Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Rumor from Denver

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2011, 12:30 PM   #31
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,808
Re: Rumor from Denver

Trading up for someone like Gabbert is a horrible idea. He's not a Manning or even Bradford type of prospect. Solving the QB issue is just one piece of the puzzle.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-14-2011, 12:45 PM   #32
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
Trading up for someone like Gabbert is a horrible idea. He's not a Manning or even Bradford type of prospect. Solving the QB issue is just one piece of the puzzle.
I agree that based on what were hearing publically these QB's are not worth that type of move up. However, how good you or I or the media think Gabbert is is not whats important. It's how good Shannahan thinks he is that matters. He probably doesn't think he's worth it, but I don't want to hear him open his mouth in May like he did last year when he said Bradford was the best QB prospect he has seen in years. I want them to take action based on what their evaluation of these QB's tells them to do. Maybe that evaluation this year should tell them to do nothing and draft defense high and pick a QB in the 5th round. but clearly last years evaluation of Bradford should have led them to trade up to the #1 pick and they decided not to for whatever reason. I don't want that to happen again...
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 12:51 PM   #33
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,808
Re: Rumor from Denver

I know you're a fan of getting a guy at any cost - based on Shanahan's actions last year he clearly is not.

Bradford was a good prospect, but still not a trade your future away for him type.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 12:52 PM   #34
The Starter
 
Swarley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 1,035
Re: Rumor from Denver

There is no indication that you draft a "franchise QB" and the rest just falls in place. There's a reason we didnt trade up to get Bradford. More than likely the Rams were asking for far too much to the point where it would stunt the growth of our team in other spots.
__________________
doing it all in the spirit of the salary cap!
Swarley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 12:53 PM   #35
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
I know you're a fan of getting a guy at any cost - based on Shanahan's actions last year he clearly is not.

Bradford was a good prospect, but still not a trade your future away for him type.
I think based on what Shannahan said he was worth it.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 01:03 PM   #36
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreekSkin View Post
There is no indication that you draft a "franchise QB" and the rest just falls in place. There's a reason we didnt trade up to get Bradford. More than likely the Rams were asking for far too much to the point where it would stunt the growth of our team in other spots.
The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? Great QB play covers up a lot of holes. They move the ball and keep the defense off the field...they make quick decisions with the ball that makes their OL look better then it really is...they keep the 8th man out of the box and improve the running game. The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

The reason I want them to be aggressive is because this position does not just fall to you. they are incredibly hard to find. The Redskins have been looking for a QB for most of the last 25 years.

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's. Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB. Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 01:58 PM   #37
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12 View Post
This seems like a difficult year to trade back, especially in the top 5. The uncertianty w/the cba/lack thereof makes it hard to determine just how much teams will have to pay these picks. I think we're in a much better spot to trade back than Denver.
Exactly how much of a difference in pay will it be? I know significant from the #1 pick to #10 but honestly their going to have to pay someone to perform the job. As far as the CBA goes I don't think either side had a problem with the Rookie Cap. The owners want it, the players want it because the not used money can be used for the vets on the team or keeping the vets on the team. If anything at all the players are using it as a bargining chip for something else, but I'm sure the Rookie Cap will be in place this year so teams really don't need to worry about what they will be paying the #2 spot.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:05 PM   #38
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
You make some good points and i am sure a lot of people on here agree with you. I am just looking at it from the angle of which holes are more difficult to fill in terms of finding them and ultimately training them to play. We are already a year into the Shanny regime...we simply have to have the QB this year to start grooming him. As for the many other holes on the team...we have a cleaned out cap and eventually the biggest crop of free agents ever to choose from. We can select some young players from that group and use whatever other draft picks we have also. Basically there are a lot of other ways to build a team other then with high draft picks but you will rarely if ever find a Franchise QB that way. So if in Shannys mind he can solve the QB problem with a couple of #1 picks then he should do it.
I guess I just don't get the panick mode mentality? "OMG, MS is one year removed from his 5 yr deal." "OMG, MS might not be able to complete his work unless we get a QB this yr."

