Do You Unequivocally Believe RG3 Is Our Franchise QB?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

LOL! That's not how it works Tripp. Just because a player isn't drafted in the first round doesn't mean he is passed up nor does it mean he can't be a game changer. By that logic, Joe Montana would not have been a game changer and most certainly Tom Brady would definitely not have been a game changer. While not having a first round pick sucks, it's not the end of the world. There is plenty of value in the lower rounds. In fact, that is where Bobby Beathard earned most of his paycheck was those mid to late round draft picks for the Redskins. The team can still bring in quality players in the second round and on, and they still have a chance of picking up a game changer. In fact, I tend to have more faith in 2nd rounders and on than I do first round picks.

Sigh.

Joe Montana was drafted in 1979. Tom Brady was drafted in 2000. Bobby Beathard retired 15 years ago. Probably not the best examples of how the draft works today.

Anyway, the point isn't who you could get, but who you are likely to get.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I don't see how the offensive line is "years away". Don't we lead the league in rushing since the beginning of last year? A lot of that has to do with RG3 last year, but the O Line definitely had something to do with Alfred Morris being as successful as he has been. The right side needs to be upgraded, no doubt, but to say years away is a big stretch in my opinion.

Additionally with respect to the draft, you find very few game changers after the top 8 or so in the draft - at least not in their rookie seasons. There is a difference between game changers and impact players, which I think is a more reasonable description of what you will find in the latter part of round 1 through round 3. I just don't think there is a lot of separation in talent there.

With free agency (that we will be able to participate in this year), the draft picks we have, and allowing this offense to have a complete offseason together, I am confident that this team will take a huge step forward next year.

If you have to change four starters, and we have to change at least three, it's going to take a while to get the right guys on the team. Quality tackles don't come available in free agency very often. Good guards can be found, but they tend to be pretty expensive. Centers are cheaper and easier to find, like for example we can slide Kory over if we thing he's lacking athleticism to play left guard. But we need lots of pieces and we're limited in our resources.

If we're picking in the second round and a receiver we really like is available as well as a starting quality RT, who do you take? The issue of course is not what you prefer, but the reason you are a year away is because you need both and can only take one.

[Chico23231]

Our pick in the second round will still be one of the top 40 players in the draft. Based on 5 positions of dyer need we should find a solid player with our first pick. Go ahead and tier the draft as the first 15 picks can be extremely impactful. Then the next 35 picks should be relatively close. 3rd Round where you see the seperation of talent imo.

[GTripp0012]

Yeah, the pick is still really important, and a lot of good players will be left in the top 40. My point was if you're evaluating players and setting your board attempting to get one of the draft's best players outside of the top 35, you're overcomplicating it. There's only a handful of those guys in the draft.

If a really good receiver prospect or nimble offensive tackle is available when the Redskins pick, you take him, and address the other need some other way in the short term.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you have to change four starters, and we have to change at least three, it's going to take a while to get the right guys on the team. Quality tackles don't come available in free agency very often. Good guards can be found, but they tend to be pretty expensive. Centers are cheaper and easier to find, like for example we can slide Kory over if we thing he's lacking athleticism to play left guard. But we need lots of pieces and we're limited in our resources.

If we're picking in the second round and a receiver we really like is available as well as a starting quality RT, who do you take? The issue of course is not what you prefer, but the reason you are a year away is because you need both and can only take one.

I guess that depends on what you are saying we are a year away from. I mean nobody has five all stars on the O-line. I'm just talking about serviceable players that will open lanes for Morris and company, and give RG time to get through his progressions - the only way he will be able to improve as a passer. I think with some of the pieces we already have and some of the pieces we can likely pick up in FA and the draft, we can drastically improve the O-line which will make the whole offense much better.

And I would take the RT providing we hadn't upgraded hat position already in free agency.

[MTK]

Griffin can help himself out a lot too by getting the ball out quicker. That will come as he becomes more comfortable working from the pocket.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I guess that depends on what you are saying we are a year away from. I mean nobody has five all stars on the O-line. I'm just talking about serviceable players that will open lanes for Morris and company, and give RG time to get through his progressions - the only way he will be able to improve as a passer. I think with some of the pieces we already have and some of the pieces we can likely pick up in FA and the draft, we can drastically improve the O-line which will make the whole offense much better.

And I would take the RT providing we hadn't upgraded hat position already in free agency.

