Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Now, I'm confused!



BTW, Welcome Luke4:20!

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675663]Sure, but "The Hogs" weren't built on first round picks

Russ Grimm (3rd round)
Mark May (1st round)
George Starke (11th round)
Jeff Bostic (undrafted)
Joe Jacoby (undrafted)
Jim Lachey (1st round-Chargers; joined Redskins in 5th season)
Raleigh McKenzie (11th round)
R.C. Thielemann (2nd round-Falcons; joined Redskins in 8th season)
Mark Schlereth (10th round)
Ed Simmons (6th round)[/quote]

Your point is well taken Smoot, and I agree. My main point of contention concerns mainly the LT position, a position generally associated with a top draft pick because of it's importance. It's the most important position on the O-line and commands special attention.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

^ One might argue that the QB pickings this year are slim. After Bradford and Clausen, every other QB has serious red flags.

One might also argue that the tackle class this year is fairly deep. That is, one could pick up someone like Ducasse in the second round and turn him into a very reasonable LT, with seasoning time.

If these two arguments are true, then if we are to build a new offense around a new QB and new LT, drafting QB first and T second might be the best choice.

All that said, I'll dance if we come home from the draft with Okung instead of a first round QB.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Understand the backup thing, but just thought we could get a backup that had more of an upside. Younger, bigger arm, more tools. As far as the "system", Rex played one year in it...not like he is an expert. Not a JC hater or supporter...lol. Jury still out on that one, just think we should take the best player at that pick.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675711]Because at every opportunity, we need to beat to death the argument of #4 QB vs. #4LT. This is becoming the Campbell supporters vs. the Campbell haters of the offseason.[/quote]

Hate is a strong word

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675712]"When" would be the right word. This is what I get for typing too fast. Not every draft is deep in QBs going in the first round.

And second rounders are obviously expected to fail on a more frequent basis than first rounders, although what actually happens depends on the individual players.[/quote]

Your post still makes no sense.

The 2001 NFL Draft saw Michael Vick go as the #1 quarterback. Drew Brees was second at #32. The 2001 NFL Draft produced no other meaningful quarterback. How was that draft deep enough at the quarterback position that would lead you to make such a bold statement?

"Good 2nd round QBs probably come around when the QB draft class is deep."

Do you have any evidence of this?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Ruhskins;675706]I meant teams in similar situations as us in general. Coming from a losing season, having strong defenses, and trying to rebuild. And by similar I mean similar, not the same situation. Well, the Dolphins are just about the same situation as I'm advocating for, drafting a franchise LT, and then taking a 2nd QB (Henne).

[/quote]

ruhskins, im sorry to be commenting on so many of your posts today buddy.

a good counter point to the miami scenario are the falcons. who selected matt ryan then sam baker.

who would you rather have? matt ryan and sam baker or chad henne and jake long? imo i dont really look at history or what worked or didnt work for other teams. nothing is the similar enough to warrant giving much weight to comparison analysis imo.

for every manning, there is a leaf. for every chris samuels, there is a mike williams. for every brady, there is a well .... a shit ton of 6th round qbs who didnt make it.

but i think you get my point. what worked or didnt work for the dolphins or falcons in 2008 or 2007 doesnt carry much weight to me when im making my fan opinion of how the skins should proceed.

ps/edit - i thought the qb v lt debate has been one of the more intriguing ones going on the past few months.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

The whole thing is a crap shoot anyway. Take Berry at 4, a LT later, and see how JC does under Shanny.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=over the mountain;675724]ruhskins, im sorry to be commenting on so many of your posts today buddy.

a good counter point to the miami scenario are the falcons. who selected matt ryan then sam baker.

who would you rather have? matt ryan and sam baker or chad henne and jake long? imo i dont really look at history or what worked or didnt work for other teams. nothing is the similar enough to warrant giving much weight to comparison analysis imo.

for every manning, there is a leaf. for every chris samuels, there is a mike williams. for every brady, there is a well .... a shit ton of 6th round qbs who didnt make it.

but i think you get my point. what worked or didnt work for the dolphins or falcons in 2008 or 2007 doesnt carry much weight to me when im making my fan opinion of how the skins should proceed.[/quote]

I'd be thrilled if we had the Falcons scenario, of having the luxury of two first round picks. As I've said, I'm not like some folks who think it'd be the end of the world if we drafted a QB. I just look at it this way....offensive line has been hands down a big issue for the team. Whereas QB, I don't think you could find a consensus, even among the pundits. With that in mind, I think the course of action should be to draft a franchise LT.

