Rumor from Denver

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by celts32

You make some good points and i am sure a lot of people on here agree with you. I am just looking at it from the angle of which holes are more difficult to fill in terms of finding them and ultimately training them to play. We are already a year into the Shanny regime...we simply have to have the QB this year to start grooming him. As for the many other holes on the team...we have a cleaned out cap and eventually the biggest crop of free agents ever to choose from. We can select some young players from that group and use whatever other draft picks we have also. Basically there are a lot of other ways to build a team other then with high draft picks but you will rarely if ever find a Franchise QB that way. So if in Shannys mind he can solve the QB problem with a couple of #1 picks then he should do it.

I guess I just don't get the panick mode mentality? "OMG, MS is one year removed from his 5 yr deal." "OMG, MS might not be able to complete his work unless we get a QB this yr."

I'm just baffled. MS still has 4 yrs to include this one. Get the OL and DL set and any supporting staff, use Grossman and Beck this yr, next yr 2012 throw your picks in to get Luck, and pick up a WR and RB. Then they would still have 3 yrs to develope and make a SB run. I'm sure if they do well and this team is on the right track Snyder will most likely resign MS or hire his son as HC to allow the completion of the work already done.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I guess I just don't get the panick mode mentality? "OMG, MS is one year removed from his 5 yr deal." "OMG, MS might not be able to complete his work unless we get a QB this yr."

I'm just baffled. MS still has 4 yrs to include this one. Get the OL and DL set and any supporting staff, use Grossman and Beck this yr, next yr 2012 throw your picks in to get Luck, and pick up a WR and RB. Then they would still have 3 yrs to develope and make a SB run. I'm sure if they do well and this team is on the right track Snyder will most likely resign MS or hire his son as HC to allow the completion of the work already done.

First off...if you assume no QB this year then you can consider him 2 years in with no QB. How long in your estimate will it take to get a 1st or 2nd round QB ready to play on average? 1 full year maybe 2 is probably a fair estimate. So assume we get the QB next year and then he spends year 3 and part of Shannys year 4 learning. Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.

Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work. At this point he is such a highly rated prospect that I doubt the team holding the pick will even entertain offers. Only chance of him being on the market would be if somehow a team with a young established QB somehow has a rash of injuries and ends up going 1-15. Not at all likely.

Also...I am not saying i want them to force a QB pick on a guy they don't love. All I am saying is that if there is a QB in this draft that they love...I believe they should be aggressive about getting him. I don't get why every Redskins fan would not think the same way...

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by celts32

First off...if you assume no QB this year then you can consider him 2 years in with no QB. How long in your estimate will it take to get a 1st or 2nd round QB ready to play on average? 1 full year maybe 2 is probably a fair estimate. So assume we get the QB next year and then he spends year 3 and part of Shannys year 4 learning. Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.

Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work. At this point he is such a highly rated prospect that I doubt the team holding the pick will even entertain offers. Only chance of him being on the market would be if somehow a team with a young established QB somehow has a rash of injuries and ends up going 1-15. Not at all likely.

Also...I am not saying i want them to force a QB pick on a guy they don't love. All I am saying is that if there is a QB in this draft that they love...I believe they should be aggressive about getting him. I don't get why every Redskins fan would not think the same way...

Wow, ok

1st para; It is common knowledge that it takes about 3 yrs for any new HC to get his team back to playing well and into the playoffs... thats rebuilding. Were not rebuilding. But.... if MS gets his QB in next yrs draft then they would essentially have 3 yrs to prove something. The whole team would know the offense and only the QB would have to be on the fast track or don't play him and let him sit the 1st year and learn the offense. Then MS has 2 yrs to actually play him and get to the playoffs and hopefully a SB. If after all this the team is in the SB or close then my money is on that DS resigns MS if MS is willing to keep being the HC.

2nd para; "Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work?" are you making this stuff up? Supposedly according to all the experts had Luck come out this year he would be labled the best QB of the bunch and been expected to go first. Over all the QB's in this yrs draft. Yet you seem to think Gabbert is worthy of a team moving up to take or "throwing picks at?" Ok. I'm at a loss for words almost. All I'm suggesting is the Skins should try to trade out of the #10 spot ... if feasable, and get more picks in the first two rounds or three rounds. Build up the OL and DL some more and next year when we can afford to throw away picks go after the top ranked QB. I'd still go after Dalton or Ponder this year in the second round though. Then we would have two young QB's who can hopefully step up to the occassion.

