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

[pjfootballer]

I said this in another thread and looking at some of the posts in here within the last few pages about giving up draft picks:

I feel like I need to make this my permanent sig since I say this alot, but we have 18 picks in the next 2 drafts and that doesn't count compensatory picks for losing free agents. Potentially we could have over 20 picks in the next 2 drafts, coupled with the fact that 10 of our 12 picks this year played in an actual game and all 12 either made the roster or practice squad. Jenkins went on IR and Robinson stayed on the PS. We have ammunition to move up if we want to. Just because Cleveland has those 2 first rounders, doesn't mean they can afford to give them up, nor would they want to. Remember, this is Bruce and Mike, not Vinny. They turned 6 picks into 13 (one was traded to move back up to make 12) in one draft. It's not out of the relm of possibility for them to trade some picks and then trade back up or down into a round. Ultimately it's about quality and not quantity. Quantity helps the odds of getting a good player, but when you have the right guy making the selections, it helps the quality. Look at our roster and look at Cleveland and I'd say they are the ones who probably need to hold onto to picks more than us. Also, this FO has shown it can get quality, young players in free agency without going after old, aging guys. They had a limited free agency period last year and came up with Bowen, Cofield, Wilson and Chester. They also duped the Broncos for Gaffney and duped the Cardinals for Hightower. Imagine what they can do with a free agent period where they actually have more time to assess things.

[HailfrmDEN]

We need a good QB. We had many chances this year to win games. Then grossman happened. So i would choose the franchise QB over more defense picks. You do the samething over and over while expecting a different result makes you crazy.

[KCClybun]

Doesn't Kyle know that if you improve the QB WRs start gaining separation!?!

Gaffney is a fine #1 receiver.

For ****'s sake dude, give it a rest.

There is no one here saying that you don't need a solid team around a quarterback, or something stupid like what you're insuating. For a guy who keeps complaining about people twisting your words you seem just as guilty of doing it yourself. And I will do you a solid and say anyone who IS saying isn't paying attention and is being incredibly stupid. Gaffney's not a number one, he's a possession receiver. A good possession receiver, but hardly a number one.

But cut this facetious bullcrap. At one point you were debating, now you're just going "HAHA, you're dumb!". What I'm arguing is that we have a solid foundation to bring in a quarterback at this moment. Even if we have to trade up to get him, we will still have seven draft picks in the scenario YOU MENTIONED. (Two firsts and a second, we still end up with seven draft picks in 2011 and 2012). Free agency now happens before the draft again, which means we can add pieces through that as well.

You're arguing that this team is so devoid of talent, trading multiple picks for one player would be an unmitigated disaster from which it would be hard to recover. And when people like me or Hitman bring up why it WOULDN'T be, and why a quarterback is an important piece of the puzzle, how a solid quarterback can improve the quality of the player's around him, you scoff and act like the idea is some foreign concept.

You say this team was overly aggressive and undervalued draft picks. The thing is, with Vinny, we weren't trading UP to get players. We were spending high draft picks to bring in aging, overrated veterans who did nothing to add to our team. When we did trade for a quarterback, it was because Vinny and Gibbs went all in for the guy who was CLEARLY the third rated quarterback prospect in the draft, by a country mile. In Vinny's eternal quest to make it seem like he was the dumbest GM ever, he so overvalued the position of cornerback (probably to make up for the whole organization screwing up things with Champ Bailey) that he picked 'Los over Rodgers, when the 49ers did us THE BIGGEST FAVOR IN HISTORY by passing on Rodgers! And despite being damn near the top rated prospect, Vinny and Gibbs and Snyder had their hearts and mind set on Campbell.

And that's not to say Rodgers would've come in and won us Super Bowls and we'd all be sitting around the campire singing Kumbaya, nor does that devalue the fact that Green Bay has put an incredible amount of talent around Rodgers.

What it says is that they went out, and they picked out the piece first. They understood that Brett Favre's time was coming to an end, and that they needed to find their heir apparent for him. And yes, the Packers lucked out and, I guess, in your estimation, found themselves in the "optimal situation"; namely, teams like the Redskins and the Cardinals being dumb enough to pass on him. But that does not negate the fact that they drafted a key piece of the organization around which they could begin to build around, while they still had the elder-statemen there. They understood where they were as a franchise.

One thing the Redskins have not done, even with Mike here, is had a clear cut understanding of where we are as a franchise. Mike could be excused for, perhaps, thinking our roster was more talented than it was, or maybe had more potential.

