Predict Who Will Be The Next Redskins QB (Not Necessarily the QB You Want)

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yes.

You would still say that if the Giants win the Super Bowl and Eli gets his second ring?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

You would still say that if the Giants win the Super Bowl and Eli gets his second ring?

What would that change? We're grading a trade that happened eight years ago.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

What would that change? We're grading a trade that happened eight years ago.

Understood. Which is why I'd question why the Giants would still be considered stupid for giving up a king's ransom for Eli, since Eli has given them two Super Bowl berths, one win and another one yet to be decided. I mean, the main thing is winning championships right?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Understood. Which is why I'd question why the Giants would still be considered stupid for giving up a king's ransom for Eli, since Eli has given them two Super Bowl berths, one win and another one yet to be decided. I mean, the main thing is winning championships right?

The main thing in evaluating a trade is winning championships? If you say so.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The main thing in evaluating a trade is winning championships? If you say so.

I'd think that plays a big part in the argument. If you give up a lot of high picks for a quarterback, I think an adequate return on investment would be at least a decade of quarterback stability and recurring trips to the playoffs, as well as 2+ SB trips. Eli has mostly given them that. Now, granted, he hasn't played at an elite level all these years, but he has played like an elite qb this year and this is his second trip to the SB. I don't think he's HOF worthy but I'd say his return on investment has been worth it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by mooby

I'd think that plays a big part in the argument. If you give up a lot of high picks for a quarterback, I think an adequate return on investment would be at least a decade of quarterback stability and recurring trips to the playoffs, as well as 2+ SB trips. Eli has mostly given them that. Now, granted, he hasn't played at an elite level all these years, but he has played like an elite qb this year and this is his second trip to the SB. I don't think he's HOF worthy but I'd say his return on investment has been worth it.

Well, I think that's an adequate answer to the question "Eli Manning as Giants QB: success or failure?"

And I wouldn't argue otherwise. But what I am saying is if you're going to try to support the idea that trading up for a quarterback can be smart (which I think is sometimes the case, othertimes not), the 2004 SD-NYG trade is not a good example. That was a pretty decisive San Diego win. And you don't really have to look too much further past the career paths of Manning/Rivers/Roethlisberger to prove that.

The truth is that a lot of times, trading up into the top ten for a quarterback hasn't worked. It didn't make Mark Sanchez a better player, it didn't really work for the Falcons with Vick, and the Jags trade to land Gabbert looks questionable at this point.

On the other hand, Shanahan's move to get Cutler in the 2006 draft still looks pretty good right now. That wasn't the top ten, but it was the 11th pick. I think it can work if you play the market right. But if you're grading the Giants trade for Manning, it's tough to argue that they played the market right. They payed a ransom for the second or third best QB in the 2004 draft.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, I think that's an adequate answer to the question "Eli Manning as Giants QB: success or failure?"

And I wouldn't argue otherwise. But what I am saying is if you're going to try to support the idea that trading up for a quarterback can be smart (which I think is sometimes the case, othertimes not), the 2004 SD-NYG trade is not a good example. That was a pretty decisive San Diego win. And you don't really have to look too much further past the career paths of Manning/Rivers/Roethlisberger to prove that.

The truth is that a lot of times, trading up into the top ten for a quarterback hasn't worked. It didn't make Mark Sanchez a better player, it didn't really work for the Falcons with Vick, and the Jags trade to land Gabbert looks questionable at this point.

On the other hand, Shanahan's move to get Cutler in the 2006 draft still looks pretty good right now. That wasn't the top ten, but it was the 11th pick. I think it can work if you play the market right. But if you're grading the Giants trade for Manning, it's tough to argue that they played the market right. They payed a ransom for the second or third best QB in the 2004 draft.

I guess you could make the argument that if the Giants had kept Rivers, they could have had the same or better results with him as their QB. The same could be said about Big Ben, especially since he went on to win two SBs with the Steelers. I wonder if Eli would have had the same success he's had with the Giants in San Diego or Pittsburgh.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The main thing in evaluating a trade is winning championships? If you say so.

Um...yeah!? That is why they play the game.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Um...yeah!? That is why they play the game.

They play the games in April?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

They play the games in April?

You obviously don't see the point whatsoever. Try again Patrick Ramsey.