Homer: Addressing the arguments against acquiring Robert Griffin III

[Redskins4ever]

OP,

That was an excellent write up....first and foremost.

You might have seen me around here once or twice...I've definitely voiced my concern over "trading the house" for Griffin III on numerous occassions. Your first two points are my argument no doubt and I stand behind them firmly. I want us to entertain St. Louis for that #2 overall; however, If the price is too high, trade down and collect picks like last year and continue injecting the franchise with talented youth on both sides of the ball.

I believe as a franchise, we are not a QB away from the Superbowl because getting there and winning requires a total team effort. Green Bay was the favorite to repeat and essentially their D failed to compliment Rodgers who himself had an "average" day by our standard of him. Brees on the other hand lit up that 49er #1 Defense for 450+yds and 4 Tds which should have been enough. Again, you need a total team effort and their defense failed to compliment the QB in addition to several dropped balls by the NO wide outs.

You can bring in the "franchise" QB to cover up your other weak points....but that merely makes us the Dallas Cowboys with Romo sits to pee (is that our goal, to be a medicore team with a talented QB making up for it?). I want us to dominate the NFC East for the next decade and get a couple Lombardi's out of it.....to accomplish this; you guessed it, a total team effort who utilize their talents on both sides of the ball.

If for whatever reason we "go all in" for Griffin III and he busts, it would absolutely set us back after the progress made from the 2011 draft. If we're talking about swappings 1sts, a 2nd, 3rd and 1st for the trade...I'm sorry, we have to say no to that (for all intensive purposes; those are 4 NFL starters which would impact this franchise). I'm not afraid to ask that "what if" question even among the masses of "stop being afraid".

Maybe it's my optimism, but I believe out of Weeden, Foles, R. Wilson, and perhaps Tannenhill lies a guy who will pan out that we could acquire in or after the 2nd rd SHOULD we miss out on Griffin III. That's just me however; I don't believe this entire 2012 draft hinges on RG3.

I'm in the minority around here...for good reason. Our front office needs to think clearly and make the best move for the ENTIRE franchise which ever decision that might be.

I like this kid Nick Foles. To me, he has one of the most underrated senior campaigns in the nation of college football last season. Is he better than Beck? Is he better than Grossman? Would he fit in the west coast offense? He would definitely be another option I'd consider if RG3 is unreachable.

[Vooskin]

To me not making the aggressive move to trade up to #2 is a loser mentality. This team was 5-11 last year. Sitting at the bottom of the NFC East again for the third year in a row. You have to take the risk, because you got nothing to lose at this point. If RG3 is a bust(still be better than other options) then you are sitting in the same place. If you want to be a contender at some point you are going to have to make a bold move.

Fortes fortuna adiuvat

[rambler01]

I like this kid Nick Foles. To me, he has one of the most underrated senior campaigns in the nation of college football last season. Is he better than Beck? Is he better than Grossman? Would he fit in the west coast offense? He would definitely be another option I'd consider if RG3 is unreachable.

I'd be absolutely thrilled if we could land Foles IF the whole RG3 thing falls apart. Despite the lack of talent around him, 4300+yds and not a singe 1,000yd receiver (A VERY impressive tidbit about his ability to find multiple targets). I like his potential here, but you bring up valid points about the WCO. He'd absolutely be better than what we have if we couldn't get Griffin III.

[themurf]

I remember your other article where you stated that we should trade whatever it takes to get Luck, and I wasn't on board with you. I am completely on board with you on this one, however. It's not because I think RG III is better than Luck, but just that we've got a reasonable shot to trade up to # 2 in the draft, whereas getting the number one would have required a ridiculous trade on our part.

I expect to see a lot of "smoke screening" between now and the draft, but let's hope Shanallen makes it happen and puts that man in some burgundy and gold.

Yeah, I am still a huge fan of Andrew Luck and believe he too will be a very good player for a long, long time. But once Indy made it clear they weren't interested in even hearing from other teams because he was their guy, I got over it and moved on. Now, with Luck out of the picture, it's crystal clear to me that Griffin is the only other legitimate option out there who might be able to turn this mediocre franchise into something worth watching once again.

