Free Agency/Franchise Tag thread 2011

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

We'll just have to believe what we want to and drop the subject then. I just do not buy that a pro team would tank on purpose. These guys are professionals with HUGE egos, even on a bad team, they want to win. You think the Lions players are happy that they're forever be known as the losers who went 0-16?

No but they got a good QB, who's beaten us trying skins twice now

[NLC1054]

...Does no one pay attention to why most of the quarterbacks who have been successful over the past three years have been successful?

Really. I'm asking honestly.

What did the Jets, Falcons, Ravens, Rams have in common? Solid offensive lines, a strong running game and running back, and average to above average defenses that could save their quarterback's asses when they struggled. With the Bucs, Josh Freeman sat on the bench for a year while they got him that things. With Matthew Stafford they've surrounded him with top end talent on both sides of the ball, even though he's been injured.

You DON'T draft a quarterback until you're sure you can put him on the field and he can have success. Period. And if you ARE going to draft a quarterback to a bad football team then you had better hope and pray that he's above average because if he's not, you end up with a shellshocked quarterback for four or five years that's not worth crap.

I can't Andrew Luck. I really do. I will cry next season if we do get him. Because there is no way the kid can possibly live up to the impossible expectations fans and media have put on him, especially if we don't have the pieces around him to succeed.

But beyond that, if you think the Redskins are going to tank to get him, you're wrong. If you think The Redskins are going to go into the season with the same offensive line they had and pick up no one to at least improve them team, you're wrong. If you think Mike Shanahan is going to play anyone but the best quarterback on his roster, you're wrong. If you think the only way to get better is to lose, you're wrong.

You're wrong. That's the bottom line. And if you want to root for a team to lose, kindly know your role, shut your mouth, and pick another team to cheer for. Because the Redskins have enough pessimistic arm chair head coach/GM/QB's that piss and moan about things needing to get better while continually make the sort of assertions and suggestions that even a nub like Vinny Cerrato would go "wait a minute, really dude, you want to make that move?". Thank God most fans aren't general managers.

I want winners. I want people who want to win. I want fellow fans who want to win, and can quit friggin' crying when we win while also not dooming the whole team to losing as some sorta way to protect themselves from when they do lose.

I'm sick of hearing about the o-line. I'm sick of hearing about John Beck and the defense and how there's no way we can possibly improve. Eff that noise. Mike's going to do what he feels gives him the best chance to WIN. He WLL improve the offensive line, he won't put John Beck on the field unless he's sure he can win and the defense WILL be improved.

Christ...can we go back to talk about free agency now?

[CultBrennan59]

^ All those teams you mentioned haven't won super bowls to date, the Steelers, Packers, Patriots and Colts are all teams that have proven that you can have a Great or Awful OL, But an Amazing QB, that it doesn't matter. Also those teams have solid defenses, something we're going to eventually have again. We can win with the OLine we have if we have a smart QB who knows how/when to get rid of the ball.

The whole you feel bad for Luck thing because of the pressure he's facing, I wouldn't worry about. He knows what to say when the media faces him, just like manning. Lucks got something called balls.

Now if you want to improve our team in FA, specifically OLine, then go after Ryan Harris of the Broncos or Davin Joseph of the Bucs.

[NLC1054]

The Steelers are the only team on that list that really have a "bad" offensive line in terms of pass protection, and they get away away with it because Ben is impossible to tackle. I don't care who the hell you are, for most quarterback's, you don't have at least a decent offensive line, then everything you do is going to be a lot harder, and if you don't know that then you're not paying attention.

The Jets and Falcons have both been to the playoffs. Last year the Bucs and Rams were knocking on the door. The Lions have said themselves up to make a run next year. There's a blueprint on how to do these things just based on the success of those teams.

Luck has balls...the guy has never stepped on an NFL field and already people want to crowned him the friggin' annointed one. He can't match the hype. Period.

