It's not all about the Almighty Quarterback, dummies!

[Win4us]

Yeah, I might have overreacted a little bit on this post

I was writing it right after my wife came out of the bedroom and ****ed at me for some nonsensical reason (Aunt Flo is visiting). Check my later post for a little bit more reasoned response.

I LOL'd at this seeing how mine did the EXACT same thing under the same circumstances. Aunt Flo is a ***** and needs to go.

[Mahons21]

Actually, never mind I don't care. lol

Sorry for antagonizing you, Mahons. But people can believe things that you don't without being dumber than you. Just FYI.

You've got to stop talking for me, its growing very irritating. I don't think I'm smarter than anyone if I disagree with them, I think we disagreed nothing more, nothing less. In no way shape or form would I judge someones intelligence in comparison with my own, based on their beliefs of football.

---------- Post added January-26th-2012 at 12:38 AM ----------

You do realize I backed off my statement, right?

Sit back, have a beer, relax, and read my more recent posts.

This is your post as of this moment

Well ****, let's get rid of everyone then. Hell, it's not like QB play raises the level and gives players opportunity at all...

In regards to Davis, doesn't every playmaker rely on opportunity?

Hankerson, Davis, Helu, Gaffney, Orakpo, Landry, Kerrigan, Atogwe, and Hall can all be playmakers that can tip the scales. You're massive undervaluing our players just to make a point.

That's word for word what I replied to, exactly what comments did you back off of?

---------- Post added January-26th-2012 at 12:39 AM ----------

You do realize I backed off my statement, right?

Sit back, have a beer, relax, and read my more recent posts.

This is your post as of this moment

Well ****, let's get rid of everyone then. Hell, it's not like QB play raises the level and gives players opportunity at all...

In regards to Davis, doesn't every playmaker rely on opportunity?

Hankerson, Davis, Helu, Gaffney, Orakpo, Landry, Kerrigan, Atogwe, and Hall can all be playmakers that can tip the scales. You're massive undervaluing our players just to make a point.

That's word for word what I replied to, exactly what comments did you back off of?

[terpskins10]

You've got to stop talking for me, its growing very irritating. I don't think I'm smarter than anyone if I disagree with them, I think we disagreed nothing more, nothing less. In no way shape or form would I judge someone's intelligence in comparison with mine, based on their beliefs of football

Einstein? Still offensive, still insinuating the other person isn't intelligent, still uncalled for.

You're just getting much more worked up than is called for, I think. I don't think you're making bad points and your arguments are good. I just don't necessarily think it's that black and white regarding QB play vs. numbers vs. team success. There's a lot of underlying nuances to playing the QB position toward creating a successful team that can't be accounted for by DVOA or things of that nature.

I truly believe that the Giants wouldn't be what they are if they had Rivers plus the draft picks. You disagree. That's fine, since neither of us can prove for certain that we are correct.

I truly am sorry for bothering you as much as I seem to be, but as Hitman has also alluded to, try and relax a little bit. I don't think anyone is discounting what you're saying as factually incorrect, just that we all have different viewpoints on how a successful team is created.

[Hitman21ST]

This is your post as of this moment

That's word for word what I replied to, exactly what comments did you back off of?

Yeah, I might have overreacted a little bit on this post

I was writing it right after my wife came out of the bedroom and ****ed at me for some nonsensical reason (Aunt Flo is visiting). Check my later post for a little bit more reasoned response.

Look below:

That's just it. You can't count on that passive approach to work. Sometimes you have to be aggressive and go out and get your guy. This year is most likely the closest we'll be (meaning the cheapest it will cost to trade up). If you wait for that 100% solution (right QB at the right spot in the draft), more often than not it'll be 5 minutes too late. You take the 90% solution (right QB costing a minimal amount to trade up to) on time.

True, but the shelf life of an elite QB is much longer than that of OL, WR, and RB. The earlier you get your QB, the earlier you can build around him and keep up the level around him. If I have elite QB A and and elite WR B, I'd rather have the QB in place first. That way, I haven't wasted a year of WR B's performance on a worse QB. However, QB A can raise the level of play of solid/good (but not elite) WRs until we get that guy. QBs raise the level of play of everyone around them more than the other way around.

[KCClybun]

I'm just trying to figure out how long this team is supposed to sit around and not have a quarterback.

It may not be ALL about the quarterback, but your chances of succeeding as a team and as a franchise are much better WITH one than without one. That's an indisputable fact. You can sit here and argue that we don't have the talent, and that people undervalue the other pieces on a team and that a QB alone can't do it and blah blah blah...but how many quarterbacks were drafted into damn near perfect situations where everything was hunky dory from day one?

Maybe Joe Flacco, but it's not like he had a great group of wide receivers. He was throwing to Todd Heap and Derrick Mason and Mark Clayton, all fine veteran talents in their own rights, but hardly "playmakers".

