Man up - what are you willing to give up for a franchise QB?

[Boone]

There is a rising chorus here and elsewhere in Redskins-land. We need a young franchise QB taken in the draft. And the sooner the better.

I agree.

But what I don't hear is how on Earth you folks think we are going to get one

We will not sniff a sure-fire franchise QB at the #10 draft spot. The one thing the Redskins can not do is take a flier on a guy at that spot who is not a sure-fire long-term starting QB. That we have only 6 precious picks this year only compounds the critical nature of not blowing our first round pick.

In my mind, that means if we go after a franchise QB in the draft this year, we are moving up. We'll have to, and not just a spot or two - we'd have to make a major move.

So how do we do that? Assuming it's possible at all to lure a Carolina, Denver, or Buffalo into swapping first rounders with us, what are you willing to give up in order to move up high enough to get our guy?

Players? Are you willing to dangle Chris Cooley? Laron Landry? Which of our precious few 'stars' will you applaud our front office for giving away to get there?

Draft picks? When we give up our first round picks in 2012 and 2013 for the privilege of getting Andrew Luck, will you swallow hard and say it was the right move, or will you crucify the front office for doing whatever it takes to get their guy?

These really aren't loaded questions. I want to know, if I'm right and after the Donovan Mcnabb experiment, we all want a sure-fire franchise QB, what price are you willing to pay? It really doesn't matter if it's this draft or the next. In all probability, the Redskins will have to make significant sacrifices to get their guy.

 

[Elephant]

Nothing. The cost would be way too high to acquire one via draft this season. We sat at the 4 position last year and couldn't pull it off for Bradford. There is not a single QB as coveted as Bradford was last year. Luck is coveted, but nothing like Bradford was last year when we discovered his injury was not going to diminish his play.

If we decided to go for a #1 pick and not shore up all those areas where we could get much more value at the 10 spot, I will be sick! Locker had a less than expected season in Washington, but if we could pick him up in the 2nd round, I would much rather take that chance than spending untold amounts of picks, cash or players for Luck, who may not even be coming out in the draft.

Other than Luck, no trade up is worth anything close to what would need to be spent and Luck would be too much cost in my estimation.

 

[China]

None of the top QBs in the draft this year impress me that much. That is to say I'd be willing to give up a lot for a franchise QB, I'm just not sure there is one in this draft. Maybe trade down and take a flier on one of the QB prospects in this draft, and hope he either pans out or Grossman can hold us over for another year. Ugh. Will the nightmare never end?

 

[Sarge]

At first, I was unwilling to see us try to win games after Grossman came in, figuring it would improve our draft position. Not for a QB, but to be able to trade down and fix the lines. But when we won last week and Neo updated the draft position thread, I changed my mind and wanted us to win out just so we wouldn't be tempted to give up our next twenty number one picks to get a QB that may or may not make it.

I really don't know what the answer is. Grossman appears to be acceptable for the time being.......I guess

And I would much prefer that we draft someone to bring along, but I have no confidence in our scouting department, nor in the danny to stay out of the choice.

IF we try to trade up, it has to be for a sure thing, or as sure a you can get with a rook. This year we have McNabb and Butterworth to offer up, and while their stock may has fallen off during their stay with us, someone out there wants an experienced QB and a sometimes motovated D-Lineman to play 4-3. This is probably the only time in the near future where we'll have two vets like that to offer.

 

[servumtuum]

Well, Boone, in offering at least a partial answer to your question of "How are we going to find a potential franchise QB" I'm going to offer some conjectural ruminations I've been doing.

Warning-this is going to get ugly.

We are short on picks in the upcoming draft. 6 isn't enough to locate both a potential franchise QB and hope to fill some other rather glaring needs no matter where those 6 picks are. Unless...

We trade up to a second #1 pick or second #2 pick-but the cost is too great to give up more picks with only six in hand.

We trade players we have for additional picks to both give us a pick in every round and possibly give us at least one or maybe two more to use in trade up/trade down scenarios depending on who falls where in the draft.

The second, I'm thinking, might just be doable-but it would require some very difficult decision making. We'd need both the third and fourth round picks back and an extra fourth or extra fifth round pick "in-the-pocket" to do trade ups or trade downs with.

