The argument for drafting QB at the #4 pick

[cahones01]

I understand the arguments for and against taking a QB with the 4th pick, but this conversation is somewhat pointless. If we draft a QB half of the fans will be happy and other half will be mad. The same goes for if we draft an OT. The only thing I'm happy about is for the first time in a long time we have a real GM and a real coach at the same time. So hopefully whichever way they decide to go in the draft it will be the right decision.

[Ricky_Ervins32]

I think the first order of clean-up is definitions, primarily by the OP.

What is a bust?

What is a franchise QB?

The implied definition of a bust is that it is simply not a franchise QB, which has created some circular argumentation. Particularly as franchise QB has been defined by SB appearances. These definitions need some pretty drastic clarification, as it is the entire precedent that the post is built upon...bad foundations lead to unsteady construction.

Issues I have with the OP. Depending on the definitions provided there is a pretty broad margin to consider 1st rounders successful or unsuccessful. Moreover, the definition of SB appearances conflates the success of the team with the success of the QB. Grossman being the foremost example, but Dilfer being another. If such is the case then a further investigation of all SB QB's should be undertaken, which I think is the purpose behind bringing up Rypien as an example.

The entire build up in the OP was to support an argument of the sort that Red Alert brings. Which is why there is a discussion in the first place. Because historically the first round reaps great rewards and terrible repercussions. For example there was a list posted by General's01 (post #70 of this thread)...

Well here is a statline for you:

Yards 3637

YPA 9.7

TD 33

INT 10

Comp Pct 56%

Matches up pretty well? It is Ryan Leaf's statline as a Jr. coming into the draft, in '97 when he led his team to a close Rose Bowl loss to Griese.

You can look for yourself here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/stats/1997/PAC10confstats.html

The point that I am attempting to make here is that the QB for development argument is less sound than the O-line logic on face, and no more sound than the rookie in the line-up argument. That is not to say the risk in drafting OL at 4 is much less than QB.

My preference:

1- Trade Down

2- OL

3- BPA

4- QB

Perhaps it is because of the history of QB drafts by the 'Skins but I am simply uncomfortable with the likely 50-50 selection of a QB. Do we get Joe Theisman or Rick Mirer in the selection of Clausen? While I am as optimistic as anyone about the hiring of Shanahan/Allen, the Bubby Brister era causes me some questions.

The issue of the current QB's on the roster is another that should be addressed. Some see JC as a perfectly viable option (for the sake of transparency I should state that I am one of these). Others see Colt Brennan in the same light. Some are fans of Collins. The point here is that there is a possibility of some sort of production from a QB that will get this team to the playoffs in the near future, but they will need a line.

In summation, addicted, I would say that your entire premise is flawed. That is, that the QB is the key to success. As the Ravens, Buccaneers, and Steelers have demonstrated a solid line, and strong D will provide enough firepower to win a Super Bowl with mediocre QB play.

Moreover, I can turn your previous argument on the playoff teams with the top run and pass stats against you by referencing this chart:

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=OFFENSIVE_LINE&tabSeq=2&qualified=true

The top five passing teams are in the top 7 O-Lines, in terms of fewest Sacks allowed.

~S~

[mnb123]

Ryan Mallett, Pat Devlin, Blaine Gabbert, Nick Foles (I'm not crazy about him, but he will be highly sought after), and even Andrew Luck will be eligible. Every one of those guys is better than the current group of QBs in the 2010 draft.

Terrelle Pryor needs some serious work and I think he would be a better WR in the NFL.

Don't know much about those guys except Luck and Mallett, and I will say I watched the Liberty Bowl, and calling Mallett better than Clausen and Bradford is a joke.

Mallett is a HUGE project.

[BlackBush]

Not a bad analysis you posted.

But I think it is awfully nit picky.

It is just too easy to analyze an interception and say he made a mistake. No crap he made a mistake. You can do this with any QB coming out of college. Fact is, Clausen only through 4 picks which is really impressive. Matt Ryan had 19 his senior year as a comparison. If Matt Ryan with 19 picks his senior season can come into the nfl and not be a pick machine, I think it is tough to project Clausen as a pick machine with 4 ints.

