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

[djnemo65]

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.

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

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.

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

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.

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.

[r08kessl]

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

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[jamf]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[rbanerjee23]

Originally Posted by jamf

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.

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.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by rbanerjee23

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.

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?

[Zorn on the 4th of July]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Doesn't the evidence suggest that the first round is overwhelmingly the most likely place to find a legit franchise QB?

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jamf

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

.....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.

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).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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).

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Let's look at our specific situation. JC is an RFA, he's tendered and sticks around. With our 4th we hit on a franchise LT, Okung, Campbell, whoever. 2nd we wind up with a solid starter at another OL spot, say C or RT. Dock stays solid. Now with the new regime in place, good-excellent coaching, a new DC who runs a better scheme we're looking at 7-9 to 9-7. While I've been down on JC's performance this year, if the new regime can do a better job covering his weaknesses and maximizing his strengths, with a better scheme and supporting cast he won't flat out blow games. We're certainly not in the 4-6 win range. Now without the franchise QB, we're back where we were under Gibbs 2004-2007, on the cusp, but can't break through.

I think Clausen is a franchise QB, (even if he looks like an emu or douche) his numbers stack up quite favorably against other franchise QBs who came out of college, he played in a pro style offense under a great offense mind in Charlie Weis.

Check out these links, pretty good stuff: Matt McGuire hits the nail on the head.

WalterFootball.com: The NFL Matt Draft - Matt McGuire's NFL Draft Blog

WalterFootball.com: 2010 NFL Draft Mailbag

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

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.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

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.