The "Inside Word" on the QB Search

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I still say:

Rams get: #6 overall pick in 2012, 2013 1st round pick, 2012 and 2013 3rd pick and 2013 5th round pick. If we have to trade.

Possible. If we like RGIII enough, that's a possibility. Rams may want one of our 2nds.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I still say:

Rams get: #6 overall pick in 2012, 2013 1st round pick, 2012 and 2013 3rd pick and 2013 5th round pick. If we have to trade.

Future franchise QB or not thats too much, or so I believe. I'd rather keep our picks, trade back for more picks, take a QB and WR in the first two rounds, pick up some OL, get a FS or two, and a CB. Maybe the team can make 7 picks turn into 14.

and offer whatever money to Flynn. I just don't get why people want to throw everything at a QB who has not played a down in the NFL, yet say Flynn might not work out. Flynn has been in the league, Flynn has played a few games, Flynn has showed he can make all the passes, move a team down the field, and score. Product of the system? he uses the same system we do. He's a match.

Whatever.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

I still say:

Rams get: #6 overall pick in 2012, 2013 1st round pick, 2012 and 2013 3rd pick and 2013 5th round pick. If we have to trade.

That's not worth moving just 4 spots I doubt we'd have to give that much

#Hail to the Redskins

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Future franchise QB or not thats too much, or so I believe. I'd rather keep our picks, trade back for more picks, take a QB and WR in the first two rounds, pick up some OL, get a FS or two, and a CB. Maybe the team can make 7 picks turn into 14.

and offer whatever money to Flynn. I just don't get why people want to throw everything at a QB who has not played a down in the NFL, yet say Flynn might not work out. Flynn has been in the league, Flynn has played a few games, Flynn has showed he can make all the passes, move a team down the field, and score. Product of the system? he uses the same system we do. He's a match.

Whatever.

Aaron Rodgers, Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, et al. maybe reason enough to take the gamble? These guys that have gone in the first round have made their offenses prolific now or most likely in the near future (Cam). I think taking the gamble is better than what we have been doing the last decade in neglecting the QB position and waiting until the next year. You see that hasn't panned out too well.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

That's not worth moving just 4 spots I doubt we'd have to give that much

#Hail to the Redskins

That's pretty much what it would amount to really, but I'm not sure Shanahan will pay it. He wasn't going to overpay for Bradford so not sure he'll do it now.


Jon Gruden - NFC East Blog - ESPN

MS: I told Jon, 'No offense, but you're not worth that much! And don't go to the place where they're giving up the two No. 1s for you.' I mean, it just handcuffs you.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

That's not worth moving just 4 spots I doubt we'd have to give that much

#Hail to the Redskins

Agreed. Plus the chance that the Rams would take RGIII is slim. If we move up, we only have to move to #3.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

That's pretty much what it would amount to really, but I'm not sure Shanahan will pay it. He wasn't going to overpay for Bradford so not sure he'll do it now.


Jon Gruden - NFC East Blog - ESPN

Good one. SF is a totally different team than the Redskins are. Hopefully I think most intellegent Skins fans know the difference. They've drafted pretty well for awhile now and have added a few good FA pieces. Yes, Carlos Rogers is one of those pieces. But hey, I'm glad he's gone. He didn't want to be here, so no problem. I'm still wondering how he can all of a sudden catch easy INT's in SF when he couldn't in DC.

MS knows this team and the value of high picks. If he likes a QB though I don't think he'd hesitate a trade.

And yes, Gruden was not worth the picks they gave up.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

Aaron Rodgers, Matt Stafford, Cam Newton, et al. maybe reason enough to take the gamble? These guys that have gone in the first round have made their offenses prolific now or most likely in the near future (Cam). I think taking the gamble is better than what we have been doing the last decade in neglecting the QB position and waiting until the next year. You see that hasn't panned out too well.

Rodgers got to wait under one of the best QB's and learn how to play. Stafford not so much, he was thrown into the fire. I wouldn't say Bradford has made his team 10x better nor would I say that about Locker.

I'll say this I think when a coach drafts a QB like Newton and expects him to play from the start he has two options: either change the players mechanics and technique or adjust your offense to the players best qualities. I think we saw that in Newton and Tebow. Andy Dalton is another and he was not a top 3 pick.

