Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

Tanking in a sport as violent as football is immoral and unamercian.

Based on football karma alone the player acquired as a result of tank job must be bust.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

For all the Luck desirers out there remember this.....at this time last year all the analysts said that Locker would have been the #1 overall pick had he come out and had him as a lock for #1 in the 2011 draft.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=Son Of Man;801880]For all the Luck desirers out there remember this.....at this time last year all the analysts said that Locker would have been the #1 overall pick had he come out and had him as a lock for #1 in the 2011 draft.[/quote]

Yeah, but Luck doesn't have to improve his accuracy. Locker was a raw talent number 1 projection. Luck is a number 1 overall talent with production to match. Unless he gets a Bowers like injury he will not drop, even Bradford stayed at number 1 overall with a destroyed shoulder. Scouts looked at Locker in 2009 the same way they looked at Vick 2001. "Well his numbers are average but my God the talent."

Trust me it's one thing to not want to tank a season to get a number 1 pick but to suggest Luck will drop or experience anything similar to that of Locker, well safe to say I feel like you're playing with fire.

Andrew Luck is quite possibly the best QB prospect in the history of the NFL. No one has ever been able to match up physical attributes, production, and intangibles like this kid. In the end the best we can hope for is that he gets drafted by an AFC team.

With that said, even if we do go into the season with a tank strategy I still believe that the Number 1 pick will be out of reach. The Redskins might suck a lot but year after year theres always no less then 3 teams that end up sucking more.
[YT]pFbqCrTzdzs[/YT][YT]S4_w-puInqY[/YT][YT]oMz9nwy7yYc[/YT]
I challenge anyone to find a QB that was better then this coming into the NFL. Certainly the NFL has had its share of storied QB's but I still maintain that no one was this good going in.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;801863]Chad Reuter is an idiot.
Just based on our schedule alone I'd say he's an idiot.[/quote]

well everyone is saying the skins because of our current QB situation

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;801883]well everyone is saying the skins because of our current QB situation[/quote]

No one knows what our QB situation is.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

No fan wants the team to lose out just to have the first overall pick any year. The reality of the lockout and the the team's roster flux, points to a lack of cohesiveness. Whoever the starting QB will be next year isn't or hasn't been working out with the new WRs, maybe isn't even familiar with Shanahan's playbook. So how will this team be able to compete with teams who are relatively intact or building up from last year? This team is at the mercy of free agency and the lockout which, when resolved will be a scramble to plug holes too far into the offseason. That sounds like a recipie for disaster: overspending and/or getting less than desired FAs. Don't get me wrong, I hope we can make lemonade.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

here's some good film on Luck:
[url]http://www.the-mainboard.com/forum/index.php/topic,91570.0.html[/url]

[quote=Dirtbag59;801882]Andrew Luck is quite possibly the best QB prospect in the [U][B]history of the NFL.[/B][/U] No one has ever been able to match up physical attributes, production, and intangibles like this kid. In the end the best we can hope for is that he gets drafted by an AFC team.[/quote]Do you really believe this?
You realize that production isn't that important a tool for evaluation?

You're a bit effusive but I think I know what people like about watching Luck (which I agree with): he looks like he's in [I][B]command[/B][/I].

But, most good QBs look in command when they're the better team.(If you look at some of Mallet and Stanzi and even Tolzein's (sp?) games they had similar schematic advantages and also show similar command.

Its not easy from a personnel stand point to run a rhythm based passing offense without a good pass protecting OL a good running game and good WRs.

Its the combination of coaching + scheme + talent.

[quote]I challenge anyone to find a QB that was better then this coming into the NFL. Certainly the NFL has had its share of storied QB's but I still maintain that no one was this good going in.[/quote]I'm not even going to touch that because you're already entrenched in your position.

So, I'll share my opinion of Luck instead.

Luck is a top tier prospect: a very efficient, productive QB with above average athleticism and some playmaking ability, good but not elite arm strength, above average accuracy, average release/throwing motion.

While he lacks the elite arm strength, athleticism and quick release of some of last years QBs he more then closes the gap in polish and pro-readiness.

