And with the 6th pick in the 2012 NFL Draft, the redskins select...........

They probably got fired for botching the Manning injury thing.

Due diligence.

You don't pay a 28 mil to someone that's not gonna take a snap.
You don't leave the back-up job in the hands of Curtis Painter and Kerry Collins, knowing that Manning has a serious neck injury.
You don't fiddle around with the idea of drafting a QB knowing that it will likely piss off and spell the end of the QB that built Lucas Oil Stadium.

In a heart beat. Where do I sign up?I think that it could be a worthwhile deal. But my whole thing is it all goes back to what grade you have on Jones/Foles/Tannehill. If any one of them profiles as a high first rounder, I don't go up for either Griffin or Luck. It's a huge cost in terms of future picks.

The whole reason I put the idea out there was not because I was making a prediction on what the Redskins would do, but because I wanted to point out that going to get Robert Griffin would cost the Redskins another first round pick. If you're already going up for a quarterback, I think you might as well give away the extra picks to position oneself for Luck.

It was meant to dispel the notion that trading up for Griffin would be a good idea on grounds of it being cheaper. You can probably get Griffin by trading up to third overall. But the third overall pick and the second overall pick are going to cost about the same. If you're going up to get Griffin, positioning yourself to get Luck isn't a much more significant investment.

Both are going to cost you about a half-draft in terms of trade value.

They got rid of the Polians who wanted Manning and not Luck for a reason.

The prevailing wisdom right now is the opposite. Irsay canned them because they were prepared to move on from Manning and he wasn't on-board.

I think that it could be a worthwhile deal. But my whole thing is it all goes back to what grade you have on Jones/Foles/Tannehill. If any one of them profiles as a high first rounder, I don't go up for either Griffin or Luck. It's a huge cost in terms of future picks.

The whole reason I put the idea out there was not because I was making a prediction on what the Redskins would do, but because I wanted to point out that going to get Robert Griffin would cost the Redskins another first round pick. If you're already going up for a quarterback, I think you might as well give away the extra picks to position oneself for Luck.

It was meant to dispel the notion that trading up for Griffin would be a good idea on grounds of it being cheaper. You can probably get Griffin by trading up to third overall. But the third overall pick and the second overall pick are going to cost about the same. If you're going up to get Griffin, positioning yourself to get Luck isn't a much more significant investment.

Both are going to cost you about a half-draft in terms of trade value.

Yeah the value judgment is tough and really requires knowing the whole picture. Based on my viewing this year I like Tannehill...but maybe not for us in our current situation... and not sold on the other two being right for our system and/or how they project career-wise. I like Tannehill simply based on his "look" and the fact that he was pretty impressive for a guy who played WR until half through last season (I believe)...he can't possibly project to a top 15 pick though. I'd be shocked.

They probably got fired for botching the Manning injury thing.

Due diligence.

You don't pay a 28 mil to someone that's not gonna take a snap.
You don't leave the back-up job in the hands of Curtis Painter and Kerry Collins, knowing that Manning has a serious neck injury.
You don't fiddle around with the idea of drafting a QB knowing that it will likely piss off and spell the end of the QB that built Lucas Oil Stadium.

To me...this. The failures of that team come down to this...they went in the total tank once Manning was out. Any team built in such a manner is a house of cards. They should be shot for letting the team become so talent-poor. The perils of having a stud QB I guess...you have to pay them and it kills your talent unless you are particularly good a drafting young cheap talent to cycle in.

^he's also a huge nerd lol

Nerds win though dude...nerds always win.

The Redskins need a QB as we all know. Unless Bruce Allen executes a trade that will put the Redskins in a position to draft either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III, then the Redskins will stay put and draft the next best QB- Ryan Tannehill. The one thing I like about Tannehill is his athletic ability. He was a WR before he was a QB. He might not have the upside that Griffin and Luck has, but he's definitely an upgrade over Beck and Grossman. He just needs time to develop to the pro game.

The Redskins need a QB as we all know. Unless Bruce Allen executes a trade that will put the Redskins in a position to draft either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III, then the Redskins will stay put and draft the next best QB- Ryan Tannehill. The one thing I like about Tannehill is his athletic ability. He was a WR before he was a QB. He might not have the upside that Griffin and Luck has, but he's definitely an upgrade over Beck and Grossman. He just needs time to develop to the pro game.

Hopefully Tannehill doesn't have the personality of a WR :)

The Redskins need a QB as we all know. Unless Bruce Allen executes a trade that will put the Redskins in a position to draft either Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III, then the Redskins will stay put and draft the next best QB- Ryan Tannehill. The one thing I like about Tannehill is his athletic ability. He was a WR before he was a QB. He might not have the upside that Griffin and Luck has, but he's definitely an upgrade over Beck and Grossman. He just needs time to develop to the pro game.

If Bruce Allen somehow pulls a rabbit out of his ass and executes a trade for Andrew Luck, he would go down as one of the greatest GM's in the history of the NFL. I give up whatever is needed to get Luck.

Yeah the value judgment is tough and really requires knowing the whole picture. Based on my viewing this year I like Tannehill...but maybe not for us in our current situation... and not sold on the other two being right for our system and/or how they project career-wise. I like Tannehill simply based on his "look" and the fact that he was pretty impressive for a guy who played WR until half through last season (I believe)...he can't possibly project to a top 15 pick though. I'd be shocked.All three guys look the part of the pro quarterback. Foles and Jones throw better balls down the field than Tannehill. Maybe a lot better.

Tannehill is the only one of the bunch with athleticism that exceeds "functional." Because of that athleticism, he will be taken higher. But typically that ability to run with the football is not what makes quarterbacks great at playing quarterback.

This is just my sense of watching all three of them this year, but Tannehill is incredibly limited as a passer. I know a lot of people watch him and think about what could be when he gets to the pro level and gets to study the offense and opposing offenses on a scout team, and how good he can be. But I just don't see the ability to use the whole field and throw people open in man coverage, which makes him an awful fit here since our system is all about blowing holes open in zones and throwing a moving receiver into a void.

With that said, if we've learned anything from the last five years, it is that players with functional athleticism can move the chains by using their legs if the opponent wants to play man coverage. And Tannehill can do that. I'm not totally sold he will be able to make quick enough decisions to turn designed passing plays with progressions into successful runs: that takes a really refined instinct for pocket mechanics. I have no idea if he can do that or not. For some guys, athleticism is a huge help to their game, for other guys it is a curse. It has long been easier to predict pocket passers than dual threat guys.

Landry Jones and Ryan Tannehill have both undergone very troubling regressions down the stretch this year. In the middle of the season, they seemed to both be no-doubter first rounders. But now what? Landry Jones wasn't even able to stay on the field in high leverage situations for his college team. And Tannehill quarterbacked a team that was consistently awful playing with a lead.

That's why I liked Foles the most out of them. Sure, his team was awful. But he made every kind of throw on film, he creates space to function well, he actually had better mechanics coming from under center than from the shotgun. Foles gets caught on his first read if he's going to break open, but not unjustifiably, IMO. He likes to tight window that first read rather than move on in the progression, but that may be as much a function of playing with a bunch of receivers who can't consistently beat coverage as anything.

Foles' offense also showed the tendency to use a lot of two or three man combination routes, the same ones that Kyle Shanahan uses periodically, and he reads those progressions very well. Does that make him a one-side of the field guy? I guess. But even in the pros, they don't use two sides of the field on anything except deeper routes. And Kyle Shanahan certainly does not require a player to use two sides of the field in his progression.