Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.Even though I tend to think we will pick up an offensive lineman and a quarterback with the first two picks we make, taking the OT at No. 4 certainly doesn't lock you into taking that quarterback at No. 37 in the same way the reverse scenario dictates who you take. I think Colt McCoy would make a very good value around the time we pick, if not a flat-out steal, but if we grab another offensive lineman or maybe a skill position player there who we had a first round grade on, we could still address QB later.

It wouldn't be shocking if we did what Jacksonville did last year in the draft.

We can add a second rounder to that group without actually getting it to respectability.

Furthermore, the difference is that some lines have issues in the middle at guard, or just a single guard or center to replace, but they have both the tackles in place. For those partially built lines, a single second round pick is often adequate to get an interior lineman who can play as a rookie and be good at what he does. This is more or less what Arizona did when they drafted Deuce Lutui in the second round after taking Matt Leinart in the first in 2006.

Deuce Lutui was never going to be asked to play left tackle because they had a need there. Four years later, he's now Arizona's best offensive lineman at a Guard position. Which is not all that uncommon for an early second round pick.

My point is: adding a Deuce Lutui (Mike Iupati/Maurkice Pouncey?) type to this offensive line doesn't really make a dent in the quality of the OL. It's probably too late to expect a turnaround in the quality of the unit at that point. Taking a LT at No. 4 guarentees you nothing, but it's unquestionably the best shot at turning the unit into a strength within a reasonable timeframe. At this point I am actually fine if we go with Okung OR Bradford at #4, I won't be disappointed in either case. The issue I have is the notion that improving one area is exclusionary of improving another.

And QB guys know that you need to protect the QB, something that Washington hasn't done well for a while. I just don't see how you can look at our line from last season, look at the limited UFA talent, and say that you're not going to pick up a tackle with either the first or second rounder.
Well that's not what I said, I expect them to pick a OT in the 2nd (assuming the Bradford pick) if not try to trade for one before the draft.

Of course the line needs to be addressed and improved but just as foolish as the notion is that Bradford will solve all of our QB questions and issues, the same can be said for the notion that a 1st round tackle is the answer to our OL problems.

At this point I am actually fine if we go with Okung OR Bradford at #4, I won't be disappointed in either case. The issue I have is the notion that improving one area is exclusionary of improving another.I have a feeling if Bradford is there, we will take him. I don't think he's going to make it there though, and I don't think Shanahan will trade up for him.

Realistically though, these are pretty exclusive options. At least in the context of the argument that, "we won't be picking in the top five next year", which is hopefully accurate. This is the single best chance we will ever have to fix the offensive line via the draft. It's also the best draft position we will ever have to land a quarterback of choice. There, of course, will be other times where we can address one thing or the other, but some issue is going to be put off until later.

To me, Colt McCoy is the one way we could have our cake (offensive line at No. 4), and eat it too (potential franchise quarterback, at least as good a shot as Bradford). A lot of people don't see him in the same way I do though, so I don't have a problem with them saying that if we pass on a QB at No. 4, we can't expect to get a future star at the position in this draft.

I don't have a problem with that. If the line becomes a strength for us in 2010, suddenly the quarterbacks in future drafts who would be a good fit here become way more numerous. As well as the fact that the current guy might post a 90.0+ QB rating for the first time.

I have a feeling if Bradford is there, we will take him. I don't think he's going to make it there though, and I don't think Shanahan will trade up for him.

Realistically though, these are pretty exclusive options. At least in the context of the argument that, "we won't be picking in the top five next year", which is hopefully accurate. This is the single best chance we will ever have to fix the offensive line via the draft. It's also the best draft position we will ever have to land a quarterback of choice. There, of course, will be other times where we can address one thing or the other, but some issue is going to be put off until later.

To me, Colt McCoy is the one way we could have our cake (offensive line at No. 4), and eat it too (potential franchise quarterback, at least as good a shot as Bradford). A lot of people don't see him in the same way I do though, so I don't have a problem with them saying that if we pass on a QB at No. 4, we can't expect to get a future star at the position in this draft.

