Peyton Manning or RGIII your choice

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Key Lime, Sweet Potato, and Apple

What if he trades up for RG3 and we have a losing season?

What if he gets Manning and Tannehill and we have a losing season?

Mmmmmm pie.

Anyway, good questions. To me a journeyman QB and a developmental QB are basically going in the same direction as we did last year in terms of that position. MS' willingness to go into the season with a question mark at QB to me is a bigger risk than PM or RG3. And regardless of how it happens, if he has a losing season with a journeyman QB, I just don't see how he keeps his job.

If we trade up to get RG3, I actually expect the possibility of having a losing season. However, I feel that making this move would be heading in the right direction, especially if the team shows improvements in the offense. I think this would warrant another year of MS to see how he is able to improve a rookie QB.

If we lose with Manning, my opinion would depend on how we lost. If we have a losing season because MS/KS would not adjust their gameplan to PM, then the Shanahans should be fired. If we have a losing season b/c someone overlooked something in regards to PM's health (i.e. we sign him when he is not healthy), then that would be unexcusable and someone should get fired over that.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Mmmmmm pie.

Anyway, good questions. To me a journeyman QB and a developmental QB are basically going in the same direction as we did last year in terms of that position. MS' willingness to go into the season with a question mark at QB to me is a bigger risk than PM or RG3. And regardless of how it happens, if he has a losing season with a journeyman QB, I just don't see how he keeps his job.

If we trade up to get RG3, I actually expect the possibility of having a losing season. However, I feel that making this move would be heading in the right direction, especially if the team shows improvements in the offense. I think this would warrant another year of MS to see how he is able to improve a rookie QB.

If we lose with Manning, my opinion would depend on how we lost. If we have a losing season because MS/KS would not adjust their gameplan to PM, then the Shanahans should be fired. If we have a losing season b/c someone overlooked something in regards to PM's health (i.e. we sign him when he is not healthy), then that would be unexcusable and someone should get fired over that.

Don't see who the "developmental" guy was last year. Crompton? He was just a late addition bargain pickup. I get your point, but if the developmental guy is drafted high, i.e. 1st or 2nd round, I think (& hope) there is still some room for patience, especially if they finish the season strong and/or the developmental qb gets some time & looks good late in year.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Don't see who the "developmental" guy was last year. Crompton? He was just a late addition bargain pickup. I get your point, but if the developmental guy is drafted high, i.e. 1st or 2nd round, I think (& hope) there is still some room for patience, especially if they finish the season strong and/or the developmental qb gets some time & looks good late in year.

I just don't want a mediocre journeyman to be our best option at QB. And you are right, there was no developmental QB last year, but still I don't want some mediocre QB to be our best option (and that's what happened last year). Also, I feel that MS needs to do something that makes sense and looks promising next season, because he wasted two years on a washed up McNabb and pinning his hopes on mediocre/backups at best QBs.

[SFREDSKIN]

Neither. I say if RGIII doesn't fall to 6th, then trade down, add more picks, draft DeCastro and then Tannehill in the 2nd round plus whatever other pick we get if a trade is possible.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

To me a journeyman QB and a developmental QB are basically going in the same direction as we did last year in terms of that position. MS' willingness to go into the season with a question mark at QB to me is a bigger risk than PM or RG3. And regardless of how it happens, if he has a losing season with a journeyman QB, I just don't see how he keeps his job.

I see last year different.
Imo going with Grossman was going with a known quantity and hoping or expecting to coach him up and make him play better then his career to date would indicate.

Imo when Rex was giving the nod over Beck in a close preseason battle it represented going with a veteran known quantity instead of Beck a journeymen/developmental QB.

In essence it was a win now move as opposed to a developmental move.
It was a continuation of avoiding developing a future QB that began with not drafting a the top QB, which I completely understand, but it also manifested itself in avoiding even drafting a late round fliers like TJ Yates or Tyrod Taylor.

If we trade up to get RG3, I actually expect the possibility of having a losing season. However, I feel that making this move would be heading in the right direction, especially if the team shows improvements in the offense. I think this would warrant another year of MS to see how he is able to improve a rookie QB.

I agree.
A rookie QB is imo the only situation where Mike can have below average QB play and not get called on the carpet.

I'm personally not against the usual suspect journeyman or second chance QB via FA/trade.
But, if they're not successful right away it won't be good for Mike Shanahan because of his failures at the QB position thus far.

[GTripp0012]

The most fascinating thing is that in 2011, the only unit on the team that exceeded it's relative expectations was the passing offense. The rushing offense, rush defense, pass defense, kick, and kick return games all performed below expectation.

So I mean, what do you address? The biggest need (passing offense) is the one that performed relatively well last year. Do you just throw all resources at that one problem and hope everything else just had a down year last year? Or do you spread the resources around and hope the pass offense takes another step forward without much of a talent influx?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The most fascinating thing is that in 2011, the only unit on the team that exceeded it's relative expectations was the passing offense. The rushing offense, rush defense, pass defense, kick, and kick return games all performed below expectation.

