57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Personnaly I would like Clausen however there are bigger holes to fill. Any chance McCoy slips to our second round pick?

People thought a similar Texas QB could be a late first round pick. Instead he became a 3rd round pick.

So why is it I keep hearing about this douche Clausen and that broke-ass Bradford?....
How are you guys gonna feel when Clausen, Bradford, or Pineapple Jesus gets destroyed just like Campbell, Brunnell, and Ramsey did? Didn't Pineapple Jesus get put on IR for taking just a little bit of the punishment in pre-season, that JC took ALL YEAR!? What makes y'all think the douche can take that kind of punishment? Tebow maybe . . . but he isn't worth a 1st round pick by a long shot. And Bradford . . . . The man has already missed almost his entire senior year because of injuries. You guys want to waste a pick on him?

How about trading down for starting linemen and depth? If you want to draft a douche like Clausen, do it in the fourth. Let him suck his thumb on the bench for a year or two, while the line is transformed into something that doesn't resemble a effing sieve. No QB can throw TDs from his back.

Some of you guys think like those jerks in Detroit do. You want to see where drafting one of these guys will take you? Look up footage of Stafford getting destroyed on the NFL's site. Listen to him scream in pain like a little girl as they scrape him off the turf. That's how you destroy a QB. He's only been in the league for a year and he's already jacked up. Throw Clausen or Bradford to the wolves. See what happens.

I hope Shanny-han isn't that stupid.Shanahan (Sr. & Jr.) know that you need a franchise QB to win at a playoff level in the NFL. We need a franchise QB. If Shanahan believes Clausen is a franchise QB (I do) if he's there, you get him. I don't believe any of the other QBs in this draft are first round caliber.

There are a few good FA OL available this year. We should be able to pick up at least two solid OL in the draft. Keep JC around for another year, let Clausen sit & learn, we'll probably have a top 15 pick on 2011 in that scenario and we complete the rebuild of the OL then. 2011 we have a good young OL, a franchise QB in place, and we can start to make a run.

It's not Detroit syndrome, it's a matter of us having several needs that won't be filled in one off-season. The hardest piece to find is a franchise QB. Who will be there next year at that level, Locker, maybe Luck comes out early, but those two will be gone within the first 8 picks. High caliber OL are important but easier to acquire than a franchise QB.

I will be disappointed if we draft a qb with our first pick. I really hope we either get a chance to nab Okung or trade the pick away and pick up a few more.

I love how people prescribe trading down as the solution to everything, as if it's easy to do that. People in general don't like to trade up into the top 5 picks. It rarely happens, and not because the teams in the top 5 don't want to trade down.

I tend to agree with Jamf, it is so rare that a team has an opportunity to secure a franchise quarterback that, when the opportunity arrises, it has to be taken. Superstar QB play is the common thread linking the great teams of the past 10 years, and really through most of the history of the league. Arguments about the weakness of the line, about someone like Bradford getting pummeled like Campbell was this year, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to rebuild. You don't draft a QB when you are close, you take one when you have a lot of building left to do; and hopefully, you have the luxury, as we will likely have, of having a veteran to carry the load for a year or two while the kid gets ready, time that will also be spent solidifying the line presumably. As Mel Kiper says, you can't do it all in one draft, and it will likely take us at least two years to restock our offensive front after the draft neglect it has endured the last several years.

Moreover, I would argue that while it is necessary to have a functioning line, drafting elite players is not at all necessary to be successful. Having a dominant QB on the other hand is. Of the dominant teams in the league this year - Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings let's say, the bye teams - how many sport a premium left tackle? The Colts scored all over the league with a 6th round pick anchoring the blind side. The Saints lost Jammal Brown and plugged in a fourth round guy. The Chargers go to war with Marcus McNeill, a second rounder. Only the Vikings have a Mercedes-type guy in McKinney, and even he wasn't chosen in the top 5. The QB's? Two were type five picks, the third is statistically the greatest QB in the history of the league, the last an unusual late bloomer who was only let go because of injury and the emergence of the aforementioned top fiver. This is not to say that it's necessary to draft a QB highly, but rather that obtaining an elite QB has to be the top priority of a team with championship aspirations, and taking one in the top 5 is the easiest way to get one.

