Our friends over at Ball Hogs Radio have an impressive, weekly podcast on Tuesday nights talking D.C. sports. They've had some quality guests as of late, and one that interested me greatly was National Football Post's Director of Scouting, Wes Bunting. The interview is posted here, and below is the transcript of Bunting's breakdown on Blackmon and Robert Griffin III, specifically with their fit in Washington:
BHR: Who does Justin Blackmon compare to in the NFL?
Wes Bunting: "An Anquan Boldin type on steroids. I think he runs a little better, but he's a little bit better of a vertical threat, but he's that same type of guy where he can run those inward breaking routes. We saw it [in his bowl game] work that 3-step game on the slant, catch the football with those big hands and long arms, break a tackle, and then Sterling Sharpe it right up the field. Breakaway from coverage. That's what he does. Plus, with those long arms and deceptive speed, he can shrug off press coverage if corners want to get physical. Attack the football at its' highest point. He has ideal body control and balance for a big guy. I can see him playing the Z on the strong side and playing the X as a split end. I think he'll play both jobs because he can beat press and be physical in the run game. If they can't get a top-tier QB, than Blackmon makes a lot of sense...You know what you're getting. There's not too much unknown about his game."
(We know how much the Shannys love to move their WRs around and it's glaringly obvious Redskins have no current, starting WRs with breakaway speed. The conversation switches to RG3 and what the Redskins need to do to trade up)...
Wes: They'd have to give up their 6th round pick and either a 2nd round pick and then a player, or another first round pick. I think that would do it...Robert Griffin III, if he was in last year's draft class, I would have graded had him out as the top overall Quarterback. Ahead of Cam Newton. Ahead of Christian Ponder. I like him that much.
BHR: Break that down a little more:
Wes: "Robert Griffin is a guy with elite athletic ability who can create both inside and outside the pocket. You have a guy that can make all the throws, that is quick footed, that can reset his feet, he finds secondary reads. The game comes very natural to him. Much like Cam Newton. Granted, he's not the same size and doesn't have quite the same, elite arm strength but they are both top tier athletes and top tier throwers at the position. Unlike Cam Newtown, there's absolutely no off-the-field issues or on-the-field character concerns....Robert Griffin, both of his parents I believe are officers in the Army, he comes from a good home, strong, morally sound kid that puts in the work, had developerd from his Freshman, Sophomore, Junior Year, a high hurdler, high marks...Do I think he's going to have the same type of year - elite, best-ever rookie Quarterback in the NFL like Cam Newton? Probably not, but as a prospect coming out I'd feel a lot more comfortable with RG3 than I did Cam Newton last year."
!!!!A QB that can read a secondary!!! (my mouth starts watering). When's the last time we had one of those???? I guess Mark Brunell, but he didn't have the arm strength to get it to the secondary past 2006.
OK, Skins fans. Let's put this scenario to play. Would you be OK with trading up two first's for Griffin? (I can already envision the comments section now: "I'm definitely OK with swapping firsts with STL and giving them our 2nd round pick and <<DHall/Landry/Atogwe/Kyle Shanahan>>")
One last note, Bunting mentioned Notre Dame WR, Michael Floyd, struggles with press coverage, which is the same reason Anthony Armstrong can't get on the field. Blackmon is listed at 6'1.
0 recs | 411 comments
I would have liked to heard how he thinks RG3 would fit in this offense.
I believe a team is going to have to tailor their offense towards Griffin’s strengths, ala what Carolina did with Newton. I don’t think Griffin is a plug and play QB for Shanny and I don’t think they’d be willing to tailor the offense and tweak the scheme. I could be wrong though.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
this is also why I don't think Cleveland will draft him
I also read Cleveland may be looking for more of a veteran option at QB
atark001 - January 11, 2012
Cue Kevin Kolb rumors
Bullet Nation in Exile - January 11, 2012
I've been seeing that
Let’s hope so, because that would free up our free agent and draft options at the QB position.
SCSkin21 - January 11, 2012
What Kolb rumors?
The Cardinals traded a 1st round pick and paid a big contract to get Kolb….they are stuck with him for a few seasons to try and get some return on their investment
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
They aren't stuck at all.
And that was cue rumors. Casserly made a little noise, and I’m hardly parading that as an unassailable fact…it is, however possible. The Cards can get out of Kolb’s contract, his signing bonus doesn’t kick in until five days after Manning’s. Do I think it will happen? Nope.
Bullet Nation in Exile - January 11, 2012
Oh so YOURE starting the Kolb rumors?
He’s not going anywhere
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Busting out the 'Caps Lock', eh?
My comment is intended as a bit of an ironic asides. I understand if the subtleties are lost on you. Being inside the Cardinals front office must take up a lot of your time.
Bullet Nation in Exile - January 11, 2012
I was just stating that its absurd to think that the Cardinals will deal Kolb after trading picks for him and giving him a massive contract
And I used the caps for emphasis, thats all
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
No problem.
The Internet: Where Absurd Lives
Bullet Nation in Exile - January 11, 2012
Even though I agree with you
It’s not COMPLETELY crazy
Bullet Nation in Exile - January 11, 2012
Chances are extremely slim
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
There’s only 1 fit…..you will play how the Shanny’s tell you regardless of skill set.
Kevin Ewoldt - January 11, 2012
I understand that, I'm saying I would have liked to heard how people think RG3 will perform under those circumstances and system
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
sounds to me that he will work hard and do what he's asked to based on his upbringing and current work ethic
He can make all the throws in the pocket and on the move.
I don’t see how it can be said that he doesn’t fit the system. Seems to me he can do everything the system demands and more.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
You're missing the whole point.
Yes I think Griffin will do what he is told, but is that best route? I’m saying RG3 would flourish more in a spot where he dictates the offense, like Cam Newton in Carolina.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I'm not saying that he might not do better in a system built around his specific talents, who wouldn't...
what i’m saying is that his talents fit and surpass all of the talents need to be a qb in this system.
He’ll be able to run the system and some so questioning his ability to fit the system makes no sense to me. would he flourish more in a system tailored to his extra skill set, probably atleast in the early stages of his career until his legs slow down a bit. But to say that he doesn’t fit the system because he is too athletic doesn’t make anysense unless he’s a Vick type that always looked to run first.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
err.. I'm not saying that he wouldn't do better in a system....
didn’t read my response
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
Once again, I never said he wasn't a fit for the system.
All I did was say I wish Wes would have elaborated on how he would fit and function in the Shanny system.
Every time I ask a question about Griffin people freak out and act like I don’t like him or don’t think he could play QB here. I’m just simply posing questions in hopes to find the best fit. So many people are blindly banking their faith on Griffin based off what they have heard. Why can’t we discuss his attributes and dig a little deeper?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Hes the greatest qb prospect ever as long as theres a chance hes a redskin
people wont be realistic about him until hes wearing another teams uniform
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
I love RG3
But I honestly think Luck is the best QB prospect I’ve ever seen.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Youre in the minority on Hogs Haven, and I agree with you
everyone is onto the “New Kid” RG3 and is searching for ways to knock Luck, whos been the top qb for 3 years and people cant find a legit weakness in his game
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Luck is the best prospect
But he’s unobtainable. I think thats why people are hyping up RGIII so much. We have a chance to move up and get him.
prc805 - January 11, 2012
He isnt worth the cost of moving up in my opinion
If youre going to pay huge for a qb it should be the best qb in the draft
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Yeah, we just all figure Luck is gone to Indy
Is there any chance Indy might take RG3 instead of Luck?
Donnio1234 - January 11, 2012
Not unless they have started doing tons of drugs
alwaysremember21 - January 12, 2012
I think everyone looks at RG3 because Luck is seen as unobtainable
Which could be true. One thing I’ve learned about draft prospects is that everyone’s opinion on draft ranking, especially this early in the process, is wrong.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
You are going to see plenty of shakeups as we approach april but some players are known commodities
You arent going to see Matt Kalil move down on any big boards for example
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
He could move up to #2 pretty easily
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Kalil
probably will be the 2nd player taken if the draft if the rams decide to keep the pick.
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Hes a franchise LT hes arguably the second most impactful player in the draft
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
proof? I doubt that is anywhere near a majority or even
quarter of commenters opinion…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
You may not have said those exact words but you can see where a conclussion could be drawn based on this:
“I believe a team is going to have to tailor their offense towards Griffin’s strengths, ala what Carolina did with Newton. I don’t think Griffin is a plug and play QB for Shanny”
Sounds to me you’re questioning his ability to play in our system and I’m wondering what leads you to this conclusion? because it seems to me that he has all the physical attributes and leadership qualities that the Shanny’s covet the only thing is he is ‘new school’ because he can also run the ball and i’m wondering if you view that as subtraction by addition?
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
Agreed
His work ethic more than anything will dictate his compatibility with Shanahan. Based on media coverage, it sounds like he works hard.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Yup Shanahan seems to go for high motor guys with the exception of say trent williams
But Trent Williams fit their greatest need, fit the zone blocking scheme mold with incredible athleticism so I think Shanny moved slightly away from his High Charachter/High Motor draft plan
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
Shanny likes Senior Captain players over more talented underclassmen
He likes what they bring to the team
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
You can't take away from Williams' progress though.
He’s been working hard at getting better, he just likes to smoke the reefer between workouts.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
opens the lungs
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Yeah i'm not bashing Williams
Just pointing out that he’s the most glaring outlier in the type of players shanny has drafted thus far.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
He was a ZBS guy one of the first players that was picked for Shanny's system
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
exactly, I addressed this earlier.
I was trying to state that RGIII fits the mold of Shanny’s draft picks of late based on his leadership and work ethic. Stating that Shanny has drafted all guys with these charachteristics save Trent Williams (the outlier)
But followed up by saying Williams was picked because he fit their biggest need, had incredible athleticism and was the best guy for the one system shanahan is known for the ZBS
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
He was also the 2nd best player at his position on a lot of boards
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
It's a commentary on the coach not the player
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Well if you're saying that:
“RGIII won’t have as good of a first season under shanahan as he would under a coach willing to mold the system around RGIII’s extra abilities.” Then I whole heartedly agree with you.
