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

[URL="http://www.dcprosportsreport.com/articles/nfl-draft/huge-mock-munch-suh-consensus-no-1-bradford-for-skins.html"][B]http://www.dcprosportsreport.com/articles/nfl-draft/huge-mock-munch-suh-consensus-no-1-bradford-for-skins.html[/B][/URL]

I really can't see us going Bradford if Shanny is bringing back JC. Even if JC is only here for one year and a QB will be groomed under JC, I would assume it would be a second round or later pick. If you are picking 4th, as bad as the Redskins needs are, you need impact right away. I am thinking OT in the first, QB in the second.

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

Russell Okung, OT Oklahoma St, 6-5 300 lbs

[url=http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2010rokung.php]WalterFootball.com: 2010 NFL Draft Scouting Report: Russell Okung[/url]

Picking any quarterback in the first round is a big mistake. Jimmy Clausen QB Notre Dame is the only franchise quarterback in the draft. The rest can be had a later rounds. The Skins need to lock down left tackle. Okung will sure up that weak offensive line.

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

[quote=PennSkinsFan;651956][URL="http://www.dcprosportsreport.com/articles/nfl-draft/huge-mock-munch-suh-consensus-no-1-bradford-for-skins.html"][B]http://www.dcprosportsreport.com/articles/nfl-draft/huge-mock-munch-suh-consensus-no-1-bradford-for-skins.html[/B][/URL]

I really can't see us going Bradford if Shanny is bringing back JC. Even if JC is only here for one year and a QB will be groomed under JC, I would assume it would be a second round or later pick. If you are picking 4th, as bad as the Redskins needs are, you need impact right away. I am thinking OT in the first, QB in the second.[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I would like us to trade down and get 2 later 1st rounders or a 1 and 2 or something to go with our early first round pick. At that point with the 1st pick I say we get a OT then with the next pick a QB maybe Colt McCoy, Tony Pike or Dan LeFevour the best on available. Next with the last of the 3 picks a LB or RB. That is just my thoughts.[/FONT][/COLOR]

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

Personnaly I would like Clausen however there are bigger holes to fill. Any chance McCoy slips to our second round pick?

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

[quote=cdskins26;651971]Personnaly I would like Clausen however there are bigger holes to fill. Any chance McCoy slips to our second round pick?[/quote]

Wouldn't be surprised

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

In a perfect world we could trade back to around 10 where we could still get an impact OT and pick up a 3rd round pick. I like the OTs this year but not one of them seems like a stud/can't miss LT. A guy like Bulaga should be there at 10 or even later and he could play RT right away for us then shift to LT in a year or two after seasoning.

To me the only guy you have to take regardless or need is Suh...and he's not gonna be there when we pick at 4.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;651972]Wouldn't be surprised[/quote]

I like the idea of Pike if we could get a 3rd rounder somehow I wonder if he'd be there.

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

Trade down if possible pick up alot more picks then go OL, OL and OL then LB and RB you can pick the rest.

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

I agree w/FRPLG, Suh is the runaway choice as best player. He's unlikely to be there when we pick but who knows what happens at the combine,etc. I think a case can be made that DT is a need, just not as big of one. Griffin is soon to be gone & AH is 28.

I hope we don't take a qb in the 1st unless we trade down significantly. I really like LeFevour as a later pick & the guy Lewis from Duke.

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

[quote=NYCskinfan82;651977]Trade down if possible pick up alot more picks then go OL, OL and OL then LB and RB you can pick the rest.[/quote]

Why do you think LB is a need? just curious because I would think that CB/safety is where we could use some help

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

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.

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]
Agreed. I think personally Bradford isnt worth a pick unless we get him second round which isnt likely. The only guy i would take first as a quarterback is clausen and only if i was sure he was the perfect guy in the future.

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

[quote=rbanerjee23;651988]Why do you think LB is a need? just curious because I would think that CB/safety is where we could use some help[/quote]

If we move Rak to the defensive line full time, as some think that we should, who will play strongside linebacker?

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

[quote=Lotus;652001]If we move Rak to the defensive line full time, as some think that we should, who will play strongside linebacker?[/quote]

Right now Chris Wilson, unless they move Blades out there, but I don't think either is a long term solution. Hopefully the address it in the offseason.

