Fear The Spear
The Legend
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2010
- Messages
- 19,626
- Reaction score
- 125
- Points
- 393
- Location
- BGO's Official Resident "Tech Dummy"
 }})
Just curious, do we know if they have one scheduled with Griffin?
tshile
Guest
what if the redskins are playing headgames and trying to get the colts to consider rg3 so they can steal luck with the #2 pick?
Lanky Livingston
Guest
What if the Colts KNOW the Redskins are playing headgames, and are playing headgames right back to make the Redskins THINK they are taking Luck, when they've been planning to take RG3 all along!
What if the Redskins KNOW that the Colts know that the Redskins know that the Colts know??????? Smokescreen on top of smokescreen on top of smokescreen!!!
I don't think the Colts have to play games at this point, unless they wanted to try and get the Redskins to move up to #1, which ain't gonna happen.
Why would they do that when Griffin is the better fit for our offense?
What's kinda cool from our perspective is that the pressure is squarely on Indy. They have the potential of guessing wrong, and never be allowed to forget it. Washington, on the other hand, simply takes the guy that falls to them.
The only possible downside for us, of course, is if the one that does turns out to be a bust, in which case the torch an pitchfork crowd get to remind us all for many years to come that we "gave up too much" for the right to draft him.
Wouldnt that be fun.
The only possible downside for us, of course, is if the one that does turns out to be a bust, in which case the torch an pitchfork crowd get to remind us all for many years to come that we "gave up too much" for the right to draft him.
Wouldnt that be fun.
Bulldog
The Legend
I don't agree. Indy is simply picking with the ONE selection that they received for going 2-14. If Luck does not pan out it will set the team back no doubt, but they have not mortgaged any of their future to select him.
Whereas the Redskins in making the trade with St. Louis have basically said that Robert Griffin to them is worth 4 blue chip prospects (#1 in 2012, #2 in 2012, #1 in 2013, #1 in 2014).
If Griffin is a bust then the Redskins won't have the high picks over the next couple of years to remedy the mistake in the draft or trade picks for a veteran qb.
We will be stuck looking for secondary players such as a Kyle Orton or Shaun Hill or the second tier of college prospects.
That will be a much more impactful loss on the franchise.
Whereas the Redskins in making the trade with St. Louis have basically said that Robert Griffin to them is worth 4 blue chip prospects (#1 in 2012, #2 in 2012, #1 in 2013, #1 in 2014).
If Griffin is a bust then the Redskins won't have the high picks over the next couple of years to remedy the mistake in the draft or trade picks for a veteran qb.
We will be stuck looking for secondary players such as a Kyle Orton or Shaun Hill or the second tier of college prospects.
That will be a much more impactful loss on the franchise.
tshile
Guest
i think it'll be more impactful because it'll mean shanahan will be fired, as will allen. and at that point who the hell knows what direction snyder goes - maybe even ceratto is back. you laugh at the idea but he rehired him once already after marty said this guy is a clown and fired him.
the giving up of draft picks can be recovered. yeah, we'll never get those #1's specifically back, but i think allen and shanahan have proven they can be creative and make something out of nothing on draft day. they already have once.
indy's problems would be more PR related - since they've basically run manning out of town at a chance to start over with manning #2 (honestly, who blames them?).
the giving up of draft picks can be recovered. yeah, we'll never get those #1's specifically back, but i think allen and shanahan have proven they can be creative and make something out of nothing on draft day. they already have once.
indy's problems would be more PR related - since they've basically run manning out of town at a chance to start over with manning #2 (honestly, who blames them?).
Maybe I wasn't very clear, brother Bulldog. My reference was simply that only one of the two teams involved has to choose between Luck and RGIII...the pressure of making the "right" choice falls on Indy. The Skins gamble came with deciding that either was worth the risk.
