Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Rookie QB or Veteran QB for 2021???


Renegade7

Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season(2021)???  

226 members have voted

  1. 1. Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season (2021)???

    • Draft QB first round
    • Rookie QB from outside first round
    • Sign FA Veteran
    • Trade for Veteran
    • Stand Pat with one of the QBs we have on Roster, draft QB in 2022 Draft iinstead
    • I don't know
    • I don't care
    • I'm tired of 5 year development plans burned to the ground in less then 2
  2. 2. Rookie QB or Veteran QB for next season (2021)??? - (Feb 2020)

    • Draft QB first round
    • Rookie QB from outside first round
    • Sign FA Veteran
    • Trade for Veteran
      0
    • Stand Pat with one of the QBs we have on Roster, draft QB in 2022 Draft iinstead
    • I don't know
      0
    • I don't care
    • I'm tired of 5 year development plans burned to the ground in less then 2


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

Add 500 more snaps to Tim Settle and then see how dominant he is come week 15/16/17.

 

Not saying he couldn't but being a DT means you slam into big Olinemen every play. Allen and Payne play all game. 800+ snaps.

 

Settle plays 300+


And in 300+ he had more sacks than either.  I get the wear factor but with more than twice the The opportunity you would think they would have more production.  
 

BTW the post was NOT to say he is better than Payne or Allen, just that he is not way overrated as some have suggested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

My point was in the context of swinging for the fences to get one.  Besides Shuler being like 50 million years ago, it did not take an aggressive move to get him, he just was there at our pick.  If for example we were picking #2 this draft and took Fields that wouldn't be example of being aggressive.   If we traded up to #2 from 19 to get him now that would be aggressive. 

 

 

 

You weren't saying "aggressive" though (even though I'd argue that taking a QB in the Top 5 is aggressive, as is a very bold move that either pays off huge or sets the franchise back several years). You said, "In the last 40 years or so, we've only taken IMO one swing at a potential elite QB and swung for the fences for a QB." And that was Griffin. Which I agree that Griffin was a potential franchise QB. Just pointing out that Shuler was drafted 27 years ago (well within your own 40 year time frame) and was a potential franchise QB too.

 

Not really sure where you are getting this "aggressive" qualifier from. Besides being entirely subjective (what is aggressive?), the idea of aggressive and quality don't go hand in hand. I thought you were referring to the fact this team has often settled for mediocre option at QB. Pretty much all the other QBs this team has acquired in recent history were not really expected to be franchise players. Non-first rounder picks certainly aren't expected to be that kind of guy. But even guys like Jason Campbell or Patrick Ramsey (generally considered second round talents, even though Washington did pick them in the first round) weren't really expected to become elite players. Getting a capable starter near the end of the first round is a very good outcome. As for the QB position, it's generally been lower picks, trading for mediocre players, or trading for players on the back end of their careers. There's very little chance any of those moves lead to a true difference maker at the position. Besides Griffin and Shuler, Haskins would have come the next closest (though clearly he was not thought of as highly.

 

As for aggressive? Well this team has thrown assets at the position. Traded a lot for Brad Johnson. Threw free agent money at Jeff George. Traded draft picks to move up for Campbell (well before the draft). Traded pretty solid assets (mainly picks) for Mark Brunell, Alex Smith, and Donovan McNabb. I guess none of these qualify as "aggressive". But your example of trading up from # 19 to # 2 is kind of misleading, because that type of move very rarely happens. The RG3 trade was a huge and unusual move in the NFL. If that's the bar for being aggressive, almost no team is ever aggressive for their QB. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, how is taking a QB top 5 any more "aggressive" than taking any other position top 5? You take a guy top 5 at pretty much any position, he's supposed to be a guy you can build a unit around, whether it's QB, DL, WR, OL, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

Do people just automatically write off Heinicke, exclusively for the fact that he's a UDFA ?

