Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Hypothetical- Cincy throws a curveball and take Chase. Would you take Joe Burrow?


RichmondRedskin88

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, volsmet said:

If available, I’d probably never draft anything other than an elite QB prospect if one was there when I picked. And I’d probably never keep that Qb beyond his rookie contract. 
 

 

72E72C3C-363C-4133-8062-EA6D3BD1324A.gif

 

So - you would get rid of players like Brady, Brees & Rodgers in their prime?  The problem with your philosophy is that if you draft QBs nonstop some of them are bound to be busts so you waste a few years on them.  Others are going to take 1-3 years to develop so those seasons will also be somewhat of a waste.   You also very likely are going to have to trade up at times & lose additional talent in the process.

 

So are you advocating just having a real good season every 3-4 years?   Hmm - that kind of sounds like the old Redskins philosophy.   My approach would be that if you have an elite, veteran QB you do whatever it takes to keep him & you adjust the roster & cap accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, dicksogj said:

 

So - you would get rid of players like Brady, Brees & Rodgers in their prime?  The problem with your philosophy is that if you draft QBs nonstop some of them are bound to be busts so you waste a few years on them.  Others are going to take 1-3 years to develop so those seasons will also be somewhat of a waste.   You also very likely are going to have to trade up at times & lose additional talent in the process.

 

So are you advocating just having a real good season every 3-4 years?   Hmm - that kind of sounds like the old Redskins philosophy.   My approach would be that if you have an elite, veteran QB you do whatever it takes to keep him & you adjust the roster & cap accordingly.

 

I have a similar take to volsmet, I won't say it's the same because I'm not 100% positive... but...

 

I don't think a mediocre or even good QB is worth 15+% of your salary cap. Pretty much ever. They aren't good enough to carry your team, and that number is then large enough to hurt your ability to build around them. And a mediocre to just good QB needs a team to surround them to win. These are your Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryans, Derek Carrs and Matt Staffords of the world. Good QBs to be sure (except maybe Carr, jury is out on that one :ols:), but they need the pieces around them to succeed.

 

So in that sense, I think you should always be ready and have a plan to replace a mediocre to good QB when they hit free agency if they are wanting more than what their play warrants (I won't put a number on that, I don't know, but it's less than 15%, I'd even say it's around 12%, but I leave the cap **** to people that are fiscally smarter than I am). 

 

Cheap QBs (rookie deals in the current CBA) are the way to build a winner. Lots of money to build a surrounding cast with. 

 

You secure a QB, and pay a QB, who can put the team on his back. The issue there is, you can read that wrong. A guy like Mahomes looks like a slam dunk, but if he gets signed to a contract where he accounts for ~20% of his teams' salary cap and loses weapons, is he the same guy? As of now I'd say yes, but that's the gamble you look at. 

 

Russell Wilson looks like a guy that can carry a team, but he struggled without weapons (his backs were injured though, so that is something to account for). And his defense struggled a little. 

 

Rodgers has consistently kept the Packers in play. So he'd likely be worth it.

 

Jimmy G is kind of an outlier. Dude is paid and the Niners are built around him... but a lot of their key players are on rookie deals, too. And I don't think he's a guy that can carry a team in general. 

 

This is always a good talk, we kind of did this the other day in some thread some where. 

 

Brady is a unicorn in the sense that he makes less than all of those dudes, and has six rings because of it. But a lot of these guys think they need to get paid to help the other QBs get paid in the future, so they push it. Brees did just that. He encourages others as well. But I think that's largely irresponsible. You have entire organization's depending on you to keep their jobs safe. You have other positions that would be paid more if QBs didn't account for such a large portion of the cap. 

 

Dak Prescott is going to get paid. If the Cowboys do it, it'll be interesting to see how that effects their roster in a year or two when they have deals that are up and they can't afford to bring in guys to fill the voids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also dig the QB by shotgun approach where you are always burning a 3rd or 4th on a guy biennially so that you always have the chance to hit on one, and hopefully you always have a guy that you trust can get the ball to all of your play makers you find through FA or higher in the draft if you are freaky. That way if the starting guy plays above his head for a season or two and then expects to be the highest paid player ever, and you were lucky enough to have a guy behind him you think can replicate his production or come close, you dont have to basically take away from the rest of the team to keep things moving. 