Matt Ryan had success, but his situation was less than idea. They had a good o-line and they ran the football, and he had Roddy White and Michael Turner...and nothing else. Gonzales wouldn't get to the team until the following season, and he was throwing to guys like Michael Jenkins, and their defense was ranked 24th when he was drafted.

Stafford CERTAINLY didn't walk into a perfect situation, playing for an 0-16 team. The Lions set about putting talent around him almost immediately, but the Lions situation wasn't sunshine and rainbows.

Sanchez probably walked into the best situation in the league. Great defense. Awesome o-line. Great tight end, a big number one receiver in Braylon Edwards (even if he was inconsistent), a solid veteran in Jerricho Cotchery, a punishing run game. And the past two seasons, his o-line's gotten worse, his receiving core has gotten older with more idiot divas, his defense doesn't shut teams down, and he's struggling.

Of course you need the proper team around a quarterback. But look at all the teams that have struggled for years.

Teams like the Dolphins, the Browns, the Bills, the Raiders, and the Redskins. What's the common denominator?

All these teams have had great players, even Pro Bowl players. They've had great players offensively, defensively, sometimes they have great coaches, and solid front offices. They have great wide receivers, offensive lines, solid defenses...

And yet every one of those teams, aside from the once-in-a-while playoff run, has been somewhere between godawful and plain mediocre since they lost their franchise quarterbacks.

The Dolphins haven't had one since Marino left.

The Browns haven't had one since Kosar left town. They certainly haven't had one since the team came back.

The Bills have struggled a lot since Kelly retired.

The Raiders disintegrated when Gruden and Gannon split.

And us...come on, do I even have to mention us?

It strikes me that all those teams have lacked a franchise caliber quarterbacks, and all of them have struggled. And I'm not saying there's not extenuating circumstances in any of those situations. Just that you have to look at all the information we have available...and all that information says that each of those teams is missing a cornerstone.

No one is arguing that you don't need a solid team around a quarterback. But how can anyone explain how the Colts, a team thought to be one of the most talent rich in the league, completely disintegrated when Peyton Manning got hurt? And this is the part where someone brings up Matt Cassel and the Patriots, which ignores and disregards the fact that Cassel was on that team developing for four years before he had an opportunity to play. And then someone's going to bring up the Texans and T.J Yates, even though Yates was pretty much awful in the last few games he had.

A good, solid quarterback can elevate the level of the talent around him. Not magically, not overnight, not with a snap of his fingers, but the difference is noticable. For frak's sake, we may have been awful with Grossman in there, but even the talent drop from "should be a back-up" to third-stringer in John Beck was STAGGERING.

We don't have a perfect situation, but most teams rarely do. You can't sit around waiting for the perfect team to come around and THEN draft a quarterback.

Joe Theismann says that the quarterback position is the most dependent position on the field. You have to rely on your center to snap the ball cleanly, you're entire offensive line to block correctly, your wide receiver to get open, your running backs to provide some variation in your offense so they don't pin their ears back and rush you. You have to rely on special teams getting you field position, on the defense stopping the opposing offense and causing turnovers, on the offensive coordinator to call the correct plays, and on a coaching staff and a front office to put the right pieces around you to succeed.

...But none of that matters if your quarterback sucks. None of it matters if your quarterbacks are capable of turning the ball of 32 times on their own. None of it matters if the QB can't throw the ball down field without it getting picked off, or if your QB is so timid that he'd rather check the ball down. You can have the best line in football, the most awesome receivers, an incredible defense, a great coaching staff, great front office. You can have all the pieces...and if the quarterback sucks, then the team will still sucks. At best, you'll be mediocre. At worse, you'll be cellar dwellers. As much as quarterbacks need a solid team around them, a team needs a quarterback that won't royally screw the pooch.

We've been both mediocre and cellar dwellers.

So all this "it's not all about the quarterback stuff" is sort of right. But it's also misguided. It's not ALL about the quarterback...but it is IMPORTANT to have a franchise quarterback. You have a good one, and you have a chance to compete. Have a great one, and you have a chance to win Super Bowls.

If you have a mediocre one, all you'll ever be is mediocre, and if you have a bad one, kiss your hopes for championships goodbye.

[Mahons21]

Einstein? Still offensive, still insinuating the other person isn't intelligent, still uncalled for.

No its insinuating you made a dumb comment, I make them all the time.

You're just getting much more worked up than is called for, I think. I don't think you're making bad points and your arguments are good. I just don't necessarily think it's that black and white regarding QB play vs. numbers vs. team success. There's a lot of underlying nuances to playing the QB position toward creating a successful team that can't be accounted for by DVOA or things of that nature.

Again your making my argument for me, if you don't want me to get annoyed, debate what I'm actually saying, not your version of what I'm saying.

---------- Post added January-26th-2012 at 01:07 AM ----------

How does this

That's just it. You can't count on that passive approach to work. Sometimes you have to be aggressive and go out and get your guy. This year is most likely the closest we'll be (meaning the cheapest it will cost to trade up). If you wait for that 100% solution (right QB at the right spot in the draft), more often than not it'll be 5 minutes too late. You take the 90% solution (right QB costing a minimal amount to trade up to) on time.