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

Hopefully San Francisco is is high on one of the Big 2 QB prospects (Bradford/Clausen) and they fall to us at the fourth pick. Then we can trade for their first round picks (13th & 16th overall). Might happen if we throw in a player or a future 2nd rounder.


I would LOVE it if McCoy fell to us in the second round!!!

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

[quote=PennSkinsFan;651956] If you are picking 4th, as bad as the Redskins needs are, you need impact right away. I am thinking OT in the first, QB in the second.[/quote]

If Bradford or anyone else is a Manning or Rivers type talent, You have to draft him. You don't have many opportunities to get a player like that.

With the 4th overall pick it's important not to reach for a need player at a position of need. If you have to make sure you get the most dominant player available.

I would love to have a bookend tackle but if he is going to be the next robert gallery, we should pass.

TE is the only position on this team that I wouldn't use the first round pick on. We have two great players. I know we need Olinemen but if we have an opportunity to take the next Darrell Revis, Patrick Willis, Mario Williams, Sean Taylor or Adrian Peterson then we have to draft the person who is going to kill the rest of the NFC east for the next decade.

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

[quote=jamf;652042]If Bradford or anyone else is a Manning or Rivers type talent, You have to draft him. You don't have many opportunities to get a player like that.

With the 4th overall pick it's important not to reach for a need player at a position of need. If you have to make sure you get the most dominant player available.

I would love to have a bookend tackle but if he is going to be the next robert gallery, we should pass.

TE is the only position on this team that I wouldn't use the first round pick on. We have two great players. I know we need Olinemen but if we have an opportunity to take the next Darrell Revis, Patrick Willis, Mario Williams, Sean Taylor or Adrian Peterson then we have to draft the person who is going to kill the rest of the NFC east for the next decade.[/quote]
I agree that's why I'd try to trade down and get C.J. Spiller Gamechanger!

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

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.

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

Draft C.J. Spiller as our Futureback. Adds needed depth to the position, improves special teams immediately, could step in if Portis is removed/injured, he is accustomed to platooning, and could take some pressure to produce off of Campbell. He's probably not a good pick at 4th, so we could scoop up a few extra draft picks just by trading down (thus retaining the ability to bolster the OL).

I like our defense--there is a lot of athleticism on D. They just need some coaching and perhaps (after hearing from Haynesworth and Hall), a more intuitive defensive scheme. I'm really looking forward to witnessing Landry's inevitable improvement next season.

There are actually some pretty good O-linemen available through free agency (who have knees with some years left in them), so no need to go OL crazy in the draft, particularly early.

We need a weapon, and I think staying with Campbell has a favorable risk/reward ratio, so we don't need to waste an early pick on a risky QB. Picking up an outstanding athlete at RB at a spot lower than 4th could help out a lot.

Lastly, if you have doubts that C.J. Spiller is capable of being a high-performance RB, you're absolutely justified in your concerns and you are NOT crazy. However, remember who the new head coach is his track record with RBs.

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

[quote=Trample the Elderly;652053]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.[/quote]


I agree 100%

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

[quote=cdskins26;651971]Personnaly I would like Clausen however there are bigger holes to fill. Any chance McCoy slips to our second round pick?[/quote]

People thought a similar Texas QB could be a late first round pick. Instead he became a 3rd round pick.

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

[quote=Trample the Elderly;652053]So why is it I keep hearing about this douche Clausen and that broke-ass Bradford?....
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.[/quote]Shanahan (Sr. & Jr.) know that you need a franchise QB to win at a playoff level in the NFL. We need a franchise QB. If Shanahan believes Clausen is a franchise QB (I do) if he's there, you get him. I don't believe any of the other QBs in this draft are first round caliber.

There are a few good FA OL available this year. We should be able to pick up at least two solid OL in the draft. Keep JC around for another year, let Clausen sit & learn, we'll probably have a top 15 pick on 2011 in that scenario and we complete the rebuild of the OL then. 2011 we have a good young OL, a franchise QB in place, and we can start to make a run.

