darrelgreenie Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 A. Harbaugh is good but he is not there any longer.B. I never really though of Bo as a QB's guru. A.His scheme is still there.B. Never said Bo was a QB guru ....there has never been a college QB who can use the TE like Luck Harbaugh is Bo Schembeckler disciple and Shaw is Harbaugh's disciple their scheme features the TE' date=' Luck is a by product of that scheme[/u'].As is Alex Smith. As was Josh Johnson: To deny the schematic advantage that Harbaugh provides is dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 ?? This has nothing to do with Grossman or Beck. I'm interested in Andrew Luck vs other alternatives in 2012, on the assumption that neither Grossman nor Beck are in play to be starter. You've had an agenda against Shanahan that leads back the QB situation; and your continuing it now, however veiled. Let it go. It's done. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Out of curiosity since we are talking about Luck.Where do we need to finish to have a chance at him? Not having any idea where we will finish record-wise, if we are the 8th worst team do we have a shot to trade up? do we have enough ammo? If Miami has the #1 pick, we have no shot. You have to root for teams with QBs, and established QBs to think about trading. Colts or Rams are the best bet and we may end up having to trade for Bradford or Manning (both with much larger contracts than Luck will get) instead. ---------- Post added November-1st-2011 at 04:50 PM ---------- You've had an agenda against Shanahan that leads back the QB situation; and your continuing it now, however veiled.Let it go. It's done. Hail. His point is valid. He thinks Shannahan would never trade up for a QB, much less sell the farm alas Ditka for one. He has a point. Shannahan made it clear it's his system, not the talent. The only hope we have is the "humbling" Mike apparently got after last week's shutout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 If there wouldn't be any franchise QBs after Luck then I would be all over trading whatever it takes to get him. But, I'm pretty sure there will be others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 ?? This has nothing to do with Grossman or Beck. I'm interested in Andrew Luck vs other alternatives in 2012, on the assumption that neither Grossman nor Beck are in play to be starter. You should check out my Mallett/Hoyer thread. I'm sure you have an opinion that is interesting and most likely wrong. I kid because I love. ---------- Post added November-1st-2011 at 03:55 PM ---------- A.His scheme is still there.B. Never said Bo was a QB guru This is a fascinating theory. If Luck went to USC instead of Stanford, do you think scouts are talking about him in the same hushed tones? Or is it just Harbaugh's brilliant use of TEs that has brought up the Manning comparisons? I really hate people that talk about "schemes" as the be all and end all. Brian Billick had a record-setting scheme when he had Randy Moss and Chris Carter running pass patterns. In Baltimore, he would go months without scoring a TD. The Shanahan scheme is supposed to be awesome and we just got shut out by the 28th best defense in the league....in front of Canadians for Christ's sake. Heck, Longshot is arguing that Manning benefited from a great supporting cast all these years in Indy. And that simply proves that Longshot does not have a TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 His point is valid. He thinks Shannahan would never trade up for a QB, much less sell the farm alas Ditka for one. He has a point. Shannahan made it clear it's his system, not the talent. The only hope we have is the "humbling" Mike apparently got after last week's shutout. The validity or not of ASF on Mike Shanahan and QB's go's out of the window when you've had the on-going agenda that he's had over the last 5 months or so against the HC. It's the 'lil' boy who cried wolf' scenario. You talk enough bunkum on a guy, that when you do have anything remotely honest and approaching a valid point, nobody rightly gives it any credence for what's gone before. It's hard to assume he isn't hiding behind his ongoing agenda against Shanahan when it comes to QB's. No disrespect ASF, but you've created that feeling all by yourself. That aside, it would be interesting to know just what we offered St Louis for the last 'can't miss' QB, Bradford, in Shanahan's first draft here. By all accounts we went in REAL hard but just didn't have enough to sway the Rams. But it would be real interesting in regards to this discussion just exactly what he/ we offered for the Sooner. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I'd give up literally anything right now, but I don't think the team with the first pick will trade it for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long-Time-Fan Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 A great O-line and more than 1,2 Offensive weapons are more along the lines of what we need. Theirs NO WAY we can afford to trade 4 picks for one guy. Look at the hole this organization needs dug out of from previous coaches/GM One guy can not fix that. Peyton Manning was just a freak I don't see Luck having the same kind of talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issapunk Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hey themurf, first I'd like to say I agree with you for the most part. I would love Luck, but 4 1st rounders seems to be too much. I understand the