I don't have a problem with that. If the line becomes a strength for us in 2010, suddenly the quarterbacks in future drafts who would be a good fit here become way more numerous. As well as the fact that the current guy might post a 90.0+ QB rating for the first time.

I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?

Well that's not what I said, I expect them to pick a OT in the 2nd (assuming the Bradford pick) if not try to trade for one before the draft.

Of course the line needs to be addressed and improved but just as foolish as the notion is that Bradford will solve all of our QB questions and issues, the same can be said for the notion that a 1st round tackle is the answer to our OL problems.Don't forget that taking a LT at No. 4 doesn't limit the team from taking any player in the second round who we would have taken if we took a QB. It just gives us the opportunity to go elsewhere in the second round. Taking a QB at No. 4 pretty does take the position out of question until at least the fifth round though, no matter who falls.

Here's where the logic fail is: no body has brought up a scenario where the team doesn't address the offensive line in either the first or second round. If the selection at No. 4 is Sam Bradford, because he's the best available, and then in the second round, we take a linebacker or a wide receiver, because they are the best available, would anyone be pissed at our draft strategy?

It's a better defined strategy than the one a lot of the Bradford/Clausen people are suggesting. There's no logic gap there. They are ignoring needs and instead focusing on the player that they feel can best help the Redskins win in the future. They're doing it at the expense of the OL in the early rounds. I don't have any more of a problem with them passing on OL in the second round than I would with them passing on OL in the first, but I feel that a lot of people will complain if we do the above.

I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?If Bradford had stayed healthy AND as productive as the past, he would have been the unquestioned No. 1. But if you take his (small sample) stats from three games, and prorate them into a 13 game season, he's probably dropping to the fringe of the first round. It's possible that Bradford might actually be getting the benefit of the doubt due to his injury.

I see where ur goin wit this man but think about if we go by BPA (best player available). What if in EVERY round the BPA is better than the top Olineman left. Then we end up with the same line as last year. Due to just how terrible our line is, even if we hafta take a small reach, we hafta change the line from last year.

Don't forget that taking a LT at No. 4 doesn't limit the team from taking any player in the second round who we would have taken if we took a QB. It just gives us the opportunity to go elsewhere in the second round. Taking a QB at No. 4 pretty does take the position out of question until at least the fifth round though, no matter who falls.

Here's where the logic fail is: no body has brought up a scenario where the team doesn't address the offensive line in either the first or second round. If the selection at No. 4 is Sam Bradford, because he's the best available, and then in the second round, we take a linebacker or a wide receiver, because they are the best available, would anyone be pissed at our draft strategy?

It's a better defined strategy than the one a lot of the Bradford/Clausen people are suggesting. There's no logic gap there. They are ignoring needs and instead focusing on the player that they feel can best help the Redskins win in the future. They're doing it at the expense of the OL in the early rounds. I don't have any more of a problem with them passing on OL in the second round than I would with them passing on OL in the first, but I feel that a lot of people will complain if we do the above.

I think that for many Warpathers that scenario is as unthinkable as having Britney Spears for President.

What if Berry is there at 4? Which is very possible. Do you take him over OL or QB?Sorry, I missed this post when I viewed the rest of the thread.

Yes, I'd take Berry at No. 4 if there was a huge value dropoff between him and any other offensive player.

I don't believe safety to be a deal-breaking concern, and to me, a LaRon Landry that can't develop as a free safety is a valueless player. This pick would more or less be an admission that we're done trying to salvage him as a player, we'll just trade him and move on with Berry back there.

I would find it hard to pass up a golden chance to draft a franchise lineman, but I have Berry graded a lot higher than my top QB, so that would be an easy pick if there weren't a slam-dunk left tackle in the eyes of our evaluators.

And hopefully, we could pick up a late second or an early third in a trade for Landry and use the pick on an offensive player, if we went the Berry route at four.