Shanahan on franchise QB's

[Goaldeje]

I don't think Gibbs came back to win for the future, or to get us back on track or something like that. Hell, look at what happened the first time he left. He thought he could come in, get us back to the playoffs (check), and then maybe squeak into a SB or two before he rode off into the sunset. I doubt very much he gave a damn about a franchise QB or setting us up for the next ten years, unless that resulted from his actions bent towards winning now.

And, as Lanky and Neo said, if Carlos had contacts... this might be a completely diffrent discussion.

 

[Neophyte]

that's cool.

here's what I know...and here's what you know:

- JG is a great man

- JG I won multiple SBs

- JG II restored some discipline though player direct liaisons into the FO still persisted

- JG II did manage to get into the playoffs

- JG II teams were weak offensively

- JG II teams never won the NFE; overall he had a losing record; he left at the end of 4 seasons......

Kinda silly including what JG thinks relative to what I think.....I get the playground thinking behind it, but it doesn't really matter. And I do appreciate your steadfast reluctance to address the fact of a losing record. We all love Joe......we're all glad he came back. but I'm not going to allow that admiration to get in the way of seeing the facts for what they were...that's a mindset best confined to those with ulterior motives and hero worship at the expense of truth.

And none of this addresses the fact that in JGI he didn't have a franchise QB and yet won 3 Super Bowls. What part of that leads you to believe that Gibbs thought it necessary to have a franchise QB?

Was the offense an issue? Absolutely and I am sure Gibbs would agree. But like I said, my guess is that Gibbs would say the offensive line was the biggest issue on those teams, not the QB.

I'm not saying I agree, mind you. I know that if you had a mind to, you could find plenty of posts in the archives of ES by me stating the Brunell was the issue. But I don't think Gibbs ever thought so.

And for the record, whether Gibbs had found a "franchise QB" or not wouldn't have made a difference. Snyderatto decided to go away from the Gibbs Air Coryell offense when he left to a West Coast style offense. Any QB Gibbs brought in here would have struggled in that transition, as witnessed by what Jason Campbell went through.

So I am pretty sure we would be having this conversation regardless of what Gibbs had done at the QB position.

 

[fansince62]

And none of this addresses the fact that in JGI he didn't have a franchise QB and yet one 3 Super Bowls. What part of that leads you to believe that Gibbs thought it necessary to have a franchise QB?

Was the offense an issue? Absolutely and I am sure Gibbs would agree. But like I said, my guess is that Gibbs would say the offensive line was the biggest issue on those teams, not the QB.

I'm not saying I agree, mind you. I know that if you had a mind to, you could find plenty of posts in the archives of ES by me stating the Brunell was the issue. But I don't think Gibbs ever thought so.

And for the record, whether Gibbs had found a "franchise QB" or not wouldn't have made a difference. Snyderatto decided to go away from the Gibbs Air Coryell offense when he left to a West Coast style offense. Any QB Gibbs brought in here would have struggled in that transition, as witnessed by what Jason Campbell went through.

So I am pretty sure we would be having this conversation regardless of what Gibbs had done at the QB position.

so he never thought a franchise QB was needed but supported drafting two QBs in the first round?

and your logic is off since you are not holding all variables constant.....if Snyderatto have a top tier QB maybe they build to that strength and not shift to the flavor of the day.

Gibbs II favored a FA strategy which did not set the team up for the future.

you make it all sound like Gibbs made it to SBs with any ole slug QB off the street...that's nonsense. for the record:

- Rypien has been considered one of the best deep passers ever...he made the pro bowl

- Theismann was a pro bowler...

- Doug Williams was a first round pick who led the Bucs to the playoffs 3 times in 4 years

these guys were very, very good QBs. they weren't rex grossman or john beck....much less ramsey or campbell.

 

[Ax]

so he never thought a franchise QB was needed but supported drafting two QBs in the first round?

Campbell was one. Who was the other?

and your logic is off since you are not holding all variables constant.....if Snyderatto have a top tier QB maybe they build to that strength and not shift to the flavor of the day.

Very possible.

Gibbs II favored a FA strategy which did not set the team up for the future.

Gibbs wasn't able to finish job. He took over a team that was, at least as bad, as the one Shanny took over, and in his second season, with an injured QB, three O-line men that wound up having off season shoulder, knee, and elbow surgeries, and one healthy WR within a contact lens of a SB birth. And to an earlier assertion you made, he was all in. Just because his wife or kids didn't have leukemia, or Darrell Green wasn't murdered during his first stint, doesn't mean he wouldn't have retired then, as well.

