Cousins

[CounterTrey]

Oh and semantic or not it IS relevant when you'rte using that "spin" to dog our team. If you're going to criticize then be accurate and include the 1st we acquired for a net loss of 2. Christ on a crutch it's not rocket science. 1+1-1=1 not zero.

 

[Jimbo]

Ok, I'm pretty much over this discussion ... but are some of you REALLY arguing that three firsts and a second is no big deal?

As it stands right now, it's Michael Brockers, Janoris Jenkins and 2 firsts vs. RG3.

It's the biggest deal since Trader George gave away 2 first round picks for Dave Butz. Fortunately, that one turned out pretty well.

I don't think anyone would argue that it's not a gamble. If you gamble and lose, it's a Ditka. If you gamble and win, it could mean another shiny trophy.
For RG3, it's "No Pressure, No Diamonds". For our FO, it's "No Gamble, No Lombardi". That kinda sounds like a big deal.....one that HAD to be done.

 

[servumtuum]

Om, I love ya. I really do. (In a brotherly kind of way ...)

But you REALLY don't see where a team like the Giants or the Pats or the Ravens would get the benefit of the doubt and we wouldn't?

This team makes terrible QB decisions. Repeatedly. It's probably the most consistent thing about the Shanahan/Allen era at this point. Trading away unprecedented picks to draft a QB and then picking another one a few rounds later when you've got lots of holes to fill flies in the face of conventional wisdom. And when you have a reputation for making moves that fly in the face of conventional wisdom that don't work out ... spectacularly ... people are going to be critical of that.

I don't think our draft was terrible. On the whole I think it looks promising. But this particular move is a head-scratcher. I don't see why it's a big deal that people point that out.



Because ever since Allen and Shanahan have been making QB moves we as fans have been critical of those moves, and every time we as fans have, sadly, been correct?

I'm certainly hoping that trend stops now. But until it does it's still a trend.

If I may, Henry, I would like to suggest at least one very good QB decision that Shanahan/Allen have made.

The decision I refer to is the decision not to draft Blaine Gabbert as the new Redskins QB and choosing instead to trade down for extra picks.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Well I guess it depends on how you look at it, and what you're talking about.
The TRADE only cost us 2 #1's. There is NO argument there.
But the PLAYER cost us 3. Once again, nothing to argue there.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

LOL....say what? Say you're trying to chide me for arguing semantics when you're....arguing semantics. That's classic projecting.

Oh and semantic or not it IS relevant when you'rte using that "spin" to dog our team. If you're going to criticize then be accurate and include the 1st we acquired for a net loss of 2. Christ on a crutch it's not rocket science. 1+1-1=1 not zero.

OMFG - who is dogging the team? The trade is the trade, there is no projecting, only facts. We gave up 3 firsts and 1 second for a first. THIS IS NOT DEBATABLE.

Its like I'm on the planet crazy.

EDIT: WHATEVER you think the compensation was for the trade, the fact remains we have holes to fill on the roster. The trade filled a HUGE hole. Cousins was a luxury pick, and one that IN MY OPINION the team could not afford to make. That's it, my last word on this trade nonsense.

 

[Ax]

Well I guess it depends on how you look at it, and what you're talking about.
The TRADE only cost us 2 #1's. There is NO argument there.
But the PLAYER cost us 3. Once again, nothing to argue there.

Correct. The player cost us three 1's, and a 2.

 

[CounterTrey]

Who's dogging the team...anyone griping about the Cousins pick or about "selling the farm" and then not picking who you want later. If you're going to complain and spin it like the clueless National Media types the least you can do is paint the accurate picture.

And yes you were projecting. If you're going to accuse me of arguing semantics when you yourself are arguing semantics I'm going to bemusedly point that out. If that makes you feel like you're on planet crazy so be it.

 

[Goaldeje]

For some reason, I feel the need for this clip:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDAmPIq29ro[/media]

 

[tshile]

I swear if ONE more person says we gave up THREE firsts for Griffin, I'm gonna make a sig out of it, to clear up that horrid misonception.

We did give up 3 first round picks and 1 second round pick for Griffin... there is no misconception... 3 first round picks and 1 second round pick left the organization, griffin came to the organization in exchange....

We gave the rams 2 future first round picks and a second to swap this years first.

 

[Henry]

If I may, Henry, I would like to suggest at least one very good QB decision that Shanahan/Allen have made.

The decision I refer to is the decision not to draft Blaine Gabbert as the new Redskins QB and choosing instead to trade down for extra picks.

Sure. That appears to be a very good ... er ... passive decision.

I'll go with that.

 

[servumtuum]

I have a question for anyone who cares to answer.

Given that even some of the best QBs, as has been mentioned elsewhere, struggled to lesser or greater extents during their early years before exploding into recognized potential SB contending team leaders-how much time would be deemed reasonable before you would consider calling RGIII as being not worth the price paid to get the Redskins in the position to draft him?

A record worse than 8-8 this season? Not contending for the division title by the 2013 season? Not being in the playoffs by the 2014 season?

