QBs in the 2012 Draft

[Boone]

There are always limits Lanky. Is 4 #1's too high a price? How about 5? We aren't a 'set at every position' kind of a team. We have other needs. And Ax is right - although I believe in the modern era, drafting a QB earlier largely leads to higher success rates, I'm not willing to give up *anything* to get that early pick.

 

[b&g_lady]

We start trading picks to move up, I'm going to be pissed. Although I like B&Gs analysis, I think her estimate of what it would take to move up is very conservative. The draft pick points system is a baseline. In a QB-strong draft, there will be a bidding war. I think it could take 3 #1's to get up to a top 3 slot. And we'd be crazy to do anything close to that (I'm not even sure Andrew Luck would be worth that kind of a deal).

Yes, the asking price could be higher than what I outlined. It seems like in years past top 5 picks were slightly discounted due to the associated cost to sign the player which is not a concern anymore. It'll be interesting to see what impact this has on the asking price of trading into the top 5 going forward. I also agree that coveted QBs will drive up the asking price.

However, in the scenario I outlined with MIA trading up to #1 to get Luck, this helps with the asking price to get to #2 for Griffin.

Here's my logic:
- targeting 2nd best QB, not 1st = discount
- targeting 2nd pick not 1st = discount
- one less rival for the pick with MIA already securing Luck = discount
- IND doesn't have a history of moving around much in the draft, especially not trading up, and they may not have the same "can't pass up" position towards Griffin
- Can CLE justify giving up on McCoy without having provided him much help on offense? (maybe, just saying)
- Will JAC trade up for a QB again? (maybe and they could use the buzz from Griffin to put butts in seats)

Hard to say what the asking price for the #2 pick would be in this scenario. If it's too high, then the Skins could well be best served to trade down and maybe target Tannehill (albeit more of a project.)

 

[Boone]

Boone, if the Redskins, who according to some is the team most desperate for a QB in the history of the forward pass, would be crazy to trade three #1s to get a top three spot, then everyone else would have to be crazy to pay that price as well, and therefore the price won't be that high.

Except that NFL history has shown that occasionally, teams throw crazy packages at teams to move up. Most won't do it, but someone will. Especially if we were talking about a guy like Luck, anointed a 'once in a decade QB prospect' being the target. Whether RGIII or someone else will get hyped up to that kind of price level between now and April remains to be seen.

I'm surprised you'd be on board with going back to our previous model of throwing picks at the wall to get a player we want. You've been one of the strongst advocates of keeping our picks over th years. Why would this be different?

 

[Boone]

Yes, the asking price could be higher than what I outlined. It seems like in years past top 5 picks were slightly discounted due to the associated cost to sign the player which is not a concern anymore. It'll be interesting to see what impact this has on the asking price of trading into the top 5 going forward. I also agree that coveted QBs will drive up the asking price.

However, in the scenario I outlined with MIA trading up to #1 to get Luck, this helps with the asking price to get to #2 for Griffin.

Here's my logic:
- targeting 2nd best QB, not 1st = discount
- targeting 2nd pick not 1st = discount
- one less rival for the pick with MIA already securing Luck = discount
- IND doesn't have a history of moving around much in the draft, especially not trading up, and they may not have the same "can't pass up" position towards Griffin
- Can CLE justify giving up on McCoy without having provided him much help on offense? (maybe, just saying)
- Will JAC trade up for a QB again? (maybe and they could use the buzz from Griffin to put butts in seats)

Hard to say what the asking price for the #2 pick would be in this scenario. If it's too high, then the Skins could well be best served to trade down and maybe target Tannehill (albeit more of a project.)

All good points. I think the two major wildcards in draft scenarios are:

1) Will any of the teams who drafted a QB high last year give up on their guy and immediately try and seek his successor (obviously the reduction in rookie QB salary requirements makes this more feasible, although I still think most of those teams will want to stick it out for a season or two more with last year's pick)

2) What will the NFL 'hype machine' do to QB ratings between now and April. Every year, there are guys who move meteorically up the draft charts for relatively inexplicable reasons. Look at Ponder last year...in December before the draft, most didn't even know his name. Those kinds of shift can change the whole dynamic of the draft.

Oh well - we're fans. This is what we do. Of course we have no control over what's to occur. We'll do what we've done for 20 years.

Hope.

