Redskins Should Trade for Orton

[Elephant]

.

A few potential wild cards- what if the Rams get the number 1 overall pick and hire a new staff? Do they pick Luck and trade Bradford?

While I disagree that we are 2 seasons away and we are not what you thought we were, it will be interesting to see what the Rams will do with the 1st overall pick if they are that bad. I would take Bradford and he would come much cheaper than he would have had we traded for him last year.

 

[Bulldog]

The Colts and Vikings look like better bets to be picking first overall. You can throw the Broncos in there as a darkhorse now that Tebow is starting.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Lanky Livingston]

The Colts and Vikings look like better bets to be picking first overall. You can throw the Broncos in there as a darkhorse now that Tebow is starting.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Colts are a lock to take a QB, Vikings have their QB of the future in Ponder, as do the Broncos.

Teams that are a lock to take a QB (IMO):
Dolphins 0-4
Colts 0-6

If KDawg is right and the Redskins are after Tannehill, it shouldn't even matter. We'll be picking in the 10-15 range; he should be available there and if we are somehow picking lower, it won't take much to move up and grab him.

 

[Elephant]

The Colts and Vikings look like better bets to be picking first overall. You can throw the Broncos in there as a darkhorse now that Tebow is starting.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Yeah, I am not eliminating the Dolphins either. I will say that after seeing Ponder last night, it would be hard to count the Vikings in as Luck contestants and if they were, Ponder would be a good trade for us. Kid looked very comfortable behind center even with the amount of pressure the Bears threw at him.

But we are talking about what ifs at this point. There are still 11 games to be played. It's still fun to speculate sometimes though isn't it? Especially after a loss like yesterday.

 

[SNF]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...cond-only-to-lucks?module=HP11_content_stream

Tannehill's ability second only to Luck's

By Bucky Brooks NFL.com
Analyst
Published: Oct. 17, 2011 at 03:58 p.m. Updated: Oct. 17, 2011 at 05:07 p.m.


There are several great college quarterback prospects. While Andrew Luck* is the nation's top signal-caller, the second spot isn't as clear.

Supporters of Oklahoma's Landry Jones* and USC's Matt Barkley* will make the case for each of those quarterbacks, but Texas A&M's Ryan Tannehill has the athleticism, arm strength and intangibles to be a star.

With Aaron Rodgers the NFL's most dominant quarterback, more teams are seeking athletic passers who can play inside or outside of the pocket. Tannehill, a 6-foot-4, 222-pound receiver-turned-quarterback, has shown he can do damage with his feet or arm. He nimbly avoids rushers and has the mobility to pass once protection breaks down. While some athletic quarterbacks look to run first when leaving the pocket, Tannehill keeps his eyes up the field hoping to find an available receiver. His awareness and improvisational skills are impressive considering his lack of experience as a quarterback.

As a drop back passer, Tannehill is not quite as polished, but has the tools to make all of the throws. His arm strength is above average and he has excellent range on deep throws. From an accuracy standpoint, he is outstanding on short-to-intermediate passes. He excels on in-breaking routes between the hashes, but is also capable of delivering the ball with zip on deep outs and comebacks.

In looking at Tannehill's flaws, his inconsistency and touch on deep balls stands out. He routinely fails to connect with open receivers on vertical routes despite a strong arm. Some of his problems stem from his lack of timing and anticipation, which can be corrected with more experience.

Tannehill's limited résumé (13 games as a starter) is also a potential issue for evaluators. His learning curve likely will be steeper than more seasoned prospects.

However, the recent successes of Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez despite their limited playing history could alleviate those concerns and prompt a team to focus on Tannehill's immense potential as a franchise quarterback.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

In looking at Tannehill's flaws, his inconsistency and touch on deep balls stands out. He routinely fails to connect with open receivers on vertical routes despite a strong arm. Some of his problems stem from his lack of timing and anticipation, which can be corrected with more experience.

GAH! No more bad deep-ball throwers!

However, the recent successes of Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez despite their limited playing history could alleviate those concerns and prompt a team to focus on Tannehill's immense potential as a franchise quarterback.

If Mark Sanchez has been successful, Chris Chester has been the best OG in football.

 

[Sarge]

Farve's out there

 

[Hog Fever]

Farve's out there

I cast you out!!!

 

[KDawg]

OK, so folks don't want to trade for Orton. But at least he has a record you can judge him by.

Don't come back and say the Redskins should sign Matt Flynn, a player with almost zero record in the NFL, put your own expectations on him, and then pronounce it a great move!

There is NO evidence this would be a great move. Just wishful thinking.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Dude, don't be like that just because your Orton idea flopped. There's no evidence any one of these moves would be a great move, including your idea to trade for Orton.

It's all speculation and scouting. I like Flynn's skillset better than Orton's. Orton is a retread, Flynn has been sitting and learning behind perhaps what is right now the NFL's best quarterback.

Orton has lost a starting job to Tim Tebow and competed with Rex Grossman, yet anyone who wants to sign Matt Flynn is just using "wishful thinking". Come on, bulldog, I thought you were better than that.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Farve's out there

I cast you out!!!

And his injuries are all healed up, too !

 

[Bulldog]

That's right. Flynn has been sitting drinking gatorade and there is NO book on what he can do. So, whatever comments people make about his abillity are not based on watching him play or analyzing his stats, but in thinking about what the guy MIGHT be able to do IF he gets on the field.

