I See QB Rumors (2012 QB Thread: The Sixth Sense)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But franchise QB is the greatest of all needs. It is easier to build around a franchise QB than it is to win consistently without one.

But the real question is whether it is easier to consistently win without one, or whether it is easier to win while hoping you've found your man. It's really a probability question.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But the real question is whether it is easier to consistently win without one, or whether it is easier to win while hoping you've found your man. It's really a probability question.

I agree. But while those who take the risk may not be rewarded, those who are risk averse in finding their guy, the current game shows, will commonly miss ultimate rewards. In other words, sooner or later you have to take the plunge...and then pray.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I agree. But while those who take the risk may not be rewarded, those who are risk averse in finding their guy, the current game shows, will commonly miss ultimate rewards. In other words, sooner or later you have to take the plunge...and then pray.

I'm trying to think of a team with a franchise QB that gave up the farm to get him.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm trying to think of a team with a franchise QB that gave up the farm to get him.

Uh, the Giants?

Also, several players on the list produced above were #1 overall picks. Do you really want to wait until we have the first overall pick? I don't.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Uh, the Giants?

Also, several players on the list produced above were #1 overall picks. Do you really want to wait until we have the first overall pick? I don't.

Cutler

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by irish

I'm trying to think of a team with a franchise QB that gave up the farm to get him.

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Cutler

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

Would it be fair, in every one of those cases including Cutler, to say that the team that they currently play for would have been much better off not trading for them than to trade for them? On a case-by-case level, that's probably not correct. But in the aggregate, I think I agree with irish that no team really bettered themselves by giving up a ton to go get a quarterback.

I think the Texans were rewarded for their move to get Schaub but that seemed to be more along the lines of picking up an undervalued asset at a (newly open) need position than trading a ton of picks for an established quarterback.

Perhaps the only trade up to get a QB that looks really good in hindsight is Shanahan's move to get Cutler, and we might have a totally different perception of him in Denver if McDaniels wasn't intelligent enough to sell high and grab picks for a guy he didn't know whether or not he fit his system. I mean, if Denver had held on to Cutler through the McDaniels era, we could have been talking about a situation where John Fox might have traded the last year of his contract for a fourth round pick. Could have happened.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Good example Alvin. Also Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, and Sanchize. Also, arguably, Kolb, Tebow, and Gabbert, depending on how one defines "franchise QB" and how one defines "giving up the farm."

The fact is, teams regularly give up a lot if it means they can land their QB guy.

Outside of Eli, there is no way the rest of the QBs you named are franchise QBs.

It just seems to me that teams that go and get a QB that actually makes a difference are already solid teams that are only a QB away from winning titles. The Redskins arent that team.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I agree. But while those who take the risk may not be rewarded, those who are risk averse in finding their guy, the current game shows, will commonly miss ultimate rewards. In other words, sooner or later you have to take the plunge...and then pray.

It depends what the ultimate reward is. The AFC has only sent three different teams to the Super Bowl since 2002. The NFC has sent pretty much anyone. Including the Cardinals and almost the Alex Smith 49ers.

What I'm saying is that there's been no formula to make the super bowl in the NFC beyond having a good season and a great playoff run. There's no question that being great at the quarterback position is going to help you, but I would say no more than being able to shut down an opponent's great quarterback. We never talk about how the Redskins haven't been able to do the latter in about five years, while the former gets all sorts of discussion.

The history of the Redskins (and the Cowboys) suggests that if there's any franchise in pro football that can win consistently without stability at the QB position, it's those large market teams that can throw their weight and money around and develop the best coaching and player development techniques. Small market teams: they're not going to be able to put together much of a run without one signal caller that they can rely on for 10 years or so. But the Redskins absolutely could if they wanted to just go with veterans at quarterback.

I mean, the Redskins are kind of the gold standard for the idea that you can win year to year in the NFL without one guy at the quarterback position making 100 million dollars. San Diego can't win consistently without an elite franchise quarterback, but I still think Washington can.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It depends what the ultimate reward is. The AFC has only sent three different teams to the Super Bowl since 2002. The NFC has sent pretty much anyone. Including the Cardinals and almost the Alex Smith 49ers.

What I'm saying is that there's been no formula to make the super bowl in the NFC beyond having a good season and a great playoff run. There's no question that being great at the quarterback position is going to help you, but I would say no more than being able to shut down an opponent's great quarterback. We never talk about how the Redskins haven't been able to do the latter in about five years, while the former gets all sorts of discussion.

