Redskins Sign Grossman

[SolidSnake84]

I would say this move signifies that they will draft a QB, because now they have a veteran backup who could run the offense until the rookie is ready to start playing....

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

I would say this move signifies that they will draft a QB, because now they have a veteran backup who could run the offense until the rookie is ready to start playing....

I'm still standing by my feelings that we are going to make a trade with the Rams for either their #1 spot or letting them pick Bradford at #1 and us picking whoever they want at #4 and giving them both JC and the #4 draft pick for Bradford. Just my gut feeling.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'm still standing by my feelings that we are going to make a trade with the Rams for either their #1 spot or letting them pick Bradford at #1 and us picking whoever they want at #4 and giving them both JC and the #4 draft pick for Bradford. Just my gut feeling.

HORRIBLE TRADE FOR US!

Great deal for the Rams if they could pull off that highway robbery. This sounds like something Vinny would do.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Buster

HORRIBLE TRADE FOR US!

Great deal for the Rams if they could pull off that highway robbery. This sounds like something Vinny would do.

Couldn't agree more.

So what if they trade Campbell and the #4 to St Louis? You are still stuck paying out a contract for a #1 overall pick, QB none the less who gets paid more than anyone. Take a look at past #1 overall QB taken, they get TONS of money. And if a franchise if not careful, it could set thier team back as much as 10 years. Case in point:

JaMarcus Russell
Ryan Leaf (ok he was the 2nd pick, but you see what I mean)

The #1 overall pick is scary enough to choose, but on a QB it is magnified ten-fold.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Couldn't agree more.

So what if they trade Campbell and the #4 to St Louis? You are still stuck paying out a contract for a #1 overall pick, QB none the less who gets paid more than anyone. Take a look at past #1 overall QB taken, they get TONS of money. And if a franchise if not careful, it could set thier team back as much as 10 years. Case in point:

JaMarcus Russell
Ryan Leaf (ok he was the 2nd pick, but you see what I mean)

The #1 overall pick is scary enough to choose, but on a QB it is magnified ten-fold.

We...agree...?



You're absolutely right.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Buster

We...agree...?



You're absolutely right.

Lol, yeah, I couldn't believe it either until I saw the breaking news that hell froze over today.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Couldn't agree more.

So what if they trade Campbell and the #4 to St Louis? You are still stuck paying out a contract for a #1 overall pick, QB none the less who gets paid more than anyone. Take a look at past #1 overall QB taken, they get TONS of money. And if a franchise if not careful, it could set thier team back as much as 10 years. Case in point:

JaMarcus Russell
Ryan Leaf (ok he was the 2nd pick, but you see what I mean)

The #1 overall pick is scary enough to choose, but on a QB it is magnified ten-fold.

By this reasoning, the Colts should never have selected or paid Peyton Manning.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by Lotus

By this reasoning, the Colts should never have selected or paid Peyton Manning.

Not really. (hate to defend a Dallas fan, but)

He was saying making a bad choice with a #1 overall pick on a QB can devastate a franchise for a long time, both on the field and wallet. He is right.

I do not think Bradford or any QB this year is such a sure thing that would merit taking #1 OR especially trading up to take #1. If we would do that, it needs to be a sure deal that he'll be an incredible pro QB (and durable).

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Buster

Not really. (hate to defend a Dallas fan, but)

He was saying making a bad choice with a #1 overall pick on a QB can devastate a franchise for a long time, both on the field and wallet. He is right.

I do not think Bradford or any QB this year is such a sure thing that would merit taking #1 OR especially trading up to take #1. If we would do that, it needs to be a sure deal that he'll be an incredible pro QB (and durable).

I don't disagree with that. But there is more to the story. The converse is that if you make a good choice with a #1 QB, you win 12+ games for the next decade (the Colts).

Many people did not think that Peyton Manning was a sure thing, either. Good thing for the Colts that they didn't listen, huh?

[Audi]

Originally Posted by Buster

Not really. (hate to defend a Dallas fan, but)

He was saying making a bad choice with a #1 overall pick on a QB can devastate a franchise for a long time, both on the field and wallet. He is right.

I do not think Bradford or any QB this year is such a sure thing that would merit taking #1 OR especially trading up to take #1. If we would do that, it needs to be a sure deal that he'll be an incredible pro QB (and durable).

I think "devastating a franchise" has more to do with the lack of QB than with the position of the pick itself. What if the 49ers didn't take Alex Smith. Then what. What if the Titans didn't take Vince Young. What if the Cardinals didn't take Matt Leinart. What if the Raiders didn't take JaMarcus Russell. What if the Browns didn't take Brady Quinn.

None of these teams are particularly worse off than if they hadn't taken a quarterback. However, trading up for one is definitely potentially devastating.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Buster

Not really. (hate to defend a Dallas fan, but)

He was saying making a bad choice with a #1 overall pick on a QB can devastate a franchise for a long time, both on the field and wallet. He is right.

I do not think Bradford or any QB this year is such a sure thing that would merit taking #1 OR especially trading up to take #1. If we would do that, it needs to be a sure deal that he'll be an incredible pro QB (and durable).

That's the correct way of thinking. When you miss on a player drafted as high as #4...espically a QB, with all the up-front payout your franchise suffers a tremendous set back..... that's why that selection requires a great deal of thought in hopes of getting it right before pulling the trigger.

[luke4twenty]

Hello, newbie here, thought I would tip my toe in on this one. Why not Derek Anderson before the Cards got him??? He is younger and has many more tools to work with, wasn't expensive, and could have actually competed with JC, and who knows, Shanny might have made him a pro bowler again. What do you think?

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Lotus

By this reasoning, the Colts should never have selected or paid Peyton Manning.

Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

Troy Aikman comes to mind. Rivers WOULD qualify.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.