Comp picks

[Woz]

1 hour ago, MKnight82 said:

The more confusing part is if we were going with this frugal approach to get comp picks then why:

A. Did we need to move on from Cousins for cap reasons?

B. Did we trade for a 34 year old QB since we appear to be rebuilding? 

These questions are a bit more germane.

[MKnight82]

1 minute ago, Woz said:

These questions are a bit more germane.

I had to google the definition of germane.  We all didn't go to UVA.  

[Woz]

Just now, MKnight82 said:

I had to google the definition of germane.  We all didn't go to UVA.  

Come for the football discussion, stay for the broadening of your vocabulary.  

[Thaiphoon]

1 hour ago, Woz said:

This one is the only move they made where they screwed the pooch. The fact it comes at the single most important position with the best player the franchise has had at that position in over 25 years makes it so glaring.

Had they traded Cousins last year for a first this year or something, it would have hurt, but likely the Redskins would have two top 10-ish picks.

And then we could've gotten a rookie QB, kept Fuller and our 3rd rounder while still getting a NT and a RB in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

So...

• Rookie QB
• RB
• NT
• G (with 3rd rounder)
• and Fuller

And we'd still have comp picks coming our way.

[Woz]

17 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

And then we could've gotten a rookie QB, kept Fuller and our 3rd rounder while still getting a NT and a RB in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

So...

• Rookie QB
• RB
• NT
• G (with 3rd rounder)
• and Fuller

And we'd still have comp picks coming our way.

Or if there was a guy we had to have (I don't think there is, but eh), we could move around/up.

[mar29020]

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

And then we could've gotten a rookie QB, kept Fuller and our 3rd rounder while still getting a NT and a RB in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

So...

• Rookie QB
• RB
• NT
• G (with 3rd rounder)
• and Fuller

And we'd still have comp picks coming our way.

because our franchise is run by dummys

[Slappy Mc]

2 hours ago, Woz said:

This one is the only move they made where they screwed the pooch. The fact it comes at the single most important position with the best player the franchise has had at that position in over 25 years makes it so glaring.

Had they traded Cousins last year for a first this year or something, it would have hurt, but likely the Redskins would have two top 10-ish picks.

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

And then we could've gotten a rookie QB, kept Fuller and our 3rd rounder while still getting a NT and a RB in the 1st and 2nd rounds.

So...

• Rookie QB
• RB
• NT
• G (with 3rd rounder)
• and Fuller

And we'd still have comp picks coming our way.

I think the fact that Cousins was not traded was an indication that the team really was trying to figure out a long term option with him (that was to their benefit). 

Would it have been nice to get the return on investment proposed in this scenario? Of course, but at the same time we all (fans and F.O. included) were duped into believing that Kirk wanted to be here and that a LTD could be managed. 

Hindsight is always 20/20. How could the Redskins know that almost 50% of the team would get hurt and end up on IR? What would have happened if the team was healthy and Kirk led us into the post season, would he have stayed? We will never know. The team never gave up on Kirk. They anointed him "their guy" and paid him handsomely for it. Unfortunately it didn't end up the way we wanted it to.

I think some fans are so upset about losing Kirk, that they can't differentiate the two situations going on. The way I looked at it is this:

First Kirk said he wanted to wait until March to discuss a deal. At that point only Colt McCoy is on the roster. I will repeat ONLY Colt McCoy. 

Then the Redskins (wisely in my opinion) pulled the trigger to obtain a QB that performs at a high level, for an acceptable value. My definition of acceptable value will get me crucified, but hear me out. The Redskins got a Pro Bowl QB for our 3rd CB and a 3rd Round Pick.

I understand that the age of said QB is higher than people want, but I can recall those same people beating the table for the Redskins to take a chance on Peyton Manning at a very similar age. (Not saying Alex is Peyton) Losing Kendall Fuller sucks, but it is not the end of the world IMO. Kendall Fuller coming out of college was highly touted for his ability to play the position, but dropped in the draft due to injury. We drafted two other players that fit that exact same description recently, Fabian Moreau and Joshua Holsey. (Not to mention Monte Nicholson, different position I know) Now I am not saying that either of those players are going to replicate or be better than Kendall Fuller, but I would absolutely trade a slot CB + Pick(s) for a Pro Bowl QB.

Which scenario would people prefer?

