I See QB Rumors (2012 QB Thread: The Sixth Sense)

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

The big guys? Who are they?

Bruce Allen, Mike Shanahan, Kyle Shanahan, and whoever they want to include into their ideas.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by IrMitchell

Bruce Allen, Mike Shanahan, Kyle Shanahan, and whoever they want to include into their ideas.

Ah I see. Well it's certainly harder than when Cerrato was there or when I was going to Redskin Park all the time. But I still have my ways.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Ah I see. Well it's certainly harder than when Cerrato was there or when I was going to Redskin Park all the time. But I still have my ways.

It's amazing what toture will do for you isn't it?

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

Yes, if Mannning or any other player is released now that player is up for grabs by any team in the league. The same goes for any player who is a free agent now. TO for example could be signed by anyone right now.

When the league year begins in March is when players like Laron Landry will be available for any team to sign. Or players like Vjax, Desean and all other FA. These players contracts don't officially end till the league year begins, so until then they are still the property of their respective teams.

Is that clear or do you have another question pertaining to FA and when they are available to sign.

Well obviously players who are still under contract with their current teams (like the projected UFA) are off limits but I wasn't sure how the new CBA was written pertaining to players released during the existing league year but after all games were completed. I'm not a moron, just seeking clarification.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It depends what the ultimate reward is. The AFC has only sent three different teams to the Super Bowl since 2002. The NFC has sent pretty much anyone. Including the Cardinals and almost the Alex Smith 49ers.

What I'm saying is that there's been no formula to make the super bowl in the NFC beyond having a good season and a great playoff run. There's no question that being great at the quarterback position is going to help you, but I would say no more than being able to shut down an opponent's great quarterback. We never talk about how the Redskins haven't been able to do the latter in about five years, while the former gets all sorts of discussion.

The history of the Redskins (and the Cowboys) suggests that if there's any franchise in pro football that can win consistently without stability at the QB position, it's those large market teams that can throw their weight and money around and develop the best coaching and player development techniques. Small market teams: they're not going to be able to put together much of a run without one signal caller that they can rely on for 10 years or so. But the Redskins absolutely could if they wanted to just go with veterans at quarterback.

I mean, the Redskins are kind of the gold standard for the idea that you can win year to year in the NFL without one guy at the quarterback position making 100 million dollars. San Diego can't win consistently without an elite franchise quarterback, but I still think Washington can.

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

There are plenty of constants that aren't QB play within this organization. And really, the years of bad QB play over the last 20 years were pretty much (with obvious exception to 2004) contained to the Schottenheimer/Spurrier years, and now the Shanahan years. You've had your bad quarterbacks: Shuler, Wuerffel, that one Ramsey/Brunell season, Grossman, Beck. But it's not like the quarterback play has been consistently bad. That doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Turner and Gibbs/Zorn didn't have any issue solving the quarterback position. In fact, the coaches who did have trouble are infamous for their bad QB decisions in Washington.

Only two franchises in the last 20 hasn't endured a period of bad quarterback play: New England, who went right from Bledsoe to Brady (and even Brady had a lean year or two), and Green Bay, who went right from Favre to Rodgers. For 30 other teams, they've had the same kind of issue with quarterabcks the Redskins have had with quarterbacks. The Cowboys hardly went right from Aikman to Romo, they suffered through Chad Hutchinson, Quincy Carter, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Henson, and Bledsoe. Teams like the Lions and Bears have actually had it far worse.

Complaining about the QB situation is old and tiring. Sure, Shanahan gutted the roster and hasn't offered a viable solution. I get that. I have been critical of him for doing that. It's not like there aren't guys out there who can play the position well who can be acquired easily if Andrew Luck proves too elusive. It's obvious to me at least that there are much bigger issues with this organization that were causing us many losses even before Shanahan got here. Those issues have not been fixed.

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

Agreed,
It's just the reality of today's rules. It's how you have to build a team right now until there are rules changes again.

[diehardskin2982]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Here's your Eli Manning conundrum: Manning spent a lot of his career playing with stiffs like Amani Toomer and Plaxico Burress, and his biggest weapon for a while was either Tiki Barber on screen passes, or Jeremy Shockey. He got his first true no. 1 WR (at least by the standards of the modern game; Toomer and Burress were adequate for the 2005 passing environment) in 2009. The best receiver he ever played with is Victor Cruz, who was undrafted and signed in Manning's seventh season, then spent a year on IR.

You must be joking with this statement. Toomer and Burress were legit big receivers. Hakeem Nicks is not a bad player. Plus they always had a strong power running game backing them up.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by diehardskin2982

You must be joking with this statement. Toomer and Burress were legit big receivers. Hakeem Nicks is not a bad player. Plus they always had a strong power running game backing them up.

What are you basing any of this on? A vague memory of the 2005 Giants?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Agreed,
It's just the reality of today's rules. It's how you have to build a team right now until there are rules changes again.

It's been easier for everyone at the quarterback position the last four years, not just the elite guys. Everyone is benefiting from the relaxed passing environment. It's why you can compare 2006 Rex Grossman to 2011 Rex Grossman and think that maybe the Redskins have a better player (even though its the same guy with the same skill set).

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What are you basing any of this on? A vague memory of the 2005 Giants?

The 2008 Giants were a well-oiled machine...until Burress literally shot himself. Toomer, sure, was not that good anymore.

[skinsfaninok]

Toomer was a damn good wr man and so was pb

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Toomer was a damn good wr man and so was pb

Toomer's last 1000 yard season for the Giants came in 2003. Manning was drafted in 2004. His best season with Eli: 59 catches, 760 yards. Michael Crabtree this season: 72 catches, 874 yards.

Burress had 2 1,000 yard seasons for Eli, but Plaxico Burress is a career 50% catch rate guy. One of the most overrated careers in recent memory. Not a particularly good player, with the isolated exception of his red zone performance, a place where he had three really good seasons.

The Giants, when they won the super bowl in 2007, were kind of like this year's 49ers. If you looked hard enough, you could see good offensive talent, but they went as their defense went.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

Actually irish's claim was not about teams bettering themselves. His claim was that teams never give up a lot to get a QB. I simply pointed out that that was not true, whether such deals end up being smart or not.

As for whether giving up a lot for a QB is worth it, I agree that you must look on a case-by-case basis. I agreed with you on the argument about Eli the other day. But in Eli's case the Giants had other easy options. That is not always the case. So we might look at the Bears' acquisition of Cutler differently than we look at trading for Eli. And until we see more the jury remains out on folks like Palmer and Gabbert. If Palmer tears it up next year and the Raiders win the Super Bowl (I said IF), the Palmer trade looks a lot more respectable.