QB is supposed to be the last piece to a re-build.. No? If no, explain your logic please.......

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Cincinnati has now passed the skins - one of the most incompetent and disatrous teams in the last 20 years saw what Shanny and Co didnt with that pick: a playmaker... Shanny sat on his hands and is well into his 5 year plan of not drafting a QB until year 3... Brilliant!!!!!

Its strange that around the league plenty of teams have 1-2 year turnarounds...

BTW - anyone that thinks a 5 year plan is acceptable should hand in the NFL fan card.

Only positive thoughts are allowed, I guess.

But in the last few days I have kind of changed my mind on drafting a QB... I would hate for anyone that staked their reputation on Grossman to groom a young QB.

whats teams with rosters like ours have 1-2 year turnarounds? most of the teams that this year have "turned it around" have all been bottom feeders for a decade, constantly drafting in the top 10 or top 15 (or in the lions case top 2) for god knows how long. shanahan inherited the worst roster in the NFL bar none. we had a bunch of talentless washed up diva clowns that didnt fit any sort of system we were implementing. we are still weeding out guys from the vinny years. shanahan has had 2 drafts and people expect that we should be 10-6 this year. anyone thinking that needs their brain examined cause it doesnt happen.

this **** takes time, it doesnt happen overnight, and we havent been able to get a QB. this team had so many holes that i understand why we passed on a QB and the guys we passed on are still all unknowns to this point (gabbert ponder dalton). so forget about shanahan staking his rep on these ****ty QBs, that was all coach speak nonsense to begin with, and its embarrassing that our fan base and the local media is dumb enough to believe anything he says in public. its obvious that we had no real choices at QBs this year and we were stuck with the two guys we have, and neither are in our long term solution.

so if you cant take this team with a grain of salt and realize we're gonna suck for a little bit, youre gonna be an angry fan for the next 2 years.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I disagree with the the OP's premise that a QB is supposed to be the final piece in the rebuild.

Heck, if the Colts, Cowboys etc. would have followed that logic....No Manning, Aikman etc.

Bottomline: You get your franchise (hopefully) QB whenever you can acquire him.

[Elmerz]

Do you think Carolina asked itself any of those questions? Or did Carolina watch Cam Newton work out and say' date=' "Jesus Christ!! We need this guy!"

All young QBs get beat up. It's part of the transition to the NFL. Ideally, you would rather have them not go through a David Carr Experience. But David Carr was going to get beat up wherever he played because he had no idea what he was doing in the pocket.[/quote']

Agree on Cam LKB, but he is mobile. You take a pocket passer like Ramsey and see what happens. If we had the first pick no doubt we'd have taken Cam. I almost wish we would just suck for Luck. We always seem to have this damn mid round pick. Which is always a gamble, especially at QB.

[MattFancy]

I disagree with the the OP's premise that a QB is supposed to be the final piece in the rebuild.

Heck, if the Colts, Cowboys etc. would have followed that logic....No Manning, Aikman etc.

Bottomline: You get your franchise (hopefully) QB whenever you can acquire him.

Right, but if the coaching staff and FO don't believe that a franchise QB is available when you pick, why reach for a QB?

[CrypticVillain]

I guess you mean Aikman and Manning? Two virtual locks at QB, and yes.....if Peyton Manning/Luck type is available you grab him regardless of your situation. But, they were not available last year we can all agree on that.

Yeah, I already said that. I am with you for the most part.

[Elmerz]

I disagree with the the OP's premise that a QB is supposed to be the final piece in the rebuild.

Heck, if the Colts, Cowboys etc. would have followed that logic....No Manning, Aikman etc.

Bottomline: You get your franchise (hopefully) QB whenever you can acquire him.

Aside from Luck and Cam who is a franchise QB?? If we have the first or second pick sure......We will not have a franchise QB available to us. Or do you want to trade your draft for the next 3 years? No thanks on that.....You build your team and take a serviceable guy. We won't be 0-16...... 1-15.......who do you suggest or would you have liked in place of Kerrigan? Or any FA for that matter?

[Jumbo]

<edit>

BTW - anyone that thinks a 5 year plan is acceptable should hand in the NFL fan card.

Only positive thoughts are allowed, I guess.

But in the last few days I have kind of changed my mind on drafting a QB... I would hate for anyone that staked their reputation on Grossman to groom a young QB.