Colt McCoy as our starting QB, we keep our 3rd and our slot CB and potentially draft a QB in the first (probably requiring trading future draft capital to obtain a high enough pick)

or

Alex Smith as our starting QB, plugging a vet or young unproven guy in the slot (now known its Scandrick), and potentially trading DOWN in the first to obtain more picks (maybe even get our 3rd back???) or draft a player at a position of need (say NT?) that is very talented

 

In my opinion, as unpopular as it may be, I think the Redskins made the right call. I would probably mope around here with everyone else if we trotted Colt McCoy out as our starting QB. However, with this move, I think the Redskins are still relevant. If we get a solid hole clogging NT, I think our defense should improve immensely. (Pipe Dream) I would love to make it to the NFC Championship game and watch Alex Smith out-duel Kirk Cousins. 

[MKnight82]

11 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said:

Colt McCoy as our starting QB, we keep our 3rd and our slot CB and potentially draft a QB in the first (probably requiring trading future draft capital to obtain a high enough pick)

This all day every day.  Or just tank this year with McCoy and pick one next year.

[Slappy Mc]

2 minutes ago, MKnight82 said:

This all day every day.  Or just tank this year with McCoy and pick one next year.

This fan bases obsession with rebuilding... Beyond me. But different strokes for different folks. I’m glad it’s playing out the way it is.

[mar29020]

34 minutes ago, Slappy Mc said:

This fan bases obsession with rebuilding... Beyond me. But different strokes for different folks. I’m glad it’s playing out the way it is.

hmm rebuild or decade of 5-11 or 7-9??? 

[Slappy Mc]

40 minutes ago, mar29020 said:

hmm rebuild or decade of 5-11 or 7-9??? 

I don’t know why don’t you ask the Browns how their rebuilds have gone. 

For that matter, our rebuilds have been successful in the past too right?

Have we forgotten what it’s like to be successful so much, that at every stumble we want to blow it up and start again?

If/When we make the post-season with Alex Smith, I’m going to be coming (metaphorically) for all the people that wanted to “rebuild”.

[MKnight82]

1 minute ago, Slappy Mc said:

For that matter, our rebuilds have been successful in the past too right?

When did the Redskins ever rebuild?  Even when they sucked they spent themselves into the ground and traded away draft picks. 

[Woz]

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

I think the fact that Cousins was not traded was an indication that the team really was trying to figure out a long term option with him (that was to their benefit). 

Fair enough. However, once they made their "grand offer" and received silence in return? Either you need to up the offer or accept that it isn't happening and look for alternatives.

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

Would it have been nice to get the return on investment proposed in this scenario? Of course, but at the same time we all (fans and F.O. included) were duped into believing that Kirk wanted to be here and that a LTD could be managed. 

I think he wanted to be here, but that the front office did lots of little things to make him question whether they wanted him to be here (repeatedly getting his name wrong, sending the exact same offer as an "updated" offer, etc.).

They could have simply asked: do you want to be here? If so, negotiate with us. If not, we're going to pursue trade options.

Problem with that was that the franchise that would have sold out for Cousins was the 49ers ... and that would mean helping Kyle Shanahan. They let their petty spite block them from resolving the problem that was manifest in front of them.

Keep in mind, they absolutely could have made the trade after the July 15 deadline. I guarantee you the 49ers would have still sold out for Cousins.

They didn't try.

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

Hindsight is always 20/20. How could the Redskins know that almost 50% of the team would get hurt and end up on IR? What would have happened if the team was healthy and Kirk led us into the post season, would he have stayed? We will never know. The team never gave up on Kirk. They anointed him "their guy" and paid him handsomely for it. Unfortunately it didn't end up the way we wanted it to.

Honestly, I doubt it would have mattered. It seems like barring a Super Bowl trophy, there was a portion of the fanbase (and I suspect in the owner's box) who would have come up with some other excuse. I say that because it seems to me, no matter what Cousins did, the goal posts moved as to what was "good enough."

Maybe I'm wrong on that front.

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

I think some fans are so upset about losing Kirk, that they can't differentiate the two situations going on. The way I looked at it is this:

First Kirk said he wanted to wait until March to discuss a deal. At that point only Colt McCoy is on the roster. I will repeat ONLY Colt McCoy. 

At that exact same time, there were multiple QB options that were known to be available. They all had various pros & cons, but it wasn't like the Redskins were absolutely required to make any moves in January. To their credit, they did so to make sure they got "their guy," but that was never required.

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

Then the Redskins (wisely in my opinion) pulled the trigger to obtain a QB that performs at a high level, for an acceptable value. My definition of acceptable value will get me crucified, but hear me out. The Redskins got a Pro Bowl QB for our 3rd CB and a 3rd Round Pick.

