Redskins Sign Grossman

Monkeydad · 03-17-2010, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Dont forget David Carr!

He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

Audi · 03-17-2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

joethiesmanfan · 03-17-2010, 01:34 PM

BigHairedAristocrat, why did you choose that name? Big Haired Aristocrat = immoral, corrupt, worthless, cowardly, and lazy.

Lotus · 03-17-2010, 01:35 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.

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

Lotus · 03-17-2010, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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.

OMG. I spent so much time laughing at the Bears for starting Grossman. Now I might have to laugh at us.

Bakerman · 03-17-2010, 01:38 PM

New Blood here,

O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man.

Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer.

I am so glad Vinnie is gone.

Dirtbag59 · 03-17-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

That does seem to be happening a lot lately.

SirClintonPortis · 03-17-2010, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audi

So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

Dirtbag59 · 03-17-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

So the Raiders should have taken Gallery over Rivers

tryfuhl · 03-17-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bakerman

New Blood here,

O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man.

Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer.

I am so glad Vinnie is gone.

welcome to thewarpath man

Audi · 03-17-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

That's a bad example for a couple of reasons.

Primarily, there was no comparable quarterback ranked that high. You don't reach.

Monkeydad · 03-17-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

QB is a far higher risk, that's the point.

There are also a lot more examples of highly-drafted QBs failing than succeeding, that decision has a bad track record.

Lotus · 03-17-2010, 01:54 PM

^ And, if you are right, a much higher reward.

Dirtbag59 · 03-17-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Audi

That's a bad example for a couple of reasons.

Primarily, there was no comparable quarterback ranked that high. You don't reach.

Actually I would say that Leinart was a better prospect. We'll see if he develops this year but in that draft you could have easily gone for Leinart.

Monkeydad · 03-17-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lotus

^ And, if you are right, a much higher reward.

Of course, but that's a gigantic IF.

As I said, Bradford does not seem like a sure thing, I don't think we should risk it, especially with more pressing needs...mainly O-Line.

03-17-2010, 01:34 PM	#93
joethiesmanfan The Starter Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 1,163	Re: Redskins Sign Grossman BigHairedAristocrat, why did you choose that name? Big Haired Aristocrat = immoral, corrupt, worthless, cowardly, and lazy.

03-17-2010, 01:38 PM	#96
Bakerman Camp Scrub Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 21	Re: Redskins Sign Grossman New Blood here, O-Line first and last. Grossman is a good move, experience and not an old man. Gotta get the LT filled then JC or Rex can have an easier time of it. I don't see Colt here much longer. I am so glad Vinnie is gone.

03-17-2010, 01:54 PM	#103
Lotus Fire Bruce NOW Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Hattiesburg, MS Posts: 11,434	Re: Redskins Sign Grossman ^ And, if you are right, a much higher reward. __________________ Bruce Allen when in charge alone: 4-12 (.250) Bruce Allen's overall Redskins record : 28-52 (.350) Vinny Cerrato's record when in charge alone: 52-65 (.444) Vinny's overall Redskins record: 62-82 (.430) We won more with Vinny

Redskins Sign Grossman

Locker Room Main Forum