Or this

True, but the shelf life of an elite QB is much longer than that of OL, WR, and RB. The earlier you get your QB, the earlier you can build around him and keep up the level around him. If I have elite QB A and and elite WR B, I'd rather have the QB in place first. That way, I haven't wasted a year of WR B's performance on a worse QB. However, QB A can raise the level of play of solid/good (but not elite) WRs until we get that guy. QBs raise the level of play of everyone around them more than the other way around.

Show that you backed off of this

Well ****, let's get rid of everyone then. Hell, it's not like QB play raises the level and gives players opportunity at all...

In regards to Davis, doesn't every playmaker rely on opportunity?

Hankerson, Davis, Helu, Gaffney, Orakpo, Landry, Kerrigan, Atogwe, and Hall can all be playmakers that can tip the scales. You're massive undervaluing our players just to make a point.

Forgive me if I'm missing something.

---------- Post added January-26th-2012 at 01:11 AM ----------

I'm just trying to figure out how long this team is supposed to sit around and not have a quarterback.

Until an optimal situation arises, that's how long you wait. How many of the teams in this years playoffs made big trades for a QB? 1

Saints - Found a good QB in FA

Houston - Traded for a good QB

Brady - Drafted in the 6th

Flacco - QB available and close to BPA

Ryan - ditto

and so on..

Eli was the only one who was traded up for, and as I've stated hindsight 20/20 I think a lot of FOs would take Rivers a 1st and 3rd, over Eli.

NLC, were you on the Gabbert train last year? And if so, did you not make this same argument then?

[Hitman21ST]

How does this

Or this

Show that you backed off of this

Forgive me if I'm missing something.

I said I overreacted during that post; that I wasn't really thinking when I wrote it - evidenced by my saying "Check my later post for a little bit more reasoned response."

Until an optimal situation arises, that's how long you wait. How many of the teams in this years playoffs made big trades for a QB? 1

Saints - Found a good QB in FA

Houston - Traded for a good QB

Brady - Drafted in the 6th

Flacco - QB available and close to BPA

Ryan - ditto

and so on...

Eli was the only one who was traded up for, and as I've stated hindsight 20/20 I think a lot of FOs would take Rivers a 1st and 3rd, over Eli.

As for this, well, you can't always just "wait until an optimal situation arises" because

A) Shanahan hasn't been given a lifetime contract, and

This may be that optimal situation.

You can't take the 100% solution 5 minutes too late. Most of the time you take the 90% solution when it presents itself, because it's at the right time.

Finding your franchise QB in FA almost never happens, the Saints are an exception to the rule. Look at all our FA acquisition QBs.

Trading for a good QB is rare. Look at how the Jets did with Favre, how Chad Pennington has fared, how Cassel has done in Kansas City, etc. Houston is an exception to the rule.

Brady is the ultimate exception. You can't count on finding franchise QBs in the 6th round

Baltimore traded up for Flacco. They had the 26th pick in the 2008 draft and traded up to 18 to get Flacco. They traded down from 8 to 26, then back up.

The Falcons had the luxury to wait for Ryan. Neither the Dolphins or the Rams needed a QB at the time. We, at 6, don't have the luxury to wait for RG3 to fall.

The Ravens also didn't have anything better on offense than we did at the time they drafted Flacco. They got Ray Rice in the same draft, but their receivers were Mark Clayton, Derrick Mason, Yamon Figurs, Terrance Cooper, and Marcus Smith. They had Todd Heap. They still went with QB first, because they knew he could make a difference.

[Mahons21]

I said I overreacted during that post; that I wasn't really thinking when I wrote it - evidenced by my saying "Check my later post for a little bit more reasoned response."

OK but the post your pointing to is entirely irrelevant to the one in which you overreacted. You said

You do realize I backed off my statement, right?

I don't see how either of those posts back off any statement you made.

As for this, well, you can't always just "wait until an optimal situation arises" because

A) Shanahan hasn't been given a lifetime contract, and

This may be that optimal situation.

Forcing the issue isn't going to help Shannys contract.

Finding your franchise QB in FA almost never happens, the Saints are an exception to the rule. Look at all our FA acquisition QBs.

Yes but it requires little to no resources in comparison with using multiple high draft picks. A team needs these picks to remain competitive in the NFL, because every other team in the NFL has them, and is improving during the offseason as well.

How did PHI get Vick?

That's two of the premier QBs in this league, both acquired via FA.

Trading for a good QB is rare. Look at how the Jets did with Favre, how Chad Pennington has fared, how Cassel has done in Kansas City, etc. Houston is an exception to the rule.

Brady is the ultimate exception. You can't count on finding franchise QBs in the 6th round

And look at how Favre did with the Packers, they traded for him too.

Or the Seahawks with Hasslebeck.