So I mean, what do you address? The biggest need (passing offense) is the one that performed relatively well last year. Do you just throw all resources at that one problem and hope everything else just had a down year last year? Or do you spread the resources around and hope the pass offense takes another step forward without much of a talent influx?

It depends on which metric, which aspect of the passing game and what your expectations were.

For me the passing game, but particularly the QB position, performed below expectations but were below league average.
Rex was one of the worst QBs in the league and averaged an offense killing/ season killing amount of turnovers.

To my eye the only units that exceeded expectations were the running game and the OL (if only because my expectations were very low).
The running game proved to be our best offensive weapon despite the playcaller's penchant for relying on the pass more then the run.
The OL on the whole was solid in pass protection to the point where it was viable to run a 5-step drop intensive offense.
And after the injuries hit it seemed the OL improved when young depth players were inserted into the line-up.

I think there are three areas that need to be addressed with best resources available: QB, OL: (RT that could possibly play LT, OG), Safety.

* I'm not against it for a potential 'franchise' QB.
But in general I'm against trading up as rule when it cost high draft mulitple high draft picks.
However when the compensation is reasonable i.e. like Denver moving up for Cutler or Ravens moving up for Flacco etc. I'm all for it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

It depends on which metric, which aspect of the passing game and what your expectations were.

For me the passing game, but particularly the QB position, performed below expectations but were below league average.
Rex was one of the worst QBs in the league and averaged an offense killing/ season killing amount of turnovers.

To my eye the only units that exceeded expectations were the running game and the OL (if only because my expectations were very low).
The running game proved to be our best offensive weapon despite the playcaller's penchant for relying on the pass more then the run.
The OL on the whole was solid in pass protection to the point where it was viable to run a 5-step drop intensive offense.
And after the injuries hit it seemed the OL improved when young depth players were inserted into the line-up.

I think there are three areas that need to be addressed with best resources available: QB, OL: (RT that could possibly play LT, OG), Safety.

* I'm not against it for a potential 'franchise' QB.
But in general I'm against trading up as rule when it cost high draft mulitple high draft picks.
However when the compensation is reasonable i.e. like Denver moving up for Cutler or Ravens moving up for Flacco etc. I'm all for it.

To me, the Redskins kind of have to take the most premium player with a focus on offense. If they are willing to trade up, that may very well mean RG3. With Griffin and Blackmon both likely to be gone in the first four picks, its a good year to trade up. It's probably not necessary to give up your 2013 first rounder to do so, but if you're Mike Shanahan, it is easy to see why trading your 2013 first rounder is preferable to trading your 2012 second rounder. In terms of net present value there's not a huge difference between the two picks, so I mean, I think I'll live if they give up next year's first rounder to move up. It shouldn't cost too much more than that.

If they offer two first rounders to the Rams/Vikings, neither is going to say "no", they would either have a better offer from the Browns or Dolphins, or they would do that trade in a heartbeat.

And personally, I don't really care if the target is Griffin or Blackmon, as both will hopefully improve your passing offense. I have Griffin rated a lot higher than Blackmon, but if you have Blackmon rated much higher than RG3, then he's probably the one worth trading up for.

It does look like the cost of improving the passing offense in the first round would be a trade up and costing your 2013 first rounder. But you could get Trent Richardson, (perhaps) Mo Claiborne, or Reily Reiff to improve your ground game or pass defense without moving anywhere.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

If they offer two first rounders to the Rams/Vikings, neither is going to say "no", they would either have a better offer from the Browns or Dolphins, or they would do that trade in a heartbeat.

And personally, I don't really care if the target is Griffin or Blackmon, as both will hopefully improve your passing offense. I have Griffin rated a lot higher than Blackmon, but if you have Blackmon rated much higher than RG3, then he's probably the one worth trading up for.

It does look like the cost of improving the passing offense in the first round would be a trade up and costing your 2013 first rounder. But you could get Trent Richardson, (perhaps) Mo Claiborne, or Reily Reiff to improve your ground game or pass defense without moving anywhere.

I'm sure there is a school of thought in the FO that is similar to the above.

I guess I'm too trade up averse to advocate trading up for anyone other then a QB.
WRs scare the beejesus out of me and I like our receiving corps at present at have hopes for Hankerson.
I like Richardson but I don't see an Adrian Peterson when I look at him.
I also struggle with whether Kyle's playcalling will ever lend itself to 'featuring' a running back enough to reap the benefits a back like Richardson could provide over our current stable of backs.

I do agree about the compensation and I think it would be reasonable to trade up for Griffin if the cost is next years 1st as opposed to this years 2nd + another pick.
Personally I would try to trade with the Vikes in hopes of lowering the compensation.

I like the idea of staying put for Reif, I believe a sure fire way to prove every aspect of our offense is through upgrading the OL.
I'm old school in the sense because I believe 'winning' at the POA makes any scheme or any set of X's and O's better.

I already know you don't like Tannehill as much as I do but..
I would have to think that there is an element in the FO that wants to take Tannehill.