Now, could the Redskins draft Bradford and a 2nd round LT? Sure. To me it'd be the 3rd best option after drafting a LT at #4 and trading down from #4. I think we could find a tackle at the top of the 2nd round that could potentially start for us. I just feel more confident on a top 5 tackle being able to start right away, and let a second round QB sit on the bench for a year (as oppose to having Bradford sit on the bench for year or get behind the line that we have right now).

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675705]Well with Levi Jones we technically would. We'd have Jones and Mike Williams[/quote]

But everyone say's they can't play and shouldn't even be on the team.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675700]If you agree Leinart was rated lower than Ferguson, then the argument is over. They took Ferguson because he was rated higher, not because they decided on a philosophy of LT over QB. Thanks for proving my point.[/quote]No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675738]No, that conclusion's fine.

Your initial questionnaire in post #86, however, had a different point from the one you are asserting now. It implied that the some of the franchises who drafted "bust" qbs would not have been that much better off if they drafted someone else comparably rated in post #86. All of those teams had a need for quarterback, they picked one, and their respective opportunity cost was Julius Peppers, Ronnie Bown, and Calvin Johnson.

Now your assert your point is, "Player X was rated higher than Player Y by 6 orders of magnitude and all the GMs pre-determined it to be so".

So, just what is your point?[/quote]

My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675740]My point was your example of "Ferguson vs Leinart" was invalid because it was not a decision of QB vs LT, as you yourself admitted that the Jets had Ferguson rated higher. So it's time for you to retract one of your posts.[/quote]

A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

was just listening to the fan

rocky mac was asked about grossman/brennan

rocky was like we've played against grossman, doesn't look too good on film

said he's a fan of brennan, even before he came to the skins

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;675749]A logically invalid argument means that if the premises of the argument are true, the conclusion is not necessarily true.
------------------
Now, the question I posed that started this was "So the Jets shouldn't have taken Ferguson?".

Before that, you pose a questionnaire that strongly hints at taking a QB at whatever cost if he is a highly rated prospect since you kept on asking which franchises were really set back by taking a bust QB in the first round, obviously trying to hint that it's not really a big deal drafting a bust QB, even though the opportunity costs(the highest alternative of a mutually exclusive choice forgone) were players that have had more success than the QBs(i.e Peppers, Calvin Johnson, Ronnie Brown). The premise was something like "the "attempt" was "worth it" to address the most important position on offense".

If this is the case, assuming the Jets do not have the benefit of hindsight, and the Jets execute this "script", then they would have draft Leinart.

Now, it's "pick BPA and don't reach for a QB if you don't have him rated the BPA". Well, in this case, the Jets are obviously picking Ferguson due to their draft boards.

So, which is it? Should the Jets have taken a flier on Leinart in accordance to the script hinted at by your initial questionnaire and not suffer from any really significant consequences for attempting to address QB or did they dodge a huge bullet by deciding to address OL after a 4-12 season the year prior?[/quote]

1. Buster said David Carr is a good example of taking a QB before addressing the offensive line.

2. I asked if Mike Williams should have been taken instead.

3. You brought up Ferguson.

4. I said that was a bad example because there was no comparable quarterback rated as high as Ferguson.

5. Dirtbag said Leinart was the better prospect.

6. I cite Polian's commentary as to why that is probably not true.

7. After much-ado about what Polian meant, you finally say that Leinart is rated lower than Ferguson, which confirms what I said at point #4.

That's all there is to it. I can't help if you are having a disconnect and having one of your "Brees in a deep QB class" moments.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Technically the Jets first tried to trade up for Reggie Bush before deciding on Brick over Hot Tub

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675695]Please name the few teams that have been in similar situation that had success by drafting a LT in the first round and a QB in the second round as you suggested.[/quote]2008 Dolphins, but first, why don't you name all the teams that have been in a similar situation who have had success, period.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=over the mountain;675702]yeah ruhskins, man i get what your saying but after campbell and ramsey, im kinda done picking up the scraps left on the QB table after teams with the high draft picks take the prime cuts of meat.

dont get me wrong, you can find great QBs after the first 10 picks but id rather we take an honest to goodness swing at one of the top qb prospects and not settle for the 3rd or 4th best qb available in the draft.

its just been so long since weve had a true great QB. sitting at no 4 i cant help but be enamored with the idea of taking a chance on a cream of the crop qb for once.[/quote]If the prime cuts are underclassman, you're at the wrong butcher.