The author also seems pretty nit picky about some incompletions in the Pitt game as well. You could do a similar analysis for Peyton Manning in college. College qbs make mistakes. A 68% accuracy percentage makes me believe that throughout the season, overall, Clausen made pretty solid decisions and accurate throws.

Also, I am no QB coach or doctor, but it seems to me that losing velocity because he throws off his back foot too often 1) probably has a lot to due with the turf toe had (prevented him from really driving on that food) or 2) if not due to turf toe, is a fundamental issue that can be corrected.

As for the reliance on slants, I think the author is overgeneralizing based on the Pitt game. It would be tough to put up a high, 8.8 YPC if every throw was a slant. I watched a number of ND games this year and saw plenty of intermediate and downfield throws.

The side arm delivery complaint has some merit. This is something the coaches would need to examine to see how it could be improved. I do like his quick release a lot though.

Also, in contrast to McShays low opinion of Clausen, Kiper has him at 4 I believe.

Yeah, I agree it is nit picky, but any thorough analysis is. I don't think we want to explain away a lot of red flags to justify a pick. Especially a high pick for a shortish QB that has to work on mechanics. I want to see the film from games, I want them to perform well in these workouts and prove they are worth the #4 overall pick. My opinion is: Bradford maybe, Clausen no

[IrepDC]

If we aren't picking high we can trade up, next year.

[icbmayday]

Draft O line we already have a capable QB and develop a young QB for the future

[Operations]

Here's the best argument for drafting a QB at #4:

I can't take another year of watching Candle. We'll be having the same arguments next year about why we're losing. The same years-old tired excuses will be rolled out over and over again by the Candle apologists.

The thought depresses the hell out of me. Let's move on, PLEASE.

Shanny - BLOW OUT THE CANDLE!!!

[generals01]

The entire build up in the OP was to support an argument of the sort that Red Alert brings. Which is why there is a discussion in the first place. Because historically the first round reaps great rewards and terrible repercussions. For example there was a list posted by General's01 (post #70 of this thread)...

Well here is a statline for you:

Yards 3637

YPA 9.7

TD 33

INT 10

Comp Pct 56%

Matches up pretty well? It is Ryan Leaf's statline as a Jr. coming into the draft, in '97 when he led his team to a close Rose Bowl loss to Griese.

In summation, addicted, I would say that your entire premise is flawed. That is, that the QB is the key to success. As the Ravens, Buccaneers, and Steelers have demonstrated a solid line, and strong D will provide enough firepower to win a Super Bowl with mediocre QB play.

What exactly are you trying to prove with that stat line? Are you trying to refute my argument that Jimmy Clausen has very good college stats which, in my opinion, bode well for his future?

56% accuracy for Leaf is no 68% for Clausen. 56% is not good at all in college and is a red flag.

In summation, addicted, I would say that your entire premise is flawed. That is, that the QB is the key to success. As the Ravens, Buccaneers, and Steelers have demonstrated a solid line, and strong D will provide enough firepower to win a Super Bowl with mediocre QB play.

Do you think the Colts would have had the success they have had this decade without Manning? The Pats without Brady? There is a reason the Pats went from the 17-0 to missing the playoffs. Do you think the Cards make it to the Super Bowl last year playing Leinart instead of Warner? Would Philly have had the consistent success they have had this decade without McNabb? Do you think that the vikings would be having the same success with Tavaris Jackson under center instead of Farve?

Do you think Campbell could have lead the game winning Super Bowl drive last year for the Steelers? For the Giants the year before?

QBs win games. The Ravens winning the Super Bowl with awful QB play doesn't make the idea that the QB is important obsolete. There is a reason they didn't make it deep in the playoffs until Flacco came. For the Steelers, do you think it was just a coincidence that they went 6-10, drafted Big Ben in 04, then went 15-1 in 04, won Super Bowl 05, and won Super Bowl 08?

