Skip to content

Need to Know: In what round will the Redskins draft a quarterback?

Mar 3, 2016, 5:02 AM EDT


Here is what you need to know on this Thursday, March 3, six days before the start of NFL free agency.

After Cousins tag, when will the Redskins draft a quarterback?

The sharp reader will notice the wording in the headline referring to “when” the Redskins will draft a quarterback, not “if” they will. With Kirk Cousins essentially on a one-year deal with the franchise tag, Robert Griffin III set to leave town, and Colt McCoy a free agent and possibly headed elsewhere for a better opportunity they need depth at the position immediately and a backup plan for the longer term.

I don’t think that the Redskins will take a quarterback in the first two rounds. Even if there is one that Scot McCloughan likes available when the Redskins are on the clock other needs, including the defensive line and a young wide receiver for whoever the quarterback is to throw to, will be viewed as the better available player.

But anytime from Round 3 on, I would not be surprised to see the Redskins turn in a card with a QB’s name on it. It could be Dak Prescott of Mississippi State in the third or fourth, or Kevin Hogan of Stanford sometime on Saturday.

Regardless of who the Redskins take, if McCoy does depart to a place where he thinks he has a better shot at starting some games they will have to find a veteran backup. Perhaps they could go after Matt Schaub or Charlie Whitehurst or one of a few other McCoy types. It’s not ideal but a later-round rookie is not going to be ready to step in if Cousins is sidelined.

But the Redskins do need to be prepared for the possibility that Cousins will move on in 2017 if he and the team can’t come to an agreement and the Redskins don’t think he will be worth the $23.9 million it would cost to tag him for a second year. That’s why they need to get a young QB in the system.

I believe the Cousins will end up staying. I think the Redskins and Cousins will end up agreeing to a long-term contract either this year or possibly in 2017. But McCloughan and the organization can’t gamble with the future of the most important position on the field. They haven’t drafted a QB since they took Cousins in 2012 and they need to get one in the system.


—The Redskins last played a game 53 days ago. It will be about 192 days until they play another one.

Days until: NFL free agency starts 6; Redskins offseason workouts start 46; 2016 NFL draft 56

In case you missed it

  1. colorofmyskinz - Mar 3, 2016 at 6:26 AM

    Agreed, we need to draft a QB, and it is crazy to think here we are again at the table needing to use a draft pick on a QB 4 years later. And we are doing so without a QB signed on a long term deal. Simply amazing.

    We really need to get aggressive with cousins and lock him down long term, because he is only going to get more expensive. We need to contain our costs and NOT gamble on him getting less valuable. That is assnign. We are actually gambling on him not playing up to the tag value by not locking him in. We have the least cap room of 32 teams. If we have to pull out $24 M in years to come we will be shedding players left and right. If we go that route we will lose. Mark my words.

    Back to the table for QB at the draft. Feeling like the Browns until we lock cousins long term.

    • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 7:42 AM

      Settle down. The draft isn’t until April 28. McCloughan knows what he’s doing. A deal will be done by then. The Redskins have $52 million available under next year’s cap before cap raises, rollovers, extensions, and cuts. Get a grip.

      • anthony - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:37 AM

        How do you know that the Skins will have 57 million under next years cap?. I see nothing online supporting your statement. Jordan Reed is a FA next year so I can’t see how you came up with that figure.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 9:22 AM

          Click the 2017 tag and notice the Redskins have 44 contracts totaling $113 million. And yes there will be key guys scheduled to be free agents then (Reed, Garcon, and Jackson) and Cousins IF a long-term deal isn’t signed. However, I expect a long-term deal for Cousins as well as a Reed extension before the season starts and that will bring down that number to about $25 million before all the other stuff I mentioned earlier.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM

        Bang you were wrong about Cousins holding off to sign the franchise tag and you’re wrong about a deal getting done by May. I bet you a “I told you so” a deal will not be done during that time.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:56 AM

          Yes, I was wrong that Cousins would wait a week to sign the deal. Big deal. (Silly pun used especially for you, JD.)

          As for the effect, isn’t this a good thing? Now, only Cousins and the Redskins can negotiate. Cousins will be in on all team activities and they can set their own time table.

          A deal will get done by July 15. If reports are true that they are $4M/year apart it is conceivable that a deal can get done sooner as other QBs sign their deals (Fitz and Oz).

          It is my position, that the Redskins would like the parameters of a long-term deal done by the draft and that Cousins would sign the deal afterward – perhaps mini-camp. Why? The Redskins will draft a QB but would rather draft one later (4th or later) then sooner (2nd or 3rd) but also don’t want to tip their hand prior to the draft.

          If the Redskins draft a QB in the 2nd or 3rd, then two things are likely. 1) they really like the kid. And/or 2) Cousins and the Redskins are still not close on terms.

          Now, if by May 3rd, there are no reports of Cousins long-term deal being eminent, have an ALL CAPS “I told you so.” (Provided the entire post isn’t in all caps as I’d hate for you upset Rich.

          Me, I’ll probably forget about it since I’m more often right than wrong. So why toot my own horn?

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:32 AM

          Lighten up! I was being hypothetical about such a bet. While a long term deal that adds cap space would be great, I’m not confident it will take place even by June. Finally there is some leverage for the team which is getting a contract extension for Reed around June which I bet Cousins would really like along side a long term deal for himself.

          The problem with reports on some 4 million a year separation is that no one knows outside of the Redskins and Cousins the terms associated with that separation. Maybe Cousins wants five years with guaranteed money up to three years and the Redskins want three years with guaranteed money of one year.

          I agree it’s a good thing as well because it does suggest Cousins wants to remain on this team. However, I do find it surprising the agent didn’t ask him to wait at least a week to see if any other teams would entertain offers regardless if it appears far fetched that any team would give up 2 1st round picks, you’d think he’d at least to provide some window for talks.

          I’ll now leave you to return to patting yourself on the back.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM

          Early March cold days must have you ready for summer? You’re hysterical. I’m chill knowing that a deal will get done. I get the angst though. We’ve had an organization that got it wrong so often that it is truly amazing that Gibbs even got us to the playoffs in two of four years. Imagine if he had a guy like McCloughan taking care of the draft and free agency.

          We differ on a few things, but we also agree on a lot. We both think it’s good that Cousins wants to be here, that draft picks were never realistic, that Reed is essential to this offense, and that drafting a QB in the 3rd round or higher is a bad idea. So, I thought it was just a good-nature bet on something we don’t see eye to eye on.