 

[Goaldeje]

We start trading picks to move up, I'm going to be pissed. Although I like B&Gs analysis, I think her estimate of what it would take to move up is very conservative. The draft pick points system is a baseline. In a QB-strong draft, there will be a bidding war. I think it could take 3 #1's to get up to a top 3 slot. And we'd be crazy to do anything close to that (I'm not even sure Andrew Luck would be worth that kind of a deal).

So if we end up at #7, you want us to do... what? Should we go after someone in FA? Draft a developmental guy?

If Shanny wants Luck, my guess is he gets creative. Hell, we now have two borderline starters in Hurt and Smith on the OLine that were either late round picks or undrafted. Given more time to develop, with a regular off season regimine, could they develop into bonifide starters? Possibly. So are you telling me Shanny can't find another gem or two late? If Hank recovers from his injury, and Paul continues to develop (two bigs ifs, granted), maybe our WR situation doesn't seem so horrible.

As a side note, if we had lost to the Seahags and Giants, and ended up in the 4 slot, does anyone really think the price to move up to number one or two would be THAT much less? You really think the price drops from 3 to 2 number 1 picks because of three slots in the first year of picks? I'm not seeing that.

 

[Sarge]

This line of thinking boggles my mind - we need a franchise QB, yet there are limits on what we can do to get that franchise QB? I disagree - I think Luck is the type of prospect you do what you can to get, no matter what that involves. If St. Louis ends up in the #1 spot, they're going to get a huge bounty for that pick (if they decide to stay with Bradford).

The other option of course is that they take Luck and deal Sam - another very viable option for the Redskins.

If we do all of that to get Luck, he'll be a dead man in four games due to our suck ass O-Line, which we won't be able to draft because we gave all our picks away

 

[Boone]

So if we end up at #7, you want us to do... what? Should we go after someone in FA? Draft a developmental guy?

If Shanny wants Luck, my guess is he gets creative. Hell, we now have two borderline starters in Hurt and Smith on the OLine that were either late round picks or undrafted. Given more time to develop, with a regular off season regimine, could they develop into bonifide starters? Possibly. So are you telling me Shanny can't find another gem or two late? If Hank recovers from his injury, and Paul continues to develop (two bigs ifs, granted), maybe our WR situation doesn't seem so horrible.

As a side note, if we had lost to the Seahags and Giants, and ended up in the 4 slot, does anyone really think the price to move up to number one or two would be THAT much less? You really think the price drops from 3 to 2 number 1 picks because of three slots in the first year of picks? I'm not seeing that.

No - I'm totally opposed to trying to find a QB in free agency. How many times are we going to that well only to come up dry.

I'm not sure what you're asking related to 'finding gems late'? I think you're saying we may not be in as bad a shape (in terms of needing picks) as I think. That could be true - but as you said, that's dependent on a lot of 'maybes', 'coulds', and 'possiblys'. I think our gut tells us correctly that we have a lot of needs and I believe that's true, mostly because our core guys over the past decade are aging out (Moss, Cooley, London, Sellers, the list goes on).

On your question about if we had the #4 pick, I guess that's true if you think Luck is our target. I'm talking about having to move up for one of the other QBs. If we are #4, it's not an issue. At #7 or beyond, we'll likely have to deal major picks. Not a fan of that plan.

But hey, like I said, what's going to happen is going to happen. If there's one thing we share as Redskins fans, it's a healthy dose of nihilism.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

If we do all of that to get Luck, he'll be a dead man in four games due to our suck ass O-Line, which we won't be able to draft because we gave all our picks away

I don't think our OL is as bad as people say. I think our OL suffers from poor QB play just like the rest of the team - a better QB will make our OL look a whole lot better than it is.

 

[Sarge]

I don't think our OL is as bad as people say. I think our OL suffers from poor QB play just like the rest of the team - a better QB will make our OL look a whole lot better than it is.

You been watching the same gaems I've been watching? Granted, Rex is as mobile as a turtle, but I'm pretty tired of watching the right side of the line get used. Not to mention Williams whiffing it every few plays.

 

[Goaldeje]

You been watching the same gaems I've been watching? Granted, Rex is as mobile as a turtle, but I'm pretty tired of watching the right side of the line get used. Not to mention Williams whiffing it every few plays.

