Somebody please try to convince me that the FO has a plan.

[The Goat]

This thread is cast in a different light after the Cutler ordeal. What's got me scratching my head (still) is the lack of discussion by the FO prior to Cutler about the possibility of looking for a new QB. It irks me a bit, so I'm less inclined to say yes there's a plan laid out and it contains such and such goal or whatever. As GTripp and others have delineated in convincing fashion (IMO) Cutler is not a drastic improvement over JC. He plays in a division of weak defenses and has a great offensive unit all around him...recent 1st rd talent OL and very good WR, TE and even top running game. JC has a good TE and a good running game for about half a season...big difference otherwise. So Cutler's relative success statswise ain't too mysterious. Why then did the FO seemingly fall headoverheels over this guy who'd cost the franchise an arm and a leg in picks, money, etc? It's actually harder to see a plan at this point.

[GridIron26]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This thread is cast in a different light after the Cutler ordeal. What's got me scratching my head (still) is the lack of discussion by the FO prior to Cutler about the possibility of looking for a new QB. It irks me a bit, so I'm less inclined to say yes there's a plan laid out and it contains such and such goal or whatever. As GTripp and others have delineated in convincing fashion (IMO) Cutler is not a drastic improvement over JC. He plays in a division of weak defenses and has a great offensive unit all around him...recent 1st rd talent OL and very good WR, TE and even top running game. JC has a good TE and a good running game for about half a season...big difference otherwise. So Cutler's relative success statswise ain't too mysterious. Why then did the FO seemingly fall headoverheels over this guy who'd cost the franchise an arm and a leg in picks, money, etc? It's actually harder to see a plan at this point.

Good post.. Although I believe Snyder was the one who tried to push the trade, it does not mean FO wanted same thing. Snyder is only one who can change plans anytime, and that may be bad thing.. We have been saved by other teams last two off seasons.. Let's hope that this is last one.

[Zerohero]

Forgive my ignorance, but other then "nfl sources" where is the full proof on our FO trying to trade for cutler? Is the nfl notified of every meeting between FO's.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

Forgive my ignorance, but other then "nfl sources" where is the full proof on our FO trying to trade for cutler? Is the nfl notified of every meeting between FO's.

The insiders are guys like Peter King, Chris Mortenson, or Adam Schefter that have sources close to the teams.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by The Goat

This thread is cast in a different light after the Cutler ordeal. What's got me scratching my head (still) is the lack of discussion by the FO prior to Cutler about the possibility of looking for a new QB. It irks me a bit, so I'm less inclined to say yes there's a plan laid out and it contains such and such goal or whatever. As GTripp and others have delineated in convincing fashion (IMO) Cutler is not a drastic improvement over JC. He plays in a division of weak defenses and has a great offensive unit all around him...recent 1st rd talent OL and very good WR, TE and even top running game. JC has a good TE and a good running game for about half a season...big difference otherwise. So Cutler's relative success statswise ain't too mysterious. Why then did the FO seemingly fall headoverheels over this guy who'd cost the franchise an arm and a leg in picks, money, etc? It's actually harder to see a plan at this point.

I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.

What you wrote makes a lot of sense to me. Beyond what the FO seems to think of JC, it seems that they must not be satisfied with their backup QB's either since they just brought in Byron Leftwich for a look-see. That makes me wonder if the Skins might take Sanchez at #13 if he is available. That would probably create quite an uproar around here.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.

But our front office is the only one that necessarily NEEDS to see the similarities.

Peter King says our final offer was two firsts and Campbell. As predicted, Campbell is more valued by this organization than he is by the Broncos, so the Redskins weren't really even all that close. But still, that's kind of a crazy-stupid offer for one guy, and as soon as the Broncos mentioned the words "first round pick", we should have high tailed it out of the discussion altogether.

[SmootSmack]

I think Peter King is one of the best sources out there, but I think he's misinformed here. I've heard too many just as accurate sources say we never offered a first in 2010. But then again, it could have been one of those "with certain incentives it bumps up to a 1st rounder" kind of deals.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.

I agree.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I don't think they were planning on looking at another QB but when Culter became available it changed everything. The writing was already on the wall when you consider they haven't tried to extend Campbell already. It's put up or shutup time. Alot of people out there do see Cutler as a big improvement over Campbell, not just our front office.