I however believe that RGIII can still be very impressive in our system to the point that I would (and i’m usually always against this) move up to grab him for a cost of 2 1st rounders tops any more than that I think we stand pat. Just my opinion on what he’s worth to this team.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
I agree with everything you just said, except trading up.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
This site is hilarious...it is like people forget what they
wrote …
Parks – 8:07
Parks 9:28
And then to top it off…the person responding is to blame…
I don’t get it….why does everyone assume the worst when some one responds…debate..have fun…stop all of the accusations everyone…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Once again, I think it is more a commentary on the COACH than the PLAYER
It doesn’t matter if I think he is a fit for the system, it is whether or not MIKE SHANAHAN does.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
and could you see how it would be pretty easy
to not interpret your comment that way…
so when you then revert to hyperbole like this…
it doesn’t reflect well…why make an accusation about other intent or knowledge base instead of sticking with the debate in and of itself…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
and also, now thinking it through...I don't see your logic
Are you saying pass over someone because they can DO MORE than the system calls for?
Are you saying that IF Griffin is best served as a mobile QB, but has all the tools for Shanahans system, he should be passed over or will be because Shanahan is afraid he can’t fully utilize his tool set?
Walk me through the logic you are using?
Or are you just saying Mike Shanahan can’t evaluate a QB as well as you?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
All I said is that I would like to see how Wes Bunting would evaluate RG3 in our system.
What the hell is the problem with that?
I’m sorry I don’t agree with you about trading up. It has nothing to do with your view on RG3 or my view, it has to do with Mike Shanahan’s view. Shanahan is a stubborn SOB with a big ego, he knows what he wants and what he is looking for, and there is a possibility it may NOT be RG3. Sorry for floating that notion out there.
You used the word “passed over” several times. I HAVE NOT ONCE SAID TO PASS OVER RG3, I just advocate not trading up for him. If he’s there at 6 then so be it.
Put your pitch fork down for a second.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Has anyone ever explained what it is about Shanny's vaunted system
that leads to the “RG3 may not be the right fit..” comments?
Let’ see, he a great arm and is extremely accurate. What system is there in which that doesnt fit?
DCrez - January 11, 2012
Read...
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
that wasn't the context I meant it in re: passing over
I meant it as pass over as not draft at all.
It seems like you were saying Shanahan (you are saying shanahan now) didn’t see him as a fit and would prefer another option. At any draft position. You even reiterated it here.
You appear to now be saying his ego won’t let him take someone that has more tools than his system needs. That still doesn’t make logical sense to me. Is the issue whether he has the baseline skills, not whether he has skills above and beyond that would fit a different system better?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Mortgaging your future and simply selecting a guy at #6 are two very different set of risks
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
+1
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
I don't understand what you are trying to prove or what you want from me?
I gave you my philosophy.
I simply don’t think that Shanny will be enamored enough to trade up for Griffin. You are twisting words and semantics like no other. Move on man.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
^^LOL tell em!!
nubycakes - January 11, 2012
Out of interest.
What exactly do you think Griffin would struggle with in this offense that would mean we would have to change the offense?
UkRedskin - January 11, 2012
This question has been tossed around a lot
And i don’t think there is a good answer for it. But that doesn’t mean its entirely a moot question.
I think a better, more revised point, is simply that Shanhan is very much an old-school mentality coach, and Griffin is very much a new-school style QB.
I’m not arguing one way or the other, just trying to refine the linger doubt that some people have to a better worded point.
tman5 - January 11, 2012
I think the talk of fitting into the system is much ado about nothing personally
I don’t think shanahan is as rigid as people make him out to be…he does talk a lot about his system in the context that it has been successful over some 20 odd years (he said himself that the only thing he would characterize as a rigid system is his complete dedication to the zone blocking scheme), but he’s adapted to his personnel throughout his career…even this year we’ve seen adaptation between the way the offense was run with rex vs. beck, and more notably when davis was suspended (we saw more 3 wide/2 back sets)…I think shanahan’s refers to “system” is more so of an organizational frame of reference, where the media tends to focus solely on the offense
atark001 - January 11, 2012
But he sought out QBs and been stubborn in keeping guys like Rex and Beck b/c they know the "system"
The only guy they have tried that wasn’t handpicked to be a “system” fit was McNabb, and we all know how that worked out.
I could be completely wrong. But the only way I see Shanny becoming enamored by RG3 would be by default now that Barkley is out. If Shanny was sitting at #6 and RG3 and Barkley were both on the board, then I think he definitely would have chosen Barkley.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
while I do agree he would have taken Barkley over Griffin
I don’t necessarily agree with you about your other points….I wouldn’t say he was stubborn in keeping Rex or Beck, its more so a matter of who else do you bring in, while not hamstringing your team’s ability to acquire talent and overall development?
He sought out Beck who had no prior experience in the system and rex was brought because of his familiarity with kyle’s offense in texas..as far as going with them this year, i think looking at it in the sense of fitting the system is a bit of misnomer, as it seems it was more so they were familiar with the system….mcnabb it seemed refused to adequately familiarize himself with the system…i really do think mcnabb’s skill set fit the system, but that his work ethic and attitude weren’t want shanahan wanted…i really do feel any QB with top tier talent can fit the system per se, its just a matter of coachability and football IQ
atark001 - January 11, 2012
I agree, we'll see what happens...
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I agree completely on Barkley
and I do wonder if Shanny would even select Griffin if he fell to the 6th pick. My gut tells me he is going to trade again, which is OK by me
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
It's my solemn hope
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
why would he have chosen Barkley?
because he is less athletic and has a weaker arm? These guys are facing college defenses and non-SEC ones at that, all of them are often throwing to wide open players, and none of them are reading defenses in a way that proves they can do it at the NFL level imo
DCrez - January 11, 2012
This is more of what I'm saying.
He tries to fit in a round peg no matter what, RG3 is a blank canvas, while Shanny is looking for a finishing brush-stroke. I just have a feeling when Shanny looks at RG3 he sees an incredibly talented QB, but not an incredibly talented QB that fits his system. If you look at the Elway/Griese/Plummer/Cutler blueprint they don’t seem to resemble RG3.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Maybe I am missing something
He doesn’t seem to far off from any of those other than Griese?
Was Plummer a scrambler all throughout college? Elway?
What is the big difference you are seeing between those 4 and Griffin?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Did Shanny get Plummer or Elway right out of college? No
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Well Elway was drafted before Shanny was a head coach
and Plummer was drafted in 97 while Shanny was winning superbowls with Elway at the helm.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
Exactly...
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I'mjust pointing out that saying that he didn't draft either doesn't mean he didn't like them
like I said, Elway was drafted long before Shanny had much if any input in who the team he worked for drafted.
In 1997 qb was not a position of need for the Bronco’s
Rankings
Offense 1st
Defense 5th
Rushing Offense 4th
Rushing Defense 16th
Passing offense 9th
Passing Defense 5th
So Shanny drafted a DL with his 1st rounder and a gaurd with his 3rd rounder and didn’t have a second rounder where plummer was taken.He could have thought he was a great prospect, but decided to address the flaws albeit small ones in his current team and go on to repeat for another championship
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
also parks, i'm not trying to pile on, I know you catch alot of flack for asking what are widely considered unpopular questions.
I appreciate all the work you do especially all the college scouting reports you put on here. While I don’t necessarily agree with all your views I do enjoy reading your input. Since my level of college knowledge is pretty crappy.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
Offensive Coordinator would have a lot of input into the draft prospects.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
You're are right, I thought he hadn't reached Coordinator level at that point.
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
I used two 'are's' cause I wanted to sound like a pirate
skinsfan28 - January 11, 2012
Shanny was Elway's OC right away.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
My understanding from a recent article post
from Kyle Shanahan is that they don’t seek a specific type of QB, they want a guy that can play and they’ll do what they need to so that he’ll be successful.
I know someone knows about the article I’m talking about
Rekka - January 11, 2012
I think Kyle and Mike have very different mindsets
Kyle brought his best buddy from Houston here to start, what does that say?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I'd rather he bring in someone he knows than a stranger he's guessing on
That was after injuries depleted our WR corps too.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
I agree with your first point, but he brought Rex in here inpreseason 2010 not 2011.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
My bad, I thought you were talking about Anderson
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
I don't disagree with bringing Rex in
As a coach, it’d be hard not to look at all his good plays and think “if only I could teach him not to throw that stupid pick…”
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
I don't disagree either, but there is no evidence in Shannys history that he looks outside the "box"
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
What about Darrell Young?
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Darrell Young plays Quarterback?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
You're so picky
So how about Jake Plummer?
I could argue that Steve Young was against conventional thinking too.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Conventional thinking? I'm talking about MIKE SHANAHAN's thinking.
Plummer very much fit the Shanny mold at that point in his career.
I’d actually compare RG3 to the younger version of Plummer.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
If RG3 is a "Younger Plummer"
Then you wondering whether RG3 will fit into this system is pointless.
willismagillacutty - January 11, 2012
game set match
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
reading comprehension is key
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Ha, David the Chair Judge
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
B/c I specifically stated the older version of Plummer was the fit for Shanny
That’s why I said the YOUNGER version of Plummer. Plummer 1.0, not 2.0
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Plummer wasnt all that good so why are people debating this?
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
He was a pro bowler
Which is much more than he was before Shanahan gave him a chance.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
I dont care about the pro bowl and he had 2 decent years
My main thing is if someone asked if I wanted to spend a top 6 pick on plummer i would say NO
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Nobody would give up a 1st pick for him
He was all but abandoned when Shanahan turned him into a probowler.
Turning a consensus bust into a probowler is how I said Shanahan looks outside the box when picking QBs.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Shanahan hasnt really won anything without Elway
His status as “QB Guru” is made up
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
He won SB's while coaching Steve Young...and was his QB coach
Does this not count?
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
No it doesnt Walsh was the coach and Young was stepping into Montana's Offense
Shanny doesnt get credit for riding coat tails
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Steve Young was washed up.
Shanahan was the OC and quarterbacks coach that made him the SB winner.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Such a bad argument
He won as OC with San Fran.