Luck has the benefit of playing behind one of the best OL in the country and consequenly he's rarely sacked and what's more he's rarely ever hit sometimes he's not even touched.

Also, going beyond the OL he had a power running game.

Luck also has the schemetaic advantage because of [I]elite[/I] NFL level coaching on offense and specifically at the QB position which makes him a very pro-ready plug and play QB. *(Harbaugh's previous pupil, Josh Johnson, also put up huge numbers (better then Luck))

So for me there is a question mark about how he responds to pressure and getting hit because the NFL isn't pitch and catch and in the beginning of the Tech game when Beamer's boys were getting after him ealry in the bowl game he was flustered.

Questions:how will he respond to pressure/duress, not really a question per se but his throwing motion is a little quircky though throws the ball just fine

For me I guess the main questions I have about Luck stem from separating him from his production; meaning how much of the production is because of him and how much is because of the team.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

To start with believe it or not best QB prospect of all time really isn't that hard of a feat, so sorry for overselling that label. Of the 19 QB's drafted first overall I could only find 1 that was virtually flawless and thats Peyton Manning. Elway was close but he obviously had the whole "don't draft me Baltimore or I'll play baseball" problem. Eli was also another highly rated guy coming in but he didn't have the same level of production of his older brother.
[url=http://www.bookofodds.com/Daily-Life-Activities/Sports/Articles/A0718-The-NFL-Draft-QB-or-Not-QB]Book of Odds - The NFL Draft: QB or Not QB[/url]

The rest either had character concerns, simple offenses, average competition, or average production. Maybe thats the last remaining knock on Luck. The fact that he only has two years as a starter under his belt. However he has taken his game to a level that I have never seen or heard of for that matter.

Simply put Luck is both fooball and book smart. His arm is very good and capable of making every throw. His funky release is actually quick and allows him to get rid of the ball. He is capable of breaking 50 yard runs as well as buying time in the pocket. He is tall enough to see over his lineman, heavy enough to take a beating. And above all he's throwing for 30+ TD's with 70% in the second best conference in the country. Even with a great line you don't see QB's throwing the ball down field in a pro style offense and still finishing with a completion percentage above 70%. That is unreal.



By the way, while I do agree that Luck had a quality O-Line it still doesn't change the fact that the 3 seniors on that line in this years draft went undrafted. Remember he's still playing at Stanford, a school whose bending of the rules for scholarship athletes are still ridiculously high compared to most other major football programs.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=Alvin Walton;801863]Chad Reuter is an idiot.
Just based on our schedule alone I'd say he's an idiot.[/quote]

Although right now it is a bit idiotic to make any prediction given that free agency has not happened (and we're not even sure if football is going to work), we are going to be a young team that is still in transition and may perform as such.

After the draft, we have young players filling areas of need (RBs, WRs, DE, and OLB) and there are still some areas that are up in the air (QB, NT, and interior o-line). In the NFL anything can happen and while the team can perform well, especially given their schedule, their needs and youth in some areas may very well likely affect their performance next season.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;801916]To start with believe it or not best QB prospect of all time really isn't that hard of a feat, so sorry for overselling that label. Of the 19 QB's drafted first overall I could only find 1 that was virtually flawless and thats Peyton Manning. Elway was close but he obviously had the whole "don't draft me Baltimore or I'll play baseball" problem. Eli was also another highly rated guy coming in but he didn't have the same level of production of his older brother.
[url=http://www.bookofodds.com/Daily-Life-Activities/Sports/Articles/A0718-The-NFL-Draft-QB-or-Not-QB]Book of Odds - The NFL Draft: QB or Not QB[/url]

The rest either had character concerns, simple offenses, average competition, or average production. Maybe thats the last remaining knock on Luck. The fact that he only has two years as a starter under his belt. However he has taken his game to a level that I have never seen or heard of for that matter.

Simply put Luck is both fooball and book smart. His arm is very good and capable of making every throw. His funky release is actually quick and allows him to get rid of the ball. He is capable of breaking 50 yard runs as well as buying time in the pocket. He is tall enough to see over his lineman, heavy enough to take a beating. And above all he's throwing for 30+ TD's with 70% in the second best conference in the country. Even with a great line you don't see QB's throwing the ball down field in a pro style offense and still finishing with a completion percentage above 70%. That is unreal.