McVay and the Rams are very close to making UDFA Wolford their starter over Goff

 

Not sure where you are getting any of this. Who's writing off Heinicke? Where do you see the Rams making Wolford their starter? The Rams aren't doing that. They might be making moves and they might be trying to move Goff, but the final result isn't to go into the season with the only option at QB being a former UDFA. Which also should be Washington's plan. Don't go into the season with the only option at QB being a former UDFA. It can be an option, it just shouldn't be the only option.

3 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Wait, how is taking a QB top 5 any more "aggressive" than taking any other position top 5? You take a guy top 5 at pretty much any position, he's supposed to be a guy you can build a unit around, whether it's QB, DL, WR, OL, etc. 

 

Who is saying it is or isn't? You seem to be responding to a point no one made

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Ok I'll take your word for it.

 

When I like a player - even just a little bit - I tend to playfully exaggerate it, like some kind of Mock Homer. Just to have fun, and keep things from getting boring.

That's just my schtick. And comes out naturally. So please don't always take me 100% literally.

Some people don't get the schtick, and that's ok. I get that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Who is saying it is or isn't? You seem to be responding to a point no one made

 

You specifically said taking a QB top 5 was aggressive. So would you call any top 5 pick "aggressive" then? If so, what's the draft pick where "aggressive" no longer qualifies? 10? 15?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand why people are remotely comparing trading 3 firsts for Watson to the RG3 trade. There’s no more valuable asset by a long shot than an elite QB. If RG3 turned out to be a perennial top 10 QB then that trade would have been more than worth it. Watson imo is top 5, at worst top 7, and still hasn’t even but his prime. Doing the Griffin for him is a no brainer.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Not sure where you are getting any of this. Who's writing off Heinicke? Where do you see the Rams making Wolford their starter? The Rams aren't doing that. They might be making moves and they might be trying to move Goff, but the final result isn't to go into the season with the only option at QB being a former UDFA.

 

To clarify, the reports out of the Rams' organization are that they are at least going to make it an open competition between Wolford and Goff.

So, it's not necessarily naming him the starter, or the only QB option. But my point was, that it's very realistic that a team like the Rams could have an UDFA as an opening day starter in 2021 - OVER the Super Bowl QB from just a couple years ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

When I like a player - even just a little bit - I tend to playfully exaggerate it, like some kind of Mock Homer. Just to have fun, and keep things from getting boring.

That's just my schtick. And comes out naturally. So please don't always take me 100% literally.

Some people don't get the schtick, and that's ok. I get that.

 

 

Dude, did you forget where you are? This is ES...

 

Serious_Business_Lego_400x400.jpg

 

:ols:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoggingGod said:

I don’t understand why people are remotely comparing trading 3 firsts for Watson to the RG3 trade. There’s no more valuable asset by a long shot than an elite QB. If RG3 turned out to be a perennial top 10 QB then that trade would have been more than worth it. Watson imo is top 5, at worst top 7, and still hasn’t even but his prime. Doing the Griffin for him is a no brainer.

For sure. Watson is actually established and several years at that. Only concern would be a freak injury and all of a sudden you don’t have a QB or a #1 pick for another 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, goskins10 said:


And in 300+ he had more sacks than either.  I get the wear factor but with more than twice the The opportunity you would think they would have more production.  
 

BTW the post was NOT to say he is better than Payne or Allen, just that he is not way overrated as some have suggested.  

Over rated by this fan base is what I meant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

You weren't saying "aggressive" though (even though I'd argue that taking a QB in the Top 5 is aggressive, as is a very bold move that either pays off huge or sets the franchise back several years). You said, "In the last 40 years or so, we've only taken IMO one swing at a potential elite QB and swung for the fences for a QB." And that was Griffin. Which I agree that Griffin was a potential franchise QB. Just pointing out that Shuler was drafted 27 years ago (well within your own 40 year time frame) and was a potential franchise QB too.

