Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
again, which QB should we have taken? i still haven't seen a name that'd be better than the guys on our roster, even given 1-2 years.
so if there weren't better choices available, why would we pick one?
same with TE, who would we have taken over the guys we have? at TE there might have at least been an upgrade over depth, but then we'd lose depth at a spot we actually took.
feel free to name names though, otherwise we have to assume you want a generic replacement level player, but that's not an upgrade and we've already got a bunch of those.
|
Had we not made the deal w/ Seattle, they could have taken Grayson in the top of the 3rd round. Give him some of Colt's reps and let him sit and learn.
To me bringing back McCoy was useless cause he's never going to be a full time starter. OK back up and all, but just can't drive the ball downfield. He was on the street and not one team wanted him. Had they kept that pick, and drafted Grayson, maybe he competes next year. That would have also given KC all or most of the 2nd team reps.
Regardless, I do believe that we'll have a new starting QB for the Redskins next year. This year was obviously about building out the rest of the roster.