And, having picked Greg Williams, a top defensive coach, and later Al Saunders, who at the time was running one of the most dangerous offenses in the game, was a move intended to lead us to the future. Now, Saunders wasn't working out, but, given more time, who knows? We never will.

you make it all sound like Gibbs made it to SBs with any ole slug QB off the street...that's nonsense. for the record:

- Rypien has been considered one of the best deep passers ever...he made the pro bowl

- Theismann was a pro bowler...

- Doug Williams was a first round pick who led the Bucs to the playoffs 3 times in 4 years

these guys were very, very good QBs. they weren't rex grossman or john beck....much less ramsey or campbell.

Rypien, had one, that's one, season where he was one of the best deep ball throwers in the league. One.
He only had 2 really good seasons as a starter. His first year starting, he had Grossmanitus when it came to fumbling.

Doug Williams had one, that's one, fantastic post season here. His years in Tampa were the Lee Roy Selmon led dominant defensive years. William's career numbers suck eggs.

Joe Theismann was a damn good QB. Brought here by George Allen.

They all played behind the best O-line in history, with stellar running games, and Art Monk & Whatever Posse Member was around.

And Gibbs took a friggin baseball player, Schroeder, and set the team passing record.

So, yeah, Joe coulda won with Rex Grossman, back then.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

I have a great respect for Joe Gibbs and the job that he has done with the Redskins. It's an incredible record that no other coach can match (three SBs with three QBs). But I need to point something out and it became evident during Gibbs II.

At least half of the credit for those three SBs goes to Bobby Beathard. He could find fifty needles in fifty haystacks with one hand tied behind his back. I don't know how he did it, but BB could find multiple gems in the rough. Look at what he did with the Kansas City Chiefs in the late 60s. Hank Stram was a good coach, but Bobby's scouting was a huge part of it.

Look at what he did in Miami back in the early to mid 70s. He already had three SB wins long before coming to DC. Stan Humphries was an afterthought until Bobby signed him to play in San Diego. How many SBs has San Diego played in?

No need to tell you what he did in DC - you already know. When Bobby retired back in 2000, I was hoping Dan Snyder would throw a boatload of money his way and let the fun begin. Heck, I would hire him right now as a special assistant who could work from home and provide Coach Shanahan and GM Allen with some solid tips/advice. Snyder has the money, but Bobby probably enjoys retirement now.

Again, Joe Gibbs was a great coach. All I'm saying is that he was no Bobby Beathard and it was on display during Gibbs II.

 

[Ax]

I have a great respect for Joe Gibbs and the job that he has done with the Redskins. It's an incredible record that no other coach can match (three SBs with three QBs). But I need to point something out and it became evident during Gibbs II.

At least half of the credit for those three SBs goes to Bobby Beathard. He could find fifty needles in fifty haystacks with one hand tied behind his back. I don't know how he did it, but BB could find multiple gems in the rough. Look at what he did with the Kansas City Chiefs in the late 60s. Hank Stram was a good coach, but Bobby's scouting was a huge part of it.

Look at what he did in Miami back in the early to mid 70s. He already had three SB wins long before coming to DC. Stan Humphries was an afterthought until Bobby signed him to play in San Diego. How many SBs has San Diego played in?

No need to tell you what he did in DC - you already know. When Bobby retired back in 2000, I was hoping Dan Snyder would throw a boatload of money his way and let the fun begin. Heck, I would hire him right now as a special assistant who could work from home and provide Coach Shanahan and GM Allen with some solid tips/advice. Snyder has the money, but Bobby probably enjoys retirement now.

Again, Joe Gibbs was a great coach. All I'm saying is that he was no Bobby Beathard and it was on display during Gibbs II.

There's no doubt Beathard played a huge role here. He also gave much credit to Gibbs for his ability to coach up the guys he drafted. Who else, besides the already mentioned Stan "Decent QB, But What A Wuss" Humphries, did anything anywhere else but under Gibbs?

Four of the most important pieces in Gibbs early success were named Theismann, Riggins, Butz, and DC Petitbon. Thank you, George Allen, and JKC. The marriage to Art Monk, The Hogs, and Darrell Green (85% of Beathard's great success here) sealed the deal.