        • hail74 - Mar 3, 2016 at 2:26 PM

          I’ve already heard past GMs say they don’t like wasting time negotiating contracts for other teams, so once the franchise tag and not the transition was placed his agent knew there’d be no other offers. Honestly though, how many QBs today would a team trade two firsts for the right to sign to a multi year 20+mil per contract?

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:18 AM

      Cousins signed that franchise tag before the ink could dry and you want to talk about getting aggressive with him? It’s apparent to me Cousins had no issues accepting the franchise tag. So I think Cousins now needs to show what he can do on the field.

      I see you have a high bar on Cousins already. I hope he does well enough to lock down a big money long term deal. However anyone with their wits about them know not to load up on a huge contract on Cousins just yet. I don’t know where the Redskins are on their offer but I hope they keep that offer under 16 million on cap space. Cousins isn’t worth investing any more than that long term at the moment. I say let his play next season determine his long term value.

      • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM

        How has letting Cousins play out worked for the Redskins? They could’ve had a short-term deal between $10M-$13M a year had they signed him last year. Now, there on the hook for the tag. Bradford has $18M/year deal. The Redskins are going to have to now start there. I had proposed a three weeks ago a four-year $72M deal ($18M/year) that starts with a cap hit of $15M and ends after 2019 with a cap hit of $21M. It had $30M in guarantees with another $12M guaranteed for injury only. At the time, you said it sounded fine. I think the Bradford deal may have made my proposed contract too low. (I hope not, though. Who doesn’t like being right?)
        Point is: if the Skins are fine paying Cousins two consecutive franchise tags, just give him $45M guaranteed in a contract that can be walked away from – if need be – in two-three years.

      • renhoekk2 - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM

        Every year the number of QB’s with draftable grades gets smaller and smaller. The up tempo spread offenses in college are killing the QB position. When you draft a QB today you need to teach him how to run a huddle, take a snap from center,how to do 3,5,7,9 step drops. Basic QB 101. They have no concept of how to read a defense or throw the NFL route tree because spread offenses don’t run anything close to NFL passing concepts. So you better hope that Cousins does work out, because they are not finding a franchise QB in the draft. Nobody is anymore. There is not one QB from the 2013 draft that is a starter in the NFL today. There are a very small handful of colleges that run pro style offenses, It’s no coincidence that the few QB’s recently drafted from those schools are the ones who are playing well in the NFL, Cousins, Wilson, Luck, Bridgewater. There is usually one QB from a spread offense each draft that makes it in the NFL. That is what the options are after Cousins. Draft a guy from the few schools that don’t run the spread offense and hope he has what it takes, or look for the 1 in 100 spread QB that can play in the NFL.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:02 PM

          The college game is also killing the tackle position and the tight end.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:09 PM

          The spread offenses are not killing QBs. NCAA football doesn’t need the NFL to tell them how to coach up kids in college. NCAA football is solely independent of the NFL. Just because there is a dry run on great QBs isn’t justification for blaming the spread offenses. Do you know how long NCAA football has been playing spread offenses?

          The fact is that there are probably more quality coaches in the NCAA than in the NFL, period. If the NFL wants to make the best use of the talent coming out in college football then they need to implement better systems. NCAA football is not the freaking farm system for the NFL, so get over these bogus assumptions that college football is not teaching fundamentals.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:18 PM

          “They have no concept of how to read a defense or throw the NFL route tree because spread offenses don’t run anything close to NFL passing concepts.”

          Seriously do you know what you are talking about here?

          Are you going to tell me spread offenses don’t run fade, post, or corner routes? No dig routes …not comeback routes …no curl routes?

          Do you know what offense doesn’t run tree routes often? New England with Tom Brady. So maybe you want to blame NE for ruining QBs. What this comment is littered with bogus assumptions.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:30 PM

          Bang, please explain how college game is killing those positions. Now LT might be an issue with fundamentals because many players are so athletic and conditioned they can get by with that alone to take out blitzing edge rushers in the college. Left Tackle has always been a position challenged the most with fundamentals that require being coached up and developed by the NFL since the late 80s,

          Tight Ends are being destroyed by the college game? Oh please give me a break. Tight ends out of college have never been more athletic, better catching the ball, and as fast as they are today. What? The NFL can’t teach TEs how to block NFL LBs and it’s the college game’s fought?

          What a bunch of nonsense. If there are issues with fundamentals in the NFL game today then it has more to do with limit practices, camps, and full pad practices than it could have anything to do with the college game. Consider the CBA restrictions impact on fundamentals and then you guys look like you know what the heck you are talking about with this blame game of the year comment section.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:37 PM

          Sorry guys, I think I’m over caffeinated today. I’d like to retract the “don’t know what you are talking about and false assumption stuff'”. Let’s just say I vehemently disagree with the concept that the college game is hurting the players in the NFL.

        • renhoekk2 - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:56 PM


          Bogus assumptions? Believe what you want to believe. THE FACT is the only QB’s recently drafted that are having success in the NFL are from non spread offenses. Except for the occasional player like Cam Newton or Derek Carr. FACT is no QB from the entire pool of NCAA QB in 2013 is now a starting QB in the NFL. NONE. NOT ONE. Or is that an assumption too? How is that possible? Your solution is the NFL should scrap everything they do and run college offenses? Seriously? College offenses aren’t better. They work because the vast majority of players playing defense are not NFL caliber players. If you bothered to read the scouting reports for most WR you would see that the biggest knock on most of them is that they don’t run the NFL route tree and need to learn how to run NFL patterns.

          I know that the NCAA is not setup to be a farm system for the NFL but the fact remains that it is THE system that it draws it’s players from. The fact that they are so different is why so many teams are struggling with finding players. Like Ben commented it’s also hurting the OL and TE positions and not just QB. College OL don’t get into 3 point stances and fire out at DL. They are in 2 pt stances and just shield defenders. But I guess that is just an assumption on my part too. Right?

        • hail74 - Mar 3, 2016 at 2:20 PM

          While your right that the NCAA doesn’t need to worry about the NFL, individual schools do use the NFL as a recruiting tool. You think North Dakota State isn’t pumped that Wentz is the projected top QB in this draft?