It's not Detroit syndrome, it's a matter of us having several needs that won't be filled in one off-season. The hardest piece to find is a franchise QB. Who will be there next year at that level, Locker, maybe Luck comes out early, but those two will be gone within the first 8 picks. High caliber OL are important but easier to acquire than a franchise QB.

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

I will be disappointed if we draft a qb with our first pick. I really hope we either get a chance to nab Okung or trade the pick away and pick up a few more.

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

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.

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

[quote=djnemo65;652083]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. [B]You don't draft a QB when you are close, you take one when you have a lot of building left to do;[/B] 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.[/quote]

Great post all around, I agree with everything you said.

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

[quote=djnemo65;652083]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.[/quote]You could also hit on that superstar QB, and have only two winning seasons in the first seven years after the draft pick, i.e. the Bengals model.

Carson Palmer isn't really a superstar QB at this point, but that's more due to organizational suckitude in the most important developmental years (2007-2008) than missing on the quality of the pick.

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.

Problem is, the Redskins don't do anything particularly well on offense. Really, the only thing the offense has is whatever Jason Campbell can give them. It's a toxic developmental situation for a young QB, although Shanahan's arrival changes things somewhat if you consider the scheme a positive. But if you look at teams like Oakland, Seattle, Denver, maybe even Kansas City and St. Louis, these are teams who can draft a QB and rely on their other offensive strengths while the guy plays from day one.

We're just not at that point yet.

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

It seems like a lot of people are mistaking us for a good team. Good teams that don't have holes (or only have small holes) at key positions can afford to take the best player available at a position that isn't of need. We are not a good team and thus we can't do that, there are things we need to address. I realize that Sam Bradford, and Eric Berry, and Jimmy Clausen seem like the shining Ferrari that everyone wants to get their hands on, but right now what we need is a big bruising truck to haul us through the winter of Redskins mediocrity. If Okung is available and we take anyone other than him (or if we get some sweet deal involving future picks while still getting one of the top o linemen in the draft) with our first pick I will have completely lost faith with this organization.

edit: I'm not sure it's clear but the sweet deal involving future picks is something I would like, and is the only thing I think we can do with the pick if okung is available other than taking him

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

I wonder how many people will start asking for McCoy now that he has a shoulder injury (just like with Bradford).

On a serious note, that was a hell of a run by that kid Richardson (from Bama) in the BCS game. Anyone know of his status?

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

[quote=Ruhskins;652094]I wonder how many people will start asking for McCoy now that he has a shoulder injury (just like with Bradford).

On a serious note, that was a hell of a run by that kid Richardson (from Bama) in the BCS game. Anyone know of his status?[/quote]Freshman, I believe they said.

B
 

[quote=GTripp0012;652086]You could also hit on that superstar QB, and have only two winning seasons in the first seven years after the draft pick, i.e. the Bengals model.

Carson Palmer isn't really a superstar QB at this point, but that's more due to organizational suckitude in the most important developmental years (2007-2008) than missing on the quality of the pick.

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.

Problem is, the Redskins don't do anything particularly well on offense. Really, the only thing the offense has is whatever Jason Campbell can give them. It's a toxic developmental situation for a young QB, although Shanahan's arrival changes things somewhat if you consider the scheme a positive. But if you look at teams like Oakland, Seattle, Denver, maybe even Kansas City and St. Louis, these are teams who can draft a QB and rely on their other offensive strengths while the guy plays from day one.

We're just not at that point yet.[/quote]

I'm a big fan of your posts Tripp, but I'm having a real difficult time following the thread of your reasoning here. You assert that you only take a top 10 QB if your offense has something they can already do well, as if this is accepted practice or common knowledge rather than just your assertion that you made up. This makes absolutely no sense though. If you accept the premise that a QB is necessary, than you draft a QB when you can draft a QB, and the point is that that's not every year. Improving other aspects of the team is comparatively a lot easier to do.

The case of Carson Palmer exhibits what is known in logic as necessary versus sufficient conditions. Having a superstar QB is necessary for winning a championship but not sufficient, meaning that you need one to win but having one won't guarantee anything. Yeah, the Bengals have screwed up in every way imaginable, but are you seriously arguing that they shouldn't have taken Palmer? The fact that their draft blundering has impeded his development sucks for him, but I think it's tough to argue the Bengals would be better off without him.

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.