Bobby could not find 50 needles in 50 haystacks. He had many late round finds, no question. He also made a lot of Vinny-type moves. These are forgiven because the team won.

Bobby was ahead of his time in KC, and Miami. By the midway point here, many had caught up with him.

And, at least according to my great friend, fansince, he ultimately failed. Because he didn't leave us with a franchise QB.

So yeah, Bobby was damn good. But he's not the water walker some credit him for being. Winning covers a lot.

It's like a mole. On an ugly girl's face, it's a mole.
On a pretty girl, it's a beauty mark.

 

[Bulldog]

Go back and look at the talent on the 49ers, Cowboys (1990's), and Steelers and then attempt to proceed with your argument about Gibbs not being a special coach when he was in his prime.

The talent here was solid but outside of a few special performers, Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with rosters full of very good, solid players that gave 100 percent.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Neophyte]

Look at the talent on the 2005 roster, BD, and consider that he was pretty much a dropped Pick 6 by a rookie CB away from the NFC Championship.

 

[micks113]

I don't think Gibbs came back to win for the future, or to get us back on track or something like that. Hell, look at what happened the first time he left. He thought he could come in, get us back to the playoffs (check), and then maybe squeak into a SB or two before he rode off into the sunset. I doubt very much he gave a damn about a franchise QB or setting us up for the next ten years, unless that resulted from his actions bent towards winning now.

And, as Lanky and Neo said, if Carlos had contacts... this might be a completely diffrent discussion.

good post. Yes contacts were an easy and effective solution. I know. I have the bad eyes and when I was 10 the eye doctor said you make good grades, to which I replied, how did you know? He said I had to sit at the front of the class to see the blackboard and that translated to good grades. The kids with bad eyes who sit at the back make the bad grades. Rogers would have been a different player without question.

 

[micks113]

There's no doubt Beathard played a huge role here. He also gave much credit to Gibbs for his ability to coach up the guys he drafted. Who else, besides the already mentioned Stan "Decent QB, But What A Wuss" Humphries, did anything anywhere else but under Gibbs?

Four of the most important pieces in Gibbs early success were named Theismann, Riggins, Butz, and DC Petitbon. Thank you, George Allen, and JKC. The marriage to Art Monk, The Hogs, and Darrell Green (85% of Beathard's great success here) sealed the deal.

Bobby could not find 50 needles in 50 haystacks. He had many late round finds, no question. He also made a lot of Vinny-type moves. These are forgiven because the team won.

Bobby was ahead of his time in KC, and Miami. By the midway point here, many had caught up with him.

And, at least according to my great friend, fansince, he ultimately failed. Because he didn't leave us with a franchise QB.

So yeah, Bobby was damn good. But he's not the water walker some credit him for being. Winning covers a lot.

It's like a mole. On an ugly girl's face, it's a mole.
On a pretty girl, it's a beauty mark.

Bwa haha you're both right, Beathard played a huge role. But he performed his role well like Gibbs performed his role. Only Gibbs got the job done and you only have to look at the second coming of St. Joe to know what his true thoughts were on the reason for his first success. That was Riggins and the running game. He came back, and literally said, you need a very good running back to win in this league, and promptly traded a HOF corner for Portis. Joe went back to that style, and two playoffs, which are hard to come by, and you can still witness the genius that was Joe Gibbs. (So we all knew the game had passed him by, so what, he and Buges still got it done and came pretty close to making a Giants like run, only to have points taken off the board in Seattle, and notwithstanding the back to back timeouts, he kept the franchise from completely falling into the tank. In the end, he proved he was human, just like you and me, but we all know, no other human could have accomplished the things he did with the Redskins. And there was a guy named Lombardi that tried before him.)

 

[Henry]

Interesting thread. I see this has turned into a Gibbs discussion. Just a few opinions, for what they are worth:

The further away we get from Gibbs' second stint here, the more impressive it looks (to me anyway.) Since the Vinnie Ceratto Era began, this team has gone 81-111.

Non-Gibbs teams (eight seasons):
51-77 overall (.398)
17-35 against the NFC East (.326) *This includes 2 seasons against AZ (3-1)
3-13 against the Cowboys (!)
Four 4th place finishes
Two 3rd place finishes
One 2nd place finish.

