Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WPC: Reasons for and against selecting a quarterback at four


JimmiJo

Recommended Posts

http://web.warpathconfidential.com/?p=3123

Reasons for and against selecting a quarterback at four

By John Pappas

Warpath Confidential Editor

It’s the offseason in Washington, meaning the Redskins are getting set to do what they do best; win in the spring. With an uncapped year looming, and the fourth overall pick in the draft, rumors will soon be flying as to which free agents and draft candidates the team is interested in.

In fact, it has already begun.

The biggest single question surrounding the Redskins this year is what they plan to do with the fourth overall selection. The team has grave needs at both offensive tackle spots, guard, as well as in the defensive secondary. This is before we talk about running back (if Clinton Portis is released).

Then there is the quarterback position.

Jason Campbell has taken more than his share of heat. Last year this time, the team was staying up late figuring out how to get rid of him. First with Jay Cutler in free agency, and then seeking to move up in the draft to take Mark Sanchez. After leading the team to a 4-12 record, it is difficult to envision the team not at least considering a better option than Campbell. The new coach says he is excited to work with Campbell. But this could be lip service until the next guy is ready.

Click the link above to read the entire article...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://web.warpathconfidential.com/?p=3123

But this could be lip service until the next guy is ready.

Click the link above to read the entire article...

I pray this is the fact, it's already been proven that JC is not the answer for us. Under Gibbs 2nd coming, 2 out of 3 QB's lead this same team to the playoffs, Brunell, Collins, even Ramsey filled in well against NY leading us to victory to continue the 5 game winning streak to make the playoffs.

Every QB on the dayum roster got us to the playoffs except Jason Campbell! So why keep him another year, I would rather see Todd Collins help groom our future QB then Jason Campbell. After all, what can Jason teach him that Todd couldn't? Nothing, that's what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so torn on the subject its incredible. My logic tells me that in order to build a ten year winner the first thing we need to do it beef up that offensive line. However the more and more I think about having a good quarterback the more and more I like it. I also liked the argument saying that since no one is expecting anything why not give the new quarterback another year of experience.

I think what I'm chalking it up to is with the fourth pick, I don't care if we take a QB or O-Line. Both of them will help our team and so therefore I'm pleased with either and I'm done speculating which one we take until some real info comes out... and that doesn't mean Mel Kiper's next draft...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think nothing's been proven, but that's a big enough problem, Mustang. Campbell needed to provide solid answers to earn his next contract. I still don't know what he can become or who he is. Some of that is not his fault, but it's probably too late.

Campbell's numbers are pretty good despite

Campbell's accomplishments are pretty meager

He hasn't done enough to be trusted, but he hasn't done enough to be discarded either. I could imagine him being a really solid good 2nd tier qb. The problem is I still have to imagine it. After five years, that's not good enough.

I think that's the best argument for getting a new qb. It's not because he's bad, worthless, or coach killer. It's because after five years, he's still an unknown. Good stats with bad results behind a bad team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously it's been stated numerous times that Shanahan's idea of good lineman doesn't necessarily reflect what other coaches think are good lineman because of Shanny's ZBS. Therefore I'm in huge favor of trading down. The more picks we accumulate the better the o-line will be.

Campbell is good enough to be a one year stop gap, or trade bait for that matter. We've got to get the o-line fixed before we even dare to put a new QB back there. If we do that then he will be subject to get, what I call, "David Carr Syndrome". Has all the tools in the world, but has gotten hit some many times he becomes antsy and becomes a checkdown monster. Sort of like what Jason Campbell was on third and long this year.

What people are failing to realize is, not only do we need to revamp the entire offensive line, we also need offensive line depth. Say we have 5 new starters on the offensive line next year and one, just one, gets hurt. What offensive lineman from last year would you feel comfortable taking their place?

With a run game, I'm confident that Campbell can MANAGE the game rather than a rookie QB with a paper-thin shoulder behind our current line.