Vinny and Snyder, and even Gibbs 2.0, clearly never understood where the team was. And even when it appeared they did, they were WOEFULLY incapable of getting out of their own way by listening to what their scouts and common friggin' sense were saying. No way you look at Rodgers, look at Campbell, and then look a 'Los and say "draft 'Los, then move up and get Campbell". There's just no way Even though Rodgers was technically more raw than Campbell, he was still a better prospect.

I am not saying you don't need talent around a quarterback, or a solid team around a quarterback. I am saying that getting a quarterback should be the first piece of the puzzle, so you know what pieces to draft. I'm saying that trading up to get said quarterback would not cripple us, as we would still have a full alotment of draft picks, and free agency happens before the draft again, thus mitigating some--not all, but SOME--of the risk. And that a solid quarterback can't make a bad wide receiver good overnight, but a solid quarterback CAN make an average receiver look above average.

We always settle for the third best or worse quarterback in the draft. We always wait for the "optimal" situation. Brunell seemed optimal, McNabb seemed optimal. Wuerfel and Matthews probably looked optimal/ We took late round fliers on Colt Brennan, and Jordan Palmer, and Chase Daniels, we settled for Campbell and Ramsey.

Again and again and again we settle, and again and again and again, we suck. We're mediocre. We're barely good enough to make a run at the playoffs, but never to be a true Super Bowl contender. Every. Friggin'. Time.

And we've been talent deficient to be sure. But not having a single guy to begin to build around that the organization really believed in (as a fan base and as an organization, once he was here, no one really got behind Campbell as the franchise guy) hurt as bad as anything.

[Mahons21]

I think the "optimal situation" amounts to "either wait for a guy to fall or pray that Brad Johnson and Trent Green are reincarnated and end up back on our door step again".

So posts such as this are perfectly cool. Not passive aggressive at all.

But if I post something, its "****s sake dude!" Someone's quite sensitive today

And people most certainly did say Gaffney is a fine number one. Where do you think I found that quote?

So uh, does that mean that Donald Driver is a bad WR? Or Mario Manningham? I wouldn't cry myself to sleep over having them as our top guy. Gaffney is probably on that level.

It's one of many.

Maybe you need to stop taking this so personally, and realize I've debated about 10 different people on the topic, if I'm addressing you specifically I'll quote you.

[pjfootballer]

NLC1054 look at my post 2 posts up.

[Skinsinparadise]

Both Kyle today and Shanny in recent interviews have lamented that we don't have that playmaker on offense who can catch a short pass and take it to the house. Look at the Giants for example, all three of their Wrs can catch a 5 yard hitch and score a 60 yard touchdown. We got no one who can do it. One good thing is both Kyle and Shanny went out of their way to highlight Hankerson as a possible help, Kyle flat out said he is their best WR.

Shanny in an interview on NFL.com which I watched today, talked about if you find the right QB you need to get him play makers. I take their rhetoric in relevance to this discussion to imply, playmakers take up the Qb's performance up a peg. Playmakers aren't going to make mediocre Qb's great but will make them better. Playmakers will make good QB's perhaps great. Great QB's in their own right without much of a supporting cast are rare.

My take on RG 3, is you got me if he's a franchise QB but if he Shanny thinks he's special like he thought Bradford was trade up because as Kyle implied franchise QB's are so hard to find. There is a bunch of free agent WRs who can make the supporting cast much better, heck sign V. Jackson and Manningham, and with a healthy Hankerson that bumps Gaffney to the #4 receiver. that wouldn't be bad IMO. But if Shanny is unsure about RG 3, trade down again, try someone else, Weeden or whomever and continue to build the roster.

[KCClybun]

So posts such as this are perfectly cool. Not passive aggressive at all.

But if I post something, its "****s sake dude!" Someone's quite sensitive today.

I addressed what seemed to be your main concern; that trading up would leave us in a bad position in the future. That it'd be better to let him fall to us then trade up.

I've mentioned several times that, even if the scenario you posed, the Redskins would still have seven draft picks in each of the next seasons, with the opportunity to still trade down, plus any compensatory draft for free agents, and that, since free agency happens before the draft, we can improve our football team, and trade up to draft RGIII, and that the risk would be mitigated.

I don't get any response to those points. Care to debate those?

[Mahons21]

I addressed what seemed to be your main concern; that trading up would leave us in a bad position in the future. That it'd be better to let him fall to us then trade up.

I've mentioned several times that, even if the scenario you posed, the Redskins would still have seven draft picks in each of the next seasons, with the opportunity to still trade down, plus any compensatory draft for free agents, and that, since free agency happens before the draft, we can improve our football team, and trade up to draft RGIII, and that the risk would be mitigated.

I don't get any response to those points. Care to debate those?