 

This assumes alot of things, of course:

 

       - That you can build a team and an offense that can work around a medium to good QB. Which I think is easier than finding a star at that position personally 

       - That you can build and maintain a defense 

       - Strong run game 

       - Good coaching 

 

But I want to assume all of those things anyway in a ideal world. Or at least be dedicated on getting them. 

 

Think of Bmore with a new, maybe less talented, Lamar Jackson every 3 years. Yea not the best QB ever but he gives you a hell of a shot and you can find guy with a similar skill set in the draft almost every year these days. You may be able to find a guy with raw athleticism and teach him how to be a QB while he is sitting on your bench in a few years, then let him start by the time you let the other guy walk. 

That would be ideal to me. Or something similar. 

18 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Jimmy G is kind of an outlier. Dude is paid and the Niners are built around him... but a lot of their key players are on rookie deals, too. And I don't think he's a guy that can carry a team in general. 

 

I hadn't actually considered something like this. I wonder how hard that would be to maintain. I feel like Shannys system makes that easier as you can almost have any decent TE, WR, and RB and they would be productive. And if you find a guy with some talent you have a star just waiting to kill a defense. I didnt like the Shannies, personally...like as people. But I do love the system that they put on the field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I hadn't actually considered something like this. I wonder how hard that would be to maintain. I feel like Shannys system makes that easier as you can almost have any decent TE, WR, and RB and they would be productive. And if you find a guy with some talent you have a star just waiting to kill a defense. I didnt like the Shannies, personally...like as people. But I do love the system that they put on the field. 

 

I think the Shanahan's looked a lot more toxic than they were because of the dynamic with Allen/Snyder, to be honest. 

 

Kyle is tremendously intelligent. 

 

But at some point they are going to have to re-sign some dudes. They do have a window now, so them signing Jimmy G and trading for Sanders, snagging Dee Ford, etc, works out VERY well for them. And their window is probably a few years. They could be a powerhouse soon.

 

It makes sense for them to sign Jimmy G with that cast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I have a similar take to volsmet, I won't say it's the same because I'm not 100% positive... but...

 

I don't think a mediocre or even good QB is worth 15+% of your salary cap. Pretty much ever. They aren't good enough to carry your team, and that number is then large enough to hurt your ability to build around them. And a mediocre to just good QB needs a team to surround them to win. These are your Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryans, Derek Carrs and Matt Staffords of the world. Good QBs to be sure (except maybe Carr, jury is out on that one :ols:), but they need the pieces around them to succeed.

 

So in that sense, I think you should always be ready and have a plan to replace a mediocre to good QB when they hit free agency if they are wanting more than what their play warrants (I won't put a number on that, I don't know, but it's less than 15%, I'd even say it's around 12%, but I leave the cap **** to people that are fiscally smarter than I am). 

 

Cheap QBs (rookie deals in the current CBA) are the way to build a winner. Lots of money to build a surrounding cast with. 

 

You secure a QB, and pay a QB, who can put the team on his back. The issue there is, you can read that wrong. A guy like Mahomes looks like a slam dunk, but if he gets signed to a contract where he accounts for ~20% of his teams' salary cap and loses weapons, is he the same guy? As of now I'd say yes, but that's the gamble you look at. 

 

Russell Wilson looks like a guy that can carry a team, but he struggled without weapons (his backs were injured though, so that is something to account for). And his defense struggled a little. 

 

Rodgers has consistently kept the Packers in play. So he'd likely be worth it.

 

Jimmy G is kind of an outlier. Dude is paid and the Niners are built around him... but a lot of their key players are on rookie deals, too. And I don't think he's a guy that can carry a team in general. 

 

This is always a good talk, we kind of did this the other day in some thread some where. 

 

Brady is a unicorn in the sense that he makes less than all of those dudes, and has six rings because of it. But a lot of these guys think they need to get paid to help the other QBs get paid in the future, so they push it. Brees did just that. He encourages others as well. But I think that's largely irresponsible. You have entire organization's depending on you to keep their jobs safe. You have other positions that would be paid more if QBs didn't account for such a large portion of the cap. 

 

Dak Prescott is going to get paid. If the Cowboys do it, it'll be interesting to see how that effects their roster in a year or two when they have deals that are up and they can't afford to bring in guys to fill the voids.

 

In general I agree with most of this. I have one addition and one place where i don't really agree. 