Belichick hasn`t won without Brady.
Lombardi didn`t win anything without Starr.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Are you comparing Shanny to Lombardi and Belichick?
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
No reason to
The point is that Shanny has enjoyed varying degrees of success with many different QBs, not just Elway
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
He was ousted from Denver for a reason
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Hes won just as many Superbowls as Belichick and more than Lombardi
3 Superbowls that you`ve found a way to discount because of your bias.
What does he need to do? Win a superbowl with Rex?
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Belichick won 5 superbowls
No one counts the rings won as a coordinator when they are a head coach
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Nobody counts superbowl rings when they're coordinator?
So as a head coach, has Belichick won anything without Brady?
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
he won 11 games with Cassel
and he drafted Brady and developed his team around him, Shanahan walked into Elway who was a known all time great
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Shanahan helped develop Elway from day one
And he also built a world-class run game around him to get him over the top and win 2 consecutive Super Bowls
Shanahan may not be the greatest coach in history. But he also didn’t just luck into consecutive SBs
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
I didnt say he did but Elway and Davis who he did luck into deserve most of the credit
Shanny came to Denver long after Elway
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
But not Davis
Dan Reeves was a pretty good coach, and he couldn’t win with Elway ( and vice versa). You have to be willing to look at it both ways. Regardless of how much success Elway had pre-Shanahan, he was regarded as a guy who couldn’t win “the big one”. Shanny got him over that hump, and now he’s regarded as one of the best/ most succesful QB’s of all time.
CJHutch - January 11, 2012
He was one of the best all time period
I know you are one of the older people on here, does the fact Marino didnt win a ring diminish him at all to you?
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Christ
Had to pull the age card, huh? Anyway, back to your question….eh..what was it again?
Oh yeah, Marino. One of the best ever, no doubt. He and Elway were in the same boat until Shanny put a better playoff team around Elway.
CJHutch - January 12, 2012 via mobile
You're Dumb Shanahan was OC
In Denver ’84-87 and Elway was drafted in ’83. How is that “long after Elway”?
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
I meant as head coach
there seems to be a misconception here that Elway changed under Shanny that simply isnt true
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
The Point Is....
That Elway was under the tutelage of Shanahan almost from the very beginning. Shanahan molded that guy….
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Shanny did not "mold"
Elway.
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
As a Pro Quarterback
Yes, he pretty much did…
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Elway would have been Elway on any team
He was such a great player in every facet of the game
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Jake Plummer too then right?
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
I agree
He did wonders with Plummer
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
I disagree
and not to take anything away from shanny, Elway was an establsihed elite NFL QB by the time Shanny came along
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
No He Wasn't...
Elway was drafted in ’83, Shanahan became offensive coordinator in ’84….
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Yes, you are right
And I’m wrong…I completely forgot he was the QB coach back then
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
What happened after Plummer?
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Elway's Rookie Season Before Shanahan Became OC
Was freaking HORRIBLE. 7 TDs, 14 INTs…Next season (after Shanahan became OC), HUGE improvement completion% wise AND TD to INT ratio wise….
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
After Shanahan Leaves In '87...
TD to INT ration drops back down & performance….
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Did you watch him play?
Manning had a crappy first season because the team was awful doesnt mean he was a bad player
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Can't You Read?
Elway’s performance was BETTER in the years Shanahan was either OC or HC than it was when Shanahan wasn’t there. His numbers show it. Saying “Manning had a crappy first season because the team was awful doesnt mean he was a bad player” is just an easy way to avoid having to face the fcats.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Team Started Re-Building...
You should know that (since you’re ACTING like you know everything else). Name a re-building team in the HISTORY of the NFL that was good. LOL
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
2010 New England Patriots
Im not ignoring the facts im just saying that Elway was good even in that poor statistical year. That seems to be our disagreement
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Name A QB Today With a 47.5 Completion Percentage That People Consider Good
Are you serious. You are NOT good with a 47.5 completion percentage, 7 TDs to 14 INT…sorry
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Chris Johnson started this season really poorly according to the stats was he one of the worst rbs in the game?
even now would you rather have the statistically superior Willis McGahee?
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
That Has NO Relevance To Our Topic Of Debate
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
You said he wasnt good because of his stats....how is this not relevant?
If you want to live by the stats only this is where it leads
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
No MY Disagreement Is This Notion That Shanahan Is Not A Good Coach
That’s MY disagreement. And the 2010 Patriots were NOT a re-building team bro.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Im not your bro and they did a lot of rebuilding that year restocking or reloading may have been a better way to put it
Generally teams dont go from bottom to top thats common sense. the only recent team that went worst to first was the dolphins
1-15 to 11-5
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Hahaha You sound Angry
First of all, Idc if you’re not my “bro” stop whining like a littlw girl. Secondly, I said name a re-building team in the history of the NFL that was good, NOT a re tooling team. The two terms are NOT the same and are therefore NOT interchangeable.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
If youre a fellow skins fan I appreciate you and i guess that makes you a "bro" didnt mean to seem angry
I gave you an example of a rebuilding team that was good though
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
I didnt argue that shanny isnt a good coach i dont think he is a great coach or qb guru or draft expert
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Okay...
I’ll give you that because there is NOT much evidence to support this “QB Guru” notion. I do think he does have an eye for talent though (at least talent that will fit his sytem). He has a knack for finding late-round talent that fits well with what he likes to do. I can’t say he is a “Great Coach” though. I like Shanahan though and always have since he was with Denver. He’s had a rather successful career and I LOVE how he’s re-building this team.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Now were coming together BRO
What do you like about the rebuild? Im going out a limb guessing Hank the Tank is part of it
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Says they're flying by the seat of their pants
He brought in Rex because he “knows the system (jeebus…),” then proceeded to say that any QB can learn the system, they just want a good QB (paraphrasing of course).
Does this mean they want RG3, not necessarily. I’m just not feeling that they would think he doesn’t fit the system. I think they’ll look and see an exceptional football player and make the decision that they can win with the kid IF he’s there at #6
Rekka - January 11, 2012
what part of the current system will Griffin have trouble with?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Didn't say he would have trouble
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
None
He’s a smart guy (dare I say smarter than Donovan McTrash) so he should have a pretty good understanding by the time the season starts.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
+1 exactly
this is what I have been saying in my post. Its not that I don’t like RG3. He’s just not as you said, “a plug in play.” The question is: would the shanny’s be willing to change to fit his style?
Rodskins - January 11, 2012
HERETIC!
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Why would Shanahan has to change?
Why does everyone assume Griffin doesn’t want to be a pocket passer?
Lets assume we had the 2nd pick. And Barkley was coming out. Then lets say Griffin graded higher, but was more athletic.
Are we saying pass over Griffin because he has the POTENTIAL to do even more?
That doesn’t make any sense. Are we passing over picks to make sure someone can fully fulfill there potential?
This line doesn’t really make sense.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
I have yet to see an answer for this basic question, despite this topic going on endlessly
No one will even say what Shanny’s system is, let alone what Griffin cant do in it.
btw Matt Barkely didnt make one play all year that Griffin couldnt make, I would never assume Shanny would take him
DCrez - January 11, 2012
Ha, DCrez you hit the nail on the head
I’m so sick of hearing about how complicated "our system’ is…It appears he only guy who gets it is the Pillsbury dough boy
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
What part of Shanny's gameplan would have to change to suit him?
Rekka - January 11, 2012
Its not changing a gameplan its deciding to build a system around a player instead of trying to use a player in a pre established system
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
so what would shanahan have to change in his system to tailor it to him?
Rekka - January 11, 2012
qb runs and honestly the option become viable with griffin, also more of the deep ball then weve seen thus far
I dont think griffin is great for short west coast passing, not with his speed and talent for bombing it down the field
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
They become viable, but not completely necessary
Along with the progressions Kyle wants his QBs to have, deep to short which was McNabb’s problem as he’d been doing it the opposite way for 11 years in Philly, you’d think that Griffin’s penchant for the long ball would be a lot of help.
Rekka - January 11, 2012
I think he will be successful in any system but the system built around him will be the best
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
true, but that could be said about any qb
Rekka - January 11, 2012
Yes but there arent that many qbs that I would want to build an offense around
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
ok
Not saying that you hate the guy, but why wouldn’t you want to build a system around RG3 as opposed to Tannehill or one of the others of your choice?
Rekka - January 11, 2012
On the contrary I think RG3 is a guy who almost demands the offense be built around him
Tannehill isnt the kind of player I would make exceptions for as a coach, RG3’s talents are a different story
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
I doubt they would need to
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
For anyone who is interested, Bunting just posted his Top 10 QBs for this draft
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Ranking-the-Drafts-Top-10-Quarterback-Prospects.html
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I'll take the Aggie please
There is no way that Luck is available at any price, and G3’s price will probably be very high
Skins Fan '77 - January 11, 2012
If we don't get RG3
I like the idea of the old man from OSU if he falls into the 3rd round.
Alex35332 - January 11, 2012
HAha
dea of the old man from OSU if he falls into the 3rd round
The Redskins need a QB? You kidding? Old Man River won’t shut up about it…
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Haha
The Redskins need a QB? You kidding? Old Man River won’t shut up about it…
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
I figure if we need to we can go with him as a 1 year option
There will be some talented QBs coming out next year too.
Alex35332 - January 11, 2012
I’m not a fan of Keenum, I think i’d take Harnish before him. Dont know much about Coleman
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Coleman was a former top recruit to Tenn. who got screwed in the whole Lane Kiffin debacle
he transferred to the FCS and had 2 and a half productive years there (missed some time this year due to injury). Really good size and arm strength and good athletic ability as well. Really solid developmental guy.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I first heard of him in your
mock. ill have to look at him on youtube. BTW did you see the safety in your mock decided to return for his senior season/ would you still go safety with that pick?
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
I just can't see them drafting a WR
with so much proven talent at that position available in free agency. I think they will sign Eddie Royal and a second receiver like Dwayne Bowe or Marques Colston. Using their top draft pick at receiver when they can address it in free agency makes no sense.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
annnnddd we're broke
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Why?