I'm just baffled. MS still has 4 yrs to include this one. Get the OL and DL set and any supporting staff, use Grossman and Beck this yr, next yr 2012 throw your picks in to get Luck, and pick up a WR and RB. Then they would still have 3 yrs to develope and make a SB run. I'm sure if they do well and this team is on the right track Snyder will most likely resign MS or hire his son as HC to allow the completion of the work already done.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:16 PM   #39
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
The rest doesn't just fall in to place but look at the teams that win consistently. How many of them have average QB's? Great QB play covers up a lot of holes. They move the ball and keep the defense off the field...they make quick decisions with the ball that makes their OL look better then it really is...they keep the 8th man out of the box and improve the running game. The best example of this is the Colts who have a 4 win roster without Manning.

The reason I want them to be aggressive is because this position does not just fall to you. they are incredibly hard to find. The Redskins have been looking for a QB for most of the last 25 years.

Suppose like most fans want, the redskins improve the overall roster but ignore QB...maybe they even improve enough to win 9 or 10 games with one of their retread QB's. Now they are ready to add that franchise QB and become an actual super bowl contender...only now they are drafting in the low 20's instead of the top 10 and it's that much harder to find this QB. Not to mention the fact that then he needs his year or 2 to get up to speed and he does not have the luxury of the extra time while we are rebuilding because we are good now and we need him to step right in and play at a high level so we can make a super bowl run.
Umm, not neccessarily. Next year we will have a full complement of picks. We can throw in our 1st round pick and 2nd round pick to move up to the #1 spot and get the QB we want. No?

You would have us throw away our only two good picks plus what to move up to #2 to get Gabbert, when all I want the team to do is trade out of our #10 spot to maybe the 20's, pick up a second round 2 pick, take an OL, then take a DL or vise versa, and pick up Dalton, Ponder, or Kaepernick. Throw away 2 + picks for one player or give up one mid round pick for 2 picks? I'll take the latter.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:40 PM   #40
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,808
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
I think based on what Shannahan said he was worth it.
Must not have been worth selling the farm for, otherwise he'd be here.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:47 PM   #41
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Umm, not neccessarily. Next year we will have a full complement of picks. We can throw in our 1st round pick and 2nd round pick to move up to the #1 spot and get the QB we want. No?

You would have us throw away our only two good picks plus what to move up to #2 to get Gabbert, when all I want the team to do is trade out of our #10 spot to maybe the 20's, pick up a second round 2 pick, take an OL, then take a DL or vise versa, and pick up Dalton, Ponder, or Kaepernick. Throw away 2 + picks for one player or give up one mid round pick for 2 picks? I'll take the latter.
A 2nd round pick is not nearly enough to get up to the #1 spot. We pick 10th this year and it would cost us 1300 points to move up to #1. That is equal to at least next years #1 and this years #2.

I am not necesarily saying to trade up to get gabbert. I am saying if Shanny thinks he is a franchise QB he should do it. If he only views him as a pretty good prospect then he shouldn't.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 02:55 PM   #42
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
I guess I just don't get the panick mode mentality? "OMG, MS is one year removed from his 5 yr deal." "OMG, MS might not be able to complete his work unless we get a QB this yr."

I'm just baffled. MS still has 4 yrs to include this one. Get the OL and DL set and any supporting staff, use Grossman and Beck this yr, next yr 2012 throw your picks in to get Luck, and pick up a WR and RB. Then they would still have 3 yrs to develope and make a SB run. I'm sure if they do well and this team is on the right track Snyder will most likely resign MS or hire his son as HC to allow the completion of the work already done.
First off...if you assume no QB this year then you can consider him 2 years in with no QB. How long in your estimate will it take to get a 1st or 2nd round QB ready to play on average? 1 full year maybe 2 is probably a fair estimate. So assume we get the QB next year and then he spends year 3 and part of Shannys year 4 learning. Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.

Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work. At this point he is such a highly rated prospect that I doubt the team holding the pick will even entertain offers. Only chance of him being on the market would be if somehow a team with a young established QB somehow has a rash of injuries and ends up going 1-15. Not at all likely.

Also...I am not saying i want them to force a QB pick on a guy they don't love. All I am saying is that if there is a QB in this draft that they love...I believe they should be aggressive about getting him. I don't get why every Redskins fan would not think the same way...
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 03:04 PM   #43
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
A 2nd round pick is not nearly enough to get up to the #1 spot. We pick 10th this year and it would cost us 1300 points to move up to #1. That is equal to at least next years #1 and this years #2.

