The Full Monty Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 All we can really do is hope that the people making decisions are doing so logically. Every team will miss. Yeah, I understand what you mean, as fans hope is never in short supply, I have no idea why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitfire71 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I might understand this guy's point a bit, but...indefensible? When you're a team that has a lot of holes, you draft the best player available with the EXCEPTION of already being stacked at a position. Now, if we went out and grabbed Kyle Rudolph (TE, Notre Dame) with the 10th pick, THAT would be indefensible. A lot of other positions (RB, any CB not named Patrick Peterson or Prince Amukamara, S - especially if they're not Rahim Moore). But when you're picking as high as 10, you don't just want a player that can be okay to good for a solid number of years. You're hoping to get a guy that you can build a team around. Most teams that pick quarterbacks high have holes at a number of other places. That's why they're picking where they're picking, other than maybe a rash of injuries. And a QB that develops does a lot more for your team than any other position - not just on field, but psychologically. A team with a QB of the future, even if the young guy hasn't taken the field yet, has at the very least a symbol of hope to build around. They have some sense of direction. A team in rebuilding mode without a quarterback of the future is like a kingdom with an ill king and no prince. What you have at the moment isn't the best you could have, and yet, when it's gone, there is no semblance of stability, no sense of knowing what's coming. The other problem with this argument is that you don't know what's happening in the next QB class. Once Luck is off the board, that more than likely leaves Terrelle Pryor in the first round, and that's about it. As bleak as things look for our squad, it would take a total and complete disaster of a season - as in worse than 2009 - to be in a position to grab Andrew Luck without trading half our picks away. More realistically, we're probably looking at a season somewhere between 5-11 and 8-8 at the very highest. If our core guys stay healthy, I believe our defense will find a way to improve statistically. Remember, though, stats aren't everything. The way I see it, most teams with a defense that is statistically as bad as ours was last year tend to go a lot worse than 6-10. San Diego was tops in statistical offense and statistical defense for the majority of the year last year and still didn't make the playoffs. So that would leave us with Terrelle Pryor, who makes me nervous for a lot of reasons. He will probably measure off the charts. He's not as big as Newton, but he's possibly faster. Both have strong arms. Maybe it's my paranoia, but guys with the best measurables - especially at QB - tend to be the biggest busts. But if we pick at or around #10 next year, there's a chance that Luck AND Pryor will be gone by then. Long story short, if you believe enough in a guy at QB to take him this year at #10, take him. It's a lot easier to find your [insert position here] of the present/future in later rounds than it is to find a QB of the future. My opinion? If you're sold on either Newton or Gabbert and the guy you want is still there, pull the trigger. If the rumors are true and Shanahan's targeting Jake Locker, he'll have to do some maneuvering anyway. I'm not sure how far you could trade down. If Newton or Gabbert falls, then you could trade down maybe to the 15-20 range and get an extra pick out of it. If Newton and Gabbert are both gone when we pick at 10, we're in deep :pooh:. The optimal range to grab Jake Locker falls somewhere in the middle of our first two picks. In other words, #10 is way too early, even if Newton and Gabbert are gone...and he probably would not be there at #42. But we're going to have two middling QBs at most on the roster (Grossman's a FA this year), both on the wrong side of 30, at the start of next season. I'm not saying we HAVE to draft a QB, I'm saying that we shouldn't totally disregard the position like Reid's implying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Thrown into the NFC West fire is different from thrown into the NFC East fire. Not that they would've been great anyways, but you could see the shell shock develop over the years in our last two first round QBs. There was no shell shock. What you saw was defenses figuring out their weaknesses and exploiting them. Neither adjusted to overcome his problem. Troy Aikman took a much bigger beating than Ramsey and Campbell combined. Didn't seem to be a problem with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 You could...but Campbell sat for almost 2 years (all of 2005 and 2/3 of 2006) before playing. I don't think you can pin his shell shock on throwing him into the fire. Ramsey's fire was probably more the scheme, but that's just my opinion. I guess that I believe good QBs will either sink or swim. I'm sure there are outliers to my opinion, but probably not many. Also, I'm not saying that the rookie should play in week 1, but I don't have a problem with allowing him to play once he gives the team the best chance to win or once we're out of contention. The team we had built by the time Campbell came in still was sorry. Compare the team built around Rodgers in the same time span. We keep drafting(and trading for) QBs and expecting them to make the rest of our untalented roster look better. At least start the rebuilding process before throwing another QB out there. That's just my opinion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 The team we had built by the time Campbell came in still was sorry. Compare the team built around Rodgers in the same time span. We