Royal won’t be expensive, and he has more value to Washington than any other team. The second guy won’t be as expensive as expected because there are so many of them on the market. Just as we saw last year, guys will be signing for less than previous years. They have plenty of cap space, what is wrong with spending some of it at WR?
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
Royal will likely get 4 to 5 mil per year, and Bowe will likely command $10+ million per year
What is your WR example from last year Holmes 5 for 50? VJax 11+ mil? Rice 5 for 41?
Signing a “top tier” WR, along with a second tier guy would be a huge mistake in my opinion. Especially Royal, you can get a guy in the 3rd or 4th with the same talent level and a lot cheaper.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I'm really broken over
Who should be leaving in place for the #1.
I believe that Hank is the #3 this year, with Paul the #4.
The 1 and 2 being one of Moss/Gaffney, and either a FA/Blackmon/Floyd
But who to keep? Moss or Gaffney? Ugh
tman5 - January 11, 2012
They keep both
neither is all that expensive. They roll into next season with Moss, Gaffney, Hankerson, and two other guys.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
Moss and Gaffney won't like not starting
And one of them won’t, or at least shouldn’t, start if that is the case.
tman5 - January 11, 2012
Can you imagine Blackmon, Gaffney, Hankerson
With Davis as the TE, Young as the FB, and Helu/Royster?
That’s pretty damn nice if you ask me. The WRs remind me of the Giants WRs. None is an absolute superstar, but all decent-size, strong, and talented in their own regard..
tman5 - January 11, 2012
That would be awesome without Rex Grossman throwing the ball to the opposition =(
brazilianbeast - January 11, 2012
The numbers won't be anywhere close to that range.
Eddie Royal had 19 receptions for 150 yards this year, and has never had a 1,000 yard season. $5 million a year would pay him the same as Santana Moss.
As for a Bowe getting $10+, only Fitzgerald, Jackson, and Hester average that much. Andre Johnson is in the second year of a contract that averages $9 million a year, and he is easily top two or three at the position. Bowe is not in his class.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
We'll see... Royal is easily 3 to 4 mil. Still cheaper to draft a rookie.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
well of course, all draft picks are cheaper than free agents
but draft picks are extremely limited in supply. They have to use both free agency and draft picks to build the team. Receiver is probably the deepest position in free agency.
As another plus, Royal returns kicks. Might make your favorite player expendable.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
We'll see how deep it is after the re-signing period, a lot of these guys won't even be available
You’re also not stating how incredibly deep WR is in the draft this year. There could be 5 to 7 guys going in the Top 40 picks. Probably 20 will go in the first 4 rounds.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Bowe will def. get $10 plus million, Andre Johnson signed his contract two years ago and he wasn't a free agent
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
One reason I like Royal
Is that he could replace Banks on KR/PR
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
umm receivers def. didnt sign for less money last year, Holmes and Rice both got over $8 million a year
and Rice was coming off a major injury and only had one good year, while Holmes was coming off a season where he was suspended for the first 4 games and a long track record of being selfish.
Also Fitzgerald signed an extension that pays him $15 million a year, so the bar has been raised even higher.
V. Jackson, D. Jackson, Bowe, Colston etc. are going to cash in.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
+1 and Bowe is the only one I would even consider bringing it
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Too much supply this year
a couple of guys will probably break the bank, but patient guys like Allen will get one of those guys for much less than $10 million a year.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
Colston is the only one who might be under $10 million and that is b/c hes a bit older and not coming off a massive deal like V-Jax
but Colston will still get $9 million a year. Wayne is another one who will be slightly cheaper due to his age.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
The supply will be gone! You're assuming everyone hits the open market
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
A lot of them will be free agents.
Bowe could get franchised, but Colston won’t because of Brees. Jackson won’t. Wayne will be available. Amendola is restricted. Eagles might not franchise Desean Jackson. B. Lloyd won’t be franchised. Braylon Edwards. Wes Welker. Ton of guys, some will be available.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
right...
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
VJAX has been franchised the past 2 seasons, why wouldnt the Chargers franchise him again?
Colston is aging
Desean is smaller than Moss
Brandon Lloyd busted out of Washington, we dont want him and vice versa
Braylon Edwards is fading, not good anymore
Wes Welker will go back to the Pats
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
I don't think you can franchise him again, to be honest
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
actually the word is the Chargers said they won't Franchise him again, b/c it would be 120% of last year's franchise value making it over $13 million
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Right, so CAN, but it just costs more and more each time
Regardless on if he’s available or not, I am NOT in favor of pursuing VJAX
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
yeah me neither... he's another guy who is one more incident away from a year long suspension
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
And just a few seasons away from assured decline
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
yep
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I could see Shanny bringing in
Eddie Royal, but dont think he is going to sign two WR via FA. I think he is going to trade down get an extra 2nd (plus a couple of other picks) and take an OL, QB, WR with the 1st and two 2nds
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
I am okay with not taking RG3 at all
Matt Flynn plus Blackmon or Martin or DeCastro or Claiborne is a much better option than taking RG3 and giving up extra draft picks.
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
Matt Flynn is not good at football, I'm sticking to it
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
+15,000,000
Why 15,000,000? That’s how much he wants.
TerpsAllTheWay - January 11, 2012 via mobile
I don't think he is elite by any means
But i would rather take him than Orton, Campbell, Feeley or any of the other FA QBs. There are some nice players that will be available at #6 and if we already have a QB signed then we can add a franchise CB, WR or Lineman.
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
Ok lets look at this...
I think Flynn is INCREDIBLY mediocre. I don’t even think he’s that much of an upgrade over Rex. If you look at the projected 2012 starting QBs, who is he better than? Obviously not top 10, so lets throw that out, we’ll start after (just using QB rating as a list and moving Rivers into the Top 10)
11. Jay Cutler
12. Cam Newton
13. Michael Vick
14. Andrew Luck
15. Griffin III
16. Hasslebeck/Locker
17. Bradford
18. Dalton
19. Flacco
20. Freeman
21. Alex Smith
22. Matt Moore
23. Palmer
24. TJAx
25. Fitzpatrick
26. Ponder
27. Cassel
28. Sanchez
29. Kolb
30. Grossman
31. Tebow
32. Gabbert
Seriously, where would Flynn fit on this list? 23 to 25 at best in my opinion. Now would Orton go well beyond that? No, but he would be cheaper and not have tie yourself down to an incredibly average or below average QB for 3 to 4 years.
Campbell is out of the question, so I really wish people would stop bring him up. Feely? Really?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Ranked them, not by QB rating (forgot to delte that part) but by my opinion
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
honestly I would put him anywhere from 11-20
I know the world sweats Jay Cutler b/c he throws a ton of yards, but he coughs the ball up a ton, takes a bunch of sacks and isn’t the most accurate guy on the block.
In the right system with some protection Flynn can easily match Cutler’s numbers (and yes I like him for Shanny’s system).
Now year one due to learning a new system and likely not having as much talent around him, I’d put him more like 15th, to be on the safe side, but I do think he has the potential to be 11th or even higher down the road.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Would you have said the same thing about Caleb Hanie, if he didn't get an audition this year?
Honestly Steve, don’t lie, b/c Tiller says you’re a big, fat liar
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
if Hanie had had the two games Flynn had then probably
but even last year Flynn got a ton more hype than hanie. The idea for Hanie was to find a cheap diamond in the rough alternative to Grossman/Beck.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I understand, I'm not trying to call you out about Hanie, but I don't think he's too dissimilar from Flynn
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
i don't know, that game was pretty impressive and i like his upside
reading comments from McCarthy, Rodgers and company after the game they talked about his leadership and play recognition which I found impressive as well.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I would put Flynn in the 16-24 range
Even if we go with the list as is i would put Flynn clearly after Cutler, Newton and Vick. Then you have Luck, RG3, Bradford which i would rank above Flynn but after that i think it is arguable who is left that is better than Flynn. That’s the point for me. After the guys who are clearly better than Flynn or guys we are not getting in the draft, Flynn is in that next tier. Now because he is a FA and we can add Flynn with a top 6 wideout or lineman that to me makes him more valuable than trying to trade up for RG3
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
Ok so, super average then?
A couple of other questions then…
Why as high as 16? Based on what?
So debate it…tell me the exact spot that you think Flynn would fit and then the exact spot where Orton would fit. Then plug in a rookie not named Griffin or Luck, I think you’ll find its not that different.
Also how did trading up to get RG3 come in here? I’m staunchly against trading up. My argument is that you are locking in a great deal of money and years into a QB who is incredibly average. Where you could get a comparable prospect or FA for WAAAAY less and surround them with the same cast you are discussing for Flynn.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
exactly, I have a hard time justifying giving flynn a starter's salary contract
with such a small sample size of game film…not to mention, he plays in one of the best offenses in the NFL, and Detroit didn’t game plan for him that week….there is just not enough to warrant all the hype in my opinion, and while one may argue why justify giving a rookie a starter’s salary with no comparable sample size of NFL tape, other than drafting a first round QB, who would presumably have a much higher upside, you won’t have to give the type of money to them that it would take to land flynn
atark001 - January 11, 2012
Based off his performances in relief for Rodgers. He has proven that he can have a monster game with great talent. I don’t think a lot of the people on the list have that ability even with the Packers offense.
Once you are between these numbers it has just as much to do with the supporting cast as it does the QB. I think most of the guys in this range are about even. Some have skills that fit better for one situation over another. I would put Orton and Flynn nearly equal except that Flynn is 3 years younger.
Now all of the Flynn talk is only if Flynn is reasonably priced. I would never advocate getting into a bidding war with someone else for Flynn and driving his price out of line with his skills. You are correct Flynn is about even with some latter round QB prospects but the fact that Flynn has actually done it in the NFL and has been successful puts him higher than an untested, unproven rookie. If Flynn could magically enter the draft with his NFL experience he would most likely be the 3rd or 4th QB taken.
As for trading up for RG3, i only mention it because it seems a lot of people on here are seriously considering it as a good idea.
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
So ceiling: Incredibly Average, floor: Incredibly Mediocre
I’ll pass
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Well obviously the ceiling is record setting amazing
He has actually done that. In the NFL. Against a playoff team. His ceiling is can’t be lower than something which he has actually accomplished in real life.
