The argument for drafting QB at the #4 pick

[addicted]

Yep and if the end result is the former, I'd be shocked if Mike still risks #4 and all of that guaranteed money on a QB.

Head coaches have egos. When I talked about CB5 and his future on the team I'm speaking about two things. One, his ability. Two, the coaches thoughts.

Most every NFL head coach and manager you will ever deal with want to put there impression on things. One of the most common things to see with a new boss when he comes in is that he will rearrange the furniture. It always happens. I believe that Shanny is no different. He will rearrange the furniture. How that relates to CB5 is this.

CB5 is the third sting QB. He is the young guy that Zorn decided would be the guy to build the future around in case JC didn't work out. That is a very valuable spot, it's the future QB's spot. The problem with a coaching change is this is the spot for the future QB.

Shanny's going to rearrange the furniture and put his young QB there. It's possible that Shanny likes CB5 and keeps him around but since this is not his guy I see a much more likely scenario where he is replaced in the end.

[addicted]

Your definition of bust is completely distorted. It's all about the investment of the team that drafted the QB and what that guy is doing within 2-3 yrs time. That's all you have these days. Somewhere they need to show a flash to be granted year 4 or 5 after that the book is closed if they don't deliver.

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.

[Passizle]

I'm not pissed about anything. I knew posting this educated topic was controversial because some of the posters views on the matter. I had hoped that it would have been taken seriously and we could discuss this like men. Instead I see a bunch of juvenile people not even reading this post or trying to argue against it for kicks. The problem with the idea I presented is that it requires taking a different view then we have all grown to know...it doesn't provide any instant gratification to the fans.

We will never create another dynasty until we learn to take the long view approach. The fans in this thread can't seem to understand the importance of giving a young QB time to mature. You guys all want it RIGHT NOW. Well good QB's as I said are like a fine wine, you have to give them time to mature. That's not what this franchise does or even what the fans accept. And it's a mentality that must change. The status quo must be that this is a three year operation to getting back to being competitive. We can not simply say we can turn this around in 1 years time. Things do not work like that. But that point is lost on most of you

Just a comment on the highlighted part...

I whole heartedly agree with you about developing good QB's over time. Problem is, the Skins have not had a record o supporting the QB's they have drafted, so using the #4 pick on a QB without addressing the serious deficiencies on the front line will just get another talented, yet raw, QB killed while his confidence is racked. JC and PR come to mind with this.

[zCommander]

Head coaches have egos. When I talked about CB5 and his future on the team I'm speaking about two things. One, his ability. Two, the coaches thoughts.

Most every NFL head coach and manager you will ever deal with want to put there impression on things. One of the most common things to see with a new boss when he comes in is that he will rearrange the furniture. It always happens. I believe that Shanny is no different. He will rearrange the furniture. How that relates to CB5 is this.

CB5 is the third sting QB. He is the young guy that Zorn decided would be the guy to build the future around in case JC didn't work out. That is a very valuable spot, it's the future QB's spot. The problem with a coaching change is this is the spot for the future QB.

Shanny's going to rearrange the furniture and put his young QB there. It's possible that Shanny likes CB5 and keeps him around but since this is not his guy I see a much more likely scenario where he is replaced in the end.

Ponder on this then: How do you know that Shanny DOESN'T like Colt? Or if he wanted him and couldn't and now he has him in a Redskins uniform? You don't. And that is why he shouldn't be discounted. Also he has 2 more years on someone who might be a bust at #4. Did you even think about that?

[Drastik]

And I am home eating those yards while watching other teams in the playoffs this coming weekend and beyond. You let me know if you think a 4-12 record in his last year as a rookie something to brag about.

So basically you're argument is that as long as the team wins, the statistical or on field performance does not factor into being a "bust" or not?

[REDALERT]

The truth of the matter is Shanny is now the coach and he'll be damn and so will I if we're picking #4 ever again under his watch.