Or Cutler with the Bears (I'm not opposed to giving up draft picks for a proven commodity such as Cutler)

Is it difficult? Yes. Possible? Yes.

The point here is not that these are the only avenues available, its that a team must explore all possible avenues that allow the team to improve as much as possible across the board.

Baltimore traded up for Flacco. They had the 26th pick in the 2008 draft and traded up to 18 to get Flacco. They traded down from 8 to 26, then back up.

The Falcons had the luxury to wait for Ryan. Neither the Dolphins or the Rams needed a QB at the time. We, at 6, don't have the luxury to wait for RG3 to fall.

We don't have that luxury which is exactly why it's not in the teams best interest to get him.

[Hitman21ST]

Forcing the issue isn't going to help Shannys contract.

Except if he hits. If he just continues to wait and wait, he'll wait himself out of a job. RG3 and Luck are the closest to sure things there are.

Yes but it requires little to no resources in comparison with using multiple high draft picks. A team needs these picks to remain competitive in the NFL, because every other team in the NFL has them, and is improving during the offseason as well.

How did PHI get Vick?

That's two of the premier QBs in this league, both acquired via FA.

OK, but who are the FA quarterbacks realistically available? Flynn? A QB who has played one game and is most likely headed to Miami to play under the same OC? There isn't anyone else worth mentioning.

And look at how Favre did with the Packers, they traded for him too.

Or the Seahawks with Hasslebeck.

Or Cutler with the Bears (I'm not opposed to giving up draft picks for a proven commodity such as Cutler)

Is it difficult? Yes. Possible? Yes.

Rare? Incredibly. You've listed four QBs who succeeded after being traded for. How many have failed? Much more than that.

(By the way, Shanahan traded up to draft Cutler. :2cents:)

The point here is not that these are the only avenues available, its that a team must explore all possible avenues that allow the team to improve as much as possible across the board.

Major upgrades across the board with a minor QB upgrade will net you less success than major QB upgrade and minor across the board. No free agent QBs or QBs who will be traded would be considered a "major" upgrade. RG3 and Luck would be considered a major upgrade.

We don't have that luxury which is exactly why it's not in the teams best interest to get him.

We don't have the luxury of waiting because there are teams ahead of us in the draft order who could also use a QB. That's why it is in the team's best interest to trade up.

There are no QBs who could realistically be traded for, and no FA quarterbacks are worth passing over RG3 or Luck. When you have the opportunity to get a franchise QB, especially when you don't have one, you TAKE THE CHANCE. This next year is the moneymaker for Shanny and the Skins. This is the offseason we need to get a QB. We're not settling for a second-tier FA quarterback when we can get RG3 or Luck. That's doing it WAY too conservative.

[KCClybun]

NLC, were you on the Gabbert train last year? And if so, did you not make this same argument than?

Look at my friggin' Join Date, dute; July 2011. Well after the draft.

And even before the draft, my list of quarterbacks was pretty firmly 1.) Locker in the first, and then 2.) Dalton and 3.) Ponder in the second. And anyone who was complaining about not grabbing Gabbert CLEARLY had never watched him play in a game. A prospect is who he is, and if any of the people who had wanted Gabbert had actually watched them instead of being hungry for a quarterback, they would've known why he would've been a poor fit and why it would've been better that he could go somewhere and sit. So no, I didn't make the argument then.

That does not negate the fact this franchise will not move forward without a quarterback.

Your list of "optimal situations" is laughable. As Hitman pointed out, Baltimore's offense was hardly "optimal"; their receiver core consistent primarily of veterans. Their o-line was solid, but they didn't have a great running back. And the Ravens had gone 5-11 the previous season. Steve McNair couldn't get going, Kyle Boller was already a bust, and Troy Smith was athletic but not developed as a quarterback. A year after going 13-3 with solid quarterback play, the Ravens fell of the face of the planet and went 5-11 without it.

McNair retired, Boller wasn't the answer, and neither was Smith. The Ravens needed a young quarterback. So, as Hitman stated, the Ravens traded down, then back up to draft Flacco. Ryan fell to the Falcons, because Bill Parcells was a ****ing idiot and drafted Jake Long instead.

Nothing you describe there was an "optimal situation". Brady only played because Bledsoe got hurt; your then-franchise quarterback getting his lung collapsed is hardly an "optimal situation". And Brady got to sit on the bench for a year before that, after BARELY making it on the team as the Patriots 4th string quarterback.

And waiting for a free agent like Drew Brees to fall into our laps won't work either. The situation in New Orleans wasn't "optimal"; a devastated city with a team that had gone 2-14, and they weren't even sure if the team would be able to stay in NO. In history, there's only been two teams that managed to have two franchise quarterbacks on their roster at the same time (that I can think of); the Chargers with Brees and Rivers, and the 49ers with Montana and Young. Brees getting cut only occured because of his rotator cuff injury, and signing a quarterback with that kind of injury to a long term deal on a 2-14 team is hardly "optimal".