keep drafting(and trading for) QBs and expecting them to make the rest of our untalented roster look better. At least start the rebuilding process before throwing another QB out there. That's just my opinion though. Do you mean the team that made the playoffs with Todd Collins? That sorry bunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 The team we had built by the time Campbell came in still was sorry. Compare the team built around Rodgers in the same time span. We keep drafting(and trading for) QBs and expecting them to make the rest of our untalented roster look better. At least start the rebuilding process before throwing another QB out there. That's just my opinion though. I guess that's a matter of opinion. It was largely the same team (offensively) that went 10-6 the year before. In fact, many people thought that Brunell was the one holding us back in 2006. We had a great running game, an emerging TE, an OK WRs corps, and a top OL. Either way, my argument isn't really about Campbell...it's that I believe a good QB will play fine (not great, mind you) no matter what. He'll show flashes of what he can do, at a minimum. I'm not even advocating throwing a rookie out there in week 1. I'm just saying that you COULD put him out there once we're out of contention or once he appears to be a better play than Grossman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 There was no shell shock. What you saw was defenses figuring out their weaknesses and exploiting them. Neither adjusted to overcome his problem. Troy Aikman took a much bigger beating than Ramsey and Campbell combined. Didn't seem to be a problem with him. Troy Aikman also ended up with a HOF running back to hand off to, and a HOF WR to throw to. They built a great team around him. We have failed miserably at building around any of our young quarterbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 ok hindsight is 20/20 right but how about this: You keep the defense the same running a hybrid style 4-3. Now you don't need to go out and get linebackers and NT's or really change much of anything from a defense that was a top 10 unit the previous year. Now what? How about focus on offense and get positions of need such as QB, Center, Guard and Tackle? You could have waited one season to implement the 3-4 and then you would have an entire stock of draft picks available to you plus you could get rid of players who actually had some stock value such as FAT Lardass haynesworth. Wtf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 The problem for you is that it is going to be Shanahan and Co. making this decision whether you like it or not. And even though you admit that you don't really know jack about these players other than a casual fan's interest you claim that if we draft any of these QBs it would be a reach. How did you come to that conclusion? Because none of the top QBs are anything close, even from an amateur dumbass like me's perspective, they are nothing close to Andrew Luck had he declared. Not physically, not mentally, Nothing. Comparing Andrew Luck to Jake Locker, Gabbert, Newton, Mallet, is embarrassing. In the end though, I don't think even Riverboat Mike would gamble on any of these projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Do you mean the team that made the playoffs with Todd Collins? That sorry bunch? Yes, there's that too. Campbell came in during the 2006 season when our OL/running game might have been peaking. In fact, I don't think Campbell was shell shocked at all. I was encouraged by what he did in 2006 and early in 2007. He seemed to regress during the later stages of 2007 before his injury. Then, he had a nice run in the first month of 2008 before ending his Redskin career with a rough year and a half. Not to go too deep into Campbell's career, but I don't get the impression that he was shell shocked at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Do you mean the team that made the playoffs with Todd Collins? That sorry bunch? Yes, they had one lucky playoff run. That happens from time to time. That team over achieving for a few weeks doesn't erase the rest of what they showed for multiple seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Troy Aikman also ended up with a HOF running back to hand off to, and a HOF WR to throw to. They built a great team around him. We have failed miserably at building around any of our young quarterbacks. What young QB's? Ramsey and Campbell? Lets see, Campbell had Portis who averaged roughly 1000 yards and Moss who average nearly 1000 yards and at least 70+ catches. As for Ramsey, who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Yes, they had one lucky playoff run. That happens from time to time. That team over achieving for a few weeks doesn't erase the rest of what they showed for multiple seasons. We're sliding down a bad path...but the fact that a new QB was able to go 4-0 with the same team shows that the talent was there. You can call it over-achieving, but they beat the crap out of all 4 opponents in the games I watched. Regardless, the point was that neither Ramsey nor Campbell were shell shocked by playing too early. As I pointed out, Campbell only played the last 5 games of his second season in the league. He sat and watched for over a year and a half. He also played pretty well that season, so he wasn't thrown into the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I guess that's a matter of opinion. It was largely the same team (offensively) that went 10-6 the year before. In fact, many people thought that Brunell was the one holding us back in 2006. We had a great running game, an emerging TE, an OK WRs corps, and a top OL. Either way, my argument isn't really about Campbell...it's that I believe a good QB will play fine (not great, mind you) no matter what. He'll show flashes