PEOPLE! When your 4-12 and picking 4th and need a franchise QB you take one without question. Teams take QB's when they're picking very high and need one, unless they already have one. Again, you don't pass on a QB when you're 4-12 and in need of a true #1 QB. Because for starters you never know or hope your ever in this situation again to be picking so high.

Like many have said also. If we trade down that's cool. But you better be damn sure another QB will be available. But at the same time this could be risky. That's why teams picking high even higher then #4 and needing a QB take that QB and don't trade down. The Falcons did it recently and so did the raiders and a bunch of others teams that we're picking very high and could have traded down, but they didn't.

Like Addicted said, this is now a QB league and if you have a chance to get one you do. I mean damn, whens the last time the Redskins had a franchise QB or even close? This for a fact has helped hold the Redskins back for years now. So now, we're in a position to possibly get one and everybody would rather pass or wait and I understand that. But if the coaches and scouts at the combine see a QB coming out with potential franchise worth, I say go for it.

Sure, we need OL help. but you could get those in the 2nd and FA's and in other drafts after this one. But again, when your picking 4th and need a QB of the future you surely don't pass on one(Hello):doh: .

[zCommander]

So basically you're argument is that as long as the team wins, the statistical or on field performance does not factor into being a "bust" or not?

Wouldn't you say a person is a bust because they couldn't the job done?

I am not sure what else you need to see but JC at the moment is a bust given the fact of what we paid to get him. If he was selected in the second round then he is not.

[Drastik]

Wouldn't you say a person is a bust because they couldn't the job done?

I am not sure what else you need to see but JC at the moment is a bust given the fact of what we paid to get him. If he was selected in the second round then he is not.

To me a bust is someone who has no hope... who is a total failure.

[AKM311]

I'm not pissed about anything. I knew posting this educated topic was controversial because some of the posters views on the matter. I had hoped that it would have been taken seriously and we could discuss this like men. Instead I see a bunch of juvenile people not even reading this post or trying to argue against it for kicks. The problem with the idea I presented is that it requires taking a different view then we have all grown to know...it doesn't provide any instant gratification to the fans.

We will never create another dynasty until we learn to take the long view approach. The fans in this thread can't seem to understand the importance of giving a young QB time to mature. You guys all want it RIGHT NOW. Well good QB's as I said are like a fine wine, you have to give them time to mature. That's not what this franchise does or even what the fans accept. And it's a mentality that must change. The status quo must be that this is a three year operation to getting back to being competitive. We can not simply say we can turn this around in 1 years time. Things do not work like that. But that point is lost on most of you

I am going to stop posting in this thread. Again, I am not saying your opinion is wrong. I am saying, don't just draft a QB to draft a QB at #4. The risk is too high. This is my OPINION! Just like you have yours.

You are also accusing us of things you have no clue. I want to re-build and take our time building this team. I don't need a QB right now to be the best, like your accusing me of. Again, your not a scout and neither am I. We are ES posters. So stop acting as if your way is the only smart and educated way. Many different strategies have worked for many different teams.

IMO, if the coaches feel a QB is worthy of #4, then sure draft that guy. But your stating that we must draft a qb. That is what I do not agree with.

[addicted]

In order of best to worse:

#1) Trade down to get more picks. Does lose because its not likely to be an available option unless someone who we really want is on the board.

#2) Draft an offensive lineman.

#3) Taking a QB in this draft at #4 and sit him for a year or two while he learns the NFL game. We would have to depend on luck. Would be OK if you think we have a good offensive line and a solid running game and/or an elite defense.

#4) Draft a QB and playing him right from the start. History tells us the even Peyton Manning would likely have been a bust had he not been surrounded by a quality offensive line when he was rookie and had a very good running game

Finally someone with some sense joined this conversation. THANK YOU

You and I agree on this except I have your 3 and 2 switched. The reason I switch them is because of Time. Sitting a QB takes time. Say we drafted our QB next year. Then we expect to give him a year to sit and that he will play in Shanny's third season. What if that season he's not ready to start? Then we give him another year to sit. That's Shanny's fourth season. Times running out, the expectations for the young guy are really high, and it could be bad.