 

It's interesting you bring up Kirk - not starting a new Kirk thread - I agree with the category you put him in and I like the other examples too. The problem is teams try to make QBs like him work and more importantly they do not plan very well looking forward. I was a Kirk fan but I had no problem with them moving on from him but they had no real plan so they had to go out and overpay Alex. In Atl - where i currently live - they are paying Matt Ryan huge money and have no real plan beyond him. He is eating up a huge amount of CAP but is very unlikely to lead them to championship. When they went a few years ago, the offense was decent but it as the D that carried them there and it was the D that ultimately let them down in that debacle - but still the off had a chance but Matt could not get it done, making poor decisions in critical plays. Matt Stafford is another awesome example. He puts up nice numbers and can win you a few games but he is not leading a team. 

 

So would Atl and Det be better off cutting the Matts loose and signing either a low priced FA or getting another guy on a rookie contract? Yes but neither are even thinking that way. They are just not planning on how to move on. 

 

I do not agree with characterizing Brees looking for the best contract he can get a "irresponsible". He has a responsibility to himself and his family. And the bigger contracts help all players, not just QBs. Last but not least, the owners have the money. The players are the product so they should get paid. Other sports have more loose CAPs so you can pay the star(s) big money and still pay others around them. I can't blame Brees for getting what he can while he can. I can blame the owners for not sharing in the profits more. Granted, this is all from the CBA that the players signed. But we all know that was the worst CBA ever written. They had horrible leadership. That is why I fully expect a lock-out. 

 

Wonder if we get some replacement games? Can Keanu still spin it?? 

 

image.png.e78e641193e0b25b9502b2598ff58fe9.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I think the Shanahan's looked a lot more toxic than they were because of the dynamic with Allen/Snyder, to be honest. 

 

Kyle is tremendously intelligent. 

 

But at some point they are going to have to re-sign some dudes. They do have a window now, so them signing Jimmy G and trading for Sanders, snagging Dee Ford, etc, works out VERY well for them. And their window is probably a few years. They could be a powerhouse soon.

 

It makes sense for them to sign Jimmy G with that cast.

 

It does and you really only need a window of a few years imho. Ill take three years with a good shoot and winning it all and then a retooling for two. If you could maintain that kind of consistency, even without winning it in those three years, I would be willing to give you 10 years to keep trying off rip. In that, worse case in my head is a Eagles-Andy Reid type of decade that is to be envied honestly.  

 

Kyle is the one that got away for real. This team was set up for him to take it over. Even not liking them (and it was cause of the toxicity, you got me) I would have kept him here as HC. I blame that all on Alan too. He really ****ed us with that one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I have a similar take to volsmet, I won't say it's the same because I'm not 100% positive... but...

 

I don't think a mediocre or even good QB is worth 15+% of your salary cap. Pretty much ever. They aren't good enough to carry your team, and that number is then large enough to hurt your ability to build around them. And a mediocre to just good QB needs a team to surround them to win. These are your Kirk Cousins, Matt Ryans, Derek Carrs and Matt Staffords of the world. Good QBs to be sure (except maybe Carr, jury is out on that one :ols:), but they need the pieces around them to succeed.

 

 

When presented like this I don't really have an issue with this approach.  The Skins screwed up w/ Cousins since they tagged him freaking twice & then dumped him - if they didn't like him they should have cut ties after the 1st tag.  Anyhow - I don't have an issue with moving on from a mediocre QB who hasn't accomplished much like a Stafford.  However I would do whatever it takes to keep the next Brady, Brees or Manning & that would include someone like Mahommes (sure they may not perform ideally long term but that is a risk worth taking IMO).

 

Everyone appears to be focused on the sure thing QBs but remember that high picks will also inevitably include QBs who fall short like Trubisky, Mariotta & Winston (& oh yeah RG3).  Oh well - interesting topic but no team is ever going to operate in this manner.

 

Also remember that these younger QBs are going to lack the subtle skills that QBs acquire after years of experience as well as the ability to be a better leader (perhaps mainly due to perception).   Go back & look at SB winning QBs - very few of them are QBs in their first several years of the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

I do not agree with characterizing Brees looking for the best contract he can get a "irresponsible". 

 

So I think you misread that point, and probably because I didn't delve into as much because I did the other day in another thread...

 

So let me explain, because I think this should eliminate that concern in my reply:

 

Brees has a responsibility to his family. Agreed. If I could agree more than 100%, I would.

 

But he has outwardly told people like Cousins they had to get as much as they could to help other quarterbacks with the QB market. 

