Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675266]Not really. (hate to defend a Dallas fan, but)

He was saying making a bad choice with a #1 overall pick on a QB can devastate a franchise for a long time, both on the field and wallet. He is right.

I do not think Bradford or any QB this year is such a sure thing that would merit taking #1 OR especially trading up to take #1. If we would do that, it needs to be a sure deal that he'll be an incredible pro QB (and durable).[/quote]

I think "devastating a franchise" has more to do with the lack of QB than with the position of the pick itself. What if the 49ers didn't take Alex Smith. Then what. What if the Titans didn't take Vince Young. What if the Cardinals didn't take Matt Leinart. What if the Raiders didn't take JaMarcus Russell. What if the Browns didn't take Brady Quinn.

None of these teams are particularly worse off than if they hadn't taken a quarterback. However, trading up for one is definitely potentially devastating.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Lotus;675256]By this reasoning, the Colts should never have selected or paid Peyton Manning.[/quote]
Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675299]I think "devastating a franchise" has more to do with the lack of QB than with the position of the pick itself. What if the 49ers didn't take Alex Smith. Then what. What if the Titans didn't take Vince Young. What if the Cardinals didn't take Matt Leinart. What if the Raiders didn't take JaMarcus Russell. What if the Browns didn't take Brady Quinn.

None of these teams are particularly worse off than if they hadn't taken a quarterback. However, trading up for one is definitely potentially devastating.[/quote]
Dont forget David Carr!

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Rex replaces Collins, both in roster spot & role; vet qb that knows the system. I wouldn't be surprised if he's cut after training camp, I think he just gives them an option. I hope Colt B. isn't cut.

Shanny has made it pretty clear that he wants competition at each spot. I think it's a smart way to change the organization's culture. Rather than sitting down CP & saying "we need you to change" he's forcing him to change by signing LJ. Same goes for the qb position; as it stands right now there is competition for the #2 job, maybe Rex for the starting job. If they draft a qb there's competition for all the spots.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675266]Not really. (hate to defend a Dallas fan, but)

He was saying making a bad choice with a #1 overall pick on a QB can devastate a franchise for a long time, both on the field and wallet. He is right.

I do not think Bradford or any QB this year is such a sure thing that would merit taking #1 OR especially trading up to take #1. If we would do that, it needs to be a sure deal that he'll be an incredible pro QB (and durable).[/quote]

That's the correct way of thinking. When you miss on a player drafted as high as #4...espically a QB, with all the up-front payout your franchise suffers a tremendous set back..... that's why that selection requires a great deal of thought in hopes of getting it right before pulling the trigger.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Longtimefan;675310]That's the correct way of thinking. When you miss on a player drafted as high as #4...espically a QB, with all the up-front payout your franchise suffers a tremendous set back..... that's why that selection requires a great deal of thought in hopes of getting it right before pulling the trigger.[/quote]

As mentioned in an example before, I'd like to know what franchises have been "set back" by their choice of quarterback in the Top 4.

If the Texans did not take David Carr in 2002, would they be that much better? If the Lions did not take Joey Harrington in 2002? 49ers and Alex Smith in 2005? Raiders and JaMarcus Russell in 2007?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;675300]Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.[/quote]

Troy Aikman comes to mind. Rivers WOULD qualify.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

I still think we take Okung at #4, unless another team gets desperate and wants to play let's make a deal.

I guess what I'm saying is, trading Campbell isn't completely off the table but it probably won't happen. And now the Redskins have put themselves in a position, with the signing of Rex Grossman, where they can exercise patience and have a little more leverage on draft day.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=freddyg12;675307]Rex replaces Collins, both in roster spot & role; vet qb that knows the system. I wouldn't be surprised if he's cut after training camp, I think he just gives them an option. I hope Colt B. isn't cut.