I don't actually think the prime cuts of this class are underclassmen, but again, that's a valuation problem with defined arbitrage opportunities. Your argument is that 1) arbitrage opportunities don't exist in the NFL draft (at least at QB), which by extension means that 2) drafting higher is drafting smarter. Which is something I disagree with philosophically.

At least, that's what I think I'm reading in that middle paragraph, that getting a great QB after the top ten picks requires good fortune. I don't know if that's what you were trying to say, but I'd agree to an extent. The idea is to get a player in the bottom half of the first round or in the second round [B]that should have been rated in the top half of the first round[/B]. Drafting quarterbacks, at value, is one of the worst strategies that is common in the NFL draft. Quarterbacks need to be taken later than you have them rated.

And if there's no one that's rated higher on the big board than the pick suggests, there's nothing you can do to make the opportunity better. That's essentially playing with the hand you are dealt, and not moving in with whatever just because you are tired of taking down small pots.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

So long as we didn't give this chump playing time or lots of money I'm cool. I'm sure he'll make a fine practice dummy for our defense.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675753]1. Buster said David Carr is a good example of taking a QB before addressing the offensive line.

2. I asked if Mike Williams should have been taken instead.

3. You brought up Ferguson.

4. I said that was a bad example because there was no comparable quarterback rated as high as Ferguson.

5. Dirtbag said Leinart was the better prospect.

6. I cite Polian's commentary as to why that is probably not true.

7. After much-ado about what Polian meant, you finally say that Leinart is rated lower than Ferguson, which confirms what I said at point #4.

That's all there is to it. I can't help if you are having a disconnect and having one of your "Brees in a deep QB class" moments.[/quote]

Yes, Polian obviously knows what subjective probability is and you don't, i.e hypothetically, he believes the Rams have a 60% chance of taking Bradford and 40% chance of taking Suh after considering all the sources he can find. It's highly doubtful he'll be surprised if the 40% event occurs. He probably had a plan if either player were taken before he could. If they taken random scrub #01, then they'll be surprised.

Related to that is that you also continue to assume that the GMs are in consensus all the damn time even though it wouldn't make any sense to reveal all the cards to the other franchises.

Final draft order does not necessarily reflect the draft boards of each individual franchise's scouting department, it's the manifestation of individual teams' FO's making decisions on which of the top prospects who are all going to go somewhere in the first round to choose. It's highly likely some teams rated Pacman higher than Rogers and vice versa, for example.

And actually, the Texans did not have a perceived need at LT at the time because they chose Tony Boselli to be that guy in the expansion draft. Since the percecption was that they were set at LT, they took a QB. So, the "Carr was simply the BPA" premise is suspect at best. They thought they had their tackle at the time, but in actuality, they didn't.
Even so, there's no way to know how much of a gap Leinart really had with Ferguson or what other incentives were in play when weighing the BPA vs. need for the Jets. So yeah, I'll retract that the Jets clearly thought Ferguson was better than Leinart because it's damn hard to weight the BPA vs. need incentive. They chose the fix OL and see what Pennington, etc can do. Al Davis probably just didn't believe he had the ridiculous measurables he wanted, Buffalo had to see what they had in Losman, a first-rounder, and Millen believed Kitna would be the guy. I already dealt with San Fran and Green Bay earlier. Because these teams between the 4th and 10th pick didn't have a pressing incentive for drafting a QB, it's hard to judge the Leinart was soooo ZOMG worse that he fell off a cliff down to #10. 'Zona, on the other hand, did not view Warner to be nothing more than a true stopgap to hold the fort until "the future one" develops. Nothing Warner did in his stint with the Giants would hint of what would happen in the last couple of years.


