Next years QB

Someone in another thread mentioned "we should do this because we have invested so much to get him"
IMO, as an organization and we need to get over what we invested to get him. That is in the past. We need to be careful not to make a big $16M decisions based what we invested in him and the past.
I understand the potential value and desire to keep his rights as long as we can just in case he has a miracle come back year in 2015.
However my fear is he plays just good enough to where we are enticed to keep him and pay him $16M, but he never plays well enough to meets that $16m value.......a la Orakpo.

I understand that...but they could have done that WITHOUT this contract and being at risk! That's why it makes no sense to do it. In the first game Suh could put him out with one hit...and the $16 million would be his. Just makes no sense.

Wrong. If Suh puts him out with a hit that sidelines him for 2015 and he fails a physical in January, then the guarantee kicks in. From what I understand it all comes down to the year end physical and if he passes it then the option is not guaranteed. If he fails then it's guaranteed. There's really minimal risk, even with his injury history.

And if he plays decent enough all year and doesnt leave his spleen on the field then its a good thing.
Who has a better crystal ball?

Whether or not it makes sense to do this all depends on your perception of the injury risk.

Important reminder that I'm going to keep saying till I'm blue in the face: this only guarantees the salary AGAINST INJURY. If he's not hurt GOING INTO 2016, then the team can cut (or trade) him and walk away from the $16M salary with no cap consequence. In other words, this only guarantees against injury, not against sucking.

So if after considering that, and you still feel it's a big risk, then you must think RGIII's chances of having an injury big enough to last from the end of 2015 into 2016 is greater than 50%.

I'd say that's crazy. Even the devastating ankle injury last year didn't span the entire course of the offseason. Even if he got hurt in week 17, it still wouldn't have. There are only a handful of injuries that could span that long, the dreaded ACL and achilles stuff. Possible, sure. Greater than 50%? If you think so you're a panicky little risk-averse schmuck.

Do some cost-benefit thinking once in a while, tools.

What happened to "in Scott we trust" ... Man people flip like light switches lol.
I'm passed the point of caring anymore lol, it is what it is, I don't run or have any involvement with the team, so, so be it, let them do what they may, can't wait for the draft and season to begin! I will always be die hard, but I'm tired of giving the front office my attention or energy, hey, hope it works out for them and us.

This just screams of Snyder being the same old Snyder. It makes no sense at all to do this. What is one positive thing that comes from this as an organization? All it does is benefit RGIII. I'd be really surprised if Scot Mc was ok with this because my gut feeling is that Snyder went to him and said..."I am going to pick up the option on RGIII. Period. Now go announce it."

Wrong, it gives the Redskins options. It also puts Griffin on a short leash. If he isn't learning, you pull him, and say your goodbye's at the end of the year. If we don't know by the bye that he's the guy, you pull him, and he's done here. If the light goes on, and he gets it, then we get him for 3million less than franchise tag price and have leverage to negotiate a long term contract. If you are too worried about his injury risk, you have no reason to try to make him the starter this year, you should already be moving on.

Washington Redskins assume risk on RG III option -- to a point - Washington Redskins Blog - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/blog/washington-redskins/post/_/id/16928/redskins-assume-risk-on-rg-iii-option-to-a-point)

What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.

What I don't understand is the timing of this. Haven't we just significantly affected our ability to trade the #5 pick if a team is interested in trading up to get Mariota? Teams won't believe we might otherwise take him (despite our protests that it doesn't change our draft strategy), and thus if that is the motivation for someone to move up to #5, didn't we just remove that incentive? As we didn't need to make a decision on RGIII until May 3 (I believe), this doesn't make sense to me.

To be clear, I have no problem with it assuming we weren't targeting a QB with that pick anyway. But it just seems premature to have done this now.

This I agree with, unless they have all but decided that there aren't any bidders that are going to pay whatever they deemed the price to be, or they have confirmed through other sources that another team will definitely take Mariota before we could trade our pick.

The tinfoil side says this is an amazingly brilliant reverse psychology move to keep anyone from trading up in front of us, so that we can get him. By appearing to go all in with Griffin, Mariota may slide to us.

This I agree with, unless they have all but decided that there aren't any bidders that are going to pay whatever they deemed the price to be, or they have confirmed through other sources that another team will definitely take Mariota before we could trade our pick.

The tinfoil side says this is an amazingly brilliant reverse psychology move to keep anyone from trading up in front of us, so that we can get him. By appearing to go all in with Griffin, Mariota may slide to us.

That assumes you want Mariota, and I am at best agnostic about that (although I will go along with what Scot wants). I am not sure how they could have determined the dynamics for draft day to the degree needed to make the timing of the decision sensible. I a report recently that idnciated that one of the NFL draft day mega-trades (I confess I don't recall which one) wasn't even proposed until the team that initiated it was 7 minutes on the clock. I don't think it is possible to determine with any real accuracy what teams will do under the kind of pressure they feel on draft day.