Shanny has made it pretty clear that he wants competition at each spot. I think it's a smart way to change the organization's culture. Rather than sitting down CP & saying "we need you to change" he's forcing him to change by signing LJ. Same goes for the qb position; as it stands right now there is competition for the #2 job, maybe Rex for the starting job. If they draft a qb there's competition for all the spots.[/quote]

Wouldn't surprise me either if Grossman doesn't make the final roster...but then I also wouldn't be surprised if he's the opening day starter.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

I like Grossman better than colt. Colt is a West Coast college phenom. Any CFl caliber Qb can do that. Shanny alright. O-line baby.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;675302]Dont forget David Carr![/quote]

He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675335]He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.[/quote]

So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

BigHairedAristocrat, why did you choose that name? Big Haired Aristocrat = immoral, corrupt, worthless, cowardly, and lazy.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;675300]Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

[B]My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. [/B]If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.[/quote]

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675331]Wouldn't surprise me either if Grossman doesn't make the final roster...[B]but then I also wouldn't be surprised if he's the opening day starter.[/B][/quote]

OMG. I spent so much time laughing at the Bears for starting Grossman. Now I might have to laugh at us. :)

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

New Blood here,


O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man.

Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer.

I am so glad Vinnie is gone.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Lotus;675340]I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. [B]However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.[/B][/quote]

That does seem to be happening a lot lately.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675337]So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?[/quote]

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675351]So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.[/quote]

So the Raiders should have taken Gallery over Rivers :D

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Bakerman;675346]New Blood here,


O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man.

Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer.

I am so glad Vinnie is gone.[/quote]

welcome to thewarpath man

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675351]So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.[/quote]

That's a bad example for a couple of reasons.

Primarily, there was no comparable quarterback ranked that high. You don't reach.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675351]So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.[/quote]

QB is a far higher risk, that's the point.

There are also a lot more examples of highly-drafted QBs failing than succeeding, that decision has a bad track record.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

^ And, if you are right, a much higher reward.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675359]That's a bad example for a couple of reasons.

Primarily, there was no comparable quarterback ranked that high. You don't reach.[/quote]

Actually I would say that Leinart was a better prospect. We'll see if he develops this year but in that draft you could have easily gone for Leinart.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Lotus;675362]^ And, if you are right, a much higher reward.[/quote]

Of course, but that's a gigantic [SIZE=7]IF[/SIZE].

As I said, Bradford does not seem like a sure thing, I don't think we should risk it, especially with more pressing needs...mainly O-Line.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;675364]Actually I would say that Leinart was a better prospect. We'll see if he develops this year but in that draft you could have easily gone for Leinart.[/quote]

The thing is, Matt Leinart fell quite a bit, and according to Bill Polian, there are little to no surprises in the first round of the NFL draft, only to "analysts" and "fans" who know a lot less.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675370]The thing is, Matt Leinart fell quite a bit, and according to Bill Polian, there are little to no surprises in the first round of the NFL draft, only to "analysts" and "fans" who know a lot less.[/quote]

It's hard to question a man like Polian but at the same time even our mighty Vinnie mentioned things much later that corroborated with our draft choices and the success/failures of players.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675367]Of course, but that's a gigantic [SIZE=7]IF[/SIZE].

As I said, Bradford does not seem like a sure thing, I don't think we should risk it, especially with more pressing needs...mainly O-Line.[/quote]

Well, ok. I have a different perspective. I think that Bradford and possibly Clausen will be very good NFL QB's and therefore will be worth the risk.

How long has it been since we had an elite QB? How long has it been since we're down 3 late in a game but we can think, "It's ok, we have ______ at QB," the way that Colts and Chargers can?

I have no problem with drafting Okung since the line needs help. But I also have no problem with drafting a QB at #4.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Does this spell the end of colt?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

I cannot wait for a month from now when the draft is over and the focus sifts from "who we should take" to "Why we will be a contender". And I would love for once for the kool aid drinkers to be right.

I hate the effin offseason.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=tryfuhl;675373]It's hard to question a man like Polian but at the same time even our mighty Vinnie mentioned things much later that corroborated with our draft choices and the success/failures of players.[/quote]

That's in hindsight, though. What Bill Polian was saying is that going into the draft, it's obvious what general order the players are going to go in the first round. So if Matt Leinart suddenly turns out great in hindsight, that's awesome, but there's a valid reason he went #10 instead of in the Top 5, and it would not have made much sense for the Jets to "reach" for Leinart unless they knew something the other teams didn't, which is rarely the case.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675370]The thing is, Matt Leinart fell quite a bit, and according to Bill Polian, there are little to no surprises in the first round of the NFL draft, only to "analysts" and "fans" who know a lot less.[/quote]