        • Thetruthis - Mar 3, 2016 at 3:25 PM

          Yeah, just like Cam and Russell Wilson, Alex Smith. Were you aware that the last 4 Super Bowls has featured a young mobile QB and zero young college pro style QB’s. The only pro style QB’s to make it at all are the old top pro style QB’s. I suppose they bring their years of experience and that is the primary reason they made it there. The problem is the NFL keeps saying “you have to be a pocket passer to make it in the NFL” and don’t even realize that things are fast achanging!

          The reason the spread QB’s have not been successful in the NFL is when they get with behind the times thinking coaches who try to retro fit them into the pocket passer. When the facts are starting to REVEAL, WHISPER to those who have ears to hear and learn. The teams that do make it with young QB’s are the ones who play to the strengths of their mobile QB’s while also letting them use their strong arm talent which MOST of the have even though it is often downplayed because they are mobile.

          The NFL is an evolving league and it gets most of its creativity from colleges, not the other way around. If the reddskins understood this they would not have went the direction of Jay Gruden. HIs West Coast offense is soooo easy to shut down it is not even funny. Those QB’s who stand in the pocket are a defenses dream. And when your QB does not pose a deep threat on any given throw it just becomes even easier to stop them.

          You my friend are just parroting what a lot of correspondents say, while they still pump up Qb’s like Cams skills are when they win big.

          The SB match ups of recent years are very telling as to what is currently working in the NFL as well as what is not. Let me spell it out to you—Either a very old top rated pocket passer QB, or a very young mobile QB.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 4, 2016 at 7:25 AM

          First off it’s called a tree route and not a route tree. You are taught the tree route as early as in high school in my day and probably much earlier today. I read many scouting reports and never had one refer to a “route tree” issue for receivers. Do you know how many routes are run under a tree route? If a college WR didn’t know how to run any routes that consist of the tree route then he hasn’t been playing football. Again, the only deviation from the tree route is what New England runs under the Erhardt-Perkins offense system. All other offensive systems I can imagine exist utilize so form of the tree route. So sorry I’m not buying what you are claiming here. You obviously misunderstood some scouting reports to come to such a conclusion.

          I’ve had this discussion about QBs draft out of spread offenses and ones drafted out of pro style offenses. Yes, pro style offenses have about a 50% success rate in the NFL over spread offense QBs at around 65%. I also know that spread offenses were once normally implemented for QBs with inferior skill sets. Ones that lacked arm strength for example. However that has changed over the years. Cam Newton, Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, Marcus Mariota all have succeeded in the NFL.

          Do you think college Quarterbacks in pro style offenses don’t have their failures and struggles even recently? Look at flops like Chad Henne, Jimmy Clausen, Christian Ponder, EJ Manuel. and Mike Glennon. Now there is a group of bottom barrel QBs that came into the NFL not to long ago. The point is you can point to more failures on NFL quarterbacks that played in the pro style offense in college than you can at spread offense quarterbacks. The drought on great NFL QBs is just a dry run and using spread offenses as a complaint is a convenient scapegoat for many failing NFL coaches As much as I like Bruce Arians he just needs to learn how to do his job by shutting up an start coaching up.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 4, 2016 at 7:30 AM

          “They are in 2 pt stances and just shield defenders. But I guess that is just an assumption on my part too. Right?”

          It’s a huge assumption on your part! Nothing you provide comes with fact. You provide nothing in the form of substance to your claims. It’ looks like opinion you bought into with no research just because a few NFLers are making comments about it.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 4, 2016 at 7:41 AM

          I completely agree with theTruth that the NFL is evolving and that some old style NFL coaches are going to eventually get left behind. Elements of the college schemes have slowly been making its way into the NFL creating hybrid offensive schemes and defensive schemes. The NFL doesn’t have to mirror college football but it is utilizing elements of it and has so for decades.

          I also agree many of these comments about spread offenses causing fundamental issues is the parroting of other correspondents. It started with the QB but now every position is the being hurt by college football not teaching fundamentals? Again, college football is bringing the NFL the most highly skilled and athletic players ever seen. It’s up to the NFL to mold these kids into the NFL game. If they can’t do it then some other coach, probably from college, will be brought in to do it for them.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 4, 2016 at 7:44 AM

          Just a point to keep things somewhat accurate here: Russell Wilson played in pro style offense in college for both NC State and Wisconsin.

      • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 3, 2016 at 6:48 PM

        The 16M figure is what they budgeted for RGIII. Rob, even with his struggles, is a ‘decorated’ QB with enough of a sample size to put him in that 16M incentive heavy ranged contract. In short he earned it. The contract should read as a compliment. It’s like saying “hey we think you could’ve been ROY and threw for single digit INT’s if you had an entire off season under your belt, if we had given you the chance.” With Kirk’s small and inconsistent body of work, even though he reached some of the same feats as RGIII, we only have one season and a handful of replacement gams in which he got himself benched so I get why Scot is hesitant to tether himself to Kirk. Just not enough, data. Kirk also wasn’t going to accept 16M when he can play this year for 20 do an average job and still get top tier money in FA because the QB crop isn’t looking to get better next draft either. You brought up an interesting point in your earlier tiff with Bang that “what if it isn’t the 4M driving the wedge between them in negotiations but rather the length of the deal?” I doubt that’s the case as Scot is on the record stating he’d rather take care of his guys with a long term deal which points more towards the money not being right. I agree with you that he is worth the 16M because so much of his future is unknown, is he better than Sam Bradford? He could literally be the next Rex Grossman, good kirk bad kirk. He just wasn’t going to accept 16M as a compliment because 1. That’s RGIII’s contract, when you benched him for me you were basically saying I’m better than him so why am I making what he would’ve made? Shouldn’t I make more if I’m better than him? 2. Franchise tag is 20M which I DOUBT he asked for because that’s top tier money and you’ve only played like 20 games 3. Still some QB contracts to establish the market, hopefully a long term deal.

