Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Redskins247;1111673]This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."[/quote]

Wrong, it gives the Redskins options. It also puts Griffin on a short leash. If he isn't learning, you pull him, and say your goodbye's at the end of the year. If we don't know by the bye that he's the guy, you pull him, and he's done here. If the light goes on, and he gets it, then we get him for 3million less than franchise tag price and have leverage to negotiate a long term contract. If you are too worried about his injury risk, you have no reason to try to make him the starter this year, you should already be moving on.

Re: Next years QB
 

[url=http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/16928/redskins-assume-risk-on-rg-iii-option-to-a-point]Washington Redskins assume risk on RG III option -- to a point - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN[/url]

Re: Next years QB
 

What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111690]What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.[/quote]

This I agree with, unless they have all but decided that there aren't any bidders that are going to pay whatever they deemed the price to be, or they have confirmed through other sources that another team will definitely take Mariota before we could trade our pick.

The tinfoil side says this is an amazingly brilliant reverse psychology move to keep anyone from trading up in front of us, so that we can get him. By appearing to go all in with Griffin, Mariota may slide to us.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1111692]This I agree with, unless they have all but decided that there aren't any bidders that are going to pay whatever they deemed the price to be, or they have confirmed through other sources that another team will definitely take Mariota before we could trade our pick.

The tinfoil side says this is an amazingly brilliant reverse psychology move to keep anyone from trading up in front of us, so that we can get him. By appearing to go all in with Griffin, Mariota may slide to us.[/quote]

That assumes you want Mariota, and I am at best agnostic about that (although I will go along with what Scot wants). I am not sure how they could have determined the dynamics for draft day to the degree needed to make the timing of the decision sensible. I a report recently that idnciated that one of the NFL draft day mega-trades (I confess I don't recall which one) wasn't even proposed until the team that initiated it was 7 minutes on the clock. I don't think it is possible to determine with any real accuracy what teams will do under the kind of pressure they feel on draft day.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111694]That assumes you want Mariota, and I am at best agnostic about that (although I will go along with what Scot wants). I am not sure how they could have determined the dynamics for draft day to the degree needed to make the timing of the decision sensible. I a report recently that idnciated that one of the NFL draft day mega-trades (I confess I don't recall which one) wasn't even proposed until the team that initiated it was 7 minutes on the clock. I don't think it is possible to determine with any real accuracy what teams will do under the kind of pressure they feel on draft day.[/quote]

Again, I agree with you the timing doesn't make sense. I was giving scenarios that might be true to make it make sense.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111690]What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.[/quote]

It's all about what the Jets want to do at #6 that would entice teams to possibly trade up.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Mattyk;1111696]It's all about what the Jets want to do at #6 that would entice teams to possibly trade up.[/quote]

That's true in the sense that if we don't take Mariota (and today's news is likely to make folks think we will pass), teams that want him will want to trade with someone above 6 in order to get him, as the Jets seem likely to do grab him at 6. My point is that this move arguably makes the Redskins less of an attractive trading partner than teams picking above us if the objective is to land Mariota. Before this news, we were probably a very attractive trading partner at 5 because the Jets would likely snag him at 6. But now, someone else gets that privilege (although, I will allow, at greater cost to the team trading up, as the higher the pick, the more you have to give up for it).

Re: Next years QB
 

I'm not sure today's news changes things a whole lot. It's not a long term commitment and it's guaranteed for injury only. It's window dressing more than anything. In the end it just gives the team more control.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Mattyk;1111701]I'm not sure today's news changes things a whole lot. It's not a long term commitment and it's guaranteed for injury only. It's window dressing more than anything. In the end it just gives the team more control.[/quote]

I don't disagree -- my issue is only one of timing. Had we done this next Monday, we'd have the same control re: RGIII. We arguably have a little less now with regard to draft strategy, and I just cannot see a reason why this was done now.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=calia;1111703]I don't disagree -- my issue is only one of timing. Had we done this next Monday, we'd have the same control re: RGIII. We arguably have a little less now with regard to draft strategy, and I just cannot see a reason why this was done now.[/quote]

Everyone knows if the Titans don't take him, he's definitely going to be there at #5. The Jags aren't taking him and neither are the Raiders. #5 is when things will start to get interesting regardless of the news today. And I don't think picking up the option is big news to teams around the league. Pretty sure it was expected.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=Mattyk;1111696]It's all about what the Jets want to do at #6 that would entice teams to possibly trade up.[/quote]Yes! If we might take Mariota, other teams wouldn't try to trade with us, they would try to leap-frog us with the #4 or higher pick.

Picking up Griffin's option improves the chance someone might trade with us, if Mariota is there.

Re: Next years QB
 

Does anybody up here really believe that Robert is going to be the starter come week 1?


This is how this is going to play out. Kirk is going to win the job in training camp and be the day 1 starter. If Kirk repeats that shit from last year, he's going to be yanked and Robert is going to be allowed his shot at being the starter.

Re: Next years QB
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1111711]Does anybody up here really believe that Robert is going to be the starter come week 1?


This is how this is going to play out. Kirk is going to win the job in training camp and be the day 1 starter. If Kirk repeats that shit from last year, he's going to be yanked and Robert is going to be allowed his shot at being the starter.[/quote]

I don't think Griffin can start 16 games. He just has too long a ways to go to be a complete QB. That's not to say KC or Colt are 16 game starters either, just seems like KC has a shorter ways to go. But my guess is Griffin starts off the number one but won't keep the job. i just hope this be about performance and not about the politics that surrounds Griffin.

Re: Next years QB
 

Looks like Haslett doesn't think much of Robert...lol


[url=http://www.csnwashington.com/redskinsblog/jim-haslett-answers-if-redskins-should-take-marcus-mariota?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo]Jim Haslett answers if Redskins should take Marcus Mariota | Comcast SportsNet Washington[/url]

[QUOTE]"If I'm making the call, I would take him," Haslett said to Comcast SportsNet's Chick Hernandez. [/QUOTE]