Now say we take the QB this year. We expect him to sit a year. Shanny year two comes around and he's not ready. That's ok because giving him another year to sit means he starts in Shanny year 3. We've still got Shanny years 4 and 5 for him to produce. The expectations are this takes time and the expectations are slow and reasonable.

In a 5 year plan I think you have to plan for things to possibly take longer then you want. So acting now with that in mind says we take the QB this year. Would you agree?

Successful QB's are like fine wine, they take a while to get good and they have to be properly developed in the proper environment. You plant your grapes in bad ground, you won't get good wine. You put a QB in a situation where he can't even be decent in his first starting year, you've got to move on.

Many people seem to believe the myth that it is possible to develop a franchise QB without a quality offensive line. FACT is all QBs in modern football had a good system including a solid offensive line in their rookie year.

Most people seem to want to ignore the offensive line yet as football shows the line is the one place you can't scrimp on unless you've got a DEVELOPED franchise QB. Drafting a QB is not a gamble unless you've got certain things in place because unless you have those HE WILL be a bust. We need to stop thinking that drafting a QB is a gamble unless you've already got things in place.

Agree with all of this except the way I read it your saying that if we do not draft an offensive linemen in the first round then that must mean we ignore the problem. If that's your message let me help you.

Last years Superbowl winning Offensive Line:

Max Starks LT

Chris Kemoeatu LG

Justin Hartwig C

Darnell Stapleton RG

Willie Colon RT

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=3900&type=roundbyteam

Pittsburgh Steelers historical first round picks. None of those men were first round selections.

The previous years starting offensive linemen:

David Diehl LT

Rich Seubert LG

Shaun O'Hara C

Chris Snee RG

Kareem McKenzie RT

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=3410&type=roundbyteam

New York Giants historical first round picks. None of those men were first round selections.

It goes on and on with these Superbowl winning teams. The mark of a Superbowl winner doesn't equal offensive lines filled with first round draft picks, the common thread is first round QB's

[addicted]

Just a comment on the highlighted part...

I whole heartedly agree with you about developing good QB's over time. Problem is, the Skins have not had a record o supporting the QB's they have drafted, so using the #4 pick on a QB without addressing the serious deficiencies on the front line will just get another talented, yet raw, QB killed while his confidence is racked. JC and PR come to mind with this.

I feel you on this and it's one of the things I really hope changes with the new regime change. Our status quo has not been to take the long view of things. It's been a "win right now damn it" mentality that has shown to not work at all. We tried to do things the right way when Gibbs came back.

People forget that when Gibbs came back in 2004 that we didn't address the QB position that year in the draft. We addressed it in 2005. Gibbs came in and brought in Brunell putting the stamp on the team his way. He thought that the veteran could lead the team until he was shown he couldn't. We decided to draft Sean Taylor in 2004 and keep Patrick Ramsey on the team. Ramsey didn't really ever have a chance under Gibbs. After the 2004 season Gibbs saw that we were in trouble and needed a QB and drafted Campbell. Doing that cost us multiple draft picks to move up to get him that everyone knows came back to haunt us. If Gibbs had the thought that we needed to start develop a young QB we could have had Ben Roethlisberger as our teams QB who was drafted at pick 11 that year (we had pick 5). Instead we are basically discussing the same thing today.

[IrepDC]

In the past 20 years there have only been 3 QB's taken in the top of the second round where we will be picking.

2007- Kevin Kolb #36 overall

2001- Drew Brees #32 overall

1991- Brett Favre #33 overall

Now do I really need to post all of the top 5 QB's that have been picked? Far less risk and seemingly much more reward at the top of the 2nd round. If one of the QB's drops, which one likely will, we can pick them at #36 with much more value and an added chip on their shoulder.

