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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The question is: do you think RGIII is better then those QB's right now? and your question is the exact question I'm trying to get you to. Why would a team trade away a franchise QB for RGIII if they already have one? they wouldn't, unless they are not franchise QB's.

So I'm "assuming" your thinking the Rams will not trade Bradford, the Vikes wouldn't see RGIII as an upgrade over Ponder, the Bucks wouldn't see RGIII as an upgrade over Freeman, and the Browns wouldn't see RGIII as an upgrade over McCoy. Right? thats essentially what your saying... those other QB's are franchise QB's and their respective teams will want them and RGIII will fall to the Redskins at #6. and all I'm saying is it aint happening. I think several fans here see RGIII as an upgrade over Bradford to include me, an upgrade over Ponder, an upgrade over Freeman easily, an upgrade over McCoy. So I'd be shocked if RGIII simply fell to #6.

Do I think those other QB's can be franchise QB's? probably if they are in the right scheme and their talents used properly along with a few yrs of developement. But in this day and age of instant gratification I see no way the 4 teams above us simply say "no, were happy with what we got and can wait for our QB to become a franchise QB if they ever do."

This is why the whole concept of a franchise quarterback is dumb. Winning organizations think in terms of percentages, points, and wins. They do not think in terms of franchise marketability of the quarterback position.

You always start by doing a film analysis of your own players. If you feel like the quarterback is limiting your offense, the only relative question is how many more estimated points would we be likely to score if you switch at that position.

So lets say that Robert Griffin's sack projection as a rookie on the Cleveland Browns is 7.73%. McCoy was sacked at a 6.5% (7.4% for his career) clip last year, so that's actually a downgrade. So then you need a certain number of air yard improvement from the QB position to offset the downgrade. You'd need to essentially project Robert Griffin to have Cam Newton's rookie year as a thrower. Then you have to consider what you are giving up to get Griffin. Can you get anything for McCoy in a trade?

These are important decisions that the Browns have to make, re: RG3. If they conclude that Greg Little is going to drop third down passes no matter who the quarterback is, and AYPA (air yards per attempt) is going to remain low when you have Little and Massaquoi as your receivers, then the problem you want to fix is not going to be fixed by Robert Griffin. How "franchisezy" he is will not factor into consideration.

The Redskins will have to do a similar analysis, though in their case, they know that they can't conclude that the status quo is viable. Still, Griffin is going to have a set value to the Redskins, and you can't go well over that value to acquire the player, otherwise, you're hurting your team.

I think the Redskins have reached the conclusion that Andrew Luck is really very valuable to them: he might be the difference in the careers of Leonard Hankerson, Fred Davis, Roy Helu, plus whoever else the Redskins might draft this year. I think they like Griffin a lot and would start him from day one if they can get him, but ultimately remember that the team who is going to get Robert Griffin is the team that overvalues him by the most.