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

[irish]

Originally Posted by celts32

There is almost no price I wouldn't pay for Luck...for Bradford I would expect to pay a little less since last season had to hurt his value somewhat.

I do agree that we probably need a true #1 WR...but as I keep saying I don't think it's fair to draw any conclusions overall on what we have at WR in light of our awful QB play. WR in general with very few exceptions are a product of the QB and the efficiency of the overall offense. Look at the Colts WR production without Manning. And does anyone really think if Jordy Nelson were a Redskin last year he would have been productive? No...he would have been about as productive as Niles Paul was...

Kyle Shanny said on the radio on Fri that he didnt think Rex played too bad. He said Rex had waaaaay too may turnovers but did move the ball pretty good. He felt the bigger problem was that once Rex completed a pass it was usually not run for many yds and never had a pass run in for a TD. He felt that QB was one of the many areas where the Skins needed to improve.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by irish

Kyle Shanny said on the radio on Fri that he didnt think Rex played too bad. He said Rex had waaaaay too may turnovers but did move the ball pretty good. He felt the bigger problem was that once Rex completed a pass it was usually not run for many yds and never had a pass run in for a TD. He felt that QB was one of the many areas where the Skins needed to improve.

Without a doubt we need to upgrade WR. For example, we really need a play maker who can take the top off the defense and get the YAC you mention.

But franchise QB is the greatest of all needs. It is easier to build around a franchise QB than it is to win consistently without one.

If we only can get either a franchise QB or a #1 WR this offseason, we should get a top-notch signal caller.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But franchise QB is the greatest of all needs. It is easier to build around a franchise QB than it is to win consistently without one.

But the real question is whether it is easier to consistently win without one, or whether it is easier to win while hoping you've found your man. It's really a probability question.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But the real question is whether it is easier to consistently win without one, or whether it is easier to win while hoping you've found your man. It's really a probability question.

I agree. But while those who take the risk may not be rewarded, those who are risk averse in finding their guy, the current game shows, will commonly miss ultimate rewards. In other words, sooner or later you have to take the plunge...and then pray.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I agree. But while those who take the risk may not be rewarded, those who are risk averse in finding their guy, the current game shows, will commonly miss ultimate rewards. In other words, sooner or later you have to take the plunge...and then pray.

I'm trying to think of a team with a franchise QB that gave up the farm to get him.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm trying to think of a team with a franchise QB that gave up the farm to get him.

Uh, the Giants?

Also, several players on the list produced above were #1 overall picks. Do you really want to wait until we have the first overall pick? I don't.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Uh, the Giants?

Also, several players on the list produced above were #1 overall picks. Do you really want to wait until we have the first overall pick? I don't.

Cutler

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I agree. But while those who take the risk may not be rewarded, those who are risk averse in finding their guy, the current game shows, will commonly miss ultimate rewards. In other words, sooner or later you have to take the plunge...and then pray.

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.

[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.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by irish

Kyle Shanny said on the radio on Fri that he didnt think Rex played too bad. He said Rex had waaaaay too may turnovers but did move the ball pretty good. He felt the bigger problem was that once Rex completed a pass it was usually not run for many yds and never had a pass run in for a TD. He felt that QB was one of the many areas where the Skins needed to improve.

????
How can you have waaaay to many turnovers but "didnt play too bad"?
I think less of Kyle every day.

[CapitalDefense]

Originally Posted by irish

Kyle Shanny said on the radio on Fri that he didnt think Rex played too bad. He said Rex had waaaaay too may turnovers but did move the ball pretty good. He felt the bigger problem was that once Rex completed a pass it was usually not run for many yds and never had a pass run in for a TD. He felt that QB was one of the many areas where the Skins needed to improve.

Yep, it is no secret that we have no play makers on offense outside of a drug addict TE.

Hankerson showed some flashes maybe he will pan out

Get the QB first though

[celts32]

Originally Posted by irish

Kyle Shanny said on the radio on Fri that he didnt think Rex played too bad. He said Rex had waaaaay too may turnovers but did move the ball pretty good. He felt the bigger problem was that once Rex completed a pass it was usually not run for many yds and never had a pass run in for a TD. He felt that QB was one of the many areas where the Skins needed to improve.

I heard the interview. Kyle likes Rex as a person and was not going to crush him on the radio. The questions were all about the problems at QB and Kyle was just tying to deflect some of it and not blame it all on Rex.

[cpayne5]

Originally Posted by celts32

I heard the interview. Kyle likes Rex as a person and was not going to crush him on the radio. The questions were all about the problems at QB and Kyle was just tying to deflect some of it and not blame it all on Rex.

I was surprised at how critical he was of Rex. Somewhat refreshing. I came away from the interview feeling a lot better about Kyle Shanahan.

My favorite quote - "He kept both teams in most games."