        • Tom - Mar 4, 2016 at 1:33 AM

          @renhoekk2 I guess you could say I’m confused as to why you are so surprised that there isn’t a starting QB from the 2013. If you look at the talent pool there, 3 quarterbacks taken in the first 3 rounds, one in each, and not one of them were even considered top tier QBs in college. There were 4 QB Heisman finalists, none of them were even in the 2013 draft. Not saying all Heisman QBs are NFL quarterbacks, but that is just one example to how bad that QB draft was but there were still good quarterbacks competing in college.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 4, 2016 at 7:55 AM

          You make some valid points about the 16 million being what RG3 was provided as a rookie contract extension. However, the organization had the opportunity to cut him at any time to avoid that offer. So there was an easy way out of the contract in that scenario. With Cousins at 16 million, I’m really basing it on cap percentage. When I did the research on cap percentage, the top tier QBs were 12 percent and over. So, like you indicated, based on his body of work I went down a notch due to it. Now why would Cousins want to sign such an offer over taking the franchise tag? I assume that the longer term deal would result in more in guaranteed money, like between 25 – 30 million spread out to the term of the contract.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 4, 2016 at 4:27 PM

          @redskins, lets take a step back here and address this in chronological order. For the record we’re in agreement I’m just saying we wouldn’t have been able to sign Kirk at that number because of the reasons I stated. Back to the order of things. RGIII had a stellar rookie campaign, an (injury induced?) sophomore slump, his third year was catashtrophe they bench him. Put Kirk in, let’s evaluate him (Err I mean let’s keep RGIII healthy great job Redskins PR dept), unfortunately bad kirk showed up. Bad Kirk is probably why the figure was lowballed at 12M and only raised to match RGIII’s 16M, more on Bad Kirk later. So now let’s give Jay a crack at RGIII. Jay almost lost his job. What followed next is likely the reason so many people hate him now, he extended the contract of the guy he didn’t have faith in. When they did that they lost ALL future leverage in the Kirk negotiations. If you give RGIII an extension THEN BENCH HIM for Kirk, that’s going to be the floor of the negotiations. Where you and I agree is that I think that’s about what he’s proven he’s worth. Simply because he hasn’t proven anything. Where you see it going down because of comparative cap %, that model is useful in normal cases but this is a special circumstance. Who can we compare Kirk to? Add to that other QB deficient teams drive up the price in contract negotiations. I agree with you that’s not what he’s worth but that’s the game playa! Im on board for letting him play it out, if he’s Good Kirk PAY THAT MAN! Bad Kirk… it gets tricky from there because one off season (especially when we have as many holes as we do, a young RB and WR heading into FA) doesn’t indicate diminished talent. I’d hate to see them let him walk because he has an off year on the tag and we low ball him again, he goes elsewhere signs a deal and thrives. That sounds like some Redskins ish right? Hopefully the MADTV guy (c’mon you thought too) really is the draft whisperer he’s sold himself as.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 4, 2016 at 5:55 PM

          For the record, Jay Gruden did not extend RG3. He’s not in charge of that. If he wanted RG3 as the starter then he could have done that with no extension. The front office extended him.

          Also, there’s very good reason to believe Gruden wasn’t the one who wanted RG3 as the starter. It’s more than reasonable to assume that Allen and Snyder told Gruden to give RG3 another shot. We don’t know that for sure, but we don’t know it either way. It’s unfair to criticize Gruden for something we’reunclear on while it’s more likely that someone told him to do it.

          Also, it sounded like you said RG3 played 3 years before Gruden. Maybe I read that wrong. But just to clarify. RG3 played under Gruden after his “sophomore slump.” Not three seasons then “let’s give Jay Gruden a crack.”

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 4, 2016 at 6:22 PM

          It didn’t sound like anything reread what I said, RGIII played 4 years sat one (benched by shanny to preserve him from injury. 2 years with Shan 2 with Gruden. Never said let’s give Gruden a look, I said “let’s give Kirk a look ERR save RGIII from getting hurt.” The front office extended him likely on the INPUT HE PROVIDED. Let’s not forget that Jay Gruden is supposed to be a QB guru. He was hired to aide RGIII in becoming a more prolific passer. There is no “give him another shot.” You are a specialist in this field. We hired you based on you selling yourself in an interview that you could coach up RGIII. A coach of that pedigree should’ve saw on tape he was beyond repair OR told the front office it would take time but progress will be made, which is likely where the extension came from. To back off that opinion MONTHS later is an indictment on Gruden. I’m not boo boo the fool, we know Jay had a say if not one of the most important ones. If the coach you just fired wanted to start Kirk, the coach you just hired to “fix” RGIII is struggling with RGIII and benches him for Kirk (but bad kirk shows up) you start to question can two head coaches be wrong? If you work in management and upper mgmt comes to you and says “hey we’re thinking of giving an employee in your dept a raise.” As a responsible manager of personnel, with the fiduciary obligation to make sure the business is investing in people that are worth it, you would render your honest evaluation of that employee. If you know that employee is a back talking, focused on writing their next mixtape instead of getting better at what they are paid to do type of employee, then you would advise against it. Hell maybe you even say well “IDK about giving it to this employee but maybe this other one deserves a look.” That’s what Jay should’ve done because obviously to back off it at the end of preseason makes him look a bit incompetent. Coach saw them at practice every day for two off seasons and waited until 2 weeks before the start of the season to say hey guys I think Kirk might be a better fit.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 5, 2016 at 2:38 AM

          I wish I stopped reading after you said you re read your post and didn’t see the part that I quoted you on, but I didn’t. “Let’s give Jay a crack at RG3.” Those were your exact words. I accidentally added Gruden, but that doesn’t change the meaning at all. Go read again.

          But I was just asking you to clarify. I was confused by your phrasing, not saying you were wrong or misspoke. You get a little ranty and are hard to follow.

          The rest. Obviously you’re a Gruden hater and are seeing what you want here. Gruden has nothing to do with player extensions. That’s McCloughan, Allen, and Snyder. But McCloughan is supposed to be the savior of the franchise so people don’t like to blame him. But he extended RG3. Maybe Snyder told him to, I don’t know. I’m pretty damn positive however that McCloughan didn’t take an order from Gruden. But McCloughan claims he has full control of the roster. So, unless you’re calling him a liar, McCloughan extended RG3.