[demarc007]

The only thing that is distorted is your reading comprehension skills.

Your list of QB's includes three guys that I said were not known to be busts or not as of this time. I then added the busts to the unknowns to create a total of bust QB's. Then I used that total against the guys who I don't consider busts to see what the percentage of QB's taken in the first round were busts. Those three men you pointed out were considered busts when I got that percentage.

Do the math yourself. You think because I said they were unknown that I counted them as not being busts but I didn't. Get back to me when you admit that's what I did.

Your formula isn't deep guy, sorry. I'm telling you your unknowns are bust. If you believe Rex Grossman or Leftwich were not busts your argument has major flaws. Why don't you go to a Chicago Bears forum and start a topic "Rex Grossman wasn't a bust" and report back the results.

[VaBeachRedskin]

Don't know much about those guys except Luck and Mallett, and I will say I watched the Liberty Bowl, and calling Mallett better than Clausen and Bradford is a joke.

Mallett is a HUGE project.

I'm glad that you watched Arkansas's because if you did you would know that Mallett was on point with most of his throws only to have his receivers drop around 10 balls. You also saw him stand tall in the pocket and release the ball in picture perfect form (release point is above 7 feet tall). He moved around well and he didn't take all his snaps in the shotgun. Mallett's ceiling is way way way higher than Clausen's will ever be.

[MumboSauce]

Will live with whatever the GM/coach choose. Because at this point I don't know. No O lineman is worth the #4, yet I'm not impressed with the top 3 QB's or so. Just when I thought we have teh #4 pick yes! errr..but what now?

[Veretax]

Here's the best argument for drafting a QB at #4:

I can't take another year of watching Candle. We'll be having the same arguments next year about why we're losing. The same years-old tired excuses will be rolled out over and over again by the Candle apologists.

The thought depresses the hell out of me. Let's move on, PLEASE.

Shanny - BLOW OUT THE CANDLE!!!

I dunno JC has consistently improved, maybe not fast enough for some, but consider this random QB Sampled:

Here's an example

QB A started only 10 Games for his team in a particular season (his 5th in the NFL)

He completed 166 of 304 Passes for a 54.6 Percentage, and only 2070 yards, (an average of 6.8 per pass), had 16 TDs 11 INTs, 6 sacks. This guy had been in the league 4 years, played none in his first year, so this was his third year starting.

Would you call this guy a bust? BTW this guy was #11 Mark Rypien for our team. The next year he started all 16 went 249/41 with a 59.1 PCT 3,564 Yards, 8.5 Per Completion, 28 TD, 11 INT, 7 Sacks (He also had 9 fumbles) You know what happened we won the Super Bowl that year.

So while I understand why some people are frustrated with JCs performance, I have been too, I can't help but wonder what is if was retained one more year.

Your formula isn't deep guy, sorry. I'm telling you your unknowns are bust. If you believe Rex Grossman or Leftwich were not busts your argument has major flaws. Why don't you go to a Chicago Bears forum and start a topic "Rex Grossman wasn't a bust" and report back the results.

Leftwich was not a Bust. He was a victim of a string of unusual circumstances. That to me doesn't make him a bust. WHen he could play he was very good, the problem was fate had it out for him and Jax got rid of him, then he got hurt in Atlanta. The guy can play the position, he just seems to have fluke for luck.

[Ricky_Ervins32]

What exactly are you trying to prove with that stat line? Are you trying to refute my argument that Jimmy Clausen has very good college stats which, in my opinion, bode well for his future?

56% accuracy for Leaf is no 68% for Clausen. 56% is not good at all in college and is a red flag.

Yes actually, particularly in the sense that great stats in college do not necessarily lead to great stats in the pros. And while you select the completion percentage, the point here is that he favorably compares will all other candidates on the list. The same point you were making with your comparison.

More importantly, Clausen performed these statistical wonders behind an O-line comprised of seniors and with a pair of top NFL WR prospects. Now ask him to do the same thing with an offensive line that had 11 members and 7 different line-ups while adjusting to having some of the best D's in the NFL in his face.