0 winning records
0 playoff teams or wins

Gibbs teams (four seasons):
30-34 overall (.468)
10-14 against the NFC East (.416)
4-4 against the Cowboys
One 4th place finish
One 3rd place finish
Two 2nd place finshes

2 winning records
2 playoff teams
1 playoff win


... It's obvious that Gibbs won games this team had no business winning, got a team with no business making the playoffs to the postseason two times in four seasons, got a team that was the perennial bitch of the division (and our most hated rival) back to respectability within that division, and, as others have stated, squeezed blood out of a stone for four years.

With a good GM and a good owner Gibbs wins multiple superbowls. With a terrible GM and a terrible owner he merely gets us to the playoffs half the time. Either way that, to me, is proof that he's a Hall of Fame coach.

All that said, the combination of Gibbs/Ceratto/Snyder was a terrible GM. I do think Gibbs had final say on all personnel matters. There's no doubt in my mind of that. However, I do see Snyder's grubby little hands all over many of the moves we made. I suspect Gibbs listened to Vinnie and Dan far more than he should have, and had Gibbs insisted on bringing in a real GM, even to be merely an advisor, we would have fared much better. Much better.

In the end I am still extremely grateful that he came back, and we were allowed to see him roam the sidelines one last time, and that we were at the very least allowed to have a last few glimpses of the Greatness that simply radiated off of a Joe Gibbs team. Those few stretches of games ... those moments in '05 and '07 ... they were vintage Joe Gibbs. And it was a true joy to watch.

So thank you Joe. You are welcome at my clubhouse any time.

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

[Ax]

Well said, Henry.

Well said indeed.

 

[Bulldog]

The worst thing Gibbs did here was bring in Al Saunders. Jason Campbell despite his limitations could run a traditional ball control offense like Baltimore's.

What it would have required was finding a younger back than Portis to move forward with and reinforce the offensive line with picks/free agents to replace guys like Jansen and Thomas that were aging and coming off serious injuries.

The truth is Campbell was a better quarterback when he was here than McNabb, Grossman or Beck.

Shanahan dismissed Campbell out of hand but then ended up two years later with Rex Grossman leading the team?

Gibbs would never have endorsed Grossman because he is a turnover machine and in the NFL turnovers decide the outcomes of many games.

The way Campbell played in Oakland in 2010 and the first several games of 2011 before injury indicate to me Washington got worse at the most critical position on the field.

For Shanahan whose reputation comes from his work as qb coach and offensive coordinator the reality ofGrossman being the principal option in 2011 is appalling.

No more so than if the Redskins had hired a defensive coordinator to be the HC and two years later the defense was among the worst in the NFL.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

Go back and look at the talent on the 49ers, Cowboys (1990's), and Steelers and then attempt to proceed with your argument about Gibbs not being a special coach when he was in his prime.

The talent here was solid but outside of a few special performers, Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with rosters full of very good, solid players that gave 100 percent.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

I disagree. Bostic, Jacoby, Grimm, Riggins, Theismann, Washington, Monk, Clark, Mann, Manley, Green...many of whom were "the core"....they were all superlative players/great players and would have been lynchpins on ANY team in the NFL. Gibbs got them to play as a team. Gibbs knew how to use them. Gibbs was flexible. this is what every great coach does......the winners do not win consistently without great talent and the wherewithal to get players to subordinate self to team....even Riggins!

that 91 team...for example.....wasn't some group of ok talented individuals pushed over the hump by coaching....it flat out had more talent than the opposition it played.

 

[Bulldog]

You forget that Theismann ran for his life quite a bit in 1981 and 1982 as the younger OL including Grimm, Bostic and Jacoby proved themselves to be good run blockers first and good pass protectors second.

It wasn't really until 1983 that the OL put it together and started to dominate opponents both on the ground and through the air.

Theismann's athleticism lead to a lot of big plays for the offense along the way.

People like to recall the Redskins under Gibbs as always having a quarterback with limited mobility who overachieved. That may have been Jay Schroeder, Mark Rypien and to a lesser extent Doug Williams but it was not the case with Theismann.

The Redskins didn't go 33-8 between 1982 and 1984 (Theismann's last full season) simply with a game manager at quarterback.

 

[Neophyte]

Yeah, Joe accounted for a lot of yards with his feet and a fair number of TD's too. To be honest, I remember the Naked Bootleg on the goal line as something of a signature play of the Skins with Joey T under center.

 

[Bulldog]

if you have a quarterback who can run under a 5.0.