 

Not really sure where you are getting this "aggressive" qualifier from. Besides being entirely subjective (what is aggressive?), the idea of aggressive and quality don't go hand in hand. I thought you were referring to the fact this team has often settled for mediocre option at QB. Pretty much all the other QBs this team has acquired in recent history were not really expected to be franchise players. Non-first rounder picks certainly aren't expected to be that kind of guy. But even guys like Jason Campbell or Patrick Ramsey (generally considered second round talents, even though Washington did pick them in the first round) weren't really expected to become elite players. Getting a capable starter near the end of the first round is a very good outcome. As for the QB position, it's generally been lower picks, trading for mediocre players, or trading for players on the back end of their careers. There's very little chance any of those moves lead to a true difference maker at the position. Besides Griffin and Shuler, Haskins would have come the next closest (though clearly he was not thought of as highly.

 

As for aggressive? Well this team has thrown assets at the position. Traded a lot for Brad Johnson. Threw free agent money at Jeff George. Traded draft picks to move up for Campbell (well before the draft). Traded pretty solid assets (mainly picks) for Mark Brunell, Alex Smith, and Donovan McNabb. I guess none of these qualify as "aggressive". But your example of trading up from # 19 to # 2 is kind of misleading, because that type of move very rarely happens. The RG3 trade was a huge and unusual move in the NFL. If that's the bar for being aggressive, almost no team is ever aggressive for their QB. 

 

 

‘Aggressive’ is a subjective call in this case, yes.  Seems apparent that SIP is talking about trading up or trading for a qb considered top notch.  So Washington drafting Shuler/Haskins doesn’t fit, the trades for Rodgers, Mahomes, RGIII, etc do (as would trading for Stafford/Watson if they happen).  I get your point though - aggressiveness isn’t a necessary component in terms of landing a franchise qb (or potential one).  Given where we stand in the draft though, it will take an aggressive move on our part to land one.  Of course, we could get lucky with Newman/Jones/whoever at 19 or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

You specifically said taking a QB top 5 was aggressive. So would you call any top 5 pick "aggressive" then? If so, what's the draft pick where "aggressive" no longer qualifies? 10? 15?

 

Yes, I argued that taking a QB in the top 5 is an "aggressive" move. Whatever an "aggressive" move actually is.

 

The basic flow of the conversation was the claim that RG3 was the only time in the last 40 years that this franchise took a swing at a potential elite QB. I responded that I thought Heath Shuler would also qualify as taking a swing at a potential elite QB. The response seems to be the move only counted if the move was deemed "aggressive". And while I'm not sure why it only counts if the move is "aggressive", I would think taking a QB in the top five picks would meet the threshold of "aggressive". I made no comments on taking other positions in the top 5 (as this conversation and in fact entire thread is about the QB position) or made an attempts to define what this theoretical "aggressive" term means. 

 

So in response to your question about other positions, that's probably best left for a different thread as its off topic here. But it's also probably a better question for the person who came up with the aggressive qualifier to better define what they mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one inescapable conclusion from all this is that the NFL has to either completely revamp the salary cap or ditch it altogether.  It is the tail wagging the NFL dog.  More than anything, more than politics and social issues, the salary cap was created in the early 90's when true FA started (member the old "Plan B"?).  The idea was to prevent super rich owners from buying up all the talent and let the poorer/more frugal owners bottom feed.  There are no more poor owners.  Rosters, and thus the game itself, are being driven by The Cap, and by extension, capologists.  It doesn't work anymore.  It makes absolutely no sense from a game perspective, a fan perspective, or a marketing perspective to force WFT to trade/lose any of its home-grown (and that is cool) defensive linemen.  The Purple People Eaters, the Fearsome Foursome, etc., none of them could exist today.  It's just bad for football.  

Edited by GothSkinsFan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Nothing cooler than having the answer in house.   We'd all love it.   But it surprises me how little stock some give to Rivera on this.  At least at the moment, all indications are that he's going head first to find a Qb or at a minimum he isn't satisfied with what he has in house.  If it doesn't play out that way and Rivera says don't believe the hype, Heinicke has been the one all off season then good enough for me. 

