Trade up to draft Haskins???

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, Snagletooth said:

I could spend an entire season hoping we suck bad enough without a legit tank for Tua campaign and then be even more demoralized when its all for nothing when we are outbid for Tua.  Then do it all over again and get outbid for Trevor Lawrence too.

 

Typically takes a couple pages for people to realize I'm not crazy after all, looks like we got that out the way first page.

[RWJ]

Renegade, the voting is overwhelmingly NO.  Let the chips fall where they may in the 1st and even trade down.  I like Grier a lot and wouldn't mind selecting him in a trade down in the 1st while picking up another draft pick to help our OL or OLB/Edge rushers.  Skins have their eyes on Jones from Duke.  He is coached by the same guy that taught both Peyton and Eli so take that for what it's worth.

[Conn]

I don't really love the idea of taking a 1st round QB at all in what I want to be a (definitely unintentional, but unavoidable) tanking year. I'm afraid being willing to work with/salvage THAT QB will become a prerequisite to be the (hopefully existent in this future) new GM and then HC of the team post-Allen/Gruden. I don't want any disqualifiers like that limiting our options if we are actually smart enough to shop around for real candidates in a year or two. And since that's the only fraying thread of hope keeping me attached to my dying fanhood, it's what I have to dream for---a real GM who hires his own qualified HC. But having a young QB in the pipeline already who wasn't good enough to save Gruden, but who we're still invested in enough to make Snyder care about FO candidates' thoughts about him...that could be a dream killer. Remember Gruden basically had to say he believed in Griffin to get this job, because of the investment we made in him. 

[Malapropismic Depository]

But who's he gonna throw the ball to ?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the Skins aren't taNking next year, intentionally or otherwise. They'll probably win at least 6-7 games and fall outside of the top 10 in the 2020 draft.  Yes, even with Colt McCoy behind center lol...they will probably rely heavily on the run game with Guice and Peterson, and also rely heavily on yards after the catch for their passing game. If Reed, Scherff, Thompson and Richardson all come back healthy then yeah, it won't turn into a 3-13 season by a long shot.

 

Now, if they cut ties with Reed, Thompson, Crowder, Norman, Davis, then it's another story. But I don't expect that to happen. One or two of them, sure.

 

 

[London Kev]

That's a big no from me. I don't follow college football, so I probably can't accurately assess the risk/reward aspect properly, but making a mega-trade is not worth it IMO.

 

I would prefer to stand pat at 15, go weighted BPA for the whole draft and pick up a few FAs for need.  If that means we roll with McCoy for the season then so be it, if we manage to get a good mid-round rookie QB, even better.

 

Maybe it's a case of "once bitten, twice shy" for me, but mortgaging the future for immediate gains is way too risky.  I'm not happy with the 7-9 mediocrity, but I don't think that one QB will elevate us to constant 12-4 success if it means giving up multiple high picks.

[Burgold]

If you want to get Haskins that is reasons number eighty-three to get rid of Bruce Allen first. If we believe reports, all the other GMs dislike him and thinks he's untrustworthy... so, sure they'll trade with him, but they'll up the premium just to screw him.

Bruce can't get value because of how many times he's acted the jerk. Last year, Kansas City was desperate to get rid of Smith. They had their QB in waiting and needed to get Alex's Smith off the books. It should have been a buyer's market... yet we paid a high price. The draft pick should have been enough. The cost included Fuller because we were desperate enough to need the PR fix before we let Cousins go AND because no one likes Bruce.

 

A sixteen year vet? No one pays through the roof for that? Worse, Bruce let Reid do the same thing to him twice.

[dballer]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the Skins aren't taking next year, intentionally or otherwise. They'll probably win at least 6-7 games and fall outside of the top 10 in the 2020 draft.

 

My thoughts exactly. We will end up drafting around the same spot. Despite what you think of Gruden, he's average enough to stay average. Starting the year with a healthy O, he will scheme the offense up enough, and the defense should be good enough, to land us in the 10-15 pick range again next year...Who knows how long it will take for us to end up in the striking range of drafting a "franchise QB."

 

That being said, if we went QB, i would rather take my chances with a Lock or Daniel Jones, or Ryan Finley 2nd round...

 

 

 

 

[KDawg]

Haskins is a talented football player. 