argument that a Peyton Manning type QB is worth nearly anything, but look at other teams who have been more successful than Peyton without having a QB as good as him. The Steelers took Big Ben with the 11th pick in 2004. They have won 2 rings with him and got to another SB and lost. He was not considered even being close in talent to Eli or Rivers, yet he is much more successful. Is this because he is much better than both of them? Probably not. Probably because the Steelers have a much better foundation and build thru the draft so well. Now, I would rather have Luck than Ben, but would I rather have Luck and no 1st rounders for the next 4 years or would I rather have Ben, Heath Miller, Santonio Holmes, Laurence Timmons and Rashard Mendenhall (who are Pitt's next 4 1st round picks after Ben)? I would take Ben and the other impact players. The Steelers won those SB's because their TEAM was good, not because of their QB. I still think Peyton is one of the best there will ever be, yet he still only won one ring. I'll take one ring any day, but not at the cost of 4 1st rounders when you can keep those picks, build your team, and still win on possibly an even more consistent basis. But if Shanny and the front office believes Luck is as good as he is supposed to be and the price isn't incredibly steep, then I'm ok with it. 2 1sts, 2 2nds and DeAngello Hall would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The validity or not of ASF on Mike Shanahan and QB's go's out of the window when you've had the on-going agenda that he's had over the last 5 months or so against the HC. It's the 'lil' boy who cried wolf' scenario. You talk enough bunkum on a guy, that when you do have anything remotely honest and approaching a valid point, nobody rightly gives it any credence for what's gone before. It's hard to assume he isn't hiding behind his ongoing agenda against Shanahan when it comes to QB's. No disrespect ASF, but you've created that feeling all by yourself.That aside, it would be interesting to know just what we offered St Louis for the last 'can't miss' QB, Bradford, in Shanahan's first draft here. By all accounts we went in REAL hard but just didn't have enough to sway the Rams. But it would be real interesting in regards to this discussion just exactly what he/ we offered for the Sooner. Hail. I don't get the Bradford talk. We had already traded for McNabb. Did we offer two firsts in March? When has that ever happened? Like St. Louis wasn't going to wait till they were on the clock for the best offer. Something seems off there. ---------- Post added November-1st-2011 at 05:07 PM ---------- A great O-line and more than 1,2 Offensive weapons are more along the lines of what we need.Theirs NO WAY we can afford to trade 4 picks for one guy. Look at the hole this organization needs dug out of from previous coaches/GM One guy can not fix that. Peyton Manning was just a freak I don't see Luck having the same kind of talent. The Bills offense is full of late round to undrafted guys. 30 points a game. Their defense is full of busts and has beens. Shut out this offense. I'm over the supporting cast theory. It's bull****. Get a good QB to mask most of your deficiencies and then build from there until you're a contender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien1191 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 If we traded up for Luck, he'd be guaranteed to get hit by a train before he played a down for us and we'd be horrible for another 20 years. RG3 will be 90% as good for 25% of the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 That isn't my logic. It's yours. i said nothing about him regressing. You created a strawman.The point I made is that Luck's performance is enhanced by virtue of the fact that he enjoys a great support system. If you want to argue that he doesn't have a great support system, then tell me where I'm mistaken. Is the O-line not a good college O-line. The receivers? The coaching? You're making a point that (in your mind) is impossible to argue against. Not from a logic standpoint, but because people have to create "strawmen" to do it. If I say "Stanford wouldn't do as well without him" you would say there's no way to tell because you can't project. The fact of the matter is they wouldn't be nearly as good without him. He drives that engine, the same way the Colts are a ten-win team with Peyton, but winless without. Again, if this were USC, Alabama, or any other true powerhouse team that churns out NFL players like it's their job, I would agree with you. That he's performing like he does at a college like Stanford just makes him even better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hey themurf, first I'd like to say I agree with you for the most part. I would love Luck, but 4 1st rounders seems to be too much. I understand the argument that a Peyton Manning type QB is worth nearly anything, but look at other teams who have been more successful than Peyton without having a QB as good as him.The Steelers took Big Ben with the 11th pick in 2004. They have won 2 rings with him and got to another SB and lost. He was not considered even being close in talent to Eli or Rivers, yet he is much more successful. Is this because he is much better than both of them? Probably not. Probably because the Steelers have a much better foundation and build thru the draft so well. Now, I would rather have Luck than Ben, but would I rather have Luck and no 1st rounders for the next 4 years or would I rather have