RG3 will declare for draft

[Skinsfan76]

Shanahan's job depends on finding a QB this off-season either through the draft or through free agency. I would think another 6-10 season without some sort of light at the end of the tunnel would probably be the end of him here in DC. There would be a lot of people who would drive him to the airport.

I agree. Do you think that makes him more or less likely to draft a rookie QB?

 

[Boone]

You mean like Michael Vick?

In terms of handling the 'speed of the NFL', I'd say Vick has done pretty well for himself. You're shifting the discussion because you don't have a response

 

[Elephant]

In terms of handling the 'speed of the NFL', I'd say Vick has done pretty well for himself. You're shifting the discussion because you don't have a response

No, I do have a response and I have been saying it for about a month now. You know how I feel and we are both dug in pretty deep for the other side to sway.

I will say this, even though I still don't like the idea of losses I always want to see my team to win, but it is the situation we find ourselves right now that has me thinking another loss or 2 might have been better for us.

 

[McD5]

You're a gambling man, I get that. I don't think trading away picks is wise for an unknown. It's just a gamble/risk I would not take.

El, it just depends on a person's definition of "gamble." The truth is, it is all a gamble of one measure or another.

I believed going into a season with Rex and Beck was a losing gamble. And I hope Shanahan learned something.

I believe bringing in an older Flynn, then giving him a year or two to learn the system, at his age, is a gamble.

I believe taking a JC, or a Josh Freeman, and hoping that they can "manage" better talent around them is a gamble.

Look at the Colts, for instance. Their record this year would indicate that they have as many holes to fill as anyone--even more than we do. With that first pick, they could trade down and fill a bunch of glaring holes quickly. On top of that, their QB hole may be filled quickly if Manning can recover. Yet even with all that, they are choosing to take Luck with the first pick--a guy who may not even play for them next year--instead of filling multiple holes on their team.

I just don't see the sense in throwing in the towel for another season--basically what we will be doing if we don't get our franchise QB--and gambling that a QB with an equal set of skills, intelligence and character will be available when we draft next year.

We'll see. Both sides have merit. But if it doesn't require absolutely giving up the proverbial farm, I believe the risk of not taking him outweighs the risk of placing our faith in RG3.

It may not even matter. I don't think there is any way that Cleveland just sits back and watches RG3 come to us.

 

[Elephant]

El, it just depends on a person's definition of "gamble." The truth is, it is all a gamble of one measure or another.

But the cost of the gamble is what I oppose. The cost. That creates odds that may pay off better, but it is a much higher risk.

It's like going all in with an ace and a weak kicker. That is a huge risk, I never do it. I would be hesitant to go all in with and ace/king. Yeah, both are gambles but one is much riskier.

I believed going into a season with Rex and Beck was a losing gamble. And I hope Shanahan learned something.

Yeah, a huge gamble and it failed. That was like going all in with a jack/10.

I believe bringing in an older Flynn, then giving him a year or two to learn the system, at his age, is a gamble.

First off, he is much less of a risk than RGIII because he will not cost us draft picks to sign. How do we know what the ceiling for Flynn will be? he has exhibited he is capable of succeeding. RGIII will cost us at least 3 premium draft picks. It's the difference between a middle pair and pocket kings.

His age? He's 26. How old was Drew Brees when he got to New Orleans?

I believe taking a JC, or a Josh Freeman, and hoping that they can "manage" better talent around them is a gamble.

I am tired of a game manager too. I want a franchise QB too.

Look at the Colts, for instance. Their record this year would indicate that they have as many holes to fill as anyone--even more than we do. With that first pick, they could trade down and fill a bunch of glaring holes quickly. On top of that, their QB hole may be filled quickly if Manning can recover. Yet even with all that, they are choosing to take Luck with the first pick--a guy who may not even play for them next year--instead of filling multiple holes on their team.

Like I have said from the beginning, if we were picking 2nd, I would go after RGIII since the Colts are assuredly going to take Luck. If we were picking #2, I would have no problem choosing RGIII. The risk has automatically been lowered since we wouldn't have to give up more picks to get him, it is worth the gamble. That would be pocket aces my friend, but we know they don't win all the time now don't we.

I just don't see the sense in throwing in the towel for another season--basically what we will be doing if we don't get our franchise QB--and gambling that a QB with an equal set of skills, intelligence and character will be available when we draft next year.

Yeah, I have heard and seen too many teams reach, us included. You believe RGIII is not a reach by giving away more than a single 1st round pick, I believe he is. History is on my side. You say throwing away another season, you think RGIII would take us to the Super Bowl?

We'll see. Both sides have merit. But if it doesn't require absolutely giving up the proverbial farm, I believe the risk of not taking him outweighs the risk of placing our faith in RG3.