Lastly, you can't fix the line through free agency. It's pretty bare. You may be able to get 1-2 starters and the rest would be reserves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be comfortable with drafting a QB at #4 even with our line in the shape it is if there were a legit #4 QB in the draft. The QB position is mediocre at best this year and I fear Bradford, Locker, and Clausen are elevated to elite status only because of the rest of the QB class. I already know that you can never tell a QB's value until he plays in the NFL and i don't want to get mixed up in that circular logic debate. I'm simply stating that i think Bradford is widely thought to be our choice at #4 because he's the best option in this class, not because he's actually worth a #4 pick. Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be comfortable with drafting a QB at #4 even with our line in the shape it is if there were a legit #4 QB in the draft. The QB position is mediocre at best this year and I fear Bradford, Locker, and Clausen are elevated to elite status only because of the rest of the QB class. I already know that you can never tell a QB's value until he plays in the NFL and i don't want to get mixed up in that circular logic debate. I'm simply stating that i think Bradford is widely thought to be our choice at #4 because he's the best option in this class, not because he's actually worth a #4 pick. Just my two cents.

Lockers staying in school for his senior year so he wont be available until 2011. Prior to him deciding to stay in school, Scouts Inc. had him as the number 1 overall pick. His decision definitely watered down the QB pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'll end up with both a young QB and an expected starter at one of the tackle spots. Might not be the guys being talked about now (okung or Bradford). But I think both positions will be addressed in some way.

One argument for a qb, however, is look back to when we drafted Samuels. By all accounts he turned out to be everything you could hope for in a first round OT. For ten years. And at the time, we also had a young Jansen to bookened him. And it got us pretty much nothing. We still didn't go too far in the playoffs. We still struggled on offense. Some of those years we had what were considered some pretty weak lines in terms of pass protection.

Now we had a lot of coaching upheavel etc during those years too. But maybe a better qb would have helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so torn on the subject its incredible. My logic tells me that in order to build a ten year winner the first thing we need to do it beef up that offensive line. However the more and more I think about having a good quarterback the more and more I like it. I also liked the argument saying that since no one is expecting anything why not give the new quarterback another year of experience.

I think what I'm chalking it up to is with the fourth pick, I don't care if we take a QB or O-Line. Both of them will help our team and so therefore I'm pleased with either and I'm done speculating which one we take until some real info comes out... and that doesn't mean Mel Kiper's next draft...

I think that with Shanny we'll get closer to an 8-8 mark next year. That got us the 13th pick last year. Locker is the guy I really wanted...he'll go top 3 next year (at this point...). I have been an OL guy for years, but I am slowly leaning towards Bradford, if healthly. There will most likely be a tackle or guard next year ~15, probably not the case for elite QB.

My hope is that Shanny thinks a 2nd/3rd round QB has the highest ceiling and trades back for extra picks to fill more holes, but I don't know how likely that is to happen.

The only team I could see trading up is Buffalo, if they want Bradford and thinks Seattle (or maybe Cleveland) wants him. That gives us good shot at a tackle still (or I'd really consider Haden if he drops and we trade Rogers).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn on this decision. If you look at all the teams that made the playoffs, they all had one thing in common, a franchise QB. Not all of them had great OLs, but they did have a franchise QB. Manning, Brees, Sanchez, Favre, Warner, Flacco, Romo sits to pee, Rodgers, and Rivers. So if we want to be a top team we're going to need a franchise QB.

But on the other hand, we've seen a bad OL can do to a team. Its true that a good QB can make a bad OL look good, but its nice to be able to have both. I wouldn't be upset if we went OL with the #4 pick.

Basically, if we go OL or QB I won't be upset. Since we need both, we can't really go wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the simple fact that it will take several years to build a solid OL with depth, you take the QB at #4 if you think he COULD be a franchise QB for you, b/c you are not guaranteed to be in as good of a posotion to get a QB in the future. He does not need to START day one. I think some folks use the "it doesn't matter who is behind our OL, they will get killed" mantra a bit too much, that is a more short-sighted approach IMO. There is no law/rule that says a rookie 1st round QB has to start. Eli didn't stat right away, he had at least half a season to learn the ropes and then took his lumps when they realized they were out of the playoff hunt.

Unless you have an inclination on a particular QB that is not rated as a first rounder, that you know you can get in the 2nd, and is exactly what Shanny wants in a QB ... you take the best QB, when you can as fast as you can. There are no guarantees of what the future will hold (eg. Locker in '11). You take a top rated QB when you can, and do not gamble on what you may be able to get in the future.

While the OL is more pressing, and there are more holes to fill ... they are not the rare commodities that good/great QB's are. It's more likely to raise the level of your team with a good QB, then building an entire offense around a mediocre, game-manager QB. It's simple math and what we have essentially been doing with JC, except we never built the OL depth around him.