The fact is, the situation will never be "optimal". Things in the NFL rarely are.

Eli forced the situation, but the Giants did trade up to get Eli Manning. (Two NFC Championship Games and two Super Bowls, won one.). Mike Shanahan traded up to grab Jay Cutler. (NFC Championship game). The Ravens traded up to get Joe Flacco. (Two AFC Championship Games). The Jets traded up to get Mark Sanchez. (Two AFC Championship games). The Broncos traded up to get Tim Tebow. (First playoff berth in 6 years).

Screw how many teams that did it made the playoffs THIS year. The fact is, in the last 7 years, 5 quarterbacks who were involved in trades (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010) have gone to the playoffs, and 4 have gone to championship games. Two of them have done it TWICE.

And I'm not even counting Michael Vick from 2001. The Falcons traded up to draft him as well. Hell, Rex may suck eggs, but even HE was involved in a draft day trade. Both of them have been in NFC Championship games.

[sportjunkie07]

Wow.

gaffney is barely a number 2 receiver, he just happened to get a lot of targets (with which he did decent) and plays on a team that has minimal talent at the wr position. he has very little playmaking ability but he is consistent and pretty reliable.

atogwe is an above average safety who played hurt all year. hankerson had one good game in which his season ended... neither have needed to be gameplanned for recently.

id rather have rivers straight up over eli.

and also, it might not be all about the almighty qb, but it's mostly about the almighty qb.

[Hitman21ST]

The fact is, the situation will never be "optimal". Things in the NFL rarely are.

90% solution now is better than 100% solution 5 minutes too late. Learned that a long time ago.

Eli forced the situation, but the Giants did trade up to get Eli Manning. (Two NFC Championship Games and two Super Bowls, won one.). Mike Shanahan traded up to grab Jay Cutler. (NFC Championship game). The Ravens traded up to get Joe Flacco. (Two AFC Championship Games). The Jets traded up to get Mark Sanchez. (Two AFC Championship games). The Broncos traded up to get Tim Tebow. (First playoff berth in 6 years).

Wow, nice job on the research. :applause:

I forgot completely about Sanchez and Tebow.

Screw how many teams that did it made the playoffs THIS year. The fact is, in the last 7 years, 5 quarterbacks who were involved in trades (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010) have gone to the playoffs, and 4 have gone to championship games. Two of them have done it TWICE.

And I'm not even counting Michael Vick from 2001. The Falcons traded up to draft him as well. Hell, Rex may suck eggs, but even HE was involved in a draft day trade. Both of them have been in NFC Championship games.

Can't dispute those facts.

[KCClybun]

Meh. I know it's all going to get ignored anyway, so it's probably for nothing.

[DogofWar1]

I want to comment on something mentioned a little earlier in the thread, since it interested me. It's the idea that we need playmakers at WR, RB, Oline, AND QB.

To put it simply, I don't disagree, but this is not the argument that should be used to keep us from drafting, or even moving up for, a QB.

Let's pretend that for those four positions, if we don't have playmakers there that we have average play.

A team without a playmakers at one of either WR, RB, or Oline, but with a playmaking QB, can still be great.

A team without a playmaking QB, even with playmakers at the other 3, will simply be good, with short flashes of great.

Furthemore, for teams with more holes, a team without a playmaking QB AND without playmakers at one of the other 3 spots will be a poor team.

Meanwhile, a team with a playmaking QB can make a team lacking playmakers at two of the other positions still good.

Ultimately, we should strive for playmakers everywhere, but playmakers everywhere without the QB will still result in a limited team with a ceiling below the top.

As such, QB is MOST important among the offensive positions, and ought to be the first pursuit of a FO. Few organizations will find consistent success without a franchise QB, and even those who are "successful" run into ceilings. Probably the best example is the Ravens. They have had one of the most stifling defenses in the league for a decade, and yet they've made only one Superbowl appearance. They've consistently been overshadowed by their rivals the Steelers, who've won 2 superbowls in recent years and went to a 3rd. The difference between these two teams is QB play. Big Ben is a playmaker, Flacco is not. Big Ben will win you a game, Flacco just won't lose you it. Simply put, with one of the best defenses in modern football for a decade, the Ravens have only one Superbowl appearance and win to show for it. Meanwhile, the Steelers, who have a stifling defense, have enjoyed incredible success.

QB QB QB. You can do well without it, but you can not be a great team without it. You want to build a winning franchise, QB is where you start.

[KCClybun]

As such, QB is MOST important among the offensive positions, and ought to be the first pursuit of a FO. Few organizations will find consistent success without a franchise QB, and even those who are "successful" run into ceilings. Probably the best example is the Ravens. They have had one of the most stifling defenses in the league for a decade, and yet they've made only one Superbowl appearance. They've consistently been overshadowed by their rivals the Steelers, who've won 2 superbowls in recent years and went to a 3rd. The difference between these two teams is QB play. Big Ben is a playmaker, Flacco is not. Big Ben will win you a game, Flacco just won't lose you it. Simply put, with one of the best defenses in modern football for a decade, the Ravens have only one Superbowl appearance and win to show for it. Meanwhile, the Steelers, who have a stifling defense, have enjoyed incredible success.

