Redskins Sign Grossman

[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?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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?

If there was ever a year to take a chance on a QB, its not 2010. very weak QB class. most people would agree that Mark Sanchez and Matthew Stafford looked much much much better entering the NFL than either Bradford or Clausen do now.

[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.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Audi

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.

Dont forget David Carr!

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Dont forget David Carr!

He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by Buster

He's the example we need to remember now. What happens when you ignore the O-line and get the big name QB? He gets sacked 70 times a year and never recovers.

So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Audi

So they should have taken Mike Williams in 2002?

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

So the Raiders should have taken Gallery over Rivers

[Audi]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

That's a bad example for a couple of reasons.

Primarily, there was no comparable quarterback ranked that high. You don't reach.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson? We can go back and forth all day citing failures and successes.

QB is a far higher risk, that's the point.

There are also a lot more examples of highly-drafted QBs failing than succeeding, that decision has a bad track record.

[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.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

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.

As mentioned in an example before, I'd like to know what franchises have been "set back" by their choice of quarterback in the Top 4.

If the Texans did not take David Carr in 2002, would they be that much better? If the Lions did not take Joey Harrington in 2002? 49ers and Alex Smith in 2005? Raiders and JaMarcus Russell in 2007?

[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?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by 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?

guessing it was more of a grossman-shanahan deal

anderson went to pro bowl a few years ago, grossman went to superbowl a few years ago blah blah

welcome to the warpath man