Ben, Heath Miller, Santonio Holmes, Laurence Timmons and Rashard Mendenhall (who are Pitt's next 4 1st round picks after Ben)? I would take Ben and the other impact players. The Steelers won those SB's because their TEAM was good, not because of their QB. I still think Peyton is one of the best there will ever be, yet he still only won one ring. I'll take one ring any day, but not at the cost of 4 1st rounders when you can keep those picks, build your team, and still win on possibly an even more consistent basis. But if Shanny and the front office believes Luck is as good as he is supposed to be and the price isn't incredibly steep, then I'm ok with it. 2 1sts, 2 2nds and DeAngello Hall would be nice. Do you know what the Steelers offense is? The receivers run 9 routes and then break off once Ben starts to scramble. Their offensive success is 100% responsible for the QB. He wins shootouts too so it isn't all about the defense either. Big Ben went #11 from a very small school where you had the second coming in Manning and an ACC world beater in Rivers. He still went top 12. Seems to me Big Ben was leaps and bounds better than the other two. 20/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I don't get the Bradford talk. We had already traded for McNabb. Did we offer two firsts in March? When has that ever happened? Like St. Louis wasn't going to wait till they were on the clock for the best offer. Something seems off there. McNabb arrived a mere three weeks before the draft, Make of it what you will, but by things coming out of St Louis at the time, they'd had serious negotiations with ourselves amongst other teams. I take the McNabb move as a fall-back when it became apparent St Louis just weren't shifting the pick. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issapunk Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 If we traded up for Luck, he'd be guaranteed to get hit by a train before he played a down for us and we'd be horrible for another 20 years.RG3 will be 90% as good for 25% of the price. I agree. We don't need the best QB ever to be a good team. If we can get a GOOD QB without sacrificing the house, then it's worth it. If Luck was the only QB worth anything in this draft, then it is a different story, but if there are other talented QB's coming out, take on of them and build the team. BTW, who exactly is going to block for Luck when we get him? Who is he going to throw to? Gaffney? Please. We would struggle to find talent to surround him with if we sacrificed more than 2 1sts and a few lower picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 McNabb arrived a mere three weeks before the draft, Make of it what you will, but by things coming out of St Louis at the time, they'd had serious negotiations with ourselves amongst other teams. I take the McNabb move as a fall-back when it became apparent St Louis just weren't shifting the pick.Hail. How hard could you go after a QB if you trade for one 3 weeks before? I don't think the Rams were interested in anything Shannahan offered if he even did so they went for McNabb. I just don't consider giving up 3 weeks before it got real "going hard" for someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Main-Maine Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Well ****. You weren't lying when you alluded to me being REAL pissed with ya' after toying with my poor emotions even further in that blog post than you did in the previous one. ******! :mad:But being as you've sucked me back into wanting the very best for our team (isn't that what everyone wants if y'all are truthful to yourselves? Even those still doubting the limitless potential of Andrew that even a dead blind man could see after a mere 10 minutes of watching him on the field); and my sensible side is now rejoining my heart in aching for him again; I think Indy's the best bet we have. I honestly think they've a real chance of going winless this year, and even if we lost out (which is looking more and more a distinct probability rather than possibility); the Colts are the only team I can't see as we can't catch. Everyone around us is showing real signs of life (Miami should of won the last two games/ the Rams have a full-go Jackson and Lloyd on-board to help out Bradford/ Ponder's injected life into the Vikings/ we've seen to our cost what Newton's given the Panthers etc); so if we do end up losing out I really think we could be drafting 2nd, or at worst 3rd/4th. The Colts have holes to fill that make our roster look somewhat solid. And, presuming he comes back, they still have Peyton with a few years left in him yet. I could definitely see Polian doing a mega trade to get their rebuild up and running. God dayum you Mr Murphy! I'd cleared my mind of the Luck hope, and now my hearts all a flutter again at snagging a guy Universally acknowledged to be on his way to the VERY top of this game. Just when I thought I was out ..... they pull me back in. Hail. I feel the same way to man. I stopped thinking about sucking for luck, but these post remind how great we could be in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