On the first statement I quoted: I never figured you for one of those "turn in your fan card if..." guys. Thought you weren't a fan of telling people what kind of fans they are or not. But I may have you confused with someone else. BTW, I disagree.

On the second statement: WTF is rattling around in your noggin that you come up with that comment? I have no idea what planet you're experiencing if I'm to go by that remark.

On the third statement: I think like so many many others on here, you've finally become so overwhelmed with disappointment that your cognitive processing is injured. On that theme, if the site were like the team, we'd have approximately 85% of the active posters on IR. :pfft:

[Vilandil Tasardur]

If you build the team, and then find the QB, you end up being the Jets. You end up with strong defenses and good running games gashing teams through giant holes made by strong offensive lines. And you end up with a QB who usually does enough to not lose, while you pound the rock to a playoff appearance.

But THEN, you end up with an injury here or there and you go on a slump. You end up with a QB entering his third year while that dream team you had waiting for him is getting old. You end up with a defense that all of a sudden doesn't stop the run like it used to, all of a sudden the sack numbers are down. All of a sudden your secondary is suspect outside of your island corner. It's inevitable, defenses can't maintain that performance; teams lose depth ant veterans age.

Another example is the Ravens. By the time Flacco reaches Rivers/Brees elite status, Ray Ray and company will be losing a step. The Ravens wasted arguably the greatest defense in the history of the game over a 4-6 year span while they struggled through Kyle Boller and then waited for Flacco to develop.

In contrast, you can do it like the Rams or the Lions. Your team's going to suck anyways while the kid learns the ropes, might as well get his feet wet while you build the team up. Bradford and Stafford don't have the pieces in place to make serious playoff runs yet, but they're leaps and bounds ahead of guys like Sanchez, Ryan, and Flacco. The latter group got picked by teams that had something to lose, they couldn't afford to take a 2-14 season while the QB figured it out. The result is a better win percentage because they're on better teams, but seriously stunted development because the coaches aren't letting them play balls out; they're playing scared trying to keep an otherwise good team in the race by masking their own deficiencies.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I hate the notion that you need a QB "that fits your system." That seems like the most asinine idea ever.

Look at the three dominant teams of this decade.

The Colts built a system for Peyton Manning. No one else dares run it. No one else seems to understand it. As far as I can tell, no one else has ever even attempted it. Curtis Painter is trying to run a poor copy of it currently and is having trouble getting the snap properly.

The "system" the Pats run with Brady looks nothing like the "system" they ran with Bledsoe. It took a few years but offensively, the 2004 team had nothing in common with the 2001 team and the 2007 team looked nothing like the 2004 team and the 2011 team looks nothing like the 2007 team. They started spreading the field in 2003 and they've constantly changed how they spread the field since. Prior to Moss, they spread you horizontally. After Moss, they spread you vertically. Now, they spread you across the formation using their TEs. (That was an awkward sentence, but you get the point. Their offense no longer attacks the edge of the field. It now attacks the interior of the field and can do it vertically with Hernandez).

The Steelers' offense looks nothing like its offense in 2004. They run more 5-wide sets than 2 back sets at this point. And half their plays seem to be drawn in the dirt.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

im pretty sure the steelers offensive playsheet is a bunch of plays drawn up on dennys napkins where the oline isnt even drawn in, cause 70% of the time the oline isnt there anyways.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

im pretty sure the steelers offensive playsheet is a bunch of plays drawn up on dennys napkins where the oline isnt even drawn in, cause 70% of the time the oline isnt there anyways.

KSK had a great post about the Steelers offense consisting of Ben making his "bathroom smush face" to Fast Willie Parker Wallace and then throwing a long TD to Fast Willie Parker Wallace. I love KSK.

BEFORE SEASON, COACH TELL BEN, “BEN – GOOD NEWS. WE MAKE OFFENSE EASY. YOU START PLAY BY MAKE CHOCO TACO LICK FACE AT FAST WILLIE PARKER WALLACE. FASTMAN WALLACE THINK BEN WANT BATHROOM SMUSH, SO HE RUN REAL FAST. THE BEN HUCK N CHUCK DEEP FOR TOUCHDOWN!”