 

This is where my contention is. I have no problem with guys taking the money they're offered for their families. But I often wonder if they would wind up making more money if they take a little less in base salary, get a team around them and build a legacy.

 

I also wonder if they are doing a disservice to literally the rest of the NFL by driving the quarterback market so high.

 

But again, it's hard to fault them for taking it. I just hate the "get as much as you can to help other QBs" mentality. That's not a team attitude, in my own opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some random bits on the topic - 

 

Obviously this may well change with a new CBA, but with the 5th year option set (roughly 20mil for qbs picked top 10, 14mil for rest of 1st round), you would have a 3-4 year window to find a replacement qb, and trading them prior to their 5th year allows you to recoup draft assets (assuming they are good enough to trade).  
 

‘Face of the franchise’ makes makes the issue a little stickier, though I imagine fans would get over it if the next guy (or one of the next guys you drafted during that window) pans out.
 

Ditto for the idea of not paying guys that earn a payday - might not sit too well with other players, but if they’re winning... they may not care.  Ironically, by paying your qb less, you’re also freeing up money to re-sign your better players, so probably a net positive.  

 

On one hand, you’re more likely to miss out on some of that top talent that helps get teams into contender status if you’re consistently spending 1st rounders on qbs, but again, you get to keep other talent and perhaps have more leeway in FA.  Again, you can also get back draft assets by trading qbs.  
 

Regarding the top qbs, even guys like Rodgers and Brees have trouble getting to the playoffs when their supporting cast isn’t good.  On the other hand, you’re probably always a contender for getting to the playoffs with an elite qb.  Someone made a good point though about the nuances of the position - I’d imagine it’s a lot tougher to get your qb comfortable with these if they’re never there past year 4-5.  On the flip side... Jackson, Mahommes, Watson, etc, etc. - young guys can have a lot of success early on.  (I find it interesting that all of the guys that popped into my head are all good scrambling/running qbs)

 

That pipeline of qbs also allows you to better withstand injury.  There are of course cases of backups coming in and leading teams to the playoffs, but still...


I think a hugely important aspect to this is stability/competence from a FO standpoint.  I could see the well run teams succeeding with this tact, whereas a team with FO issue - coaching turnover, talent evaluation issues, culture problems, etc - would probably struggle big time with this method.  
 

It’s an interesting discussion for sure - feels a little like moneyball - taking a controversial route that could pay off in a big way of given a chance.  

 

@KDawg the issue of qbs getting as much as they can (and driving the market up) is a tricky dichotomy of doing what’s best for the team vs the fact that there is so much revenue in football that they should get their slice (the business angle).  Personally, it’s tough to fathom because at some point, I don’t really see much of a difference between having earned 100mil over your career and 300mil... either way you and your kids should be set for life.  At some point, winning would matter a lot more to me.  I might feel differently if I were a multimillionaire though. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Monday night, it will take a never before seen trade offer to keep Joe Burrow from being the next starting QB of the Bengals.  I believe this years draft starts at three; 1.  Joe Burrow (Bengals), 2.  Chase Young (Redskins), 3. Detroit is on the clock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

I think the Shanahan's looked a lot more toxic than they were because of the dynamic with Allen/Snyder, to be honest. 

 

 

I think that Mike Shanahan looked pretty bad in Denver.  Besides constantly switching off his RBs it was almost like he was allergic to the idea of a superstar QB.  He wanted to be the guy who elevated the team, with no one bigger than him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, carex said:

 

I think that Mike Shanahan looked pretty bad in Denver.  Besides constantly switching off his RBs it was almost like he was allergic to the idea of a superstar QB.  He wanted to be the guy who elevated the team, with no one bigger than him

Really?  The big 3 QBs in Denver while Shanny was there were Elway, Plumber and then they traded up to draft Cutler.  Plumber fits the narrative, but Elway certainly doesn't, and neither does trading up to pick up Cutler.  

 

Shanahan also got an enormous amount of credit basically for making any RB he wanted a 1000 yard back.  Remember, he lost Terrell Davis to an ACL injury, and Davis was never the same.  They flipped and rotated RBs from then on, but they always had a hell of a running game.

 

The problem with Shanahan in Denver, which turned out to be the problem with Shanahan here, is that he is completely clueless on how to build a defense.  

 

There was a year when they signed every Brown's FA defensive player, and the Browns had a bad defense.  He rotated through DCs like a baby through diapers.  The defensive side of the ball was his undoing in both Denver and DC.  