Well said. The Broncos traded with the Bears because they valued Kyle Orton more than Jason Campbell. Allegedly, the Broncos also valued Brady Quinn – who hasn’t done a thing – more than Jason Campbell (In our proposed three-way trade, the Browns would have sent Quinn to Denver, Cutler to Washington, and we would have sent picks all over the place. This trade is probably why we made a separate inquiry with another team about trading Campbell – because neither the Broncos nor Bears wanted him.) Consider our first rounder in 2009 is more valuable than the Bears’ and our 2010 first round pick will probably be more valuable than theirs; the Broncos essentially took less valuable draft picks because they didn’t want Campbell.

What do we learn from this?
1. The Redskins don’t think Campbell can be a franchise QB.
2. Atleast 3 other teams in need of a quarterback (Denver, Cleveland, and the mystery team to whom we shopped Campbell) don’t think Campbell can be a franchise QB.
3a. No one thinks Campbell is worth a 2nd rounder (We let it be known that we wanted to trade him for a 2nd rounder – any one interested in paying that price would have made inquiries and we would have heard something about it.)
3b. As little as this team thinks of him, Campbell is actually more valuable to them than he is to anyone else.

As you said, this is put up or shut up time for Campbell. 2009 is Campbell’s last chance to ever have a realistic shot at starting for a professional football team. If he doesn’t play good enough for the Redskins (who, ironically, over-value him) to resign him, no one else is going to look at him as anything other than a backup QB (which is probably what he’s best suited for anyways).

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Peter King says our final offer was two firsts and Campbell. As predicted, Campbell is more valued by this organization than he is by the Broncos, so the Redskins weren't really even all that close. But still, that's kind of a crazy-stupid offer for one guy, and as soon as the Broncos mentioned the words "first round pick", we should have high tailed it out of the discussion altogether.

Peter King wrote about this in his MMQB on SI.com today. He interviewed Bears GM Angelo, who historically, loves keeping his draft picks. When you look at their drafts over a 12 year period (ignoring the past 2 years), only 4 of 12 first round picks became solid starters. Only one turned in to a “franchise” player – Brian Urlacher. The only QB they drafted in the 1st round was Rex Grossman – so that shows you what type of QB you can get if you only use ONE first round pick on a guy.

IF (and please understand I’m just saying IF) the Redskins were certain that Campbell was not “the guy” and IF the Redskins were certain that Cutler was “the guy,” then two first rounders is NOTHING at all. Here’s my reasoning:

The hardest thing to find in football is a franchise QB. Nearly very year in the draft, a supposed “sure-thing” franchise QB is drafted with one of the first 5 picks. The vast majority of the time, the guy doesn’t live up to expectations… that’s why there are so few teams in the league who have a “franchise QB”

Across the league, only 50% of first round draft picks become solid starters. If you hit one year, chances are, you’re going to miss the next. Yes, it would be nice to “hit” every year, but that’s just not realistic. Statistically speaking, it takes TWO first rounder’s to get one great player anyways. So in that light, why NOT trade two first rounders for a guy who you feel is an absolute LOCK to be your franchise QB for the next 10 years?

Once a team gets a franchise QB, then everything else seems to fall in place. If you have a franchise QB, you don’t need to surround him with “stars.” Just give him good, solid players (rounds 2-4 usually work well for this) and everything else will just fall into place.

I said all that to try and understand/justify the logic of our front office in pursuing Cutler. That said, in the end, I think we lucked out by having the Bears outbid us. Campbell seems to have a fire lit under his a$$ and seems determined to prove everyone wrong. His agent told JLC that Campbell insinuated he would be a much more vocal leader in 2009. Whereas before, he never seemed to be very passionate, now he’ll be sure to let everyone know who’s in charge when he steps on the field. If Campbell does this, it may inspire his teammates to play harder as well.
Whether Campbell truly takes his game to the next level remains to be seen, but now that everything’s settled down, I feel I know one thing for certain:

Jason Campbell will be a better player in 2009 than he would have been if we hadn’t tried to acquire Cutler.