And best of all, you're right - the price tag to move from No. 6 to No. 2 is much less costly than it would have been to pry the top pick away from the Colts. So really, he's a bargain!

[Gregpeck99]

Skins sitting pretty ... its either RG3, Peyton, Flynn or Tannihill.

Ooooowee ... Skins finally get a QB.

[bigkobe81]

I'd be absolutely thrilled if we could land Foles IF the whole RG3 thing falls apart. Despite the lack of talent around him, 4300+yds and not a singe 1,000yd receiver (A VERY impressive tidbit about his ability to find multiple targets). I like his potential here, but you bring up valid points about the WCO. He'd absolutely be better than what we have if we couldn't get Griffin III.

What worries me is if he's mobile enough to sell Shannys play-action

[KCClybun]

I'd be absolutely thrilled if we could land Foles IF the whole RG3 thing falls apart. Despite the lack of talent around him, 4300+yds and not a singe 1,000yd receiver (A VERY impressive tidbit about his ability to find multiple targets). I like his potential here, but you bring up valid points about the WCO. He'd absolutely be better than what we have if we couldn't get Griffin III.

His footwork SUCKS. Shanny and the crew weren't impressed with him at the Senior Bowl for that reason, among others. His upper and lower body seem completely disconnected. He's not overly mobile (in the pocket, meaning he doesn't do a good job avoiding the rush), and his throwing mechanics get wonky at random points. The stats don't really tell the whole story about Foles. The Wildcats got down early and often and have no running game to speak of, so all those passing yards stack up when you're throwing from behind.

He threw 17 touchdowns to 4 interceptions at home...but threw 11 touchdowns and 10 interceptions on the road.

You have to keep the numbers the numbers in perspective. He threw for all those yards...and yet the Wildcats went 4-9. And his 4 wins came against Northern Arizona (small school beat down), a UCLA program that was even worse off than the Wildcats, Arizona State (who fell apart at the end of the season and lost their last four games and got destroyed by Boise State), and Louisiana-Layfette, who I'll given their due.

[issapunk]

I just don't see a franchise QB in this draft other than Luck or Griffin. Foles will need time to develop and his probability of being a franchise QB has to be around 5% or so and definitely 80% less likely than Griffin or Luck.

What sets a team back more: trading a few good draft picks for a guy who turns out to be your franchise QB or drafting a QB in the 2nd rd and wasting 2 years only to discover he will never develop into what you want? Griffin is not a guarantee, but he is close to being as sure as you can get.

[MikeARedskinFan]

As long as we can get the best franchise player out there we will be fine,But I would have to go with a Q.B.

[Jericho]

I think the Griffin situation would best be described as follows: if Griffin becomes a franchise QB, it does not matter what the Redskins gave up (much like the Giants, who gave up a bunch for Eli Manning despite being able to draft Big Ben or Rivers while staying put). If Griffin busts, any trade will look bad. So there's this risk assessment that goes on where you calculate how much you believe Griffin will pan out. At the end of the day, it does not matter how much is given. All it matters is if he pans out. The only real difference in trade negotiations is how much or little it hurts if he busts.

The problem as a fan is if Griffin is not obtained, the Redskins will likely try and shoehorn someone else in the spot. And the odds are overwhelming that whatever solution they go with is really no solution at all. Manning might be a short-term solution if healthy. Flynn and any other 2012 draftee not named Luck are likely just treading water at best (and could be much worse). Sure, the team could wait for another blue chip prospect next year, but that's unlikely. So the double sting could be by missing on Griffin and wasting other assets on the back-up plan. Just ask Cards fan about that deal for Kolb, or Seahawks fans about that deal for Whitehurt, or Chiefs fans about that deal for Cassel. All gave up valuable assets for middling returns. That's why people turn to the draft and hope for the unknown. But that usually busts too....

[SkinsFanRicky]

I still say the RG3 or die mentality is a product of the era we're living in. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the guy, but the downside of him not working out isn't worth the risk to me.