He only fell to 6th overall, certainly nothing like Aaron Rodgers the year before. And Bill Pollian? The guy who blamed the Super Bowl loss on the O-Line despite averaging over 5 yards per rush and allowing no sacks? Screw that guy, he's a good talent evaluator but from now on I'll take things he says with a grain of salt.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675384]That's in hindsight, though. What Bill Polian was saying is that going into the draft, it's obvious what general order the players are going to go in the first round. So if Matt Leinart suddenly turns out great in hindsight, that's awesome, but there's a valid reason he went #10 instead of in the Top 5, and it would not have made much sense for the Jets to "reach" for Leinart unless they knew something the other teams didn't, which is rarely the case.[/quote]
Yeah, but he also said that in hindsight.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675142]Someone will have to give us a 1st-round pick.

I doubt it will happen.



[B]From what we've heard, Shanahan likes Brennan[/B]. I wonder if this settles our QB position with JC, Rex and Colt...letting us really concentrate on the O-line in the draft. We can look at getting Jake Locker next year if JC fails behind a good line, which I don't see happening.

If we don't upgrade the O-line, we'll be worse off with a rookie QB and bad line than with Campbell and a good line.[/quote]

I've only heard this once from a comment Kyle said about Colt. My question would be what would you expect a coach to say about one of his players? "Na, he sucks, were looking to off load him as soon as possible."

I have yet to hear that Kyle is infatuated with Colt and throwing all his chips into the pot in regards to Colt.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;675387]He only fell to 6th overall, certainly nothing like Aaron Rodgers the year before. And Bill Pollian? The guy who blamed the Super Bowl loss on the O-Line despite averaging over 5 yards per rush and allowing no sacks? Screw that guy, he's a good talent evaluator but from now on I'll take things he says with a grain of salt.[/quote]

??? Matt Leinart fell to #10.

Also, Bill Polian will most likely be vindicated. What he says might go against popular belief, but popular belief isn't always right. For example, the reason the "offensive line" was averaging over 5 yards per rush and allowing no sacks probably has more to do with Peyton Manning than the line itself.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=tryfuhl;675388]Yeah, but he also said that in hindsight.[/quote]

No, what I'm quoting from Bill Polian was from an article on April 20, 2009, prior to the NFL draft. It's on the Colts.com web-site and I can't link it due to my low post count.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675144][B]HORRIBLE TRADE FOR US![/B]

Great deal for the Rams if they could pull off that highway robbery. This sounds like something Vinny would do.[/quote]

Totally agree. We would be giving them possibly a pro bowl in a draft pick and a QB who's safe with the ball. Two starters for one. I agree. But some would lead you to believe that it's a bad deal for the Rams in regards to the whole points assigned to each draft pick.

I think if both Shanahan's want Bradford bad enough then there will or is a trade scenario already planned. The only sure spot in the draft to get the player you want is at #1.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675398]No, what I'm quoting from Bill Polian was from an article on April 20, 2009, prior to the NFL draft. It's on the Colts.com web-site and I can't link it due to my low post count.[/quote]

Okay that's fine, but you can't compare it to Leinart then. Leinart was drafted in 2006, not 2009.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=tryfuhl;675402]Okay that's fine, but you can't compare it to Leinart then. Leinart was drafted in 2006, not 2009.[/quote]

You're not making any sense.

Bill Polian said in 2009 that there are rarely any surprises in the first round of the NFL draft to those in the actual drafting process.

You're saying in any draft before 2009, specifically three years prior, there were plenty of surprises?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675406]You're not making any sense.

Bill Polian said in 2009 that there are rarely any surprises in the first round of the NFL draft to those in the actual drafting process.

You're saying in any draft before 2009, specifically three years prior, there were plenty of surprises?[/quote]

Your tie to Leinart made it seem like you were well.. tying it to him.

Are there surprises? Sure.. some 1st round players turn out to be huge busts

hell anyone can say are you surprised a number 4 ended up being a great player? why would you argue that? he was picked top 5

there are plenty of surprises in the 1st and plenty of teams that would've jumped on the bust had the original team not