Someone please tell me how do we handle the QB situation ?
by skinsdad62 on Jan 26, 2012 6:00 PM EST
Email
PrintI have seen here how some people like flynn or manning etc or how they feel we should gut 2 drafts for Luck or RG3 .
My question is what do you guys want to do ? let me go over the options with the assumption that Luck and RG 3 are gone . I dont see the need to go over how to get either guy or whether we should . Any reasonable fan knows if we can get them we should .
Lets look at Flynn . he has 2 NFL games on his resume' and has done well in both . Some say that isnt enough and that he is the next Kolb . They also say he isnt a franchise qb and his WRS do the heavy lifting . Ok I say that is fair enough. However the question is what do you want Flynn to do ? Do you sign him because he is better then Rex/Beck and their 31 turnovers ? Are you signing him to be "the answer " ? For me personally i sign him because he is better then any qb on our roster and if he can cut the turnovers in half then I think that can give us 3 more wins . I would definitely still draft a qb before round 2 ends and then another late . I dont expect Flynn to be "the savior" . I expect him to allow us to actually compete in some games
Now here is a list of other qb s that could be available via trade or free agency Cassell , He is a stop gap that shouldnt turn the ball over much . Orton same thing . Sanchez , young guy who had a better season then any of our other qbs . He is avg and will need play makers around him . Alex Smith another avg qb Again he is better then Rex/Beck . Moore again he is better then what we have and he is AVG .
Thats the problem people we are looking bat bringing in an AVG vet qb to manage the game but that seems unacceptable to most of you .
Now lets look at Manning . He is 37 years old , has health issues , but he could be the best temporary solution we have albeit an expensive one . Personally if we sign him this says we are close to a playoff run and would be the same mistake we have made throughout the Snyder era . Then our draft will be all about putting offensive play makers around him and protecting him . We can benefit from this but to me signing Manning wreaks of Jason Taylor , and the rest of the signings of the over 30 player in hopes of catching some glory .
To me our most likely scenario is we sign or trade for one of the above AVG qbs , and then we draft a Tannehill, Foles, Weeden in round 2 or something . We would then hope you can get them up to snuff by midseason . I would then draft a Wilson or Lindley type later in the draft as well .
So my question to the anti-Flynns or avg qb guys is what do you do if Luck and RG 3 are gone or we cant make a deal ?
117 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
If there no deal to be made then you draft best offensive playmaker
even if that richardson our offense sucksand helu and royster havent deminstrated that they can stay healthy . then grab a qb in round 2. my problem with flynn is that he isnt going to come cheap and will probally be one of the top 5 highest paid free agents. I feel like that money could be spent elswhere building the team up. anybody wiould be an improvement over what we have so why not target a guy whos good enough and if you miss out on rg3 and can grab a guy like weeden later and he will know that hes gonna get some reps when the starter fails. my fear is we get Matt Flynn and sign him for 4-5 years and then come draft day Rg3 is there at 6 and we pass him or pass up in future drafts because we commited to a free agent like in years past
A-men skinsdad62
RG3 is just to easy to pass up and we need to get him while we can esp with the high draft pick we already have , pulling a dan synder by just getting a stop gap QB puts us back into the so so aarea all over again . We need to pony up and grab our QB while we can snag him because this chance might not come again for another long time for us the way our team luck runs . Pull the trigger and get RG3 we need a real QB not a kolb or a stop gap .
by washingtonwin on Jan 26, 2012 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
why take Richardson
when you can trade back, grab an OG in the first, and an RT and WR in the 2nd? That would upgrade our offense a hell of a lot more than Richardson.
I agree
If you don’t trade back and one of the top 5 projected are not there then you have to trade back. No other option, I honestly think that Richardson would be a wasted pick for us. With Hightower back and Royster in the rotation from the beginning, they all won’t take as much wear and tear
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 7:20 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Hope to sign
Nicks/Grubbs and Bowe/Colston/Jackson, then go all-in for RG3.
I changed my last name to Shanahan, and now I'm the new OL Coach.
If Luck and RG3 are inaccessable.....
I think most of us are in favor of wanting to trade back. I believe that you have to put Weeden in a different category than Fo/Ta. If we go after Weeden, with the age factor, it should be because we think he is ready to go. Fo/Ta should probably net be thrown in at #1. I think that if we can trade back productively Weeden and Foles might is an interesting idea (this idea also predicates on the idea that we do something to sure up the OL in FA. I am not even completely against signing Manning to a 2 year deal, as long as get one of the aforementioned QB’s as well. Not sold on Flynn.
"Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say."-Robert Hunter
Easy
We do that by free-agency & the draft first taking care of the offensive line, needs 2 guards, a center and a right tackle then our quarter-back can have a chance to throw the ball down field. If we do not address the offensive line first it will not matter who is back there, they will not stay healthy for long. So we have to take care of the offensive line first and at the same time select our quarter-back of the future.
i would say a trade down
is the best option for us . then you could target foles/tannehill , rainey and glenn
I find it funny.
When most of you guys post. I can tell exactly what your going to say from what you say in the first few lines. Like this one…
“.I have seen here how some people like flynn or manning etc or how they feel we should gut 2 drafts for Luck or RG3 .’
In reality even if we give up a lot to get RG3…..like 2 1sts and 2nds and later round pick. Thats five picks out of 2 years. Not exactly gutting our drafts. Would still have picks.
But anyway…could tell right then you wanted Flynn or to trade back just from your first line.
we're talking about the loss
of 3 starters and a depth player here. That is a lot, considering the number of holes on this team.
You are assuming that all 3 starters and the depth guy work out
Last years draft isn’t going to happen every year. Even the best personnel guys don’t hit it right every year on every player. Guys like Robinson, Smith, Hurt probably don’t even make other squads. Part of the reason why our draft was so good was because of the lack of talent already here. As the talent level rises here you will see way more “misses” in the draft.
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 7:26 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
They can't work out
if you don’t draft them.
by tuckwell on Jan 26, 2012 7:30 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
I would trade 3 starters and a depth guy for a franchise QB all day long
And he too won’t work out if we always “wait until next year”…only then we are drafting 15-20 and have to give up more.
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 7:51 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
BINGO
Trade up it is worth losing a few picks now than losing 5 later .
by washingtonwin on Jan 26, 2012 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
we don't have 3 offensive starters after TW
who has been a perrinial starter? Cooley? Moss? That was way before the last era…thats beginning of Gibbs era. So 3 starters from the Shanny area…you’d get rid of Trent Williams gone as well as that 4th overall pick. Ryan Kerrigan gone as well as that 16th and 2nd round pick we got. And Our 3rd? (i don’t quite remember the trades) So for arguments sake Kerrigan Jenkins and Hankerson (thats a package deal) and 1 more starter….Brian Orakpo…..defense fucked…..oline even more fucked….team fucked for 5 more years shanahan fired
WE LOSE by your method.
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
And you are assuming
Griffin works out.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 26, 2012 10:05 PM EST up reply actions
And you are assuming those picks would turn into 3 starters.
Redskins @RGIII - 2012
by Copious 1 on Jan 26, 2012 10:20 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
"We can always wait until next year" is what will be said in 2014
Safe to say that there is a better chance of RGIII working out than any of the 2nd tier prospects. Agreed?
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 11:22 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
The difference
is 3 picks with a good chance of working out vs. 1 pick with a good chance of working out.
If, in the first scenario, one pick is a bust, you still netted 2 other starters. In the second scenario, you’re fucked.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 27, 2012 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
I am not looking to insult...
but you have to be kidding me. No one knows if ANY of these players will accomplish what FOs hope for. Over half of the players drafted fail. Some fail because they were selected by the wrong teams/systems.
Yes, mathmetically, the chances are better with three, SLIGHTLY. But, since MOST fail, your argument is pretty irrelevant…
I think a lot of people
Got fooled by last years draft. They think just because you have a draft pick it means they will work out.
I think Shanahan knows what kind of players fit his system
and the scouting department seems to know what they’re doing. I would wager that any pick they make in the first 2 rounds will work out.
You basing it off if 1 draft?
No personnel guy has the type of draft we had last year, every year. We will have misses.
by Bryan Black on Jan 29, 2012 12:40 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
also QBs are more likely to Bust
no sense in giving up 2 1st and a 2nd and a 3rd thats ludacris thats a whole bunch of bust and fail everywhere
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
Of Course
No one drafts a franchise QB with the back up plan. When QB’s are drafted that high, either a team trades draft picks or they have one of the top picks in the draft, implying that they are a terrible team and have many holes. Drafting a franchise QB is not something that’’s done on a whim. Do you think the Colts were thinking after they drafted Manning, “Well if Manning doesn’t work out were going to do A, B, and C.” No of course not, and for that matter neither was the team that drafted Ryan Leaf, or Akili Smith, or Tim Couch,
You can’t run an organization with this kind of thinking. Either you believe that this QB can be your Franchise QB or you don’t go after him. There’s no in the middle. If there’s is any doubt you don’t do it. This is why teams that miss on QB’s high in the draft are setback numerous years. Either our coach/gm/owner are all in agreement that RG3 is the guy and they go after him or there not in agreement and they go in another direction. There is no in the middle. There is no if he doesn’t work out what are we going to do. I don’t know why people make this so complicated. Either you think RG3 is the guy and you try to trade up, or you move on.