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
O yes, in a meaningless Week 17 game... very valid.
If that’s his ceiling, then why isn’t he starting in GB?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Meaningless?
That game definitely meant a lot to Flynn as a backup QB getting playing time at the end of his contract year.
And the Lions were playing for possible homefield advantage in the playoffs so they wouldn’t have to go down to New Orleans and get trucked by the Saints.
So, in reality, this week 17 game was very meaningful
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Very, very meaningful as exhibbited by the effort from the Lions defense
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Well, you can make a different argument:
1. That the Lions defense is in the bottom 3rd of the NFL
2. That the Packers receivers made some great plays and racked up a lot of YAC
But to say that the game was meaningless is a misnomer
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Timeout... how as Detroit playing for homefield?
Division champs were locked, and the NFC East game had nothing to do with the Lions. There is no way going into Week 17 that they could have received homefield advantage.
They could have avoided going to New Orleans, but the Falcons were up 42-7 at the half (21-0 during the 1st quarter) do you think Lions didn’t see that?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
if Detroit won they would have been 11-5 meaning they play the NFC East team
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
But once again, they weren't playing for homefield.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
You're right, that was my mistake
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
no but it was far from meaningless
not only would it meant avoiding the Saints in New Orleans, but if ATL the 6th seed beat the Saints and they beat the Giants, they then get to go to San Fran (The Handshake Bowl) instead of GB. Where as if they are the 6th seed, they would have to beat N.O. at home then go back into GB.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Moreover, Flynn had already had a nice game with 3 TDs in the first half of that game
And then he had 3 more after the Lions “gave up”
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Because Aaron Rodgers is the starter.
Clearly they aren’t going to start Flynn over their young SB winning QB. Rodgers is arguably the best in the game and no QB would start in GB over him. That is hardly evidence that Matt Flynn is or isn’t a legitimate starting NFL QB.
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
Sell me on Flynn...
I can have:
A) Flynn for 3 years, $18 million
B) Orton for 2 years, $8 million
C Tannehill 4 years, $6 million
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I'd take Orton and Tannehill....unless Shanny really believed Flynn had the chops to be an NFL starter
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
I would lean towards
Flynn and Tannehill in that situation. If they don’t want RG3, or the price is too much, roll the dice and hope one works out. If neither works out, draft a first round QB next year.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
How are you gettingTannehill?
Love to know…
Josh McDaniels jumped into first round to grab Tebow.
Minny jumped at Ponder.
And yet, somehow people think we can just hang around for Tannehill. (although his injury could help your argument, but it would also make him less desirable in my opinion if it actually impacts peoples evals).
And I know you aren’t arguing trade back slightly in the first based on salary, or am I wrong?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Trading back based on salary? Why not trade back to get a QB and pick up more prospects?
You’re proposing a TON of assumptions. I don’t know how we get him that’s up to Shanny, it could be at #6, could be trading back, could be #7 pick in 2nd round. The point is that there are several options beyond RG3 and Flynn.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Actually, I think it is you that is making assumptions
and that is my point.
You have deftly tried to avoid the question, but you have inadvertently proved my point.
Is anyone going to buy picking Tannehill at #6 is a viable option? Anyone…please provide me with that analyst making that argument.
Trading back or picking at #7 – After hand selecting McNabb, Grossman, Beck, is it your argument that the Shanahans will roll the dice and wait to draft a QB with the 38th pick (or do we have 39 as you mention?), while signing a one-two year stop gap QB? And if someone jumps ahead of them? They go with their 4th choice?
Do you believe that is realistic? Really, I am asking in all honesty.
Yes, there are lots of options. But don’t you think it is more productive to discuss realistic ones? To then cop out and say…“oh I don’t know what they are, but let’s debate them” doesn’t really make for a good conversation.
So let me try again.
What is option 3 that you realistically believe can happen based on the current situation? Not what is absolutely best for the org, because that is not the only factor. What do you really believe is a viable 3rd option? I am listening?
I have one….Trade even more for Luck. But that isn’t realistic, so I am not even discussing it. My point is I think waiting around for the chosen QB until Rd 2 or drafting the 3rd best QB in the draft at 6 are just as likely.
The floor is yours…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
You're proposing it as if Shanny makes his pick at QB then he it is immediately judged
He could pick freaking Jeff Brantley and if he works out then he works out.
You’re assuming Flynn/RG3 saves Shanny’s job while no one else does.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Nope...not assuming that at all..
I am making a rational assumption about what Shanahan will consider the most likely scenario to make the team successful AND provide him with enough time to see it through…
You seem to be assuming that the only decision making criteria will be a pure and simple player evaluation and BPA via FA/Draft.
Or am I wrong…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
so you are saying that the Redskins are going to be able to trade up for Griffin
but they can’t trade back/trade up into the late first/or sit in the 2nd and get Tannehill? How does that work out?
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Yes...I am absolutely saying the I KNOW
the Redskins could, if the wanted to, trade up. No doubt that they have enough ammunition to pay if they so choose. Not to say there is a point where they would be overpaying…but there is no question that they could.
Now, can they trade back and be assure Tannehill will be there when they get to their pick…absolutely not. And the point is the Shanahans don’t have any more lifelines to take that risk.
Context is king. If we were having this discussion last year…I would be much more willing to believe they would be willing to take that risk. But they simply no longer have the leeway. They painted themselves into a corner. That is my point. It isn’t about in a vacuum what is the best option. It is in context what is the most realistic and likely option.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
What if Foles is the guy Shanny wants?
Or any of the other QBs?
You’re presenting it like its RG3 or Tannehill, and those are the only 2 QBs that are options
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Pick Foles...
My position remains the same.
I was only using Tannehill as a place holder.
If they target their Franchise QB…they are not going to play russian roulette and hope he makes it back to them.
SO not, I am not assuming those are the only two options.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Okay well i agree with you there
I guess the only part we don’t agree on is trading up to get RG3
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
I personally wouldn't trade up
for RG3 at any price…but there is a price that I would be willing to pay as I think you have to have a franchise qb to be successful.
But i don’t think there are options for Shanahan.
If this was a coaches first year, without the history of QBs…I think options would definitely broaden. But I firmly believe that the Shananhans think this is going to be their last chance to get “their guy”. And I question whether they are going to put it all on the line for someone like Tannehill or Foles. And if they do make that call, I think they are going to go get them. Not hope they fall into their lap.
That has been my main point in all of these threads. But some have decided to take it personally.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
come on man...
it became personal when you starting mocking and attacking people. Or not answering their questions, and instead trying to make them look bad.
If you have a reasonable response (like this) people will probably respond in kind. How you want to disagree with them takes the game to the next level.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I think he wont mind playing roulette
with the Qbs this year because Im not sure I really wants anybody coming out this year outside of Luck.
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
I'm not sold on those numbers but if we assume them to be accurate
I would pay a premium for Flynn over Orton just because i think Flynn has a higher ceiling and is younger. So using these numbers i would take Flynn especially if we could tie some of his money to performance bonuses. Now Tannehill depends entirely if he is taken at #6 or picked up in a trade back. Since you only have 6 million over 4 years i am assuming that isn’t at #6. So if we could trade back or even take Tannehill in the 2nd round then i would much rather take Tannehill. My only problem with that scenario is we can guarantee that Tannehill will be at any spot except #6 and he isn’t worth the #6 pick.
Jeff Bernard - January 11, 2012
Please no Orton
Please please please
CJHutch - January 11, 2012
that sounds a lot like Matt Barkley's outlook
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
So did Kelly Holcomb, Derek Anderson, Billy Volek
Want any of them?
I think you need a bit more of an argument than that?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
what about Matt Schaub, Tony Romo, Matt Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell
they became starters without ever evening having a decent game, much less an elite one.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Thanks Steve for asking and answering your own question...
I will stick responding to the actual point made by the commenter.
Cheers.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
so having a good game eliminates you from being a good QB...perfect logic
you also failed to mention that none of the guys you named even came close to having Flynn’s day.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Steve Steve Steve.....are you intentionally trying to ruin your credibility
Kelly Holcomb – November 28, 2004 – 413 yds, 5 touchdowns
Billy Volek – December 13, 2004 – 426 yds, 4 touchdowns.
Billy Volek – December 19, 2004 – 492 yds, 4 touchdowns
Tommy Maddox – November 10, 2002 – 473 yds 4 touchdowns
So confident…and so wrong….
Why not simply debate the topic instead just making assertions willy nilly that can so easily be refuted?
I think your credibility is important and you have a good football mind. Please take a step back for a moment and figure out why you continue to do that? We can debate without the acrimony.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Wow, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black then I don't know what is
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Please feel free...to refute...
What is wrong with the post above…lots of comments for Steve all over the place….funny how there is no response to this one…
crickets….
and in terms of my other comments…please feel free to refute…go for it…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
so just b/c i don't respond for a couple of hours it is 'crickets' awesome logic there
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
yes....you didn't respond multiple time
maybe double digits…you are an interesting one…
and even then…you still didn’t respond…
More Steve Shoup logic…I am learning….one day I will get to your level…give me some time…
smh…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
should say multiple time below to a bunch of other
comments in the interim…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
People have things to do man, no one is here 24/7
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
No one is saying...hey respond to me
The point is…Steve accused me below of no having facts and not being logical….he had no problem responding ad nauseum…continuously….but in multiple cases, he literally made absolutely false statements. So yes, I wanted to make that clear.
The broader point is especially as writers for the site, if you are going to make rash accusations and ad hominim attacks about fellow community members, I would suggest that you better darjn well have you story straight.
Otherwise, why not debate without falling prey to being disagreeable and relying on personal attacks to make your point. And yes, I may have gone a bit far somewhere in here…but that was only after being pushed pretty far. I would simply suggest respecting people and you get respect in return.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
where did i make false statements??
and since when have you respected anybody??
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Re-read how you started things off here today
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Please provide the link that you are referring to....
Is it the one that ended in….
