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.