Athleticism is not the strong suit of Grossman and Beck lacks the size to put his shoulder down in short yardage and convert the play.

Unless your qb has the quick release of a Manning or Brady, he has to have some athletic ability to buy time and make plays on the outside when things break down.

The bootleg worked well for the Redskins for years because the team had John Riggins, Earnest Byner and others who commanded respect from the defense in the backfield.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/2/2/2...ust-do-anything-to-get-a-franchise-qb-in-2012

2012 Redskins Draft: Why the Redskins must do anything to get Robert Griffin
Feb 2, 2012 7:49 AM EST

It's been a long time since I've posted on here -- Ken, Kevin, Parks and everyone else have done a great job -- but I wanted to take some time out to make a point I'm surprised not to have seen on this website recently.

Many fans, including our own Ken, continue displaying patience with this franchise that would make Orioles' fans blush. I have seen a ton of arguments on this site for drafting an OL in the upcoming draft, or trading down to garner extra picks and building from there.

I possess a completely different opinion, and I believe there is ample logic to back me up.

I believe the Redskins need to take an elite QB in this draft -- by any reasonable means necessary.

Looking at this NFL season, it is clear that there is no more important characteristic of a football team than the caliber of its quarterback.

The Super Bowl will be a duel between two of the four best QB's this year: Tom Brady and Eli Manning. Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees single-handedly led their teams to unbelievable seasons despite weak defenses. Matthew Stafford may have been outside the top 5 NFL QB's this year, yet still hit 5,000 yards -- and the Lions made the playoffs. Matt Ryan caught a lot of flack this year -- but still passed for 29 TD's and 4200 yards, leading the Falcons back to the playoffs.

The teams who made the playoffs this season -- from the Giants to the Falcons to the Patriots to the Bengals -- got there at least in part because of strong play at the quarterback position. Even the 49ers, Ravens, and Broncos received strong play from usually-maligned quarterbacks.

Not because of amazing offensive lines. Not because of amazing defenses (right, New England/NO/GB?). Because of outstanding quarterbacks.

So my proposition is this: If your scouts and coaches believe someone can be the next Eli/Peyton/Rodgers -- and you DON'T do what it takes to get them? You are going backwards.

I believe the elite quarterback the Redskins will have a chance at is going to be Robert Griffin, the Heisman winner out of Baylor. And I believe he's completely worth several future draft picks, given his talent and the state of our franchise.

(Yes, I did just say we should get a QB by any means necessary. The No. 1 pick may not even be for sale, and if it is, the price would have to be one of the most lopsided and indefensible trades in NFL history. As much as we would all like to see Luck in consideration as well, the package required to get Luck at No. 1 would be asinine compared to what would be required to move up to No. 2. So I'm discounting that option. Bear with me.)

I am arguing the Redskins do whatever is necessary to get their QB of the future (and present) in this draft, and that doing anything else should be viewed as an abject, irresponsible failure -- one that could ultimately cost Mike Shanahan and Bruce Allen their jobs.

And that man is going to be Robert Griffin III.

Let me briefly introduce you to Robert Griffin III. My guess is everyone here has seen the kid play a few times. But let me throw some facts at you that you may not know.

First of all, his stats are absolutely ridiculous. He completed 72% of his passes, 37 of them for TD's, led the nation in Yards/Attempt, was 2nd nationally in QB rating (ahead of Luck) and, obviously, won the Heisman.

Oh yeah, he also had 700 rushing yards last year and might be the fastest quarterback in NFL history when he hits the field. (He was an All-American sprinter at Baylor.)

Also, by all accounts, RG3 is a leader in the class of Newton and Tebow, which is extremely important to our franchise. There is a tremendous dearth of leadership on the Redskins. Who, at present, is a leader on the Redskins offense?

Furthermore, Griffin is an all-around great guy and incredibly marketable, which makes him appeal from a business standpoint to a declining mega-franchise (losing value and fans every day) with no superstar.

If Andrew Luck was not in this draft, I think it would be completely fair to assume that Griffin would be the No. 1 pick. But the Redskins are lucky. Griffin will be there at No. 2.

The Redskins will not need to trade their entire draft a la Mike Ditka in order to attain Griffin. According to the Trade Value Chart (which is not exactly in stone but seems to be a decent approximation of how picks are valued), the difference between the 2nd pick (2600) and the 6th pick (1600) should be accounted for by this year's first rounder, probably next year's first rounder, and a second or third in addition. That seems like a lot, but I will discuss why it's not as bad as it seems.

