Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


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

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-08-2010, 12:18 PM   #61
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,348
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

I had to laugh when JC recently remarked with everything the team needs to fix all everyone still wants to talk about is him. So true.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-08-2010, 01:23 PM   #62
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,341
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
.....But, get your act together as a team, and then using that top five pick on a quarterback with elite talent is so much more worthwhile.
Problem, if you have your act together as a team then you're not going to have a top five pick to get that QB with elite talent.

Quote:
If you're going to pay all that money out to a position on the field that, in my opinion, is fairly easy to fill adequately, you might want to get to the winning right away.
QB is a position that can be filled "adequately" fairly easily. But to get where we want to be, finding that elite QB is much more difficult (and costly).
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:25 PM   #63
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by djnemo65 View Post
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 heard this same argument last year when people told me I was stupid for wanting to use the number one on Mack, Oher, or Loadholt. Well that's a reach Tramp! Those guys aren't worth that high of a pick. Those guys are starting this year. They're not getting schooled up like Rinehart. Two of the teams that drafted these guys, one in the first and the other in the second I believe in Loadholt's case, are in the playoffs (Ravens & Vikings). Oher has played RT and LT this year. Those teams had decent lineman already. We've got a bunch of effing bums. 75% of the offensive linemen on our roster right now are going to hit the bricks as soon as Shanny starts looking at film.

I want the next Chris Samuals at LT for the next ten years, not a FA for the next year. Chris was the third pick in the first, not a deal they found in the fifth or some UDFA from Maryland. I'll eat my words if they draft some wonderboy and we go to the playoffs. I don't see that going down. I see some poor kid eating turf as the NFC East uses him like toilet paper.
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:27 PM   #64
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 36
Posts: 2,906
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
I had to laugh when JC recently remarked with everything the team needs to fix all everyone still wants to talk about is him. So true.
Boo-yah!
__________________
A funny thing happened on the way to the temple. The moneychangers bought the priesthood.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:36 PM   #65
Playmaker
 
celts32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hackettstown NJ
Age: 43
Posts: 2,656
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

I am not saying I would take Bradford...but one of the best things about Shanahan is that he has always had good OL's without using high draft picks to build them for the most part. So I don't think it's LT or bust for the skins at #4.
__________________
Section 115 Row 23

“Goal line, goal line. I-left, tight wing, 70 chip on white.”

http://victorybeer.com/
celts32 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:52 PM   #66
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,853
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by celts32 View Post
I am not saying I would take Bradford...but one of the best things about Shanahan is that he has always had good OL's without using high draft picks to build them for the most part. So I don't think it's LT or bust for the skins at #4.
Shanahan also picked Clady with a first rounder. I think taking a top tackle would be a good way to start rebuilding the line.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 01:58 PM   #67
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,917
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
I still don't get it? We have no O-line starters that are worth a damn and no depth. I don't consider Heyer to be depth. I consider him to be an UDFA that had his chance. There are maybe a few players we can use for another year if possible: Dockery, Raback, Mike Williams . . . maybe. Randy Thomas and CS are retiring. If they don't they'll not last very long.

So why is it I keep hearing about this douche Clausen and that broke-ass Bradford? Why do I hear about Berry and his peeps, Franken-berry and Boo-berry? Count Chocula? He can't block man!?

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.
Is that a record for the # of times 'douche' was used in a post? Wow.

Kiper projected on M&M this morning that McCoy probably fell into the late 2nd, early 3rd and possibly 4th because of last night. He will likely need an amazing combine/individual workout to put himself back up as a sure fire first day pick.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:01 PM   #68
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Problem, if you have your act together as a team then you're not going to have a top five pick to get that QB with elite talent.

QB is a position that can be filled "adequately" fairly easily. But to get where we want to be, finding that elite QB is much more difficult (and costly).
It is quite the conundrum. But, if quarterback play is still an issue that needs to be solved, you'll be around the 4-6 win mark, and be picking in the top five or so.

I mean, I'll cite the Raiders, Seahawks, or Rams as an example. These are teams who all have picked in the top five as recently as 2007. All of them have offensive pieces superior to what the Redskins have. But they're still losing. Now, if any of those teams drafted a QB and hit, they would start to see the fruits of the pick pretty immediately. The receiver numbers would see a major boost, and the sack rates would drop concurrently to the pick if they HIT.

Now, in the case of the Raiders and the Seahawks, those teams would have to build the lines concurrently to the QB pick. In the case of the Rams, they need to add receiving talent concurrently. They could have picked Sanchez last year, but it would have been a disaster because they wouldn't have had even a single adequate tackle. They took Jason Smith because it was a building block who they could build around. This year, if they want to take Jimmy Clausen with the first overall pick, they are in a much better situation to do so than last year (not to mention that Clausen is a lot stronger of a prospect than Sanchez, not that the bar is set all that high).
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:06 PM   #69
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Remember that the last two expansion franchises started with quarterbacks, and got nothing out of them not because the picks were all that terrible, but because when the QB is the first part, and not part of an existing system, there's nothing to build on, no place to go. And David Carr got to play with Andre Johnson for the better part of four seasons.

It's not that you have to have a pro bowl offensive line to draft a QB, not that you have to spend a top five pick on a receiver first, but you should have SOMETHING. It's my conclusion that the Redskins have a pair of TEs right now, and nothing more but potential prospects and non-prospects.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:09 PM   #70
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Smoot mentioned McClain, LB from bama, the other day. I think Smoot, you said there was some early interest from the skins?