[addicted]

Ponder on this then: How do you know that Shanny DOESN'T like Colt? Or if he wanted him and couldn't and now he has him in a Redskins uniform? You don't. And that is why he shouldn't be discounted. Also he has 2 more years on someone who might be a bust at #4. Did you even think about that?

Of course I did but that doesn't mean anything to me. For one, I don't like Colt and think he's average at best and supported releasing him instead of Chase Daniels last year. Second, he's taking up the coveted roster spot held by young up and comer QB and was not selected by Shanny. 9 times out of 10 these guys are shown the door by the new coach. Last point, Zorn didn't impress me with QB coaching and this is his guy. I don't think CB5 is on the roster in the fall.

[addicted]

The truth of the matter is Shanny is now the coach and he'll be damn and so will I if we're picking #4 ever again under his watch.

PEOPLE! When your 4-12 and picking 4th and need a franchise QB you take one without question. Teams take QB's when they're picking very high and need one, unless they already have one. Again, you don't pass on a QB when you're 4-12 and in need of a true #1 QB. Because for starters you never know or hope your ever in this situation again to be picking so high.

Like many have said also. If we trade down that's cool. But you better be damn sure another QB will be available. But at the same time this could be risky. That's why teams picking high even higher then #4 and needing a QB take that QB and don't trade down. The Falcons did it recently and so did the raiders and a bunch of others teams that we're picking very high and could have traded down, but they didn't.

Like Addicted said, this is now a QB league and if you have a chance to get one you do. I mean damn, whens the last time the Redskins had a franchise QB or even close? This for a fact has helped hold the Redskins back for years now. So now, we're in a position to possibly get one and everybody would rather pass or wait and I understand that. But if the coaches and scouts at the combine see a QB coming out with potential franchise worth, I say go for it.

Sure, we need OL help. but you could get those in the 2nd and FA's and in other drafts after this one. But again, when your picking 4th and need a QB of the future you surely don't pass on one(Hello):doh: .

Can I replace my OP with this? I liked this more then that and think you nailed it. Great post. We can argue until we are blue in the face about which QB we should take but the fact is not taking one the last time we were in this position killed us and I feel not doing it again will have similar results.

[addicted]

Wouldn't you say a person is a bust because they couldn't the job done?

I am not sure what else you need to see but JC at the moment is a bust given the fact of what we paid to get him. If he was selected in the second round then he is not.

Read my recap of us passing on a QB when Gibbs came back and the result of that. We wouldn't have ever given up those three picks for Jason if we had drafted a QB in 2004. We screwed up in 2004 and tried to make it right in 2005. I'm sorry but that's what we are looking at today again. I love Sean Taylor but we really shouldn't even have this problem today

[modazfuk]

I don't like Colt

Finally the underlying reason for your quick dismissal of Brennan surfaces yet I"m sure if the 'Skins take a QB at #4, whom you like, of course, and he doesn't shine during his first two years of pre-season, he just needs more time to develop, right?

[addicted]

In the past 20 years there have only been 3 QB's taken in the top of the second round where we will be picking.

2007- Kevin Kolb #36 overall

2001- Drew Brees #32 overall

1991- Brett Favre #33 overall

Now do I really need to post all of the top 5 QB's that have been picked? Far less risk and seemingly much more reward at the top of the 2nd round. If one of the QB's drops, which one likely will, we can pick them at #36 with much more value and an added chip on their shoulder.

Im not sure what this actually means? The sample size is way too small. I suspect they were high up on another teams draft boards and when they saw them available they were scooped up which happens on every draft. I'm not taking away from this that you get value with second round QB's that you do with First rounders. If you'd like to reinforce your point there is a link in the OP that shows all of the QB's that were drafted through out the years. When I wrote this I looked at that to see if there was value in drafting QB's not in the first round and I didn't see much in that.