Here's another statline:

Yards 4343 Comp 70.4 YPA 8.52 TD 38 INT 17

Colt Brennan's from his senior year at Hawaii.

Do you think the Colts would have had the success they have had this decade without Manning? The Pats without Brady? There is a reason the Pats went from the 17-0 to missing the playoffs. Do you think the Cards make it to the Super Bowl last year playing Leinart instead of Warner? Would Philly have had the consistent success they have had this decade without McNabb? Do you think that the vikings would be having the same success with Tavaris Jackson under center instead of Farve?

Do you think the Colts would have had the success that they have had without the organization that they have? Do you think that the Pats would have performed as well without Belichick? Do you think that the Cards would have performed as well if they didn't have Boldin and Fitzgerald? Would Philly have had consistent success if they didn't have Jim Johnson? Do you think the Vikes would be as successful without Adrian Peterson?

Your argument seems to be that the QB can win games all on their own. Do they make a difference? Of course, sometimes monumental differences. But I don't see QB as THE difference here.

Do you think Campbell could have lead the game winning Super Bowl drive last year for the Steelers? For the Giants the year before?

Could Manning or Roethlisberger have done what they did behind the Redskins line?

QBs win games. The Ravens winning the Super Bowl with awful QB play doesn't make the idea that the QB is important obsolete. There is a reason they didn't make it deep in the playoffs until Flacco came. For the Steelers, do you think it was just a coincidence that they went 6-10, drafted Big Ben in 04, then went 15-1 in 04, won Super Bowl 05, and won Super Bowl 08?

I have never stated that the QB is obsolete. My point is that the QB is not the only player on the team. Do they make a difference? Of course? Are they even critical to success? Yes. But it is a franchise that wins the SB, not just the QB. From the FO, to the coach, assistants and down.

On the field, while the QB gets a wealth of attention, it is the O-line that consistently must succeed in their duties or the offense will not move. Without an O-line there will be no successful runs or passes. Without an O-line the QB is battered and there is a significant potential for loss in investment. These are well worn points.

Is your contention that the O-line obsolete? That evaluating first round QB talent is as easy as a stat check on the college career?

[addicted]

Unfortunately yes. We have a lot of holes that need to be filled/replaced in the very near future and I just don't think that we will be able to get all the new parts with the way that FA should break down. I fully expect next year to be the 1st in a three year rebuilding plan.

I'd suggest you posting a thread if you really feel this way to gauge the forum and get other opinions on that. You know I don't feel this way. I think the chances of us having a 4-12 record next year with the coaching staff we are assembling to be next to zero. Shanny is a winner, his son deploys great offenses, our defensive schemes are going to be more aggressive as well. I'm not willing to say that we are going to be playoff bound next year but if the right pieces fall into place with the last play record schedule we have upcoming thinking we double our wins next year isn't out of the question. But like I said if you think were headed to a 4-12 record ask the forum and see if they agree with you.

[Gregpeck99]

I can't take another year of watching Candle. We'll be having the same arguments next year about why we're losing. The same years-old tired excuses will be rolled out over and over again by the Candle apologists.

The thought depresses the hell out of me. Let's move on, PLEASE.

Shanny - BLOW OUT THE CANDLE!!!

Why do you think he was hired? No ... you are not crazy.

[VaBeachRedskin]

I'd suggest you posting a thread if you really feel this way to gauge the forum and get other opinions on that. You know I don't feel this way. I think the chances of us having a 4-12 record next year with the coaching staff we are assembling to be next to zero. Shanny is a winner, his son deploys great offenses, our defensive schemes are going to be more aggressive as well. I'm not willing to say that we are going to be playoff bound next year but if the right pieces fall into place with the last play record schedule we have upcoming thinking we double our wins next year isn't out of the question. But like I said if you think were headed to a 4-12 record ask the forum and see if they agree with you.