Personally I don't think it will take a ton to move up to 3rd or 4th but it all depends on if there is a bidding war say if Miami is trying to move up also or the Browns themselves. Clearly the Browns wouldn't have to give up as much to move up just 2 spots. I think if we could move up above the Browns and not toss all our future draft picks to get RGIII then lets do it. But I just think its going to be too much that the greedy teams above us are going to ask for. I'd much rather just take a QB that has not been banged up, knows the system, can make all the throws, and has somewhat proven he can play vs. an unknown.

For me:
Flynn- in FA.
1st round- trade back for more picks. take Tannehill or whoever.
2nd round- take a WR.
2nd round- trade back for more picks.

start picking up OL, FS, CB, LB.... either a late round QB or a UDFA QB to add to the mix.

[SBXVII]

SkinzWiz,

Also the reason it has not panned out is because the team has been going after old aged QB's.

McNabb
Brunell

I'd throw in Grossman and Beck but in reality they are not really aged but they aren't or shouldn't be starting QB's either. Flynn is better then Grossman and Beck. Thats a start. Plus he's still somewhat young and not banged up like McNabb and Brunell were. I'd still take a QB in the draft maybe even RGIII if it still didn't cost too much. Otherwise I'd take someone like Tannehill OR WHOEVER ELSE that fits our system to be developed.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by redsk1

Good one. SF is a totally different team than the Redskins are. Hopefully I think most intellegent Skins fans know the difference. They've drafted pretty well for awhile now and have added a few good FA pieces. Yes, Carlos Rogers is one of those pieces. But hey, I'm glad he's gone. He didn't want to be here, so no problem. I'm still wondering how he can all of a sudden catch easy INT's in SF when he couldn't in DC.

MS knows this team and the value of high picks. If he likes a QB though I don't think he'd hesitate a trade.

And yes, Gruden was not worth the picks they gave up.

It got them to a SB didn't it? Thats all that matters to some people. A franchise QB, a franchise HC whatever right?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by redsk1

Good one. SF is a totally different team than the Redskins are. Hopefully I think most intellegent Skins fans know the difference. They've drafted pretty well for awhile now and have added a few good FA pieces. Yes, Carlos Rogers is one of those pieces. But hey, I'm glad he's gone. He didn't want to be here, so no problem. I'm still wondering how he can all of a sudden catch easy INT's in SF when he couldn't in DC.

MS knows this team and the value of high picks. If he likes a QB though I don't think he'd hesitate a trade.

And yes, Gruden was not worth the picks they gave up.

Trading high picks for a coach is not the same as trading high picks for a player, hence Shanahan's oft-quoted comments. If you trade for a coach, you strip him of draft picks, but if you trade for a player you still get a player.

Shanahan's comments about the Gruden hire are not relevant to a discussion about a trade-up for a player.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Trading high picks for a coach is not the same as trading high picks for a player, hence Shanahan's oft-quoted comments. If you trade for a coach, you strip him of draft picks, but if you trade for a player you still get a player.

Shanahan's comments about the Gruden hire are not relevant to a discussion about a trade-up for a player.

I think you need to reread the interview. He used the Jon Gruden trade as a comparison to trading up to the No. 1 for 3 first rounders. I think he's telling you that he doesn't think it's worth it be it a coach or a player.

I followed up with a question about the reports and speculation that it could take three No. 1 picks to trade up to the No. 1 spot and take Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck and asked if he considered that realistic or sensible. He responded with a comparison to the 2002 deal in which the Oakland Raiders got two first-round picks, two second-round picks and cash from the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in exchange for head coach Jon Gruden.

[redsk1]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

It got them to a SB didn't it? Thats all that matters to some people. A franchise QB, a franchise HC whatever right?

Can't argue too much w/ a SB. It was Tony Dungy's team though, but JG I guess got the ring. It'

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I think you need to reread the interview. He used the Jon Gruden trade as a comparison to trading up to the No. 1 for 3 first rounders. I think he's telling you that he doesn't think it's worth it be it a coach or a player.

In Shanahan's own logic trading picks for coaches is not the same as trading for players. You really don't expect Shanny to say, "We'd love to trade for Luck," do you?

Shanny traded up for Cutler so we know he is not against trade ups in principle.

[skinsfaninok]

Don't be so fast to rule out MIN as a suitor for RG3, Remember Ponder was benched a couple times for Webb.. Unlikely but JS


Mock Drafts Central

Horrible mock for the skins