 

I think he could turn out to be a very good NFL quarterback. But I don't believe that his current talent is worth such a high draft choice. Let alone a high draft choice that we have to acquire by trading future draft assets. He is the most talented QB in this draft. And I really do think he could turn out to be talented in the NFL, but for us the cost is high...

 

-There is no guarantee that Gruden or any of the offensive staff is back in 2020. Which means a new system a year in.

 

-Any quarterback drafted this year would fall into that same caveat, but if the extra resources needed to acquire Haskins aren't included it's much easier to recover from.

 

-Speaking specifically on draft capital: This team has many holes that young talent needs to fill. 

 

-Drafting Haskins jeopardizes us drafting the other "can't miss" QB prospects. In the end, is the thought of Haskins more intriguing than Tua? Fromm? It may be. I'm not really ready to make that statement one way or the other at the moment. But it needs to be a consideration. 

 

While I believe he is by far the best QB in this draft, I believe that in this offseason the correct move is letting things fall into place. If he somehow makes it to a few picks before us (he won't barring something really odd happening) then the team should think about packages. Otherwise stay where they are and draft the BPA in round 1.

 

More often than not some of these lesser heralded QBs come in with less pressure and are able to put a really good NFL career together. Say what we want about Cousins, but he was a 4th rounder. And despite him not being a clutch performer, he's still a pretty good QB. Tom Brady is a classic, obvious, example. 

 

If I were on the Redskins FO I would be pushing for the team to put a lot of resources into QB evaluation. From top to bottom. Have one person assigned to just quarterbacks. Get the best bang for your buck that you can get.

 

If Haskins were there at our pick, he's a no-brainer in that slot. But he won't be. So what are some other no-brainers that don't involve sacrificing draft choices that the team currently needs to plug the holes before the ship sinks...

 

[goskins10]

2 hours ago, Califan007 said:

Hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the Skins aren't taking next year, intentionally or otherwise. They'll probably win at least 6-7 games and fall outside of the top 10 in the 2020 draft.  Yes, even with Colt McCoy behind center lol...they will probably rely heavily on the run game with Guice and Peterson, and also rely heavily on yards after the catch for their passing game. If Reed, Scherff, Thompson and Richardson all come back healthy then yeah, it won't turn into a 3-13 season by a long shot.

 

Now, if they cut ties with Reed, Thompson, Crowder, Norman, Davis, then it's another story. But I don't expect that to happen. One or two of them, sure.

 

 

 

I think you meant tanking not taking? 🙂  

 

I see no reason to ever tank. I hate that idea to be honest. Ok, it may lead us to permanent mediocrity but I just can't root for losing. So for me rolling with Colt just means not wasting resources on a QB when there are so many other parts of the team that need help, especially when you have over $20M tied up in a QB that cannot play - BTW - off topic i really think they should make it so people on IR do not count against the CAP. But I also hate gameday in-actives and think there should be a 62 man roster and still have 10 on the practice squad. All things the owners will never go for. Ok, enough of that rant. 

 

Pretty sure Peterson moves on. He can now go anywhere that needs a back and he can go to a team that has a chance of winning. That is not here. 

 

The rest - wow anyone guess at this point. This is the first season where I can honestly say I have no idea what they are going to do - other than I am pretty sure I am not going to like it. Not because of being predisposed to just not liking what they do - but because of the situation and how they operate, when I think of thier options how they seem to think, I do not like the answers I come up with.  

 

But maybe this time they will prove me wrong.

 

 

 

 

[justice98]

10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@Skinsinparadise I don't know if you read my whole post, but I don't believe we have time to play around with this anymore.  

 

For all we know, Tua might be a bust.  Haskins might be a bust.  That's not the point anymore, not with the current state of the franchise.  Even if we don't have first round picks for the next 3-4 years, at least I know we'll have a chance of my kids even wanting to associate with this team 10-15 years from now.  

 

I'm willing to take that risk and certainly worth it to keep the Giants from getting him.

 

I kind of agree.  Unless they're banking on being at or near the top of the draft in the next few years, this QB situation will be a total disaster for the foreseeable future. They will have to find a QB of the future either this year or next.  And this hovering around .500 business doesnt lend itself to the top prospects.  

