at 10, however, by all means grab him.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793658]You can definitely win a Super bowl with Eli every season...he's clearly a franchise QB. Even if Rivers and Ben are better then him that doesn't mean he is not a franchise QB. That draft was very unusual in that the top 3 QBs were all franchise QBs. I guess you can say the gmen fkd up by giving up extra picks for Manning when ben and Rivers were as good or better...but i hope to live to see the day when the redskins can fk up and end up with a player like Eli...[/quote]

Okay. Not sure why I am so biased against the guy - but I think you are right, with a solid team Eli can (and has) won the SB. On the other hand, I think it pretty clear that they would be a better team if they had stuck with Rivers (I, for one, am glad they didn't). Eli was an interception machine last year. I just think we have seen his best stuff and it's all downhill from here. [Now watch, next year's SB Eli v. Sanchez with each carrying their respective teams to championship with clutch performances in the play-offs.]

Would my feelings about him be different if he were in the B&G? Most assuredly so. :)

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=SBXVII;793662]Some of us older fans have seen it thought. Sonny Jurgensen, Billy Kilmer, *Joe Theismann- hired to be the KR and became starting QB, Doug Williams. I stop there because honestly the rest through the Gibbs era seemed dumber then a box of rocks but Gibbs was able to work with them. Rypien and Schroeder never struck me as being the brightest crayon in the box.

I'm not sure if the rest were simply in the wrong scheme at the wrong time or just were second string QB's. Brad Johnson was not bad but he was past his prime when we picked him up.

I have heard that MS is infatuated with several QB's not just any single one. My issue is not the fact that the HC might have some one in mind as the future franchise QB of this team but the fact of throwing all our eggs in one basket to get one player, no matter what position they play.

My second issue is I obviously like Dalton and Ponder more then the rest so seeing you claiming MS is infatuated with Gabbert or commenting on the team throwing picks to move up just to get him set me off. :) Sorry. If MS has a specific player in mind at QB and thinks we need to jump to get him then by all means I'm for it. Whether it's Locker, Gabbert, or whoever. I hope they don't and do a better job of trying to move back to get more picks but if not so be it. Because honestly I could see more then 3 teams going after a QB.

Panthers
Buffalo
Bengals
Cardinals
49ers
Titans
Redskins.

I doubt they all go after QB's in the first round but if they have eyes on one QB and he falls to them I could see them picking one.[/quote]

I am 39...I remember all those Redskins QB's...Thiesman was my favorite player ever. He was a franchise QB but by the time he got great a couplpe years later he was done.

I never said I or Shanny was infatuated with any QB...i was dealing in hypothetical terms. Personally...I am not a Gabbert fan at all!

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793663]Fair enough. I think I understand what you are saying - if Shanny absolutley loves someone and can get him, then he should do so. I just think, despite possible Shanny love, we have too many holes to go chasing rookie QB's in the draft given the inherent risks and the historical lack of success for teams doing so. We simply disagree as to the advisability of trading up and I am good with that.

Your comment: "Obviously there are many ways to get one and [I]the scenario that most teams seem to have used is getting lucky[/I]." I thought particularly insightful. It really sums up my team by team analysis pretty well. Lots of teams have traded up and failed, traded down and failed, or stuck to their guns and failed.

Hopefully, one of these days, we get "The Guy" - an era defining QB who's name is linked to Championships. Of course, we did have one of those - Unfortunately for us, it was Sammy Baugh.

As to this draft, my preference would be to pull something off like what the Ravens did to get Flacco. If a good QB that Shanny likes is there at 10, however, by all means grab him.[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time to understand what I am saying. So many people on here read one sentence of your posts and then fire off responses that have nothing to do with what you said. A couple pages after i said I would consider trading up if i knew for a fact that shanny loved a particular QB...it has been twisted into me having a man crush on Gabbert and preparing to throw our next 5 years of draft picks at him.

And I will say it again it was [B]hypothetical[/B]...I don't even like Gabbert or Newton...I like Locker who does not even require a trade up at all.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793655]A couple things...we did win without great QB's in the past but it was a different league then. There was no free agency and it was possible to build truely great teams and keep them together which we did. We also had the greatest coach in NFL history then. I believe in todays NFL more then ever the consistent winners are the teams that have great QB's. [B]Just look at the recent Super Bowl winners...almost all of them have a franchise QB.[/B] ... [/quote]

I will have my analysis of all 45 Super Bowl winning QB's, how they were acquired, and the status of the various teams at the time of acquisition.

Cliff Notes Version: If a team traded up in the draft to acquire the QB, the QB ultimately performed below expectations.:silly:

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793666]Thank you for taking the time to understand what I am saying. [B]So many people on here read one sentence of your posts and then fire off responses that have nothing to do with what you said. [/B] A couple pages after i said I would consider trading up if i knew for a fact that shanny loved a particular QB...it has been twisted into me having a man crush on Gabbert and preparing to throw our next 5 years of draft picks at him.[/quote]

Well, I have been known to make a post or two that require the reader to do more than read one sentence - I figure I should try to return the courtesy.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793671]I will have my analysis of all 45 Super Bowl winning QB's, how they were acquired, and the status of the various teams at the time of acquisition.

