Redskins Sign Grossman

Redskins_P · 03-17-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk

It's March... you might want to give him a chance.

Matty, its March. We're supposed to be the champions of March!!! We're clearly taking a step back! Shanny doesn't know how we do around here....he needs to go!!

I love the patience of Redskins fans.

BigHairedAristocrat · 03-17-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

colt = preseason jesus
rex = preseason pharaoh

we shall see

i dont get it. how is rex pharoah and what did any pharoahs have to do with jesus?

Lotus · 03-17-2010, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

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).

I don't disagree with that. But there is more to the story. The converse is that if you make a good choice with a #1 QB, you win 12+ games for the next decade (the Colts).

Many people did not think that Peyton Manning was a sure thing, either. Good thing for the Colts that they didn't listen, huh?

sandtrapjack · 03-17-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

We...agree...?

You're absolutely right.

Lol, yeah, I couldn't believe it either until I saw the breaking news that hell froze over today.

BigHairedAristocrat · 03-17-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

I don't disagree with that. But there is more to the story. The converse is that if you make a good choice with a #1 QB, you win 12+ games for the next decade (the Colts).

Many people did not think that Peyton Manning was a sure thing, either. Good thing for the Colts that they didn't listen, huh?

If there was ever a year to take a chance on a QB, its not 2010. very weak QB class. most people would agree that Mark Sanchez and Matthew Stafford looked much much much better entering the NFL than either Bradford or Clausen do now.

Audi · 03-17-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

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).

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.

sandtrapjack · 03-17-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

By this reasoning, the Colts should never have selected or paid Peyton Manning.

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.

sandtrapjack · 03-17-2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audi

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.

Dont forget David Carr!

freddyg12 · 03-17-2010, 01:17 PM

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.

Longtimefan · 03-17-2010, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

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).

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.

Audi · 03-17-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

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.

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?

Chico23231 · 03-17-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

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.

Troy Aikman comes to mind. Rivers WOULD qualify.

12thMan · 03-17-2010, 01:30 PM

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.

SmootSmack · 03-17-2010, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freddyg12

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.

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.

joethiesmanfan · 03-17-2010, 01:31 PM

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.

03-17-2010, 01:17 PM	#84
freddyg12 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,540	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.

03-17-2010, 01:30 PM	#88
12thMan MVP Join Date: May 2005 Location: washington, D.C. Posts: 11,460	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.

03-17-2010, 01:31 PM	#90
joethiesmanfan The Starter Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,163	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.

Redskins Sign Grossman

Locker Room Main Forum