Predict Who Will Be The Next Redskins QB (Not Necessarily the QB You Want)

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What would that change? We're grading a trade that happened eight years ago.

Understood. Which is why I'd question why the Giants would still be considered stupid for giving up a king's ransom for Eli, since Eli has given them two Super Bowl berths, one win and another one yet to be decided. I mean, the main thing is winning championships right?

[NYCskinfan82]

Isn't Luck originally from the DC/Maryland area.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yes.

I'll probably regret asking, but a SB win, quite possibly two, is not enough of a payoff to justify the trade, or at the least enough to not call it stupid?

[12thMan]

Sam Bradford.

[redskin29633]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Don't mean to throw a mini tantrum, but I'm getting sick of the people that keep snapping at those that mention us getting Luck. Okay, WE F'ING GET IT, we are probably not getting Luck, now quit your b*tching and let us go on with our fantasy talk. Last time I check, a lot of the things we "predict" are going to happen, do not happen. So get over it and let us continue fantasize about having a beast of a QB.

Sorry man, did not mean to rain on your parade! I just recently squashed somebody's version (but not yours) of the Luck acquisition fantasy. I just have a hard time believing that the Redskins would finally be that lucky and that the Colts would be that dumb. I guess I am "conditioned" by 20 years of minimal Redskin success and don't want to set myself up for a big disappointment.

But hey, if we somehow pull it off, there will be a big celebration at my house! Keep dreaming and keep the hope alive; its not April yet. As you say, anything can happen between now and then.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'll probably regret asking, but a SB win, quite possibly two, is not enough of a payoff to justify the trade, or at the least enough to not call it stupid?

I suppose we have to ask (but never know) if the Giants would have had the same success with Rivers. If Rivers would have gotten them roughly the same success, then the Giants overpaid for no net gain.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Were the Giants stupid for what they gave up for Eli?

It doesnt look like they were but thats because we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Would you say the Redskins were stupid for what they gave up for Jason Campbell? I would say they were.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by NYCskinfan82

Isn't Luck originally from the DC/Maryland area.

Yes he is.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'll probably regret asking, but a SB win, quite possibly two, is not enough of a payoff to justify the trade, or at the least enough to not call it stupid?

I didn't think the trade was stupid then and I don't think it is now.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

It doesnt look like they were but thats because we have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Would you say the Redskins were stupid for what they gave up for Jason Campbell? I would say they were.

How about Elway?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I'll probably regret asking, but a SB win, quite possibly two, is not enough of a payoff to justify the trade, or at the least enough to not call it stupid?

It's easy to connect one event with the other, but they have pretty much nothing to do with each other.

New York could have had any of these quarterbacks with the picks they put in the Eli Manning deal:

Ben Roethlisberger
Philip Rivers
Aaron Rodgers

Where does Manning rank on that list? Third? Fourth?

They weren't supposed to know that they were trading so much draft value for a top QB in a year where there were plenty of them available, but if you're going to ask me to credit them for pulling the trigger when history has proven that move (at best) unnecessary, well, I think that it's still pretty clear and obvious that San Diego fleeced them.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's easy to connect one event with the other, but they have pretty much nothing to do with each other.

New York could have had any of these quarterbacks with the picks they put in the Eli Manning deal:

Ben Roethlisberger
Philip Rivers
Aaron Rodgers

Where does Manning rank on that list? Third? Fourth?

They weren't supposed to know that they were trading so much draft value for a top QB in a year where there were plenty of them available, but if you're going to ask me to credit them for pulling the trigger when history has proven that move (at best) unnecessary, well, I think that it's still pretty clear and obvious that San Diego fleeced them.

On that list I rank Eli second.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Understood. Which is why I'd question why the Giants would still be considered stupid for giving up a king's ransom for Eli, since Eli has given them two Super Bowl berths, one win and another one yet to be decided. I mean, the main thing is winning championships right?

The main thing in evaluating a trade is winning championships? If you say so.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

On that list I rank Eli second.

Behind Rodgers?

[irish]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How about Elway?

Denver didnt really give up anything for Elway. Two nobody players and a pick. That was the steal of the century.