For that matter, there is no point in a wasting a second round draft pick on a QB unless you think that the guy can be the long term solution to the QB position.
by bigmikeemike09 on Jan 27, 2012 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
I totally agree, you dont draft a guy in the 2nd rd with the thought of drafting another QB in the following draft
cause the reality is that most QB’s take time to develop and just cause they may struggle in their Rookie year dont mean a guy cant play. it can take 3 seasons before they hit their stride
why?
If your giving up next years 1st this years 2nd and next years third? It’d be a lot less costly to just draft a guy next year giving up nothing for him. Your way is so much more expensive
A fan of losers, Redskins, Wizards, Orioles, Terps, Dale Jr, America
ok mad russian
what do you do ? see I dont believe you are getting RG3 for 2 1st , 2 2nds and a late round pick
i believe the brown easily out bid that proposal chart or no chart
now if your proposal came to pass i would say get RG3 for that price . it doesnt gut 2 drafts
the question is quickly becoming , how bad do the browns want him
yes the Browns can outbid the Redskins for RG3 that is not a question
But the Browns have what the Redskins dont have a young QB in Colt McCoy just 21 starts, and if they choose to they can wait on QB, and add a playmaker at Wr, they was going to pick Julio Jones, and now if somebody gets RG3 they can get Blackmon the best wr in draft so it is a no lose situation for them vs having to overpay to move up just 2 spots cause they in bidding war with Redskins
ok skinsdad62
What makes you so sure the Browns even want RG3? That they arent moving forward with Clausen or gonna go after Flynn or Manning? And how do you know the Browns are willing to give up that much? You said yo believe they easily outbid us, what makes you believe that?.and no matter what the Browns have the Redskins can always outbid them. just have to offer more.And if the Rams want too much and it gets close to what it would cost for Luck. Then let the Browns have RG3 and get Luck.
The thing that makes me so sure the Browns aren't moving forward with Clausen...
is that Clausen is a Carolina Panther.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
I know.
I was just being a dick.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
ok mad russian
assume another team beats us out ? who do you get ? just say that they are gone however it might be . what do you do ?
how hard is it to simply answer that question ?
as for the browns i think they would be smart to keep mccoy and add some playmakers around him . thats what i would do
but the post stated "assume they are gone " what do you do ?
I have said from the start
if both are gone you go with best player available or trade back, but you assuming a lot.
But your entire post
Is spent trying to make it seem like flynn is the best bet. Your not asking what we should do. your trying to guide as many people as you can to agree with you. And making what assumptions you have to make to make sure they have to. Just kind of how I read it.
if you read it hat way you were wrong
the best bet for the skins is to sign a vet free agent and draft a qb , perhaps 2
Read this yesterday by Rich Tandler. Kinda kills the whole we can't afford to trade up for RG3 arguement.
There will be competition for Flynn’s services and the cost of his contract will go into eight figures annually. The last coveted backup quarterback to hit the market was the Patriots’ Matt Cassel. In 2009 the Chiefs signed him to a contract that was just north of $10 million per year (6 years, $63 million).
Flynn will almost certainly get more than that. With new TV contracts coming that will drastically increase player salaries, Flynn’s agent certainly will ask for a cut of that. Without the big revenue increases we would expect that Flynn’s deal would be worth about 20 percent more than Cassel’s deal, or about $12 million per year. The TV deals could drive it up to the $14 million-$15 million range.
Let’s work with a conservative number of $13 million. That is not an unreasonable deal for a quality starting NFL quarterback. But it is a lot more than the Redskins would have to pay Robert Griffin.
Last year, quarterback Cam Newton was the first pick of the draft and he got a four-year contract worth about $22 million. Given annual contract inflation, that is about what Griffin should expect to get if he is the second pick in the draft.