Now, if Bradford (or even Clausen who I don't have a good feeling about) turns out to be a bust, all this is moot. You could write a response about guys like Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell and what they cost their franchise. That's up to the front office to determine. But if you think there's a chance the kid might be elite, you have to roll the dice and pick him. A great LT can get you to 10-6, but you are going to need a superstar QB to go all the way, and I think we all agree that that should be the goal.

I love how people prescribe trading down as the solution to everything, as if it's easy to do that. People in general don't like to trade up into the top 5 picks. It rarely happens, and not because the teams in the top 5 don't want to trade down.

I tend to agree with Jamf, it is so rare that a team has an opportunity to secure a franchise quarterback that, when the opportunity arrises, it has to be taken. Superstar QB play is the common thread linking the great teams of the past 10 years, and really through most of the history of the league. Arguments about the weakness of the line, about someone like Bradford getting pummeled like Campbell was this year, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to rebuild. You don't draft a QB when you are close, you take one when you have a lot of building left to do; and hopefully, you have the luxury, as we will likely have, of having a veteran to carry the load for a year or two while the kid gets ready, time that will also be spent solidifying the line presumably. As Mel Kiper says, you can't do it all in one draft, and it will likely take us at least two years to restock our offensive front after the draft neglect it has endured the last several years.

Moreover, I would argue that while it is necessary to have a functioning line, drafting elite players is not at all necessary to be successful. Having a dominant QB on the other hand is. Of the dominant teams in the league this year - Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings let's say, the bye teams - how many sport a premium left tackle? The Colts scored all over the league with a 6th round pick anchoring the blind side. The Saints lost Jammal Brown and plugged in a fourth round guy. The Chargers go to war with Marcus McNeill, a second rounder. Only the Vikings have a Mercedes-type guy in McKinney, and even he wasn't chosen in the top 5. The QB's? Two were type five picks, the third is statistically the greatest QB in the history of the league, the last an unusual late bloomer who was only let go because of injury and the emergence of the aforementioned top fiver. This is not to say that it's necessary to draft a QB highly, but rather that obtaining an elite QB has to be the top priority of a team with championship aspirations, and taking one in the top 5 is the easiest way to get one.

Now, if Bradford (or even Clausen who I don't have a good feeling about) turns out to be a bust, all this is moot. You could write a response about guys like Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell and what they cost their franchise. That's up to the front office to determine. But if you think there's a chance the kid might be elite, you have to roll the dice and pick him. A great LT can get you to 10-6, but you are going to need a superstar QB to go all the way, and I think we all agree that that should be the goal.

Great post all around, I agree with everything you said.

I love how people prescribe trading down as the solution to everything, as if it's easy to do that. People in general don't like to trade up into the top 5 picks. It rarely happens, and not because the teams in the top 5 don't want to trade down.

I tend to agree with Jamf, it is so rare that a team has an opportunity to secure a franchise quarterback that, when the opportunity arrises, it has to be taken. Superstar QB play is the common thread linking the great teams of the past 10 years, and really through most of the history of the league. Arguments about the weakness of the line, about someone like Bradford getting pummeled like Campbell was this year, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to rebuild. You don't draft a QB when you are close, you take one when you have a lot of building left to do; and hopefully, you have the luxury, as we will likely have, of having a veteran to carry the load for a year or two while the kid gets ready, time that will also be spent solidifying the line presumably. As Mel Kiper says, you can't do it all in one draft, and it will likely take us at least two years to restock our offensive front after the draft neglect it has endured the last several years.

Moreover, I would argue that while it is necessary to have a functioning line, drafting elite players is not at all necessary to be successful. Having a dominant QB on the other hand is. Of the dominant teams in the league this year - Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings let's say, the bye teams - how many sport a premium left tackle? The Colts scored all over the league with a 6th round pick anchoring the blind side. The Saints lost Jammal Brown and plugged in a fourth round guy. The Chargers go to war with Marcus McNeill, a second rounder. Only the Vikings have a Mercedes-type guy in McKinney, and even he wasn't chosen in the top 5. The QB's? Two were type five picks, the third is statistically the greatest QB in the history of the league, the last an unusual late bloomer who was only let go because of injury and the emergence of the aforementioned top fiver. This is not to say that it's necessary to draft a QB highly, but rather that obtaining an elite QB has to be the top priority of a team with championship aspirations, and taking one in the top 5 is the easiest way to get one.