issapunk Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Do you know what the Steelers offense is? The receivers run 9 routes and then break off once Ben starts to scramble. Their offensive success is 100% responsible for the QB. He wins shootouts too so it isn't all about the defense either.Big Ben went #11 from a very small school where you had the second coming in Manning and an ACC world beater in Rivers. He still went top 12. Seems to me Big Ben was leaps and bounds better than the other two. 20/20. That's my point. He is better than them now, but there is a reason why he was picked after them. If he was considered the 3rd best QB in the draft and still has this success, why can't we get the 2nd or 3rd best and share the same success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I'd give up literally anything right now, but I don't think the team with the first pick will trade it for anything. And this is the point I made with Murf, the Redskins are going to overpay because they are not negotiating from a position of strength. Luck would cost too much and they can accomplish the goal of getting a good QB prospect without further eroding future first round picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 How hard could you go after a QB if you trade for one 3 weeks before? I don't think the Rams were interested in anything Shannahan offered if he even did so they went for McNabb. I just don't consider giving up 3 weeks before it got real "going hard" for someone. Well, to know the true answer to that would be to know both what we were prepared to offer, and just what price the Rams ultimately wanted. I personally don't think there was anyway in Hell, shy of something like this thread proposes or more that they were prepared to give up the chance of their top level franchise QB, which I still believe Bradford has the talent to justify. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifthorkid88 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 4 first round picks is too steep a price to pay, sorry. Any trade partner would also more than likely require a 2nd rounder next year as well. Too many holes to fill and no depth on this team makes this unreasonable. The way the season is going (probably 5-11 at best) will allow the Skins to probably pick between 10-12th overall. They will still be able to land a top tier QB such as Barkley, Jones, or RGIII. Plus Luck has another year of eligibility and there is no indication that he is coming out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allannis Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The following comes directly from the article that started this thread:Let me ask you, the reader, a simple question — if the Redskins could go back in time and offer the Indianapolis Colts four first-round picks for a rookie named Peyton Manning, would anyone in our nation’s capital object? Of course not. Because the Colts, led by Manning, have been one of the league’s most consistent winners for more than a decade now. Their 141-67 regular season record with Manning is something ‘Skins fans can only dream of.* *Washington went just 92-116 with only three winning seasons during the same span. Prior to this season, the Colts have made the playoffs 11 of the last 12 years thanks to Peyton. Even if Manning misses the entire 2011 season recovering from neck surgery, his resume still includes: a Super Bowl trophy, Super Bowl MVP award, four NFL MVP awards, 11 trips to the Pro Bowl and, not to mention, franchise records for career wins, passing yards, passing touchdowns and pretty much everything else you can think of. Even if Luck only accomplishes half of that in Washington, he’d still end his career as one of the most beloved sports figures D.C. has ever known. That’s why the Redskins front office should do everything in their power to land the 22-year-old. The problem is, what if Andrew Luck turns out to be Heath Shuler instead of Peyton Manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 That's my point. He is better than them now, but there is a reason why he was picked after them. If he was considered the 3rd best QB in the draft and still has this success, why can't we get the 2nd or 3rd best and share the same success? Okay. Who is it? Again, look at the 83 draft. Elway - best prospect ever. 2 championships 5 superbowl appearances - one of the top 10 of all time Todd Blackledge - Who we'd end up with Jim Kelly - HOFer, got em to 4. never won Tony Eason - Got to 1 Ken O'Brian - not horrible, nothing special Dan Marino - got to one, top 10 of all time Which one do we get? I want the one that wins Lombardis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Yeah if Luck wasn't in it. It would be Jones vs Barkley vs RGIII. I don't think you can put Luck's clear distance over the others in the same class as anyone since Elway. That's 30 years.However, Elway came out in the 83 draft. Perhaps this draft is like that and if that's the case and many feel it is, we can settle for Jim Kelly, Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason, or Dan Marino. Here's the kicker, only one was a champion and that one was the clear cut #1. I think it's faulty to draw some kind of correlation between his clear cut #1 status and winning a championship 16 years after he was drafted. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if you draft a HOF at QB, you did pretty well, championship or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbs Hog Heaven Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 The problem is, what if Andrew Luck turns out to be Heath Shuler instead of Peyton Manning. That's the gamble you take with any player. Just this one happens to be as commonly agreed close to a 'sure thing' as you could wish to have. So that gambles lessoned as much as it can be. Hail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.