Burgold

Is that too many "star" receivers? I guess the answer lies in how much you think the current receiving corp was held back by injury and quarterback? Part of me thinks the plan: McClaurin, Samuels, Thomas, McKissic with an emerging Brown and Gibson is one worth actually seeing through with a live NFL arm. That's a lot of speed and a fair amount of talent and potential. Besides, if you have Adams, Mclaurin, Samuels, Thomas, and McKissic all on the field... I don't think there will be opportunities for Brown to be a star. I think he'll be entrenched as the number 4 receiver or 5. If he does emerge then we'd be regretting the cap space being eaten up by either Samuels or Adams.

Heh. Same. When they expanded the playoffs to include more teams I remember thinking, with this many teams how will the Redskins ever not make the playoffs.

Just to build on your point, the really interesting part about Peyton Manning and John Elway’s Super Bowl win is that they only won after they were no longer elite in fact they weren’t even good QBs by the time they got their rings.

This thread may finally explain Mark Rypien. Ryp's one of my favorite Redskins. Major overachiever who was brilliant for a short window.

I like to believe that the football gods cursed him because of his abuses during the "Spirit of the cap" fiasco. I think his team has been in the dumpster since then.

I wonder if that's true anymore? Mind you, not all were open market, but Cousins, Stafford, Brady, and now Wilson, Rodgers, and Watson just in recent years are hitting the open/trade market. There are probably others that I'm missing. And yeah... I'm including Brady as in his prime given the way he played the past two years. I don't know about this either. Historically, Snyder was incredible at collecting "name" players. I don't know that you're wrong though. It may be true today. It certainly wasn't true yesterday.

C'mon. Every wide open deep ball truly longs to become a contested 50/50 jump ball. If we're going to double in Green Bay, why don't we trade for Rodgers and Love simultaneously. Clearly, we want him to feel comfortable and making the QB room the same would do that, right?

I think the fact that there are no clear cut blue chip prospects separating themselves is why people think that this draft has no Maholmes, Burrows, etc. Mind you, the history of QB drafting is filled with the lesson that the first/can't miss QB is rarely the guy. If we were to redraft, Josh Allen, Mahomes, Herbert, Rodgers, and Brady would all be taken much higher than they were. I mean with hindsight who wouldn't go back and pick Prescott over Goff or Wentz? Probability suggests that this year, too, there will be misses. How many number overall number one pick QBs fulfill their potential? This is my breakdown. Greats: 4 Good 7 Average 6 JAG 3 Who 7 Terry Bradshaw (win) Jim Plunkett (very uneven. He did get one Superbowl, but he was not considered a great QB. I'm going with JAG) Steve Bartowski (who ) John Elway (win) Vinny Testaverde (Average) Troy Aikman (CowBum... win) Jeff George (who ) Drew Bledsoe (Average) Peyton Manning (win) Tim Couch (who ) Michael Vick (good, but not a win) David Carr (who ) Carson Palmer (who ) Eli Manning (Good/Average) Alex Smith (Good/Average) Jamarcus Russell (who ) Matthew Stafford (TBD, I'd say good) Sam Bradford (who ) Cam Newton (good) Andrew Luck (good/average) Jameis Winston (JAG) Jared Goff (JAG) Baker Mayfield (TBD/Average) Kyler Murray (TBD looks promising) Joe Burrow (TBD looks like a win)

I think the same question goes though for most of the others. Is the capital spent on Carr (it'll be a ransom) sacrificing good for great? Tribusky? Marritota? Now, if you think you can get Wilson and Rogers or somehow Watson turns out to be completely innocent and proves it and you get him... then, you are throwing the dice for great, but almost all the others...? I guess Carr would be a Stafford level acquisition? I'm not sure who would be favored if Stafford and Carr were both available at the same time for the same price? In any case, I get that Washington needs to start out next year with something that shouts, "Everything is new. Anything is possible!" It's just that I have a feeling that right now the instinct is going to be to buy high and sell low.

Ultimately, the question to be asked is are you willing to sacrifice the potential of great for the opportunity for good. If you get a Jimmy G and he elevates you to a ten win team, that's better. However, it doesn't really move you towards being a championship team and may set you back if his trade cost prohibits you from you from leveraging up your draft picks to get the potential "great" QB. In 2023, a 10-7 team will not be able to get an elite QB prospect nor probably have the capital to climb the ladder. This year, it's hard to imagine the team breaking the bank to trade for a vet QB, sign him to an expensive deal and then immediately break the bank again before a single snap to try to grab an elite rookie. Personally, I'm assuming that Jimmy G won't come cheap. He will cost at minimum a first because even if the 49ers want Lance to start, Lance is on that rookie contract and Jimmy's salary only saddles them with one "starting QB" salary. At worst, they keep Garoffolo to be an expensive back up who has already proven himself good enough to get the 49ers deep into the playoffs two of the last three years. Why would y a team give that away on the cheap? Because Kyle Shannahan likes Dan Snyder and wants to do him a favor? I suppose Marriota or Tribusky might be had for cheap, but even cheap is expensive. Second rounders should be starters.

