Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Tebow:

[QUOTE]Strengths:
Good height and outstanding bulk --- Terrific athleticism --- Excellent strength --- Arm is strong enough to make all the throws --- Can throw on the run --- Shows some elusiveness --- Can buy time in the pocket and make plays with his legs --- Powerful runner --- Extraordinarily competitive --- Tough as nails --- Fantastic work ethic --- Smart --- Has a ton of experience against top-notch competition --- Incredible leader.

Weaknesses:
Zero experience in a pro style offense --- A long delivery and serious mechanical issues with his throwing motion --- Has trouble throwing a tight spiral --- Not overly accurate --- Poor footwork --- Will have to adjust to taking snaps from under center --- Must learn how to read defenses and coverages --- Marginal vision --- Is too eager to run at times --- Minor durability concerns --- May have to learn a new position.[/QUOTE]

Per Draft Countdown.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675502]Too sexy for you is he?

Grossman got a bum rap in Chicago, injuries and poor playcalling did him in. He's a better man and player now. Grossman will be just fine as a backup/spot starter/[B]jevan snead mentor[/B][/quote]

haha i see whatcha did there.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Why would Rex be mentoring a rookie QB who's likely already better than him? :D

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SBXVII;675515]Tebow:



Per Draft Countdown.[/quote]

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/17/mixed-reviews-on-tebows-throwing-motion/]Mixed reviews on Tebow's throwing motion | ProFootballTalk.com[/url]

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;675197]During, probably for a 2nd[/quote]

More likely a 4th and future 3rd (or vice versa)

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675547]More likely a 4th and future 3rd (or vice versa)[/quote]

does somebody know some possibilities?

I think at that point I'd try to package him up and get a 2nd

I don't know though

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675420]I've asked this before. Which teams does history show (and make sure the quantity is a "substantially high number") are stuck due to picking a quarterback?[/quote]
Wow, tall request but here goes. These are first round QB's:

David Klingler
Tommy Maddox
Rick Mirer
Heath Shuler (Sorry to toss that one at you)
Jim Druckenmiller
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Akili Smith
Cade McNown

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=tryfuhl;675550]does somebody know some possibilities?

I think at that point I'd try to package him up and get a 2nd

I don't know though[/quote]

We may actually have to package him up to get the 3rd and 4th, alone he probably gets one or the other. And right now there is just one (maybe two) team interested in him.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

sandy - but how did those picks "significantly set back" those franchises? what was the teams record a few years before they were drafted compared to what the teams record was for a few years after the draft.

its a fine point but perhaps drafting a bust qb early really just wastes an opportunity for the team to improve and not significantly set the team back. theres a difference there.

if the lions were going about 4-12 for a few years before they drafted harrington, then go 4-12 for a few years after, that really didnt set the lions significatly back as much as it was a lost opportunity to improve the team.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

I think what people keep forgetting is that drafting a QB with #4 is not right for the Redskins right now, plain and simple. Our offensive line has not gotten much better, and we could use a stud like Okung to come in and start at LT right away (the same way the Tuna got Jake Long).

I know people are sick of Campbell, but the team/fans/ownership/FO have to be patient, because unfortunately lack of patience is what has gotten us into a lot of trouble (and I don't mean patient with Campbell, but patient with the rebuilding process which should start with the OL). Personally, I'm not sold on Bradford...he may be highly touted, but I'm sure getting injured and only playing 2-3 games last season has some type of negative repercussion. Yes, I know he got better, etc., etc., but I'm just not sold. And Clausen is getting 2nd place to a guy like Bradford, no thanks.

I know getting Okung will not save the Redskins or lead them to a SB in 2010, but it's a start. Just as people claim that we can easily pick up a lineman in the 2nd round, I say that if we're going to pick up a QB to sit on the bench, let's pick him up in the 2nd round, and pick the lineman that can start right away with #4.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675569]I think what people keep forgetting is that drafting a QB with #4 is not right for the Redskins right now, plain and simple. .[/quote]

Oh yeah, I did forget that lol

good thing you reminded me ;)

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;675553]Wow, tall request but here goes. These are first round QB's:

David Klingler
Tommy Maddox
Rick Mirer
Heath Shuler (Sorry to toss that one at you)
Jim Druckenmiller
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Akili Smith
Cade McNown[/quote]

Can you tell me how these teams were held back by drafting a quarterback? For example, would the Redskins have been a perennial playoff team in the 90's had they taken someone else besides Heath Shuler within reason?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

OMG, I must be in the twilight zone! Tell me I just didn't wake up to us signing Rex Grossman? Does this mean we're trading Campbell?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Kalisto2010;675577]OMG, I must be in the twilight zone! Tell me I just didn't wake up to us signing Rex Grossman? [B]Does this mean we're trading Campbell?[/B][/quote]

thats one way of looking at it. that, or we are planning on keeping JC and use our pick on the offensive line. or that we simply needed a backup QB and now we have one that knows the new offensive scheme and is younger than Collins.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675502]Too sexy for you is he?