The one where I was actually suggesting toning thing down…
But that may not be my first post….please provide the link that you are referring to…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
sorry see I actually like to present facts instead of just making stuff up, so I needed to research your claims
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Example of Steve Shoup "presenting facts"
Yes…you do.
Look up this word. Ad Hominem
Once you do, try stop doing it. Because it makes you look bad, especially as someone representing this community.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
wait so i'm supposed to present the facts for you since you ignore them??
dude last I checked you are the one always mocking people, putting up ridiculous pictures and videos and anything else (except facts or analysis) to try to make people look bad.
I will only ever respond in kind, if you have a problem with that, look at how you treat people on this blog all the time.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Please...I never responded to you
mocking you until you started to get snarky and make accusations…
Quite frankly, I started posting pictures and being snarky because of your tone. You may think you were responding in kind to something, but it wasn’t mocking you or anyone else.
If you thought it was, you could have said, please don’t respond in that manner.
Instead, you started to act like a know it all without fault, and I specifically started to point instances where that was not true.
You don’t have all the answers. Neither do I. But you could at least treat others with respect. It isn’t hard.
What really is occurring is that you are pissed that someone had the audacity to question your take on Matt Flynn.
What you haven’t noticed is that I have been discussing what I believe will happen as opposed to my preference. But if you would have stopped to read, instead of taking any counterargument as a an attack….you would have seen that.
I don’t know how many times I said, I will agree to disagree. How many times I complimented you. But each time you decided to escalate it.
I will take responsibility for not stopping once I realized that you are not interested in a legitimate debate, but more interested in logical fallacy and ad hominem attacks. I should have known better.
I will no longer make that mistake. I will interact with others in the community that have the ability to discuss with questioning other integrity or intelligence.
Enjoy the rest of your day. I will leave you to yourself and your opinions and logic, that you define as facts.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
seriously dude this holier than now approach is a joke
you mocked everyone in yesterday’s thread and kept making ridiculous arguments and would completely ignore others viewpoints (not just mine, Stephanhart, Deepball etc.)
to say that i’m offended and won’t engage in an informed debate is a joke. My problem is you’d make ridiculous points like “Matt Flynn will laugh at the Redskins” yet offering no basis even when i asked why.
If you want to debate, i’ll debate, but i don’t believe in ‘ring and run’ tactics, or your mocking tone the last few days.
If you have something to say, say it, if you have facts to provide, provide them.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
or maybe you are still trying to come up with
a response…I am sure you will…because of you logic and football knowledge….
I am looking forward to it…I’ll check back later…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
honestly i missed it the first time (b/c at the time there were literally dozens of comments being posted)
but saw it here and now have responded
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
fantastic!
One where was Tommy Maddox in your first time you posed the point? You listed Derek Anderson, not UCLA’s finest.
You also forgot to mention that none of these quarterbacks actually won these games (Maddox at least didn’t lose his as Pittsburgh tied the Falcons).
Also here are the QB ratings for the following games listed in your order:
Holcomb: 128.5
Volek: 130.6
Volek: 107.1
Maddox: 129.4
While Flynn is 136.4. I know 3 of those numbers look pretty close (please explain again where you named Tommy Maddox), you are taking 6-8 point differential, which is fairly significant. Imagine the difference between a 90 QB rating and an 82-84.
Finally, all of those guys had multiple poor-average games before those couple big time games. Flynn isn’t the same. He has two career starts against two playoff teams and has over 100 QB rating in both games.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Tommy Maddox was the XFL MVP, I don't know why everyone is hating on him
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
i'm just not sure when Derek Anderson changed his name to Tommy Maddox
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
that is a terrifically researched response
that has zero to do with the following statement
So according to Steve Shoup logic….
130.6 is not “even close” to 136.4
492 yds is not “even close” to 489 yds.
That is indeed….logical
Here is a recommendation… instead of coming up with some nonsense counter argument that only makes sense in your head as a way to “prove” yourself…you could have said…
“I was wrong there”
It would have saved you a bunch of time.
But feel free to go research why a QB rating 6 pts lower isn’t “even close” and why it proves a “no more of an argument is needed” than a monster game..
which was the original topic…but feel free to go on another unnecessary research escapade. It will continue to enhance your “football knowledge”.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
since when are yards the best measure of a QB's performance??
Donovan McNabb and Rex Grossman were on pace for over 4,000 yards (which would have ranked in the top 10) the last two years.
QB rating is a far better indicator of a QB’s performance, not sure why you would think otherwise. And adjusted for defenses Flynn’s numbers rank in the top 15 of any single game since 1993 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/quick-reads/2012/week-17-quick-reads
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
david
May I ask what your solution to our QB problem would be? Would be interested in a plan a, plan b, and if if avialble a plan c
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
It isn't really up to me.
I have been addressing what I think the Shanahan’s will be forced to do based on the corner they have painted themselves into. That is not going to be the same as the most rational and long term strategy.
Now if it were up to me…I would evaluate the players and find out which ones have the potential to be my franchise QB. I would then come up with the optimal strategy to assure that I get one of those.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
I would agree
with you that Shanny has painted himself into a corner…oh if we could back 2 years. the Mcnabb deal will be his undoing…
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Oh....and after 2 responses...you are still asking and answering
your own questions…and yet have said anything to refute my comment…
Do you disagree that more of an argument is needed than a monster game?
Hmm…
But again, thanks for throwing up strawman to knock down…not sure why you like doing that, but to each their own…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
haven't said
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Crickets..hmm...
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
So Flynn isn't available...what is your next option
for addressing the QB decision if you are against RG3?
People are talking like we have a plethora of options.
My take: We trade up, or draft another QB at 6-10 next year. I would love a count of people who think Shanahan will chose option 2.
We have to take Mike’s situation into account here.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
You're acting as if Trading Up or taking Flynn is the only option
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Option 3?
Please, do tell.
Love to hear one that actually has a reasonable probability of occurring and would not put Shanahan’s job in jeopardy.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
You're right, there are no other options and Flynn and RG3 are 100% locks to suceed in DC
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Good answer....
but lets try again…
What is option 3 right makes sense for Shanahan after 2 straight years of QB disasters..
I didn’t say there weren’t others…I said what are the probable AND good ones.
The floor is yours.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Ryan Tannehill
Kirk Cousins
Nick Foles
BJ Coleman
Brandon Weeden
Case Keenum
GJ Kinne
Chandler Harnish
About 10 other rookies
Every FA available
Trade Prospect
Whomever the hell Shanny thing that fits.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Ok....thanks
I disagree that any of those QBs or options will improve the redskins record materially next year. I also think Mike Shanahan likes his job and doesn’t want to put his son’s future head coaching opportunities in jeopardy. Finally, I believe a 3rd season of no measurable progress will result in the firing of Mike Shanahan.
Therefore, I don’t find drafting GJ Kinne in the 3rd, 4th, 5th round of the draft while filling other holes is a realistic option.
But apparently you do.
We can agree to disagree. But thank you for responding and making your position known.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
I don't think record is all that important for next year
What is important is improving the team’s competitiveness and having a young QB developing as the future signal caller for the team
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Especially with our schedule (at this point)
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I disagree. And I suspect you do as well.
We end the year with Nick Foles or Brandon Coleman at QB.
Question – Does Daniel Snyder keep Mike Shanahan in place?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
If we go 6-10 with RG3 does Snyder keep Shanahan?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
+1 ding ding ding
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
Absolutely...and it is the point I have been
hammering…
If they get RGIII, that means they traded picks. Thus, they will be able to say “We are investing in the future, and we will finish up next year”.
If they sign a NFL ready free agent, they will be expected to win now.
That is actually one of the reasons I think they will try to trade up. It buys them time.
Ask yourself if the Snyder and fans will be more patient with a first year franchise QB or a middle tier, 4th Shanahan hand picked experienced QB.
Drafting and playing a QB gives them a different story.
I have said this consistently, yet somehow people continue to assume I have some love for RGIII. I do prefer the trade up option, but I only am there because of gaming out the other options, which actually seem more risky to me IF the goal is to get a QB this year.
I am only analyzing the situation unemotionally.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
did trading up for Gabbert buy Del Rio time?
did drafting Matt Lienart buy Dennis Green time?
Did trading up, drafting and devloping Jay Cutler buy Shanny time??
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Did either of them
trade picks?
I am not sure with my limited football knowledge. Can you look that up for me?
Thank you sir….
If not…please reread my comment
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
umm both Gabert and Cutler were traded up for (and yes using picks, not many draft day trades are made without picks, esp. last year when you couldn't trade players)
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
So what is my position?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I asked what is a realistic 3rd option
You just listed a ton of options.
I think none of them are realistic and viable. You do.
Thanks.
Or….
Did you just throw up a list of any old thing in an attempt to confuse others? If that was the case…feel free to provide what you believe is a “REALISTIC” third option.
And I will be more than happy to listen….maybe you have an idea that I am not think about. But so far, you have just be throwing out a bunch of who knows what an hoping it sticks.
Feel free to correct me.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
My only position is:
1) Don’t sign Matt Flynn
2) Don’t trade future picks to obtain Robert Griffin III
I don’t understand why that is such a problem?
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I have no problem with it.
I just said that you believe all of the other options you listed beyond those two are realistic.
I am telling you that I don’t.
Do I think other may make sense in a vacuum…sure. But in the current context, with the current regime, i think any action beyond those two will mean Shanahan and Allen didn’t acheive their primary goal, and will likely result the loss of Mike Shanahans job.
Now…as a Redskin fan, I could live with that, and the extra draft picks could work out, and we could wind up with a top pick next year to pick up our franchise QB. And we could dump Shanahan. I would have no issue with that at all.
But I have not been discussing my personal preference. I have been discussing what I believe are quite frankly the most realistic options that will occur, because of poor decision making by Vinny and Shanahan his first year.
It goes back to what I referenced above. Why make assumptions about people’s intent instead of debating the topic themselves? It only confuses the debate. That is why I ask very specific questions to make sure i understand peoples position. That was the point of the discussion about helping me understand what 3rd option is truly viable?
