Question: QB fitting the "system"

[Lanky Livingston]

I've read smart people on here say that Andrew Luck doesn't fit the Shanahan system - what does this mean, exactly? Luck is mobile, has a rocket arm and can throw on the run very well - to me, this is exactly what the Shanahan system needs in a QB, and Luck is the ideal fit for it (Luck might be the ideal fit for ANY system, really). What am I missing?

Side note: I no longer think the Redskins will be in position to draft Luck - I don't think the Dolphins or Colts will pass up the chance to draft him no matter how sweet the deal to move down is. I'm just curious about why some say he wouldn't be as good of a fit as others in the MS/KS system.

If Luck is indeed not a great fit, then who is? If the Redskins finish with the 5th or 6th overall pick, Tannehill and Griffin should both be available. But do the Redskins have the luxury to take someone like Tannehill, who will need a couple years to develop? I've heard others say that Landry Jones is a great fit also, but he might be the second QB off the board.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

I think it is a lot of bunk. Stinkety, stankety bunk. The Redskins should be looking for a QB who will start for the next 12 to 16 years, not some project. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (about twenty of them actually). Luck, Jones, Barkley, and Griffin can come in right away and start. Let them take their lumps early on and they will learn the system. It's that simple.

My preference, in order would be...

Luck
Griffin
Jones
Barkley

Take a RT in the second round - a great RT can be found there. Take a guard in the third round - a great G can be found there. Package the two fourth rounders and move to the third round and select another guard. Quality guards can be found in the third round. Select two hidden gems - WR - in the fifth round (Shanahan has a knack for finding these gems later in the draft). Select the best FB in round six - the best FBs usually fall this low. In the 7th, select bpa.

We'll have our franchise QB, some good OL, and some good players for the future.

 

[Sarge]

I'm not so sure that I'm hip on Allen drafting a QB to fit the Shanny system. Mainly because I'm not a big fan of this side to side trap blocking stuff Shanny does. It just doesn't fit in the still kinda sorta smash mouth East. And I'm not sold on SHanny jr being the coach after M Shanny leaves either. His play calling has left a lot to be desired this year. I'm all about getting the best QB period

 

[Miles Monroe]

Take a RT in the second round - a great RT can be found there.

Why not a left tackle, and move Williams back to his natural position on the right ?

 

[Burgundy Burner]

Why not a left tackle, and move Williams back to his natural position on the right ?

I've promoted this idea in other threads and if the coaches want such a change, then why not? As long as we have the best players possible at each position.

 

[Neophyte]

Why not a left tackle, and move Williams back to his natural position on the right ?

I thought LT WAS his natural position. Isn't that what he played at OU?

 

[KDawg]

I've read smart people on here say that Andrew Luck doesn't fit the Shanahan system - what does this mean, exactly? Luck is mobile, has a rocket arm and can throw on the run very well - to me, this is exactly what the Shanahan system needs in a QB, and Luck is the ideal fit for it (Luck might be the ideal fit for ANY system, really). What am I missing?

Andrew Luck most certainly fits Shanahan's system. He can be mobile, he's athletic, he's accurate, has a decently strong arm, he's a workaholic, and he's deadly accurate. I'm not sure who said he didn't fit, but I'd like to hear their reasoning

I'd disagree slightly with the rocket arm comment. He has a strong arm, but that's not his strong point. Luck reminds me of Peyton Manning, but more mobile. I don't know that he'll be as good as Peyton, but if he's even in the cheap seats of the same ballpark he's a home run.

If Luck is indeed not a great fit, then who is? If the Redskins finish with the 5th or 6th overall pick, Tannehill and Griffin should both be available. But do the Redskins have the luxury to take someone like Tannehill, who will need a couple years to develop? I've heard others say that Landry Jones is a great fit also, but he might be the second QB off the board.

yes, the Redskins take Tannehill or Griffin if they get the chance.

I think Landry Jones is severely overrated. Furthermore, OU quarterbacks have bombed out fairly regularly in the NFL under Stoops. Bradford is the exception, and due to his poor team, we really don't even know how good he is. But, I think he's going to be a solid franchise QB. I don't think Jones compares as a prospect in the least.

My QB board is as follows right now:

1) Luck
2) Griffin
3) Tannehill
4) Barkley
5) Foles

I really don't think Jones is that good, and Foles is a second rounder or later in my opinion.

But my opinion on Jones isn't at all popular

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Andrew Luck most certainly fits Shanahan's system. He can be mobile, he's athletic, he's accurate, has a decently strong arm, he's a workaholic, and he's deadly accurate. I'm not sure who said he didn't fit, but I'd like to hear their reasoning

Actually, I think I remember you saying it - maybe you said there was a better fit than Luck (Tannehill?). Don't remember who posted it and what exactly was said though.

 

[Fear The Spear]

I still don't see the possibility of getting Luck.
We're not going to be in the position to get him, and the team most likely to be in position to get him, is most likely not going to trade Luck OR the pick to us. Besides, even if we did trade up for him, the price we pay in picks and current players to get him, would just set us back even further than if we did NOT draft him.
So why keep talking about something that has less than 1% chance of happening ?

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

I thought LT WAS his natural position. Isn't that what he played at OU?

I believe he started out as a RT and was moved to LT his senior year, but he was a beast RT and a pretty good LT , so we kept him at lt.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

I still don't see the possibility of getting Luck.
We're not going to be in the position to get him, and the team most likely to be in position to get him, is most likely not going to trade Luck OR the pick to us. Besides, even if we did trade up for him, the price we pay in picks and current players to get him, would just set us back even further than if we did NOT draft him.
So why keep talking about something that has less than 1% chance of happening ?

It was more a general question than a specific question about Luck.

 

[KDawg]

Actually, I think I remember you saying it - maybe you said there was a better fit than Luck (Tannehill?). Don't remember who posted it and what exactly was said though.

I don't recall saying anything of the sort...

Maybe I was drinking? But even then I don't think I'd say that