QB QB QB. You can do well without it, but you can not be a great team without it. You want to build a winning franchise, QB is where you start.

And even when Flacco DID make the plays to put them in a Super Bowl, the "playmaking" receiver they gave up a draft pick for dropped a perfectly thrown ball, and the kicker shanked the kick.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Nice posts NCL.

It's just mind boggling how people are afraid of giving up a couple of draft picks even though there is special QB talent in reach. Staying pat and taking whatever falls to us is not the way to go this year. Shanahan has to be sure he hits on the QB and he has to hit this year. He took a lot of heat for sticking with Rex because he didn't like what he saw last year. Unlike last year when he said he'd stake his rep on Beck and Rex, the guy he brings in actually will matter to his legacy. His whole tenure as Redskins coach will come down to the guy he selects this offseason as his longterm solution. Do you really think he's gonna settle for a second tier guy? I don't. Not only would Griff or Luck have the best chance of succeeding, but it would give the fanbase some patience as they know rookies sometimes take some time. It's also common knowledge that Luck and Griff are the two best talents in the draft. He's gonna grab one of them. He has to.

[Hitman21ST]

Nice posts NCL.

It's just mind boggling how people are afraid of giving up a couple of draft picks even though there is special QB talent in reach. Staying pat and taking whatever falls to us is not the way to go this year. Shanahan has to be sure he hits on the QB and he has to hit this year. He took a lot of heat for sticking with Rex because he didn't like what he saw last year. Unlike last year when he said he'd stake his rep on Beck and Rex, the guy he brings in actually will matter to his legacy. His whole tenure as Redskins coach will come down to the guy he selects this offseason as his longterm solution. Do you really think he's gonna settle for a second tier guy? I don't. Not only would Griff or Luck have the best chance of succeeding, but it would give the fanbase some patience as they know rookies sometimes take some time. It's also common knowledge that Luck and Griff are the two best talents in the draft. He's gonna grab one of them. He has to.

Our fanbase finds new ways to make me dumbfounded. Now it's the offseason.

Last year post draft: "We needed to take a QB! We can't go into the season with Rex and Beck! We should have traded up and done everything we could have and gotten (whoever)!"

This year pre draft: "Hell no we don't trade up! We can wait for a QB to fall to us! Even if it's next year!"

:doh:

[S.T.real,lights,out]

I posted this in the Chuck Pagano thread, but it's about QBs, so I'll repost it here...

The more I think about it, the more it makes sense that Pagano is going to stick with Manning for the time being.

Pagano will undoubtedly want to switch to a 3-4 punch you in the mouth defense. Something their current defense isn't built to do. Manning is a known quantity and can keep the offense running effectively. So here's how I see it playing out:

Colts trade out of the #1 pick (hopefully to us). With the dearth of picks they will then have, Pagano can take 3-4 defenders: OLB, NT, and DE. He could probably find at least one starter at each position through the draft, and then again through free agency. Paul Soliai from the Dolphins, Adam Carriker, then two OLBs and DEs from the draft. Trading back to 6, he'll get a lot of picks and still be able to take Coples, Upshaw, or Keuchley. Or he could trade back again and get even more picks.

Then he can trade up next year since he'll have at least 2 first rounders and take Matt Barkley to sit behind Manning until he retires.

I was thinking about this when i heard the Colts went with a D minded coach. But i think they would trade with the Browns b/c they would be able to add 2 1st round talent starters.

The thing that scares me if they did trade with the Browns and RGIII falls to the Colts @ 4..i would think they would trade out of 4.

However with all the new faces around Indy im expecting them to take Luck and let Peyton walk. I just dont know how you can pass on Luck.

[Hitman21ST]

I was thinking about this when i heard the Colts went with a D minded coach. But i think they would trade with the Browns b/c they would be able to add 2 1st round talent starters.

The thing that scares me if they did trade with the Browns and RGIII falls to the Colts @ 4..i would think they would trade out of 4.

However with all the new faces around Indy im expecting them to take Luck and let Peyton walk. I just dont know how you can pass on Luck.

Re: Browns

I don't think they'll be trading up, especially if the Colts want to trade out. They let us trade up and can still get their guy. We take Luck with the first, they can wait for RG3 to fall to them and still grab a WR or RB with their second pick, if they even want to go QB. They wouldn't sacrifice RG3 and someone for him to throw to just to get Luck.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

Re: Browns

I don't think they'll be trading up, especially if the Colts want to trade out. They let us trade up and can still get their guy. We take Luck with the first, they can wait for RG3 to fall to them and still grab a WR or RB with their second pick, if they even want to go QB. They wouldn't sacrifice RG3 and someone for him to throw to just to get Luck.