As to the rest....way I see it, the Redskins have been treading water for a generation, due in very large part to being without a legitimate NFL-caliber talent at QB. They could have opted to go the safe route and likely keep treading water, maybe hoping for a miracle QB to fall from the sky like Brady did to NE....or they could have done what I believe many fans would prefer--try to emulate Pittsburgh and Baltimore and concentrate on building sytem continuity in hopes of catching lightining in a bottle like the Ravens did in 2000...or hoping that a guy like Big Ben might come along like he did for Pittsburgh and put them over the top.
I wonder if Ravens fans would trade a decade of one title and being almost good enough, for a run like Brady and NE had when they won 4 titles.
Problem with that is, the Redskins haven't had continuity since Gibbs I. For a myriad of reasons--some avoidable and others not. And I just don't see them establishing that under a 60-something year old Shanahan. Or for opting, after another 2-3 years of treading water, to jettison him and trying the next guy in a growing succession.
How many more years "should" they go before trying the one thing almost guaranteed to lift a drifting franchise out of the doldrums--securing a legit franchise QB?
If they are right about RGIII and/or Luck, there's a damn good chance the long desert march is over.
If they're wrong, what have they really lost? They'd be right back where we've been for 20 years. And bad enough, given all those lost guaranteed blue-chippers (
) to where maybe they'd get that #1 pick in a year the next true franchise QB comes out.
Me, I'm tired of waiting. It's like that old cartoon....
As to the rest....way I see it, the Redskins have been treading water for a generation, due in very large part to being without a legitimate NFL-caliber talent at QB. They could have opted to go the safe route and likely keep treading water, maybe hoping for a miracle QB to fall from the sky like Brady did to NE....or they could have done what I believe many fans would prefer--try to emulate Pittsburgh and Baltimore and concentrate on building sytem continuity in hopes of catching lightining in a bottle like the Ravens did in 2000...or hoping that a guy like Big Ben might come along like he did for Pittsburgh and put them over the top.
I wonder if Ravens fans would trade a decade of one title and being almost good enough, for a run like Brady and NE had when they won 4 titles.
Problem with that is, the Redskins haven't had continuity since Gibbs I. For a myriad of reasons--some avoidable and others not. And I just don't see them establishing that under a 60-something year old Shanahan. Or for opting, after another 2-3 years of treading water, to jettison him and trying the next guy in a growing succession.
How many more years "should" they go before trying the one thing almost guaranteed to lift a drifting franchise out of the doldrums--securing a legit franchise QB?
If they are right about RGIII and/or Luck, there's a damn good chance the long desert march is over.
If they're wrong, what have they really lost? They'd be right back where we've been for 20 years. And bad enough, given all those lost guaranteed blue-chippers (
) to where maybe they'd get that #1 pick in a year the next true franchise QB comes out.Me, I'm tired of waiting. It's like that old cartoon....
TomE
The Pro Bowler
What would we need to see year one from "the guy" to lessen the fear of a bust and start seeing the reward for the price paid.
A middlin' record with a mid level first round pick given up in '13 but good play and steady progress from the QB position?
Several "wow" moments sprinkled with the occasional bad game?
Lighting it up consistently with blame for loss elsewhere?
Fighting for a playoff spot in Dec?
A wildcard spot?
NFCE champ?
Homefield playoff win?
A middlin' record with a mid level first round pick given up in '13 but good play and steady progress from the QB position?
Several "wow" moments sprinkled with the occasional bad game?
Lighting it up consistently with blame for loss elsewhere?
Fighting for a playoff spot in Dec?
A wildcard spot?
NFCE champ?
Homefield playoff win?
As we've seen with Shuler, a bad top QB will set your team back years regardless of what you gave up to get him. That's not really the point.
The point is that the pressure of making the decision is not longer ours. The pressure WAS on us when we were trying to decide whether or not to trade up, but it's over now. The decision has been made. Now we just sit back and pick whichever guy falls to us.
The pressure of which guy to pick is on Indy.
Not the answer you're looking for, Tom, but I'm going to say I'll know it when I see it.
