Redskins Sign Grossman

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Lotus

By this reasoning, the Colts should never have selected or paid Peyton Manning.

Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

Troy Aikman comes to mind. Rivers WOULD qualify.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Thats one. Name me another. Rivers MIGHT qualify. (Still trying to figure out just who WAS the #1 pick in THAT draft!).

I bet we can easily name more #1 overall selected QB's that tanked or busted than we can name more "Peyton Mannings".

My point was simply it is a HUGE gamble taking ANY QB #1 overall. If the gamble works, great, the GM is a hero.

But more times than not, that #1 pick as a QB will not live up to what is expected of him.

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

That does seem to be happening a lot lately.

[sandtrapjack]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I have not disagreed with your point in bold above. I have simply indicated that it is limited. Taking a QB at #1 is both high risk and high reward. However, you have simply highlighted the "risk" part. You have been ignoring the "reward" part.

Well the lottery is high risk high reward. But if you don't have the winning ticket, no worries just play again next week.

But for a QB taken #1 overall. Your organization will invest MILLIONS in him. And IF he does work out, you get your reward.

But history shows there have been a substantially high number of QB's taken that high that did NOT work out. And now the organization is stuck. Owe the player millions of dollars that could be going to a more productive prospect (or 2 or 3!). And you cant trade him because his contract is so huge.

A team can win and survive if you select a DE, DT, OL, RB, any other position on the field #1 and they end up being a bust.

But the QB position, no way. Once you are committed to this kid, thats it, you are in bed with him for the long haul.

I'm not ignoring the reward part. I just don't think it is worth the high of a risk or gamble selecting a QB that high.

Any other position that busts, and it just affects that position. But if you bust on your QB, that affects all 53 players on that roster.

I would take Suh or McCoy (DT) over Bradford/Clausen with the top pick of the draft for just the reasons I stated. if Suh or McCoy (DT) turn out to be a bust, well that is a lot better risk than if my QB is a bust.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

Couldn't agree more.

So what if they trade Campbell and the #4 to St Louis? You are still stuck paying out a contract for a #1 overall pick, QB none the less who gets paid more than anyone. Take a look at past #1 overall QB taken, they get TONS of money. And if a franchise if not careful, it could set thier team back as much as 10 years. Case in point:

JaMarcus Russell
Ryan Leaf (ok he was the 2nd pick, but you see what I mean)

The #1 overall pick is scary enough to choose, but on a QB it is magnified ten-fold.

#1- Who gives a rats arse about how much he will make? There is no CAP.

#2- The Skins at like 78 mill tied up in players. We now are like 3rd cheapest I thought I read somewhere. Thats after releasing all those players.

#3- I don't see your point but how much farther back can we go then 4-12? Last in the division?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Buster

HORRIBLE TRADE FOR US!

Great deal for the Rams if they could pull off that highway robbery. This sounds like something Vinny would do.

Totally agree. We would be giving them possibly a pro bowl in a draft pick and a QB who's safe with the ball. Two starters for one. I agree. But some would lead you to believe that it's a bad deal for the Rams in regards to the whole points assigned to each draft pick.

I think if both Shanahan's want Bradford bad enough then there will or is a trade scenario already planned. The only sure spot in the draft to get the player you want is at #1.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Totally agree. We would be giving them possibly a pro bowl in a draft pick and a QB who's safe with the ball. Two starters for one. I agree. But some would lead you to believe that it's a bad deal for the Rams in regards to the whole points assigned to each draft pick.

I think if both Shanahan's want Bradford bad enough then there will or is a trade scenario already planned. The only sure spot in the draft to get the player you want is at #1.

No disrespect but it would be an absolutely horrible move to give up Campbell (or anyone else on the team with value) in order to trade up to #1 from #4.

Seeing how fiscally prudent our FO has been with the offseason deals, I just don't see it happening.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

No disrespect but it would be an absolutely horrible move to give up Campbell (or anyone else on the team with value) in order to trade up to #1 from #4.

Seeing how fiscally prudent our FO has been with the offseason deals, I just don't see it happening.

I'm not saying it's a fair deal or one I like. I'm just pointing out a few things.
#1- The only sure spot is at #1. Any spot after leaves you guessing if your pick gets taken prior to your draft spot.

#2- Giving the Rams our #4 for their #1 will not be an even trade.

#3- I'd prefer we didn't throw away 2 draft picks to move up.

#4- Because of #3 we would have to come up with a decent trade scenario.

#5- The Rams have need at QB and DL.

#6- It has been reported that the Rams owners were not happy with Spags and their season. Rumor is he's been given a second year to turn things around. Knowing this would Spags throw all his eggs in one basket for a Rookie QB? JC is not a franchise QB but he is safe with the ball and learns offenses pretty quickly. Plus when they need 2 spots they would get them both.