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2011/10/old-age-and-treachery-not-as-good-as-saying-suggests.html

[skinfan2k]

I hate the notion that you need a QB "that fits your system." That seems like the most asinine idea ever.

Look at the three dominant teams of this decade.

The Colts built a system for Peyton Manning. No one else dares run it. No one else seems to understand it. As far as I can tell' date=' no one else has ever even attempted it. Curtis Painter is trying to run a poor copy of it currently and is having trouble getting the snap properly.

The "system" the Pats run with Brady looks nothing like the "system" they ran with Bledsoe. It took a few years but offensively, the 2004 team had nothing in common with the 2001 team and the 2007 team looked nothing like the 2004 team and the 2011 team looks nothing like the 2007 team. They started spreading the field in 2003 and they've constantly changed how they spread the field since. Prior to Moss, they spread you horizontally. After Moss, they spread you vertically. Now, they spread you across the formation using their TEs. (That was an awkward sentence, but you get the point. Their offense no longer attacks the edge of the field. It now attacks the interior of the field and can do it vertically with Hernandez).

The Steelers' offense looks nothing like its offense in 2004. They run more 5-wide sets than 2 back sets at this point. And half their plays seem to be drawn in the dirt.[/quote']

Thank you. You adjusted your scheme based on the QB not the other way around. We seem to have pick stingy coaches and no wonder why those coaches have 0 Super Bowl titles. Shanny would be no where without Elway's Arm

[wrecker]

In the past, you did not have the luxury to wait on a QB. By the time you had a supporting cast they would have been ready for FA by the time your QB was ready. Then you would have a lot of big contracts to do in addition to the big QB rookie contract to keep your team intact and would not have been able to accomplish this with the salary cap. With the new rookie wage scale it does make it easier to wait for a QB. I am getting tired of waiting however.

[Mahons21]

Another hindsight guy. So, A. Dalton is the next Brady? Not one person wanted Dalton as our QB of the future. Do you want to wait a year or two for a franchise QB while we build our team? Or do you want to draft another Ramsey/Campbell?? Who I might add may have been serviceable if we built the rest of our team first!

Your above quote is very wrong.

This web-site has archives you're more than welcome to go back and look through the 2011 comprehensive draft data-base, there were quite a few people who wanted Andy Dalton as the future, he was one of the QB's I wanted as well. .

That fervor was sped up even more, when LL56 (I believe it was) one of our resident insiders here on ES, mentioned that Kyle really like Dalton.

[#98QBKiller]

There's no set way to build a team but for this particular team it's definitely our weakest area and the area that should (and probably will) be addressed in round 1 of the draft in April.

[Boss_Hogg]

Shanahan staked his reputation on Beck. Therefore, we already have our QB. :doh:

[Rufus T Firefly]

You get a QB when a) you need a QB and you can ****ing get a QB. This is not difficult.

Also' date=' I actually find myself agreeing with Longshot. There should always be a young late roundish QB in the pipeline. Other teams have shown that if you develop them at all, you can always - at the very least - flip them for a higher pick than you used on them. Sometimes, they turn into Tony Romo sits to pee. Once every 30 years, they turn into Tom Brady.[/quote']

This.

[PeterMP]

You take the QB when you have one who is the BPA in the draft, just as you might fill the LT, the RB, or any other position. The draft isn't Home Depot -- just go shopping and pick up what you need. When you reach to fill a need, you're wrong.

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. You have to judge BPA based also on the value of the position. A punter just doesn't have the same value of a QB. Taking the best punter in the history of the NFL over a guy that turns out to be the 15th best QB in the history of the league doesn't make much sense.

QB is the most difficult position to fill. If you are rebuilding and don't have a QB, you should take them often.

[Dark Acre]

If you believe there's a good QB available where you draft, then fine. However, I would not mortgage my future by trading up to get one. I'm also starting to shy away from drafting OL top 1/2 of 1st round. That is because you can build a dominant OL with guys bottom half of round 1 on down. I would save top 16 picks for positions where a single guy can dominate -- which is often defense, generally a pass rusher or cover corner.

[RichmondRedskin88]

You need a QB first because he can make up for the team's shortcomings. I agree you should have O line to protect him but a good QB that change entire games. I could name a lot of teams past and present that have great season because the QB makes up for the defense .

[Oldfan]

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. You have to judge BPA based also on the value of the position..