          And is there any chance that Gruden came to DC to try and work with RG3, met both QBs, then decided Cousins was the better QB? That Cousins was worth the time and effort and RG3 wasn’t? Is there any chance that Jay Gruden does know more about quarterbacks than you and Dan Snyder and was right? Or that he made the call because he thought it was the best thing for the team? It’s mind blowing to me that people are so down on Cousins after an amazing season because he only did it for one year but those same people are fanatically loyal to RG3; a QB who only succeeded for one year. Hm.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 5, 2016 at 7:24 PM

          But you didnt stop reading, so why bring it up? So dramatic. Never said that Snyder took orders from Gru i SPECIFICALLY said he had INPUT and maybe ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT VOICES IN THAT MEETING. So you didn’t reqd carefully enough I even put it in caps cause I know you like drama. I’m not a gruden hater., not even sure if he’s a good enough coach to have haters yet. I’m on record on this site stating that RGIII got himself benched. In my original comment that you replied to (splitting hairs about RGIIIS tenure, who can keep all of his benchings straight?) I pointed to the extension being the reason PEOPLE hate him. Now if I was a Gruden hater I would’ve said “WE” use a context clue or something. To expand on that, Jay’s input (not an order as you’d like to twist my words) to give RGIII an extension, basically give him a vote of confidence to not just the player but to the fan base. Telling the fan base that we’re going to work tirelessly to get this team back to 2012 standards and then saying NVM I LIKE KIRK is why I would guess people don’t like him. You can’t be that indecisive with the face of our franchise and our most important position. “is there any chance gruden came to DC to try and work with RGIII, met with both QBs then decided Kirk was better?” Like I said, Gruden sold himself on the Gruden pedigree being a QB specialist then went on to bench Rob for kirk, then kirk for Colt then Colt for Kirk then RGIII gets an extension, likely with the backing of Gruden, has a bad showing in the preseason and benches Rob for Kirk. Does that SOUND like a specialist? If you were referred to a specialist and he went back and forth with his prognosis would you regard him as top tier doc? In closing find any post by me being down on Cousins and high on Rob, I guarantee it doesn’t exist. Rob ran Shanny out and got what he had coming. You don’t run the guy and OC out of town that’s wiling to cater THE ENTIRE offense to your skill set then try to pull the same throw you under the bus nonsense when they hire a new coach that’s making you learn his system. One of those be careful what you ask for situations. Hope that was enough clarity for you though I’m sure you’ll find your own tail to chase and my words will get switched around again.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 6, 2016 at 4:04 AM

          I was just stating my regret. Didn’t make the same mistake twice and stopped reading after that first sentence this time. I get it. You’re a hater and know more about football than Jay Gruden. Noted.

        • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 6, 2016 at 12:05 PM

          Says the guy who definitely read my reply and intentionally puts you’re a Gruden hater in his reply because I just told him I wasn’t. Also says the guy who keeps replying, furthering the conversation but “won’t read replies.” Anyone with two eyes can see who the hater is in this thread. Don’t reply if you’re not going to read. What are we toddlers?

      • Trey Gregory - Mar 4, 2016 at 3:50 AM

        Yeah, especially after the Bradford deal, I don’t see any way we get Cousins for 16 mil. They should have offered him around 18 mil before the tag deadline and tried to work it out. It’s only going to get more expensive from here.

        The negotiations (from afar) seemed sophomoric to me. Their opening offer was 12.5? Really? So you’re telling me that in January 2015 you were willing to sign RG3 to a 16 mil extension for 2016 but Cousins is starting at 12.5? Yeah, that’s not BS as all. Then they came up to what? 15? That was stupid. The goal should have been to try and sign him to a long term deal that averages out to less than 19.5 a year. With him hopefully taking a little less early on and letting it get bigger as he hopefully gets better. Of course I’m simplifying this and there’s still guaranteed money and when it would be cap friendly to cut Cousins if he doesn’t work out. But come on. We weren’t going to get him for 16 or less and I’ll bet he won’t sign for it in 2017 even if he doesn’t have a good season.

        Bradford’s deal set the market. Any QB who outplays him or plays close to him will want more. That’s the world we’re living in now. The talks start at 18 and will only go up. Should have signed him before that happened.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 4, 2016 at 8:04 AM

          I agree Bradford’s deal creates a new market for negotiations. I’ve not read bout 12.5 million starting offers and I’m a skeptic on reports that leak out. Maybe that 12.5 came with a huge signing bonus that pushed the value up much more.

          I think what this all boils down to is the front office is hesitant to sign onto a long term deal with Cousins that places him among elite contracts. There are many NFL QBs right now way over paid because the contracts the teams sign gambled on better performances. You doesn’t think guys like Ryan Tannehill and Jay Cutler are getting more than their actual worth? These guys are slicing a huge chunk of salary cap percentage and probably will hurt the teams caps for years out if they are released or benched. The point is I think the Redskins don’t want to be lock down in a similar situation with Cousins.

          I think at this point it is best to just let his performance next season drive his value and live with the 20 million dollar cap hit now. If Cousins flops or peaks to an average QB then the team can work out a much cap friendlier contract or start looking elsewhere without being haunted by cap hits for years.

        • Rich Tandler - Mar 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM

          Good point by redskinsname here that i don’t make often enough. Average salary per year is only one aspect by which to judge the quality of a contract. At least as important, if not more important, are the money fully guaranteed at signing and how many years the contract runs before the team can get out of it without suffering a debilitating cap hit.

        • Trey Gregory - Mar 4, 2016 at 6:04 PM

          The 12.5 thing has been pretty widely reported. I believe even Rich reported it. It’s a ridiculous and absurd low ball that should have never been offered. There’s absolutely no reason to justify that number. It was a transparent, and really bad, starting negotiation tactic that doesn’t show good faith or that they were taking talks serious. That’s the kind of crap people pull at swap meets and gun shows. Not what professional negotiators are supposed to do. Especially when they very recently said RG3 was worth 16 mil. Regardless of the circumstances around the 16 mil offer, that’s what Cousins and his agent could say. That the team valued the guys who was benched over Cousins at 16 mil. The front office should have started at 16 and said that’s just where they value a franchise QB who hasn’t won a championship or gone far in the playoffs yet. Then there’s good faith and a good reason. Cousins says he’s worth more but it’s a smaller gap. They could land somewhere around 17-19 (depending on the length and guaranteed money) and call it good before Bradford breaks the bank or Cousins is tagged.

          I was wrong about the 15 though. They came up to 16. I wouldn’t blame Cousins at all if he was completely turned off by then and just wasn’t listening anymore

  2. sidepull - Mar 3, 2016 at 6:40 AM

    Best player available, if its a QB? To me, that doesn’t equate to BPA, just best QB left when they get to picking for “need”. I do agree they will draft a QB. Isn’t Hasselback a FA? I thought he did a great job as a vet b/u QB last year. He is gonna be 41….but he won 4 games last year for the Colts. No way he winds up here but guys like him are out there that can come in, provide leadership and win a few games, that is if Colt bolts.