It seems like based on responses elsewhere, that Shanahan doesn’t believe this year is the year he has to improve. That in and of itself provides me with the context as to why you think other options could occur.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
so since Shanny screwed up in his first year you think he'll 'Double down"
and make another move that will hurt the team’s immediate future.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I think that my evaluation of the current
is accurate and I don’t think your position is the only option that doesn’t hurt the organization.
But then again, I think teams like Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Indianapolis, and NE are pretty well run organizations. But you don’t because you think drafting QBs is a risky strategy. So we just come from a different point of view.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Apparently you don't think Pittsburgh, NE, GB, and Indy are well run teams since none of them have done anything like you've suggested in the last 12+ years
Did I ever say I wouldn’t draft a QB? no in fact I’m all in favor of trading back and getting a developmental guy like Tannehill.
So feel free to keep making things up, it would be entertaining if it wasn’t so sad.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
sigh
thats me… making things up…I even created a fake hogs haven page to make you look bad…
you can always, just say…I was wrong…drafting QBs is no more a risky strategy than FA signing, or trades…but you can also keep digging…your choice
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Seriously you are so far off the deep end it isn't even funny
try reading in context. I have probably a couple thousand comments, posts etc. that can give you a basis.
Again I didn’t say i wouldn’t draft a QB, so I don’t even know why you posted this again.
Please help me understand, b/c this really makes zero sense.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I Don't Understand Why...
We shouldn’t trade up to get RGIII. There’s not a big bust factor. I mean sure there’s a slight bust factor, but there’s a bust factor with EVERY pick you make in the draft.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Because
The redskins are in such a sorry state, its not about quality, its about quanity.
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Name A Postion...
On the field that we NEED MORE than quarterback and I’ll believe that BS…
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
we need
RT
LG
C
RG
FS
SS (maybe)
WR1
ILB
CB
Nickle back
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Okay...
But which one of those do we need MORE than a QB? That was a cute way to avoid giving an answer to the question I asked.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
because filling 3-5 needs is better than filling one via a trade up
and if they trade back, they might be able to fill 5-8 of those needs in the next two years (including QB).
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
It depends (IMO) who you're trading up for.....
Shanahan is gonna do what is in the best interest of his job security, trust me. If we draft those positions you say we should RATHER than getting a QB, those guys BETTER get us to the playoffs next year or Shanahan is toast in D.C. If he drafts a young QB that plays alright and looks like he can be an elite player, that automatically buys Shanahan a few more years of job security.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
you cant look at potentially elite qb and decide
that instead you’ll address qb sometime in the future with some guy you cant think of yet. Or someone who may be good if you manage to develop them for 3yrs first. If Shanny’s opinion is that RG3 is the real deal, then you get him.
If he thinks flynn is it then get him.
but never ever pass on the best qb talent because you need a new safety
DCrez - January 11, 2012
I Agree
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
I'm not avoiding the question
what i’m saying is that if you end up trading up for RGIII, or Luck, we will not have any picks to address all of these other positions. I have no problem taking RGIII at 6, but we have so many weaknesses on our roster, I don’t think we can sacrafice all the picks just for a QB
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
We Have to...
Going on like this without a “franchise” QB to build around will NOT work. If there is a guy that has the tools to be a “franchise” QB on the board, you take him. We have to be BOLD, there aren’t gonna be anymore Andrew Lucks for a LONG time. And for the record, RGIII is better than Matt Barkley in more ways than one, so why wait until next year. The position I’m MOST worried about other than QB is Safety.
redskinsfan909 - January 11, 2012
Chcken before the egg
I hear you though. I think Barkley is more reliable than Griffin. Less upside but less downside. As I said, I would take Griffin with the 6th pick pick if he is there. My problem with trading up this year, is that is going to cost us big time in terms of picks (thus addressing our other needs). I rather captilize on this year draft, which seems to be deep at WR, DB. and OL then trade up next year to grab our QB.
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
And dont address the QB situation is your position then, cause they have had some of the worst QB’s in the history of the NFL start games for The Skins in the last 20 years and you want to continue that trend by doing nothing at QB sounds like your position
Highspeed30 - January 12, 2012
Tight end?
CJHutch - January 11, 2012
Option 3
sign Orton and draft Foles in the 2nd
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Foles may sneak into round 1
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
He might but I don't think so
I can’t imagine too many teams reaching for him
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Look at Ponder from last year
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
I hear you, but I think Foles
might be a bigger reach. If Flynn does not go to the Redskins, lets say Miami then Im not sure who is desperate enough to make that reach
Colts- Luck
Browns-Griffin
Seattle – Tannehill
Fins- Flynn (FA)
Are the Cards, Eagles, Bill, Cowboys,Chiefs going to make a reach for Foles in the 1st. I just dont think so
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
I hope not and I dont think any of those teams except for the Chiefs are looking at qbs
alwaysremember21 - January 11, 2012
Will Denver reach for Tebow in
the first round?
The question is will Shanahan, in a critical year, roll the dice on thins out of his control
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
how is Denver 'reaching for Tebow' comparable
you can make plenty of cases where guys projected to be high picks (Rodgers, Quinn, Flacco etc.) fell to the end of the 1st round, or even to round 2.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
You are really good at creating other questions to answer..
but it is a really poor debating technique.
If you are trying to draft a player, hoping they are not drafted until you pick is risky and you have no assurance they will be there.
If you are not trying to draft someone, but they fall to you, you have taken no risk of not acquiring the player of your choice..
Sorry about that….my logic isn’t exactly up to yours, so I have to think things through.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
here's an idea of draft strategy 101
if you base your entire draft on the premise of getting player X, you are likely to be vastly disappointed.
Why is it a good thing for a team to trade up for someone if they don’t have to?
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
i dont think the rookie
QB this year is the critical component to the team, because unless we land Luck he will not be starting. So yes, since we have so many needs in other positions, I think he can gamble selecting QBs in this year’s Draft.
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Mike's situation??
so making a risky move that hurts the overall team gives him better job security??
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
EXACTLY
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
yes...that is actually what I am recommending
make risky moves that hurt the team…sendss them into the gutter…..
sounds like a plan…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
I think its funny that you think we're crazy for thinking you're crazy for wanting to trade draft picks away to get a QB
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
how did my argument not address yours??
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
like this
Fixed
See how easy that is?
It is your opinion that a specific move hurts the overall team. You stated it as though it was a fact. Did the Giants hurt their team by trading for Eli Manning?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
My point is you created a scenario based on your
take…and then shot it down.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
how is it 'my take'
drafting QB’s in general is a risky strategy, much less trading up for them giving up multiple picks and players.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
this isn't your take?
It’s the gospel?
Huh?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
no its based on an extremely low success rate...i thought that was understood
I guess it isn’t on your Google images or Video searches.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
No problem...It is your opinion
It is what it is and it is on the record.
Stand up for it. No need to explain. Make it your sig. Others can decide if they think it makes sense or not.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
apparently i do need to stand up for it since you keep posting dumb comments based on zero facts or football knowledge
not sure why i’d put it in my sig
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Dumb comments..
zero facts…
no football knowledge…
tsk tsk…don’t get upset just because you have been called out for being incorrect multiple time in one thread….like this…
http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/1/11/2699296/wes-bunting-talks-rg3-and-blackmon-specifically-their-fit-in#
There is an old saying…
You have officially entered pounding the table territory.
But it is ok…please continue…it is intereting to watch…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
where have I been called on on? and what have I been wrong on?
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
by the way...thanks for putting this out there for everyone to see
It provides context to all of your arguments.
I will leave it to others to decide how to evaluate your comments based on this position.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Thanks, not sure how I haven't been clear on that in the past (or how it isn't backed up by those pesky things called facts)
I hope people view my statements as logical constructs and not crazy ramblings.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I haven't seen it.
But I get it now.. It makes sense.
Your preferred approach to winning in the NFL is signing QBs via FA or trades and you believe the numbers support this.
Oh…and Tannehill has more upside than Robert Griffin.
It all makes sense now. Rambling done.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
dude it is a good thing you aren't a baseball player otherwise the Mendosa line would be renamed the DavidDunn line
also where did I saw Tannehill has more upside? I said he has the same upside just without the polish.
Or where did I say my preferred approach was signing FA QB’s or via trades? All I said Is I think signing Flynn is the best in this instance.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Sorry...I apologize...
Correction….
That makes it better…..
heh…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
still waiting to hear how that is wrong
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Or where did I say my preferred approach was signing FA QB’s or via trades?
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
okay...not sure how you divined that trades and FA is less risky
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
umm what??
how does signing a player like Flynn hurt the overall team? You aren’t giving up multiple picks for him.
Oh so you bring up the Giants argument…the Giants traded for Eli at a reduced rate b/c he didn’t want to play in San Diego, and they were the only team that could trade up for him (since San Diego made getting Rivers a prerequisite). That isn’t the same case here.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
According to you....lost draft picks
“hurts the team”
So ….were the Giants hurt?
Otherwise, what is you criteria for being hurt?
Here is mine, the team misses an opportunity to make them more of a championship contender. And that answers your first question.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
well since Eli sucked for the two years (and longer) that Rivers was on the bench
yes you can speculate that perhaps the Giants would have been better served with Rivers, and the draft picks.
Also you are using only the one time that trading up actually worked. What about how Leaf impacted the Chargers, Vick to the Falcons? How is the Sanchize doing in NY right now?
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
We disagree on Vick and Sanchez
so no, I am not only using that one time
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
even the Jets players think Mark Sanchez is awful
and you don’t think the Falcons would have been better served not giving up that talent and trying to trade back and take Brees? or i don’t know find some other quaterback that actually completes the ball (to his own team)
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
We will agree to disagree.
there is no way we are going to come to the same conclusion. You dislike drafting QBs and think Ryan Tannehill has more upside than Robert Griffin.
We just have different points of view.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
He, like many of us, believes that trading up for a QB is inherently dangerous for this franchise at this time
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
how do i dislike drafting QB's if I want Tannehill?
that doesn’t really seem to make much sense….
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Or where did I say my preferred approach was signing FA QB’s or via trades?
http://www.hogshaven.com/2012/1/11/2699296/wes-bunting-talks-rg3-and-blackmon-specifically-their-fit-in#88348473
I am more than happy to adjust my understanding.