I'd qualify that a bit. In my mind, the cost of a great QB went up and the cost of a good QB went down. Good isn't good enough.

While I agree, I'd argue that Saturday showed the value of defense over QBs. I mean 13-10, and 19-16 aren't exactly lightning it up. Sunday, the QBs began to make their presence felt. Tom Brady almost pulled off another one. That rb fumble by McKay nearly convinced me that Tom had signed a deal with the Devil. How many bonus, fluke chances can a QB get? But Sunday night, especially those last five minutes... "Wow! That was a show." Both Allen and Mahomes went to a level I've rarely seen. I was pulling for the Bills, but you can't do anything but applaud Mahome's performance. Allen closed the game out, leaving the Chiefs only 12 seconds. That proved not only enough, but easy. And there was no question about who would win in overtime: The winner of the coinflip. For what it's worth, I don't think Carr could do what Mahomes did last night nor Jimmy G. nor Aaron Rodgers. Tom Brady maybe even though it's always been more about his brain than his arm. I remember back in the glory days, Theismann saying, that if you give him a timeout and sixty seconds left in the game he could get seven. Yesterday went beyond that. Heinike showed flashes of magic, but compared to Sunday night, Heinike was doing card tricks while Allen was making the Statue of Liberty vanish and Mahomes was levitating it.

Seems to me the 49ers have a good thing. Sort of reminds the Trent Dilfer situation. Everyone thought Dilfer was an easily replaced bum. After they got rid of him it took ten years for the Ravens to win again. Jimmy G is 3-1 in the playoffs. Aaron Rodgers is 7-9. No one would pick Garrafolo over Rodgers, but I think the 49ers will take some ugly playoff wins over gaudy stats and brilliant QB play.

... and only 10 points? Sounds as odd as our game against the Packers where we dominated in every possible way, but just refused to score.

I can see this. I'd be willing to make a serious offer for Wilson. I suspect my serious offer is not enough to seal the deal. I'd also make a serious offer for Carr. This too, might fall short, but mainly because I think the Raider's will make the price too high. If we that fails, I don't think I'd go for Trubisky, Mariota, or Jimmy G. I'd go with Heinike and blow the bank on a rookie QB if my scouts tell me there is a rookie QB who could become a star. Did he really? That is truly awful. Rodgers must have had one hell of an awful showing to lose out to that!

Questions I never thought I 'd ask... Today, would you trade Jack Del Rio for Joe Barry?

I only watched the first quarter, but in that portion Jimmy G. through a couple of beautiful passes that were perfectly placed only to be dropped. So, I don't know that we should exaggerate too much. Seems like everyone had a bad offensive day on both teams.

It's not going to be Red Wolves. Enough with this howling stuff.

The concern I have about getting a Jimmy G or Marriota is that they will leave us stuck at the Alex Smith/Mark Brunnel level. If that’s the case, I worry that for years we’ll be an 8-10 win team with a max ceiling of a playoff one and done. if we are going to trade draft picks for a QB it should be for someone we truly believe can make us a contender. is that Jimmy G?

How important are quarterbacks in modern football? I think all you need to know is that Joe Barry almost saved Aaron Rodgers. Crazy how yesterday played out. Apparently, defense still matters. After all, Rodgers couldn't beat a team which his defense held to six points. And though Burrow had good stats, the Bengals managed a pathetic Heinikesque 19 points.

Glad the Packers lost. Rodgers has all the talent anyone could want, but his off the field gameplaying oughtn't be rewarded.

In a perverse way, this shows just how magic Joe Gibbs was. Ten years out of football entirely and not nearly the coach he was in his prime, he was the only coach capable of getting a Dan Snyder owned team a playoff win. better than Marty, Better than Mike, better than Gruden, and so far better than Rivera.

In hindsight, this becomes more interesting. Now, I remember thinking highly of Kyle (though I thought he gave up on the run too quickly) as an offensive coordinator back when he was with us. In fact, I remember quite a few wishing it was possible to fire the father and keep the son. Me included. What he did with RGIII that year was magical and his ability to flip the script with Kirk and play a completely different style without the team stumbling was impressive. However, I thought Mike was very much burning bridges on his way out and a malcontent. Now, I wonder how much of that was Bruce Allen. We know Bruce was masterful at creating scapegoats to deflect blame away from himself. He created so many villains that the Redskins became an unlikable team and I think that, even more than losing, led to the decline in the fan base. On the other hand, I still think Mike had to go. His record was awful minus RGIII's rookie season. His attitude and his team's attitude on the field was terrible.

I like the misdirection idea. I suppose if QB is the key focus it might be more important for Scott to be there. On the other hand, a draft is more than one pick and uncovering gems is perhaps more important than seeing potential first rounders. As for the optics, it’s even worse since they could have chosen literally any day or week to do the big reveal.

Shuler and Frerotte? RGIII and Cousins? If history is proof then we should only draft the second guy