Grossman got a bum rap in Chicago, injuries and poor playcalling did him in. He's a better man and player now. Grossman will be just fine as a backup/spot starter/jevan snead mentor[/quote]

If the skins traded out of the 4th pick, picked up a 2nd round pick, and ended up drafting Spiller, Snead, and an offensive tackle, you'd be a rather happy camper, wouldnt you?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675576]Can you tell me how these teams were held back by drafting a quarterback? For example, would the Redskins have been a perennial playoff team in the 90's had they taken someone else besides Heath Shuler within reason?[/quote]

Indeed...

such as in the early 2000s on

what'd we do with a good line?

if you can make the argument that the line is our only weakness that's fine, hell even the biggest, it arguably is.. but a line alone won't do it

either way, we'll see offensive improvements with a better line.. does it mean we have to use pick 4 on it? nope

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=johno;675581]thats one way of looking at it. that, or we are planning on keeping JC and use our pick on the offensive line. or that we simply needed a backup QB and now we have one that knows the new offensive scheme and is younger than Collins.[/quote]

yep.. us signing Grossman means that he's our starter just as much as CLE signing Delhomme

you could argue that delhomme has a better opportunity though I guess

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;675582]If the skins traded out of the 4th pick, picked up a 2nd round pick, and ended up drafting Spiller, Snead, and an offensive tackle, you'd be a rather happy camper, wouldnt you?[/quote]

Hells yeah

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

If we draft a QB in the first or 2nd round, i'd take whatever I could get for Campbell, since he really wouldnt have a place on the team. If we don't draft a QB, I wouldn't let Campbell go for anything less than a 2nd. he'd simply be too valuable to us.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675557]We may actually have to package him up to get the 3rd and 4th, alone he probably gets one or the other. And right now there is just one (maybe two) team interested in him.[/quote]

I wouldn't want to give up much to get that

any chance of revealing interested teams?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675590]Hells yeah[/quote]

SneadSmack has a rather nice ring to it...

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675451]You're right. You and the mock drafts know better. All GMs should be required to use Mel Kiper's Big Board as a reference from now on.[/quote]

The reason why Polian isn't surprised is probably because he probably researched out most of the "probable" ways the teams could have picked in the draft except that unlike the mocks, he has access to even more info. That's how he's never surprised. Being surprised is an emotion. Please do freaking tell how after rating that it would be probable the Rams would take either Suh or Bradford would result in me be surprised if one or the other is not chosen.


Not this omniscient "they all got together and shared notes on who they're picking" and got a predetermined draft order before it even happened. Not to mention that even with a "secret flaw" that wasn't so secret(like who didn't know about Oher's potential learning issues?), Leinart still had excellent size, accuracy, pocket presence, learned in a pro offense, winning records, ability to put touch on the passes, blah, blah, blah. That's stuff you'd expect from a top prospect (unlike our JC#17, who is mediocre at best at all of those skill).

Not only that, Leinart didn't fall that much. He was STILL a top ten pick, not a precipitous fall-off like Oher, who was drafted 23.

Summary:
Polian's being not surprised is NOT because of some godly omniscience you keeping attributing to him, but because educated guess due to information garnered from various sources.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

We're taking a QB for sure. And we have to add in some real value to get a 2nd in return for Campbell

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675598]We're taking a QB for sure. And we have to add in some real value to get a 2nd in return for Campbell[/quote]

guessing real value depends on which team is asking

are we talking the guys that you mention.. rocky, moss, etc

or are we talking bigger?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;675596]SneadSmack has a rather nice ring to it...[/quote]

[url]http://www.thewarpath.net/666000-post21.html[/url]

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675598]We're taking a QB for sure. And we have to add in some real value to get a 2nd in return for Campbell[/quote]

I would like to see us take Okung, but I think we're betting on someone else of similar potential at tackle to be there later in the draft and take a stab at Bradford or Clausen.

As I stated in another thread, I favor Clausen over Bradford.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675569]I think what people keep forgetting is that drafting a QB with #4 is not right for the Redskins right now, plain and simple. [/quote]

i hear what your saying ruhskins but theres a flip side to it: sitting at the no 4 spot, this draft may be our best bet at actually being in position to land a potential franchise qb.

honestly, im going to trust shanny and allen's evaluations of whats best for the team. all things equal thoo, id prefer a potential franchise qb over a potential franchise LT.

i forgot who coined this phrase of most important positions to a football team but it goes:

qb
guys who protect the qb
guys who rush the qb

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675597]Summary:
Polian's being not surprised is NOT because of some godly omniscience you keeping attributing to him, but because educated guess due to information garnered from various sources.[/quote]

Summary:
Matt Leinart was not ranked in the Top 4 and thus was not taken in the Top 4. The Jets took Ferguson because Ferguson was rated higher than Leinart, not due to some philosophy that they believed an equally rated OT was more valuable than an equally rated QB.

That is why my example of David Carr vs Mike Williams applies, while your example of Ferguson vs Leinart does not.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675598]We're taking a QB for sure. And we have to add in some real value to get a 2nd in return for Campbell[/quote]

Not so sure about that. JC, Rex and Colt could be our opening day lineup at QB...........makes me cringe......

