Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Sure they can.
I mean, you're right if the lose out as a result of recklessness instead of something more organic. I don't think any player is so important you absolutely can't win without him.
I mean, Stephen Bowen probably isn't as good of a player as Cullen Jenkins, but that's a bluff the Redskins called. Now instead of paying too much for Jenkins, we're paying too much for Bowen. The need was still filled though.
If they're going to gamble on the RG3 compensation, they'll almost certainly do it with Tannehill as a fallback plan. And the Rams will be well aware of that, as they'll have far more to lose than the Redskins do.
The Redskins are probably out of chances to get it wrong, but it's not like RG3 comes with a guarantee of success. The Redskins could win on draft day and lose during the season. Or they could call a bluff, lose on draft day, and improve a lot and win during the season. The offseason championship is only loosely correlated with the NFC East championship.
|
Suppose the Redskins believe that RG3 has a great chance to be a franchise QB. And while they like Tannehill they think he is a notch below that and will likely never be more then a good QB. Knowing that's how all the Redskins scouts and decision makers think would you still want to proceed with your passive plan?