By the way, while I do agree that Luck had a quality O-Line it still doesn't change the fact that the 3 seniors on that line in this years draft went undrafted. Remember he's still playing at Stanford, a school whose bending of the rules for scholarship athletes are still ridiculously high compared to most other major football programs.[/quote]

Dirt, do you think that an injury-free Bradford could've been close to that "nearly flawless" level?

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=Ruhskins;801931]Dirt, do you think that an injury-free Bradford could've been close to that "nearly flawless" level?[/quote]

Maybe. I mean you look at the media and they still gave him a hard time for running a spread offense even though he put up great numbers in a pro style offense during his first year as a starter. He also was slightly limited in terms of arm strength. He [Bradford] doesn't have the "elite arm, as he's more in the "well he can make all the throws" category.

Bradford seemed more of a high floor with a decent sized ceiling as opposed to Luck who I feel and many scouts feel is a high floor high ceiling type of player.

As I said before, Luck doesn't have the J. Russell arm but it's still considered a "very strong arm." For Gods sake he threw it almost 50 yards while falling down.

And the best part with Luck, if he does fail at QB you can still play him at Running Back or Linebacker. Though as 30Gut said before I'm entrenched in the 'Luck is money in the bank" position.' So I'll need to see him snorting blow off a strippers bum before I start to consider otherwise.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

The only assumption I see people making in this thread is that we are going to purposefully lose to get the #1 pick. When did Chad Reuter say that in his article? He said the Redskins would be bad. He never said they were going to lose intentionally.

I don't know why anyone hasn't mentioned this previously, but just because Reuter says we will pick first doesn't mean he have to have the worst record. Maybe we have a top 5 pick and bet the farm to trade up to the #1 spot to take Luck. Especially if there is a team that is sitting with the first pick and has a QB of the future or has recently drafted one.

On top of that if we ever get out of this lockout crap, if the new rules dictate a rookie wage scale, it would be much easier to trade into the first spot because there would not be such a monstrous amount of money that would have to be paid for the #1 pick as in years past. If this kid is the real deal like they say he is, if he is that good, then I would be okay giving up future picks for him. But not tanking a season.

I have always been about holding onto picks and building through the draft, not Cerratoing away picks like in the past. But those picks which have been given away have been for extremely questionable moves like aging free agents and sheer boneheaded moves. Trading away future picks for a kid who is supposed to be this good and could be a super star QB for this franchise for a decade is something to take some serious thought about. More serious than for Jason Taylor, Adam Archuleta, or Brandon Lloyd.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

The assumption that we would tank a season is just dumb. An NFL team doesn't tank it. It's not even worth discussing.

Now, will some fans root for them to lose? Probably. Not me.

Let it be known I don't think we'll end up w/ the #1 pick by having the worst record in the NFL. I do think we'll be top 10ish.

The fact is, we play in a beast of a division w/ Eli M, Romo, and Vick now. 3 very good teams that we'll be underdogs to most likely. Or at least we would be if the season started now. It's going to be tough this year I believe but i think we're laying the groundwork for some good things in the next couple years.

Locker is no Andrew Luck. Luck is Elway 2.0 and I'm not just making the comparison b/c both went to Stanford. He's good. We won't tank nor should we but if there's any prudent way to get Luck I'm for it.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

The Skins won't tank the season.
The Skins will be mid to late 1st round like this year.
The Skins will not have enough to reach for Luck.

Besides, everyone here is talking about reaching for him and have not stopped to think other teams might be doing the same thing in next yrs draft. On top of that you don't think his old college coach, the new HC of the 49ers won't make a run for him next yr also. Thats his boy. I'm betting he didn't come out this year because he's hoping the 49ers will be in a better position to get him next yr.

Then there is the fact he will have a new HC at his college and probably new scheme. Luck might not have a good season this year putting him low in the draft order. Like what happened to Jake Locker who was supposed to come out the year before and be the #1 guy. If that happens then we might get Luck...y. lol.