Now comes the hard part. Who do we have that we might be able to get those 3rd and 4th round picks back with?

Brace yourself for my answer.

The following:

DeAngelo Hall

Chris Cooley

Santana Moss

possibly McNabb/Haynesworth as a package (The Titans aren't out of the picture on this, I don't think, nor is maybe Arizona.)

I'd be interested in any ideas on who else might qualify.

There are others that could be used for the extra 4th/5th round picks, maybe Lorenzo Alexander for example-I'm not really settled on who might be able to get us what at the "lower rounds" level.

I'd be interested in ideas here too.

There may be others but these are the first that came to my mind as being possibly valuable enough to trade for if we're looking at this as a semi-major rebuild/youth movement. In that scenario these trades could possibly be justified in terms of potential value received compared to relative current performance costs.

Like I hinted at...this ain't pretty. And it just something I've been rolling over in my mind as a possible "path out of the swamp" for the team.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Redskins are going to have to face some pretty hard choices if we're going to get out of the "fix-it with Band-Aids" mode we seem to have been for too long now.

 

[Chris]

Anything. This team will never become a perennial contender without one. After 20+ years of hoping for an occasional sniff of the post-season, I have no problem whatsoever doing anything it would take to become a consistent winner.

No current player, other than Trent Williams, is too valuable to trade. No won/loss record is too horrible to withstand. This is a quarterback driven sport and we have been competing without a quality one for what seems like forever.

Tom Brady lines up with a group of relative unknowns (prior to playing with Brady) and goes 14-2. It's not rocket science, it's the qb.

And we don't have one.

 

[Chris]

I was only using Brady as an example of a what a top flight qb can do. It doesn't matter where he was drafted. I could have listed many more. It just that he easily shows that you don't have to have superior athletes to win when you have a superior quarterback.

 

[Bulldog]

Moss is a free agent.

Getting the 10th pick is OK but this is not a good year to be looking for a qb in Round 1 as 6 of the 9 teams ahead of the Redskins (Nix on Cincinnati and Dallas) may be looking for quarterbacks.

Carolina, Denver, Buffalo, Cleveland, Tennessee (depending on who wins the power struggle there), Arizona........they all need passers.

 

[Boone]

That's true, although Carolina may want to give Claussen another year, depending on who the coach there ends up being, and Denver I don't know about either, so it may be fewer teams than your worst case scenario.

Besides, my argument is predicated on the fact that it'll take a top 3 pick to ensure we 'get our guy' whether its this draft, next years, or the year after. And it's unlikely we'll own one of those. So who or what are we willing to give up to get there?

Of course, the most likely scenario is that we draft some fring QB in the 2nd - 5th rounds because a) we're so much smarter than everyone else, b) because we refuse to pay what it will cost to get a real franchise QB, or because c) we could throw in our best players and lots of future draft picks and it's still not enough to move us into one of the top three slots.

 

[Goaldeje]

To answer the question Boone, I would give up any player outside of Williams or Landry and any combo of draft picks short of three future first round picks, IF we knew we were getting Brees, Brady, Manning, Roethlisburger, etc.

The problem is that I do not have that much faith in our talent evaluators to advocate giving up multiple picks and/or players for an unknown. This thread actually dovetails nicely with Ryman's thread about our talent evaluation department, an the concerns I think we all have there. If I knew by trading Cooley and Hall and our first next year for a top 3 pick, and I knew we would get the guy we wanted, I would still be hesitant.

We are talking about one of the most colossal blunders in quite a while, not as bad as the Ricky trade or the Herschel trade, but still bad, made worse because it was intra-divisional. The McNabb trade has seriously damaged the FO's credibility when it comes to evaluating talent in my eyes (which I know matters an awful lot to them). Shanahan just said in his press conference that he will not be making any coaching staff changes. If he were to spend Danny's money and completely revamp the scouting department, I would not be happier.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

I say we give up nothing and still will be able to land the QB that we need in rd. one. Here is what I think will happen with the teams that pick ahead of us...