Have you watched lately? Hurt and Smith have performed very admirably for rookies agiainst some good opponents. I'm not saying we don't need to draft or bring in some FA replacements, but I think the line doesn't need a complete overhaul like I did two months ago. Look at that. The line gelled and is playing well when given time to work together and develop. Who woulda thunk that? Any chance they might work even better together with a full off season?

 

[Sarge]

Have you watched lately? Hurt and Smith have performed very admirably for rookies agiainst some good opponents. I'm not saying we don't need to draft or bring in some FA replacements, but I think the line doesn't need a complete overhaul like I did two months ago. Look at that. The line gelled and is playing well when given time to work together and develop. Who woulda thunk that? Any chance they might work even better together with a full off season?

Hard to tell. Maybe this is the height of their abilities, maybe not. At the very least we've found out they'll make good backups. But I'd much rather bring in some upper tier free agents or draft a nasty stud or two to anchor the right side

 

[Goaldeje]

No - I'm totally opposed to trying to find a QB in free agency. How many times are we going to that well only to come up dry.

I don't know, how many times? Look, if Luck is the ONLY QB left (ie, if RGIII and Barkley stay in school), wins and losses mean nothing. We were never going to be in a position to draft Luck, no matter what. So why not accumulate some draft picks and bring in Flynn or someone else (at a reasonable price) to play for a year (or longer if we get really, really lucky)? Worst case scenario, the FA plays horribly, we let him walk and move heaven and earth to get RGIII or Barkley next off season, by which point we should (theoretically) have even more of a solid foundation around him, enabling him to step right in and play. Best case scenario, we end up with a Drew Brees/Phillip Rivers situation.

I can live with either, or most of what's in between (more likely).

I'm not sure what you're asking related to 'finding gems late'? I think you're saying we may not be in as bad a shape (in terms of needing picks) as I think. That could be true - but as you said, that's dependent on a lot of 'maybes', 'coulds', and 'possiblys'. I think our gut tells us correctly that we have a lot of needs and I believe that's true, mostly because our core guys over the past decade are aging out (Moss, Cooley, London, Sellers, the list goes on).

But that's the nice thing about these past couple of games. We are winning because the kids are playing well, not because the grizzled vets finally showed up. The line is coming together and starting to play cohesively, Helu is clicking, etc. When Hank comes back, hopefully he can supplant Gaffney, or at least allow Moss to move to the slot. With someone better than Rex or Captain Checkdown back there, who knows?

On your question about if we had the #4 pick, I guess that's true if you think Luck is our target. I'm talking about having to move up for one of the other QBs. If we are #4, it's not an issue. At #7 or beyond, we'll likely have to deal major picks. Not a fan of that plan.

But hey, like I said, what's going to happen is going to happen. If there's one thing we share as Redskins fans, it's a healthy dose of nihilism.

No, I think it is also true if RGIII was our target. Unless he craps the bed in his bowl game and/or the combine (assuming he even comes out, which appears unlikely at this point), I see teams trading up to get him before we could at #4. Which would necessitate us trading up higher, or losing him.

Listen, I feel you guys. I really do. We have had some bad luck this year. It looks like several of the QBs simply aren't coming out this year, and with another draft like last year's, we are going to have a serious problems getting our guy next year, as the young guys improve. I'm not sure what the answer is, sorry. I do know that right now it appears as though losing a bunch of games this year wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference in getting our guy.

 

[Goaldeje]

Hard to tell. Maybe this is the height of their abilities, maybe not. At the very least we've found out they'll make good backups. But I'd much rather bring in some upper tier free agents or draft a nasty stud or two to anchor the right side

And our draft status affects our ability to bring in some of these upper tier FAs how?

 

[Sarge]

And our draft status affects our ability to bring in some of these upper tier FAs how?

Obviously, two completely separate issues. But I'd much rather build for the future by drafting linemen that will be here for awhile and can learn and back up a few vets.

I'm also not convinced that we might be looking for a new LT as well. Some of my old contacts from the park say the team is not sold on Williams at that position

 

[Goaldeje]

I've been on the move-TW-to RT bandwagon for a while. See how he does, and let's get his replacement. I'm all for drafting too Sarge, though it's not like every FA we've ever gotten has been Adam Archuletta. Seems like London has worked out well, among others. If there is one thing Shanny has shown, it's an ability to find good offensive linemen (and RBs) later in the draft than anyone else. I trust him in that department.