 

I mean, sure, they can stand pat and pick the best guy in the latter half of the first or second round.  I'm not gonna say you cant get a good QB unless mortgage the future to get one at the top of the draft, but this team is gonna be desperate.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, justice98 said:

 

I kind of agree.  Unless they're banking on being at or near the top of the draft in the next few years, this QB situation will be a total disaster for the foreseeable future. They will have to find a QB of the future either this year or next.  And this hovering around .500 business doesnt lend itself to the top prospects.  

 

I mean, sure, they can stand pat and pick the best guy in the latter half of the first or second round.  I'm not gonna say you cant get a good QB unless mortgage the future to get one at the top of the draft, but this team is gonna be desperate.

 

I think the opposite. This team has many, many holes. And trying to plug it with a quarterback who is going to go earlier than he should due to a poor QB draft class is not a good look for anyone, including that QB. 

 

If a team trades up to take him, the pressure increases. Not only are you a top 5 pick in the NFL draft, but you may be the team's first round pick for the next 3 seasons. For a rookie coming in, with one year of starting experience in college, that's a lot on your plate. I'm not saying Haskins CAN'T overcome it. But it's forced due to the lack of talent in this draft.

 

The related and simultaneous issue is the holes on the roster that need to be filled in order to help a young QB be successful for not just one year, but years to come. 

 

If you want a team to be proud of for years to come, I'd argue that not going for the splash trade on a QB is more prudent.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't care, really.  

 

I mean, if he fell to us and we took him, fine.  I'm against trading up to get him.  I'm more in favor of actually trading down and hoarding more picks.  

 

Like a lot of things in life, the NFL draft is a numbers game.  It's scratching lottery tickets.  It's going on a lot of dates.  Scratch enough tickets, you'll win a few bucks.  Go on enough dates, you'll get laid.  Or at least maybe make out and cop a feel.

 

This team has so many issues outside of who the QB is.  This team also has a problem with drafting and developing talent.  They're not terrible at it but certainly not great.  Allen, Payne look like they could pan out to be good players.  Ion was a great pick.  But then we have Doctson.  I'm too lazy to look up all our drafts and break it down pick by pick.

 

Whatever.  My point is that we just need to scratch more lottery tickets.  I can't help it, I like Jimmy Johnson.  Certainly not while he was the Cowboys coach but my distaste for him over the years has waned. 

 

I encourage everyone to watch this 30 for 30 short on how Jimmy Johnson traded Herschel Walker and how he flipped the players he got in return for picks.  Take 12 minutes out of your day and watch it.  It's amazing:

 

http://www.espn.com/watch/player?id=1f853eac-3099-479a-a57f-32861c7c134c

 

At the 2:20 mark he talks about how they drafted 4 Pro Bowlers in one draft.  Aikman, Daryl Johnston, Mark Stepnoski, Tony Tolbert.  4 Pro Bowlers in one draft!  He goes on to say that he knew his organization could draft talent, he just needed the picks to do it.

 

No one was safe from being traded.  I absolutely love his quote, I'm gonna put it in bold and big font for you who struggle with reading comprehension:

 

"My attitude was we were 53 players away from the Super Bowl."

 

In 5 years, he made 51 trades.  More than the rest of the league put together.  "When you bring in as many players as we brought in, you're gonna have hits and misses.  We had some misses, but we had plenty of hits."

 

When they won their first SuperBowl, they were the youngest and lowest paid team in the league.  We are towards the opposite end of that spectrum as it stands right now.  Might not be the oldest team in the league but we are bumping up on the cap.  

 

The Redskins are 53 players away from the Super Bowl.  You know it, I know it.  No one can deny it.  

 

Not only are they 53 players away from the Super Bowl, they don't have anyone nearly as smart as Jimmy Johnson to pull this off.  I don't need to turn this into an Allen bashing thread, but my point still remains.  If they have a dunce like Allen, they need even MORE picks.  If I were the Redskins GM, my goal would be to get as many picks as I possibly could.  

 

Dwayne Haskins?  Whatever.

 

 

 

[Jacoby6644]

Honestly no. We are going no where. Jay will be our next year. Hopefully Bruce not far behind. My hope would be for Dan to get a clue, admit defeat, and hire some folks knowledgeable about running a team/business. Let those people evaluate the organization as a whole and perform the “hack & whack”, cleaning house. By that time (2yrs) Lawerence could be ready to leave Clemson after his Junior year and we should be bad enough that we don’t need to trade the farm to get him. 

That should put us on pace to have a winning season by my 50th birthday which would be a helluva gift.