Not my problem you can't frame a syllogism to save your life.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Mattyk;675133]Good backup move, not sure it tips our hand on anything really. We needed a veteran backup and he knows the system.[/quote]

The Giants got Sergie(sp) and ...I don't like it,Garcia is still out there and he is a good back up....I wish we had gotten him.I feel Grossman will want to start.....and just might.JC is as good as gone ....and it's a shame ....yes I would take him,I like Eli but Campbell can play.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Wtf?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SmootSmack;675663]Sure, but "The Hogs" weren't built on first round picks

Russ Grimm (3rd round)
Mark May (1st round)
George Starke (11th round)
Jeff Bostic (undrafted)
Joe Jacoby (undrafted)
Jim Lachey (1st round-Chargers; joined Redskins in 5th season)
Raleigh McKenzie (11th round)
R.C. Thielemann (2nd round-Falcons; joined Redskins in 8th season)
Mark Schlereth (10th round)
Ed Simmons (6th round)[/quote]

[SIZE=5][COLOR=red]Ta Daaaa. ;)[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

I don't think anyone on here is saying that every position on the o-line needs to be a first round pick. That is ridiculous. The line plays as a group and 2 #1 picks who are worthy of being #1 picks, can upgrade the line [B]tremendously[/B].

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=53Fan;675821]I don't think anyone on here is saying that every position on the o-line needs to be a first round pick. That is ridiculous. The line plays as a group and 2 #1 picks who are worthy of being #1 picks, can upgrade the line [B]tremendously[/B].[/quote]

As reasonable as you sound, you can bet people will be unhappy with how the Redskins approach "fixing" the offensive line.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=12thMan;675822]As reasonable as you sound, you can bet people will be unhappy with how the Redskins approach "fixing" the offensive line.[/quote]

Some people are unhappy not matter what you do.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

I love after a while every, almost Evert thread title bears no meaning on what's being discussed after the first three, if ur lucky, pages. Lmao

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=53Fan;675821]I don't think anyone on here is saying that every position on the o-line needs to be a first round pick. That is ridiculous. The line plays as a group and 2 #1 picks who are worthy of being #1 picks, can upgrade the line [B]tremendously[/B].[/quote]There's no where where the "add one guy, improve two dependent positions" theory holds more water than on the offensive line.

I'm not even suggesting that we need two tackles in this draft. They just need to be serious about improvement.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

Grossman? Grossman?!! I mean Rex Grossman? You might have been better off getting Gus Frerotte after all. Well one thing is for sure, Brennan is the odd man out. He had no business getting drafted in the first place.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=luke4twenty;675721]Understand the backup thing, but just thought we could get a backup that had more of an upside. Younger, bigger arm, more tools. As far as the "system", Rex played one year in it...not like he is an expert.[/quote]

+1
I figured/hoped Dan Orlovsky or maybe even John David Booty.
But, Rex will suffice maybe Dan wasn't available?

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Audi;675370]The thing is, Matt Leinart fell quite a bit, and according to Bill Polian, there are little to no surprises in the first round of the NFL draft, only to "analysts" and "fans" who know a lot less.[/quote]


I haven't read the entire post so maybe I am missing something but I think it is a little too early to assume that Leinart wasn't a good pick at 10. He has had some success and I am not going to assume he is a bust because they started a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate over him.

Leinart could still be a good QB whether he fell a few slots or not. If it wasn't for Reggie Bush fumbling, he would have been a 2 time National Champion.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SBXVII;675401]Totally agree. We would be giving them possibly a pro bowl in a draft pick and a QB who's safe with the ball. Two starters for one. I agree. But some would lead you to believe that it's a bad deal for the Rams in regards to the whole points assigned to each draft pick.

I think if both Shanahan's want Bradford bad enough then there will or is a trade scenario already planned. The only sure spot in the draft to get the player you want is at #1.[/quote]


No disrespect but it would be an absolutely horrible move to give up Campbell (or anyone else on the team with value) in order to trade up to #1 from #4.

Seeing how fiscally prudent our FO has been with the offseason deals, I just don't see it happening.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=tryfuhl;675488]let's not forget that the colts (though under different leadership) were the ones to pick jeff george in the 1st round, number 1 overall even[/quote]

Were the signs there that he was going to refuse to work?

As far as a pure passer, Jeff George was one of the best of all time. He put up video game numbers when he had Carter and Moss.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Lotus;675719]^ One might argue that the QB pickings this year are slim. After Bradford and Clausen, every other QB has serious red flags.

One might also argue that the tackle class this year is fairly deep. That is, one could pick up someone like Ducasse in the second round and turn him into a very reasonable LT, with seasoning time.