There's a difference between the two views. The one on Orton is at least partly based on reality and a body of work, the other is based almost exclusively on what somebody 'feels' about an unproven player.

It's funny that you come down on me for getting upset over the response to Orton, but you appear to be doing just that in response to my rejecting your dreams for Flynn, even though you aren't able to put up any tangible evidence that the guy is worth the discussion.

 

[Burgundy Burner]

I'll admit to knowing far less about the offensive side of the ball than most. Defense is what I played (FS) and while I am no expert in that area as well, it is far better than my offensive prowess. So let me ask...

Can someone get Atlanta Skins Fan to post some in depths on Landry Jones, Tannehill, Moore, etc.? Flynn too and any other QB that could be a FA next year. I realize that each player would be a separate thread, but his analysis with QBs is the best I have seen.

Let ASF present some insights and we can discuss the merits of each QB.

 

[servumtuum]

There are rumblings going on out there that may render the whole Orton question moot-courtesy of Jason Campbell's broken collarbone and the Raiders search for a replacement.

In an article in the Denver Post about Brandon Lloyd's situation this was mentioned.

The Broncos are also expected to monitor whether freshly demoted quarterback Kyle Orton draws interest from the Oakland Raiders after they lost starter Jason Campbell for an extended period. Campbell suffered a broken collarbone in the Raiders' 24-17 win against the Cleveland Browns.

Although the Raiders are their most-heated rival in the AFC West, the Broncos would be willing to give up Orton in return for a draft pick and relief from the estimated $5 million left on his salary.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_19128213

 

[Dead Money]

I think I read somewhere that the raiders don't have the cap room for orton as-is. I couldn't see denver sending him to their rival, but one can only hope!
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Fear The Spear]

Funny, Raider fans seem to want Matty Flynn more than Orton

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/7114770/sn-voice-raiders-shopping-qb

McRb29 "I'm fine with going after David Garrard, but please do not go for Orton! Also being an Ohio State fan and Raiders fan, Pryor is too young to start. Make sure he's ready first."

Tenn0047: "If I'm the Raiders I'm on the phone with the Packers to see if Matty Flynn is available. Good short and long term solution."

dpagan1974: "Garrard is the only real option here. They're not trading for Orton, Palmer is going to sit and rot because of an owner's hurt feelings, and Pryor's not ready yet.

 

[KDawg]

That's right. Flynn has been sitting drinking gatorade and there is NO book on what he can do. So, whatever comments people make about his abillity are not based on watching him play or analyzing his stats, but in thinking about what the guy MIGHT be able to do IF he gets on the field.

There's a difference between the two views. The one on Orton is at least partly based on reality and a body of work, the other is based almost exclusively on what somebody 'feels' about an unproven player.

It's funny that you come down on me for getting upset over the response to Orton, but you appear to be doing just that in response to my rejecting your dreams for Flynn, even though you aren't able to put up any tangible evidence that the guy is worth the discussion.

You're actually beginning to show that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

He has played, so to pretend he hasn't is a bit of stretch to further attempt to push your agenda. His results are mediocre, but its his skillset that he brings that I like. He's somewhat mobile (although Beck has him in that regard) and I like his release point. He's your typical pocket presence as well.

He's 6-3 228, so his size isn't really a problem, either.

Furthermore, in his best game, and his only start for his career, Matt Flynn went 24/37 for 251 yards, 3 TD and 1 INT against the New England Patriots last season.

Is that concrete evidence to prove, 100% that he's a surefire franchise QB? No. But that's why you sign him in free agency and draft a young guy as well.

I'd actually really like to grab a rookie. I know, you'd rather roll with Kyle Orton, who for all intents and purposes has done nothing in the NFL, and he's actually played.

You're right, though, Flynn is an almost virtually unknown commodity. But his unknown is much better than what we know about Orton.

But I will give you credit, Orton is moderately better than Grossman. So although he'd be a minor upgrade, he'd be an upgrade.

 

[KDawg]

I'll admit to knowing far less about the offensive side of the ball than most. Defense is what I played (FS) and while I am no expert in that area as well, it is far better than my offensive prowess. So let me ask...

Can someone get Atlanta Skins Fan to post some in depths on Landry Jones, Tannehill, Moore, etc.? Flynn too and any other QB that could be a FA next year. I realize that each player would be a separate thread, but his analysis with QBs is the best I have seen.

Let ASF present some insights and we can discuss the merits of each QB.

His analysis on QBs has led to predictions that Rex Grossman is an "elite, franchise QB" and John McElroy would be one of the best QBs in last years draft.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

But I will give you credit, Orton is moderately better than Grossman. So although he'd be a minor upgrade, he'd be an upgrade.

Moderately better is a bit of a stretch - it would be a lateral move in our situation, with our OL and our WRs.

 

[KDawg]

Moderately better is a bit of a stretch - it would be a lateral move in our situation, with our OL and our WRs.

mod·er·ate   /adj., n. ˈmɒdərɪt, ˈmɒdrɪt; v. ˈmɒdəˌreɪt/ Show Spelled [adj., n. mod-er-it, mod-rit; v. mod-uh-reyt] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -at·ed, -at·ing.
adjective
1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price.
2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income

In reviewing the actual definition, I'd have to say that moderately fits. However, seeing your point, I'd say a better word to use to stress what I meant is "slight".

 

[Lanky Livingston]

LOL, no need to get uppity about it. In my opinion, there would be zero benefit from the move, it would be 100% lateral.