No, I don't care to debate with you. That's why I stopped.

[KCClybun]

No, I don't care to debate with you. That's what I stopped.

Why not? You're so adamant about it, why don't you debate your cause?

[pjfootballer]

I addressed what seemed to be your main concern; that trading up would leave us in a bad position in the future. That it'd be better to let him fall to us then trade up.

I've mentioned several times that, even if the scenario you posed, the Redskins would still have seven draft picks in each of the next seasons, with the opportunity to still trade down, plus any compensatory draft for free agents, and that, since free agency happens before the draft, we can improve our football team, and trade up to draft RGIII, and that the risk would be mitigated.

I don't get any response to those points. Care to debate those?

Did you see my post in the previous page highlighted in red?

[Mahons21]

Why not? You're so adamant about it, why don't you debate your cause?

I find your posting style annoying. I mean seriously look at what you just wrote dude, are you trying to antagonize me?

[KCClybun]

Did you see my post in the previous page highlighted in red?

Yes, I saw your post.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Nobody said that it wouldn't help any QB immensely to have Andre Johnson or somebody along those lines on the outside. It'd be very nice to have a legitimate #1 WR. But just as a better QB won't help the WR get seperation or beat a guy one-on-one in man coverage, a better WR won't make the QB's deep ball more accurate or make him more mobile in the pocket. So it swings both ways. The difference is that the #1 WR concept is a bit overrated anyway. You could call Cruz a #1, but he doesn't really fit the Fitz/AJ/CJ profile - could he be more a product of a great offense overall and having a lot of targets that the opposition has to account for? Can't double team Cruz if you have to defend Mario and Nicks, especially if Eli can reliably get them the ball. The problem is, you can't do the same kind of acquisition strategy with QBs as you can with WRs (bring a bunch of WRs into camp, have one win a roster spot, and see who gets open in real games) because you can't have more than 1 QB on the field in practice. That's why you can find Jordy Nelson and Mario Manningham easier than you can find Romo sits to pee and Brees.

Also, contrary to belief we're actually pretty straightfoward in what we say our needs are (though not in how we'll do it - we said we needed a pass rusher last year, but said nothing about trading down from 10 to 16 to get Kerrigan instead of drafting Quinn). We said we need a #1 WR and a franchise QB. The only guy who's close to being a sure-fire #1 WR is Blackmon, and him falling to #6 is FAR less likely than RGIII falling to #6. So, splashy FA acquisition? (If we're going for mid-tier value, I want Stevie Johnson, if I want a superstar, D-Jax)

[Mahons21]

That's why you can find Jordy Nelson and Mario Manningham easier than you can find Romo sits to pee and Brees.

....

Jordy Nelson, drafted 36th overall

Drew Brees, drafted 32nd overall, later acquired in FA

Manningham, drafted 95th overall

Romo sits to pee, UDFA

[KCClybun]

For every Drew Brees, there's (let's just cut this list off at guys who were drafted between rounds 2-5, shall we?) a Quincy Carter, Chris Weinke, Jesse Palmer, Josh McCown, Rohan Davey, Randi Fasani, Kurt Kitner, Brandon Doman, Craig Nall, Dave Ragone, Chris Simms, Seneca Wallace, Brian St. Pierre, Luke McCown, Craig Krenzel, Charlie Frye, Andrew Walter, David Greene, Steven LeFors, Dan Orlovsky, Adrian McPhearson, Kellen Clemens, Tarvaris Jackson, Charlie Whitehurst, Brodie Croyle, Ingle Martin, John Beck, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, Isiah Stanbeck, Jeff Rowe, Troy Smith, Brian Brohm, Chad Henne, Kevin O'Connell, John David Booty, Dennis Dixon, Josh Johnson, Erik Ainge, Pat White, Steven McGee, Rhett Bomar, Nate Davis, Jimmy Clausen, and Jonathan Crompton.

And that's being generous, trying to give some of the newer guys time to develop.

That takes out guys like Kyle Orton and David Garrard who are just good enough to get you beat, Kevin Kolb (who the jury is still out on, but who is probably going to have to compete for his job against a 5th round pick next season) and Matt Schaub, who's the only damn franchise quarterback of the bunch. And none of them have been to a Super Bowl. (Yet.)

Sooo...hmm...

[DogofWar1]

....

Jordy Nelson, drafted 36th overall

Drew Brees, drafted 32nd overall, later acquired in FA

Manningham, drafted 95th overall

Romo sits to pee, UDFA

Using Brees, Romo sits to pee, Brady, and Schaub as reasons we shouldn't search for our QB early or why we shouldn't do everything possible to pursue a QB we feel is for us, is not really a good argument. They are far from the norm. Looking around the NFL, the majority of successful QBs come from the 1st.