And I believe anything more than the #6 overall pick is too much to give up for him.

It may not even matter. I don't think there is any way that Cleveland just sits back and watches RG3 come to us.

If Burgundy Burner is correct, we won't have to worry about this because he says Cleveland has already signed...er...umm...is going to sign Flynn.

 

[Hog Fever]

I agree. Do you think that makes him more or less likely to draft a rookie QB?

I think if he had his choice he would go with a guy that had some sort of track record. He may not have that choice though. Unless he is seeing something in free agency I don't the pickings are kinda slim.

Barring something crazy happening we'll draft a QB early in the draft. Problem is whoever that is is going to be expected to start fairly quickly. Hell, anyone we take in the first four rounds is likely to get a chance to start if we have the QB performance we had this year.

 

[redskins76]

one thing we can say is expect more losses in tha future ...at least with RG3 fans won't talk **** as much ...flynn the'll throw him under tha bus! with are luck we won't get any
of them !beck will probly start....

 

[fansince62]

well....something is gonna have to improve...

- at the very least we will have an NFC Championship team...possibly SB team....in the division

- Philly almost certainly is going to be a playoff team next season

that's half the division right there. the natives and FO are going to grow restless if we keep getting rolled over by division opponents ending up at the bottom every year

 

[Yusuf06]

The problem with limiting the analysis to simply how many picks we'd have to give up and then (arbitrarily) assigning a level of risk is that it doesn't take into account what would happen otherwise. So trading down might look great at first but answer me this. How many of you would feel good about taking the best OL available at #6, not drafting a QB at all and starting Beck next season? Beck was a 2nd round draft pick, so in my hypothetical scenario if we wait until the 2nd round, because the success rate there is so low, we'll essentially be starting a rookie version of Beck behind a better OL. Likewise if we trade down and take a QB later in the first it's possible that might amount to starting a rookie version of Jason Campbell along with whatever players we use our other picks on. I'm sorry but no matter how good the surrounding cast is, neither of those guys is doing much better than .500, if that.

Yes, there is risk in trading up to take a rookie QB like Luck/RG3. However there's also inherent risk in standing pat or trading down. Busts happen but it's got to be one of the crappiest feelings ever to be stingy with your picks only to watch a guy you could have had blow up. Probably the only thing worse is watching that same guy you didn't trade up for blow up while the guy you stood pat or traded down for turns out to be a bust. Ultimately a bust is a bust without regard to whether he's a "value pick" at that point. Moreover a franchise can survive with holes in the secondary, at LB, OL, or DL, etc. However you simply aren't going to win much, if at all if you don't have a QB. Period.

 

[NavyDave]

Alex Smith was considered a bust yet in a years time with a very competent coach he has been able to lead his team within a victory of a superbowl appearance.

If RG3 is drafted by us the potential of him being a bust is possible but that would be because of a rigid offensive coordinator whose system takes 3 years to learn while rookies like Dalton and Cam were blessed with guys who tailored schemes to their strengths.

 

[Elephant]

...However you simply aren't going to win much, if at all if you don't have a QB. Period.

Like Drew Brees?

Ben Rothlesberger?

Aaron Rodgers?

Tom Brady?

Alex Smith?

Joe Flacco?

Matt Ryan?

TJ Yates?

Matthew Stafford?

Tim Yebow?

That is a list of QB's from this year's playoff class. Minus TJ Yates and possibly Tim Tebow (that's another argument in itself), all are arguably franchise QB's. How were these QB's acquired? Eli is the only one whom a team traded away numerous draft picks to acquire. You really believe Eli was worth 2 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd round pick? That is likely 4 players who would start. Are we a team that can afford to give up 4 possible starters for 1 possible super star? I don't think so.

You are correct! I will not argue the need for a more than capable QB. We NEED one desperately! I still have seen nothing from any of you that would suggest it is wise to give up a bevy of picks for a single QB who has never seen an NFL defense. You keep mentioning reward as if it is a guarantee with RGIII.

Again, regardless of how anyone of us wants to spin our argument, it comes down to our personal belief of risk/reward. Yes, it stings knowing we chose Carlos Rogers instead of Ben Rothlesberger. Yes, it stings watching Ben become on of the best QB's to play in the NFL the past 10 years while we drafted a CB who ended up in San Fran after six years in DC and is going to a Pro Bowl after a career year. It will sting much, much worse if that QB we traded all those picks to acquire becomes a bust or even an average to good QB. He must be a super star to become worth giving up 4 potential starters to acquire. But that is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

 

[fansince62]

Like Drew Brees?

Ben Rothlesberger?

Aaron Rodgers?

Tom Brady?

