79 Mock Drafts: Sam Bradford still Redskins projected choice

This means we are dumb if we go along with this...or we could be baiting teams to pull the trigger on a trade so we can trade down....either way....OFFENSIVE LINE PLEASE

Trading down is great possibility

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4843237

watching bradford's highlight reels, almost all of the plays he is in shotgun. the only time i saw him under center was for handoffs or play action passes.

i'd prefer clausen over bradford but like whats been said in here; im giving shanahan, allen and the DS the beneift of the doubt that they have the most information and best idea of what is best for this team. man, that is so refreshing as a skins fan.

This means we are dumb if we go along with this...or we could be baiting teams to pull the trigger on a trade so we can trade down....either way....OFFENSIVE LINE PLEASE

Similar to what people said in Atlanta when the Falcons chose Ryan over Glen Dorsey. Ryan missed virtually 3 games this year and the thanks to him the Falcons were still able to finish 9-7 inlcuding a 3 game win streak to close out the year. If they had Ryan for 16 games they would easily have made the playoffs.

If you find a QB that you know can be a star you draft him. Vinny didn't take lineman period (save Rinehart) and that was our problem. Not hesitating to draft two guys at positions like LB, WR, S, and CB yet never willing to draft more then one O-Lineman. Give the front office the beniefit of the doubt, we don't need to select an O-Lineman with the first pick to fix our O-Line.

Also remember this. The Chiefs did the "smart" thing in 2008. Drafting a D-Lineman (Dorsey) and a LT in Albert, yet they have won 6 games in the last two years (with ironically one of those victories coming against us). The Falcons have won 20 games since drafting Ryan. Again the point being if you see a QB that you know you can develop into a franchise guy you take him.

Similar to what people said in Atlanta when the Falcons chose Ryan over Glen Dorsey. Ryan missed virtually 3 games this year and the thanks to him the Falcons were still able to finish 9-7 inlcuding a 3 game win streak to close out the year. If they had Ryan for 16 games they would easily have made the playoffs.

If you find a QB that you know can be a star you draft him. Vinny didn't take lineman period (save Rinehart) and that was our problem. Not hesitating to draft two guys at positions like LB, WR, S, and CB yet never willing to draft more then one O-Lineman. Give the front office the beniefit of the doubt, we don't need to select an O-Lineman with the first pick to fix our O-Line.

Also remember this. The Chiefs did the "smart" thing in 2008. Drafting a D-Lineman (Dorsey) and a LT in Albert, yet they have won 6 games in the last two years (with ironically one of those victories coming against us). The Falcons have won 20 games since drafting Ryan. Again the point being if you see a QB that you know you can develop into a franchise guy you take him.I can't stress enough that Atlanta also found a taker to trade up and take Sam Baker in the same draft. They also identified the receiving corps as a team strength under Bobby Petrino, but decided that they needed to rebuild the OL and the offensive backfield in order to be a competitive team.

One of the big reasons that they were able to rebuild so fast is because they were able to find a high second round pick for DeAngelo Hall in a trade, and consequently, they had the ammo to get up into position for Baker when Vinny came calling.

The obvious is that, even with this years (somewhat inevitable) setback, Atlanta did rebuilding the right way. They also got quite lucky. They evaluated Ryan properly, they didn't shoot their load to move up and get him, and they didn't overvalue a defensive lineman simply because of his position on the field. Ryan was the right guy for them, and there was no reason (at least in hindsight) for them to pass on that pick. They had the necessary team infrastructure to make it work from day one IF Ryan had the goods, which it appears he does.

Let's not confuse drafting a D-Lineman high vs. drafting an O-Lineman high though. Drafting a D-Lineman high seems to be a very bad historical proposition for a rebuilding team, worse than drafting a quarterback high. The reasons are similar. Like a quarterback, all but the best defensive lineman in the game are dependent on their defensive teammates for opportunities. This is not true of a great corner, a game-changing safety, or a standout linebacker. All of those pieces are excellent places to start your defense. Whereas a game changing pass rusher may be the most valuable piece, it is useless on a defense that offers nothing outside of that one pass rusher (see: Elvis Dumerville's 2008 season).