3rd para; I see what your saying. I don't agree with it but I see what your saying. I will say that I think everyone here would feel almost the same way and that is "IF" MS see's a QB that he absolutely thinks is the right QB for this scheme and will become great or can be coached to greatness then I don't think any one of us would have a problem with him going after said QB. The problem is all the QB's have some sort of issue, not a one is standing so far out there that they should be looked at, and we all know any position is a 50/50 crap shoot. Simply look at Thomas and Kelly, both rated high and expected to do well over time. Thomas looks more like a bust and Kelly can't stay healthy long enough. How about Campbell, were his issue's QB developement or a team reaching too high for him? or both.

I'll agree we have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by moving closer to the #1 pick but all I'm saying is lets do it when the team has more picks to work with vs. handicapping us further by throwing two more picks away just to get 1 player and not get any other quality players until the following year because some here would believe the only quality players are between the 1st and 4th round.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Wow, ok

1st para; It is common knowledge that it takes about 3 yrs for any new HC to get his team back to playing well and into the playoffs... thats rebuilding. Were not rebuilding. But.... if MS gets his QB in next yrs draft then they would essentially have 3 yrs to prove something. The whole team would know the offense and only the QB would have to be on the fast track or don't play him and let him sit the 1st year and learn the offense. Then MS has 2 yrs to actually play him and get to the playoffs and hopefully a SB. If after all this the team is in the SB or close then my money is on that DS resigns MS if MS is willing to keep being the HC.

2nd para; "Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work?" are you making this stuff up? Supposedly according to all the experts had Luck come out this year he would be labled the best QB of the bunch and been expected to go first. Over all the QB's in this yrs draft. Yet you seem to think Gabbert is worthy of a team moving up to take or "throwing picks at?" Ok. I'm at a loss for words almost. All I'm suggesting is the Skins should try to trade out of the #10 spot ... if feasable, and get more picks in the first two rounds or three rounds. Build up the OL and DL some more and next year when we can afford to throw away picks go after the top ranked QB. I'd still go after Dalton or Ponder this year in the second round though. Then we would have two young QB's who can hopefully step up to the occassion.

3rd para; I see what your saying. I don't agree with it but I see what your saying. I will say that I think everyone here would feel almost the same way and that is "IF" MS see's a QB that he absolutely thinks is the right QB for this scheme and will become great or can be coached to greatness then I don't think any one of us would have a problem with him going after said QB. The problem is all the QB's have some sort of issue, not a one is standing so far out there that they should be looked at, and we all know any position is a 50/50 crap shoot. Simply look at Thomas and Kelly, both rated high and expected to do well over time. Thomas looks more like a bust and Kelly can't stay healthy long enough. How about Campbell, were his issue's QB developement or a team reaching too high for him? or both.

I'll agree we have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by moving closer to the #1 pick but all I'm saying is lets do it when the team has more picks to work with vs. handicapping us further by throwing two more picks away just to get 1 player and not get any other quality players until the following year because some here would believe the only quality players are between the 1st and 4th round.

1st paragraph: What your saying makes sense...i agree that it could unfold the way you are laying it out. the logic is sound but the only potential problem is that the longer you wait on the qb the more pressurer there is to find him as each year passes.

2nd paragraph: You clearly did not read my 2nd paragraph based on your reply. I said Luck was rated very high and the team that drafts #1 would likely not entertain offers on the pick. I was simply saying that we should not bank on having a shot at Luck next year. And also i never said i like or dislike Gabbert and i never said I would trade up for him. What i said was that if Shanny has a very high grade on him i would be aggressive about moving up for him.

3rd paragraph: this is essentially all i am saying and you just said you agreed with me. The stuff you said at the end about all these qbs having this or that wrong with them...that is all irrelivant and based on what we are hearing in the media. The only evaluation of these QBs that matters is Shannahan and the the Redskins scouting department.

[MTK]

Trading up for someone like Gabbert is a horrible idea. He's not a Manning or even Bradford type of prospect. Solving the QB issue is just one piece of the puzzle.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Trading up for someone like Gabbert is a horrible idea. He's not a Manning or even Bradford type of prospect. Solving the QB issue is just one piece of the puzzle.