Maybe 6 is too rich for Ryan and in my heart of hearts I would like to trade down and get Tannehill and the 3rd/4th rated OT Martin or Adams.
But trading down is huge risk when you're gambling on a QB unless they have other QBs that they like later on in the draft like Weeden or Foles.

Then there is always the question of what happens to McCoy should the Browns take Griffin.
I'm probably alone in this but I think McCoy would be a really good fit in Kyle's offense and would provide an instant and meaninful upgrade to Rex and would still have a good amount of to improve before reaching his potential.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm sure there is a school of thought in the FO that is similar to the above.

I guess I'm too trade up averse to advocate trading up for anyone other then a QB.
WRs scare the beejesus out of me and I like our receiving corps at present at have hopes for Hankerson.
I like Richardson but I don't see an Adrian Peterson when I look at him.
I also struggle with whether Kyle's playcalling will ever lend itself to 'featuring' a running back enough to reap the benefits a back like Richardson could provide over our current stable of backs.

I do agree about the compensation and I think it would be reasonable to trade up for Griffin if the cost is next years 1st as opposed to this years 2nd + another pick.
Personally I would try to trade with the Vikes in hopes of lowering the compensation.

I like the idea of staying put for Reif, I believe a sure fire way to prove every aspect of our offense is through upgrading the OL.
I'm old school in the sense because I believe 'winning' at the POA makes any scheme or any set of X's and O's better.

I already know you don't like Tannehill as much as I do but..
I would have to think that there is an element in the FO that wants to take Tannehill.

Maybe 6 is too rich for Ryan and in my heart of hearts I would like to trade down and get Tannehill and the 3rd/4th rated OT Martin or Adams.
But trading down is huge risk when you're gambling on a QB unless they have other QBs that they like later on in the draft like Weeden or Foles.

Then there is always the question of what happens to McCoy should the Browns take Griffin.
I'm probably alone in this but I think McCoy would be a really good fit in Kyle's offense and would provide an instant and meaninful upgrade to Rex and would still have a good amount of to improve before reaching his potential.

I really wish someone could explain to me why Ryan Tannehill is such a favorite as a third QB in this draft. In terms of his components, he's not in the top three in any one thing (height, perhaps the exception after Osweiler), whether measured statistically or observationally. And it would seem logical, that if you break the quarterback class down into components and Tannehill comes out average or below average in most skills, that the fact that he combines all of those blah skills into one package shouldn't make a better prospect than guys (like Foles or Cousins) that do one or two things exceptionally well, but have obvious flaws in either their footwork or decision making.

It would seem that grading only on skill sets, Tannehill has absolutely nothing on Weeden or Osweiler, who are both more physically gifted quaterbacks. If grading him on the production he flashed in college, he's not Foles, he's not Cousins, and he's not 30% of Kellen Moore. I don't feel I'm being unfair to Tannehill at all by putting him solidly in the second round of a class I've already given five first round grades in. In doing so, I'm ranking him ahead of Weeden and Osweiler, who are two guys who can just do more with their arms.

I'm with you on Blackmon: he's my number one receiver in this class, but kind of like when Calvin Johnson came out and I couldn't see the separation between him and Dwayne Bowe (its more obvious now), I can't really tell you with any degree of certainty that he'll have a better career than Kendall Wright or Michael Floyd. Which is why I believe, ultimately, he isn't going to go second overall, even though the Rams need a receiver bad.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm sure there is a school of thought in the FO that is similar to the above.

I guess I'm too trade up averse to advocate trading up for anyone other then a QB.
WRs scare the beejesus out of me and I like our receiving corps at present at have hopes for Hankerson.
I like Richardson but I don't see an Adrian Peterson when I look at him.
I also struggle with whether Kyle's playcalling will ever lend itself to 'featuring' a running back enough to reap the benefits a back like Richardson could provide over our current stable of backs.

I do agree about the compensation and I think it would be reasonable to trade up for Griffin if the cost is next years 1st as opposed to this years 2nd + another pick.
Personally I would try to trade with the Vikes in hopes of lowering the compensation.

I like the idea of staying put for Reif, I believe a sure fire way to prove every aspect of our offense is through upgrading the OL.
I'm old school in the sense because I believe 'winning' at the POA makes any scheme or any set of X's and O's better.

I already know you don't like Tannehill as much as I do but..
I would have to think that there is an element in the FO that wants to take Tannehill.

Maybe 6 is too rich for Ryan and in my heart of hearts I would like to trade down and get Tannehill and the 3rd/4th rated OT Martin or Adams.
But trading down is huge risk when you're gambling on a QB unless they have other QBs that they like later on in the draft like Weeden or Foles.

Then there is always the question of what happens to McCoy should the Browns take Griffin.
I'm probably alone in this but I think McCoy would be a really good fit in Kyle's offense and would provide an instant and meaninful upgrade to Rex and would still have a good amount of to improve before reaching his potential.

Well iamsrk has already told us that we're getting Colt...so I don't know what you're worried about

I still think it's not Manning, not Orton, nor Flynn that we're getting in FA. My gut says we're adding one maybe two QBs before the draft. But not those guys mentioned above