Alex Smith?

Joe Flacco?

Matt Ryan?

TJ Yates?

Matthew Stafford?

Tim Yebow?

That is a list of QB's from this year's playoff class. Minus TJ Yates and possibly Tim Tebow (that's another argument in itself), all are arguably franchise QB's. How were these QB's acquired? Eli is the only one whom a team traded away numerous draft picks to acquire. You really believe Eli was worth 2 1st, a 2nd and a 3rd round pick? That is likely 4 players who would start. Are we a team that can afford to give up 4 possible starters for 1 possible super star? I don't think so.

You are correct! I will not argue the need for a more than capable QB. We NEED one desperately! I still have seen nothing from any of you that would suggest it is wise to give up a bevy of picks for a single QB who has never seen an NFL defense. You keep mentioning reward as if it is a guarantee with RGIII.

Again, regardless of how anyone of us wants to spin our argument, it comes down to our personal belief of risk/reward. Yes, it stings knowing we chose Carlos Rogers instead of Ben Rothlesberger. Yes, it stings watching Ben become on of the best QB's to play in the NFL the past 10 years while we drafted a CB who ended up in San Fran after six years in DC and is going to a Pro Bowl after a career year. It will sting much, much worse if that QB we traded all those picks to acquire becomes a bust or even an average to good QB. He must be a super star to become worth giving up 4 potential starters to acquire. But that is just my opinion so take it for what it's worth.

El..the logic is pretty obvious to me: risk/reward.

- Luck or RGIII become stars and the upside is huge. you have to pay to play

- lots of picks.....lower risk...maybe higher probability of longer term reward. even the starters you might get can be low return....look at the Skins: poor returns for first and second rounders AND lower round picks for most of the last 18 years!

In my scheme for risk tolerance....the one thing I take a chance on is QB. The rewards are astronomical. Your data set....btw...needs to be revised. If one were to include ALL the QBs drafted in each year that the QBs you listed then the odds of actually drafting a Brady become clearer. let's be clear here...when everything is said and done.....last year's draft resulted in ONE player who started full time.

I know where you are coming from...I was there a short while ago. but I've reached the point where I'm all in on getting the guy if the team thinks he's a sure bet for the next 10 years.

 

[Yusuf06]

El..the logic is pretty obvious to me: risk/reward

This boils down to individual preference, risk tolerance and the perception of the value of quantity over quality. Some would prefer not to pay the cost of trading up even though the risk of failure increases the later a player is drafted. In their minds trading down and getting three players is better than trading up or standing pat and getting one or two. However if one or two of those additional picks ends up being a bust, you end up right back where you started, i.e. only adding one or two players, problem being that you've added guys with more flaws and/or less athletic ability.

My personal opinion is that both approaches have value depending on the circumstances. Last year we used the quantity over quality approach to quickly fill in a defensive roster with way too little talent for the new scheme. This year I think we need to take quality over quantity given the importance of the position we're targeting. If your team has an established franchise QB you can afford to stockpile picks and take a QB or two in the mid/late rounds every year. Over time you will eventually get lucky. However Shanny doesn't have that kind of time, heck, no coach in today's NFL has much time to develop QBs anymore.

Also let's not forget that we're dealing with Dan "Lord Farquaad" Snyder here. I'd much rather we get a promising QB to give Allen/Shanny more time to work their plan before Snyder gets antsy and decides he wants to bring the Snyderatto show out of mothballs.

Your data set....btw...needs to be revised. If one were to include ALL the QBs drafted in each year that the QBs you listed then the odds of actually drafting a Brady become clearer. let's be clear here...when everything is said and done.....last year's draft resulted in ONE player who started full time.

Can you say "selection bias" boys and girls?

 

[ntotoro]

I’ve tried to learn as much as I can over the last few weeks, so I’ve come up with a couple generalities. Please tell me if I’m close…

Luck = As close to being “NFL-ready” as any College QB can be.
RG3 = May take a couple years sitting behind someone, but has a potential upside Luck can’t touch.

Does that sound pretty fair? Even if we draft RG3, it doesn’t mean we won’t go after a FA (pardon the double-negative).

Nick

 

[Skinsfan76]

I think we will go after a FA. We won't know when Free Agency begins whether we'll land RG3 or not. I think it would be a huge error not to look at a free agent that could start for us in 2012. If we do get RG3 Shanahan will probably start the veteran but Griffin sees the field really soon.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

I do know this....if we have another season of mediocre QB play....I will join the ranks of those calling for Shanahan to be fired. The team needs a long-term solution now...and the decision needs to be decided by the braintrust...not just Shanahan's ego. we have seen how Shanahan's ego can lead down dysfunctional paths.

