Shanahan on franchise QB's

[servumtuum]

Sure.

However, if we are talking about QB prospects, about guys we want to develop into The Face of This Franchise For The Next Fifteen Years, you don't pick a guy that can't see over his linemen and you don't pick a guy that will be 43 in fifteen years.

You want to roll the dice on a late round pick with a guy like that and hope he's the exception to the rule, great. I'm fine with that.

But don't make him The Guy. Don't build the team around him, because more likely than not he won't work out, even if he did look good during some random week after the season ended.

O.K., Henry, I'll open up yet another can of worms here by homing in on your phrase "The Face of This Franchise For The Next Fifteen Years."

First, is that what we're really looking for? Or are we looking for, oh say, a QB that can put us in the playoffs and aimed in the direction of a possible SB run within the next three to seven years or so? My sense of the mood among Redskins fans based on what I'been reading-and this is admittedly a highly subjective interpretation-is that fans would dearly love to see the Skins with the NFCE division title and in the playoffs within three years and as a legitimate SB contender within five years with an outside "border of acceptability" of about seven years. This would make virtually any of the QBs being seriously tossed about in thread discussions as a viable candidate under those criteria. Even someone like Weeden could easily be pictured as a seven-year starting QB-he'd be 36 at the end of seven years.

I will grant that a newly drafted QB, or even someone like Matt Flynn, could be projected to have at least a ten-year "shelf life" if they work out as hoped and maybe more in the case of a pure rookie but is it not a viable strategy to consider a somewhat shorter time frame for expected success in order not to exclude from consideration a QB who might be able to "deliver the goods" in less time even if their ultimate "shelf life" may be shorter?

I'm not trying to phrase this as an "either/or" dichotomy between two mutually exclusive choices but as a caution against limiting our options to just one perspective or the other.

 

[Fear The Spear]

Yea, why do our expectations have to go from one extreme to the other ???

Some people expect to go from the laughingstock of the league, to a 20-year Franchise QB. It's not that easy. Stop thinking in such "extremes". Why can't we be orderly, and rational. This site is called "Obsession", NOT "Extremes"
We can be obsessed without going to EXTREMES.

 

[Henry]

O.K., Henry, I'll open up yet another can of worms here by homing in on your phrase "The Face of This Franchise For The Next Fifteen Years."

First, is that what we're really looking for? Or are we looking for, oh say, a QB that can put us in the playoffs and aimed in the direction of a possible SB run within the next three to seven years or so? My sense of the mood among Redskins fans based on what I'been reading-and this is admittedly a highly subjective interpretation-is that fans would dearly love to see the Skins with the NFCE division title and in the playoffs within three years and as a legitimate SB contender within five years with an outside "border of acceptability" of about seven years. This would make virtually any of the QBs being seriously tossed about in thread discussions as a viable candidate under those criteria. Even someone like Weeden could easily be pictured as a seven-year starting QB-he'd be 36 at the end of seven years.

I will grant that a newly drafted QB, or even someone like Matt Flynn, could be projected to have at least a ten-year "shelf life" if they work out as hoped and maybe more in the case of a pure rookie but is it not a viable strategy to consider a somewhat shorter time frame for expected success in order not to exclude from consideration a QB who might be able to "deliver the goods" in less time even if their ultimate "shelf life" may be shorter?

I'm not trying to phrase this as an "either/or" dichotomy between two mutually exclusive choices but as a caution against limiting our options to just one perspective or the other.

Oh, now you've done it.

To your question, I would say if we are willing to go the short-window option then that option shouldn't involve a rookie. We sign a vet who can jump in right away. If we sign a rookie that we may need to give a year or three to develop, adapt to the pro game, learn The System and build chemistry with his team, we don't want him to be 28. Unless you think this guy Weeden can jump in and make us a contender right away (and I won't make that assumption about any rookie who signs with this team) he's too old, even if we accept a shorter window.

 

[fansince62]

Personally, I don't care if he's 97 years old, and only 4 ft tall.

If the mother ****er can find the open receiver and get him the ball in an orderly fashion, then you sign him.

If the mother ****er can find the open receiver OVER THE O-LINE AND WHEN UNDER TIGHT PRESSURE......

 

[servumtuum]

Oh, now you've done it.

To your question, I would say if we are willing to go the short-window option then that option shouldn't involve a rookie. We sign a vet who can jump in right away. If we sign a rookie that we may need to give a year or three to develop, adapt to the pro game, learn The System and build chemistry with his team, we don't want him to be 28. Unless you think this guy Weeden can jump in and make us a contender right away (and I won't make that assumption about any rookie who signs with this team) he's too old, even if we accept a shorter window.

Uh-oh. I've aroused "The Henry".

Let me phrase what I'm getting at a bit differently in case I obfuscated excessively.

