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

[quote=GTripp0012;652086]

To justify picking a QB in the top ten picks, you have to have something that the offense can do very well when the guy comes in. That can be running the ball, like the Jets can do right now (they have a great OL). It can be getting yards after the catch like the Bucs can do. It can simply be the existance of a talent like Calvin Johnson who can take over a game and save a lot of bad balls.
[/quote]


I disagree.
Teams drafting in the top ten aren't good teams and one draft isn't going to fix their problems. You don't draft a franchise QB to be successfull in the first few years. it takes a full compliment of players to be successful and it will take a few years for the redskins to fix the line problem.

If the Redskins have a chance to draft a franchise QB, they have to take it. Realistically, They will win 6-8 games next year and will be drafting 12th to 18th, Chances are slim you will get a franchise caliber QB in next years draft in those slots but i'm sure you could get a solid linemen.

Unfortunately TE is the only position we are set at. They need to draft who ever will make the biggest impact on the professional level.

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

[quote=jamf;652103]I disagree.
Teams drafting in the top ten aren't good teams and one draft isn't going to fix their problems. You don't draft a franchise QB to be successfull in the first few years. it takes a full compliment of players to be successful and it will take a few years for the redskins to fix the line problem.

If the Redskins have a chance to draft a franchise QB, they have to take it. Realistically, They will win 6-8 games next year and will be drafting 12th to 18th, Chances are slim you will get a franchise caliber QB in next years draft in those slots but i'm sure you could get a solid linemen.

Unfortunately TE is the only position we are set at. They need to draft who ever will make the biggest impact on the professional level.[/quote]

What are you talking about? For every Manning there is a Romo...can you really make the argument that either of Sanchez or Stafford are any better than Chad Henne?

What I'm trying to say is that you have just as much of a chance of hitting a franchise qb in the 3rd or 4th round than you do in the first round. For this one draft in particular, what is the dropoff from Bradford/Clausen to Colt McCoy but one is going to be available in the second round where the other two won't.

And it has been said to death but I am going to say it again, unless you can protect your quarterback, no matter who is calling the snaps, you won't have success...draft a linemen or two first and then go qb. To say that if you don't get either Clausen or Bradford then the draft was a failure is specious to say the least.

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

[quote=killromo;651989]I hope this is not the path we take. Bradford and his twice injured shoulder won't last 1 half of play behind our current O-Line. Bradford smells like a heath shuler pick to me and we can't afford to throw away top picks.[/quote]
Here, here my good man. How can anyone want to gamble with Bradford now? The stats for his backup/replacement Jones during the bowl game against Stanford just show me that Bradford is talented, but with that much offensive talent around you and that line, even an average QB can look like a consensus All American. Bradford will come in dealing with inadequate offensive personnel. Do you really think he is going to shine?

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

[quote=djnemo65;652083]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. [/quote]

Very thought-provoking post, but remember that great QB play is different than hot QB draft prospects, and improving QB play doesn't necessarily involve the draft or even the QB himself.

Gentlemen, your conference-winning quarterbacks of the last ten years (and NFL draft round):

John Elway (1)
Chris Chandler (3)
Kurt Warner (undrafted)
Steve McNair (1)
Trent Dilfer (1)
Kerry Collins (1)
Tom Brady (6)
Brad Johnson (9)
Rich Gannon (4)
Jake Delhomme (undrafted)
Donovan McNabb (1)
Ben Roethlisberger (1)
Matt Hasslebeck (6)
Peyton Manning (1)
Rex Grossman (1)
Eli Manning (1)

Admittedly, there are more 1st round picks on this list than I anticipated when I started the post, but amongst those 16 quarterbacks: 7 QBs were not selected in the first round, Grossman and Dilfer are amongst the 1st round picks (whose teams won their conferences in spite of the QB's play), and I think the jury is still out on ol' Eli Manning.

As far as the teams that are amongst the tops THIS year (Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings), only the Saints and Colts are overachieving due to their QBs. The Chargers, and (especially) the Vikings are loaded with offensive weapons. Jason Campbell would be in the playoffs if he was throwing to Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin and handing off to Adrian Peterson.

