Warpath  

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




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


Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2010, 05:34 PM   #301
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 02-23-2010, 05:34 PM   #302
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,920
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by CultBrennan59 View Post
I think he's talking about a proven OL, not a bad one or a whole new one which we would have no idea what it would be like.
Define a 'proven OL'.. We're not going to be able to completely remake the OL but with a couple of additions/subtractions we should be able to improve over what we trotted out there (8 starting RG and Stephon Heyer) for most of '09.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:36 PM   #303
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,670
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
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.
Rinehart really needs to turn the corner, hopefully in similar manner to that of Dockery in 2004 (when Gibbs arrived). Otherwise I would rather start Kory L at Guard or better yet hope that we find a way to get Chris Kuper. This scheme will make people play better then they really are but it can only do so much.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:39 PM   #304
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16,111
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
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.
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.
__________________
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 02-23-2010, 05:39 PM   #305
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:39 PM   #306
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,920
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:43 PM   #307
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,920
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruhskins View Post
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.
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:50 PM   #308
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:56 PM   #309
Playmaker
 
Paintrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Age: 43
Posts: 4,920
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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?
__________________
Challenge Greatness! Be A Leader! Make A Difference!
Paintrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 05:58 PM   #310
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 06:04 PM   #311
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 06:17 PM   #312
Special Teams
 
PHazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

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.
__________________
If "The Future is Now" why would we use our #4 Pick on a QB who will spend the 1st year on the bench?
PHazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2010, 06:57 PM   #313
Mann Up HOF!
 
Lotus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 10,703
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
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.
__________________
Rooting for the Dallas Cowboys should be recognized as a treatable mental disorder.
Lotus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010, 02:19 AM   #314
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
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.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2010, 02:31 AM   #315
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHazard View Post
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.
Exactly. That's the point. The logic fail, in my eyes, is that the second round (37th overall) is being viewed as a sufficient time to start addressing needs at the expense of potential draft values. That's the point of desperation in the eyes of many.

And you can draw the desperation line there. Maybe we don't need to look exclusively at tackles at No. 4. This is a logical position. But I don't understand what makes the second round the holy-grail-of-crap-we-haven't-drafted-a-tackle-in-five-years.

You've framed it perfectly: at some point it becomes completely preposterous that you wouldn't draft a quality lineman no matter who is available as a draft steal. For a lot of people, I think that point is going to be in the second round of this upcoming draft. For me, that point was October, 2009. And neither of those perspectives is more or less "right" than the person whose threshold for not drafting a tackle is out in 2012.

I just think people are going to be pissed if they have to watch more awful Redskins line play in 2010. I'm going to be pissed if I watch another unit that I know is not as good as it should be at this point.
__________________
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 05:22 AM.


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 0.55624 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