In year one, the W/L record won't tell me as much as what I see with my eyes....how he handles himself, whether I see signs that he's proceesing info quickly and executing accordingly...whether there's an upward progression....a collection of data points.
Year two is when I would hope/expect to see evidence of the "rising tide" theory....that a franchise QB is as much about elevating the play around him as he is making plays himself.
In year one, the W/L record won't tell me as much as what I see with my eyes....how he handles himself, whether I see signs that he's proceesing info quickly and executing accordingly...whether there's an upward progression....a collection of data points.
Year two is when I would hope/expect to see evidence of the "rising tide" theory....that a franchise QB is as much about elevating the play around him as he is making plays himself.
To illustrate Om's point, was Cam Newton a bust because his team went 6-10?
That said, I'd like to think we're not quite as weak a team as the Panthers were when they drafted Newton (which is why we won three more games than they did the previous year) so I'd like to think we'd win more than 6 games. I think 8 would be a hopeful estimate?
But like Om said, I'll know it when I see it.
That said, I'd like to think we're not quite as weak a team as the Panthers were when they drafted Newton (which is why we won three more games than they did the previous year) so I'd like to think we'd win more than 6 games. I think 8 would be a hopeful estimate?
But like Om said, I'll know it when I see it.
Yeah, that 6-10 record is not as much on Newton as it is on the a defense that surrended 30 or more points 9 times last season.
One assumes our defense would be better than that.
One assumes our defense would be better than that.
Last edited:
TomE
The Pro Bowler
I understand that it's not as cut and dry as team accomplishments and or record.
Just figured the "it" factor that you guys seem to be able to descern should affect the team from the onset and would manifest itself in overall team play and results.
Something tangible, perhaps, that we who-only-follow-the-ball on game day could look for as a positive sign that we actually have one of those guys.
Many claim that we paid too much , maybe I'm just looking for some benchmark to determine if we did or not.
Newton provided those "wow" moments, lit it up consistently and the losses more often than not came from elsewhere, he looks like the real deal so far.
Just figured the "it" factor that you guys seem to be able to descern should affect the team from the onset and would manifest itself in overall team play and results.
Something tangible, perhaps, that we who-only-follow-the-ball on game day could look for as a positive sign that we actually have one of those guys.
Many claim that we paid too much , maybe I'm just looking for some benchmark to determine if we did or not.
Newton provided those "wow" moments, lit it up consistently and the losses more often than not came from elsewhere, he looks like the real deal so far.
I think the last time we had a real 'wow' QB around here ... a young guy that took the field and commanded everyone's attention ... that was probably Trent Green in '98. He didn't have much of a team around him (hell, we lost our first 7 games that year), but you could tell there was something special about the kid, and the team fed off that as the season wore on. I'd like to see something like that.
We didn't overpay whether he busts or not. We paid the price of admission. The Browns would have paid more if the Ram's would have let them, so it seems reasonable to say we paid less then market value. Acknowledging the infrequent anomaly, you absolutely can't win consistently and you can't win the SuperBowl without a stud QB. It's as simple as that to me. Both of the QB's are widely touted to achieve very high levels of success. There's never a sure thing, but we've never been in a position to get a QB of either these guys potentials. The only way we could have screwed this up was by not being the team to make the deal to move up.
CarolinaSkin43
The 1st Round Pick
i don't think we have had a guy of this statue since Sonny J....and if you ask me RGIII will be a great QB in the NFL baring no major injuries...i just don't see him failing ...i believe he will come in right away and you will see the difference in our team ....this guys is the Number 1 pick of the two (He and Luck in my opinnion....) not saying Luck will be bad ..but RGIIIs got some much upside ..it's unreal ...he got that something just as Cam had last year, you can tell by the way he carrys himself....can see in his eyes...2 number one draft picks for this guy,to me is not breaking the bank..can't wait..but i would not be suprised if Indy takes him first.
Last edited:
Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)
You haven't joined any rooms.