I think the line right now is full of those serviceable players. Frankly, if you wanted to add another receiver that can get behind a defense, improve special teams performance so we don't have the worst starting field position in the NFL, and put a defense on the field that can win games 13-10, then this OL group is adequate. So they're already there.

But an improved line would allow Griffin to start ripping defenses apart from the pocket with room to step up? That would make this offense fun to watch. And that will take some time, but it's an investment worth making, IMO.

[MTK]

Analyzing the Redskins young linemen - NFC East Blog - ESPN

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Bucket

Lots of good things about this current team. Collinsworth said it best. We are only a few vital pieces away and a healthy RG3. My opinion though. Wont force it down anyone's throat

I don't see a lot of good things at all. Morris, Garçon, Williams and Hall are really the only players that have consistently show up week in week out this year. Literally, everywhere else is question marks. Right now, I think Jacksonville is better than we are.

[SmootSmack]

It's kind of funny that people complained that Mike and Kyle wouldn't adjust their offense to Griffin's strengths, but that's just what they did last year

That said, while I think the RO option is an important element of the offense, if RG3 isn't healthy/effective/confident/whatever enough to run it right now they should dial back...for now

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I don't see a lot of good things at all. Morris, Garçon, Williams and Hall are really the only players that have consistently show up week in week out this year. Literally, everywhere else is question marks. Right now, I think Jacksonville is better than we are.

Even Morris, Garcon, and Williams have done poorly at times, but they have definetaly been the 4 best players on the Skins this year.
I think Jacksonville could beat the Skins, they have won 3 out of the 4 past games and are up by 14 on the Texans.

I think the only team the Skins could beat right now are the Texans.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I guess that depends on what you are saying we are a year away from. I mean nobody has five all stars on the O-line. I'm just talking about serviceable players that will open lanes for Morris and company, and give RG time to get through his progressions - the only way he will be able to improve as a passer. I think with some of the pieces we already have and some of the pieces we can likely pick up in FA and the draft, we can drastically improve the O-line which will make the whole offense much better.

And I would take the RT providing we hadn't upgraded hat position already in free agency.

Wasn't Morris 92 yards away from being the league leader in rushing just a few games ago? Before Darrel Young went down? And while pass pro is far from perfect, statue-esque QBs across the league routinely buy more time in the pocket while keeping their eyes downfield.

Glass half full way to look at the current situation is to hope RG3 is becoming better at moving around in the pocket. With injuries along the o-line being a common occurrence for most teams, every QB will eventually have to learn to be effective even when 5 seconds in the pocket can't be guaranteed on every pass play.

The Packers and Steelers were still good in years when they couldn't protect Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben worth a damn. There are lots of QBs that can be successful under ideal circumstances, but who goes an entire career where everything around them is perfect?

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Sigh.

Joe Montana was drafted in 1979. Tom Brady was drafted in 2000. Bobby Beathard retired 15 years ago. Probably not the best examples of how the draft works today.

Anyway, the point isn't who you could get, but who you are likely to get.

How about Russell Wilson in the 3rd? Where was Richard Sherman drafted? Victor Cruz? Arian Foster? Recent enough? How about that honey badger fella. How's he doing? Or that 1991 Mazda dude taken in the 6th?

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If you have to change four starters, and we have to change at least three, it's going to take a while to get the right guys on the team. Quality tackles don't come available in free agency very often. Good guards can be found, but they tend to be pretty expensive. Centers are cheaper and easier to find, like for example we can slide Kory over if we thing he's lacking athleticism to play left guard. But we need lots of pieces and we're limited in our resources.

If we're picking in the second round and a receiver we really like is available as well as a starting quality RT, who do you take? The issue of course is not what you prefer, but the reason you are a year away is because you need both and can only take one.

Depends on what you can address in free agency or via young guys already on the roster. Maybe you take the Lineman, although Shanny's MO is to take linemen in the later rounds, and hope that with a full off-season RG3 stops wildly over throwing open receivers and learns to throw with anticipation. It's entirely plausible. Teams get significantly better or worse all the time without major changes in personnel.

This years examples - skins, panthers, falcons, texans and to a lesser extent maybe, the lions. It's why the NFL went 16 years in a row with at least 5 new teams in the playoffs each year.

And even if we did have the right talent, injuries can change everything. The NFL is totally unpredictable.

Getting 2012 production from RG3 is worth 4-5 wins alone.

[budw38]

I would be willing to make a wager that are F/A signings will look something like , 2 OL , 1 DL , 1- 2 DB's and either a WR or LB .