I hope you're right. But i think Luck would totally revamp that franchise. I think either way if we want RGIII or Luck obviously we will have to trade up

[Hitman21ST]

I hope you're right. But i think Luck would totally revamp that franchise. I think either way if we want RGIII or Luck obviously we will have to trade up

If you were Holmgren, would you swap RG3 and Nick Toon (or whoever the best receiver available at their next pick is) for Luck? Yeah, Luck's good, but can you really pass up 1B and WR?

[Epochalypse]

I get the feeling more and more that the Colts are doing a complete reboot of their franchise, which would include drafting Luck.

I think they will try to get Peyton to retire and if he won't they'll keep him. Everyone saying they can only keep one, I'm not sure I agree. If Peyton can still play at a high level why not keep him? Will Luck like sitting? No, but really what's he going to say? I should start as a rookie over Peyton Manning? He'll be a team player and wait his turn for at least a year. Gives Manning a chance to prove he can come back from the injury and then go out as a Colt. It will be a lot of money tied up into the QB position for the Colts but that's a short term problem.

Obviously this scenario doesn't help the Skins one bit, and I hope it's not the case because of that, but I can honestly see this happening. I still hold out hope that we can trade up for a shot at Luck (with a reasonable trade offer).

Irsay is about as eccentric (the accepted, nice way of telling rich people they're bat**** crazy) as they come, anything he does wouldn't really surprise me.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

If you were Holmgren, would you swap RG3 and Nick Toon (or whoever the best receiver available at their next pick is) for Luck? Yeah, Luck's good, but can you really pass up 1B and WR?

It would depend on how much other than my two 1st rounders i would have to give to move up. If i offered my two 1st's and maybe a 3rd (would not give up my 2nd) or something i would do it. I love RGIII but i think Luck is better. By how much? IDK, we will have to wait and see. The Browns def need a lot of help...they could address some of those areas in FA just like i think we will. If they bring in a #1 WR to team up with Cribbs and Little i would see what it takes to get Luck. If they do nothing in FA well i think they are forced to keep those picks.

[Mahons21]

Look at my friggin' Join Date, dute; July 2011. Well after the draft.

Forgive me. How oh how did I not check your join date? Always a vital piece of information when debating posters. Surely you can readily cite the join date of every poster you debate.

That does not negate the fact this franchise will not move forward without a quarterback.

No, this franchise won't be complete without a QB, it most certainly can move forward as there are multiple areas for this team to grow.

Your list of "optimal situations" is laughable. As Hitman pointed out, Baltimore's offense was hardly "optimal"; their receiver core consistent primarily of veterans. Their o-line was solid, but they didn't have a great running back. And the Ravens had gone 5-11 the previous season. Steve McNair couldn't get going, Kyle Boller was already a bust, and Troy Smith was athletic but not developed as a quarterback. A year after going 13-3 with solid quarterback play, the Ravens fell of the face of the planet and went 5-11 without it.

What is this list of optimal situations you speak of?

Why is it so difficult for you guys to debate what I say? Not your version of what I say.

As I've stated, multiple times, when I say "optimal situation" I'm referring to a QB being available, that fits the scheme, and won't be a huge risk ie multiple 1st rd draft picks.

For example; acquiring Brees was the optimal situation for Payton, a new HC who thought Brees fit his scheme and was available via FA.

Acquiring Ryan was the optimal situation because he was available where ATL was picking etc.

Nothing you describe there was an "optimal situation". Brady only played because Bledsoe got hurt; your then-franchise quarterback getting his lung collapsed is hardly an "optimal situation". And Brady got to sit on the bench for a year before that, after BARELY making it on the team as the Patriots 4th string quarterback.

Where is this list and description you keep referencing? You've gone on a tangent here against an argument I never made.

I don't think the Redskins need to create some perfect environment for the QB. I think the Redskins are a team that's still sorely lacking in talent, thus trading multiple high draft picks (probably 2 1sts, and a 2nd) for a single player is not in the teams best interest. This doesn't mean that if a QB is available in an "optimal situation" that we shouldn't hop on it, ie RG3 falls to 6.

And waiting for a free agent like Drew Brees to fall into our laps won't work either.

You can't say this with certainty as you're attempting to do, you have no idea whether it will work or not. Say we acquire Flynn, and he turns out to be a perennial pro-bowler here, than it will have worked.

The situation in New Orleans wasn't "optimal"; a devastated city with a team that had gone 2-14, and they weren't even sure if the team would be able to stay in NO. In history, there's only been two teams that managed to have two franchise quarterbacks on their roster at the same time (that I can think of); the Chargers with Brees and Rivers, and the 49ers with Montana and Young. Brees getting cut only occured because of his rotator cuff injury, and signing a quarterback with that kind of injury to a long term deal on a 2-14 team is hardly "optimal".

Ugh for the billionth time, when I refer to optimal situation it's referring to the manner in which the QB was acquired, it has nothing to do with other players on the team.