I already posted the data on teams that consistently went to the postseason, and simply put, there is an extremely strong correlation between a team having a franchise QB and consistent success, and there is a strong correlation between QBs being drafted earlier and their level of success.

As such, we should do everything in our power to get a true 1st round QB, which in this draft, means Luck or RGIII. If we have to trade picks, fine.

I would trade two 1sts every other year for a true 1st round QB until we find our franchise QB if we need to. The odds of this franchise finding anything resembling consistent success without a franchise QB are slim at best. If Shanahan has a different plan for QB, that's fine, but ultimately the point is the same, we need a franchise QB, and we should be willing to do almost anything to get that QB.

[Mahons21]

Using Brees, Romo sits to pee, Brady, and Schaub as reasons we shouldn't search for our QB early or why we shouldn't do everything possible to pursue a QB we feel is for us, is not really a good argument. They are far from the norm. Looking around the NFL, the majority of successful QBs come from the 1st.

Who said we can't draft our QB early? If RG3 is sitting at 6 by all means take him.

I already posted the data on teams that consistently went to the postseason, and simply put, there is an extremely strong correlation between a team having a franchise QB and consistent success, and there is a strong correlation between QBs being drafted earlier and their level of success.

And as I've already explained your data shows a correlation between good QBs and good teams, you have no idea nor any proof of which is the cause. From your data an argument can just as easily be made the a strong support system is the cause of good QB play, not the other way around.

In addition your last sentence is basic logic. Players (not just QBs) drafted earlier in the draft are more likely to succeed, I certainly hope you didn't need to gather data to come to that conclusion.

I would trade two 1sts every other year for a true 1st round QB until we find our franchise QB if we need to. The odds of this franchise finding anything resembling consistent success without a franchise QB are slim at best. If Shanahan has a different plan for QB, that's fine, but ultimately the point is the same, we need a franchise QB, and we should be willing to do almost anything to get that QB.

Ya who cares if we set the team back a decade and don't have a single talent around said QB? Forget all those first round draft picks that have netted us the majority of the above average talent we currently have; T. Williams, B Orakpo, R Kerrigan, Landry, Taylor (may he rest in peace) Let's keep using multiple first round picks on QBs ie what we did to acquire Jason Campbell. That'll surely take this team to where it needs to be.

[KCClybun]

...Really?

Losing one first round pick is going to set us back a decade?

[SirClintonPortis]

The passing game is all about establishing a distribution system, analogous to mail delivery in some respects. A great QB can alleviate the need to spend expensive resources on receivers. The ideal is having both. The ideal is not always met since acquiring finding such quality players means sifting through a minefield of players not up to par. Hence, in order to maximize the CHANCE of reaching the ideal, we must REDUCE the chances of stepping on a mine. You do NOT make trade ups unless you and your scouts are VERY, VERY confident that the player is going to work out for you. Usually, staying put is an adequate strategy and trading down is good if you're low on resources.

[flock53]

I like POINTS. I would MUCH rather see us run up 35 points than 10.

Again.....dont look at an arbitrary number....what if 17 of those pts came off 3 TOs. We do need a better QB..............but ultimately defenses (or the better one) wins championships. We shall see if Brady (the better franchise qb) will single handedly beat a better Giants defense

[Hitman21ST]

Ya who cares if we set the team back a decade and don't have a single talent around said QB? Forget all those first round draft picks that have netted us the majority of the above average talent we currently have; T. Williams, B Orakpo, R Kerrigan, Landry, Taylor (may he rest in peace) Let's keep using multiple first round picks on QBs ie what we did to acquire Jason Campbell. That'll surely take this team to where it needs to be.

So, 1 first round pick gone = 1 decade. Gotcha :thumbsup:

And we would have talent around said QB. All the other rounds of the draft plus what we already have. While Gaffney, Moss, Hankerson et al might not be on the level of Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, et al, we can still get star level production from them. Hell, Gaffney almost had 1000 yards with Rex Grossman throwing him the ball, and Fred Davis had 800 yards through 12 games, on pace for 1000 yards. If we can get that kind of production with Grossman throwing them the ball, imagine the production from RG3 or Luck. Who cares about the "talent" level if you're getting multiple 1000 yard receivers? Unless you don't want to count it unless we have an Andre Johnson level receiver...