That sums it up well....

[dahibachi]

I still say the RG3 or die mentality is a product of the era we're living in. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the guy, but the downside of him not working out isn't worth the risk to me..

i have to disagree. You win superbowls in this league by taking a chance at getting a franchise QB... Rarely, if ever, is there a sure thing when it comes to drafting a QB. But we aren't going to win a superbowl by playing it safe and signing a decent NFL starter. We aren't going to win one by renting 36 year old Peyton for 2-3 years. As long as I have lived, the Redskins never got "their guy" at QB while I've watched numerous teams land their franchise QB. It's time for us to get ours.

[RFKFedEx]

i have to disagree. You win superbowls in this league by taking a chance at getting a franchise QB... Rarely, if ever, is there a sure thing when it comes to drafting a QB.

Taking that chance on 'the guy' generally entailed drafting him with one pick. It worked for the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Colts, Redskins, and Browns dynasties of decades past. Aside from Eli, I don't know of another team who got their guy by trading a king's ransom.

I like what Shanallen has done so far, and I don't want to piss it all away on the hope that RG3 is the man. If Shanallen isn't going to win long term, I'd rather know that they played with a full deck instead of us forever wondering 'what if' they hadn't traded all of those picks away on a guy who turned out to be average.

I hate to keep going back to the real estate in the mid 2000s analogy, but people thought that buying property at any cost was 'worth it' bc you had nothing to lose knowing that it would forever go up in value. That's how I feel people are looking at RG3 in this slow off season with the thin projections on 1st round QBs of which there might only be 3 guys taken.

[MR2Drift]

Great article, sums up most of my thoughts on the matter.

[joeknows]

I like this kid Nick Foles. To me, he has one of the most underrated senior campaigns in the nation of college football last season. Is he better than Beck? Is he better than Grossman? Would he fit in the west coast offense? He would definitely be another option I'd consider if RG3 is unreachable.

Foles is who i pick as the sleeper... he is very impressive from what little i have seen.

[Redskins4ever]

Foles is who i pick as the sleeper... he is very impressive from what little i have seen.

I agree. The impressive thing about Foles is he completed 69% of his passes. He threw for a bunch of yardage. He played with low talent receiving and was still able to have a pretty decent season statistically. Then only thing is, he didn't win games. But that was because Arizona's football team wasn't very good because of its lack of talent all over the roster. Foles could certainly develop. He would be a practice squad QB for maybe 8 weeks to a full season as he learns the playbook. But I would think he'd be a starter at some point.

[KCClybun]

I hate to keep going back to the real estate in the mid 2000s analogy, but people thought that buying property at any cost was 'worth it' bc you had nothing to lose knowing that it would forever go up in value. That's how I feel people are looking at RG3 in this slow off season with the thin projections on 1st round QBs of which there might only be 3 guys taken.

Next year there might only be one quarterback worth drafting in the first round.

The year after that, who knows?

How long do we wait? That's the question. Because I think there's this idea that one of these days we're going to suck just hard enough to have a guy fall in our laps, but not hard enough to get our whole coaching staff fired from scratch.

How long do we wait? Another 5 years? For another head coach? Another ten? Another 21 years, which is the last time we won the Super Bowl? How long can ignoring this position be justified? How long do we settle for the third best guy? For the Ramsey's, the Campbell's, knowing they're not really good enough but taking them just because we need them? Settling for other team's sloppy seconds, hoping the next Jordan Palmer or Colt Brennan pans out. Sitting around, hoping we trip face first into Brad Johnson or Trent Green again.

It could take another 10 years before a guy falls to us. That's not a lie, or an exaggeration. It's a legitimate possibility. And in the kind, we could stumble into the next Jason Campbell; a guy just mediocre enough for the front office to keep giving him chances so we keep passing up better talent in the draft, but not good enough to ever win us anything. 8-8, 9-7, 6-10, with a one off playoff run every once in a while.