 

It would be like a buddy introducing his girlfriend to me, I spent a half day hanging out with her.  Then later on he tells me she's not the one.  But I go dude trust me, you are wrong she is the one.  And he hits me back dude I've dated her for 2 years, you spent 4 hours with her, trust me i know.   

 

And if it plays out the way it seems to be headed where they just see him as a backup.  Then that's fine for me, how can I argue with them on it?  

 

Yea I like Heiny a lot, but at the same time, I fully support bringing in a QB, any QB, whether by a draft pick, a FA, or trade.

Because the ultimate goal, and I'm sure Rivera shares this philosophy, is to have constant competition everywhere.

Not only does it make players better, but it also ensures you got the best man for the job. But also - it creates great depth ; because these days you can never have too many good QB's.

If they all turn out great - awesome, you're solid at the position, at starter. And you either have great depth, and/or a trade bait at QB.

But if only one of them works out, that's fine too.

So while I like Heiny, I won't be upset at bringing in any other QB, as long as the price isn't too high. But I will, however, be very disappointed if we let Heiny go, before he has a chance to compete for this year.

So bring them all in, and let them fight it out, like a dogfight for QB. We'll all be better for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

You weren't saying "aggressive" though (even though I'd argue that taking a QB in the Top 5 is aggressive, as is a very bold move that either pays off huge or sets the franchise back several years). You said, "In the last 40 years or so, we've only taken IMO one swing at a potential elite QB and swung for the fences for a QB." And that was Griffin. Which I agree that Griffin was a potential franchise QB. Just pointing out that Shuler was drafted 27 years ago (well within your own 40 year time frame) and was a potential franchise QB too.

 

 

Ok, cool, but by "swing"I was referred to doing something to go get that dude. If you didn't take it that way then sorry, i'll communicate it clearer next time.  I've made the same point plenty of times with more detail but I apparently I didn't do it enough in the post you referred to.  Agree Shuler was a potential franchise QB. 

 

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Not really sure where you are getting this "aggressive" qualifier from. 

 

To me its not a qualifier but relevant to our real world QB situations.  

 

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

Besides being entirely subjective (what is aggressive?),

 

Yeah agressive is a subjective word. Most points here are subjective.  It's coming from the posters specific point of view.  

 

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

the idea of aggressive and quality don't go hand in hand.

 

Of course.   I've made a ton posts on this threads where I've elaborated on this stuff including making fun of what I deemed to be the stupid version of aggressive.  And I've defined plenty what I deem to be aggressive moves.  

 

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

Pretty much all the other QBs this team has acquired in recent history were not really expected to be franchise players. Non-first rounder picks certainly aren't expected to be that kind of guy. But even guys like Jason Campbell or Patrick Ramsey (generally considered second round talents, even though Washington did pick them in the first round) weren't really expected to become elite players. Getting a capable starter near the end of the first round is a very good outcome. As for the QB position, it's generally been lower picks, trading for mediocre players, or trading for players on the back end of their careers. There's very little chance any of those moves lead to a true difference maker at the position. Besides Griffin and Shuler, Haskins would have come the next closest (though clearly he was not thought of as highly.

 

 

 

Agree. That's pretty much what I've said multiple times on this thread.

 

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

 

As for aggressive? Well this team has thrown assets at the position. Traded a lot for Brad Johnson. Threw free agent money at Jeff George. Traded draft picks to move up for Campbell (well before the draft). Traded pretty solid assets (mainly picks) for Mark Brunell, Alex Smith, and Donovan McNabb. I guess none of these qualify as "aggressive".

 

They do qualify as aggressive but the targets weren't worth being aggressive for.  I explained why many times on this thread.

 

32 minutes ago, Jericho said:

 

But your example of trading up from # 19 to # 2 is kind of misleading, because that type of move very rarely happens. The RG3 trade was a huge and unusual move in the NFL. If that's the bar for being aggressive, almost no team is ever aggressive for their QB. 