I clarified that in a subsequent post. My BPA includes scheme fit and position value, but not need.

[Elmerz]

If you build the team, and then find the QB, you end up being the Jets. You end up with strong defenses and good running games gashing teams through giant holes made by strong offensive lines. And you end up with a QB who usually does enough to not lose, while you pound the rock to a playoff appearance.

But THEN, you end up with an injury here or there and you go on a slump. You end up with a QB entering his third year while that dream team you had waiting for him is getting old. You end up with a defense that all of a sudden doesn't stop the run like it used to, all of a sudden the sack numbers are down. All of a sudden your secondary is suspect outside of your island corner. It's inevitable, defenses can't maintain that performance; teams lose depth ant veterans age.

Another example is the Ravens. By the time Flacco reaches Rivers/Brees elite status, Ray Ray and company will be losing a step. The Ravens wasted arguably the greatest defense in the history of the game over a 4-6 year span while they struggled through Kyle Boller and then waited for Flacco to develop.

In contrast, you can do it like the Rams or the Lions. Your team's going to suck anyways while the kid learns the ropes, might as well get his feet wet while you build the team up. Bradford and Stafford don't have the pieces in place to make serious playoff runs yet, but they're leaps and bounds ahead of guys like Sanchez, Ryan, and Flacco. The latter group got picked by teams that had something to lose, they couldn't afford to take a 2-14 season while the QB figured it out. The result is a better win percentage because they're on better teams, but seriously stunted development because the coaches aren't letting them play balls out; they're playing scared trying to keep an otherwise good team in the race by masking their own deficiencies.

Gosh, that is perfect. At this point I will be the Jets. Playoff team? You wouldn't take that? They are a prime example of a barely serviceable QB with talent all around. Although, they did go the Snyder way with a lot of FA reach. But, heck I will take a playoff team any day.

[sportjunkie07]

In my opinion QB should be the absolute last piece implemented on a team that needed help on both sides of the ball at almost every position.?

i agree with nearly all of your OP except the above.

if you can get good value on a QB and your need a QB, you sure better pull the trigger.

you cant wait decades for all the right pieces to fall in place around the QB, and never have it happen. the reason is that a good QB makes everything else significantly better. the oline looks better, recievers start having good years, the defense has more breathing room, etc.

so far i have loved the way shanny and friends are building this team. i think they could have realistically taken a shot at gabbert, but i didnt like him and apparently, neither did they. even in hindsight, i think they did a good job outside of the mcnabb trade.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 11:50 AM ----------

If you build the team, and then find the QB, you end up being the Jets. You end up with strong defenses and good running games gashing teams through giant holes made by strong offensive lines. And you end up with a QB who usually does enough to not lose, while you pound the rock to a playoff appearance.

i dont buy this. all it takes is for them to "hit" on a qb and they are a dynasty. it just wasnt a good pick. the same can be said for flacco (though i think he will be good in time). and while they have consistency at the qb position they can take shots at developemental guys for their future if sanchez and flacco dont pan out.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 11:51 AM ----------

I clarified that in a subsequent post. My BPA includes scheme fit and position value, but not need.

how do you not include need into the equation? i would think that positional value itself includes need.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Gosh, that is perfect. At this point I will be the Jets. Playoff team? You wouldn't take that? They are a prime example of a barely serviceable QB with talent all around. Although, they did go the Snyder way with a lot of FA reach. But, heck I will take a playoff team any day.

They are a playoff team with a really narrow window. And Sanchez is doing all he can to narrow that window. It's the same thing that's gone in Baltimore for ten years. If they had a serviceable QB this decade, they probably are a dynasty.

Baltimore is probably the greatest example I can think of that a bad QB is just a bad QB. That offense will never be mistaken for the '99 Rams, but they've always had a good to great running back. They've also had a good to great line. They've had great TEs. They've had goodish receivers. They've also had a field position advantage because of their defense and spcecial teams. And they've had Elivs Grbac, Kyle Boller, and Young Joe Flacco (who might be good someday but not until he completes more than 50 percent of his passes).

[SuperBash]

If they don't take a QB this year, then I'm not sure Shanny has a real plan. If he thinks he can win with Beck, which I don't personally think he does, then the Skins should be looking for a different coach to move on with this team.