And how can you say in one sentence "we can win now if we have a quarterback that knows how to get rid of the ball quickly" when the entire basis of your argument has been that if we start John Beck or Rex Grossman, both of whom get the ball out of their hands faster than McNabb did (which, coincidentally, made the offensive line look better than it was), there is no way we can win and will end up in a position to draft Luck? Because it's going to take either the 1st or 2nd pick in the draft to get him. If we're not in the top five to get him, we have no chance. Hell, if we're not in the top three there's no chance.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[CultBrennan59]

^You cannot sit here and tell me that the Colts OLine is good without manning.
Luck is more mature than half the players in the NFL. He's not a guy that's going to be in nightclubs or knocking up girls left and right. Beck hasn't played in years, so how can you say he gets the ball out quicker than McNabb. Theres a reason McNabbs been starting longer than both of them combined. Worst case, Luck is Matt Schaub, best case he's better than Manning. I think you're the one talking out of more than two holes.

[FrenchSkin]

Thank you NLC1054, as a rookie redskins fan I need hope.
Plus, I really have the feeling the QB position in general is overrated.
I played and watched rugby for years, you could say number 9 and 10 are the quaterbacks of rugby. I know rugby and football are very different sports, no need to compare them. I'm aware in football you need perfection at every second while you can afford to drop a pass in a rugby game if your team badly wants to win.
Still my point is the atmosphere in football that make people wait for a QB like a christian waiting for Jesus Christ's comeback is absurd and leads to bold decisions. In rugby games you often see number 9 or 10 being benched at 10 minutes of the end of the game, to give an opportunity to a younger player to play, the starter will rest a bit and no one will make a big deal of it. Or during the week the younger player was the best at practice because the usual starter was tired so the younger will start this week. So the players bust their ass at practice because they want to be on the field and you don't have the situation of a player praying for his teammate to hurt himself so he'd a chance to play...

[NLC1054]

...The guy has never played in the NFL! And better than MANNING!? Really? Really dude? You sure you want to go there? Andrew Luck will be better than Manning, a surefire Hall of Fame quarterback which tons of passing records, MVP's, two Super Bowl appearances and one ring?

...You know what, eff it, I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who's clearly deluded himself.

Back to free agency. Quarterbacks.

Here's my list of guys who I think have the best chance to come and compete to be a starter or at least backs ups;

Matt Moore
Drew Stanton
Tyler Thigpen
Matt Leinart

Fringy guys who could come in since Mike usually carries 4 quarterbacks into camp...

Nate Davis (if he's in shape)
Troy Smith
Tavaris Jackson
Kellen Clemens (not that I want him, but you know...depth and what not)

Guys who will connected to us even if we show no interest
Vince Young
Jamarcus Russell (Jason LaCanfora says this pretty much every time he mentions the Redskins QB situation)

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

No but they got a good QB, who's beaten us trying skins twice now

Irrelevant to the discussion if they "lost on purpose" to get him, which they did not.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

...Does no one pay attention to why most of the quarterbacks who have been successful over the past three years have been successful?

Really. I'm asking honestly.

What did the Jets, Falcons, Ravens, Rams have in common? Solid offensive lines, a strong running game and running back, and average to above average defenses that could save their quarterback's asses when they struggled. With the Bucs, Josh Freeman sat on the bench for a year while they got him that things. With Matthew Stafford they've surrounded him with top end talent on both sides of the ball, even though he's been injured.

You DON'T draft a quarterback until you're sure you can put him on the field and he can have success. Period. And if you ARE going to draft a quarterback to a bad football team then you had better hope and pray that he's above average because if he's not, you end up with a shellshocked quarterback for four or five years that's not worth crap.

I can't Andrew Luck. I really do. I will cry next season if we do get him. Because there is no way the kid can possibly live up to the impossible expectations fans and media have put on him, especially if we don't have the pieces around him to succeed.

But beyond that, if you think the Redskins are going to tank to get him, you're wrong. If you think The Redskins are going to go into the season with the same offensive line they had and pick up no one to at least improve them team, you're wrong. If you think Mike Shanahan is going to play anyone but the best quarterback on his roster, you're wrong. If you think the only way to get better is to lose, you're wrong.

You're wrong. That's the bottom line. And if you want to root for a team to lose, kindly know your role, shut your mouth, and pick another team to cheer for. Because the Redskins have enough pessimistic arm chair head coach/GM/QB's that piss and moan about things needing to get better while continually make the sort of assertions and suggestions that even a nub like Vinny Cerrato would go "wait a minute, really dude, you want to make that move?". Thank God most fans aren't general managers.