[OVCChairman]

Nope

 

1.  It's likely we get someone on part with Haskins ability without trading up in 2020

2. It means Jay, Bruce, and whoever have MORE time because they can sell the excuse of "rookie QB."  They would also get more time because of the investment given up in order to get that QB. 

3. I don't want Bruce / Jay drafting our QB of the future.  I want the new GM and HC in place before that happens, subsequently the new OC and the system is determined, then we figure out the best QB to get to fit that system

4. We have too many holes to be giving up a bunch of assets.  We have holes to fill, so to make other holes to take a chance at filling one is compounding the problem.

5.  I DONT WANT BRUCE / JAY DRAFTING OUR QB OF THE FUTURE. 

 

 

I would be fine if we took a 3rd or 4th round shot on a guy and we get lucky, but I do not want them being handed the keys to a 1st round pick QB, because like @Jacoby6644 just said, they're hopefully both out next year.  Giving up a lot to go get Haskins, means it narrows your coaching search, if for no other reason it makes you consider him, and the system he would work in, during the hiring process.  Haskins is good, but he's not Luck.  He's not a sure fire type that can execute pretty much any system.  He may become that, but the risk is still there.  If Haskins somehow miraculously falls to us at 15, please don't fall over yourself running up to the podium (although I'd be very interested in what we could then get in trade value if that were to happen, but that's never going to happen so i'm not going to kid myself).  

 

If you want to fire Bruce and Jay, bring in a new HC TOMORROW... and he sit down and says "Haskins is my guy, we need to have him here."  Then we can talk, but if Bruce / Jay are in place, I don't want ANY moves to go up for a QB in the 1st, or even 2nd round.  

 

 

[justice98]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I think the opposite. This team has many, many holes. And trying to plug it with a quarterback who is going to go earlier than he should due to a poor QB draft class is not a good look for anyone, including that QB. 

 

If a team trades up to take him, the pressure increases. Not only are you a top 5 pick in the NFL draft, but you may be the team's first round pick for the next 3 seasons. For a rookie coming in, with one year of starting experience in college, that's a lot on your plate. I'm not saying Haskins CAN'T overcome it. But it's forced due to the lack of talent in this draft.

 

The related and simultaneous issue is the holes on the roster that need to be filled in order to help a young QB be successful for not just one year, but years to come. 

 

If you want a team to be proud of for years to come, I'd argue that not going for the splash trade on a QB is more prudent.

 

I dont think teams are trading like that anymore.  You're probably swapping #1s this year, you give up a 1 next year, then there's a combo of picks in the 2nd or 3rd in the next year or two.  I dont think anybody's advocating 3 years of #1s.  The Eagles gave up 1 future #1 for Wentz, the Bears gave up zero future #1s for Trubisky, the Rams gave up 2 for Goff.  So the going rate seems to 1 or 2, then some other picks, which could be spread out.  (I dont really count swapping 1s as "giving up" a draft pick.)

 

Even RG3 was 2 years of 1s.  But if they can get away with just no future 1s like the Bears or just one #1, then maybe it should be on the table.

 

You can always wheel and deal and recoup an additional 3rd or something. 

 

Holes or no holes, if you dont have the QB, you're DOA no matter what.  And that's the hardest position to find.  You cant push it off.  You have to get that guy in the building.  Whether it's Haskins or somebody else.  

 

Having said that, I dont love drafting a QB with Gruden in tow, because he's on borrowed time.  But I'll take that hit that the QB will have to learn another offense.  

[justice98]

23 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

2. It means Jay, Bruce, and whoever have MORE time because they can sell the excuse of "rookie QB."  They would also get more time because of the investment given up in order to get that QB. 

 

 

Not necessarily.  Having a rookie QB didnt save Steve Wilks or Todd Bowles.

 

And if the fanbase and attendance keeps hemorrhaging, and it's another year of embarrassing fan turnout, they wont keep this group around for ANOTHER year.  Although, I didnt think they'd do it this time either.  lol

[BigHuv21]

Geno Smith 2.0. No thanks! 2020 there are 3 blue chip QBs.  Build the team and wait until then

[Renegade7]

8 hours ago, RWJ said:

Renegade, the voting is overwhelmingly NO.  

1

 

It was also overwhelmingly NO to not move Jordan Reed to WR to help extend his career, they'd just put corners on him, remember?