2 hours ago, Sonny9TD said:

Damn straight i would take Burrow. 

Yes, you take Burrow, you trade Haskins for whatever you can get for him, and you move on. 

 

For the record, I like Haskins.  And I think he can be a good, top half of the league QB.

 

The ceiling for Burrow, with his intelligence, mobility and arm strength is Aaron Rodgers.  

 

The ceiling for Haskin is probably ... Philip Rivers or Joe Flacco?  Both very good, accomplished QBs.  You can win with both of them.  But they aint Aaron Rodgers. And I'm not saying Haskins is anywhere approaching that level.  That's the ceiling under the best possible circumstances.  It's just as likely he's Jason Campbell, and a career backup and then out of the league.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Really?  The big 3 QBs in Denver while Shanny was there were Elway, Plumber and then they traded up to draft Cutler.  Plumber fits the narrative, but Elway certainly doesn't, and neither does trading up to pick up Cutler.  

 

Shanahan also got an enormous amount of credit basically for making any RB he wanted a 1000 yard back.  Remember, he lost Terrell Davis to an ACL injury, and Davis was never the same.  They flipped and rotated RBs from then on, but they always had a hell of a running game.

 

The problem with Shanahan in Denver, which turned out to be the problem with Shanahan here, is that he is completely clueless on how to build a defense.  

 

There was a year when they signed every Brown's FA defensive player, and the Browns had a bad defense.  He rotated through DCs like a baby through diapers.  The defensive side of the ball was his undoing in both Denver and DC.  

 

Elway predates him, so he didn't get a say there.  I believe he undermined them by constantly looking for a replacement even when they were playing well.  I believe his high praise for a guy like John Beck, who had previously bombed and was available via trade for a training camp body shows how he wanted a QB who's success could be attributed to him

 

And I'm talking personality here, not talent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the way he capped his collegiate career, unless Burrow is arrested for a series of axe slayings between now and the draft, there’s a 0.09% chance that Cincinatti does anything other than airmail the pick in to Goodell.

 

Call me insane but if I were running the Skins I’d offer Cincy Haskins, plus our 1st and 3rd in this years draft and MAYBE even add in next years 1st (if I had to) for a chance to draft Burrow.

 

Sure we’d be bone dry in the draft this year but Burrow is the best QB prospect since at least Andrew Luck and no price is too much to pay if it gets you a true top 5 franchise quarterback. Something the Redskins haven't had in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, SumTingWong said:

After the way he capped his collegiate career, unless Burrow is arrested for a series of axe slayings between now and the draft, there’s a 0.09% chance that Cincinatti does anything other than airmail the pick in to Goodell.

 

Call me insane but if I were running the Skins I’d offer Cincy Haskins, plus our 1st and 3rd in this years draft and MAYBE even add in next years 1st (if I had to) for a chance to draft Burrow.

 

Sure we’d be bone dry in the draft this year but Burrow is the best QB prospect since at least Andrew Luck and no price is too much to pay if it gets you a true top 5 franchise quarterback. Something the Redskins haven't had in my lifetime.

You’re insane.

 

Also, think about this I terms of “cost.”

 

The Bengals would need Haskins, we’d swap firsts, and they would need at least 1 if not 2 more first round picks to make it worth it.  
 

The cost to move up to #2 was 2 firsts and a second.

 

The cost to get to #1 is going to be at least 2 firsts and a second.  If you think Haskins represents a 2nd, then you still have to give up 2 first in addition to the one you are getting back.

 

Its not going to happen. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

You’re insane. 

 

Also, think about this I terms of “cost.”

 

The Bengals would need Haskins, we’d swap firsts, and they would need at least 1 if not 2 more first round picks to make it worth it.  
 

The cost to move up to #2 was 2 firsts and a second.

 

The cost to get to #1 is going to be at least 2 firsts and a second.  If you think Haskins represents a 2nd, then you still have to give up 2 first in addition to the one you are getting back.

 

Its not going to happen. 

 

 

So now we’re talking about the cost/value ratio to get Burrows. In other words, we’re theoretically a step away from negotiating.

 

This is a good thing! :)

 

I expected my post would be dismissed out of hand by most as too much to offer. You’ve actually given me hope that it is indeed possible. You say the offer is insufficient unless another 1st is added. I say it’s enough as is.

 

Somewhere in the middle lies the sweet spot.