 

[servumtuum]

I do know this....if we have another season of mediocre QB play....I will join the ranks of those calling for Shanahan to be fired. The team needs a long-term solution now...and the decision needs to be decided by the braintrust...not just Shanahan's ego. we have seen how Shanahan's ego can lead down dysfunctional paths.

Fansince, you have encapsulated in that post the dilemma in which I find myself. I, too, would be disappointed in Shanahan if the Redskins go through another season with no change in the QB situation in terms of seeing a positive move toward improving how well the Redskins perform but I'm willing to cut him more slack than many might for one reason.

My problem comes with what you refer to as the "braintrust" that would be tasked with finding a replacement if Shanahan were to be let go. If that "braintrust" were to include Bruce Allen, hopefully with veto power over the potential selection, my level of confidence and hope could be maintained. I have absolutely no confidence or trust in the owner of the Redskins in terms of competence, judgement or personal character and would despair at any thought of his "taking charge" once again.

This is also why I cringe at any and all impatient "Shanny must go!" posts. I fear the risk of how the alternative would be chosen more than I fear what Shanny might do. Picking a potential new "GM/HC" is as fraught with risk as a draft selection-perhaps even more so-and the downside of who might be making that pick is discomforting to me.

 

[fansince62]

Fansince, you have encapsulated in that post the dilemma in which I find myself. I, too, would be disappointed in Shanahan if the Redskins go through another season with no change in the QB situation in terms of seeing a positive move toward improving how well the Redskins perform but I'm willing to cut him more slack than many might for one reason.

My problem comes with what you refer to as the "braintrust" that would be tasked with finding a replacement if Shanahan were to be let go. If that "braintrust" were to include Bruce Allen, hopefully with veto power over the potential selection, my level of confidence and hope could be maintained. I have absolutely no confidence or trust in the owner of the Redskins in terms of competence, judgement or personal character and would despair at any thought of his "taking charge" once again. I personally favor being bold and taking risks in this situation. taht said...risky/bold decision or not...Shanahan will; be held accountable. It still is beyond belief how screwed up the whole McNabb/Grossman/Beck decisions have been. that's a pattern. at some point...one does have to wonder whether they know what they are doing. hence, my view that this is the last chance they (both Shanahans) get for QB. it's why I want the braintrust involved to the very last.

This is also why I cringe at any and all impatient "Shanny must go!" posts. I fear the risk of how the alternative would be chosen more than I fear what Shanny might do. Picking a potential new "GM/HC" is as fraught with risk as a draft selection-perhaps even more so-and the downside of who might be making that pick is discomforting to me.

I hear ya Serv. I have posted strongly in the past for a full five for Shanahan....for basically the same reasons. My only reservation is that when things have gone seriously wrong (relatively speaking) the causal chain always seems to include Shanahan's ego. If he screws up the QB decision this off-season.....he's not screwing it up for himself.....he's setting the franchise back for who knows how many years and for whomever follows him.

 

[servumtuum]

I hear ya Serv. I have posted strongly in the past for a full five for Shanahan....for basically the same reasons. My only reservation is that when things have gone seriously wrong (relatively speaking) the causal chain always seems to include Shanahan's ego. If he screws up the QB decision this off-season.....he's not screwing it up for himself.....he's setting the franchise back for who knows how many years and for whomever follows him.

I agree, fansince, which is the reason the situation presents itself as a dilemma in my mind.

Hence my often thought but never uttered plea;"Dammit, Get it right this time coach!", which, relating to the OP, connects to my contention that "getting it right" has more than one possible acceptable solution in the case of the Redskins "QB Of The Future".

This also explains why I can't really been able to pick a side in the great Flynn/RG3/Luck/Tannehill/some-other-2nd-rounder/Orton/somebody-nobody's-thought-of-yet QB roundtable.



Oh,btw, please not Moore from Boise State-he's really only about 5' 10" or 5' 11" and less than 200lbs-he can't see over anybody and will get squished by the fat guys.

 

[redskins76]

the problem with all tha coaches that tha redskins have hired is there all conservetive and affraid to take chances...we need a guy that will hit someone when there down and NOT paly it safe , and we've been tha laughing stock of the nfl .. there's 5 teams picking in front of us and yet no negitive remarks towards them ..just tha redskins, and to tell you tha truth im tired of it, so if we have to step up.. then do soo, or will be in tha basement forever.. nfc is getting stronger every year , not just our division...how many time have we played a mobil QB and they tore us apart ..RG3 will do that for us wit tha help our RB high, hulu, royster , we can have a deadly running game also with hankerson to grow with ..he's a beast at WR if he stays healty ...so for me it's worth tha gamble and i would have him start day one with a solid back up !