  3. colmac69 - Mar 3, 2016 at 6:56 AM

    They certainly have to address the qb position regarding getting young guy in the system

    If both parties can’t come to an agreement before July 14 then ball is in cousins court regarding his contract situation nxt yr….plays well he gets rewarded….struggles then he loses out on a few dollars

    I’m sure both parties will come to an agreed figure that’s beneficial to all….if not then let’s see it play out from sept

  4. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 3, 2016 at 7:04 AM

    Unfortunately the QB cupboard is pretty bare this year.

    • troylok - Mar 3, 2016 at 7:57 AM

      I wonder if they shouldn’t start sniffing around the CFL – someone like Bo Levi Mitchell.

  5. bk70 - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:00 AM

    Good article Rich. I think Kirk’s long time contract will happen before July. I hope our GM makes Colt McCoy a priority signing to keep continuity on the team. I have no idea what his $ value would be for two year contract extension. Yes, we need to draft a QB also, but in the later rounds. A 6 or 7th round pick needs to be groomed for 2 or 3 years before being thrust into the limelight as “backup ready”. A don’t want to see another veteran BU for QB.

    Now it’s time to start releasing players that won’t make the 53 man roster. Also, get on with re-signing 8+ players to contracts that’s currently on the roster. I don’t see us adding many FAs this off season. Maybe a couple.

    Thanks for the efforts from RGIII, Andre Roberts, Kedric Golston, Josh LeRibeus, Logan Paulsen, Frank Kearse and Kennan Robinson. “Best of Luck” to you in your future endeavors.

    • scottmccloughanfan - Mar 4, 2016 at 3:18 PM


  6. scottmccloughanfan - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM

    Interesting you mention KEVIN HOGAN from STANFORD. That was my late rounder for a developmental QB. I think he could be a good one. But he may go earlier that our first seventh pick.

    I also got a chance to see VAD LEE from JAMES MADISON several times, and until he blew out his knee was an excellent passer and runner. But he was not a pocket passer, and probably wouldn’t fit as an undrafted free agent. The injury might force him to become one, however. Excellent football smarts.

  7. captblood3000 - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:14 AM

    Matt Schaub’s an interesting choice. He played at UVa.

    • ajbus1 - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:52 AM

      I always knew he was a wahoo

  8. Tom - Mar 3, 2016 at 8:53 AM

    Love the Articles Rich, read them everyday. Wanted to get your thoughts on IF Cousins doesn’t play up to the hopes of McCloughan and Gruden next year and he regresses so to say in an older form, and no long term deal has been established, do you think we would move on to this QB we draft in this coming years draft because I certainly believe we will take one in the 4th-6th round or would we sign cousins again to a much smaller deal and hope he bounces bag. All hypothecal, I enjoy playing some sort of devils advocate if you want to call it.

    • Rich Tandler - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:50 AM

      Having a backup plan if Cousins regresses is the main purpose of drafting one. Otherwise they could just keep a Colt McCoy around.

      And thanks for reading.

  9. berniebernard666 - Mar 3, 2016 at 9:43 AM

    Rich, there are a number of quarterbacks who are possible late first round to 2nd round picks for teams so if best player available is the philosophy i don’t rule out Scott M taking a QB in the 2nd round. Not going to count on it but with so many teams being skiddish on drafting a QB in the 1st round its possible. Since he said he ALWAYS has a backup plan, I believe him and I don’t assume Cousins will be here in 2017. As we have seen, there can be surprises along the way. Everything depends on that long term contract for Cousins by draft day.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:24 AM

      The difference between “best player available” and “best quarterback available” is going to be enormous when our pick comes around in round 2.

      Just Say No.

  10. skinsdiehard - Mar 3, 2016 at 9:49 AM

    I agree with picking a QB in round 3. Even if he never starts, he provides a quality backup for 4 years. That’s how you have to manage the cap. Teams and fans shouldn’t view it as a slight on Cousins. I think the team should use free agency to enhance the offense and the rest of the draft for defense. We have to run our team now like the Colts use to or Patriots do. Cheap defensive players that rotate out every 4 years when their rookie contracts expire. Then you get compensatory picks. Sign RB Laman Miller and C Alex Mack and the Skins would have a top offense and younger defense.

    • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:10 AM

      Personally, I think picking a QB in round 3 is a luxury this team can’t afford. Scot on the other hand cut his teeth in Green Bay and they always emphasized a QB. Three years after drafting Rodgers (still not starting), they drafted Brian Brohm in the 2nd and Matt Flynn in the 7th. They also took Brett Hundley in the 5th last year. I expect the Redskins to take someone like that in the 4th or 5th

      • renhoekk2 - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:06 AM

        Agree 3rd round is to high. 3rd rd you are still looking for guys that can come in and hopefully contribute. You don’t want to use a pick there on a player you hope won’t need to play. I like Nate Sudfeld or Brandon Doughty for late round QB prospects.

  11. skinsdiehard - Mar 3, 2016 at 9:58 AM

    I’m not so worried about Reed leaving. I don’t believe in a high salary for a TE. You can draft a rookie TE in 2017 in the 2nd or 3rd round and get a comp pick for Reed in 2018. We MUST start playing the compensatory pick game like the Ravens, Patriots and Steelers do. Getting extra 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th round picks are crucial to managing the cap when you have a $20M QB.

    • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:19 AM

      That’s just crazy talk. Reed is the engine that makes this offense work. His ability to create separation is unique for the position. if any team could have a Jimmy Graham then every team would. Check out the Ravens and Patriots cap situations. Both had to give their QBs extensions in order to make cap space. The “compensatory pick game” is three years down the road WHEN the guy who knows how to make picks draft picks are ready for free agency. Until then, McC will continue to draft ten guys to get seven that stick.

      • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:26 AM

        I agree we need to keep Reed, but just remember that concussion history.

        He’s one knock on the noggin away from retiring, and it’s something that McGlue is sure to have in mind.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM

          Fair point.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:38 AM

      Reed is almost irreplaceable on this offense and I can’t image what Cousins would do if such a GM thought like you do about Reed. There is little doubt at this point that Reed is an elite TE. Not just an elite TE but the best receiver this team has. Dispensing Reed on this team is like NE dispensing Gronkowski. Reed may not be at the Gronk’s level but he is every bit important to Cousins and this offense as Gronk is to Tom Brady and their offense.

