Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[Dirtbag59]

Tripp the argument about Matt Ryan was more about passing up a chance at the first tier guys and thinking you can get the same type of quality in the second round with guys like Henne.

In 2012 terms it's like saying that instead of getting RG3 you can get the same quality player with Tannehill.

RGIII is far and beyond Matt Ryan as a prospect.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Tripp the argument about Matt Ryan was more about passing up a chance at the first tier guys and thinking you can get the same type of quality in the second round with guys like Henne.

In 2012 terms it's like saying that instead of getting RG3 you can get the same quality player with Tannehill.

RGIII is far and beyond Matt Ryan as a prospect.

Understood, but I think you're doing more to prove the opposite.

Obviously the argument that first round players are better than second round players will hold for any position, as will the argument that first tier players are better than second tier players. Luck is probably a tier above Griffin. How much more is Luck worth to the Redskins than Griffin? Hard to say.

I don't think every one of Foles, Tannehill, Kellen Moore, or Kirk Cousins will make it in the NFL. I think there's a good chance that someone I gave a first round grade to in this draft washes out. Happens every year. But that doesn't mean that Tannehill or Foles isn't worth the 6th overall pick, just like it doesn't mean that Robert Griffin isn't worth the 2nd overall pick.

The big issue re: Griffin is that QB trade ups in the draft have a strong tendency to not work out in the end. Speaking only based on history, you'd be more justified in taking Tannehill at 6th overall than trading to 2nd for Griffin. That's the situation that's typically been most rewarding.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The big issue re: Griffin is that QB trade ups in the draft have a strong tendency to not work out in the end. Speaking only based on history, you'd be more justified in taking Tannehill at 6th overall than trading to 2nd for Griffin. That's the situation that's typically been most rewarding.

True that trading up is risky but I've seen two situations where teams traded up for a highly touted rare QB prospect in both Vick and Manning. Both teams saw success and the trade up was a positive for both franchises. Atlanta became relevant and New York won two Super Bowls.

I propose that any QB where you feel comfortable paying the price to trade up in the top 3 to acquire him is likely to pay off. Worse case scenario playoff appearances. Best case scenario - multiple Super Bowls

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

True that trading up is risky but I've seen two situations where teams traded up for a highly touted rare QB prospect in both Vick and Manning. Both teams saw success and the trade up was a positive for both franchises. Atlanta became relevant and New York won two Super Bowls.

I propose that any QB where you feel comfortable paying the price to trade up in the top 3 to acquire him is likely to pay off. Worse case scenario playoff appearances. Best case scenario - multiple Super Bowls

The Vick one is interesting and I wouldn't say that it unconditionally didn't work. Vick had his moments with the Falcons and they had a lot of meatheaded coaching that couldn't figure out how to make it work. Overall, though, probably closer to a failure than a success, but a lot of gray area.

But in both cases, there were better options out there. I don't think either team regrets the trade they did make, but they also didn't make the very best possible move.

To pull this forward to the Redskins current situation, if the best possible move ultimately ends up being Tannehill or Foles at 6th overall, then it doesn't really matter to me how many playoff games RG3 actually wins: you can't ever have the 'right' move back. Making the right more is far more critical than making the aggressive move.

I have no problem with a team erroring on the side of risk and aggression. But if you are choosing between getting it right and erroring on the side of aggression, I would hope you'd choose to get it right.

I don't claim to have the answer though. I just think that history would point you in the direction of best quarterback available at no. 6. I just happen to not believe that Ryan Tannehill is that guy, which admittedly makes Griffin look a lot better as an option than he probably should.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But in both cases, there were better options out there. I don't think either team regrets the trade they did make, but they also didn't make the very best possible move.

.

Explain,becuase this makes no sense.