I started a thread before this season wondering aloud if there was no cap after the current season who would we release (taking advantage of not having the dead cap cripple us) and most said I was crazy because we were going to have a great year and this and that. Now some will probably say that I got lucky when I predicted that this team would be really bad or maybe it is because I can read the tea leaves and see that this is not a good team in its current structure. We need a lot of work and I don't think that one offseason will be enough to do that.

[Skins93077]

Davis, bulaga, price if we some how manage to get these 3 ill be fine! Then tank next year and get a qb .. Gotta build up the oline and dline. One way to win in the nfc east and that's with ur big men!

[generals01]

Yes actually, particularly in the sense that great stats in college do not necessarily lead to great stats in the pros. And while you select the completion percentage, the point here is that he favorably compares will all other candidates on the list. The same point you were making with your comparison.

More importantly, Clausen performed these statistical wonders behind an O-line comprised of seniors and with a pair of top NFL WR prospects. Now ask him to do the same thing with an offensive line that had 11 members and 7 different line-ups while adjusting to having some of the best D's in the NFL in his face.

Here's another statline:

Yards 4343 Comp 70.4 YPA 8.52 TD 38 INT 17

Colt Brennan's from his senior year at Hawaii.

You still aren't making any good points.

There is a reason I brought up football outsiders. In their research, they have determined that the two greatest factors towards the success of a qb drafted in rounds 1 or 2 is the number of starts they had in college and their accuracy percentage. Leaf didn't have either of these (56% is NOT a good accuracy percentage in college). Clausen does. Additionally, I don't know why you think their stat lines are all that similar.

As for Brennan, you can't compare. He was in a pass happy shotgun spread offense. He should have big numbers. So did Graham Harrell. Clausen on the other hand did this in a pro style offense taking snaps from under center.

You are the only person who I have heard that thinks ND had a great OL. His OL got him killedthe majority of his career at ND.

As for having top WR's, sure he did. But Floyd missed half the season. And you can't blame him for that anyway. Would Manning have been less of a QB this decade without Harrison and Wayne?

[Jeff in D.C.]

Agree to a point. I don't believe that simply taking the best player in the draft at #4 works if you have a team like ours. The way I see the team today is we have talent on Defense. Taking a player like Berry won't turn us into winners like many have suggested here. We have to limit the pick to Offense as that is our biggest weakness.

The argument I'd make for drafting Berry is the potential impact that a safety can have on a defense. ST is one example, and ask the Ravens (Reed), Eagles (Dawkins), Bucs (Barber), 49ers (Lott), Colts (Sanders), Steelers (Polamalu), and Patriots (R. Harrison) about the impact that a safety can have on getting to, making a run, and/or winning a Super Bowl. If the front office and scouting department deems him to be the best player available at #4, then I say take him. If you recall, our safety play this season was AWFUL.

I agree and disagree. You don't reach on a pick for say a guy you know will be there in the second round. However how does that fall with a guy you think gives you the best shot at future wins when you know he's not going to be there in the second? Does anyone think those QB's will be there in the second? No. People think they will go in the top 15 picks of the draft. So is it a reach for us to take a guy at 4 that is expected to be top 15? I don't think so.

At #4 you have to go BPA unless that BPA is a position that you already have a pro-bowler at. You can't afford to give #4 pick money to a player that could have been had #15-20. If that's the case, trade down after #10 and take the player then.

Sure that's right. I don't take away from the importance of protecting the QB by saying that you could have a great line and if you have average (Jason's average) QB play and still lose. You have to have better then that or a dominant Defense like Baltimore did that one single year they won. If you have top 5 QB play you can compete every year.

Take a look again at the QB's I listed who weren't top-10 picks. Plenty of them can be had if you have a good, solid scouting department and can find those guys.

[Ricky_Ervins32]

Perhaps I was a bit too obtuse. In placing Clausen among QB's that you did, you were creating a comparative argument as a means of lending the validation of their success to Clausen. In placing Leaf in that same sort of comparison the stat lines were the argument. Same with Brennan, there are stat lines that can be thrown up to make a point. Moreover, you revise your point (or I missed the verbage previously) when you shift to rounds 1 OR 2.