If you do the math, you can see that Griffin would cost about $8 million less per year than would Flynn. Yes, the Redskins would be minus a couple of high draft picks that they would have to spend to move up. But they would have an extra $8 million per year to spend on free agents or to retain their own players. That certainly could balance out some of the sting of the loss of the draft picks.
You can reach Rich Tandler by email at RTandlerCSN@comcast.net and you should follow him on Twitter @Rich_Tandler.
Rich is wrong per many NFL sources
Most are speculating after Cassel and Kolb sputtered, Flynn’s contract will be more like 3-4 years, $20-24 mil with heavy incentives and a relatively low guaranteed amount. Very doable. And, costs no picks. I’d rather give the guy too much money than kill our drafts.
by tuckwell on Jan 26, 2012 7:33 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
What sources?
I have never seen one things stating anything like that.
What a cop out.
When you actually have some proof please present. Otherwise your info is meaningless. Think you just really want Flynn and are willing to say anything to justify it. Real or not.
I don't keep a file of it. Google it or something.
I was at work all day and just got home, in time to crash out and do it again tomorrow. I’’m not lying, if that’s the concern.`
signing flynn could cost a lot
no doubt about it . but we can afford it if we want to and the key is if we want too
so i will go back madrussian and ask you , what do you do if the scenario i laid out comes to pass? you make the call on the qb
cant do that
you put up too many variables. All your doing is trying to lead people to the same decision you made. Taking Luck and RG3 out of things cannot be done because they are very much in play. And they way you put it cant be done that way. by the time the draft comes around we will have Flynn or wont.
lmao
nobody has ever lied on the internet.
I applaud you on that
Everything you said is correct . Just get the next best QB RG3 and be done with it.
by washingtonwin on Jan 26, 2012 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
But then we have to fill holes in FA
that could have been filled through the draft. So if we want to fill QB, S, CB, RG, RT and WR we are looking at signing 5 FAs because we won’t have the picks to fill it in the draft instead of only having to sign an FA at only 2 or 3 positions (say, for example, OG and WR). This should also factor in when determining the cost of trading up for RG3 vs. Singing Matt Flynn.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 26, 2012 10:13 PM EST up reply actions
News flash
Even the elite teams go into the next draft with “needs”….there will always be needs. Why not get the most pressing and most important need out of the way now and be done with it?
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 11:27 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Haha. Exactly
Show me a team that is set at EVERY position, and I’ll show you the controller used to build that team on Madden.
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
by CJHutch on Jan 27, 2012 1:32 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
We're closer to NEEDS at every position
than being SET at every position, even if the need is quality depth and not a starter. Depth is rounds 3-5.
And the biggest most important NEED is?
Answer that one please….
by Bryan Black on Jan 27, 2012 7:11 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Not that I'm against trading for RG3...
but this reasoning doesn’t really make sense.
Tandler’s saying, “Use a draft pick on a QB because the new rookie wage scale makes rookies way cheaper than free agents, so you’ll have money left over to spend on free agents.”
Yeah, but if you trade away four draft picks for one draft pick (a net loss of three picks), you now have to sign three “expensive” free agents to fill the holes that could have been filled by three “cheap” rookies. See what I’m sayin?
Again, I would actually be fine with trading up for RG3. I just think the reasoning being used here is contradictory.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
If you read it...
its not justifying trading up for RG3. Or saying thats what we should do. He isnt making that as the reason to draft RG3. He is using that example to combat the thinking that if you trade up for RG3 you are losing too much talent by giving up picks. And the reason he brought in the salary scale was to show that you could use some of the money save from Flynn to griffin to replace a few of the picks and take some of the sting away. Wish people would STOP trying to put THEIR spin on what other people say. Reading comprehension is am important skill.
Let me edit my post:
“Tandler’s saying, ‘You can use a draft pick…’”
“I just think the reasoning being used here is contradictory really obvious and can also be used to justify NOT trading up for Griffin, so I don’t really see the point in bringing up this line of reasoning, unless someone was arguing against trading up for Griffin on a financial basis, which they weren’t.”
Also, if I were to re-edit my edit, I would do something about that run-on sentence.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
its to combat the exact thinking that trading up will cost too much in picks.
once again i need to explain simple English. ALL he is saying is that the money saved would help take the sting away from giving up picks. Not saying it will make things equal. The financial info was only there to show how the money saved between going for Flynn and drafting RG3 can help get a couple of people to take the sting away from having to give up high picks for RG3. Thats all. Nothing more nothing less. If you can understand that I cant waste any more time trying to explain it to you.
by Mad Russian on Jan 27, 2012 10:28 PM EST up reply actions
I can't believe that you don't think I understand what he's saying.
