Better Decision: Draft/Deal for Bradford or Trade for McNabb/Draft T. Williams?

In hindsight after half a season, would it have been better to have gone after Sam Bradford and not have McNabb and Trent Williams on the team?

I'm on the fence on this and wanted to get some thoughts from others.

I think Bradford was plan A and McNabb was plan B it is not like they had both deals on the table at the same time and choose McNabb.

I think Bradford was plan A and McNabb was plan B it is not like they had both deals on the table at the same time and choose McNabb.

Since you say that you think Bradford was plan A - do you think that it would have been better to have dealt for the first overall to draft him instead of trading for McNabb and drafting Trent Williams- looking back in hindsight.

I am fine with Trent Williams, while Sam Bradford looks good, remember the Rams had already gotten several high draft linemen. Atleast TW has been a fair replacement for Samuels, and will get better with time I believe, look at Stafford when the Lions didn't strengthen their line first, he was out some last year, and some this year. If we had gone with Bradford, especially not knowing what we would have had to trade, but surely more than McNabb cost us, I think there is the real possibility he would have had a season ending injury. After all we have faced several powerful DL's/OLB's. Definitely needed to solidify the LT when we had the oppportunity.

Since you say that you think Bradford was plan A - do you think that it would have been better to have dealt for the first overall to draft him instead of trading for McNabb and drafting Trent Williams- looking back in hindsight.


I don't think STL ever want anything for that pick, it was never an option.

I am fine with Trent Williams, while Sam Bradford looks good, remember the Rams had already gotten several high draft linemen. Atleast TW has been a fair replacement for Samuels, and will get better with time I believe, look at Stafford when the Lions didn't strengthen their line first, he was out some last year, and some this year. If we had gone with Bradford, especially not knowing what we would have had to trade, but surely more than McNabb cost us, I think there is the real possibility he would have had a season ending injury. After all we have faced several powerful DL's/OLB's. Definitely needed to solidify the LT when we had the oppportunity.

I'll play devil's advocate- but what if McNabb continues to play subpar at qb and looking ahead at possible free agents and draft choices at qb in future years -- would it have been a mistake to not deal for Bradford when the redskins had a chance? Keep this in mind and I know it's way to early -- but Bradford is being projected as the next great qb.

i think everyone on here would agree we rather have Bradford over McNabb which is what you are basically driving at but that truly was never an option.

I don't think STL ever want anything for that pick, it was never an option.

I'd like to think that, but what if it was a possibility -- which option would you have preferred in hindsight (and know it might not have been these clear-cut options)? McNabb and T. Williams VS. Bradford

i think everyone on here would agree we rather have Bradford over McNabb which is what you are basically driving at but that truly was never an option.

It probably wouldn't have been Bradford over McNabb. It would have been more like Bradford VS. McNabb/Williams

Bradford looks good now, what would he have looked like behind the Redskins O line,better or worse?