Cliff Notes Version: If a team traded up in the draft to acquire the QB, the QB ultimately performed below expectations.:silly:[/quote]

haha...save the trouble all 45 are not needed! I said my theory is that the QB is more important recently...say since free agency started. Basically every super bowl winning QB since Aikman can be in the study. Since then with few exceptions you need a franchise QB to win a Super bowl.

Here's the data:
Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs
Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs
Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD
Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD
Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs

All but 2 SB winning QB's since free agency started were franchise QB's. And the 2 exceptions(Johnson & Dilfer) had ALL TIME great defenses. We can argue about how to get one whether it's waiting and hoping or being aggressive...but the main point to remember is that we are not winning a Super Bowl until we find one.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793671][B]I will have my analysis of all 45 Super Bowl winning QB's, how they were acquired, and the status of the various teams at the time of acquisition. [/B]

Cliff Notes Version: If a team traded up in the draft to acquire the QB, the QB ultimately performed below expectations.:silly:[/quote]

I assume you are in between jobs...or you have GTripp held captive in the WP Tread Hell Cells??

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793688]haha...save the trouble all 45 are not needed! I said my theory is that the QB is more important recently...say since free agency started. Basically every super bowl winning QB since Aikman can be in the study. Since then with few exceptions you need a franchise QB to win a Super bowl.[/quote]

Actually that wouldn't add to many to those already done:

[B]Elway (Denver 1998, 99):[/B] The only modern era "trade-up" that worked to land a elite QB. The anti-Ryan Leaf.

[B]Warner (Rams 2000):[/B] In the "lightning strikes" category with Brady.

[B]Trent Dilfer (Ravens 2001):[/B] The exception to the rule that you need a franchise QB.

[B]Brady (NE 2002, 04, 05).[/B]

[B]Brad Johnson (T Bay 2003):[/B] UFA pick-up (from us of course) - Do you consider him a "franchise" QB?

[B]Roethlesburger (Pitt 2006, 09).[/B]

[B]P. Manning (Colts 2007).[/B]

[B]E. Manning (NYG 2008).[/B]

[B]Brees (NO 2010).[/B]

[B]Rodgers (G. Bay 2011).[/B]

ON THE OTHER HAND, if you look at the teams that made it to the SB but lost, your QB's seem to become much more non-descript: Chris Chandler (Atl), Kerry Collins (NYG 01), Gannon (Oak 03), Delhomme (Carolina 04), Grossman (Chi 07). [At the same time, "franchise" QB's lost (Donovan, McNair, Hasselback) and some won and lost (Farve, P. Manning, Warner, Brady).]

ALL OF THIS SAYS TO ME:
(1) Getting a "Franchise" QB is simply is mostly a matter of luck - so, build a solid team & do things that increase the odds for "luck" to happen ; and
(2) Having a true "Franchise" QB is close to a prerequisite for winning the SB (though not necessarily for just appearing in one).

AND - Whatever you do, never ever ever trade up in the draft for a QB unless his name is John Elway.:food-smil

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=Hog1;793689][B]I assume you are in between jobs[/B]...or you have GTripp held captive in the WP Tread Hell Cells??[/quote]

Naw... I am just one of those lazy government workers that firstdown complains of all the time. After this, I am taking the afternoon off -'cause I can. muhahahahaaaa.

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=celts32;793688] Here's the data:

Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs
Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs
Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD
Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs
...

All but 2 SB winning QB's since free agency started were franchise QB's. And the 2 exceptions(Johnson & Dilfer) had ALL TIME great defenses. We can argue about how to get one whether it's waiting and hoping or being aggressive...but the main point to remember is that we are not winning a Super Bowl until we find one.[/quote]

Hadn't done Aikman, Young or Farve in previous post. Just as they lend credence to your "you need a Franchise QB to win the SB" position, I would argue that the nature of their acquisitions lends credence to my "Fine, but don't go chasing rookie QB's in the draft" argument.

Also, except for Kelly against Aikman in 1993, their opposing SB QB's support the idea that you can[I] get [/I]to the SB with a more average QB - Humphries (SD 1994); Neil O'Donnell (Pitt. 95); Bledsoe (NE 96).

Re: Rumor from Denver
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;793706]Hadn't done Aikman, Young or Farve in previous post. Just as they lend credence to your "you need a Franchise QB to win the SB" position, I would argue that the nature of their acquisitions lends credence to my "Fine, but don't go chasing rookie QB's in the draft" argument.

Also, except for Kelly against Aikman in 1993, their opposing SB QB's support the idea that you can[I] get [/I]to the SB with a more average QB - Humphries (SD 1994); Neil O'Donnell (Pitt. 95); Bledsoe (NE 96).[/quote]

Favre was a trade in which they paid more then his original draft position...could be labled as chasing him.

In general i agree that in most instances you shouldn't trade up for QB's...but I still maintain that if Shanny had a QB in mind that he felt [B]strongly [/B]was a franchise QB I would do it. I don't just mean the guy he likes the best in a particualr draft...I mean he absolutelty loves the guy...one of the best he's seen in years blah blah blah. Basically the way he admitted feeling about Bradford last year after the draft. If that situation happened again I would be aggressive and make it happen. Thats all I am saying...