 

 

It's not my bar or definition of being aggressive.  I've delved in the very points you are making here and in detail including delving into previous examples and what I currently think is hard and what isn't and what's realistic or not.   i've made probably hundreds of posts on this thread.  I think the regulars on this thread know my take on the subject.    I don't feel like rehashing it all to you.  Maybe later.  I got to run shortly. 😀

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

The one inescapable conclusion from all this is that the NFL has to either completely revamp the salary cap or ditch it altogether.  It is the tail wagging the NFL dog.  More than anything, more than politics and social issues, the salary cap was created in the early 90's when true FA started (member the old "Plan B"?).  The idea was to prevent super rich owners from buying up all the talent and let the poorer/more frugal owners bottom feed.  There are no more poor owners.  Rosters, and thus the game itself, are being driven by The Cap, and by extension, capologists.  It doesn't work anymore.  It makes absolutely no sense from a game perspective, a fan perspective, or a marketing perspective to force WFT to trade/lose any of its home-grown (and that is cool) defensive linemen.  The Purple People Eaters, the Fearsome Foursome, etc., none of them could exist today.  It's just bad for football.  

 

Do you really want to watch an NFL where there are about 5 teams that literally have all the top talent because they have all the money? You ever watch those college games where it's a top seeded team taking on some rando small school? And it's like 64-0? That would be 3/4 of the games every Sunday.

Edited by mistertim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

The one inescapable conclusion from all this is that the NFL has to either completely revamp the salary cap or ditch it altogether.  It is the tail wagging the NFL dog.  More than anything, more than politics and social issues, the salary cap was created in the early 90's when true FA started (member the old "Plan B"?).  The idea was to prevent super rich owners from buying up all the talent and let the poorer/more frugal owners bottom feed.  There are no more poor owners.  Rosters, and thus the game itself, are being driven by The Cap, and by extension, capologists.  It doesn't work anymore.  It makes absolutely no sense from a game perspective, a fan perspective, or a marketing perspective to force WFT to trade/lose any of its home-grown (and that is cool) defensive linemen.  The Purple People Eaters, the Fearsome Foursome, etc., none of them could exist today.  It's just bad for football.  

Yeah no. You need a cap. Otherwise the Seahawks if they wanted to could have a super team every year. Ain't nobody outbidding the guy who owns freaking Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

To clarify, the reports out of the Rams' organization are that they are at least going to make it an open competition between Wolford and Goff.

So, it's not necessarily naming him the starter, or the only QB option. But my point was, that it's very realistic that a team like the Rams could have an UDFA as an opening day starter in 2021 - OVER the Super Bowl QB from just a couple years ago

 

You hear a lot of things in the offseason. A lot of which aren't even true. I wouldn't necessarily put that much stock in it or consider it fact. Opinion wise, I would say its reasonably clear the Rams are not satisfied with Jared Goff in his current form. There's always some remote possibility he takes a huge leap next year, but that seems very unlikely. Goff likely is what he is. And the Rams would prefer better. Which is why the Rams seem to be exploring alternatives (like Stafford). The major problem there being that Goff has this huge difficult to move contract. You can't really afford a new QB and to pay Goff too. The reality is that Rams might be stuck with Goff because of his contract (the Rams also don't have a ton of tradeable assets to either acquire another option or pay someone to take Goff's contract off their hands). In which case, you probably at least float the idea of a "competition" with Wolford and/or hope that Wolford himself makes some miraculous leap forward . But the reality is likely Goff is still the starter for the Rams in Week 1 and this ends up being much do about nothing. 

 

And I'm not sure how any of that is really an argument for or against Heinicke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Malapropismic Depository said:

 

Yea I like Heiny a lot, but at the same time, I fully support bringing in a QB, any QB, whether by a draft pick, a FA, or trade.

Because the ultimate goal, and I'm sure Rivera shares this philosophy, is to have constant competition everywhere.

Not only does it make players better, but it also ensures you got the best man for the job. But also - it creates great depth ; because these days you can never have too many good QB's.

If they all turn out great - awesome, you're solid at the position, at starter. And you either have great depth, and/or a trade bait at QB.

