Redskins Sign Grossman

[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.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

That does seem to be happening a lot lately.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

Well the lottery is high risk high reward. But if you don't have the winning ticket, no worries just play again next week.

But for a QB taken #1 overall. Your organization will invest MILLIONS in him. And IF he does work out, you get your reward.

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.

A team can win and survive if you select a DE, DT, OL, RB, any other position on the field #1 and they end up being a bust.

But the QB position, no way. Once you are committed to this kid, thats it, you are in bed with him for the long haul.

I'm not ignoring the reward part. I just don't think it is worth the high of a risk or gamble selecting a QB that high.

Any other position that busts, and it just affects that position. But if you bust on your QB, that affects all 53 players on that roster.

I would take Suh or McCoy (DT) over Bradford/Clausen with the top pick of the draft for just the reasons I stated. if Suh or McCoy (DT) turn out to be a bust, well that is a lot better risk than if my QB is a bust.

[Audi]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.

I've asked this before. Which teams does history show (and make sure the quantity is a "substantially high number") are stuck due to picking a quarterback?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Audi

I've asked this before. Which teams does history show (and make sure the quantity is a "substantially high number") are stuck due to picking a quarterback?

thats an interesting point man. the raiders, 49ers, lions were mediocre to bad before they drafted j russell, a smith and j harrington respectively.

so, when they "busted", where did their franchise end up? mediocre to bad.

we are coming off a 4-12 season, following an 8-8 season (which ended badly).

how many times are we going to be picking 4th overall again? in another 10 years? if shanny and allen think claussen or bradford are going to be good to great (with JC = an avg qb), then i think they pull that trigger.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

thats an interesting point man. the raiders, 49ers, lions were mediocre to bad before they drafted j russell, a smith and j harrington respectively.

so, when they "busted", where did their franchise end up? mediocre to bad.

we are coming off a 4-12 season, following an 8-8 season (which ended badly).

how many times are we going to be picking 4th overall again? in another 10 years? if shanny and allen think claussen or bradford are going to be good to great (with JC = an avg qb), then i think they pull that trigger.

The Rams are going to take Bradford, so that leaves Clausen. Is he really worth the 4th overall pick in the draft? I don't think so. Bradford is clearly the more skilled passer. IMO we should try and make a deal w/ Cleveland and trade back.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

The Rams are going to take Bradford, so that leaves Clausen. Is he really worth the 4th overall pick in the draft? I don't think so. Bradford is clearly the more skilled passer. IMO we should try and make a deal w/ Cleveland and trade back.

i personally like claussen more than bradford. if shanny and allen think claussen is a good pick at 4, great. if they think okung or someone else is, great. if they think they must do whats needed to land bradford, great.

its really that simple imo.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

The Rams are going to take Bradford, so that leaves Clausen. Is he really worth the 4th overall pick in the draft? I don't think so. Bradford is clearly the more skilled passer. IMO we should try and make a deal w/ Cleveland and trade back.

If the Skins don't have a trade scenario with the Rams and they pick Bradford, are you willing to risk seeing if Clausen (whom you say is a more skilled passer) will drop to the second round? I'm betting he won't.

and honestly from what I read and hear Bradford has the most accurate arm. Next in line is McCoy even though his arm strength is significantly weaker then Bradfords.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Audi

I've asked this before. Which teams does history show (and make sure the quantity is a "substantially high number") are stuck due to picking a quarterback?

Wow, tall request but here goes. These are first round QB's:

David Klingler
Tommy Maddox
Rick Mirer
Heath Shuler (Sorry to toss that one at you)
Jim Druckenmiller
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Akili Smith
Cade McNown

[Audi]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Wow, tall request but here goes. These are first round QB's:

David Klingler
Tommy Maddox
Rick Mirer
Heath Shuler (Sorry to toss that one at you)
Jim Druckenmiller
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Akili Smith
Cade McNown

Can you tell me how these teams were held back by drafting a quarterback? For example, would the Redskins have been a perennial playoff team in the 90's had they taken someone else besides Heath Shuler within reason?

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Audi

Can you tell me how these teams were held back by drafting a quarterback? For example, would the Redskins have been a perennial playoff team in the 90's had they taken someone else besides Heath Shuler within reason?

Indeed...

such as in the early 2000s on

what'd we do with a good line?

if you can make the argument that the line is our only weakness that's fine, hell even the biggest, it arguably is.. but a line alone won't do it

either way, we'll see offensive improvements with a better line.. does it mean we have to use pick 4 on it? nope

[NYCskinfan82]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Wow, tall request but here goes. These are first round QB's:

David Klingler
Tommy Maddox
Rick Mirer
Heath Shuler (Sorry to toss that one at you)
Jim Druckenmiller
Ryan Leaf
Tim Couch
Akili Smith
Cade McNown

Good Post. QB's are held to a higher standard PERIOD. They are supposed to add at least 4 wins on their own IMO.

I'm not a fan of Rex but based on the fact he know's the system it's a good pick up.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Well the lottery is high risk high reward. But if you don't have the winning ticket, no worries just play again next week.

But for a QB taken #1 overall. Your organization will invest MILLIONS in him. And IF he does work out, you get your reward.

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.

A team can win and survive if you select a DE, DT, OL, RB, any other position on the field #1 and they end up being a bust.

But the QB position, no way. Once you are committed to this kid, thats it, you are in bed with him for the long haul.

I'm not ignoring the reward part. I just don't think it is worth the high of a risk or gamble selecting a QB that high.

Any other position that busts, and it just affects that position. But if you bust on your QB, that affects all 53 players on that roster.

I would take Suh or McCoy (DT) over Bradford/Clausen with the top pick of the draft for just the reasons I stated. if Suh or McCoy (DT) turn out to be a bust, well that is a lot better risk than if my QB is a bust.

If that is true, then to be logically consistent you must argue that the Colts were wrong to draft Manning #1 overall or the Cowboys were wrong to draft Aikman #1 overall.

To recognize the pitfalls of drafting a QB at #1 is wise. To turn it into a "don't draft a QB" dogma is foolish. The situation is more complex than your arguments allow.