I also take a little exception to you posting Kolb on this list. The guys done nothing in this league in three years. I was crucified for posting other guys like Lienart earlier who also have done nothing yet in this league. I don't think the jury is out on Kolb yet and that we know for sure what he brings as a QB

[skinsfan242]

I think J. Snead and/or C. McCoy slip to number 36. take a QB there and take a BIG BOY at Number 4. Preference in this Order

Suh

Okung

G. McCoy

R. McClain

[Forever21]

Well argued. It won't sway the OL people though. I think the arguments for both OL and QB are strong and that's why I am fine with us going either way at 4.

[generals01]

2) I say this because Clausen has put up mediocre college stats... and he has a LOSING record as a starting QB. Bradford has been a winner, and puts up excellent stats... but he is a gamble currently given his injury situation.

I think it is pretty tough to call 28 tds to 4 picks, with 68% accuracy and 8.8 YPA mediocre.

For comparison with the junior years of other highly drafted QBs:

Source: http://walterfootball.com/mattblog091229.php

Additionally, football outsiders say the two best indicators of QB success are number of college games started and completion percentage.

As a 3 year starter, and having 68% completion his junior year, Football outsiders would probably predict a solid career for Clausen. Not to mention he did all of this behind a terrible line his whole career. Additionally, he played in a pro style offense, under center, made reads, and was successful.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a more NFL ready QB in any draft. I think some of you are too risk averse to draft a QB and would pass on pretty much anyone in any year.

Can anyone that keeps saying Clausen won't be a good pro provide any analysis of why?

[addicted]

Finally the underlying reason for your quick dismissal of Brennan surfaces yet I"m sure if the 'Skins take a QB at #4, whom you like, of course, and he doesn't shine during his first two years of pre-season, he just needs more time to develop, right?

My eyes for college QB's sir simply are not trustable.

What I mean by saying that is QB play in college to me is a mirage. Every year there are these guys out there who put up gaudy and ridiculous numbers like Tebow who never go on to play QB in this league. And at the same time there are guys like Phiilip Rivers who played at North Carolina State and never mentioned in Hiesman voting and others like Ben Roethlisberger who played for Miami of Ohio and played for the MAC that come out of nowhere and do great. To me you can only view a QB in the pros from the pro level and what they do in college is not important.

So I go by what I've seen by CB5 in the preseason since he's never started a game. I don't like what I see. Show me a game he played in against starting defenses where he looked like he wasn't running for his life and completely lost. I'm not a CB5 hater, I just don't think from what I've seen he's that good. What has he done in the pros to make you think he's gonna be great one day?

[addicted]

Well argued. It won't sway the OL people though. I think the arguments for both OL and QB are strong and that's why I am fine with us going either way at 4.

Thank you sir

[modazfuk]

Well argued. It won't sway the OL people though. I think the arguments for both OL and QB are strong and that's why I am fine with us going either way at 4.

The OP does not address #4 money. I wonder if he would risk #4 kind of money on a crap shoot (QB) if it were his money? Sanchez (#5) was handed on a silver platter TWENTY-SIX MILLION, guaranteed!!!

[addicted]

The OP does not address #4 money. I wonder if he would risk #4 kind of money on a crap shoot (QB) if it were his money? Sanchez (#5) was handed on a silver platter TWENTY-SIX MILLION, guaranteed!!!

Crap shoot? Highly doubt it. No I said we should go out there and let Shanny hand pick his guy. Is Shanny a crap shoot? If he's not then you give him his favorite toy and accept that your favorite toy is out. Sorry bud but after I just read your post about CB5 and you ignoring my response I think this is an argument your making because you know I'm right and you know that Shanny getting his QB means your guys out.

[Long-Time-Fan]

No point is discussing this,

JC finished at 14th in passing.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PASSING&conference=null&season=2009&seasonType=REG&d-447263-s=PASSING_YARDS&d-447263-o=2&d-447263-n=1