of what he can do, at a minimum. I'm not even advocating throwing a rookie out there in week 1. I'm just saying that you COULD put him out there once we're out of contention or once he appears to be a better play than Grossman. I disagree, some QBs can stand being thrown out their, and some need that time to develop. I use Aaron Rodgers as an example again, because I follow the Packers closely. Early in his career, I remember Rodgers being thrown out there(in relief of Favre) and be looked horrible. I remember calling a friend of mine and laughing about how goofy he looked. The next draft, the Packers even spent a second round pick on Brohm, and another late pick on Flynn. One luxury that the team had though, was to sit Rodgers a few more years so that he could DEVELOP. In my opinion, if we had drafted Rodgers, he would have stayed on that downward spiral until he hit bust status. Our franchise lacks the kind of patience Green Bay showed. Therefore, we need to bring our young QB into the best possible situation to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I disagree, some QBs can stand being thrown out their, and some need that time to develop. I use Aaron Rodgers as an example again, because I follow the Packers closely. Early in his career, I remember Rodgers being thrown out there(in relief of Favre) and be looked horrible. I remember calling a friend of mine and laughing about how goofy he looked. The next draft, the Packers even spent a second round pick on Brohm, and another late pick on Flynn. One luxury that the team had though, was to sit Rodgers a few more years so that he could DEVELOP. In my opinion, if we had drafted Rodgers, he would have stayed on that downward spiral until he hit bust status. Our franchise lacks the kind of patience Green Bay showed. Therefore, we need to bring our young QB into the best possible situation to succeed. Assuming that is true...how do you know that a QB we may draft this year is more like Rodgers and not like Aikman, Ryan, Flacco, Big Ben, etc.? Edit: Also, in his first 3 years, Rodgers entered parts of 7 games (starting none) and was 35/59 for 300+ yards with a TD and an INT. I'm not really sure what you can read from that since he never was truly "thrown in there" as the starter to sink or swim, but those aren't horrendous numbers at all. Also, the numbers don't mean he didn't "have it" to succeed. Look at Aikman's numbers his rookie year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 LOL @ anyone who thinks that Campbell didn't severely handicap the team ESPECIALLY the playoff run in 2007. He was pissed back then because he was 'ready to play' after his injury but Collins got the nod. I wonder why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What young QB's? Ramsey and Campbell? Lets see, Campbell had Portis who averaged roughly 1000 yards and Moss who average nearly 1000 yards and at least 70+ catches. As for Ramsey, who cares. I guess debating the teams of the past is pointless as we will have differing opinions in hindsight. Would you consider our current roster a good building grounds for a young QB? I say there are too many holes. I don't think waiting until next year is a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Because none of the top QBs are anything close, even from an amateur dumbass like me's perspective, they are nothing close to Andrew Luck had he declared. Not physically, not mentally, Nothing. Comparing Andrew Luck to Jake Locker, Gabbert, Newton, Mallet, is embarrassing. In the end though, I don't think even Riverboat Mike would gamble on any of these projects. What does Luck have to do with any of this? We aren't going to be in a position to draft him next year and wouldn't have been this year. All you can do is scout and draft the guys that are available. Are any of the guys out there going to be good to great NFL QBs? I have no idea and neither do you. But at least I didn't compare them to Andrew Luck. Man that would be embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 I guess debating the teams of the past is pointless as we will have differing opinions in hindsight. Would you consider out current roster a good building grounds for a young QB? I say there are too many holes. I don't think waiting until next year is a bad idea. Not directed at me...but I'll jump in. I'd say that our current roster + some upgrades that we can make this off-season would be just fine. What do you see on offense that would severely impact a young starting QB? We can (and most likely will) add another piece or two to our OL and WRs corps. I don't see how we are any worse off than the Rams were in 2010 when they started Bradford. Keep in mind, they drafted one of their young bookend tackles AFTER they drafted Bradford. It would be similar to us taking Williams last year and another tackle later in the draft this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Assuming that is true...how do you know that a QB we may draft this year is more like Rodgers and not like Aikman, Ryan, Flacco, Big Ben, etc.?Edit: Also, in his first 3 years, Rodgers entered parts of 7 games (starting none) and was 35/59 for 300+ yards with a TD and an INT. I'm not really sure what you can read from that since he never was truly "thrown in there" as the starter to sink or swim, but those aren't horrendous numbers at all. Also, the numbers don't mean he didn't "have it" to succeed. Look at Aikman's numbers his rookie year. My point isn't that I know what type of QB they will be, my point is that by chance if they do turn out to be one of those QBs that need time(which most would assume this draft class will need), we are screwed. The odds of things working out are already slim, and we aren't doing ourselves any favors by saying "We not only need a franchise QB, we need a franchise QB that can survive being thrown into the fire early." That's still based off of my assumption that we wouldn't be patient with a new QB though so my argument has plenty flaws. