Chump Bailey Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Shanahan has rarely been one to rest on his laurels at QB. But that is an interesting hypothetical - at what level performance does Beck (or Rex) have to play at to get us to pass on QB in the 1st next year? I don't think it matters personally. No matter how well Rex or John may do, I fully expect us to target a QB in the 1st round of the 2012 draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L7Panda Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 You should always want to see your team in the post-season because once there you never quite know how the chips will fall. Live for now, not for five years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hail2skins Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 You should always want to see your team in the post-season because once there you never quite know how the chips will fall. Live for now, not for five years from now. True Panda, and I don't think anyone would sneeze at a season where the team does well or makes the SB. But at the same time, I don't want the Skins to be "that team" that goes from bottom feeders to a SB appearance, but then goes back into the tank the following season. I think the Jets are an example of a team that many viewed as somewhat fluky in 2009, getting to the playoffs on account of Indy rolling over, etc., and were looking for Rex to take a nosedive in 2010. But instead they followed it up with a solid 2010. Getting the Skins to the level of where, say, the Pats are would be sweet. However, we've been so shaky for so long that right now I'd take a few 10-6 seasons in a row. Shanahan did this in his post-Elway stint in Denver, and I can't say I'd be unhappy with that.......although a bit more playoff success than he had post-Elway would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Here we go with that 30 number again. If a 30 year old is putting up huge numbers, you keep them Especially at the QB position. A pocket QB like Beck could play effectively into his late-30s. Put it this way, odds are it won't be Beck's age that limit him. If lightning strikes and he's the answer at QB, we're set for 6 years or so and could plan for his replacement in 3-4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool as Crud Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Especially at the QB position. A pocket QB like Beck could play effectively into his late-30s. Put it this way, odds are it won't be Beck's age that limit him. If lightning strikes and he's the answer at QB, we're set for 6 years or so and could plan for his replacement in 3-4 years. Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Just want to see progress - and I'm of the mindset that doesn't care about the 2011 draft - just focus on the team we have, continue the youth movement, and build the core we're putting together. I think we're good enough to fall anywhere from 7-9 to 10-6 this season, and am really looking forward to it. This is pretty much where I am. I've accepted the fact that it's going to be a long, long time before the Redskins are able to compete consistently. All I want right now is progress; not just in the W-L column, but in actual play. I want to watch a game, point to an aspect of our team and say "hey, that looks much better than last year," even if it's during a loss. The Redskins are a damaged team and it's going to take awhile to recover from the damage. We can do it, though, so long as we stay patient and keep progressing little by little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value. I'm fine with that. I would agree that one good year wouldn't be enough to convince me that we're set for several years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value. I don't think there is anything Beck or Grossman can imaginably do to prevent us from seeking additional options at QB. I also don't think its out of the realm of possibilities that we are looking to sign/trade for a potential 2011 starter. EDIT: Which I think is effing insane, but hey, when has trading for an over-the-hill veteran never worked out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticVillain Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value. I can't argue with this. I think this is the ideal situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Given the unusually deep QB pool next year, I still say you take a QB to groom, even if Beck has a great year. (1) You never know about injury - Beck isn't exactly battle-tested. (2) Worst case scenario, you have a top prospect with high trade value. Think Jon Kitna. In 2003, Kitna had a very good year. 2004 they turned it over to Carson Palmer with Kitna filling in a few games... That would be the idea situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LetThePointsSoar Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 I also don't think its out of the realm of possibilities that we are looking to sign/trade for a potential 2011 starter. Agreed. Surprised a bit that there haven't been more rumors about it given the typical Redskins are linked to XXXX wide receiver media. Not sure it will happen, but it's definitely something that could happen that most aren't really talking about this offseason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 At that point, you're talking about potentially trading away the farm to move up and get him. Because say the Panthers go 1-15, but they're tied to Cam and they're not going to draft Andrew Luck. How valuable does that number one spot become for them? Even if we're in the top 10 of the draft, it's going to take a Ricky Williams-esque trade to go up and get what the hype machine will be calling "the best college quarterback prospect since Peyton Manning". So at that point, we're doing EXACTLY what we've been saying we shouldn't be doing, which is mortgaging the future to get one player. I don't care WHAT player it is, if you're going to say "we can't afford to trade away draft picks and we need to build through the draft and blah blah blah", then it is counter-intuitive to suggest that we give up what would likely be a lot of draft picks in 2011 and a couple draft picks in 2012. I'd rather get some positive momentum, have the team get some wins, go into the draft and improve our football team. And maybe we still don't find a quarterback, but I'd rather wait to find the RIGHT quarterback for the team than to draft any quarterback just for the sake of drafting one. You don't have to have a Mike Ditka brain fart type of move to move into the #1 position in the draft. True we would have to give up picks for Luck, but probably a 1 this year and next year and maybe another pick. We have 8 picks (two 4ths) going into the 2012 draft. We have "some" leverage to move up if we want to. Now, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't. I'm not saying we should give up a ton of picks to move up to #1, but if the right deal fits, I'd be all for it. In other words, it would have to make sense. Remember, this isn't Vinny giving away the farm. Bruce/Mike turned our 1st round pick this past year into 6 more picks and we still got our man at #16. We had no 2nd or 3rd going into last year's draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool as Crud Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Is there any player (or combination of players) on our roster today that another team would trade us their 2012 First Round pick for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Is there any player (or combination of players) on our roster today that another team would trade us their 2012 First Round pick for? Orakpo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Orakpo You don't think we could get a mid-rounder thrown into the pot in addition for a guy like Rak or perhaps even Landry? It seems they would be worth a bit more since they're both a known commodity and play premier positions. Not for doing any such thing for the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cool as Crud Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Orakpo Woah, easy there! I meant players we might actually consider trading :-) Definitely not worth losing rak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Tris Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 Just answering the question. No I don't really want to trade him, yes it would be incredibly dumb. I think Landry would be stupid to trade as he is more valuable to us than to another team. Trent is too raw right now. Everyone else is too old or too expensive. The play would have been to trade a bunch of lesser assets two years ago, get extra picks for this past year, and then we could have bundled them for 2012 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigricky3469 Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 I'm pretty sure to 95% that we will suck this year. I just hope when it's time to sign free agents that we only stick to our one major need and that's acquiring OL help. I want to us to play and develop our young guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Hey, we tore up a strike-shortened season once. Lockout = lock it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bibby Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 If we have a season like the Buccaneers had last year than I'd be ecstatic with all our young guys doing some serious contribution and pulling out wins. A season with winning and losing and seeing a true direction that this team will get good with the young talent we have is what I hope for. Kind of like what we have with the Capitals & Nationals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Hey, we tore up a strike-shortened season once. Lockout = lock it up. Twice ---------- Post added July-15th-2011 at 08:35 AM ---------- Is there any player (or combination of players) on our roster today that another team would trade us their 2012 First Round pick for? Alber Hayesworth! Al Davis...I'm looking in your direction. Oh wait, nevermind. We're not the Patriots... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.