Which brings me to the crux of my post. There are several arguments that would seem to support the opposite of my position -- let me try and dispel them as quickly as possible and then make my point.

Myth: The Redskins have to hold on to all their high draft picks at this point, and trading them is foolish and short-sighted.

Facts: You know, if the Redskins don't take a top-tier quarterback in this draft, I would agree fully with this statement. Because the team wouldn't be going anywhere, and that would mean that next year, the Redskins would want another shot at a top tier quarterback like Matt Barkley. Thus, a high 2013 first round pick would be indispensable for a losing team without a quarterback.

But, if the Redskins take RGIII at the top of this draft, we don't necessarily need a top pick in the next draft. Our biggest need will be assuaged, in addition to several other key needs later in this draft (namely OL depth, DB depth, LB depth, all of which can be accrued in later rounds) and free agency (marquee WR, perhaps DB, OL).

We also need to understand this: The Redskins -- nor any other team, for that matter -- won't be a perfect team at any point no matter how many draft picks they have. Drafting for depth is a luxury good teams can afford. We need to draft STUDS at this point because we simply have none of the offense anymore.

(There will always be gaping, seemingly impossible-to-overcome holes on every roster, as there are on the best two teams in the league. Is the Patriots secondary really a Super Bowl secondary? (Julian Edelman????) Are the Giants TE's, CB's or LB's Super Bowl units? The roster will always be flawed.)

Still unwilling to say goodbye to our draft picks? Okay. Say the Redskins stay at No. 6 -- or trade down, even. A lot of people on here seem to advocate for these options. But let me ask you -- If the Redskins take a right tackle, Justin Blackmon, or some other guy of your choosing... do you really think Rex Grossman will turn into Aaron Rodgers?

Even if they add Dwayne Bowe, Vincent Jackson, Justin Blackmon and DeSean Jackson, Rex Grossman is still Rex Grossman, and he would be warming the seat for some guy in the future. Same for the ancient Peyton Manning. Even Matt Flynn (He's 27 at season's beginning) isn't a super-long-term answer at QB, and we would just be putting off the inevitable.

At some point, the Redskins will need to draft a quarterback at the top of the draft. Robert Griffin is a 23 year old track star with a ridiculous arm. If Shanny/Allen believe Griffin can be the guy to lead us to the promised land, why not get him now and save ourselves the trouble and avoid another complete failure of a season? Our franchise and our fanbase just cannot afford to keep waiting around, not taking big steps to get better.

My point: By postponing the drafting of a marquee quarterback for another, we would be doing nothing but putting a band-aid on the wound that has bled this franchise to death since its Super Bowl runs.

Ok, Next Myth for dispelling: You don't need a quarterback in the first round. See Brady/Dalton/Brees as proof.

Fact: You don't need a job either, if you win the lottery. Which is nearly the equivalent of drafting a Pro Bowl QB out of the first round in this league at this point in time.

Let's run through the starting QB's in the league who made the playoffs.
•Rodgers -- 1st
•Brees -- 2nd
•Brady -- 6th
•Stafford -- 1st
•Manning -- 1st
•Flacco -- 1st
•Ryan -- 1st
•Roethlisberger -- 1st
•Tebow -- 1st
•Schaub/Yates -- 2nd/5th
•A. Smith -- 1st
•Dalton -- 2nd

Of the 12 QB's who made the playoffs, 75% were 1st-round picks. Of those in the Conference Championships, all but Brady were 1st rounders.

Ok, not satisfied? How about those that finished in the top 15 in yardage, but weren't included on that list?
•Vick -- 1st
•Cutler -- 1st
•Rivers -- 1st
•Romo -- undrafted
•Sanchez -- 1st
•Newton -- 1st
•Freeman -- 1st
•Fitzpatrick -- 7th

Noticing a trend here? The best quarterbacks in the league are MOSTLY first rounders. Sure, you can find a Drew Brees, a Tony Romo, a Tom Brady later. A few teams have. But the vast majority of teams with capable quarterbacks chose them in the first round of a draft. And haven't had to address their decision since.

Most of the good starters in the league are first rounders. Why take a chance on the most important position in sports if you have an opportunity to get someone who can lead your squad for the next DECADE?

Another Myth: The offensive line is just as (or more) important to a team as the quarterback.