You're absolutely right that we don't have to (nor should we) go crazy drafting O-linemen. But the QB prospects coming out are shaky, what with Bradford's suspect shoulder and Clausen . . . well, anybody who is the "leader" of a team that DECLINES A LOCKED-IN BOWL BID obviously doesn't have the love for football that I'd require of my players. In fact, Notre Dame has lost any remaining respect I ever had for them. Who STOPS playing football? "Stops" isn't the right word. "Quits." That's what I'm looking for. "Fighting Irish." Yeah, right. I digress.

I also don't buy 2010 as a rebuilding year for the Redskins. We've got average or above-average performers at every skill position and outstanding ATHLETES on all sides of the ball. All of our difficult non-conference games are at home (Indy, Green Bay, and Minnesota), and our away non-conference schedule is loaded with some of the worst teams in the league. Our most difficult non-conference road game is vs. Tennessee. The NFL schedule makers are dying for the Redskins to be relevant again.

The single biggest improvement to the team has already been accomplished with the removal of Jim Zorn and the ownership-induced dysfunction in the front office. Now that an experienced head coach is in place, more raw athletic ability will be converted into higher performance. I agree that high-level QB play is critical to improvement, but [I][B]the QB we have on the roster now gives the team the best chance to improve immediately[/B][/I], taking advantage of our favorable schedule while the gettin's good.

Assuming we make critical upgrades to the O-line (not necessarily through the draft), there's no reason why we can't compete for the NFC East title next season.

Do you think Doug Williams and Mark Rypien were "superstar" QBs?

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

Kafka, Sheehan, Lefevour, Stull, Pike, Canfield, Max Hall from BYU, and Elliot from Purdue will be available in the 2nd to mid rounds. Lefevour will probably go by the 2nd. Same for Pike. I am thinking we can get Stull, Canfield, Hall, Sheehan, and the rest in round 3 or 4. I am partial to Big Ten or MAC QBs of course, being from the Great Lakes, but these guys are very good QBs surrounded with not the best talent(especially the MAC guys), but they make things happen. There really is a lot of good QBs available and I don't think Coach Shanny or MR Allen have to feel rushed about a QB.

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

[quote=rbanerjee23;652111]What are you talking about? For every Manning there is a Romo...can you really make the argument that either of Sanchez or Stafford are any better than Chad Henne?

[B]What I'm trying to say is that you have just as much of a chance of hitting a franchise qb in the 3rd or 4th round than you do in the first round. For this one draft in particular[/B], what is the dropoff from Bradford/Clausen to Colt McCoy but one is going to be available in the second round where the other two won't.

And it has been said to death but I am going to say it again, unless you can protect your quarterback, no matter who is calling the snaps, you won't have success...draft a linemen or two first and then go qb. To say that if you don't get either Clausen or Bradford then the draft was a failure is specious to say the least.[/quote]

No. This is a myth, and one that needs to be dispelled. While it is possible to acquire a franchise QB in the late rounds, when you compare the number of QB's drafted in rounds 2-7 versus the number who become superstars, you are maybe talking about a 1 percent chance.

Stable Franchise QB's (which I'm defining as a team's comfortable starter for the foreseeable future, so no Warner and Favre, and no one drafted last year)
Rivers - 4th pick
Roethlesberger - 11th pick
Palmer - 1st pick
P. Manning - 1st pick
Rogers - 23rd pick
Ryan - 3rd pick
McNabb - 2nd pick
E. Manning - 1st pick
Flacco - 18th pick
Vince Young - 3rd pick
Cutler - 11th pick

Matt Schaub - Trade (was 2nd rounder)
Romo - Free Agent (undrafted)
Brees - Free Agent (was 2nd rounder)
Brady - 6th round

Where are all these third and fourth rounders Raj? Doesn't the evidence suggest that the first round is overwhelmingly the most likely place to find a legit franchise QB?

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

[quote=jamf;652103]I disagree.
Teams drafting in the top ten aren't good teams and one draft isn't going to fix their problems. You don't draft a franchise QB to be successfull in the first few years. it takes a full compliment of players to be successful and it will take a few years for the redskins to fix the line problem.