1. Carolina - Claussen gets more time.

2. Denver - Tebow factor - no QB pick here.

3. Buffalo - Always picks anyone but a QB in rd. one.

4. Cincinnati - Palmer became better without Ocho and T-Oh. No changes.

5. Arizona - Goodbye Luck - if Mc5 does not land here.

6. Cleveland - Giving McCoy more time.

7. San Francisco - Newton goes bye bye. Luck if Mc5 is in 'Zona.

8. Tennessee - Owner still likes Young.

9. Dallas - No need at QB.

10. Washington - IF Newton falls by some chance, you've got to take him. Ryan Mallet could be a good choice here. Perhaps wait until rd. two for Locker.

If we trade players for picks, it will be Mc5 and Haynesworth or some package thereof.

 

[fansince62]

There is a rising chorus here and elsewhere in Redskins-land. We need a young franchise QB taken in the draft. And the sooner the better.

I agree.

But what I don't hear is how on Earth you folks think we are going to get one

We will not sniff a sure-fire franchise QB at the #10 draft spot. The one thing the Redskins can not do is take a flier on a guy at that spot who is not a sure-fire long-term starting QB. That we have only 6 precious picks this year only compounds the critical nature of not blowing our first round pick.

In my mind, that means if we go after a franchise QB in the draft this year, we are moving up. We'll have to, and not just a spot or two - we'd have to make a major move.

So how do we do that? Assuming it's possible at all to lure a Carolina, Denver, or Buffalo into swapping first rounders with us, what are you willing to give up in order to move up high enough to get our guy?

Players? Are you willing to dangle Chris Cooley? Laron Landry? Which of our precious few 'stars' will you applaud our front office for giving away to get there?

Draft picks? When we give up our first round picks in 2012 and 2013 for the privilege of getting Andrew Luck, will you swallow hard and say it was the right move, or will you crucify the front office for doing whatever it takes to get their guy?

These really aren't loaded questions. I want to know, if I'm right and after the Donovan Mcnabb experiment, we all want a sure-fire franchise QB, what price are you willing to pay? It really doesn't matter if it's this draft or the next. In all probability, the Redskins will have to make significant sacrifices to get their guy.

back at you: what good does it do to keep our "star" players if the best we can do is 5-6 victories?

answer: whatever the market requires. you exchange value to get value.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

I think FS that I agree to a point, but this offseason I dont think we get a qb, we have far too many needs to fill that need to be filled asap. once we have a decent foundation, then we can go after a qb and pay whatever is needed because we will have a car and just need a driver, right now we have a chassis and not much else.

 

[Elephant]

I say we give up nothing and still will be able to land the QB that we need in rd. one. Here is what I think will happen with the teams that pick ahead of us...

1. Carolina - Claussen gets more time.

2. Denver - Tebow factor - no QB pick here.

3. Buffalo - Always picks anyone but a QB in rd. one.

4. Cincinnati - Palmer became better without Ocho and T-Oh. No changes.

5. Arizona - Goodbye Luck - if Mc5 does not land here.

6. Cleveland - Giving McCoy more time.

7. San Francisco - Newton goes bye bye. Luck if Mc5 is in 'Zona.

8. Tennessee - Owner still likes Young.

9. Dallas - No need at QB.

10. Washington - IF Newton falls by some chance, you've got to take him. Ryan Mallet could be a good choice here. Perhaps wait until rd. two for Locker.

If we trade players for picks, it will be Mc5 and Haynesworth or some package thereof.

First off, Luck has not declared. Unless Harbaugh goes to Michigan or ends up taking an NFL job which he likely will, Luck is likely going to stay. From every report I have read, he is an academic who values his education, not that he couldn't still achieve it when he is in the NFL.

If Luck does come out, North Carolina will no doubt take him. Claussen is not a starter, much less a Super Star in the NFL. Even if you have a possible star, which Claussen is not, you do not pass up a Super Star if available, especially if/when a new coach comes in. They're more than likely gonna want their own guy.

I have also read reports that Mallette is not the type of QB Shanahan likes. Don't know enough about that, but what I have seen reported is that Shanahan likes Locker. I don't know how old that report is, I cannot remember where I read it so I cannot provide you a link.

As for Cam Newton, you can keep him and the potential drama that comes with him. He is the type I envision holding out for every dime possible and not being in camp until the pre-season is in full swing. He was auctioned off to the highest bidder in the NCAA, what on earth makes you think he will be a leader? Great athlete? Yes! NFL calibre leader? No!

Oh and I am also curious to know why you think Arizona would not take Luck if he fell to them, even if they got McD5? We all know McD5 has 2 years left in him, tops.