Now if Shanny doesn't like what he sees in Bradford, and wants say McCoy ... you can trade back or take a gamble on your 2nd round pick, etc and go OL with the first pick. The LAST thing we need to do is draft another mid-round QB project and *hope* Shanny can pull a rabbit out of his hat and make him something he has yet to show. That would be even more detrimental to our future prospects IMO. Just my $.02. HAIL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm torn on this decision. If you look at all the teams that made the playoffs, they all had one thing in common, a franchise QB. Not all of them had great OLs, but they did have a franchise QB. Manning, Brees, Sanchez, Favre, Warner, Flacco, Romo sits to pee, Rodgers, and Rivers. So if we want to be a top team we're going to need a franchise QB.

All of those teams also had good OLs. To me the line is much more important for this year. When Campbell has time, he gains confidence. Matt Schaub and Kyle Orton did not look like franchise QBs either, until they were put in the right situation to shine, on the other side of that, Jay Cutler did until he lined up behind the porous line of Chicago. If we build up our O-line, you will see that Campbell can play and Portis can still run. I think people put way too much onus on the skill positions in football, when the games are truly one on the lines. The biggest questions are, how much pressure is on the quarterback and can the o-line open up running holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of those teams also had good OLs. To me the line is much more important for this year. When Campbell has time, he gains confidence. Matt Schaub and Kyle Orton did not look like franchise QBs either, until they were put in the right situation to shine, on the other side of that, Jay Cutler did until he lined up behind the porous line of Chicago. If we build up our O-line, you will see that Campbell can play and Portis can still run. I think people put way too much onus on the skill positions in football, when the games are truly one on the lines. The biggest questions are, how much pressure is on the quarterback and can the o-line open up running holes.

The Packers OL was not very good. They had a lot of injuries and Aaron Rodgers was towards the top in sacks. Matt Schaub looked good this year because he finally stayed healthy. I still wouldn't say that Kyle Orton is a franchise QB.

The Steelers won the Super Bowl last year with an average, at best, OL. Like someone just said in here, if you pick this high, it makes sense to go after a franchise QB if you believe one is there. You're not guaranteed to pick this high again, so go out and get a franchise QB.

But I trust Shanahan and Allen will make the right choice. If they believe Bradford is our franchise QB and take him at #4, I won't be mad. If they don't think Bradford is the answer and we take Okung #4, I won't be mad either. I just think its harder to find a franchise QB than it is to build a solid OL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Packers OL was not very good. They had a lot of injuries and Aaron Rodgers was towards the top in sacks. Matt Schaub looked good this year because he finally stayed healthy. I still wouldn't say that Kyle Orton is a franchise QB.

The Steelers won the Super Bowl last year with an average, at best, OL. Like someone just said in here, if you pick this high, it makes sense to go after a franchise QB if you believe one is there. You're not guaranteed to pick this high again, so go out and get a franchise QB.

You don't consider Orton as a franchise QB but in your previous post you listed Flacco and Sanchez as franchise QB's? Interesting.

As far as your argument on taking a QB now because you may not be picking this high again for some time, the logic could be made that if you pick an O-lineman this year when you should have picked a QB, you'll be picking high again next year. As far as I'm concerned I hope we never get to pick inside the top 30 again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those were some pretty lousy examples in the "Pro" column. Seriously? Favre is the example to draft a QB? The guy with 18 years experience going to a team that was already a playoff contender? Thats the difference maker? Weaksauce. And a terrible example of why the Redskins should draft a kid out of college wih injury concerns. In the end, Favre was Favre and cost them a Super Bowl chance... like he has done on every other team he has been on.

I laugh really hard when people say that Sanchez, Flacco or Ryan "led" their teams to playoff appearances. Their ratings were all in the bottom half of the league. But the supporting running games and defenses were top half. Come on Jimmi. Its not that hard to figure out. Not to deny they have some talent. I just think that another weak argument to draft a QB that early.

If its a rebuilding year anyway, then why not get the parts that are of most dire need? I am very much against drafting QB early in this draft. None of the prospects are worth top ten money. Hell, I dont beleive anyare worth top twenty. I would much rather go OT or RB if we cant get out of that pick. We need both positions badly, and no rookie QB will have a chance at success without a good line to protect him, or a good RB to take the pressure off the passing game. Thats the formula that Snachez, Ryan and Flacco have had to "lead" their respective teams to the post season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, I dont beleive any are worth top twenty. I would much rather go OT or RB if we cant get out of that pick.