If the Redskins have a chance to draft a franchise QB, they have to take it. Realistically, They will win 6-8 games next year and will be drafting 12th to 18th, Chances are slim you will get a franchise caliber QB in next years draft in those slots but i'm sure you could get a solid linemen.

Unfortunately TE is the only position we are set at. They need to draft who ever will make the biggest impact on the professional level.[/quote]Well, keep in mind that I'm specifically declaring that we should not follow the "bad team" rebuilding model. These are bad organizations for a reason.

What I think teams miss when they are picking a QB is that they aren't necessarily trying to find the best guy available when they pick this year, but the best guy who will be available this year, or the next year, or the year after that. If a team has concluded that the best pro prospect in football is Ryan Mallett, drafting Sam Bradford with the 4th pick would be the wrong move.

With a few notable exceptions (limited to pretty much Peyton Manning and Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger in the last twelve years), even the most successful quarterbacks have not been franchise quarterbacks on the day they were drafted. Trying to "find" the next franchise quarterback is a losing proposition. 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. 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.

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

Gtripp,

What is your take on taking a second tier QB like Lefevour, Sheehan, Stull, Pike, Canfield, Kafka, etc?

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

[quote=Zorn on the 4th of July;652121]Very thought-provoking post, but remember that great QB play is different than hot QB draft prospects, and improving QB play doesn't necessarily involve the draft or even the QB himself.

Gentlemen, your conference-winning quarterbacks of the last ten years (and NFL draft round):

John Elway (1)
Chris Chandler (3)
Kurt Warner (undrafted)
Steve McNair (1)
Trent Dilfer (1)
Kerry Collins (1)
Tom Brady (6)
Brad Johnson (9)
Rich Gannon (4)
Jake Delhomme (undrafted)
Donovan McNabb (1)
Ben Roethlisberger (1)
Matt Hasslebeck (6)
Peyton Manning (1)
Rex Grossman (1)
Eli Manning (1)

Admittedly, there are more 1st round picks on this list than I anticipated when I started the post, but amongst those 16 quarterbacks: 7 QBs were not selected in the first round, Grossman and Dilfer are amongst the 1st round picks (whose teams won their conferences in spite of the QB's play), and I think the jury is still out on ol' Eli Manning.

As far as the teams that are amongst the tops THIS year (Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings), only the Saints and Colts are overachieving due to their QBs. The Chargers, and (especially) the Vikings are loaded with offensive weapons. Jason Campbell would be in the playoffs if he was throwing to Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin and handing off to Adrian Peterson.

You're absolutely right that we don't have to (nor should we) go crazy drafting O-linemen. But the QB prospects coming out are shaky, what with Bradford's suspect shoulder and Clausen . . . well, anybody who is the "leader" of a team that DECLINES A LOCKED-IN BOWL BID obviously doesn't have the love for football that I'd require of my players. In fact, Notre Dame has lost any remaining respect I ever had for them. Who STOPS playing football? "Stops" isn't the right word. "Quits." That's what I'm looking for. "Fighting Irish." Yeah, right. I digress.

I also don't buy 2010 as a rebuilding year for the Redskins. We've got average or above-average performers at every skill position and outstanding ATHLETES on all sides of the ball. All of our difficult non-conference games are at home (Indy, Green Bay, and Minnesota), and our away non-conference schedule is loaded with some of the worst teams in the league. Our most difficult non-conference road game is vs. Tennessee. The NFL schedule makers are dying for the Redskins to be relevant again.

The single biggest improvement to the team has already been accomplished with the removal of Jim Zorn and the ownership-induced dysfunction in the front office. Now that an experienced head coach is in place, more raw athletic ability will be converted into higher performance. I agree that high-level QB play is critical to improvement, but [I][B]the QB we have on the roster now gives the team the best chance to improve immediately[/B][/I], taking advantage of our favorable schedule while the gettin's good.

Assuming we make critical upgrades to the O-line (not necessarily through the draft), there's no reason why we can't compete for the NFC East title next season.

Do you think Doug Williams and Mark Rypien were "superstar" QBs?[/quote]

Strong post. I would argue that the game has morphed into a passing game over the last few years to the point that we aren't going to see a Trent Dilfer in the Superbowl again, at least for a while.