I agree that based on what were hearing publically these QB's are not worth that type of move up. However, how good you or I or the media think Gabbert is is not whats important. It's how good Shannahan thinks he is that matters. He probably doesn't think he's worth it, but I don't want to hear him open his mouth in May like he did last year when he said Bradford was the best QB prospect he has seen in years. I want them to take action based on what their evaluation of these QB's tells them to do. Maybe that evaluation this year should tell them to do nothing and draft defense high and pick a QB in the 5th round. but clearly last years evaluation of Bradford should have led them to trade up to the #1 pick and they decided not to for whatever reason. I don't want that to happen again...

[MTK]

I know you're a fan of getting a guy at any cost - based on Shanahan's actions last year he clearly is not.

Bradford was a good prospect, but still not a trade your future away for him type.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I know you're a fan of getting a guy at any cost - based on Shanahan's actions last year he clearly is not.

Bradford was a good prospect, but still not a trade your future away for him type.

I think based on what Shannahan said he was worth it.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by celts32

I think based on what Shannahan said he was worth it.

Must not have been worth selling the farm for, otherwise he'd be here.

[Swarley]

There is no indication that you draft a "franchise QB" and the rest just falls in place. There's a reason we didnt trade up to get Bradford. More than likely the Rams were asking for far too much to the point where it would stunt the growth of our team in other spots.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

There is no indication that you draft a "franchise QB" and the rest just falls in place. There's a reason we didnt trade up to get Bradford. More than likely the Rams were asking for far too much to the point where it would stunt the growth of our team in other spots.

The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? Great QB play covers up a lot of holes. They move the ball and keep the defense off the field...they make quick decisions with the ball that makes their OL look better then it really is...they keep the 8th man out of the box and improve the running game. The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

The reason I want them to be aggressive is because this position does not just fall to you. they are incredibly hard to find. The Redskins have been looking for a QB for most of the last 25 years.

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's. Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB. Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by celts32

The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? Great QB play covers up a lot of holes. They move the ball and keep the defense off the field...they make quick decisions with the ball that makes their OL look better then it really is...they keep the 8th man out of the box and improve the running game. The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

The reason I want them to be aggressive is because this position does not just fall to you. they are incredibly hard to find. The Redskins have been looking for a QB for most of the last 25 years.

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's. Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB. Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.

Umm, not neccessarily. Next year we will have a full complement of picks. We can throw in our 1st round pick and 2nd round pick to move up to the #1 spot and get the QB we want. No?

You would have us throw away our only two good picks plus what to move up to #2 to get Gabbert, when all I want the team to do is trade out of our #10 spot to maybe the 20's, pick up a second round 2 pick, take an OL, then take a DL or vise versa, and pick up Dalton, Ponder, or Kaepernick. Throw away 2 + picks for one player or give up one mid round pick for 2 picks? I'll take the latter.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Umm, not neccessarily. Next year we will have a full complement of picks. We can throw in our 1st round pick and 2nd round pick to move up to the #1 spot and get the QB we want. No?

You would have us throw away our only two good picks plus what to move up to #2 to get Gabbert, when all I want the team to do is trade out of our #10 spot to maybe the 20's, pick up a second round 2 pick, take an OL, then take a DL or vise versa, and pick up Dalton, Ponder, or Kaepernick. Throw away 2 + picks for one player or give up one mid round pick for 2 picks? I'll take the latter.

A 2nd round pick is not nearly enough to get up to the #1 spot. We pick 10th this year and it would cost us 1300 points to move up to #1. That is equal to at least next years #1 and this years #2.

I am not necesarily saying to trade up to get gabbert. I am saying if Shanny thinks he is a franchise QB he should do it. If he only views him as a pretty good prospect then he shouldn't.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by celts32

A 2nd round pick is not nearly enough to get up to the #1 spot. We pick 10th this year and it would cost us 1300 points to move up to #1. That is equal to at least next years #1 and this years #2.

I am not necesarily saying to trade up to get gabbert. I am saying if Shanny thinks he is a franchise QB he should do it. If he only views him as a pretty good prospect then he shouldn't.

That is what I'm talking about. For us to move up this year we would have to atleast offer our #10 pick this year and our 2nd rounder. Two picks just to get one player we like? Plus we don't have a round 3 or 4 pick. I just don't see that happening for us.