I want winners. I want people who want to win. I want fellow fans who want to win, and can quit friggin' crying when we win while also not dooming the whole team to losing as some sorta way to protect themselves from when they do lose.

I'm sick of hearing about the o-line. I'm sick of hearing about John Beck and the defense and how there's no way we can possibly improve. Eff that noise. Mike's going to do what he feels gives him the best chance to WIN. He WLL improve the offensive line, he won't put John Beck on the field unless he's sure he can win and the defense WILL be improved.

Christ...can we go back to talk about free agency now?

Thank you!

/discussion

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

^You cannot sit here and tell me that the Colts OLine is good without manning.
Luck is more mature than half the players in the NFL. He's not a guy that's going to be in nightclubs or knocking up girls left and right. Beck hasn't played in years, so how can you say he gets the ball out quicker than McNabb. Theres a reason McNabbs been starting longer than both of them combined. Worst case, Luck is Matt Schaub, best case he's better than Manning. I think you're the one talking out of more than two holes.

Jake Locker was supposed to be like Andrew Luck. He stayed in college an extra season and his draft stock tumbled.

Luck might do the same. He'll be without his coach (Harbaugh) next season. This will be a great test to see what he's really made of.

I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by NLC1054

...The guy has never played in the NFL! And better than MANNING!? Really? Really dude? You sure you want to go there? Andrew Luck will be better than Manning, a surefire Hall of Fame quarterback which tons of passing records, MVP's, two Super Bowl appearances and one ring?

...You know what, eff it, I'm not going to sit here and argue with someone who's clearly deluded himself.

Back to free agency. Quarterbacks.

Here's my list of guys who I think have the best chance to come and compete to be a starter or at least backs ups;

Matt Moore
Drew Stanton
Tyler Thigpen
Matt Leinart

Fringy guys who could come in since Mike usually carries 4 quarterbacks into camp...

Nate Davis (if he's in shape)
Troy Smith
Tavaris Jackson
Kellen Clemens (not that I want him, but you know...depth and what not)

Guys who will connected to us even if we show no interest
Vince Young
Jamarcus Russell (Jason LaCanfora says this pretty much every time he mentions the Redskins QB situation)

Can you read? I said he could be better than manning. Meaning years down the road, not as soon as he steps in. And your list sucks. Matt Moore gives you 3-4 wins at best same with Thigpin. You think Leinart has a quick release or something like you seem to think about Beck? Gradkowski's the only mobile enough QB that would be ok in this offense. Your probably one of those Skin fans that actually believe the crap shanahan's feeding the media saying Becks the 'guy'. And you're calling me the idiot...

[Lotus]

I propose that henceforth all arguments that we tank the season to get Luck should be ignored.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Jake Locker was supposed to be like Andrew Luck. He stayed in college an extra season and his draft stock tumbled.

Luck might do the same. He'll be without his coach (Harbaugh) next season. This will be a great test to see what he's really made of.

I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.

I wasn't a Locker fan, even when I saw his 'great' junior year. I see your argument. I got a question for you. How much college football do you watch? Do you watch different conferences games like I do, or do you just watch little to no college football? I say this because if you watch a lot of college football you need to watch a lot of pac-10 football, specifically Stanford, like I did. Its a good conference to watch because the Pac-10 produces good NFL caliber players. Point being that Luck his freshman year started and performed great, his sophomore year he improved from his freshman year and was talked about the best player in the draft, I find it hard that next year he'll be worse than this year, he still has his OC, whom is now his head coach. So sure I guess we can see if there will be much of a difference in him this year, but I highly doubt he'll be worse.

[NLC1054]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

I don't understand how people put so much value on a QB whose college career is not even complete.

Because everyone wants to be able to say "I told you so". It's why people who were perfectly fine with us drafting Jason Campbell in '05 are now complaining about not drafting Aaron Rodgers and that they knew it and "saw it all along".

Oh, I forgot Joe Flacco in that list of quarterbacks.

There's clearly a blueprint that's been working. It's a blueprint even Mike followed with Brian Griese and then with Jay Cutler in Denver, before he got canned.

[CultBrennan59]

We may go after Stephen Bowen of the Cowboys and Stephen Tullouch of the Titans when FA starts according to PFT.com