2011 NFL Draft

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by scowan

So someone please explain this to me.... If there is no new CBA by next Thursday, which at this point seem highly likely, how can teams trade players for draft picks, if they want to make that happen? They can't can they? They can trade picks, but not players?

Can't trade draft picks for players but now word is spreading that you can trade next years picks at your own risk.

[MTK]

I doubt Minnesota is serious about taking a QB at #12. They're built to win now and will likely look to add a veteran QB like McNabb to make another run. And they already have a young QB to develop in Webb. Plus it's not as if Locker is our only QB target, or even our top option.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I doubt Minnesota is serious about taking a QB at #12. They're built to win now and will likely look to add a veteran QB like McNabb to make another run. And they already have a young QB to develop in Webb. Plus it's not as if Locker is our only QB target, or even our top option.

Matty is correct. I would add that Locker does not fit Minny's system the way he fits ours.

It seems unlikely that Minny would take Locker at #12.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Matty is correct. I would add that Locker does not fit Minny's system the way he fits ours.

It seems unlikely that Minny would take Locker at #12.

Well all this talk about which QB fits our system seems to hinge around which coach you are talking about. Everything I am reading lately makes it sound like Kyle likes Dalton who is more of a pocket Qb like Schaub and Mike is the one who likes the mobil type like Locker. I hope this is not true becasue I would like to think they are all 100% invested in whatever QB they end up taking.

[SmootSmack]

Just for clarity me saying maybe they'll take Locker at 14 is just my own speculation

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just for clarity me saying maybe they'll take Locker at 14 is just my own speculation

SILENCE! To much noise. Have to think. Plan for world domination unraveling.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just for clarity me saying maybe they'll take Locker at 14 is just my own speculation

I think the Shanny will take Locker at 14 if the move back happens. I dont see it at 10. I think Minnesota will give Locker very strong consideration at 12as well, I bet they have Locker in their top 3 at 12.

My personal opinion is Quinn or Locker are not very good choices at either for us.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think the Shanny will take Locker at 14 if the move back happens. I dont see it at 10. I think Minnesota will give Locker very strong consideration at 12as well, I bet they have Locker in their top 3 at 12.

My personal opinion is Quinn or Locker are not very good choices at either for us.

I don't see why they wouldn't take Locker at 10 but would be willing to take him 4 spots later at 14. If you think a guys your franchise QB you try moving back if you feel confident you can get him after the trade, but you don't pass him up when you can't find the trade you're looking for.

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Because you have the chance to mold him and coach him up in your scheme.

That seems to be the company line, or at least the whispers coming out of Redskin park. Basically McNabb had a track record of success and wasn't really looking to come in and retool his game. He might be willing to accept more coaching with his next team, but just as easily he might just ask the coaching staff to let him improvise.

Shanahan's system is suppose to be QB friendly. It's suppose to let guys get away with 58%-60% completion rates in exchange for selling play action and getting the ball down the field. For whatever reason McNabb seemed to insist on working outside the system and the mechanics the Shanahans wanted to employ and it resulted in him being benched for the last 3 games.

The theory with Locker is that he has a very similar skill set to McNabb but at the same time doesn't know the NFL and has experienced a recent fall from grace. Making him twice as likely to soak up everything the Shanahan's teach him in hopes that it will help him prove that he belongs in this league.

Hopefully that theory, if true will work out for the Skins if they decide to draft him.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I don't see why they wouldn't take Locker at 10 but would be willing to take him 4 spots later at 14. If you think a guys your franchise QB you try moving back if you feel confident you can get him after the trade, but you don't pass him up when you can't find the trade you're looking for.




That seems to be the company line, or at least the whispers coming out of Redskin park. Basically McNabb had a track record of success and wasn't really looking to come in and retool his game. He might be willing to accept more coaching with his next team, but just as easily he might just ask the coaching staff to let him improvise.

Shanahan's system is suppose to be QB friendly. It's suppose to let guys get away with 58%-60% completion rates in exchange for selling play action and getting the ball down the field. For whatever reason McNabb seemed to insist on working outside the system and the mechanics the Shanahans wanted to employ and it resulted in him being benched for the last 3 games.

The theory with Locker is that he has a very similar skill set to McNabb but at the same time doesn't know the NFL and has experienced a recent fall from grace. Making him twice as likely to soak up everything the Shanahan's teach him in hopes that it will help him prove that he belongs in this league.

Hopefully that theory, if true will work out for the Skins if they decide to draft him.

If any team is lucky enough to have a player that they think can be their Franchise QB available for them to draft at #10, then they would be very foolish not to pick him then and there. It would be utterly ridiculous, if not unthinkable, to move down four positions to pick up a third rounder and risk missing out on the player who could man the most important position on the team for the next ten years.

As for any debate between Mike vs. Kyle on which QB to pick, I feel confident that the pick will be Mike's alone since he is the boss and it's his job on the line. Kyle works for Mike, not vice versa. Their opinions are not equal. Mike will take the QB he wants whenever he picks one.

"Kyle, I'll decide which quarterback we pick! Be quiet or I'll send you to your room! I mean it!" - Mike Shanahan

[celts32]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

If any team is lucky enough to have a player that they think can be their Franchise QB available for them to draft at #10, then they would be very foolish not to pick him then and there. It would be utterly ridiculous, if not unthinkable, to move down four positions to pick up a third rounder and risk missing out on the player who could man the most important position on the team for the next ten years.

As for any debate between Mike vs. Kyle on which QB to pick, I feel confident that the pick will be Mike's alone since he is the boss and it's his job on the line. Kyle works for Mike, not vice versa. Their opinions are not equal. Mike will take the QB he wants whenever he picks one.

"Kyle, I'll decide which quarterback we pick! Be quiet or I'll send you to your room! I mean it!" - Mike Shanahan

I completely agree with your first paragraph. I made that point last week on here about not trading down if the guy you envision as your franchise QB is on the board and one person after another disagreed with me. It just makes no sense to me how you can think a guy could be your franchise QB for the next 10 years yet you roll the dice on losing him to pick up an extra draft pick.

As for Mike being the boss...that's true and no one is suggesting that he does not have the final decision but after that decision is made Kyle as OC and Mike need to be 100% behind whoever is selected. If it's Locker I don't want to hear leaks about how Kyle never wanted Locker the way we did when the McNabb trade went south during the season.

[GTripp0012]

Michael Vick completed 54% of his passes in 2000, then came out and made multiple pro bowls. I think that may be the answer. But what if we exclude Vick as part of the past generation?

(Mark Brunell, after all completed about what Jake Locker did at Washington, but in a different era. Anyway, I don't want players who played college ball in the 90s).

[NC_Skins]

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.


What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.
What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

That's an easy question to answer: it's because the younger version of McNabb was a much better player than the current version.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.


What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

If it was the much younger McNabb version I'd be very glad to have him.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.


What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

Because you have the chance to mold him and coach him up in your scheme.