But again, my argument was not that it's necessary to take a QB in the first round, but that it's necessary to have a legit star QB to win the Superbowl. This QB doesn't have to be a hall of famer, but he does have to play like one for that championship season. And I think with only a few exceptions your list corroborates this. Of the Superbowl winners of the last 10 years, the only QB's who were mediocre for that season (Dilfer and Johnson, and even Johnson went to the probowl I think) were playing on arguably the two greatest defenses of all time.

Moreover, I think drafting a QB high in the first round is historically the best way to get such a player. There are too many other factors that go into catching lightning in a bottle and having your undrafted backup Kurt Warner flourish, or you catfish wrastling journeyman Jake Delhome suddenly morph into a fearless gunslinger in time for the playoff run. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot more than it does.

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

[quote=GusFrerotte;652133]Gtripp,

What is your take on taking a second tier QB like Lefevour, Sheehan, Stull, Pike, Canfield, Kafka, etc?[/quote]I'm in favor of it, although this class is so
deep that you can probably get a second round value in the fourth round.

All you're getting after the top ten picks is a system guy, so I don't see why we'd spend a pick at the top of the second on anyone but McCoy. However, as the draft gets deeper, I'd take pretty much any one of those players as a No. 2 QB who doesn't prevent us from drafting a No. 1 QB in 2011. I like the flexibility of that option.

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

[quote=djnemo65;652127] Doesn't the evidence suggest that the first round is overwhelmingly the most likely place to find a legit franchise QB?[/quote]

Yes. You are technically correct. If only the Redskins had a starting quarterback drafted in the first round . . .

We are not forced into selecting a QB with our 1st round pick nor are we doing it at random. Therefore, "most likely" means very little. Look specifically at the QBs available in the first round this year. Do they, as individuals, bring more value to the QB position than Jason Campbell?

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

Yeah, I think we load up by taking a QB in 2010 and another in 2011 or 2012. Mallet of Arkansas, and Moore from Boise St are sophmores. Top juniors include Dalton of TCU, Keenum of Houston, and Enderle from Idaho. Todd Reesing is also a junior I believe. I like the second tiers because they are gunslingers working with less talent than these media created superstars that could be a just a good QB on a loaded team. McCoys' backup is heating things up now after a rather shaky start.

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

[quote=djnemo65;652135]Moreover, I think drafting a QB high in the first round is historically the best way to get such a player. There are too many other factors that go into catching lightning in a bottle and having your undrafted backup Kurt Warner flourish, or you catfish wrastling journeyman Jake Delhome suddenly morph into a fearless gunslinger in time for the playoff run. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot more than it does.[/quote]Well, the star QB in SB42 put up 17 points and lost to the pedistrian player, who was admittedly a first overall pick himself. But hardly established or even a sure thing to succeed in the NFL had he lost that game. In SB41, the game was so sloppy that another special teams or defensive touchdown could have helped Rex Grossman defeat (in my opinion) the greatest quarterback to ever lace them up. As good as Matt Hasselbeck was in the mid-2000's, Hasselbeck-types are available in the third or fourth round of any draft. Ditto Jake Delhomme.

Really, I think the common link about getting to the next level in the common game is that the quarterback must play well for most of the season, particularly in the post-season. Whether the quarterback is a franchise player, or merely posing as one in the right situation doesn't seem to matter.

I agree with you that a quarterback can't get his team to the level of a champion playing like Trent Dilfer did in 2000 anymore. Well, except for Grossman.

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

[quote=GTripp0012;652136]I'm in favor of it, although this class is so
deep that you can probably get a second round value in the fourth round.

All you're getting after the top ten picks is a system guy, so I don't see why we'd spend a pick at the top of the second on anyone but McCoy. However, as the draft gets deeper, I'd take pretty much any one of those players as a No. 2 QB who doesn't prevent us from drafting a No. 1 QB in 2011. I like the flexibility of that option.[/quote]

I think QB in the 2nd or later makes for sense, but why do you have a G. Williams avatar?

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

[quote=The Goat;652160]I think QB in the 2nd or later makes for sense, but why do you have a G. Williams avatar?[/quote]Pent up frustration.