However next year, when Luck will be in the draft and he was rated higher then all the ones this year or would have been, we will have a full complement of picks. If the team wants to throw their 1st round and 2nd round draft pick at a team to get Luck or whoever is rated second best then I'm all for it. Because we will still have the 3 through 7 round picks to go after other players.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by celts32

The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? ... The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

...

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's. Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB. Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.

Well, let's look at last year's playoff teams and see how those "non-average" QB's were acquired - Had those teams made drastic moves to get to the top of the draft in order to reach up and grab QB? hmmm.....

Philly: Vick (Not Drafted By Team)
Green Bay: A. Rodgers (1st Rnd/24th pick)
Chicago: Cutler (Not Drafted By Team)
Atlanta: Ryan (1st Rnd/3rd Pick)
New Orleans: Brees (2nd Rnd/1st pick)
Seattle - Hasselback (Not Drafted By Team)
New England - Brady (6th Round)
New York Jets - Sanchez (1st Rnd/5th pick)
Indianapolis - P. Manning (1st Rnd/1st pick)
Baltimore - Flacco (1st Round/18 pick)
Pittsburg - Roethlesburger (1st Rnd/11th pick)
Kansas City - Cassell (Not Drafted By Team)

In addition, I am going to throw out a couple other teams that have been solid winners recently or are otherwise relevant to this analysis:

New York Giants: E. Manning (1st Rnd/1st Pick)
San Diego: P. Rivers (1st Rnd/4th Pick)
Dallas (bear with me folks!): T. Romo (undrafted)

First, I want to look at the “Not Drafted By Team” and "Non-First Rounder" categories:

Brady: Let’s start with the guy who wrecks the curve. Look, guys like this happen once in a blue moon. At the same time, Brady had huge advantages by coming to the Patriots. Remember, his first year they were a playoff team with Bledsoe at QB. That said, you simply can’t base your team’s future by betting that lightning will strike. BUT, if you build a solid team, when lightning does strike, that's when you have the makings of a dynasty.

Brees: New Orleans spent how much on one of the most prolific passers of recent years? Oh, that’s right. He was a free agent. On top of that, when Brees was drafted, San Diego actually traded back from taking Vick and then Brees fell into their lap in the second round after they got Tomlinson in the 1st – let’s see, trade down from a drafting highly rated QB, draft amazing RB who will take heat off rookie QB and get more picks.

Vick: Pretty unique situation. Regardless of baggage, and realizing there is a lot of back and forth on his ability to “Win the Big One”, it is pretty clear that a “Franchise QB” fell into their lap who was able to take advantage of all the draft picks spent on “supporting cast” players.

Cutler: I think you have to say the jury is still out on this one. For this analysis, not sure Chicago’s acquisition of him is relevant as he was a known commodity going to a mediocre team for a high cost. Will he be worth what Chicago gave up for him? I doubt it.

Cassell: Much like Cutler, the jury is still out on this one. He didn’t come cheap and he didn’t do much. But he is younger than Cutler. Less of a known quantity and Chiefs were in a state of transition when he was acquired. At the same time, prior to obtaining Cassel, the Chiefs had some fairly good drafts, obtaining a lot of quality young players.

Romo: Look, I don’t particularly like the guy. I certainly don’t think he is an all time elite QB like Manning or Brady. I am not even convinced he is a “short-term” elite QB like Rivers or Brees is right now. BUT, he is a solid starting QB and, w/ a good team around him, he could probably (gagging as I say this) win a SB. Again, he cost them nothing. As with us, the ‘pukes big problem is their O-Line which they ignored (like us) for years. Unlike us, they found a (quasi) starting QB and didn’t trade the farm to get him. (McNabb, Campbell)

Hasselback: umm, okay, whatever … moving on.

Okay, let’s look at those first rounders and, yes, there are a lot. But wait --- did these playoff teams spend tons of picks to get those 1st Round QB's? The Magic 8 Ball says “Very Doubtful”.

Sanchez: The Jets traded their 17th place pick, their 2nd round pick and 3 back-ups to move to the 5th spot. When they did it, they had a team that had been to the play-offs three years earlier and was 9-7 the prior year. Additionally, as it turned out, in Sanchez's rookie year, the Jets had a punishing ground attack, a fantastic O-line and a killer defense. Even so, Sanchez has not exactly lit up the world. In recent years, he is your best case scenario for trading up. I would humbly suggest, we are not nearly as good as the 2009 Jets were when they drafted him and, further, he has yet to show he can take this team to the promised land rather than be the guy who simply drives the bus.