I am not necesarily saying to trade up to get gabbert. I am saying if Shanny thinks he is a franchise QB he should do it. If he only views him as a pretty good prospect then he shouldn't.
That is what I'm talking about. For us to move up this year we would have to atleast offer our #10 pick this year and our 2nd rounder. Two picks just to get one player we like? Plus we don't have a round 3 or 4 pick. I just don't see that happening for us.

However next year, when Luck will be in the draft and he was rated higher then all the ones this year or would have been, we will have a full complement of picks. If the team wants to throw their 1st round and 2nd round draft pick at a team to get Luck or whoever is rated second best then I'm all for it. Because we will still have the 3 through 7 round picks to go after other players.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 03:24 PM   #44
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Rumor from Denver

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
First off...if you assume no QB this year then you can consider him 2 years in with no QB. How long in your estimate will it take to get a 1st or 2nd round QB ready to play on average? 1 full year maybe 2 is probably a fair estimate. So assume we get the QB next year and then he spends year 3 and part of Shannys year 4 learning. Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.

Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work. At this point he is such a highly rated prospect that I doubt the team holding the pick will even entertain offers. Only chance of him being on the market would be if somehow a team with a young established QB somehow has a rash of injuries and ends up going 1-15. Not at all likely.

Also...I am not saying i want them to force a QB pick on a guy they don't love. All I am saying is that if there is a QB in this draft that they love...I believe they should be aggressive about getting him. I don't get why every Redskins fan would not think the same way...
Wow, ok

1st para; It is common knowledge that it takes about 3 yrs for any new HC to get his team back to playing well and into the playoffs... thats rebuilding. Were not rebuilding. But.... if MS gets his QB in next yrs draft then they would essentially have 3 yrs to prove something. The whole team would know the offense and only the QB would have to be on the fast track or don't play him and let him sit the 1st year and learn the offense. Then MS has 2 yrs to actually play him and get to the playoffs and hopefully a SB. If after all this the team is in the SB or close then my money is on that DS resigns MS if MS is willing to keep being the HC.

2nd para; "Throwing picks at Luck is not going to work?" are you making this stuff up? Supposedly according to all the experts had Luck come out this year he would be labled the best QB of the bunch and been expected to go first. Over all the QB's in this yrs draft. Yet you seem to think Gabbert is worthy of a team moving up to take or "throwing picks at?" Ok. I'm at a loss for words almost. All I'm suggesting is the Skins should try to trade out of the #10 spot ... if feasable, and get more picks in the first two rounds or three rounds. Build up the OL and DL some more and next year when we can afford to throw away picks go after the top ranked QB. I'd still go after Dalton or Ponder this year in the second round though. Then we would have two young QB's who can hopefully step up to the occassion.

3rd para; I see what your saying. I don't agree with it but I see what your saying. I will say that I think everyone here would feel almost the same way and that is "IF" MS see's a QB that he absolutely thinks is the right QB for this scheme and will become great or can be coached to greatness then I don't think any one of us would have a problem with him going after said QB. The problem is all the QB's have some sort of issue, not a one is standing so far out there that they should be looked at, and we all know any position is a 50/50 crap shoot. Simply look at Thomas and Kelly, both rated high and expected to do well over time. Thomas looks more like a bust and Kelly can't stay healthy long enough. How about Campbell, were his issue's QB developement or a team reaching too high for him? or both.

I'll agree we have a better chance of getting a franchise QB by moving closer to the #1 pick but all I'm saying is lets do it when the team has more picks to work with vs. handicapping us further by throwing two more picks away just to get 1 player and not get any other quality players until the following year because some here would believe the only quality players are between the 1st and 4th round.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2011, 03:35 PM   #45
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: Rumor from Denver

^ Also....
Quote:
Year 5 is probably the earliest we can expect him to be ready to actually play well enough for us to win with him.
Is there something wrong with this thought process? I think your exagerating to the extreme of not having quality QB play until yr 5, and I might be exagerating to the extreme in thinking that the Rookie QB could start next year after being drafted. Somewhere in the middle the truth lies. Is it wrong to say we draft frachise QB next year to learn the system, he plays year 4 and gets us to the playoffs/SB year 5? I'll except that. or are you expecting the team to draft Gabbert this year and go to the SB... this year?
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.37988 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25