The history of the Redskins (and the Cowboys) suggests that if there's any franchise in pro football that can win consistently without stability at the QB position, it's those large market teams that can throw their weight and money around and develop the best coaching and player development techniques. Small market teams: they're not going to be able to put together much of a run without one signal caller that they can rely on for 10 years or so. But the Redskins absolutely could if they wanted to just go with veterans at quarterback.

I mean, the Redskins are kind of the gold standard for the idea that you can win year to year in the NFL without one guy at the quarterback position making 100 million dollars. San Diego can't win consistently without an elite franchise quarterback, but I still think Washington can.

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

There are plenty of constants that aren't QB play within this organization. And really, the years of bad QB play over the last 20 years were pretty much (with obvious exception to 2004) contained to the Schottenheimer/Spurrier years, and now the Shanahan years. You've had your bad quarterbacks: Shuler, Wuerffel, that one Ramsey/Brunell season, Grossman, Beck. But it's not like the quarterback play has been consistently bad. That doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Turner and Gibbs/Zorn didn't have any issue solving the quarterback position. In fact, the coaches who did have trouble are infamous for their bad QB decisions in Washington.

Only two franchises in the last 20 hasn't endured a period of bad quarterback play: New England, who went right from Bledsoe to Brady (and even Brady had a lean year or two), and Green Bay, who went right from Favre to Rodgers. For 30 other teams, they've had the same kind of issue with quarterabcks the Redskins have had with quarterbacks. The Cowboys hardly went right from Aikman to Romo, they suffered through Chad Hutchinson, Quincy Carter, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Henson, and Bledsoe. Teams like the Lions and Bears have actually had it far worse.

Complaining about the QB situation is old and tiring. Sure, Shanahan gutted the roster and hasn't offered a viable solution. I get that. I have been critical of him for doing that. It's not like there aren't guys out there who can play the position well who can be acquired easily if Andrew Luck proves too elusive. It's obvious to me at least that there are much bigger issues with this organization that were causing us many losses even before Shanahan got here. Those issues have not been fixed.

[TenandSix:Unacceptable]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

There are plenty of constants that aren't QB play within this organization. And really, the years of bad QB play over the last 20 years were pretty much (with obvious exception to 2004) contained to the Schottenheimer/Spurrier years, and now the Shanahan years. You've had your bad quarterbacks: Shuler, Wuerffel, that one Ramsey/Brunell season, Grossman, Beck. But it's not like the quarterback play has been consistently bad. That doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Turner and Gibbs/Zorn didn't have any issue solving the quarterback position. In fact, the coaches who did have trouble are infamous for their bad QB decisions in Washington.

Only two franchises in the last 20 hasn't endured a period of bad quarterback play: New England, who went right from Bledsoe to Brady (and even Brady had a lean year or two), and Green Bay, who went right from Favre to Rodgers. For 30 other teams, they've had the same kind of issue with quarterabcks the Redskins have had with quarterbacks. The Cowboys hardly went right from Aikman to Romo, they suffered through Chad Hutchinson, Quincy Carter, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Henson, and Bledsoe. Teams like the Lions and Bears have actually had it far worse.

Complaining about the QB situation is old and tiring. Sure, Shanahan gutted the roster and hasn't offered a viable solution. I get that. I have been critical of him for doing that. It's not like there aren't guys out there who can play the position well who can be acquired easily if Andrew Luck proves too elusive. It's obvious to me at least that there are much bigger issues with this organization that were causing us many losses even before Shanahan got here. Those issues have not been fixed.

Your opinion is usually spot on or at the very least plausible.

But you think saying the Redskins' quarterback situation has been abysmal the last two decades doesn't hold up under scrutiny?

Bwahahahahahaaa!

[Evilgrin]

Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable

What about the last 20 years says that is even remotely true?

We have not been a competitive franchise for decades and the one constant has been QB play.

We need to go after someone who has a legitimate shot at fixing our QB problems.

Like I'm saying, if we have a real chance at Luck, we need to take that opportunity by any means necessary.

Agreed,
It's just the reality of today's rules. It's how you have to build a team right now until there are rules changes again.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Evilgrin

Agreed,
It's just the reality of today's rules. It's how you have to build a team right now until there are rules changes again.

It's been easier for everyone at the quarterback position the last four years, not just the elite guys. Everyone is benefiting from the relaxed passing environment. It's why you can compare 2006 Rex Grossman to 2011 Rex Grossman and think that maybe the Redskins have a better player (even though its the same guy with the same skill set).