Lastly, if you think a $10 Mil guaranteed contract for a QB coming off a pro-bowler year isn't optimal your kidding yourself. This is at the time, rookie QBs are coming into the league and getting guaranteed contracts in the 30s+

The fact is, the situation will never be "optimal". Things in the NFL rarely are.

The fact is you've grossly understood my argument, and gone on a long rant that doesn't contradict anything I've said, most if it is actually quite irrelevant.

Eli forced the situation, but the Giants did trade up to get Eli Manning. (Two NFC Championship Games and two Super Bowls, won one.).

Yes and as I've pointed out, I think most FOs would take Rivers and a 1st rd draft pick and a 3rd Rd draft pick over Eli, with hindsight being 20/20.

Mike Shanahan traded up to grab Jay Cutler. (NFC Championship game).

I can't spout of the actual picks for this trade, but I doubt it involved using two 1st rounders and a 2nd rounder for one player.

The Ravens traded up to get Joe Flacco. (Two AFC Championship Games).

Again you're failing to recognize the difference in movement in the draft. I'm not against trading up all together, nor am I against drafting a QB, I'm against trading up to something silly like the 2nd spot in the draft and giving up 3 crucial draft picks for one player.

The Jets traded up to get Mark Sanchez. (Two AFC Championship games).

This example does actually fit the mold. But if you think this has worked out for the Jets you're kidding yourself.

If your response is going to be "well they made it to 2 AFC Championship games" don't bother.

These were team accomplishments, not due to Sanchez. In addition, the Jets are a great blue-print of how to be a flash in the pan team, go all in on a QB, use FA heavily etc.

I don't want the Redskins to be a flash in the pan, I want them to be a consistent contender, thus I would never follow the Jets blue-print.

The Broncos traded up to get Tim Tebow. (First playoff berth in 6 years).

And he might not even be the starting QB come game 1 next year. That's worked out great for them...

Screw how many teams that did it made the playoffs THIS year. The fact is, in the last 7 years, 5 quarterbacks who were involved in trades (2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2010) have gone to the playoffs, and 4 have gone to championship games. Two of them have done it TWICE.

How many QBs are drafted each year? How many QBs are traded each year?

I assume you probably can grasp that many more or drafted. Thus there will be a much larger pool of players, compared to QBs that are traded. Therefore, your comparison is anything but apples to apples.

You've essentially said, I'll take 100 free throws see how many I hit, you take 50. If I hit more clearly Im better.

And I'm not even counting Michael Vick from 2001. The Falcons traded up to draft him as well. Hell, Rex may suck eggs, but even HE was involved in a draft day trade. Both of them have been in NFC Championship games.

How do either of these examples support your argument? Neither one of these guys is even with their team anymore.

If the point is to build a perennial contender, citing QBs that didn't have sustained success by the team who traded up to draft them, does not support your point.

---------- Post added January-26th-2012 at 11:56 AM ----------

Last year post draft: "We needed to take a QB! We can't go into the season with Rex and Beck! We should have traded up and done everything we could have and gotten (whoever)!"

This year pre draft: "Hell no we don't trade up! We can wait for a QB to fall to us! Even if it's next year!"

:doh:

Who has made both these points?

If your point is that our fanbase, consisting of hundreds of thousands, have made both the points you reference than it's quite silly.

Obviously when you have that many people some will have differing views than others.

And person x could say your first point, while person y who never believed the first point might state the 2nd point.

Again this is quite silly.

It sounds to me like your trying to say that the same people who said;

a.) Don't go in this year with Rex and Beck

are now saying

b.) Don't trade up.

Which would be dumbfounding. So who are these people?

[Hitman21ST]

How do either of these examples support your argument? Neither one of these guys is even with their team anymore.

If the point is to build a perennial contender, citing QBs that didn't have sustained success by the team who traded up to draft them, does not support your point.

If Vick weren't such a bonehead, he would still be with the Falcons. And the trade worked out for them. They had sustained success with him, until he was arrested.

Again. Shanahan doesn't have the time to wait for your pre-mentioned "optimal" situation. Flynn is going to the Dolphins. There are no other good free agents available. RG3 isn't going to fall to six. In order to get a franchise QB, we will need to trade up to get one.

Your passive approach is exactly what got us to where we are today. We can't just "sit and wait" for the right QB to fall in our laps. We have to be aggressive and go get them.

If Shanahan sits and waits for the "right guy" to fall into his lap, he'll be waiting in his house, unemployed.

A 90% solution now is better than a 100% solution too late. What's hard to understand about that?

An elite QB raises the level of play of good positional players more than the other way around, and a QB's shelf life is longer. You get the QB first and you then see what you need. Should RG3 or Luck mesh with Hankerson, Gaffney, and Paul so well that they become elite playmakers, then you don't need to worry about that. Should RG3 or Luck perform so well that defenses can't stack the box against us, Helu and Royster can break out and become elite running backs. However, if we wait and continually upgrade those positions without a QB, they'll never reach their potential, and in essence be wasted draft picks. That's why you trade up and get them.