 

Now we just need the two parties (Skins and Bengals) to get together and make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SumTingWong said:

After the way he capped his collegiate career, unless Burrow is arrested for a series of axe slayings between now and the draft, there’s a 0.09% chance that Cincinatti does anything other than airmail the pick in to Goodell.

 

Call me insane but if I were running the Skins I’d offer Cincy Haskins, plus our 1st and 3rd in this years draft and MAYBE even add in next years 1st (if I had to) for a chance to draft Burrow.

 

Sure we’d be bone dry in the draft this year but Burrow is the best QB prospect since at least Andrew Luck and no price is too much to pay if it gets you a true top 5 franchise quarterback. Something the Redskins haven't had in my lifetime.

Why stop there? Let's throw in Mclaurin, a 1st in 2022, the ghost of John Riggins and a billion trillion dollars?

 

This isn't Madden. Mortgaging the future for a complete unknown is what ruins franchises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

Why stop there? Let's throw in Mclaurin, a 1st in 2022, the ghost of John Riggins and a billion trillion dollars?

 

This isn't Madden. Mortgaging the future for a complete unknown is what ruins franchises.

 

 

Now this is much more in line with the kind of response I was originally expecting. Essentially dismissing the trade out of hand with a derisive mocking tone because my offer was “mortgaging the future” yada yada. Not much room or desire left for reasoned discussion after reading that.

 

On the other hand I find the Voice_of_Reason’s response, ie that my offer was insufficient rather than exorbitant and that the eventual price to get Burrows would be much higher than what I suggested, to be an intellectually stimulating starting point for further discussion.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SumTingWong said:

 

 

Now this is much more in line with the kind of response I was originally expecting. Essentially dismissing the trade out of hand with a derisive mocking tone because my offer was “mortgaging the future” yada yada. Not much room or desire left for reasoned discussion after reading that.

 

On the other hand I find the Voice_of_Reason’s response, ie that my offer was insufficient rather than exorbitant and that the eventual price to get Burrows would be much higher than what I suggested, to be an intellectually stimulating starting point for further discussion.

 

 

 

 

So basically you want to pull off another RG3 trade... 3 first round picks and a third, just to move up one spot in a year where an apparent generational DE falls into your lap, DESPITE having holes all over including the OL tasked with keeping your new toy upright and healthy. Sorry, it's a foolish suggestion as we're not in  a position to give up so much since we're not all that close to being legit contenders. It's aggravating how quickly people fall in love with the next big thing and make it seem like the notion of continuity doesn't matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

So basically you want to pull off another RG3 trade... 3 first round picks and a third, just to move up one spot in a year where an apparent generational DE falls into your lap, DESPITE having holes all over including the OL tasked with keeping your new toy upright and healthy. Sorry, it's a foolish suggestion as we're not in  a position to give up so much since we're not all that close to being legit contenders. It's aggravating how quickly people fall in love with the next big thing and make it seem like the notion of continuity doesn't matter. 

 

Oh yes the critical importance of continuity!  Steer the course. Steady hand at the tiller.  And all that rot.

 

What was it the old poet said about foolish consistency, hobgoblins and little minds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SumTingWong said:

 

Oh yes the critical importance of continuity!  Steer the course. Steady hand at the tiller.  And all that rot.

 

What was it the old poet said about foolish consistency, hobgoblins and little minds?

I don't know, but I doubt he watched much football.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I was talking to a co-worker today about Burrow and the likelihood of him going to the Bungles, then this spewed out of my mouth;

" it would be hilarious and would flatline Twitter Facebook and Google for that matter if Burrow came out and said he will not play for Cincinnati ".

 

 now, I know he's not that kind of guy, but imagine just for a moment if he DID do this; then imagine what it would do to the draft, Redskins and other top 10 players in the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SumTingWong said:

After the way he capped his collegiate career, unless Burrow is arrested for a series of axe slayings between now and the draft, there’s a 0.09% chance that Cincinatti does anything other than airmail the pick in to Goodell.

 

Call me insane but if I were running the Skins I’d offer Cincy Haskins, plus our 1st and 3rd in this years draft and MAYBE even add in next years 1st (if I had to) for a chance to draft Burrow.

 

Sure we’d be bone dry in the draft this year but Burrow is the best QB prospect since at least Andrew Luck and no price is too much to pay if it gets you a true top 5 franchise quarterback. Something the Redskins haven't had in my lifetime.

YEAH you're crazy.  You have no idea how Burrow will pan out and you're willing to trade future 1st round picks to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...