Redskins Potentially Interested in Trading Up For Gabbert

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

He actually reminds me a little bit of Matt Ryan coming out. Not particularly impressive college stats but great intangibles, good mobility, and great but not elite arm strength. He might be a little more accurate then Ryan as well as people around here have been alluding to accuracy can be different from completion percentage. Main difference is Ryan played 4 years, had a season with 30 TD passes, and came out of a pro style system.

In terms of comparison to Bradford, well they match up on intangibles, though Gabberts football IQ might be slightly higher. Gabbert has perfect mechanics and as Tripp said he's much more likely to be durable. Gabbert also move around better. Still would have preferred Bradford though.

Matt Ryan is an excellent comparable. He doesn't play like Matt Ryan, at all, so if you're thinking about a quick release intermediate level passer who has a great first three years in the league, that's not Gabbert. But when you think about what Matt Ryan will be in two years, and what Gabbert will be in five years, I think you're working with roughly the same talent.

Gabbert though has to undergo almost a complete breakdown of his pocket mechanics, and won't be able to lead a team as a rookie the way Ryan did. He could be as good as Vince Young was as a rookie when he won ROY, but Matt Ryan is a good down the road projection for Gabbert, not a good expectation for him as a first year player.

[MTK]

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

Yeah that's funny because I remember when I was the driver of the Bradford bandwagon and I got reemed because "he's injury prone" or "the spread offense doesn't help him in the NFL" etc .

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

I was against getting Bradford because it would have meant trading up to get him. I also didn't think we had an offensive line to protect any QB, let alone a rookie. As talented as Bradford is I don't think he would have had the success he had in St. Louis here with us with an offensive line minus Trent Williams.

[SOUL-SKINS]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I was against getting Bradford because it would have meant trading up to get him. I also didn't think we had an offensive line to protect any QB, let alone a rookie. As talented as Bradford is I don't think he would have had the success he had in St. Louis here with us with an offensive line minus Trent Williams.

Wait you don't think he would of had the same success why? Do you really think the Rams are that much better then the Skins. Umm no. They are not. The olines are pretty equal. We have better Wr's and a better tight end. Running game no, S Jackson def helped but I think Sam would have done pretty good here

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

Wait you don't think he would of had the same success why? Do you really think the Rams are that much better then the Skins. Umm no. They are not. The olines are pretty equal. We have better Wr's and a better tight end. Running game no, S Jackson def helped but I think Sam would have done pretty good here

You think our offensive line, minus Trent Williams would have been good?

[Son Of Man]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

I'll take my lumps here. I was against taking Bradford at #4 last year (partly because I was firm on the Colt McCoy in round 2 bandwagon). Suffice it to say...my opinion may have been a tad off.

That being said. Sam Bradford passed for 50 touchdowns in his last full season in the NCAA. Gabbert passed for 16. Both operated in pass oriented systems.

Locker at #10!!!

[drew54]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

I was very against taking Bradford after the McNabb trade happened.

Before that wasted effort, I was against it mostly due to his injury, but would have accepted it, just like I came to accept the trade for McNabb.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Don't worry I wasn't expecting anyone to step up and admit they were against taking Bradford last year.

my only concern was the shoulder being he missed an entire year due to injury...I think you would find scouts agreed much more that Bradford was a legit top 5 pick and better overall QB vs Gabbert. I i remember correct Oline was the mantra last year. I do remember being much more against picking Sanchise the year earlier.

[MTK]

Funny that QB is the one position where it's generally accepted that guys are going to be over-valued. Parcells touched on this last night, where a position like RB has become almost under-valued these days.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Funny that QB is the one position where it's generally accepted that guys are going to be over-valued. Parcells touched on this last night, where a position like RB has become almost under-valued these days.

That Parcell show was freakin awesome, I just pray Shanny and our guys are as thorough as that with our scouting and prep work. Ive always liked Parcells as a person on TV, analyst, etc. But hated the damn teams he has coached.

[celts32]

I have been saying it until I am blue in the face on here...if Gabbert is the guy they think can be their franchise QB then I am all for them doing whatever they have to do to get him.

Personally I am hoping that locker is the guy they really want...but my main concern is that when the dust settles on Saturday we have secured Shannys guy.

[Son Of Man]

The term "smokescreen" comes to mind. Plus, when is JLC ever right?

[skinsfaninok]

Mostly Agents are the ones letting all this info out, so they could basically be BSn everybody

[BigHairedAristocrat]

I love all the rumors of draft week. We've been rumored to trade up to 2, trade up to 6, trade down to 14...the rumors are all over the place. i must say i will be somewhat "disappointed" if we do the smartest thing and stay at 10 and draft someone like tyron smith.

that said, i'll lose all confidence in the shanahans if we trade UP in the first round and give up our 1st rounder next year. Neither Gabbert or Locker can hold a candle to Luck, who at this point appears to be the best college QB to enter the draft in years.

In my opinion, the BEST thing the shanahan's can do for the franchise is trade WAY down in the 1st round this year, perhaps out of the 1st round alltogether, and pick up a teams 2nd this year and 2012 1st rounder. With atleast one top 10 pick in 2012 (anyone who thinks otherwise given the complete lack of talent on the our team is fooling themselves), we'll have the ammo to trade UP in next years draft to get Luck. if we use our earliest pick in this years draft on a starting offensive lineman, Luck could then come into a position where he's got a solid O-line in front of him.

THATs the only situation i can EVER see trading up early in the first round to get a QB. We have a piss-poor offensive line at the moment and no playmakers at all on offense. Why on earth would you trade up to get a QB and bring him into that situation, with the full knowledge that you'd have no means to put talent around him in the near future.