RGIII could go in flames like the ****ing Hindenberg. But 1.) it won't take a king's ransom to get him, 2.) we can effectively cut bait after 2 seasons when we have another first round pick if he blows, and 3.) if things work out, we have a legitimate starting quarterback for the next 10 years.

People that thought any home would go up in value "forever" were dummies who were either sold crappy loans, or didn't do their research into how dumb a friggin' concept ANYTHING going up in value forever is. This isn't like real estate in the mid 2000s; this is football.

There's two quarterbacks on the board that can help us achieve the ultimate goal of winning a Super Bowl. And after those two guys, you've got a whole lot more questions than answers. Trading up isn't the end of the world.

---------- Post added March-7th-2012 at 12:52 AM ----------

I agree. The impressive thing about Foles is he completed 69% of his passes. He threw for a bunch of yardage. He played with low talent receiving and was still able to have a pretty decent season statistically. Then only thing is, he didn't win games. But that was because Arizona's football team wasn't very good because of its lack of talent all over the roster. Foles could certainly develop. He would be a practice squad QB for maybe 8 weeks to a full season as he learns the playbook. But I would think he'd be a starter at some point.

Have you ever actually watched Foles play?

Like I said before; it's easy to throw for a ton of yards when you get down by a lot early in games and have to throw to catch up. The stats have to be placed in the proper context.

[Win4us]

Taking that chance on 'the guy' generally entailed drafting him with one pick. It worked for the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Colts, Redskins, and Browns dynasties of decades past. Aside from Eli, I don't know of another team who got their guy by trading a king's ransom.

I like what Shanallen has done so far, and I don't want to piss it all away on the hope that RG3 is the man. If Shanallen isn't going to win long term, I'd rather know that they played with a full deck instead of us forever wondering 'what if' they hadn't traded all of those picks away on a guy who turned out to be average.

I hate to keep going back to the real estate in the mid 2000s analogy, but people thought that buying property at any cost was 'worth it' bc you had nothing to lose knowing that it would forever go up in value. That's how I feel people are looking at RG3 in this slow off season with the thin projections on 1st round QBs of which there might only be 3 guys taken.

I agree with this post.

I personally would like to keep all draft picks and take who's there at #6 pick then address either WR, RT or shutdown corner with 2nd rounder on, but it's up to the boss man.

There's also several posts stating this QB and that QB have went on to win superbowls by being franchise qb's while we've had mediocre to bottom of the barrel types at the position. While this may be true, something forgotten in all this is most if not all of those qb's have been playing in the exact same system for their whole career. Something we haven't been close to doing for more than 2 or 3 seasons in a row at most over a pretty long period.

[KCClybun]

There's also several posts stating this QB and that QB have went on to win superbowls by being franchise qb's while we've had mediocre to bottom of the barrel types at the position. While this may be true, something forgotten in all this is most if not all of those qb's have been playing in the exact same system for their whole career. Something we haven't been close to doing for more than 2 or 3 seasons in a row at most over a pretty long period.

Campbell played in the same system the entire time Gibbs was here, then had two seasons in the WCO with Zorn. He's not exactly Alex Smith; two systems in a 5 years with us, including a whole season on the bench to learn. And Campbell actually had decent enough stats in Zorn's tenure. Campbell was mediocre, though, and that's why in 2005 he was only a fringe first rounder; most people had a high second round grade on him, maybe sneaking into the first.

Trent Green had 3 years in Norv's offense before he became the starter, and Brad Johnson had pretty much exclusively been in vertical, Coryell-esque offenses in their career. (Which is why Johnson had such a problem adjusting to Gruden's WCO when he went to Tampa from a terminology standpoint). Even Tony Banks played almost exclusively in the same offenses, just with different coaches. Mark Brunnell was much the same deal. Collins was a system guy.

The only guy you can really make an argument for is Patrick Ramsey, but again, he wasn't exactly a top flight prospect to begin with.

While changing offensive philosophies hasn't helped, with the veterans we've picked up, they almost always played in some version of our head coach's/offensive coordinator's system before the got here.