[Ruhskins]

Man, you have got to cut back on the length of your post. I feel like I'm reading a dissertation in here. LOL.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Man, you have got to cut back on the length of your post. I feel like I'm reading a dissertation in here. LOL.

Yeah but admit it u can't stop reading them...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Across the league, only 50% of first round draft picks become solid starters. If you hit one year, chances are, you’re going to miss the next. Yes, it would be nice to “hit” every year, but that’s just not realistic. Statistically speaking, it takes TWO first rounder’s to get one great player anyways. So in that light, why NOT trade two first rounders for a guy who you feel is an absolute LOCK to be your franchise QB for the next 10 years?

If the criteria is "solid starter", as defined as a player who you don't need to replace three years into his career, then 50% isn't even close to accurate. 50% seems to be about the rate at which you seem to get the player the scouts think you are getting. But observe, the rarity of the prospect who gets taken in the first round, and teams just totally miss on:

2004
20. Kenechi Udeze
22. JP Losman
23. Marcus Tubbs
25. Ahmad Carroll
27. Jason Babin
31. Rashaun Woods

2005
1. Alex Smith
7. Troy Williamson
10. Mike Williams
17. David Pollack** (freak injury)
18. Erasmus James
19. Alex Barron
26. Chris Spencer

2006
3. Vince Young
16. Jason Allen
18. Bobby Carpenter
22. Manny Lawson
26. John McCargo
31. Kelly Jennings

2007 (Small Sample Size -- not error proof)
1. JaMarcus Russell
8. Jamaal Anderson
16. Justin Harrell
17. Jarvis Moss
26. Anthony Spencer
27. Robert Meachem
30. Craig Davis

2008 (projected)
6. Vernon Gholston
8. Derrick Harvey
14. Chris Williams ** (chronic injury)
25. Mike Jenkins
29. Kentwan Balmer

This is not an exahaustive list of players who disappointed as first round picks, but it is a list of players who never gave their team positive value over replacement level. But the point is, this is only 20% of the players drafted in the last five years. Historic numbers might be closer to 50%, but since the draft went mainstream, you have an 80% chance of landing a player who can fit somewhere on your team, and not represent a weakness.

If you limit the sample to top ten picks, it gets all the way up to an 88% hit rate. Given of course, you don't want to end up with a minor contributing meathead like Reggie Williams (who counts in the 88% here) if you are picking in the top ten, but Reggie Williams did provide some value as a receiver in his five years in Jacksonville.

The 50% hit rate you mention is the rate of getting an NFL type player out of a third round pick. Third rounders in recent history have about a half-shot of never amounting to anything. But ANY team that does it's homework can get a player in the first round. Sure, if you are looking for the next Larry Fitzgerald, you aren't very likely to find him in the draft. But my best estimates show that the difference between the value of the average first round pick and an unmittigated Rashaun Woods type bust with the same pick is roughly 4-5 wins over the life of the rookie contract.

It's not quite as bad if you just trade the pick away instead of use it on a bust, but still, the point is that a first round pick is significant.

For the Bears to get value on the Cutler trade, Cutler has to remain equally effective under Center for the Bears and healthy every week for the next five years (at his current production). Basically, the Bears vastly overpaid for his services, and need a hall of fame type career to win this deal. Nothing from Cutler's first three seasons suggests to me that he's capable of being a Manning/Brady type or winning multiple Super Bowls. If he ends up doing so, tip your cap to the Bears for a profitable gamble. He's certainly young enough to be that guy.

[GTripp0012]

The other point, and I'm not disputing the hypothetical you've presented about franchise QBs, is that if Cutler has done anything in two in a half seasons to suggest that he's a sure-fire can't miss Brett Favre type who is system neutral and can turn water into wine in terms of talent around him, there's certainly nothing in any sort of record that would make one believe that.

Unless of course, you would suggest the same possibility of Campbell.

Thus, the "aura of Cutler" is born.

[Daniel Snyder]

Oh we have a plan. I have watched you Warpathers for ages now. I watched you spring for the earth like a budding tree. Different than your "ExtremeSkins" brethren, I enjoy you.

You tell me like it is. You love and hate me all at the same time.

I feel it is time to give back.

Ask away gentlemen, ask away.