P. Manning: You say he is the best example of a QB transforming a team. Okay. I grant you he does so. BUT - very simply, did the Colts trade to get him? Nope. He landed in their laps and they built around him. On the other hand, the same year Indi drafted Manning, San Diego spent big time draft points to move up one slot (trading two first round picks, a second round pick, and four time Pro Bowler Eric Metcalf) to move from the 3rd to the 2nd pick to grab that all-time great bust (and absolute proof of my argument against trading up) Ryan Leaf. A move that crippled their team for the near future.

Flacco: Again, a solid team builds defense and offense line through smart drafting and, when a solid QB prospect falls to them, they take him. Does anyone doubt the Ravens could win it all with Flacco?

A. Rodgers: Green Bay drafts QB’s well. They take’em where they can get them and trade’em away for picks. Yes, he had time behind Farve. But you know what? They knew Farve time was coming to an end and waited for the right opportunity. No panic mode drafting - Just keep drafting solid supporting cast and, again, when a highly rated QB falls to you, grab him.

Ryan: Solid pick. A team two years from the Michael Vick trauma and one year from the Bobby Petrino debacle. In terms of picks, he was just the right guy in the right place and it worked for them. Given the flux in Atlanta at the time of his pick, I am not sure he really adds anything to either of our positions except that you just don't know when a quality QB’s will “happen” (they were a mediocre team that had a bad year, creating the lucky break of being in the right place at the right time). In light of that, you just don’t need to go reaching for QB's.

OKAY, THAT BRINGS US TO THE 2004 DRAFT. Three QB’s all solid. One team traded up and won a SB, one team traded down and got a truly franchise QB but no SB, and one team stuck to its guns waited for a QB and has since won two SB’s, been to a third and is easily posed to win more.

The Trade DOWN -- Rivers: Yes, he was a first rounder – BUT San Diego traded down, to get him and got S. Merriman and N. Kaeding out of the deal. He hasn’t won a SB, but is there any doubt that he is an elite QB? In getting Rivers, San Diego not only got a franchise QB by trading down, they passed up the highest rated QB in the draft. Which brings us to …

The Trade UP – E. Manning: [Yes, SD drafted Manning but it was clearly a “raft and trade scenario”] Hard to knock a team that grabs a SB winning QB (but don’t worry, I will). In 2004, Eli was the top rated QB coming out of college – easily. The Giants wanted him and sold the farm to get him. As you now argue, they believed he was “the guy” and went after him. Contrary to what we have in place, however, the Giants were a solid team before he showed up. It’s not like Eli transformed the team. Yes, he threw the miracle pass - But what got that team to the SB? The Giants amazing D-Line which featured multiple draft picks from recent years. And finally ....

The Non-Trade: Roethlesburger: In the years leading up to 2004, the Steelers had won 6 (03), 10 (02) and 13 (01) games. In addition, they had Bettis and Hines Ward. Unfortunately, they had a retread XFL player at QB (Tommy Maddox). So, with several highly rated QB’s did they go chasing anyone? Nope. They had a solid team and let the QB come to them.

I WOULD CONCEDE that Eli is a solid QB. The Giants gave up a lot to get him. They did exactly what you suggest we do now. BUT - Let me ask you something, if you had your choice today – Would you take Manning, Rivers or Roethlesburger? Or, better yet and more accurately, would you take (1) Manning; (2) Roethlesburger; or (3) Rivers and Kaeding & the past 4 years of Merriman? I suggest that, in any reasonable poll, Eli is the last choice. Further, and more importantly, which of these teams are built for longer term success? Again, I think the Giants rank 3rd.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, only one team that was in the play-offs last year (the Jets) traded up to get a highly rated rookie QB and Sanchez has a long way to go (IMHO) before I would classify him as more than "the driver of the bus". The Jets often won despite Sanchez, rarely because of him.

MY POINT through all of this (yes, I get there eventually) is that the best teams in the league didn’t reach for QB’s or trade away lots of picks. They built solid teams and let the QB position come to them. The Patriots, the Steelers, Ravens, Green Bay, San Diego, New Orleans, Philadelphia all have franchise QB’s b/c they created a team where a good QB could thrive.