 

[Go Deep]

I have also read reports that Mallette is not the type of QB Shanahan likes. Don't know enough about that, but what I have seen reported is that Shanahan likes Locker. I don't know how old that report is, I cannot remember where I read it so I cannot provide you a link.

I don't think Mallet would fit here either. He's too big and slow in his drop to play under center primarly. I haven't really seen much college football this year, but someone like Luck would have the best chance to do well in his first year here. Gabbert from Missouri looked awful good in the bowl game, but he comes from a shotgun offense.

I think we can and we should go for Newton. He's done more to carry a team than anyone in CFB this year and previous year's that i can remember. Still, it's going to be a culture shock for him coming from a shotgun offense also and he's not nearly going to have the chance to be as productive in our offense.

You know, i keep on thinking we done a good good rushing the ball this year, but we were still ranked 30th in yards and 15th in yards per carry. We were 8th in passing yards and 16th in yards per attempt. According to the stats we pretty well off at Qb?

So, i really don't know what the hell to do with this team?

 

[Goaldeje]

I think its pretty clear we are not getting Luck unless a mega trade is involved. So then we have to decide if we are content with drafting a developmental QB that may not be ready for a couple of years? I suspect most of us would be happy with that scenario, if we knew we would get THE guy. Do we have enough faith in our FO to make that choice?
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

I think FS that I agree to a point, but this offseason I dont think we get a qb, we have far too many needs to fill that need to be filled asap. once we have a decent foundation, then we can go after a qb and pay whatever is needed because we will have a car and just need a driver, right now we have a chassis and not much else.

that's a prioritization function that the FO needs to decide. my nly two caveats:

1) if the opportuntity is there...you take that QB regardless.

2) timing the building of a team and the grooming of a QB can be tricky. obviously, teams have different strategies -> some wait a few years...others jump into it (e.g., RAMS, Lions) up front before the base is solidified. this is another one of those "trust the FO" deals.

it's really a two part process: when do you go for that QB; when do you insert him into the starting lineup. the first...in my mind (once the decision is made a QB is needed) is driven by circumstance (oops Vick is available); the second can be managed with more control (start Bradford now; "groom" JC for a seasn or two). holdouts, etc., can also impact the timeline. so....your idea that a team should have the supporting tools in place first makes sense.....but it's not the only path. especially with the astronomical salaries QBs can earn.....and how bad the resident starter might be.

in this context....RG makes more sense. RG may be painful to have to watch....but he can get basic things done and keep his team in the game against most competition but the very best (IMO). in the interim....you groom your yearling QB and continue to add piece parts...allowing the RGs to not only shoulder the blame but suffer the physical assaults of a building team..... .... the issue before us is where we think the Skins are. Sitting at 10 there can very clearly be viable QB options....don't know this year - that's up to the FO to figure out. but if there is...I draft that person without thinking twice about it.

 

[fansince62]

btw..."what am I willing to give up?"...I don't know...a victory against the JAGs?

I kid. I kid.

 

[riggins44]

I know many feel Luck is the next great QB. Just feel we have too many holes to mortgage the future on a QB. Besides it wouldn't be fair to throw a rookie QB behind our OL. The OL and DL need attention first.

Don't see anyone really wanting to trade with us for McNabb or Haynesworth. Reason is everyone knows they are good as gone, so they just wait for them to be released and get them without losing a pick. Then again there is always an "Al Davis" out there.

Earlier it was mentioned how Brady makes his OL look good. This may be true, but at same time they are a good OL. Theisman wouldn't have been as good as he was if it wasn't for the Hogs. I just feel we need to sure up the lines first and foremost.

Maybe we draft a developmental QB in later rounds.

 

[Henry]

I don't follow college enough to know much about specific players, but I'll say this. If you can get one of the top QBs at 10 take it. Doesn't have to be THE top guy. Nothing's a sure thing. But if you can get one of the top tier guys go for it.

If you can't, trade down for more picks, build the lines and take a shot at a marginal guy in a middle round. You never know.

In either case, I would trade anyone who was worth anything for a picks. Cooley, Landry, Armstrong ... anyone over 25 should be on the table. Stockpile as many picks as you can so that we have room to move around if we need to next year.