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=over the mountain;675607]honestly, im going to trust shanny and allen's evaluations of whats best for the team. all things equal thoo, id prefer a potential franchise qb over a potential franchise LT.
[/quote]

My thoughts exactly.

The question should be are Jimmy Clausen and Sam Bradford potential franchise quarterbacks worth taking at #4. If the answer is yes, then you take them. If the answer is no, then you don't.

The question should not be whether you should take a QB or LT first. It should ALWAYS be the QB first.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

If anything Colt is the odd man out. I think we're looking at JC, Rex, and a rook.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=over the mountain;675607]i hear what your saying ruhskins but theres a flip side to it: sitting at the no 4 spot, this draft may be our best bet at actually being in position to land a potential franchise qb.

honestly, im going to trust shanny and allen's evaluations of whats best for the team. all things equal thoo, id prefer a potential franchise qb over a potential franchise LT.

i forgot who coined this phrase of most important positions to a football team but it goes:

qb
guys who protect the qb
guys who rush the qb[/quote]

I'd be fine with taking a QB if we had JaMarcus Russell at QB last season, but we didn't. We can still pick up a damn good QB with the 2nd rounder, and let him learn for a year before he starts. I just hate for the team to once again go into the season with a suspect line and hoping that a bunch of older guys stay healthy. As I said, I know a first round LT is not going to fix the team right away, but you basically solidify the most important position in the offensive line for the next 9-10 years.

And as I said, I'm not sold on Bradford, everytime I hear the positives about him, I keep thinking 2.5 games played, twice injured shoulder. I'm sure he can be a very good QB, I just don't think he can be a good QB here nor do I want the team to gamble this high pick on him.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Mattyk;675617]If anything Colt is the odd man out. I think we're looking at JC, Rex, and a rook.[/quote]

If we sign a rookie higher than the 6th or 7th round it's going to be hard to justify keeping Colt

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Mattyk;675617]If anything Colt is the odd man out. I think we're looking at JC, Rex, and a rook.[/quote]

Agreed. I think if Colt had been able to beat out Collins for the #2 spot things would have been different. But he didn't. On to the next preseason favorite I guess.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675620]I'd be fine with taking a QB if we had JaMarcus Russell at QB last season, but we didn't. We can still pick up a damn good QB with the 2nd rounder, and let him learn for a year before he starts.[/quote]

The Vikings took Tarvaris Jackson in the 2nd round. The Jets took Kellen Clemens in the 2nd round.

Neither have amounted to much despite the offensive lines put in front of them.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675627]The Vikings took Tarvaris Jackson in the 2nd round. The Jets took Kellen Clemens in the 2nd round.

Neither have amounted to much despite the offensive lines put in front of them.[/quote]

Jackson looked good in preseason last year haha

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675627]The Vikings took Tarvaris Jackson in the 2nd round. The Jets took Kellen Clemens in the 2nd round.

Neither have amounted to much despite the offensive lines put in front of them.[/quote]

If you want to cite the Jets, they almost went to the Super Bowl with a horrible, turnover-prone, innaccurate, rookie QB who only had to throw a dozen passes a game (and still threw 20 picks). This was because of their line and despite of a bad QB.


More proof what a top o-line can do for a team.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675632]If you want to cite the Jets, they almost went to the Super Bowl with a horrible, turnover-prone, innaccurate, rookie QB who only had to throw a dozen passes a game (and still threw 20 picks). This was because of their line and in spite of a bad QB.

More proof what a top o-line can do for a team.[/quote]

But why would you want to follow the exception rather than the rule?

That's like saying you rather not wear your seat belt because a few guys survived car crashes because they chose not to wear their seat belt.

If you look at not only last season, but the last ten seasons, it becomes obvious what the formula is for success.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Buster;675632]If you want to cite the Jets, they almost went to the Super Bowl with a horrible, turnover-prone, innaccurate, rookie QB who only had to throw a dozen passes a game (and still threw 20 picks). This was because of their line and despite of a bad QB.


More proof what a top o-line can do for a team.[/quote]

and a top defense

and good rushing

so maybe that would've worked for us, who knows

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=tryfuhl;675583]Indeed...

such as in the early 2000s on

what'd we do with a good line?

if you can make the argument that the line is our only weakness that's fine, hell even the biggest, it arguably is.. but a line alone won't do it

either way, we'll see offensive improvements with a better line.. does it mean we have to use pick 4 on it? nope[/quote]

The last real celebrated success this team has known was mainly due to the play of the offensive line. "The Hogs" you remember them. Some have gone as far as to say the entire group should be inducted into the HOF. I will never underestimate the importance of a great O-line, and how much it means to the success of a football team. That's why I will continue to sugest that Chris Samuels replacement be drafted because it's not likely we'll find him under any other circumstance.

Now I'll agree we don't neccessarily NEED to use the #4 pick for it to be mission accomplished, but it's a position that definitely has to be addressed, and I'm sure you would agree.