    • renhoekk2 - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:12 AM

      Next year in 2017 teams can trade compensatory picks. That could be good news because McCloughan likes the idea of trading down and accumulating picks. Should be a lot more wheeling and dealing up and down the draft board when teams can start trading those extra picks. That can play right into McCloughan’s hands.

  12. redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:31 AM

    The earliest the team would select a QB is round 4. I think a trade up is possible in that round to get a raw QB like Christian Hackenberg if any such big potential talent is still available worth trading up to in that round.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM

      Hackenberg? I just hacked up a hairball.

      “A 21-year old Brandon Weeden” is a comment I just read on another site. Apt comment, says I.

      • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:54 AM

        So one site with who wants to brand Hackenberg seals the deal for you? You should trying watching him play instead of reading opinion articles. Apparently the crap shot artist you read only look at their size and build to make such a comparison. Weeden has neither the arm or athleticism to match Hackenberg. Weeden probably has a faster release and more accurate over all coming up as a much older rookie.

        Hackenberg has as ideal size, a very strong arm, and can move well for a guy his size. He was a five star recruit but is still raw because he is still very young and played under a system that didn’t fit him well at Penn State. As a freshman, he thrived in a pro style offense but then Penn State made the mistake of a coaching change. Put it this way, James Franklin was to Hackenberg what Gruden was to RG3. Yeah he’s worth a shot because the kid could be damn good if someone takes the time to develop around his tools.

        Oh and hairballs are not good for you so let the cat clean himself.

        • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:31 PM

          “He’s never been accurate…”

          A 4th round pick is still going to get us someone who can play.

          Thinking you’re the team that’s going to fix Hackenberg isn’t a terrible bet if you want to use a 3rd day pick, maybe.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:43 PM

          He was very accurate when he arrived in Penn State. Did you even know this kid’s name when he was a freshman at Penn State? It was when James Franklin arrived there that Hackenberg regressed under a poor system.

          Many stated Cousins has never been accurate so I take that article’s substance with a grain of salt.

        • hail74 - Mar 3, 2016 at 2:32 PM

          I like Hackenburg too and Name is right about Penn st changing things around him for the worse. Having said that I was greatly disappointed by his scouting combine and hope he has a better pro day. His accuracy was a bit off compared to others. I’d still take a 5th-7th round flyer on him tho.

        • John - Mar 3, 2016 at 5:55 PM

          I remember that long drawn out, 3 overtime game between Penn State and Michigan. Michigan had that lineman/kicker who finally missed at the end. Hackenburg was impressive in that game.

  13. alabama9282 - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:17 AM

    Let me tell you guys something there`s not a QB in the first 2 rounds worth taking,the QB position is in the worse shape iv`e seen in my 53 years of watching and following the game. All these kids going to College in these spread or as i like to call them Sandlot offenses are slowly destroying the pro game and its not just QBs receivers Olinmen iv`e heard more than one scout and GMs alike say this is the worse offensive draft they have seen in 20 years.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 11:59 AM

      I haven’t followed all the QBs very closely but if you weren’t impressed with Carson Wentz and the passes coming out of his hand then you weren’t watching. Regardless of your 53 years of experience, I doubt you can analyze QBs better than current NFL scouts. I’m not sure this kid Wentz has all the tools to be an a worthwhile top 10 QB but he is certainly worth a 1st round pick.

    • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:02 PM

      Spreads are every bit as sophisticated offenses, if not more, than most pro style offenses. Maybe you are behind the times but you apparently don’t understand college style football if you want to call the spread a sandlot offense. I’d like to see you put a defense out there to stop some of those spread offenses being run.

      • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 12:22 PM

        Spread offense make sense at the college level because of the wide hashmarks and the huge gap between the NFL prospects and the everyday college football player. There are elements that translate to the pro-game but you’re not going to get a Baylor vs West Virginia game (sandlot) in the NFL because of the differences of the game. Teams need to win and spread offenses maximize the talent they have around them for that goal. A byproduct is that NFL talent isn’t NFL ready. That’s not a slight to the college game just an unfortunate fact that NFL GMs consider when evaluating talent.

        • redskinsnameisheretostay - Mar 3, 2016 at 1:13 PM

          No one is asking for a wide open game against two spread offenses to be played in the NFL. You had similar games in the NFL between teams like Dolphins/Jets in the 80s but was it called sandlot games then? To continue the use of sandlot term when referring to the spread offenses those schools run shows the naivety in understanding what those systems entail. It’s true the talent deviation between some schools can have some influence in using a more pass oriented system.

          NFL teams don’t need to take the playbook from college in order to get highly drafted kids on the field faster. They do need to implement elements of it and have been since the mid 90s. However the issues of fundamentals are only more vocal because NFL teams have less time to work with rookies than they once did. The practice limitation in full pads is a huge impairment. The point is that NCAA football has done a great job in developing very athletic players that the NFL has never seen at the current stages in the past. You might have a slide here and there on certain positions with fundamentals but the NCAA is not the crux of the issue. Fundamentals have always been partly a responsibility of the NFL but they don’t have the time to work this kids as they once did due to CBA rules limiting them.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 1:43 PM

          I’m not condemning the college game. Personally, I don’t like it, but IT IS NO WAY their responsibility to make NFL-ready players. There is more parity in the college game now more than ever. Why? Because of the college spread offenses that level the field. Coaches now get their athletes out in space in the passing game that along with the read option make it near impossible to defend the wide side of the field – and if you cheat to the strong side, you’re overexposed on the weak side. That extra 11′ and the discrepancy between the ultra quick and the generally athletic create mismatches. Of course it’s not just on one plane but the depth behind the line of scrimmage as well.

          Now, positions are played significantly different between the college and the pros as a result. This ALONG with your very good point about the current CBA’s restrictions shrink the pool of NFL-ready players at key positions and force teams to either be patient with draft picks or throw them in the fire. Take Morgan Moses, Spencer Long, and Arie Kouandjio. All of these guys CAME from systems THAT prepared them schematically for the NFL but all had to basically take a redshirt year. Josh LeRibeus came from SMU and was drafted for Shanahan’s zone scheme yet needed his entire rookie contract to get his feet wet.