I like what I'm both seeing and reading about Weeden. I'm not on his "bandwagon"-I'm not on any QBs "bandwagon" actually-but I think he merits consideration in spite of the age factor because there are mitigating factors here in terms of cost and other team needs. If we look for the Redskins version of Peyton, or Eli, or Brady, or Rivers or Cam even (if Carolina builds their team right they're in the SB within 3 years-Cam is the most impressive rookie QB I've seen in a long time) we're looking at a crapshoot. How often do guys like that happen? RG3 impresses the hell out of me but his size worries me-he's already had one concussion this year and he's going to be up against faster and stronger guys in the NFL. He's going to cost also in terms of picks the Redskins could use to fill holes that seriously need filling. Matt Flynn? Similar problem-two very impressive outings and coached in a superbly run organization and surrounded by one of the best receiving corps in the NFL and the hot FA property-likely an expensive one too. We have players we definitely want to re-sign(like London) and we'll probably be looking at other FA pick-ups at WR or DB if we can't find good enough in the draft and that may cost money we won't have if we have to outbid a team for Flynn's services. I'm not rejecting any of these options just noting the cost factor involved in the downside risk if they don't pan out.

Which brings up Mr. Weeden. He's got a problem. He's going to be 29 years old when he starts playing for somebody in the NFL. He will be playing for somebody-I do not see him going undrafted especially if he keeps embarrasing the other QBs at the Senior Bowl like he's doing so far. Somebody's grabbing this guy and they probably won't have to use their first round pick on him either-the age thing will scare some off but others will be intrigued enough to take a shot. I can honestly see the Eagles grabbing this guy and frankly that would not make me very happy. This is where the window flexibility thing comes in. Weeden would be a relatively soft hit on cap space as a rookie and wouldn't cost any picks in a trade-up. Hell, we might even be able to do a trade-down for an extra pick and still nab the guy. I have to admit, tho', Lanky sure got my attention when he brought up the possibility of getting both Blackmon and Weeden-my "inner child" went "Oh hell yes!" on that one.

The bottom line is this-instead of taking an either/or "long-term stance versus short-term stance", Weeden should be on the short-list of possible candidates with an extra window shifted to intermediate-term, my five to seven year time frame I mentioned. IOW, have more than one or two windows available when judging what to do at QB and take the best shot based on what's out there in "available QB" land and adjust the window to match. I know it's a somewhat unusual perspective but I have a "thing" about not prematurely eliminating viable options.

The downside? He'll only be the "face of the franchise" for a maximum of about seven years if he pans out as good enough to lead us into the playoffs. And if he fails? Well, coming at it from a future retrospective, we would have kept all our other picks for filling team holes, we wouldn't have cut too deeply into cap space-and we would have had our 1st and second round picks in 2013 to trade up for Barkley or Landry or whoever the top-of-the-line QB to add to the mix-just in case.

Am I saying Weeden is the best option? Well, he might be or he might not be, but it's too early to say for sure. I just don't think his age mandates an automatic "No way" especially if he continues to impress as he has so far and I'm presenting a perspective from which that can, IMO, be justified.

I'd like to keep him at least high enough on the list to watch closely between now and draft day. A lot is going to happen between now and then and I think we should be watching everybody-including Weeden.

 

[Henry]

Serv, I hear ya, but he's still too old.

Rookies are usually raw and need time. 28 year-olds don't have time. Just because he looks good in the Senior bowl doesn't mean he'll be ready to step into the starting role of a pro franchise immediately. He's still part of that 'crap shoot.' He's just older. A lot older. So while we could be patient with a 23 year-old, we wouldn't have that luxury with Weeden. He'd be a rookie that would need to be great immediately. The chances of him not working out vs. that of a guy to who took a few years to come into his own ... a guy like, say Alex Smith, or Eli Manning or Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers are far far greater.

If you think he might be a good idea to try and get on the cheap, well, I guess ... but ... we've tried 'on the cheap' quite a bit, haven't we? Isn't that what all the teeth-gnashing and why-don't-the-Redskins-ever-try-and-get-a-franchise-QB lamentation and the why-oh-why-did-we-set-our-franchise-back-a-decade-when-we-beat-the-Giants despair is coming from? Are we talking about finding a bargain again, or are we actually going to try and find The Guy?

If you think he's worth a 4th or 5th rounder, bring him in as the Third Guy and see what happens ... well that's cool. Hell, bring in the short guy for that if you want.

But if we are rolling the dice for a bona-fide Franchise QB? He's not the guy. No thank you.

(By the way, OF COURSE trying to find the next Manning is a crap shoot. But you can't win if you never play. At some point we really do need to take another shot at one of these top guys. If not now ... soon. )

 

[Skinsfan76]

I think if we are conservative with the QB position like we were last year and miss on RG3 and Tannehill then I could see Weeden in the 3rd round but it would not be the ideal situation due to his age.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[fansince62]

(By the way, OF COURSE trying to find the next Manning is a crap shoot. But you can't win if you never play. At some point we really do need to take another shot at one of these top guys. If not now ... soon. )

bingo!!!!!!!!