But if only one of them works out, that's fine too.

So while I like Heiny, I won't be upset at bringing in any other QB, as long as the price isn't too high. But I will, however, be very disappointed if we let Heiny go, before he has a chance to compete for this year.

So bring them all in, and let them fight it out, like a dogfight for QB. We'll all be better for it.

 

Judging by Rivera's comments about the QB spot and what the beat guys have been saying:  I got the strong impression that they don't think they think QB1 is in the building right now.  But it sounds like they'd bring back Heinicke for sure as a backup.

 

It just by osmosis might work out that Heinicke has a shot if they can't get a quy that they deem is a QB1 type in the off season -- lets say they can't get Stafford or whatever QB they like in the draft if any and then they bring someone like Tyrod Taylor then I could see a real competition.

 

Hearing two different beat guys say they heard there are durabiity concerns about Heinicke -- between that and all the buzz about them shopping for QBs makes it feel to me its very unlikely that they think Heinicke is the QB1.   And even if I ignore the buzz-rumor stuff, Rivera's own comments come off like they are QB shopping. 

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Judging by Rivera's comments about the QB spot and what the beat guys have been saying:  I got the strong impression that they don't think they think QB1 is in the building right now.  But it sounds like they'd bring back Heinicke for sure as a backup.

 

It just by osmosis might work out that Heinicke has a shot if they can't get a quy that they deem is a QB1 type in the off season -- lets say they can't get Stafford or whatever QB they like in the draft if any and then they bring someone like Tyrod Taylor then I could see a real competition.

 

Hearing two different beat guys say they heard there are durabiity concerns about Heinicke -- between that and all the buzz about them shopping for QBs makes it feel to me its very unlikely that they think Heinicke is the QB1. 

 

Well...maybe we can all agree, or most of us agree on this : out of all the current QB's on our roster : Allen, Smith, Heinicke, and Montez - Heinicke is the one QB who is most likely on our roster next year. He may not be the "Starter in the building". But he's virtually a lock to be on the team - at least come TC.

One of these guys, or maybe 2, or even 3, will be the odd man out. But we definitely won't keep all 4, and maybe not even 3, or even 2 of them.

I can easily envision any of the other 3 QB's being let go, besides Heiny, who has the most upside of all of them.

Smith could be gone for cap reasons, or health reasons, or age reasons.

Montez could be gone for obvious reasons.

Allen could be gone, but I think it's much more likely that he stays, for now.

But we have the potential of having a great QB competition in camp. That much I know. So because of the tight competition, I feel more confident, that somewhere in the pile of dust, we will find a reliable starter

Edited by Malapropismic Depository
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

‘Aggressive’ is a subjective call in this case, yes.  Seems apparent that SIP is talking about trading up or trading for a qb considered top notch.  So Washington drafting Shuler/Haskins doesn’t fit, the trades for Rodgers, Mahomes, RGIII, etc do (as would trading for Stafford/Watson if they happen).  I get your point though - aggressiveness isn’t a necessary component in terms of landing a franchise qb (or potential one).  Given where we stand in the draft though, it will take an aggressive move on our part to land one.  Of course, we could get lucky with Newman/Jones/whoever at 19 or later.

 

I think you just pointed out the inherent flaw in the logic. Rodgers wasn't traded for. Green Bay just stood pat and just drafted him. Meanwhile. Washington did trade up for the next pick in that draft to take Jason Campbell. Would that then make the Campbell move "aggressive". What about the Chargers getting Phillip Rivers? Is that the opposite of aggressive, trading down to take your guy? And yeah, I'm just poking fun at this point.

 

It might take more than an aggressive move in 2021, it might take a minor miracle to trade into the Top 10 and draft a decent prospect. We'll see how the draft unfolds, but it might take a bounty of picks just to move up to take the 4th best guy in the draft.  Arizona might call that the Josh Rosen maneuver (Arizona sent first-, third-, and fifth-round selections to move up 5 spots to get Rosen. Washington would likely need to send more as it has to move up farther).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...