Redskins Potentially Interested in Trading Up For Gabbert

I think perhaps more foolish than trading up to #2 to get Gabbert is thinking that we have some distinct advantage in getting Luck by keeping our 1st rounder next year (and even adding a 2nd first rounder next year).

Luck's only in a Redskins uniform if we have the 1st overall pick next year

Yes, agreed it would be foolish to trade up. I will say if we go into 2011 w/ just Beck at QB (i think we'll resign RG and release DM though) we might stand a chance at that first pick. I think we'll be better than that but it's possible. There's just alot of holes on this team. It's going to get better but there's alot of holes to fill.

yep and I dont want to go 2-14

And that may not even do it. The division we play in will always give us a strong strength of schedule which is used as a tie breaker for the draft order. We will likely need to be a full game worse then everyone else since we likely won't win a tie breaker. That's like a 0 or 1 win season...never gonna happen. And if Luck is as good as advertised again next season then the team with the #1 pick will not even seriously entertain offers.

Agreed on Luck. No chance of getting him unless we have the #1 pick, and chances of that will be slim.

Yes, agreed it would be foolish to trade up. I will say if we go into 2011 w/ just Beck at QB (i think we'll resign RG and release DM though) we might stand a chance at that first pick. I think we'll be better than that but it's possible. There's just alot of holes on this team. It's going to get better but there's alot of holes to fill.

Think about how bad Zorn's 2nd season was and the best it got us was picking 4th. Having the worst record is almost as hard as having the best.

For those that follow college ball closely, how does Gabbert compare to Bradford as a prospect?Coming out, in a word: healthier.

He never achieved Bradford's raw efficiency as a college passer, but I know his body will hold up through a 16 game season, and Gabbert is a notch below Bradford in terms of college accuracy, but better than most college QBs.

I have Gabbert rated higher this year than I had Bradford rated last year. After a healthy rookie year, I am now confident that Bradford is going to be the better pro. But I didn't know that a year ago. The other thing in play was that last year's draft was a LOT stronger at non QB positions.

Gabbert, I think, could be the 5th best player in this draft. The elite class is Miller, Peterson, Dareus, and Green. Then, if you buy into him as a professional, Fairley is number five. Gabbert is the next guy on my board.

Yet so many were against drafting Bradford last year... so I'm going to take any opinions on Gabbert with a serious grain of salt.

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.

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.

Put another way: Matt Ryan's completion percentage in three years as a pro is exactly identical to Gabbert's in two years as the starter at Missouri.

If BG equals Ryan we need to take him at 2