 

I'll look into Jones, but unless we really believe he can be a great QB, I won't support using a first on him.  I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, having conversation about what I think we should considering what we are up against.  If we are going to draft a QB, I want to get the best one we can, another QB bust could be final nail in the coffin for my generation of the fan base and likely their kids as well.

2 hours ago, London Kev said:

Maybe it's a case of "once bitten, twice shy" for me, but mortgaging the future for immediate gains is way too risky.  I'm not happy with the 7-9 mediocrity, but I don't think that one QB will elevate us to constant 12-4 success if it means giving up multiple high picks.

 

 

That actually happens all the time in the NFL.  It's a helluva risk, but scared money don't make money.

[OVCChairman]

11 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

Not necessarily.  Having a rookie QB didnt save Steve Wilks or Todd Bowles.

 

And if the fanbase and attendance keeps hemorrhaging, and it's another year of embarrassing fan turnout, they wont keep this group around for ANOTHER year.  Although, I didnt think they'd do it this time either.  lol

 

Dan doesn't own Arizona or NYJ, and Bruce doesn't work there.

 

Bruce has Dan's ear, and spending assets to get the 'hot' QB coming out of college is an easy sell to Redskins fans.  Even easier if we trade  It'll be RG3 2.0 in Ashburn.  Posters, banners, fan appreciation days, they would market the living daylights out of Haskins and there will be a response from a large part of the fanbase.   Bruce would very easily sell that to Dan, and continue to point back to the past 2 seasons regarding injuries.  The hype alone would cause a reaction from this fanbase, justified or not, and that would imho, be enough for Bruce to say "SEE!!  I know what i'm talking about, those other guys are gone now and this is the response"

 

 

[LightningBuggs]

Is this really a question?  A million times "NO".

 

1) He's not that good.

2) Skins are 53 players away from being a good team not 1.

3) He's a Giants fan.

 

The end.

[Renegade7]

41 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

If you want to fire Bruce and Jay, bring in a new HC TOMORROW... and he sit down and says "Haskins is my guy, we need to have him here."  Then we can talk, but if Bruce / Jay are in place, I don't want ANY moves to go up for a QB in the 1st, or even 2nd round.  

 

1

 

This is a fair point that I gave up on because of the reality of the situation.  Jay is the new Marvin Lewis and Bruce is the new Ernie Grunfield.  Neither are going anywhere.  Now what?

[Yohan]

I went with no. I think this draft should be used to build towards the future. A few O lineman to get experience over the next few years, if the skins go QB and is pressed into playing, I don't see it turning out to well for him, especially since the current line got 2 QBs killed. Maybe D lineman, because you can never have to many of them, a nice rotation would be nice.

[KDawg]

22 minutes ago, justice98 said:

 

I dont think teams are trading like that anymore.  You're probably swapping #1s this year, you give up a 1 next year, then there's a combo of picks in the 2nd or 3rd in the next year or two.  I dont think anybody's advocating 3 years of #1s.  The Eagles gave up 1 future #1 for Wentz, the Bears gave up zero future #1s for Trubisky, the Rams gave up 2 for Goff.  So the going rate seems to 1 or 2, then some other picks, which could be spread out.  (I dont really count swapping 1s as "giving up" a draft pick.)

 

 

I think you're staring at the tree in front of you and not looking at the forest in re: my overall point.

 

That is probably my fault for using hyperbole. It's so hard to read that stuff in proper tone on an internet forum.

 

But my point stands. It's a lot to put on an inexperienced QB who is a bit of a reach (not necessarily due to talent, but due to inexperience)

 

Holes or no holes, if you dont have the QB, you're DOA no matter what.  And that's the hardest position to find.  You cant push it off.  You have to get that guy in the building.  Whether it's Haskins or somebody else. 

 

This is how you wind up with Jamarcus Russell. Want to find a way to make a more mediocre QB successful? Build the line with reliable, good talent. 

 

 

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, LightningBuggs said:

Is this really a question?  A million times "NO".

 

1) He's not that good.

2) Skins are 53 players away from being a good team not 1.

3) He's a Giants fan.

 

The end.

 

1) Subject to debate, which I'm open to having

2)That's just a quote based on the premise of us doing something we'll never do, which is blow this thing up the right way

3)Colt McCoy is a Cowboys fan that huge chunk of us wants to start next year, your point?