What's your take on our coaching?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

He didn't get his QB because he hasn't been available. This past draft we would have taken Locker. I'm convinced of that. Have talked to too many people who should know who say that was the plan. But the Titans took him. And Shanahan decided his second choice (apparently Gabbert) wasn't worth as much as trading down and adding more pieces.

I'm starting to think that MS really isn't a very good personel guy. He's proven that with his track record.

[53Fan]

^ That makes perfect sense to me and I have no problem with it. We gained draft choices instead of drafting a QB just for the sake of drafting one. It makes no sense to draft a QB who the coaches don't believe will be very good.

[SmootSmack]

More likely to be able to get Bradford if the Rams are in position to get Luck than we are to get Locker from the Titans.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

More likely to be able to get Bradford if the Rams are in position to get Luck than we are to get Locker from the Titans.

I know the point you are making here, but do you think the Rams would select Luck and trade Bradford? I personally don't see it.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I know the point you are making here, but do you think the Rams would select Luck and trade Bradford? I personally don't see it.

I don't know. But if they have the first overall pick, I can't imagine them not taking Luck and I can't imagine them keeping both. But then Arizona that already has Kolb, and Jacksonville with Gabbert are in the hunt for that top spot as well so it could get really interesting

I'm 100% behind getting a QB. Having been say for months now we need not 1 but 2 new QBs. That said though, I don't think that Shanahan's decision not to take a QB just to take one is an indication that he's proven not to be a good personnel guy. I think he's ok, kind of middle of the road I suppose. You spend as long as he has doing what he does there are going to be hits and misses

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I don't know. But if they have the first overall pick, I can't imagine them not taking Luck and I can't imagine them keeping both. But then Arizona that already has Kolb, and Jacksonville with Gabbert are in the hunt for that top spot as well so it could get really interesting

I'm 100% behind getting a QB. Having been say for months now we need not 1 but 2 new QBs. That said though, I don't think that Shanahan's decision not to take a QB just to take one is an indication that he's proven not to be a good personnel guy. I think he's ok, kind of middle of the road I suppose. You spend as long as he has doing what he does there are going to be hits and misses

I wouldn't put it past Arizona or Jacksonville to select Luck even with what they've invested into the QB. Also, not sure why the Rams would even select Luck. Why not just put the spot up for the highest bidder? Bradford has at least proven he can play in the NFL, but lacks the talent around him. They've made him the face of their franchise so it would seem like a step back to select Luck and trade him.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I wouldn't put it past Arizona or Jacksonville to select Luck even with what they've invested into the QB. Also, not sure why the Rams would even select Luck. Why not just put the spot up for the highest bidder? Bradford has at least proven he can play in the NFL, but lacks the talent around him. They've made him the face of their franchise so it would seem like a step back to select Luck and trade him.

Given the new rookie wage scale, Luck will be cheaper to keep. Plus he might turn out to be better than even Bradford.

[NC_Skins]

Redskins' Kyle Shanahan fine with all his critics | John Keim | NFL | Washington Examiner


Thanks for posting this Matty. Good stuff.

Yes, even from his wife.

"She was pretty short with me," he said. "She said run the ball more."

Let his wife start play calling!!



In regards to Beck holding the ball too long.

"We did have quick throws. We just didn't get rid of them," Shanahan said. "He's got to learn to get rid of the ball."

[Sonny9TD]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

More likely to be able to get Bradford if the Rams are in position to get Luck than we are to get Locker from the Titans.

Rams would be much better off trading the pick for Luck to get many other players to help Bradford. They have a good QB. They need players to help Bradford. Not another QB. They would get more for Luck than Bradford and acquire more players. A much better option for the Rams. The Titans can be dealt with but it won't be cheap. But cheaper than Luck. The Colts would be smart to draft luck but not the Rams.

[53Fan]

IMO getting Bradford would take care of the QB position for years. Wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately I think the Colts or Dolphins get this pick. I heard some talk the other day that if Manning only wanted to play for 2 more years, the Colts could let Luck sit on the bench and learn from him. Sort of like Rodgers and Favre. BUT...if Manning wanted to play for 3-4 more years, it wouldn't make sense. It's definitely going to be interesting come draft time.

[Hog1]

Good Read on Kyle and the Buff game in the News section of the WP if you have not seen it. Nobody gets thrown under the bus but........

Redskins' Kyle Shanahan fine with all his critics | John Keim | NFL | Washington Examiner

[MTK]

Depending on who ends up with the #1 pick, I could definitely see a high demand for teams to trade up, especially with the new rookie wage scale.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Depending on who ends up with the #1 pick, I could definitely see a high demand for teams to trade up, especially with the new rookie wage scale.

HomerMcFanboy » why the redskins need andrew luck


Good article by Murf.


I could easily see it costing 2-4 first round picks for the guy.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

HomerMcFanboy » why the redskins need andrew luck


Good article by Murf.


I could easily see it costing 2-4 first round picks for the guy.

I've been saying in other threads that it will take a H. Walker type deal, which it should. I never thought of 4 1st rounders, but I think giving up 4 first rounders straight up would be a great deal.

Shanny & Allen have thus far shown they're at least decent in finding value in mid to late rounds. I have confidence that if they traded a boatload of picks away, as long as they kept a few picks they'd parlay them into more.

We're hopefully not in the suck for Luck race to the bottom, but are in the trade-up for Luck mix. btw, need a name for that, but I guess it's too early & that will come in the offseason.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

I've been saying in other threads that it will take a H. Walker type deal, which it should. I never thought of 4 1st rounders, but I think giving up 4 first rounders straight up would be a great deal.

Shanny & Allen have thus far shown they're at least decent in finding value in mid to late rounds. I have confidence that if they traded a boatload of picks away, as long as they kept a few picks they'd parlay them into more.

We're hopefully not in the suck for Luck race to the bottom, but are in the trade-up for Luck mix. btw, need a name for that, but I guess it's too early & that will come in the offseason.

2 firsts for Bradford or 4 for Luck, what do you do? Maybe our 2012 first puts us (meaning them) in a position to get Blackmon. They get Luck and Blackmon, we get Bradford and keep two firsts for the future. I'm happy with that