I’ve stated it several times—RG3 would be cheaper (financially) than Flynn. Extra money could be used to sign more free agents at other positions. I f*&^$ing get it. Stop telling me I don’t get it after I just reiterated the exact concept multiple times.
I would be happy to trade up for Griffin. I’ve stated multiple times on this forum that I’d be glad to mortgage multiple draft picks in a move up to secure a long term starter at QB. I just feel that Tandler’s argument is addressing a sort of “straw man” of folks who are opposed to trading up. People who are opposed to trading up aren’t saying that if we trade up, we won’t be able to upgrade any other positions. I think most of them realize that signing one draft pick is cheaper than signing four draft picks, and that Flynn is going to be overpaid a huge salary, and that, by combination of those factors, trading picks to take RG3 and not signing Flynn would save the team money, allowing us to sign more free agents. (Here I go again, completely understanding the idea Tandler presented).
People who argue against a trade up do so much more on the basis of acquiring young talent to develop in-house, as opposed to bringing in older free agents who may be past their prime, injury prone, or lacking motivation after signing a huge contract. And while I can admit that, given our history, these are legitimate concerns, let me restate that I ACTUALLY WANT TO TRADE UP FOR GRIFFIN/LUCK. I just think it’s silly to reduce the opposing argument to something so simplistic as: “We shouldn’t trade up because we’ll have no money left over to fill other roster holes.”
I think we actually agree on what we’d like the team to do. I wouldn’t have felt the need to type an essay, but for the fact that you continually insist that I can’t read (which I can—I’m f)*&^ing awesome at reading. My damned name is Reed. Cut the condescension, please).
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
Reedskin
forget the rest of what he said..read this…understand what he is saying? Pay specific attention to the last 2 lines
If you do the math, you can see that Griffin would cost about $8 million less per year than would Flynn. Yes, the Redskins would be minus a couple of high draft picks that they would have to spend to move up. But they would have an extra $8 million per year to spend on free agents or to retain their own players. That certainly could balance out some of the sting of the loss of the draft picks.
There is no way in hell
Flynn is going to cost ANYONE $8mil more per year than what a #2 overall draft pick would. Your numbers are way off; too high on Flynn, too low on a #2 pick.
please explain how?
its laid right out in front of you why he would cost that much. Just asking to show why you think differently. Unlike most of the Flynn supporters I am open to new info that would help me lean another way. Just waiting for someone to do more than just say something. Actually give something t back it up. What i posted was full of information about why I or in this case Rich Tandler thinks. You do realize there is a rookie wage scale now right? And Rich put that the #2 this year will get what #1 made last year. dont know how thats way too low.
by Mad Russian on Jan 27, 2012 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
Cam Newton's contract
is 4 years, $22mil, all of it guaranteed, as would be RG3 if he’s picked #2. If you think Flynn is going to get $13.5mil a year for four years GUARANTEED I don’t know what to tell you. Flynn is likely to get something more like 4 years, $22mil with $12mil guaranteed. Even at the highest figures I’ve seen thrown around, he isn’t guaranteed that much money in that time. The worst speculation I’ve seen is 6 years, $60 mil with $32 mil guaranteed. Broken down by year, that’s still less guaranteed money than Cam got. He’s not going to get anything approaching that number. Hell, Kolb’s contract is five years at $63mil, but only $21mil is guaranteed. Nobody’s going to pay that much for Matt Flynn, nor should they.
He is talking about
What the Redskins would save over 2 years. Did he once say anything about guaranteed money? you trying to put your twist one things putting thins there that arent there. Sorry you can try and twist it any way you want. But I will take the info given by a Redskin insider over someone who must likes to throw out numbers with nothinbg to back them up just trying to prove he is right Rich gave reason fro why he thinks the salary for Flynn will be what it is. He used examples showing inflation,tv contracts ect…So why dio you think Flynn will get what you said. why will he get less than Cassel? You talk about people speculating when that is all your doing. Cam Newton was brought into the article to show what Griffin might make and you agree with that figure. So his guaranteed money has nothing to do with what I posted. I dont how to simplify it for you any more than I have. I am making a new rule here for myself.. I will not talk to or respond to people who refuse to back up what they say. And when they cant even comprehend what someone is saying they are not worth my time. Guess inflation doesnt matter when it come to contracts anymore so the Biggest free agent QB who will hit the market will make less than the ;last 2 free agent Qbs. Yup thats how agents work…they see the last contract and go for less…oh yeah thats it..my fault…i guess i believe in inflation and agents getting bigger contracts each year….how foolish of me.