Now, if Bradford (or even Clausen who I don't have a good feeling about) turns out to be a bust, all this is moot. You could write a response about guys like Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell and what they cost their franchise. That's up to the front office to determine. But if you think there's a chance the kid might be elite, you have to roll the dice and pick him. A great LT can get you to 10-6, but you are going to need a superstar QB to go all the way, and I think we all agree that that should be the goal.You could also hit on that superstar QB, and have only two winning seasons in the first seven years after the draft pick, i.e. the Bengals model.

Carson Palmer isn't really a superstar QB at this point, but that's more due to organizational suckitude in the most important developmental years (2007-2008) than missing on the quality of the pick.

To justify picking a QB in the top ten picks, you have to have something that the offense can do very well when the guy comes in. That can be running the ball, like the Jets can do right now (they have a great OL). It can be getting yards after the catch like the Bucs can do. It can simply be the existance of a talent like Calvin Johnson who can take over a game and save a lot of bad balls.

Problem is, the Redskins don't do anything particularly well on offense. Really, the only thing the offense has is whatever Jason Campbell can give them. It's a toxic developmental situation for a young QB, although Shanahan's arrival changes things somewhat if you consider the scheme a positive. But if you look at teams like Oakland, Seattle, Denver, maybe even Kansas City and St. Louis, these are teams who can draft a QB and rely on their other offensive strengths while the guy plays from day one.

We're just not at that point yet.

It seems like a lot of people are mistaking us for a good team. Good teams that don't have holes (or only have small holes) at key positions can afford to take the best player available at a position that isn't of need. We are not a good team and thus we can't do that, there are things we need to address. I realize that Sam Bradford, and Eric Berry, and Jimmy Clausen seem like the shining Ferrari that everyone wants to get their hands on, but right now what we need is a big bruising truck to haul us through the winter of Redskins mediocrity. If Okung is available and we take anyone other than him (or if we get some sweet deal involving future picks while still getting one of the top o linemen in the draft) with our first pick I will have completely lost faith with this organization.

edit: I'm not sure it's clear but the sweet deal involving future picks is something I would like, and is the only thing I think we can do with the pick if okung is available other than taking him

I wonder how many people will start asking for McCoy now that he has a shoulder injury (just like with Bradford).

On a serious note, that was a hell of a run by that kid Richardson (from Bama) in the BCS game. Anyone know of his status?

I wonder how many people will start asking for McCoy now that he has a shoulder injury (just like with Bradford).

On a serious note, that was a hell of a run by that kid Richardson (from Bama) in the BCS game. Anyone know of his status?Freshman, I believe they said.

You could also hit on that superstar QB, and have only two winning seasons in the first seven years after the draft pick, i.e. the Bengals model.

Carson Palmer isn't really a superstar QB at this point, but that's more due to organizational suckitude in the most important developmental years (2007-2008) than missing on the quality of the pick.

To justify picking a QB in the top ten picks, you have to have something that the offense can do very well when the guy comes in. That can be running the ball, like the Jets can do right now (they have a great OL). It can be getting yards after the catch like the Bucs can do. It can simply be the existance of a talent like Calvin Johnson who can take over a game and save a lot of bad balls.

Problem is, the Redskins don't do anything particularly well on offense. Really, the only thing the offense has is whatever Jason Campbell can give them. It's a toxic developmental situation for a young QB, although Shanahan's arrival changes things somewhat if you consider the scheme a positive. But if you look at teams like Oakland, Seattle, Denver, maybe even Kansas City and St. Louis, these are teams who can draft a QB and rely on their other offensive strengths while the guy plays from day one.

We're just not at that point yet.

I'm a big fan of your posts Tripp, but I'm having a real difficult time following the thread of your reasoning here. You assert that you only take a top 10 QB if your offense has something they can already do well, as if this is accepted practice or common knowledge rather than just your assertion that you made up. This makes absolutely no sense though. If you accept the premise that a QB is necessary, than you draft a QB when you can draft a QB, and the point is that that's not every year. Improving other aspects of the team is comparatively a lot easier to do.

The case of Carson Palmer exhibits what is known in logic as necessary versus sufficient conditions. Having a superstar QB is necessary for winning a championship but not sufficient, meaning that you need one to win but having one won't guarantee anything. Yeah, the Bengals have screwed up in every way imaginable, but are you seriously arguing that they shouldn't have taken Palmer? The fact that their draft blundering has impeded his development sucks for him, but I think it's tough to argue the Bengals would be better off without him.