I'd just like to know what, if any, time frame is being talked about here in terms of justifying a "Win" or a "Fail" grade to the giving up of the picks the Redskins did in order to get RG3.

I'm just curious.

 

[Henry]

Ask me again in ten years.

 

[GSF]

Henry, this is probably the first time i can remember not agreeing with you on something Redskins related.

There is very little chance of a QB contraversy coming from this move. Cousins was drafted to be a backup. RG3 would have to flat out bust for him Cousins to be considered. a few bad games from RG3 is not going to lead to a contraversy, not this time amigo.

Also, even though the teams has holes as you say, the odds of finding starting RT with the 102nd pick are very low, or a starter at any position for that matter.

This was a good value pick at a position of need.

 

[Henry]

Henry, this is probably the first time i can remember not agreeing with you on something Redskins related.

There is very little chance of a QB contraversy coming from this move. Cousins was drafted to be a backup. RG3 would have to flat out bust for him Cousins to be considered. a few bad games from RG3 is not going to lead to a contraversy, not this time amigo.

Also, even though the teams has holes as you say, the odds of finding starting RT with the 102nd pick are very low, or a starter at any position for that matter.

This was a good value pick at a position of need.

The odds of finding a starting anything in round 4 are low. We all know this. It's been repeated every time we've squandered away a late-round draft pick over the past decade and a half. And every time someone says that I'm going to repeat that the odds of finding a starting anything in the late rounds go up the more late round picks you have.

Anyway, I hope you are correct. I hope there's no controversy and that Griffin is all we hope for and more.

Of course if that's true, we don't really need Cousins ...

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

in a vacuum, using a 4th on cousins could be considered a good move, however having just used 3 firsts and a second to get our QB it was a nonsense move. what we needed to be doing is getting as much talent as possible as quickly as possible to help the guy we overspent on be a winner.

and yes RG3 cost 3 first rounders and a second. he had better be worth 4 starting calibre players.

 

[Elephant]

Lanky, I know you're done with this but you asked me a question and I am gonna answer it, the rest of the discourse is one we will have to agree to disagree.

You asked me how I could say there was no Free Agency to consider when the Pats took Mallette. There was no Free Agency to consider because when the draft occurred there was no Free Agency. It took place 4 months later in a mad scramble weeks before the start of the season.

The Pats did take at least one free agent that helped them, Andre Carter. But in the grand scheme, they didn't know they would be able to sign him. If they're drafting for need, they should have gone into that draft addressing the major wholes on defense, especially in the 1st 3 rounds. Instead, with their 3rd round pick, they solidified their backup QB on a reach. The reach was heralded.

Yes, they got the benefit of the doubt, but that was the point. They did, we didn't. I guess we didn't because of Shanahan's track record, you know Maurice Clarrett and all, coupled with the last 20 years here not the last 10.

 

[fansince62]

Don't forget the 2nd round pick this year. That's giving the Rams THREE picks for the right to trade 1st round picks this year (better, Om?). That's three potential game-changers for the ultimate game-changer. I would say that's selling the farm, yes.

agree.

it's a high risk decision....made on the basis of expected high returns/impact.

good by me! if that's the price for not having to watch Rex any more......I kid. I kid.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

As far as the QB controversy is concerned - the only controversy this offseason will be how fast RGIII overtakes Grossman as the starter. Any of this nonsense about Cousins challenging for the starting spot is simply that - nonsense.

Lanky, I know you're done with this but you asked me a question and I am gonna answer it, the rest of the discourse is one we will have to agree to disagree.

You asked me how I could say there was no Free Agency to consider when the Pats took Mallette. There was no Free Agency to consider because when the draft occurred there was no Free Agency. It took place 4 months later in a mad scramble weeks before the start of the season.

Ah yes, my mistake - I forgot that free agency was delayed due to the CBA negotiations.

I have a question for anyone who cares to answer.

Really don't know how to answer this. 5 years? Playoffs? Consistently sweeping the Cowboys? Who knows. I'm with Henry - ask me again in 10 years.

 

[Boone]

I picture some of you guys sitting around bitching about the quality of your orgasms. We just solved a problem that has tormented us for decades...the lack of the real deal under center. Most of us bemoaned even the thought of Grossman or Beck under center. Ever. So we solved that too. Yeah- we had other needs - but backup QB WAS a need if you ask me.

Besides - many here keep saying its not about now...its about growing a team. This is what it looks like.'Growing a team' doesn't mean never giving up a pick to get a crucial guy. It also doesn't always mean drafting for immediate need. For me it means getting younger, bringing in guys who can contribute and it means being in it for the long haul. Cousins is security for the long haul. We may not need him right now. But the odds say we will need him. If you are looking beyond the next year or two, hard to get the hand-wringing.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk

 

[Fear The Spear]

Yea, I don't see how ANYONE can criticize this pick.
It's like they forget that we'd otherwise be just one play away from Grossman finishing out the season.

And who wants to go backwards to that nightmare of a place ?

Apparently, Cousins was a better option that any veteran backup free agent available.

And people are seriously worried that RG3/Cousins might turn into Shuler/Frerotte ????
Seriously ???