come on tandler
is one of the worst "insiders " i have seen . occassionally he is right but most of the time he is way off the reservation .
i cant see anyone paying flynn huge money based on 2 pro games . and if he does get huge money then we simply pass and move on to the next free agent .
my only beef with trading up for RG3 is the price . I here all of these "all in " people and i ask how far do you go ? do you ricky williams a draft ? maybe 2 ?
look i think you can find an ILB in round 3 to replace a LBF , perhaps get an o/lineman . but how many picks do you go to before you say uncle ?
Was rich wrong about what the Giants did?
Was there anything in that post false?
You dont see anyone paying him huge money
But you still think he is good enough to be our franchise QB? If you answer is no or I dont know I think your wasting this opportunity to get one.
didnt say he was my franchise qb
i said i would sign him , and draft another qb
anyone thinking that signing flynn is for "franchise purposes " is fooling themselves
you would be looking for him to limit turnovers and perhaps pck p a few wins while you groom your drafted qb from this draft or the next
I'm in the trade uo camp
But no matter the situation do you offer a swap of this years 1st, a 2nd this year along with a 1st (and maybe a 2nd or 3rd) next year. The 2nd or 3rd is an added to get the deal done. Any more than that then I switch over to the trade back camp. I would only go BPA if Khalil or Blackmon are on the board. Claiborne or Richardson and we have to trade back and grab additional picks. I would hope that us trade up folks have a line in the sand. I would never subscribe to the Ricky Williams or Herschel Walker type trades unless we were the recipient of the picks
by Bryan Black on Jan 29, 2012 12:54 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I'm perfectly fine
with you not responding to me any longer, if that’s the attitude you’re going to take. Have a nice day.
Tuck, get out your calculator...
4 years, $22mil, all of it guaranteed
is less than
6 years, $60 mil with $32 mil guaranteed
The last time I checked $22 < $32…
we won't really know if Flynn is cheaper...
than the second pick UNTIL Flynn signs a contract. Only then can we compare guaranteed money…
Per year?
Bout the same. That was my point.
yes, I got that...
as you know, the BIG signing bonus is spread out over the length of the contract, reducing the cap figure in the initial years. BUT, if you have to cut him, due to failure to perform to his contract, then the salary cap hit is quite large. So, either way, the guaranteed money is the point of contention. For this reason, if Flynn signs a contract as some are forcasting, his cost would be more expensive than a rookie…
It's all in the structuring
and Bruce Allen is one of the best at that. If we sign Flynn, he won’t be significantly more expensive than a rookie. If he is, we won’t sign him. It’s really that simple. I think it’s doable.
I'm so sick of this conversation that I'm boycotting all QB related posts until the draft is over.
Starting now.
I see it as more cushion for the pushin'
by iH8dallas on Jan 26, 2012 7:25 PM EST via mobile reply actions
As soon as I hear who our QB is
My first thought is going to be " whew, finally we are done talking about QB’s"
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 7:28 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Wow - you'll miss out on a lot of fun. And how the heck could we all survive till April 26 without discussing QB?
And, of course, the season. One thing though – Shanahan and Allen don’t read our stuff and don’t take our advice. So this is just fun and learning for most of us on HH.
It's amazing that Rex is so bad....
…that we’ve talked about guys such as Joe Webb and Dennis Dixon as our answer. I haven’t heard Brett Favre yet, but there is still time before April!
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 9:34 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Nobody wants JaMarcus Russell, either
Can’t imagine why.
By the way, nobody here has mentioned the thought of trading with St Louis for Sam Bradford, if they took RG3. I’ve heard that Jeff Fisher is high on Bradford, so it could be a moot point, but it would make sense to them if they thought that RG3 was substantially better than Sam. A number of people on HH are high on Sam Bradford, and supposedly Shanahan is, too.