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2011 at 04:28 PM ---------- Not directed at me...but I'll jump in. I'd say that our current roster + some upgrades that we can make this off-season would be just fine. What do you see on offense that would severely impact a young starting QB? We can (and most likely will) add another piece or two to our OL and WRs corps. I don't see how we are any worse off than the Rams were in 2010 when they started Bradford. Keep in mind, they drafted one of their young bookend tackles AFTER they drafted Bradford. It would be similar to us taking Williams last year and another tackle later in the draft this year. I readily admit that you could be right, and maybe I'm being a bit too cautious. I just think that with another year of developing our team(Including using that top ten pick on BPA), the situation could be leaps and bounds ahead of where it would be this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Full Monty Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What does Luck have to do with any of this? We aren't going to be in a position to draft him next year and wouldn't have been this year. All you can do is scout and draft the guys that are available. Are any of the guys out there going to be good to great NFL QBs? I have no idea and neither do you. But at least I didn't compare them to Andrew Luck. Man that would be embarrassing. I brought up luck as a reference point and also to illustrate I'm not point-blank against taking a QB. Just these QBs. Done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Our franchise lacks the kind of patience Green Bay showed. Therefore, we need to bring our young QB into the best possible situation to succeed. Our franchise lacked the franchise QB (Favre) that allowed us to be patient. You just pointed out that the Packers used a 2nd rounder on Brohm and another pick on Flynn. That's exhibiting patience? And besides we showed tons of patience with Jason Campbell. The guy had more than enough opportunity to "get it." We let him sit for two years behind Scott Brunell. We gave him the job and didn't bring any credible threats to hurt his confidence. He just never took that next step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 What team has Reid been watching? How do we not need a QB? McNabb/Grossman are not the long term answers and neither is Beck. So what would be so bad about drafting a QB? Yes the team has ALOT of needs, but if Shanahan feels we need a QB, I'm not going to argue with him. What contending NFL team doesn't have a good QB? Yes we could use some help on defense, but you can find those guys in later rounds and in FA. How many playoff teams last year had QBs from the 1st round? Packers, Bears, Jets, Colts, Eagles, Falcons, Ravens, and Steelers. But QB wouldn't help this team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrepDC Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 And TD_WR, maybe Rodgers early numbers don't look as bad on paper, but if you had seen him, you'd know what I meant. The feeling was something like, "Who is this clown?" I remember people jumping ship to the Brian Brohm bandwagon when he was drafted. The Packers fans boo'd on draft day when the Pack didn't select Brady Quinn, but that FO held firm. Low and behold he takes a few more years, team around him gets better, and the same "clown" is arguably a top 5 QB. He wouldnt have had that luxury on our team. It bothers me that (in my opinion) a super bowl MVP would have busted here. It just says something about our building philosophy. ---------- Post added February-23rd-2011 at 04:52 PM ---------- Our franchise lacked the franchise QB (Favre) that allowed us to be patient. You just pointed out that the Packers used a 2nd rounder on Brohm and another pick on Flynn. That's exhibiting patience? And besides we showed tons of patience with Jason Campbell. The guy had more than enough opportunity to "get it." We let him sit for two years behind Scott Brunell. We gave him the job and didn't bring any credible threats to hurt his confidence. He just never took that next step. They were able to use the other draft picks on QBs as a luxury and insurance policy, but that was only because the team was already solid. We on the other hand will be hoping every pick we make contributes. Don't mistake them exercising that luxury for giving up on Rodgers. Yes, some fans jumped on the Brian Brohm bandwagon when he was drafted, and some fans boo'd loudly when the Packers didn't select Brady Quinn on draft day, but that FO held firm. It is my opinion that if a QB plays early on our team, looks bad, and gets sat back down, that's it for him. There is no three year development plan in Washington, and the team will probably be on a down swing by the time you do play. I'm basing that mainly off our teams history, I know, but even the current regime only gave McNabb thirteen games to prove himself. And that's after giving a high draft pick for him so they don't seem very patient either. If we are going to have that mentality, I would just like the team to be in a little better shape than it is now. If they go QB this year though, I'll be cheering just as hard as anybody when they throw him out there midway through the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 He wouldnt have had that luxury on our team. It bothers me that (in my opinion) a super bowl MVP would have busted here. It just says something about our building philosophy. Why do you keep saying this? Jason Campbell had just as much time and opportunity to prove himself as Rodgers. Rodgers just, you know, proved himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.