        • Thetruthis - Mar 3, 2016 at 3:43 PM

          Think what you may but the facts speak to the success of college spread type trained QB’s who can also throw downfield. The last 4 super bowls have featured at least one of the QB’s who are young mobile QB’s and ZEREO young pro style trained QB’s. NONE. When a coach understands what these mobile QB’s who can throw bring to the table and they design their system to include that talent they are the teams that are going to the SB year after year. The only QB’s that are pro style that make it are older, more experienced top QB’s like Peyton Manning. So, like it or not “BOOM!” The times are a changing and these guys are finally getting to show what they can do.

          No one is making colleges play mobile spread type offenses, they do it because they are hard to stop and they win. They make defenses crazy. With that said, I don’t care what style a team plays, but I do think it is stupid to tell an accomplished top level athlete what he cannot do. Let him do what he does best and temper it to make it stronger and unpredictable. Now that is a winning formula for today.

        • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 6:33 PM

          Lot’s of pent up frustration and innuendo in that rant. Typical truth stuff. Seems to be more of a case for disappointment in how Griffin was coached rather than fact. All of the teams you mentioned got to the Super Bowl with a top TWO defense. That certainly helps. Kaepernick is now floating in uncertainty as soon as that defense became average.

          Here are the number of QBs drafted that are starting in the NFL per draft and where selected overall:

          2015 Jamies Winston 1
          2015 Marcus Mariota 2
          2014 Blake Bortles 3
          2014 Teddy Bridgewater 32
          2014 Derek Carr 36
          2013 – none
          2012 Andrew Luck 1
          * 2012 Robert Griffin 2
          2012 Ryan Tannehill 8
          *2012 Brock Osweiler 57
          2012 Russel Wilson 75
          *2012 Nick Foles 88
          2012 Kirk Cousins 102
          2011 Cam Newton 1
          * 2011 Blaine Gabbert 10
          2011 Andy Dalton 35
          * 2011 Collin Kaepernick 36
          2010 Sam Bradford 1
          2009 Mathew Stafford 1
          2008 Matt Ryan 3
          2008 Joe Flacco 18
          2007- none
          2006 Jay Cutler 11
          2005 Alex Smith 1
          2005 Aaron Rodgers 24
          2005 Ryan Fitzpatrick 250
          2004 Eli Manning 1
          2004 Philip Rivers 4
          2004 Ben Roethslisber 11
          2003 Carson Palmer 1
          2003 Tony Romo (undrafted)
          2001 Drew Brees 32
          2000 Tom Brady 199

          * could be listed as a team’s starter after free agency

          In the last five drafts, there have been 14 QB taken in the first round and 7 are still starting for the team that drafted them. In the same time period, 6 QB were taken in the second round and 2-4 could start for the team that drafted them. Yeah. The QB position is absolutely fine, it’s the coaches fault.

  14. wildbill1952 - Mar 3, 2016 at 1:16 PM

    By April 28, the Skins will know if they have Colt for another season. I can’t blame him if he leaves for greener pastures but I sure hope he stays. A backup QB is a must, so there has to be at least one. The typical 3rd QB on the roster is a luxury. If you’re getting down to the third QB on the roster, your season is hosed anyway. This team still has too many needs to totally pick the BPA (I don’t care what they say, need is factored in) and I’d pick a DL or DB or a center or left guard with talent way ahead of a QB that’s going to run the scout team,learn the offense from scratch and be inactive every game day.

  15. mac7163 - Mar 3, 2016 at 1:18 PM

    Draft Hogan from Stanford. Big, tough , durable, mobile, and comes from a Pro set offense.

  16. kenlinkins - Mar 3, 2016 at 1:43 PM

    I would also look at this kid out of Indiana, Nate Sudfeld. He will be there in the later rounds. He is a project for sure but what he lacks can be coached. He has a big arm, can easily make all the required NFL throws and at 6’6″ and 240 he has the size the Redskins GM is looking for. While many QB’s in the middle rounds in 2016 are “game manager” types, this kids has the tools a good QB coach wants. He is a low risk gamble if taken later in the draft and given time to develop. Unlike most I see after the first round, this kids could mature into a very good starting NFL QB, but if he is rushed into service he could be scared for life.

    • ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© - Mar 3, 2016 at 3:45 PM

      I’m all for a 3rd day pick at QB. If nothing else, you want at least 3 in training camp to work with everyone.

      And why waste that spot on an old vet when you can use it on a guy who might develop into somebody?

  17. lezziemcdykerson - Mar 3, 2016 at 5:19 PM

    I have nothing of value to add except I will be the official Rich Tandler’s Real Redskins’ Comment Section Correspondent at this years draft. I live 3 exits south of Millennium Park and I hope to see as many Skins fans there this year as last year. Especially if they do it like last year where each NFL team had their own watching tent, I’m setting up the GhettoBooth right in there. Duct Tape and Cardboard will be our official sponsors (shout-out to 3M). Stop by Rich if you’re in town covering the draft.

    • lezziemcdykerson - Mar 3, 2016 at 5:22 PM

      and by “official” I mean” unofficial and in no way endorsed by or associated with..”

  18. kenlinkins - Mar 3, 2016 at 5:43 PM

    Nutting cutting time at the earliest is July 15th if at all. The Redskins have their starter in line for 2016 and that’s Job ONE. Job TWO is getting the Draft right, Job THREE is cleaning up the roster and removing Cap Casualties / re-deal over paid players and Job FOUR is resigning those free agent players who will be the core of the Redskins starting line up in 2016. So I am with those who say it is way to early to be concerned. The Redskins GM seems to have a game plan and is working it. I would be much more concerned about getting guys like Galette, Foster, Young, Way, Blackmon and a few others resigned to team friendly contracts to help fill in the holes on the 90 man roster so that the core talent level keeps increasing for OTA’s and Train Camp!

    • bangkokben - Mar 3, 2016 at 6:13 PM

      Galette – has a clause in last year’s contract where the Redskins get right of first refusal
      Foster – had 31 teams pass on him last year and just the Bears give him a starting shot – cut
      Young – is probably better off in an offense that utilizes the FB. Wish it were us.
      Way – is an exclusive rights free agent
      Blackmon – will likely be available after training camp starts again Archives

Follow Us On Twitter