Next years QB

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by calia

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.

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.

[calia]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by calia

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.

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

[MTK]

Originally Posted by calia

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.

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

[calia]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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

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).

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by calia

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).

This thinking makes zero sense. Is it possible to make negative sense?

The whole reason to trade to five is because you don't think Mariota will make it past 6. And nobody will trade up to 5 unless the player they want is there when we are on the clock.

So this changes exactly nothing. Sometimes it's no more complicated than:

Jets might take Mariota at 6
We have 5
Mariota is available at 5 when we are on clock

Ergo big market for our pick.

Derp

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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

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.

[Schneed10]

Whether or not it makes sense to do this all depends on your perception of the injury risk.

Important reminder that I'm going to keep saying till I'm blue in the face: this only guarantees the salary AGAINST INJURY. If he's not hurt GOING INTO 2016, then the team can cut (or trade) him and walk away from the $16M salary with no cap consequence. In other words, this only guarantees against injury, not against sucking.

So if after considering that, and you still feel it's a big risk, then you must think RGIII's chances of having an injury big enough to last from the end of 2015 into 2016 is greater than 50%.

I'd say that's crazy. Even the devastating ankle injury last year didn't span the entire course of the offseason. Even if he got hurt in week 17, it still wouldn't have. There are only a handful of injuries that could span that long, the dreaded ACL and achilles stuff. Possible, sure. Greater than 50%? If you think so you're a panicky little risk-averse schmuck.

Do some cost-benefit thinking once in a while, tools.

[Meks]

What happened to "in Scott we trust" ... Man people flip like light switches lol.
I'm passed the point of caring anymore lol, it is what it is, I don't run or have any involvement with the team, so, so be it, let them do what they may, can't wait for the draft and season to begin! I will always be die hard, but I'm tired of giving the front office my attention or energy, hey, hope it works out for them and us.

[MTK]

Washington Redskins assume risk on RG III option -- to a point - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN

[MTK]

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.

[calia]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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.

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by calia

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.

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.

[NC_Skins]

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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.