Hey, I've got a question for you
Where do they teach you to talk like this? In some Panama City "Sailor wanna hump-hump" bar, or is it getaway day and your last shot at his whiskey? Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
by CJHutch on Jan 27, 2012 1:34 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Claiborne or best defensive player with our first selection
Grab a guard and or tackle in free agency. Keep Rex and draft Brock Osweiler in the 3rd….easy
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 26, 2012 7:26 PM EST via mobile reply actions
you'd draft a defensive player over OL?
Really?
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
my opinion
Too me its logical to sign Manning(if healthy and available),draft Tannehill or Foles.However the draft plays out by trading back or picking the best player in the first thats a need and getting either one in the second.I know alot are against the Manning signing and compare it to the McNabb fiasco.But we are a QB away from playoff bound.Flynn is not proven and id say Mannings history speaks for itself.He is one of the smartest QB i have watched play ,and there would not be the volume of untimely int’s in the redzone,throwing the ball up for grabs,or running around like a chicken with the head cut off and HOLDING THE BALL FOR 10 SECONDS making the OL look worse than they actually are.
Foles would be my choice of QB’s and hed learn a ton in a short amount of time from Manning .And who knows,maybe hed become our OC when he retires and Fole takes the riens.
ol
ol
Turnover wise, Cutler can't be trusted either
by Bryan Black on Jan 26, 2012 11:28 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
he has raised his game up a notch over the last 2 years
if the bears can get him some wrs and a better oline i think he is superbowl bound in the next few years. just got a feeling he will be the next guy to get a superbowl ring that doesnt have 1 yet.
Romo or Flacco easily before Cutler
by Bryan Black on Jan 27, 2012 7:13 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
Romo or Flacco easily before Cutler
ahahahaha…. oh god.
Thanks for the laugh. Romo is a Cowboy and Flacco is a terrible QB.
by TheDeepBall on Jan 27, 2012 12:40 PM EST up reply actions
The comment was that Cutler would be the first with a ring
of those that don’t already have one. Romo being a Cowboy doesn’t change my feeling. I hope he doesn’t but certainly I could see Romo getting one before Cutler
by Bryan Black on Jan 29, 2012 12:57 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Flacco won't get one simply on his play
He would most likely get one based on their defense and limiting mistakes. Cutler has the defense but he is mistake prone
by Bryan Black on Jan 29, 2012 12:58 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
You would trade first, 2nd and fourth for Cutler?
Did I just read that?
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
in a heart beat
he took the bears to the nfc title game when he was he was sacked like 100 times that year. he woulda got them a wild card this year if he didnt get hurt. the dude is better then alot give him credit for and he is getting better each year.i watched him play against the eagles this year and i kept saying damn wish we had him.
by munson21502 on Jan 28, 2012 12:11 AM EST up reply actions
Sure, we would all love to have him
considering Rex, but the question comes into play when you talk about trading picks for him.
by Bryan Black on Jan 29, 2012 1:02 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
he's a pretty good QB who turns 29 in April
he is not worth a 1st and 2nd.
Especially not to a team with as many needs as ours.
"By far the worst performers on the (R*dskins) are in the front office." – Sally Jenkins
I'd sign Orton and draft a QB (or 2 QBs)
Sanchez isn’t worth trading for (his salary is far above his ability), Cassel was a product of the Patriots – he’s been marginal at best with the Chiefs even though he has Bowe to target. I wouldn’t take Alex Smith if they gave him away. Did you see how terrible he was in the Giants game – I don’t think he is better than Grossman.
I think Flynn is the next Kolb / Cassel. He’s on a team surrounded by talent just like Kolb and Cassel were. He might pan out to be good but I don’t think it’s more likely than Foles, Weeden or Tannehil panning out to be good.
round 1 – tradeback to #9-13
round 1 – Floyd/Jefferies
round 2- best RT on the board
round 2 (from tradeback) – Brandon Weeden
round 3 – ILB
round 3 – C/G
FA – SS
FA – C/G
FA – CB
in need of some clarification...
1. Who is trading up to our spot?
2. Who are they trading up for?
3. Are you handing the keys for Weeden? Or are we resigning Rex?
on another fan forum
the question was asked , who would trade up to ten ? it would never happen it was said but yet it did .
the pats might trade up if they like claiborne. there are several teams who might trade up for a player depending on who falls
well they do have a wr playing on defense
which might cost them big time in the superbowl. mr brady is gonna need to have the game of his life to win this 1 i think. and i hope he does!
by munson21502 on Jan 27, 2012 11:57 PM EST up reply actions
then pick a team highspeed
for the love of god there are teams that will move up to 6 if they like a player
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