[Jericho]

There's also several posts stating this QB and that QB have went on to win superbowls by being franchise qb's while we've had mediocre to bottom of the barrel types at the position. While this may be true, something forgotten in all this is most if not all of those qb's have been playing in the exact same system for their whole career. Something we haven't been close to doing for more than 2 or 3 seasons in a row at most over a pretty long period.

It's a circular argument. Good QBs stay in the same system because they're good and their coaches keep their jobs. Bad QBs get coaches fired and bad QBs get replaced by someone else. Look at Jason Campbell. He was not a bad QB. He's better than Rex Grossman. But he wasn't good enough to win games on his own. He wasn't good enough to let Jim Zorn keep his job and therefore he was replaced when the scheme changed. Happens all the time. Now, maybe you're trying to argue that a mediocre QB, if placed in one system with one coach long enough, will become good. I don't buy that for one second. But the greater problem is, unless results are shown, no QB is going to be rn out there year after year without results. And without results, no coach will keep his job forever either.

Good QBs allow for consistency in coaching and scheme. Not the other way around.

[Zazzaro703]

The Redskins HAVE to take a shot at Griffin. The Browns 2nd 1st round pick is probably the only thing standing in our way. If the Shanahans like him and he fits their system (meaning he isnt a square peg going into a round hole),Griffin busting is just an act of God and super unlucky. Either way I'd MUCH rather watch an electrifying player like RGIII bust (RGIII is NOT gonna bust) than a medicore hope for the best late 1st QB like J. Candle busting. Plus, the point others have made about him being great for the community. If we get RGIII I can't even imagine the buzz around the Redskins all summer. Come training camp I'll be ready to strap on a helmet and go hit someone I'll be so excited.

[Rpredskins]

Good god. Some of the logic in these replies is mind-blowing. Taking RG3 is too risky?? How the hell else would you like to get a franchise QB? EVERY first-round QB has high risk attached, and RG3 appears to have less than usual because he clearly has character. If he is too "risky," then who is safe?? The only safer player is Luck, and that's not going to happen. You want a veteran QB? Orton, Grossman, Garrard, take your pick of mediocre-to-crap QBs. Ohhh you want Peyton Manning. Guy coming off 3 neck surgeries. Yeah that's not risky at all.

The risk argument has got to be one of the dumbest I have ever seen.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Taking that chance on 'the guy' generally entailed drafting him with one pick. It worked for the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys, 49ers, Colts, Redskins, and Browns dynasties of decades past. Aside from Eli, I don't know of another team who got their guy by trading a king's ransom..

Do you know of an instance where a king's ransom for a guy didn't work? Wouldn't the fact that Shanahan traded up for him ease your fears? Every situation is different. Some teams picked high enough to select their guy, other teams had a guy in place already. Some teams get lucky in later rounds with guys that weren't that highly rated. In our situation the two guys who are the best are also slated to go 1-2. We're not drafting 1 or 2. We're in year 3 of Shanny's 5 year deal. He can't wait and he can't hinge his tenure on a second tier guy.

[RFKFedEx]

Do you know of an instance where a king's ransom for a guy didn't work? We're in year 3 of Shanny's 5 year deal. He can't wait and he can't hinge his tenure on a second tier guy.

No Armchair, no team aside from the Giants has been bold enough to gamble on a heavy trade up for a QB. The only trade for picks disaster I can think of is the Herschel Walker deal.

I'd be more about taking this risk if we weren't less than a year removed from the release of McNabb, for whom we lost picks. All following a decade of scrapping picks which in part led to the suckage we're in today. I'm patient enough to allow Shanny another year to find his guy. Draft a second round QB this year, and if he's not the guy by this time next year, draft another QB. Snyder needs to be patient and allow Shanallen to build for a ten year plan. No more shortsightedness in Ashburn.

[LD0506]

So we should take those rooks from the draft last year and tell 'em just wait, we have to suck even worse this season so we can make a run at a QB next spring, because apparently dealing up from #6 is not good enough. Another season of witless tank talk will have me tearing my hair out.

If ya play scared because of what Ole Bugeyes did in years past then you're not playing at all.