Its a shiddy Draft and the No. 4 is worth 40 million bucks ... there will be no trade down ... that is wishful thinking ... there are no RBs or OLs worth that much dough either ... its a no-brainer where the Skins are going in this Draft. Accept it. And if the Skins are gonna spend $ 40 milllion on a new QB ... Campbell is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic in selecting a player shouldn't change because of the positions available. Really, what should be looked at at #4 is who is the best player available and how does that fit in with our needs. The question is going to be, is Bradford better than the OL available at that position? If another team feels it is worth trading up for a player, does it make it worth our while to trade down?

The waters get muddied because a QB is involved, but really it shouldn't. Teams wonder if they are going to miss on a brass ring, so they tend to reach sometimes, especially when there is only one option. That's the problem when people say that QB trumps everything else in that often that teams pass on better players for that reason. Sure, when everything is equal, the QB probably should get priority, but I don't think QBs get rated on the same field that other players get rated from the "importance" they are viewed at. Never mind that a QB needs a supporting cast to be successful, and often needs time to develop.

Bradford certainly looks to be a better prospect than Sanchez was last year. That being said, he still has some serious questions to answer in the minds of scouts, and certainly doesn't come off as a slam-dunk pick to me. I also wonder how much he's really worth to us when we don't have much of a line to protect him. I mean, we see what happened with Stafford last year.

But a lot is going to depend on how much we value the OL on the top of the draft and how we decide to address the OL problem. Many questions we don't have answers to at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The logic in selecting a player shouldn't change because of the positions available. Really, what should be looked at at #4 is who is the best player available and how does that fit in with our needs. The question is going to be, is Bradford better than the OL available at that position? If another team feels it is worth trading up for a player, does it make it worth our while to trade down?

The waters get muddied because a QB is involved, but really it shouldn't. Teams wonder if they are going to miss on a brass ring, so they tend to reach sometimes, especially when there is only one option. That's the problem when people say that QB trumps everything else in that often that teams pass on better players for that reason. Sure, when everything is equal, the QB probably should get priority, but I don't think QBs get rated on the same field that other players get rated from the "importance" they are viewed at. Never mind that a QB needs a supporting cast to be successful, and often needs time to develop.

Bradford certainly looks to be a better prospect than Sanchez was last year. That being said, he still has some serious questions to answer in the minds of scouts, and certainly doesn't come off as a slam-dunk pick to me. I also wonder how much he's really worth to us when we don't have much of a line to protect him. I mean, we see what happened with Stafford last year.

But a lot is going to depend on how much we value the OL on the top of the draft and how we decide to address the OL problem. Many questions we don't have answers to at this time.

So if the BPA is a defensive end, or receiver, is that who you draft?

I know this is an age-old argument. But I think it impossible not draft BPA based on need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the BPA is a defensive end, or receiver, is that who you draft?

I know this is an age-old argument. But I think it impossible not draft BPA based on need.

We've had this discussion before, but BPA usually has need accounted for somewhere in the equation.

That being said, if a player was rated so highly that it would be silly to pass on him, why would you? Success comes from having great players and you should try to get them when you have the chance, if it makes sense.

In any case, I don't see a DE or receiver that's going to go this high. If one of the two DTs drops, it could make for an interesting decision since good DTs are not exactly common. Course, it could be made less interesting if the players don't fit in with the new defensive scheme. I don't see Berry being the pick, tho it is always a possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've had this discussion before, but BPA usually has need accounted for somewhere in the equation.

That being said, if a player was rated so highly that it would be silly to pass on him, why would you? Success comes from having great players and you should try to get them when you have the chance, if it makes sense.

In any case, I don't see a DE or receiver that's going to go this high. If one of the two DTs drops, it could make for an interesting decision since good DTs are not exactly common. Course, it could be made less interesting if the players don't fit in with the new defensive scheme. I don't see Berry being the pick, tho it is always a possibility.

BPA is an acronym. It stands for best player available. By definition it has nothing to do with need. It is the best player available at any position, not one that you necessarily need. This term is way over used. I contend that no team drafts strictly be BPA. You can’t say BPA and then talk about need. Of course every team drafts the BPA at their particular position of need. No one says, ”we need a QB but I think that we will take the third best QB available”. Need always comes into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...