I am not saying that Clausen had a great Offensive Line, rather that he was playing behind Seniors. Which would be a group that had played together, and had experience. In some articles, the lack of an O-Line is one of the reasons why he is declaring as he doesn't want to get beaten on as he did his Freshman year. This is why building an O-line is critical for the Redskins now.

Here is a more pertinent question than Peyton's ascendance without his receivers. Why did the 'Skins go after 3 large receivers in the 2nd round of the draft in 2008?

I notice that you also did not respond to my queries at the end of my previous post, and I am curious about your positions. After all you put the quarterback so far out in front of any other position that you apparently believe WR's do not contribute to a QB's success, that QB's can win without a quality O-line and that the QB should apparently take credit for the success of the D. If such is the case, does that mean that the opposite holds true? That the failure of a team can be placed entire on the QB's shoulders? If so then the Fighting Irish's leader is not that great as evidenced by his W-L record (15-21).

I should also mention, that despite my obvious skepticism, Clausen is the best QB in this draft. That said, I still think that O-Line should be the priority for this team.

[lou4gehrig]

Here's a summary of QB's drafted in the last 10 years:

16 Drafted from Position 1-11:

Vick, Carr, Palmer, Manning, Smith, Russell, Stafford, Harrington, Young, Ryan, RIvers, Sanchez, Leftwich, Leinart, Roethlistberger, Cutler

5 out of 16 are franchise QB's: Palmer, Manning, Ryan, Rivers, Roethlisbergr

5 out of 16 are solid QB's: Vick, Stafford, Young, Sanchez, Cutler

6 out of 16 are busts: Carr, Smith, Russell, Harrington, Leftwich, Leinart

31% Franchise QB, 31% Solid Starter, 37.5% Bust.

________________________________________

10 Drafted from Position 17-32:

Freeman, Pennington, Flacco, Boller, Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Rodgers, Campbell, Ramsey

1 out of 10 are franchise QB's: Rodgers

4 out of 10 are solid QB's: Freeman, Pennington, Flacco, Campbell

5 out of 10 are busts: Boller, Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Ramsey

10% Franchise QB, 40% Solid Starter, 50% Bust.

_________________________________________

104 QB's Drafted in Rounds 2-7

2 out of 104 are franchise QB's: Brees, Brady

6 out of 104 are solid QB's: Schaub, Orton, Anderson, Edwards, Garrard, Bulger

96 out of 104 are busts with very few even starters even for a season.

2% Franchise QB, 6% Solid Starter, 92% Bust.

_________________________________________

The draft / combine have made drafting QB's high the first round alot more reliable. There are no more completely useless QB's like Andrew Ware, Klinger, McGwire, Shuler, etc. Chances are you're going to get a very good and potential great QB in the top of the draft.

What other path do we have to get a chance at Superbowl QB than rolling than the dice on somebody new?

[JaxJoe]

Here's a summary of QB's drafted in the last 10 years:

What other path do we have to get a chance at Superbowl QB than rolling than the dice on somebody new?

Awesome facts. Thanks. with the 4th pick, then I guess we go QB if, after the combine, scouts continue to rank them high. But if we pass on QB, we can't go too wrong with a stud OT.

[hieverybody]

Here's a summary of QB's drafted in the last 10 years:

16 Drafted from Position 1-11:

Vick, Carr, Palmer, Manning, Smith, Russell, Stafford, Harrington, Young, Ryan, RIvers, Sanchez, Leftwich, Leinart, Roethlistberger, Cutler

5 out of 16 are franchise QB's: Palmer, Manning, Ryan, Rivers, Roethlisbergr

5 out of 16 are solid QB's: Vick, Stafford, Young, Sanchez, Cutler

6 out of 16 are busts: Carr, Smith, Russell, Harrington, Leftwich, Leinart

31% Franchise QB, 31% Solid Starter, 37.5% Bust.