Fact: In Washington, we appreciate good OL's probably more than any other fanbase. (Just look at the title of this blog.) But this is just not true. How long ago was it when the Packers line was considered the worst in football? It was as recent as a season ago. But this year, Rodgers was able to pass for a nearly unprecedented 5,000 yards. Think that's all on the o-line? Remember last year -- or the last ten years -- when the Colts' offensive line was considered among the best in football in pass-pro? Suddenly, Peyton Manning goes down and their lauded offensive line suffered while Curtis Painter, Dan Orlovsky and Kerry Collins held the ball too long.

The better OL's in football are not stacked with first round picks. Look at the Giants starting line on their roster -- Snee (2nd), Diehl (5th), Baas (2nd), Boothe (6th), and McKenzie (3rd) are all non-premium picks. Meanwhile, Eli only took 28 sacks this season. (3 more than Grossman, who threw dozens fewer times.)

Meanwhile, Beck took 16 sacks in, what, four games? Think that is only on the offensive line?

Drew Brees took even fewer sacks than Eli. His left tackle, Jerome Bushrod, is out of Towson, for Chrissakes. Other starters: Evans (4th), Nicks (5th), Strief (7th). Not marquee names on draft day.

Pick any OL you want. It is not stacked with first-rounders. And what do the Dolphins (Jake Long), Browns (Joe Thomas), and, shoot, the Redskins (Trent Williams) have in common? They all took premium OL's in the top 4 picks the last few years, all are picking in the top 10 this year, and they all need a QB.

The answer for the Redskins is not to reach for an offensive lineman at No. 6. We have our top-tier left tackle (at the very least, we're stuck with someone who appears to be one) -- and that is the only premium spot on the line (assuming the QB is right-handed). Will Montgomery, Chris Chester and Kory Lichtensteiger appear to be adequate starters, especially given the success of our running game later in the year, and right tackle is a spot that can be drafted anywhere from round two to round five with some confidence of its effectiveness (Jon Jansen was a 2nd rounder, for instance).

Evidence shows continuity on the line and stellar quarterback play are much more important to the success of an offense than marquee OL draft picks.

Myth: The Redskins aren't just a good QB away from being a good team and should build around solid draft picks.

Fact: Teams are built around their quarterbacks. This year's Giants, Pats and Packers are proof of that fact as much as the Bears and Colts were.

Have a star quarterback, you make the playoffs. Take star quarterbacks out of the equation and teams regress toward the bottom.

Every single team I mentioned above has a glaring weakness but overcomes it with great play from their quarterback. The Giants had the worst running game in the league this season (32nd!!!), but their offense is damn near prolific at this point. The Packers and Pats had historically bad defenses, with no marquee RB's on offense, yet they were their conferences' No. 1 seeds.

Meantime, the Bears offense suddenly stopped functioning without Jay Cutler. The Colts went from an offensive juggernaut with a Pro Bowl WR, TE and C to the worst team in the league.

The Redskins running backs, tight ends and wideouts and entire offense would start to look a lot better if someone competent was flipping the ball around. (Not saying by any means we shouldn't grab another WR in this offseason, though.) So, it's time go get one.

Long winded-point: If the staff thinks Robert Griffin is capable of being a top-5 quarterback in the league, it must do whatever is necessary to get him.

This isn't Jason Taylor or Donovan McNabb or Albert Haynesworth. Committing a ton of money and a ton of picks for a guy who has a once-in-a-lifetime skill set at a position of extreme need and importance is not only rational, it is required.

So, what do you guys think? I'm sure an epic debate will ensue.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Fear The Spear]

It's not like the Skins HAVN'T tried the 1st round QB route.
We HAVE.
And look at the types of QB's it's gotten us : Jason Campbell, Patrick Ramsey, Heath Shuler.
Maybe the stats show most good QB's are 1st rounders, but not for the Redskins. We've gone at least 0 for 3 over the last 15 or so years.

 

[Ax]

If the Redskins, or whoever else is interested, see RGIII as "The One", they will make a move to get him. It's not rocket science. If they're the Lone Ranger looking to move up, no problem. If not, the cost might get out of hand.

The HH article is a long winded, "I Like RGIII" write up. Just another,
"Am I The Only Smart Guy In The Room?" from a possible French Fry Technician at McDonald's, suggesting he could teach football people a thing or two, about a thing or two.

Gotta love the passion of fans.