Did I get it right this time?
Or would you like to adjust your statement that drafting QBs is a risky strategy?
I am slow without any football knowledge. Please…work with me.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Actually, drafting a first round QB historically has a low success rate
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
that is not what Steve Shoup said
maybe the man of logic an irrefutable football knowledge could correct himself….
And even with that, that is a nonsense statistic….
Pick a position..any position…drafting the position in the first round will have a low success rate based purely on probability….
It is a nonsense statement that was used to try to shut down debate and then used to try to delegitimize my points…yet it only made Steve less credible.
He can feel free to retract.
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
But the QB position has a lower probability of success than other positions based on the difficulty of the position
StephanHart - January 11, 2012
actually i did say that it had a low success rate
and i’m comparing it to other positions, which dont’ have as low as a success rate (RB, OL, DL, etc.)
It is a valid point why you’d ignore it is beyond me
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
well knowing is half the battle, and admitting your problem is a good first step
again no idea where you get that statement.
Actually i don’t prefer risky draft strategies which is why i’m arguing against trading up for a guy and compounding that risk.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
I'm a little disappointed in the Senior Bowl QBs
Kellen Moore, Ryan Lindley, Kirk Cousins, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles, Brandon Weeden.
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I mean Tannehill was the only other option there, and he was supposed to be if not for the injury
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Yea...
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Here is Mike Shanahan's draft history with quarterbacks
He first drafted Brian Griese in the third round
the second time he drafted a quarterback was in the seventh round–Jarrious Jackson
the third time he selected Jay Cutler in the first round (after trading up to get him,with the 11th pick in the draft, after the Broncos acquired the pick from the St. Louis Rams by trading their 15th and 68th overall picks.)
Skins Fan '77 - January 11, 2012
If thats the price to move up
then why not . if peyton is healthy the colts WILL NOT draft luck. there is no way they pass on blackmon and kalil to get a back-up that wont help peyton this year. If that happens the whole draft changes like when orakpo fell to us. this is the best case scenario. i think after what happened to kevin kolb unless he goes to a team with his OC as a head coach hes not going to get big money in FA
taylor21 - January 11, 2012
Luck is going to Indy
It’s a done deal. Manning’s health is irrelevant.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
If they draft luck with a healthy peyton
they can only sign him to a 4year deal with an option for the 5th year if peyton is healthy i think he could play another 2-4 years tops. why not get talent to help peyton early and get a tannehill or casey kenum type later in the draft to be his back up that just makes more sense why bring in a guy that cant help you get back to the superbowl this year 1st overall. I know they have to say they want Luck to drive the price up for the pick. I just think its a bluff if peytons healthy.
taylor21 - January 11, 2012
Preemptive bluffing, that's a new one.
New FO, maybe a new coach = Luck
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
If luck turns out to be a bust
I would not want to be the coach that gave up on peyton. but in all likely hood your right that is the formula new gm new coach new qb (except 49rs)
taylor21 - January 11, 2012
49ers draft Kaepernick, it's not like they were totally sold on Smith going into the year
In a regular offseason Smith may have never been re-signed
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
I think they took him
because they had 5 years of bad tape on alex smith and no off season to see if he fits what they’re trying to do
taylor21 - January 11, 2012
If Peyton passes on all his QB intelligence to Luck
See you later, that’s like building the perfect QB cyborg. Like a Monstar from Space Jam (but as smart as Michael Jordan, Bugs Bunny, or Bill Murray).
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
the two will never be on the same team
Manning is not playing for Indy next year. He’s either retired or on another team.
ThrowItDownBigManThrowItDown - January 11, 2012
Bill Walsh always said not to draft a WR in the first round until everything else is in place.
Which is why I highly doubt Shanahan would be seriously looking at Blackmon this year.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
I agree 100%
1st Round WR’s are a bigger gamble then QB’s
Alex35332 - January 11, 2012
IF Rg3 isn't there, and IF they like a QB in the 2nd round or FA
Than Blackmon would be a valid choice. Not necesarily the best, but an understandable one.
For example, if Shanny wants Flynn, or Weeden, or someone like that, RG3 isn’t there at 6, and Blackmon is….
tman5 - January 11, 2012
I think he follows Bill Walsh's teachings too closer than you think
So I’ll have to disagree.
I think he’d be more likely to draft a QB and sign a FA WR (Bowe) than to draft a WR and sign a FA QB. Just my opinion though.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Dont think Blackman will be there at 6
vikings or jags will grab him
Redskin44 - January 11, 2012
Bill Walsh was also never drafting top 6. If we’re forced to pick a player at 6, Blackmon adds most value to a position in dire needed. Things will likely change with combine and Senior Bowl events….but Detroit drafted Calvin Johnson before Stafford. Point is, if he ends being an All-Pro, drafting WR is an exception to the rule.
Kevin Ewoldt - January 11, 2012
while that is true...the point of Johnson's impact is also proven
Despite Johnson being essentially uncoverable the Lions have struggled (except of course when playing us). Johnson’s first year the Lions went 7-9, but he was the teams 3rd leading receiver behind Shaun mcDonald and Roy Williams and barely beating out Mike Furrey. Yet the next 3 years when Johnson averaged over 1,000 yards a year the team had a total of 8 wins.
Steve Shoup - January 11, 2012
Walsh drafted in the top 6 a few times.
He just traded his first round pick away half of the 10 years he was head coach of the 49ers. He took Jerry Rice, but only when everything else was seen as “taken care of”.
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
I would have said that too
if I had Jerry Rice and John Taylor..We don’t.
tmarine17 - January 11, 2012
RG3 on NFL Today
Said his favorite team growing up was the Denver Broncos. Favorite players were Elway (obviously) and Shannon Sharpe. I can’t help but think he might like coming to Washington now…
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9zkRL-HcRA
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
That's pretty interesting
tman5 - January 11, 2012
Dudes gonna go wherever he's drafted regardless of his favorite team growing up
Now the fact that shanahan traded up for cutler was something I didn’t know. I really don’t think he will trade up, but at this point shanahan could do anything. That’s what makes all this debating so fun.
I think it would be cool to get a badass WR at 6, but only if he’s like insanely good. So good he makes everyone scared.
Al_CaPWNED - January 11, 2012
Don't trade up and away...
If you would trade multiple players for Jake Locker or Tebow or Sanchez or Flacco or Brady Quinn, then, by all means, let’s trade multiple picks and players for RG3. I think he’ll be better than that, but the past 5 years draft history says otherwise.
44ever - January 11, 2012
What are you talking about?
SCSkin21 - January 11, 2012
Which of those QBs was viewed as a potential #1?
Just wondering
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Did you just contradict yourself in your same post?!?
You put him in THAT list, then say “I think he’ll be better than that…” You convinced yourself in your own debate… Yes… trade up!! WHATEVER IT TAKES!!
Knightwchmn - January 15, 2012
RG3 is not the top guy
those are the 2 QBs taken in the last 5 drafts. Find me a 2nd rated guy that was worth trading up for and I’ll rethink it. But the question was should the Skins trade up. My answer is NO WAY.
44ever - January 11, 2012
I don't think you can use that criteria, that's like saying you can't trade up for Luck b/c of
Jamarcus Russell
Parks Smith - January 11, 2012
Phillip Rivers
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Aaron Rodgers...
By the redskins….who got Campbell instead..
I love the “5 draft” caveat….sorry…I gave you 6…
DavidDunn - January 11, 2012
Jake Locker!
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Let me take a quick moment
to point out the face that being rated #2 in any given pool of candidates is entirely relative to the other talent in the pool.
Example: if you are the 2nd smartest guy in a room full of morons, that doesn’t mean much. However, if you are the 2nd smartest guy in a room that includes Stephen Hawking, you could still be pretty damn smart.
In 2004 Big Ben was the 3rd (not 2nd) rated QB. He’s done OK for himself.
SCSkin21 - January 11, 2012
Drew Brees
SSBlitz - January 11, 2012
Kellen Moore??
what do you all think of kellen moore i feel hes a fairly good qb, he has a good Football IQ he makes good reads and knows how to read a defense..i think we could get him at the 6th round.
nubycakes - January 11, 2012
If he's there in the 6th take a shot on him
Have him as the 3rd stringer. If he competes well, take it from there.
Nothing more than that
tman5 - January 11, 2012
I want us to pick him up in the 5th/6th round
temujin83 - January 11, 2012
Something I haven't heard anyone comment on in regards to RGIII and the offenses is
how he would effect the ‘Skins running game. Having a QB that can even “threaten” a defense with the ability to run opens up so many more lanes for the HBs. For years any team with a mobile QB has had a top running team. This year it’s denver with tebow, titans with young were there, atlanta with vick were always tops, even him with philly is a good running team.
It just becomes another thing the defense has to worry about, they play contain more often. I think if we did go for RGIII not only would he be able to make throws that our current QB situation does not allow, but our rushing attack with helu, royster and hightower would catapult to top 5 instantly
temujin83 - January 11, 2012
RG3
YES and a resounding YES,GET RG3,GIve up some draft choices to boot if we want a future elite QB,rg3 is the one,GET HIM SKINS!!!Then watch DALAS,PHILY,GMEN start to tremble,Vick,meet your match,yes,I put RG3 in the same breath as Vick,HTTR
Roy m Tillman - January 12, 2012
WHATEVER IT TAKES!!! Guys like RG3 do not come out every year, or every decade for that matter. Not only is he athletic (world class speed), but intelligent (getting his Masters), a leader (got Baylor out of the doldrums and beat rivals they hadn’t beaten in decades – they believed) and comes with no baggage (good home, officers for parents, good background).
These facts are not debatable!! They are real and tangible. He won’t be JaMarcus Russell, but more like Steve Young (athletic, intelligent, good background).
Want a Steve Young who plays his WHOLE career for your team and not wasting half of it bouncing around from the USFL, then to Tampa, then behind Montana forever before getting the helm himself and still breaking records?!?!
Yes… me too!!
Move up… Whatever it Takes!!
Knightwchmn - January 15, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Hogs Haven to post a comment.