[Ghost of]

Again.....dont look at an arbitrary number....what if 17 of those pts came off 3 TOs. We do need a better QB..............but ultimately defenses (or the better one) wins championships. We shall see if Brady (the better franchise qb) will single handedly beat a better Giants defense

Neither D is actually that good, though both have shown more lately. But let's not discount that a really good QB (Manning) is going against a more or less horrid defense (in terms of overall season production.) The fact that two less-than-stellar defenses made it to the big show, kind of poke holes in the "Defense wins championships" 'truism.' It's simply not true.

[Mahons21]

So, 1 first round pick gone = 1 decade. Gotcha :thumbsup:

And we would have talent around said QB. All the other rounds of the draft plus what we already have. While Gaffney, Moss, Hankerson et al might not be on the level of Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, et al, we can still get star level production from them. Hell, Gaffney almost had 1000 yards with Rex Grossman throwing him the ball, and Fred Davis had 800 yards through 12 games, on pace for 1000 yards. If we can get that kind of production with Grossman throwing them the ball, imagine the production from RG3 or Luck. Who cares about the "talent" level if you're getting multiple 1000 yard receivers? Unless you don't want to count it unless we have an Andre Johnson level receiver...

Had you taken the time to actually read the post I quoted, you might have read this:

I would trade two 1sts every other year for a true 1st round QB until we find our franchise QB if we need to. The odds of this franchise finding anything resembling consistent success without a franchise QB are slim at best.

Had you read that you might have realized I was not simply referring to trading up one year, I was referring to what I thought was a very silly strategy for team building.

Since you didn't understand my post, you've come up with two points to counter a point I never made, and they're entirely irrelevant. In addition, I would think that my comment was quite obviously an exaggeration, not expected to be taken literally.

[DogofWar1]

Here's the problem, every year we go into a season without a QB, we set ourselves back a year more or less from week one. The only thing that keeps us from admitting it is false hope. Objectively, we should have all known that this year was a lost cause with Rex Grossman and John Beck under center. If we go into next year with them, than it's basically another year back.

We have talent around the team, the problem is it gets wasted. We could have an Andre Johnson and I doubt it would make a huge difference with the level of QB play we have. Double coverage and wait for whoever our substandard QB is to throw a nice juicy floater. Then intercept it.

I'd say Grossman and TJ Yates are pretty similar, though Yates has room to improve where Grossman doesn't. Texans have Andre Johnson, and in the divisional round he played pretty well. Over 100 yards receiving. Problem is, Yates threw 3 interceptions and cost them the game. If Matt Schaub is in for the Texans, they probably win that game. Poor QB play lost that game.

The QB is the area where a team needs a high level of play if they want consistent success, with perhaps the only exception being if they have a defense that is one of the top 3 or so in the league every year. Problem is, having that level of defense is nearly impossible to attain, and then even harder to maintain.

The only place where you need to have more than QB play if once you hit the playoffs. Problem is, we're not even close, mainly because we don't score points, and consequently don't win games.

So yeah, if we we're not in a position to get a true 1st round QB, a guy who has all the skills we needed, where we are picking in the draft (and we usually won't since EVERY OTHER team has seemed to figure out the importance of QB play except maybe us), I would gladly spend two first round picks every year we had one and then one the next year, in order to get at that prospect.

Fun fact, the "set the team back" argument is a bad one. Our teams already been set back TWENTY years from lack of a QB. If we sit on our hands and hope one falls into our lap, we'll be waiting another 10 years anyway, so I'd rather spend those 10 years being proactive and trying to find the guy.

[Mahons21]

Fun fact, the "set the team back" argument is a bad one. Our teams already been set back TWENTY years from lack of a QB. If we sit on our hands and hope one falls into our lap, we'll be waiting another 10 years anyway, so I'd rather spend those 10 years being proactive and trying to find the guy.

Fun fact, nothing I have quoted above is factual, it's an opinion.

Since you can't seem to grasp the concept of why this sets a team back, let me explain this to you. Every offseason all NFL teams are given a certain number of opportunities to improve the team. There's FA but that can be far too expensive as the Redskins well know, and then there's the draft. If every team in the NFL is improving with all their draft picks including their 1st round draft picks, and the Redskins don't have a 1st round pick, they will fall further and further behind in the level of talent. X can't much X-1, simple math.

Had the Redskins employed such a strategy, we might have Mark Sanchez right now, but no Orakpo, no T Williams, and since Mark clearly doesn't fit the mold, we would have been drafting again two years later, and we might have acquired a Locker/Gabbert this year (CAR was taking Newton, much like IND is taking Luck), rather than having a Kerrigan. In short, the likely outcome of your strategy over the past 3 seasons would give this team, Mark Sanchez, Locker/Gabbert, and no Kerrigan/Williams/Orakpo. I'm quite pleased we haven't attempted this strategy I must say.