#7- We are not getting so it seems a lot of teams banging down our door to pick up JC or trade for him. Due to the high tender. My opinion I'd even think about giving the Rams JC, the #4 pick, and Carter. I know the love fest for Carter but he is up in age, doesn't like playing in 3-4 defenses, and we have Jarmin and now AH can be moved to DE. Carter is expendable.

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'm not saying it's a fair deal or one I like. I'm just pointing out a few things.
#1- The only sure spot is at #1. Any spot after leaves you guessing if your pick gets taken prior to your draft spot.

#2- Giving the Rams our #4 for their #1 will not be an even trade.

#3- I'd prefer we didn't throw away 2 draft picks to move up.

#4- Because of #3 we would have to come up with a decent trade scenario.

#5- The Rams have need at QB and DL.

#6- It has been reported that the Rams owners were not happy with Spags and their season. Rumor is he's been given a second year to turn things around. Knowing this would Spags throw all his eggs in one basket for a Rookie QB? JC is not a franchise QB but he is safe with the ball and learns offenses pretty quickly. Plus when they need 2 spots they would get them both.

#7- We are not getting so it seems a lot of teams banging down our door to pick up JC or trade for him. Due to the high tender. My opinion I'd even think about giving the Rams JC, the #4 pick, and Carter. I know the love fest for Carter but he is up in age, doesn't like playing in 3-4 defenses, and we have Jarmin and now AH can be moved to DE. Carter is expendable.

I am guessing that you are not high on Campbell and must be star struck by Bradford.

Your points are good ones but if we actually traded Campbell, Carter and our #4 pick for a complete uncertainty along with the #1 pick's contract, the league should step in and start running our team. That scenario is crazy.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I am guessing that you are not high on Campbell and must be star struck by Bradford.

Your points are good ones but if we actually traded Campbell, Carter and our #4 pick for a complete uncertainty along with the #1 pick's contract, the league should step in and start running our team. That scenario is crazy.

I agree, we would be giving up way too much in that scenario. I think the Grossman acquistion is a sign that JC is staying and Brennan is a goner.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Pocket$ $traight

I am guessing that you are not high on Campbell and must be star struck by Bradford.

Your points are good ones but if we actually traded Campbell, Carter and our #4 pick for a complete uncertainty along with the #1 pick's contract, the league should step in and start running our team. That scenario is crazy.

No I'm no longer high on Campbell. When we had Brunell and picked up Campbell I was excited. Hearing all the fluff I was hoping we finally had a franchise QB picked late in the first round. Hell we even moved up to get him. After 6yrs and very little improvement I'm pretty much done. Throw in whatever excuse you choose to use "It was the OL", "It was the scheme changes", "It was bad HCing." I don't care, I'm done.

He reminds me of ARE. Paid him a lot of money and he has not lived up to his contract. JC is a very good QB but will never be a franchise QB. If we keep him I'm ok with it. He's servicable. If we get some sort of draft pick for him I'm good with that also. You say I'm not high on JC, your correct, I was at first but have fallen off his bandwagon over time. I was also a Mason fan and have since fallen off his bandwagon.

Am I high on Bradford.... kinda yes. I'm more high on any QB that has more accuracy then JC. What I kept hearing was Bradford has the best accuracy, then McCoy was next but he doesn't have a strong arm for the long passes. While looking up Clausen today, which is why I posted the remarks on him, I was supprised to see he's supposed to be an accurate passer and has the arm to make all the throws. If this is so then I'd be happy with him cause I think Shanahan will check him if his ego gets too big.

Lastly, I'm more interested in QB at #4 or moving up to get which ever QB Shanahan thinks is best for his system because like others have said... this years QB draft pool is limited in talent. Probably the top 3 Bradford, Clausen, McCoy will pan out to be something early on. The rest are questionable and most likely would need time to build their skills. However at OL there is an abundance of talent. Rumor I hear is Okung is good but might not be good in a zone blocking scheme. His lateral movement is not as good as most zone blocking LT's should be. Not that he's not a great LT or should not be listed as the top prospect. It's just the zone blocking LT's are in abundance and are not projected to go in the first round.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I'm still standing by my feelings that we are going to make a trade with the Rams for either their #1 spot or letting them pick Bradford at #1 and us picking whoever they want at #4 and giving them both JC and the #4 draft pick for Bradford. Just my gut feeling.

i dont think that would necessarily be a bad deal for us - IF Shanahan is confident that Campbell can't get it done here. In that case, Campbell has no value here anyways.

[Larry Michael is Satan]

If I was a coach bringing a new system to a team, I'd sign at least one veteran player at every position who knows the system really well, for teaching/learning purposes.

[Trample the Elderly]

Wow, just saw it. Hmm I don't want to jump the gun here. My first impression is, "why?"

I'm going to fold up my arms and let this one play out.