 

[Goaldeje]

Uh-oh. I've aroused "The Henry".

*exits thread quickly.

 

[Henry]

*exits thread quickly.

I haven't been this embarrassed since Jr. High.

 

[Elephant]

bingo!!!!!!!!

Umm... we have chosen a QB in the 1st round twice in the last 10 years. I would say we have been trying. And if you want to say they were late 1st round choices, Aaron Rodgers was chosen one slot ahead of Jason Campbell and Ramsey was chosen before David Garrard. Now, I know Garrard is no Aaron Rodgers but there are some who say we should sign him still for veteran depth next year.

I am not saying we shouldn't go after another "Peyton Manning", but to say we haven't tried is incorrect; 2 1st round QB's in 10 years suggests otherwise.

 

[Goaldeje]

I haven't been this embarrassed since Jr. High.

Still giggling over here, Henry. One to many Frankenberry beers, I guess.

 

[Hog Fever]

Umm... we have chosen a QB in the 1st round twice in the last 10 years. I would say we have been trying. And if you want to say they were late 1st round choices, Aaron Rodgers was chosen one slot ahead of Jason Campbell and Ramsey was chosen before David Garrard. Now, I know Garrard is no Aaron Rodgers but there are some who say we should sign him still for veteran depth next year.

I am not saying we shouldn't go after another "Peyton Manning", but to say we haven't tried is incorrect; 2 1st round QB's in 10 years suggests otherwise.

You're correct, to say that we haven’t made ANY effort in the last ten years is inaccurate but to say that it’s been a top team priority isn’t exactly true either. All of our high draft picks have been spent on positions other than QB. It stands to reason that the best prospects are taken earlier in the draft, although there are always exceptions to the rule. We’ve picked in the top ten four times in the last ten years, no QBs. Three times in the past ten years we haven’t even had a first round pick. That's just poor front office work. Hard to pick a QB in the first round if we don’t even have a first round pick.

There are a lot of reasons why we didn’t select a QB early and some of the reasons are very valid. The biggest has been the numerous coaching changes. Joe liked Brunell, Steve wanted one of the Florida QBs for the Fun-n-Gun, Zorn was kinda stuck with Campbell who he didn’t draft and played just good enough to be not quite good enough.

So we find ourselves at this crossroad......again. We have to draft a QB that fits the system we want to run, hope he develops properly AND we don’t want to switch coaches at any point in that development. That’s a tall order. It has to happen though. If this team is ever going to be consistently competitive, it has to happen and we can't just grab a QB late. We have to be decisive and get the guy we want.

 

[Nobody]

You're correct, to say that we haven’t made ANY effort in the last ten years is inaccurate but to say that it’s been a top team priority isn’t exactly true either. All of our high draft picks have been spent on positions other than QB. It stands to reason that the best prospects are taken earlier in the draft, although there are always exceptions to the rule. We’ve picked in the top ten four times in the last ten years, no QBs. Three times in the past ten years we haven’t even had a first round pick. That's just poor front office work. Hard to pick a QB in the first round if we don’t even have a first round pick.

There are a lot of reasons why we didn’t select a QB early and some of the reasons are very valid. The biggest has been the numerous coaching changes. Joe liked Brunell, Steve wanted one of the Florida QBs for the Fun-n-Gun, Zorn was kinda stuck with Campbell who he didn’t draft and played just good enough to be not quite good enough.

So we find ourselves at this crossroad......again. We have to draft a QB that fits the system we want to run, hope he develops properly AND we don’t want to switch coaches at any point in that development. That’s a tall order. It has to happen though. If this team is ever going to be consistently competitive, it has to happen and we can't just grab a QB late. We have to be decisive and get the guy we want.

That's not even taking into account all of the years we took "the best player available" instead of filling our needs. Gibbs II was a hack.

 

[fansince62]

Umm... we have chosen a QB in the 1st round twice in the last 10 years. I would say we have been trying. And if you want to say they were late 1st round choices, Aaron Rodgers was chosen one slot ahead of Jason Campbell and Ramsey was chosen before David Garrard. Now, I know Garrard is no Aaron Rodgers but there are some who say we should sign him still for veteran depth next year.

I am not saying we shouldn't go after another "Peyton Manning", but to say we haven't tried is incorrect; 2 1st round QB's in 10 years suggests otherwise.

ummm....that was the Danny picking...both times........not the professionals. and each time second echelon options.

 

[Elephant]

ummm....that was the Danny picking...both times........not the professionals. and each time second echelon options.

I won't argue that. But an effort has been made, albeit a poor one.

 

[Om]

Wait. Dan Snyder picked Jason Campbell?

 

[fansince62]

pretty much. remember how he came on TV right after the pick and talked and talked about it?

 

[Om]

Um....no. I vaguely remember Joe Gibbs being here though.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

It was the three-headed monster, wasn't it? Gibbs, Cerrato & Snyder sat down together to discuss personnel moves, right?