Lets just not throw all our eggs in for one said QB. Heck next yr there might be a QB better then Luck and we might want him instead.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=SBXVII;802008]The Skins won't tank the season.
[B]The Skins will be mid to late 1st round like this year.[/B]
The Skins will not have enough to reach for Luck.
[/quote]


Maybe a little earlier but not much. As I've said before we had Vinny picking players and Jim "run left" Zorn as our head coach. Despite the odds stacked against us we could only get as high as 4. Also you look at Spurrier in 2003, with an even worse version of Vinny picking players and that only got us the 5th pick.

Gibbs 2.0 at his worse got us only as high as 9. Shanahan had a similar first year and only got us as high as 10.

Unless we bring in a GM and coach who are both completely over their head I doubt we would be able to get an original pick higher then 9. Say what you want about the Redskins as Super Bowl contenders down the line, but the one thing Snyder run Redskins are not is candidates to receive the top pick in a draft.

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;801916]To start with believe it or not best QB prospect of all time really isn't that hard of a feat, so sorry for overselling that label. Of the 19 QB's drafted first overall I could only find 1 that was virtually flawless and thats Peyton Manning. Elway was close but he obviously had the whole "don't draft me Baltimore or I'll play baseball" problem. Eli was also another highly rated guy coming in but he didn't have the same level of production of his older brother.[/quote]You're operating with the benefit of hindsight.
For every so called 'flawless' prospect there is the evil twin Leaf and now it easy to say that Manning was the better prospect but lets not kid ourselves they were basically a coin flip.

Btw-Elway was a better prospect then Manning, Elway, in fact, is actually considered one of the best QB prospects ever.

[quote]However he has taken his game to a level that I have never seen or heard of for that matter.[/quote]Then imo you simply haven't been looking.
I know you don't agree but Locker is very good prospect himself, he has a better arm, he's more athletic, more of a playmaker and has a cleaner throwing motion.

And imo the main difference is that Locker chose to go to one of the worst DI programs in the nation devoid of many NFL prospects other then Locker. Luck plays/played for one of the best coaching staffs in college football on team filled with pro-talent and a great OL(NFL talents).

[quote]Even with a great line you don't see QB's throwing the ball down field in a pro style offense and still finishing with a completion percentage above 70%. That is unreal.[/quote]Scott Tolzien Wisconsin 72.9 comp% with a [I]higher[/I] ypa.
Greg McElroy 70.9 comp % also had a [I]higher[/I] ypa then Luck.

Like I was saying in my last post scheme and overall team talent matters.
Power running games with a great OL are conducive to a well protected QB, a well protected QB that can play action off a power running game is gonna have a high comp %.

Tolzien and McElroy illistrate that production is not a main factor in QB evaluation for the NFL. (Tolzien undrafted, McElroy late round draft pick)

[quote]By the way, while I do agree that Luck had a quality O-Line it still doesn't change the fact that the 3 seniors on that line in this years draft went undrafted.[/quote]C'mon we're beyond this type of discussion right?
If you can't concede that Stanford has a great OL, one of the best in college football then what can we agree upon?

[quote]STANFORD, Calif.-- Stanford's offensive line ranked as one of the best in the nation last season, allowing the second-fewest sacks in the nation and paving the way for Toby Gerhart's record-breaking running season. This year four of five starters return and they will again protect quarterback Andrew Luck and hopefully lead to big things in 2010[/quote]

Re: The Mike Shanaplan
 

This team is such a mystery at this point w/an unsettled QB situation, 12 new draft picks that all have a good chance to make the 53, and FA hasn't even started. I can understand why some media people see the team regressing this year.

Regardless of where we draft (if there is a draft in 12) I see Allen & co. making a run for one of the top QBs, including Luck. We'll have all draft picks next year + Oakland's 4th. Again, assuming there is a draft. I wouldn't rule out any moves. The new regime has shown that it can make deals that benefit the team. The McNabb trade hasn't gone well thus far, but all other deals that Allen has made have brought good value to the team.