Drafting an offensive lineman high is never a bad call, if the pick itself plays up to the value spent on the pick. Reaching is still reaching, of course. Robert Gallery should not have been drafted with the No. 2 overall pick. The Raiders would have been much better off with Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger, even though Gallery has started more games than Rivers, and his gross career value is probably similar to Roethlisbergers, he's far, far more replaceable than either of those guys, and thusly, was not as good of a draft pick.

If Russell Okung is there, the Redskins can't pass on him. If he's not there, they can go in a whole bunch of directions, including defense and offensive skill positions, quarterback, and next best offensive lineman. Pretty much the only place(s) they can't afford to go is defensive line (and tight end), and if by some miracle Suh is there at No. 4, you'd have to at least consider it (before not drafting him).

And then the obvious disclaimer: even if you don't believe that Jason Campbell has much of a future in Washington, there are still 9 (8, if both TEs are counted) positions on the offense where we are receiving less per-play production than quarterback. And of the 8, only Antwaan Randle El is really even providing close to the level of expected production, and I don't believe he's all that irreplaceable in the greater sense. [The stats don't say "Randle El shouldn't be cut" but they do say that "everyone else that isn't Randle El probably should be"]

Not all of those positions can be addressed in one draft, and not all those positions would be practical targets with the 4th overall pick. The point is: that's a whole lot of non-quarterback related suck, and to say that there's no one we can find at No. 4 overall except Okung that would fix the problem seems like kind of a defeatist attitude. There's got to be a WR, RB, or OL not named Russell Okung who is worthy of the 4th overall pick. I would think.

This is a *one-star thread if I ever saw one!

And then the obvious disclaimer: even if you don't believe that Jason Campbell has much of a future in Washington, there are still 9 (8, if both TEs are counted) positions on the offense where we are receiving less per-play production than quarterback. And of the 8, only Antwaan Randle El is really even providing close to the level of expected production, and I don't believe he's all that irreplaceable in the greater sense. [The stats don't say "Randle El shouldn't be cut" but they do say that "everyone else that isn't Randle El probably should be"]

Not all of those positions can be addressed in one draft, and not all those positions would be practical targets with the 4th overall pick. The point is: that's a whole lot of non-quarterback related suck, and to say that there's no one we can find at No. 4 overall except Okung that would fix the problem seems like kind of a defeatist attitude. There's got to be a WR, RB, or OL not named Russell Okung who is worthy of the 4th overall pick. I would think.

How can you say that? There is nothing wrong with our roster, which is playoff-ready right now. Vinny said so.

Mock drafts are only useful in fantasy football otherwise it's all speculation. How can any of these so-call "experts" say with any degree of certainty that we'll draft a QB with the no. 4 pick (these were the same idiots that said we were going to pick Sanchez last year) when Shannahan probably doesn't even know who they'll pick? He's not even fully staffed yet and I'd imagine they'll do their due diligence and evaluate our roster and then see what's available through FA.

I finally saw a mock draft that didint have us taking Okung or a QB, it had us taking the Trent Williams instead, but I thought I had read he wouldn't fit the Shanahan typical O LINE style

Similar to what people said in Atlanta when the Falcons chose Ryan over Glen Dorsey. Ryan missed virtually 3 games this year and the thanks to him the Falcons were still able to finish 9-7 inlcuding a 3 game win streak to close out the year. If they had Ryan for 16 games they would easily have made the playoffs.

If you find a QB that you know can be a star you draft him. Vinny didn't take lineman period (save Rinehart) and that was our problem. Not hesitating to draft two guys at positions like LB, WR, S, and CB yet never willing to draft more then one O-Lineman. Give the front office the beniefit of the doubt, we don't need to select an O-Lineman with the first pick to fix our O-Line.

Also remember this. The Chiefs did the "smart" thing in 2008. Drafting a D-Lineman (Dorsey) and a LT in Albert, yet they have won 6 games in the last two years (with ironically one of those victories coming against us). The Falcons have won 20 games since drafting Ryan. Again the point being if you see a QB that you know you can develop into a franchise guy you take him.

comparing our obvious O line needs to a team that drafted glen dorsey is apple and oranges....this entire year we SAW what the need is for our team. Tony romo (who is elusive) was killed without line protection!!! If our O line was like the jets or ravens I'm ok with QB pick...matt ryan had a GOOD LINE. Any rookie behind a bad line = david carr, alex smith...name a rookie who blossumed behind a poor line...NONE