 

[Henry]

Except that NFL history has shown that occasionally, teams throw crazy packages at teams to move up. Most won't do it, but someone will. Especially if we were talking about a guy like Luck, anointed a 'once in a decade QB prospect' being the target. Whether RGIII or someone else will get hyped up to that kind of price level between now and April remains to be seen.

The operative word being 'occasionally.' I'm not prepared to start developing a draft strategy based on the off chance that some GM out there loses his mind. I know these QBs are the awesomest young prospects in the history of awesome. The most amazing sure-bet talents of a generation (because, you know, we've never heard THAT before) but I'm gonna bet that no team is going to give up three first round picks for any of them. I've never made a bet on a messageboard before, but I'll do it this time. I'm that sure.

And two teams paying that kind of price in one draft? Not in a million years.

I'm surprised you'd be on board with going back to our previous model of throwing picks at the wall to get a player we want. You've been one of the strongst advocates of keeping our picks over th years. Why would this be different?

I'm against trading picks away for other teams' players. I am not as adverse to trading up ... once in a while. I see the need to do it this year, and we have extra picks over the next few years, so I could live with it if it to get us a QB (provided our GM picks the right guy. ). But in general you are correct. Not a big fan of it.

But honestly, I don't think we'll have to give up all that much to move from, say, 7th to or 3rd or whatever it's going to take to get our guy. I know we as fans build these guys up in our heads so that by draft day we assume they are worth unprecedented amounts in trades to dozens of teams, but it doesn't work that way. QBs almost never go 1,2,3 in drafts. Nobody ever gives up three or four first rounders for them. That sort of thing doesn't happen in the real world and it's not going to happen in this draft. We may have to trade away a few picks to move up a few spots, but it won't be multiple first rounders. It might not even be more than our current first rounder and change. And this year I'd be fine with that.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Are we still arguing about this QB stuff? Didn't any of you realize that I am right and everyone else is just guessing???

Heck, we don't know what will happen with RG3, so why sweat it at this point? After watching this staff maneuver during the last draft, I have every confidence in the world that they will make some awesome moves in this draft as well. We will get our "offensive Ryan Kerrigan" and much more.

One other thing. I was surprised to see that Coach Shanahan retained the entire scouting department when signing his contract. My first thought was that we would regret the first few drafts under the new regime. It was shocking to hear Coach say that this scouting team was the best he had ever seen. Sure, you expect some praise from the newbie coach, but the last draft really was amazing.

Think about it. Kerrigan is a beast. Jenkins is going to become our best DL quickly - and this DL is already a solid group. Hankerson is on his way to becoming a great WR. You know about Helu. Gomes, Paul, and Royster are becoming good, reliable players. YoYo Thompson is on his way to becoming a good nickle back. Hurt is a very good OL - what a steal in the 7th! Chris Neild - wow! Toss in Smith at LT (this could allow TW to move to the right side) and what an offseason last year! Well done scouting department!

Yeah, I'm not worried about the 2012 draft or the FA period. The QB situation will take care of itself. Patience my friends, patience.

 

[Henry]

What BB said.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Yes, the asking price could be higher than what I outlined. It seems like in years past top 5 picks were slightly discounted due to the associated cost to sign the player which is not a concern anymore. It'll be interesting to see what impact this has on the asking price of trading into the top 5 going forward. I also agree that coveted QBs will drive up the asking price.

However, in the scenario I outlined with MIA trading up to #1 to get Luck, this helps with the asking price to get to #2 for Griffin.

Here's my logic:
- targeting 2nd best QB, not 1st = discount
- targeting 2nd pick not 1st = discount
- one less rival for the pick with MIA already securing Luck = discount
- IND doesn't have a history of moving around much in the draft, especially not trading up, and they may not have the same "can't pass up" position towards Griffin
- Can CLE justify giving up on McCoy without having provided him much help on offense? (maybe, just saying)
- Will JAC trade up for a QB again? (maybe and they could use the buzz from Griffin to put butts in seats)

Hard to say what the asking price for the #2 pick would be in this scenario. If it's too high, then the Skins could well be best served to trade down and maybe target Tannehill (albeit more of a project.)

How much would you be willing to give up for Luck? How much for RG3 if he declares? What would be too much to give up for either player and how mad would you be if that happened?

 

[fansince62]

What BB said.

welllll...reflecting back on draft day exchanges you and I had...

HENRY...YOU DA MAN!!!!!!