Regardless, just want to remind everyone that the 1st pick is likely not a debate simply of qb v. O line w/the new regime. I'm sure there are some defensive players that they like quite a bit. Seems this draft is tilted to defense in the top players.

If the 1st 3 picks are Clausen, Okung & Berry, I think Suh is too much to pass up. It is not all that unrealistic. That's kind of what I'm hoping for, and that we draft o line in the 2nd & get D. LeFevour in the 3rd via trade or 4th.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:11 PM   #71
Pro Bowl
 
53Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,391
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
I heard this same argument last year when people told me I was stupid for wanting to use the number one on Mack, Oher, or Loadholt. Well that's a reach Tramp! Those guys aren't worth that high of a pick. Those guys are starting this year. They're not getting schooled up like Rinehart. Two of the teams that drafted these guys, one in the first and the other in the second I believe in Loadholt's case, are in the playoffs (Ravens & Vikings). Oher has played RT and LT this year. Those teams had decent lineman already. We've got a bunch of effing bums. 75% of the offensive linemen on our roster right now are going to hit the bricks as soon as Shanny starts looking at film.

I want the next Chris Samuals at LT for the next ten years, not a FA for the next year. Chris was the third pick in the first, not a deal they found in the fifth or some UDFA from Maryland. I'll eat my words if they draft some wonderboy and we go to the playoffs. I don't see that going down. I see some poor kid eating turf as the NFC East uses him like toilet paper.
Tramp is back with a vengeance! I found what GTripp said very interesting. If you're going to draft a QB that high, you're basically saying you think he's the best who will come out in the next 3 years. If not, why draft him? If I thought as highly as some do of Clausen or Bradford I would want to draft QB first myself. JMO, while they are both very talented, I think they have as much potential to be busts as they do of being great. With Locker available next year, I would rather draft OT in the first and someone like LeFevour later. JC may work out pretty well with a decent line and someone like LeFevour, or whoever, could turnout to be a steal. If not, we should have a pretty good pick next year. I think it's easier to get an OT with the 4th pick who will be what you think he is, than a QB. At least in this draft. I know there are no sure things, but I hope the coaches don't gamble with this pick.
__________________
"Cautiously And Optimistically... Looking Forward To Change"
53Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:13 PM   #72
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Remember that the last two expansion franchises started with quarterbacks, and got nothing out of them not because the picks were all that terrible, but because when the QB is the first part, and not part of an existing system, there's nothing to build on, no place to go.

It's not that you have to have a pro bowl offensive line to draft a QB, not that you have to spend a top five pick on a receiver first, but you should have SOMETHING. It's my conclusion that the Redskins have a pair of TEs right now, and nothing more but potential prospects and non-prospects.
I think you can look at it this way, which position would you rather play a rookie? I would always say you play a rookie O linemen, even LT, before a rookie qb. So, if you follow that logic, you draft a qb earlier (as in year, not round) but sit him.

If JC isn't veiwed as the future here, than I think Shanny needs a qb pick this year. Doesn't have to be the 1st round, but would almost have to be this year.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:17 PM   #73
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,638
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12 View Post
Smoot mentioned McClain, LB from bama, the other day. I think Smoot, you said there was some early interest from the skins?

Regardless, just want to remind everyone that the 1st pick is likely not a debate simply of qb v. O line w/the new regime. I'm sure there are some defensive players that they like quite a bit. Seems this draft is tilted to defense in the top players.

If the 1st 3 picks are Clausen, Okung & Berry, I think Suh is too much to pass up. It is not all that unrealistic. That's kind of what I'm hoping for, and that we draft o line in the 2nd & get D. LeFevour in the 3rd via trade or 4th.
No, I just said he could be a sleeper pick. If I said there was interest from the Redskins I didn't mean to
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:24 PM   #74
Playmaker
 
freddyg12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,540
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
No, I just said he could be a sleeper pick. If I said there was interest from the Redskins I didn't mean to
I certainly wasn't quoting you, I just remembered you mentioned him.

Anyway, dude is a beast & I agree w/the sleeper call, especially if the 4-3 system is kept in place. In the pregame last night several teamates talked about how well he quarterbacks the D. Would be a good replacement of Fletcher. Not sure HB Blades is the long term answer at MLB.
freddyg12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2010, 02:31 PM   #75
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins

I wanted to go through and declare the best QB picked in the first round in every three year window going back to 1991.

1991-1993
Brett Favre

1992-1994
Drew Bledsoe

1993-1995
Steve McNair

1994-1996
Steve McNair

1995-1997
Steve McNair

1996-1998
Peyton Manning

1997-1999
Peyton Manning

1998-2000
Peyton Manning

1999-2001
Chad Pennington OR Drew Brees

2000-2002
Chad Pennington OR Drew Brees

2001-2003
Carson Palmer OR Drew Brees

2002-2004
Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger

2003-2005
Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger

2004-2006
Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger

2005-2007
Aaron Rodgers or Jay Cutler or Vince Young or Jason Campbell or Kevin Kolb or something

2006-2008
Matt Ryan

2007-2009
Matt Ryan

If you don't count anyone in my hodgepodge mess of 2005-2007 where I don't feel there's a clear cut best quarterback drafted in those three years (most would say Rodgers, but that's based on this year alone...I'd go Young, gun to my head, also based on this year alone), there's been 10 different passers to lead this category since 1991, but 16 different opportunities.

Basically, I think there's been a lot of underwhelming quarterback classes. At times, the league has gone more than three years without a surefire success story at QB, and even moving Matt Ryan to that category might be a little premature.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.36734 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25