If these two arguments are true, then if we are to build a new offense around a new QB and new LT, drafting QB first and T second might be the best choice.

All that said, I'll dance if we come home from the draft with Okung instead of a first round QB.[/quote]

Too many good QBs out there to just relegate it to the top 4 as potential franchise Qbs. What are the red flags with Stull? Kafka had a pretty decent combine and did great at the Northwestern Pro day. What are the serious issues with Crompton from Tenn or Hall from BYU? The only guy that I have been touting since the end of the CFB season that I have been following in the combines that is suspect has been Canfield, whose arm was on the weak side and not accurate. Bradford and Clausen are hot but are not sure things, and if recent draft history has any bearing on this, it is that these higly touted college QBs also have a high failure rate at becoming franchise guys. The quality is there this year at QB in the draft past the top 4.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

in totally buying my "sexy rexy" jersey today

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;675840]No disrespect but it would be an absolutely horrible move to give up Campbell (or anyone else on the team with value) in order to trade up to #1 from #4.

Seeing how fiscally prudent our FO has been with the offseason deals, I just don't see it happening.[/quote]


I'm not saying it's a fair deal or one I like. I'm just pointing out a few things.
#1- The only sure spot is at #1. Any spot after leaves you guessing if your pick gets taken prior to your draft spot.

#2- Giving the Rams our #4 for their #1 will not be an even trade.

#3- I'd prefer we didn't throw away 2 draft picks to move up.

#4- Because of #3 we would have to come up with a decent trade scenario.

#5- The Rams have need at QB and DL.

#6- It has been reported that the Rams owners were not happy with Spags and their season. Rumor is he's been given a second year to turn things around. Knowing this would Spags throw all his eggs in one basket for a Rookie QB? JC is not a franchise QB but he is safe with the ball and learns offenses pretty quickly. Plus when they need 2 spots they would get them both.

#7- We are not getting so it seems a lot of teams banging down our door to pick up JC or trade for him. Due to the high tender. My opinion I'd even think about giving the Rams JC, the #4 pick, and Carter. I know the love fest for Carter but he is up in age, doesn't like playing in 3-4 defenses, and we have Jarmin and now AH can be moved to DE. Carter is expendable.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

how much is grossman getting anyway?
I cant believe the cards are paying Derek Anderson 7 million,so glad we didnt sign him

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

What I find really funny though is we have 2 pages of Rex and like 17 pages of who should we draft. LOL.

Welcome to the Skins Rex.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=SBXVII;675856]I'm not saying it's a fair deal or one I like. I'm just pointing out a few things.
#1- The only sure spot is at #1. Any spot after leaves you guessing if your pick gets taken prior to your draft spot.

#2- Giving the Rams our #4 for their #1 will not be an even trade.

#3- I'd prefer we didn't throw away 2 draft picks to move up.

#4- Because of #3 we would have to come up with a decent trade scenario.

#5- The Rams have need at QB and DL.

#6- It has been reported that the Rams owners were not happy with Spags and their season. Rumor is he's been given a second year to turn things around. Knowing this would Spags throw all his eggs in one basket for a Rookie QB? JC is not a franchise QB but he is safe with the ball and learns offenses pretty quickly. Plus when they need 2 spots they would get them both.

#7- We are not getting so it seems a lot of teams banging down our door to pick up JC or trade for him. Due to the high tender. My opinion I'd even think about giving the Rams JC, the #4 pick, and Carter. I know the love fest for Carter but he is up in age, doesn't like playing in 3-4 defenses, and we have Jarmin and now AH can be moved to DE. Carter is expendable.[/quote]

I am guessing that you are not high on Campbell and must be star struck by Bradford.

Your points are good ones but if we actually traded Campbell, Carter and our #4 pick for a complete uncertainty along with the #1 pick's contract, the league should step in and start running our team. That scenario is crazy.

Re: Redskins Sign Grossman
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;675861]I am guessing that you are not high on Campbell and must be star struck by Bradford.

Your points are good ones but if we actually traded Campbell, Carter and our #4 pick for a complete uncertainty along with the #1 pick's contract, the league should step in and start running our team. That scenario is crazy.[/quote]


I agree, we would be giving up way too much in that scenario. I think the Grossman acquistion is a sign that JC is staying and Brennan is a goner.