I understand that the age of said QB is higher than people want, but I can recall those same people beating the table for the Redskins to take a chance on Peyton Manning at a very similar age. (Not saying Alex is Peyton) Losing Kendall Fuller sucks, but it is not the end of the world IMO. Kendall Fuller coming out of college was highly touted for his ability to play the position, but dropped in the draft due to injury. We drafted two other players that fit that exact same description recently, Fabian Moreau and Joshua Holsey. (Not to mention Monte Nicholson, different position I know) Now I am not saying that either of those players are going to replicate or be better than Kendall Fuller, but I would absolutely trade a slot CB + Pick(s) for a Pro Bowl QB.

Fair enough.

However, as I have said before, if it was Fuller for Smith straight up, then the third round pick could have mitigated for the loss. If it was a 3rd for Smith straight up, they wouldn't have a hole in the secondary. It's the combination of the two that has kind of put their draft strategy into a bit of a bind. It's why I have been banging the table about getting a guard (and slowly counting down the options as they sign elsewhere). It's why others have been banging the table for Hankins. They have major holes but don't seem to be working to fix them.

Further, just because they drafted Fuller and Moreau in the same manner (1st round picks who fell to the 3rd because of injuries and thus became value picks), doesn't mean they both would have panned out. Even if they had, having both Fuller and Moreau would have made the loss of Breeland that much easier to take. Next man up and all. Maybe Moreau and Holsey solve the #2 and #3 corners (or Scandrick has a great recovery year).

But that's banking on a maybe. That's not a sound strategy.

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

Which scenario would people prefer?

Colt McCoy as our starting QB, we keep our 3rd and our slot CB and potentially draft a QB in the first (probably requiring trading future draft capital to obtain a high enough pick)

or

Alex Smith as our starting QB, plugging a vet or young unproven guy in the slot (now known its Scandrick), and potentially trading DOWN in the first to obtain more picks (maybe even get our 3rd back???) or draft a player at a position of need (say NT?) that is very talented

Question: why couldn't the Redskins in scenario A have made a play for a guy like Teddy Bridgewater or Sam Bradford or even A.J. McCarron? If there was a QB at 13, draft him, but trade down from 13 if they didn't like what was there?

In that scenario, they have their veteran corner in Fuller, their 3rd round pick and more picks beyond that?

1 hour ago, Slappy Mc said:

In my opinion, as unpopular as it may be, I think the Redskins made the right call. I would probably mope around here with everyone else if we trotted Colt McCoy out as our starting QB. However, with this move, I think the Redskins are still relevant. If we get a solid hole clogging NT, I think our defense should improve immensely. (Pipe Dream) I would love to make it to the NFC Championship game and watch Alex Smith out-duel Kirk Cousins. 

Do not get me wrong: I never want to see Colt McCoy under center for any reason other than to take a knee at the end of a game as part of a victory formation.

That said, the "well, they had to do something because all they had was Colt McCoy" doesn't make sense to me. There were options, including possibly Alex Smith had no one offered a trade for him (as far as I can tell, there were only suitors in Smith after the Redskins were looking to trade for him). Even if Alex Smith went somewhere else, that meant that a team like the Jets or the Broncos wouldn't have gone after a quarterback, leaving either a free agent or a draft pick option.

As I said in the poll as to whether the Redskins should tank or not, I wasn't in favor of that option. They had major needs that would hinder them from making a deep playoff run regardless of who was under center. In making "their move," they made it harder to fill those holes.

[Thaiphoon]

4 hours ago, Slappy Mc said:

I think the fact that Cousins was not traded was an indication that the team really was trying to figure out a long term option with him (that was to their benefit). 

Bruce stated recently that they knew they had to move on from him after he didn't take the deal last year. If that's the case, then he should've been traded. But this team doesn't know how to maximize value when it can. 

Additionally, @Woz is correct. Kyle Shanahan absolutely WANTED Kirk in San Fran. There was recently a story where it was reported that Kyle was basically in mourning when they traded for Garoppolo. Because it meant he wasn't getting Kirk. Now, Jimmy G's play took the sting out of that. But he didn't have that guy on his roster last July.

I can guaranteed you that @Woz is correct. The 49ers would've backed up the draft pick truck for Cousins if we had traded him last July to them. But this F.O. is petty and vindictive.

[turtle28]

In hindsight obviously I agree with Thai. At this time last year though I was more with Eric.