________________________________________

10 Drafted from Position 17-32:

Freeman, Pennington, Flacco, Boller, Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Rodgers, Campbell, Ramsey

1 out of 10 are franchise QB's: Rodgers

4 out of 10 are solid QB's: Freeman, Pennington, Flacco, Campbell

5 out of 10 are busts: Boller, Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Ramsey

10% Franchise QB, 40% Solid Starter, 50% Bust.

_________________________________________

104 QB's Drafted in Rounds 2-7

2 out of 104 are franchise QB's: Brees, Brady

6 out of 104 are solid QB's: Schaub, Orton, Anderson, Edwards, Garrard, Bulger

96 out of 104 are busts with very few even starters even for a season.

2% Franchise QB, 6% Solid Starter, 92% Bust.

_________________________________________

The draft / combine have made drafting QB's high the first round alot more reliable. There are no more completely useless QB's like Andrew Ware, Klinger, McGwire, Shuler, etc. Chances are you're going to get a very good and potential great QB in the top of the draft.

What other path do we have to get a chance at Superbowl QB than rolling than the dice on somebody new?

All of that is true, but it ignores the fact that we can draft a franchise QB next year. We don't have to try to fix the whole team at once, and unfortunately we are going to need 4 new starters on the O-Line next year unless we re-sign Rabach or want to go with Thomas and Heyer again.

I completely agree that if you are going to draft a QB, you want to be the first one to choose a QB, but I'd be happier drafting one next year since I'm not convinced that this crop is very good.

[Veretax]

Here's a summary of QB's drafted in the last 10 years:

16 Drafted from Position 1-11:

Vick, Carr, Palmer, Manning, Smith, Russell, Stafford, Harrington, Young, Ryan, RIvers, Sanchez, Leftwich, Leinart, Roethlistberger, Cutler

5 out of 16 are franchise QB's: Palmer, Manning, Ryan, Rivers, Roethlisbergr

5 out of 16 are solid QB's: Vick, Stafford, Young, Sanchez, Cutler

6 out of 16 are busts: Carr, Smith, Russell, Harrington, Leftwich, Leinart

31% Franchise QB, 31% Solid Starter, 37.5% Bust.

________________________________________

10 Drafted from Position 17-32:

Freeman, Pennington, Flacco, Boller, Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Rodgers, Campbell, Ramsey

1 out of 10 are franchise QB's: Rodgers

4 out of 10 are solid QB's: Freeman, Pennington, Flacco, Campbell

5 out of 10 are busts: Boller, Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Ramsey

10% Franchise QB, 40% Solid Starter, 50% Bust.

_________________________________________

104 QB's Drafted in Rounds 2-7

2 out of 104 are franchise QB's: Brees, Brady

6 out of 104 are solid QB's: Schaub, Orton, Anderson, Edwards, Garrard, Bulger

96 out of 104 are busts with very few even starters even for a season.

2% Franchise QB, 6% Solid Starter, 92% Bust.

_________________________________________

The draft / combine have made drafting QB's high the first round alot more reliable. There are no more completely useless QB's like Andrew Ware, Klinger, McGwire, Shuler, etc. Chances are you're going to get a very good and potential great QB in the top of the draft.

What other path do we have to get a chance at Superbowl QB than rolling than the dice on somebody new?

Leinart hasn't had much of a chance to do anything because warner has been so good so I hesitate to label him as a bust yet. I also feel the same way about Leftwich. Leftwich had fluke circumstances steal his chance from him. He was a solid QB when healthy. Which is different from say harrington who had a lot of time with multiple franchises and still couldn't show anything. Need I remind you that Leftwich came in off the bench cold for big ben in 2008 and beat the pants off of us?

[Chicken Fried]

I, personally, feel that we are fine at the Quarterback position and so do professional football analyst and past Redskins players. (B Mitch, Joe Theismann) JC has shown that with a good O line and solid running back that he can get the job done. No need to draft a QB in this draft, too many other holes to fill. JC is fine.

That's what they're paid to say. They can't say JC sucks on national TV, so they come as close as they can.

JC has never ever shown he can get the job done. Yeah, he shows flashes, but he never produces consistently.