Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

And we wonder why we are where we are...

Looking For Number Four

By Looking For Number Four
in The Stadium

What do you think of the new site?  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of the new site?

    • Amazing
      30
    • Cool
      24
    • Could be better
      5
    • A letdown
      5

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Looking For Number Four

Looking For Number Four

Posted
Posted

Redskin 1st Round Selections since 1995, Chronological Order:

Brian Orakpo (LB, 13)

LaRon Landry (S, 6)

Carlos Rogers (CB, 9)

Jason Campbell (QB, 25)

Sean Taylor (S, 5)

Patrick Ramsey (QB, 32)

Rod Gardner (WR, 15)

LaVar Arrington (LB, 2)

Chris Samuels (LT, 3)

Champ Bailey (CB, 7)

Kenard Lang (DE, 17)

Andre Johson (LT, 30)

Michael Westbrook (WR, 4)

Top 24:

CB (2) LB( 2) WR (2) S (2) OT (2) DE (1) QB (0)

2nd Round Selections since 1995, Chronological Order:

Devin Thomas (WR, 34)

Fred Davis (TE, 48)

Malcolm Kelly (WR, 51)

Rocky McIntosh (LB, 35)

Taylor Jacobs (WR, 44)

Ladell Betts (RB, 56)

Fred Smoot (CB, 45)

Jon Jansen (RT, 37)

Stephen Alexander (TE, 48)

Greg Jones (LB, 51)

Cory Raymer (C, 37)

WR (3) LB(2) TE(2) C, RT, RB, and CB each have 1, QB (0)

The ESPN draft history compiler I am using goes back to 1967, the only 1st round QBs it lists are Campbell (25), Ramsey (32), and Schuler (3). Perhaps that explains the absence of someone that can threaten secondaries, convert 3rd downs..... I understand the line is a mess and Okung has few if any weaknesses, but I think it is time, personally.

manning-rivers.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Looking For Number Four

Looking For Number Four

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It takes at least one year for a rookie QB to have any true positive impact on his team. Peyton Manning was one of the few that actually started his rookie season and went 28/28 TD/INT. If we do not start the process now, we are looking at several years. I suppose some still believe that 10-15 QBs can win Super Bowls and are standing beside Campbell, that Colt is the answer, or that some miracle is going to happen in which we land a free agent QB via free agency but that would cost top dollar for every year he plays. Trading for Cutler cost two 1st round picks, 3rd round pick, and Kyle Orton. Maybe we see the blarring comparison between Tony Pike and Tom Brady/Matt Schaub and he could make the move. Colt McCoy worth the gamble? I would love to know why we are still convinced that not taking a shot, except ONE time in the past forty years plus, is not worth it. We have drafted the Chris Samuels and that did not work. No of it matters without the elite QB, no more than ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TSO

TSO

Posted
Posted
If you were NNT'ed would you have an anxiety attack?
If all the people who deserved one of those got one, there would be no threads left to post in. I'm just saying.

:ols:

I like his style though. He seems to be pretty straight forward and doesn't exaggerate (as far as I've seen) or show unnecessary malice when talking about players he wants to see replaced. His threads usually tend to generate healthy debate. :)

As for the topic... yeah. It's a shame that it's just overly skill position there. As far as QB, I think that's a pretty normal number to have there; 2 in the last 6 years or so. I just think we overvalued Bugel's ability to coach up any random "big guy" a bit when it came to Olineman. It may have worked in the past, but not so much nowadays with the way teams put so much emphasis on their Dlineman these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Annonymous Source

Annonymous Source

Posted
Posted

We have drafted 3 QB's in the first round since 1994. That is far more than most successful teams draft.

(Also to everyone who thinks that drafting JC or Patrick Ramsey was a mistake, why would you think that the result would be better this time around. I am not saying that JC is the long term answer at QB, just that all of the talk about how the QB is not performing well enough is ignoring the fact that the rest of the offense is also not performing well enough)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elkabong82

elkabong82

Posted
Posted

Taking a shot is worth it, if the player is worth taking a shot on.

I don't see that QB in this draft at #4, though I will respect Shanny's decision if he does go that way. However, the money and resources that go into a pick that high mean any risk being taken has to be very well calculated, you can't take a risk just because it hasn't been done in a long time, the parameters have to account for the quality of the draft class.

If Shanny wants to put emphasis on the run game he's going to need quality guys on the OL, and addressing OL early in the draft will at least give a higher chance of success in rebuilding the OL.

Personally, I think the Skins showed that even with Zorn's ineffective system that when the OL was healthy and the run game was going we were winning games, and I think since the run game is Shanny's forte that OL will be his emphasis and IMO should be given that it was our most ineffective unit this season and there is good quality OL early in this draft. JMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bostic Hog

Bostic Hog

Posted
Posted
We have drafted 3 QB's in the first round since 1994. That is far more than most successful teams draft.

(Also to everyone who thinks that drafting JC or Patrick Ramsey was a mistake, why would you think that the result would be better this time around. I am not saying that JC is the long term answer at QB, just that all of the talk about how the QB is not performing well enough is ignoring the fact that the rest of the offense is also not performing well enough)

I think it would be different because this is a #4 pick; the others were much later in the first round. I don't want us to draft a QB at #4, but if we do, I think there's a better chance of success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GhostofSparta

GhostofSparta

Posted
Posted
Redskin 1st Round Selections since 1995, Chronological Order:

Brian Orakpo (LB, 13)

LaRon Landry (S, 6)

Carlos Rogers (CB, 9)

Jason Campbell (QB, 25)

Sean Taylor (S, 5)

Patrick Ramsey (QB, 32)

Rod Gardner (WR, 15)

LaVar Arrington (LB, 2)

Chris Samuels (LT, 3)

Champ Bailey (CB, 7)

Kenard Lang (DE, 17)

Andre Johson (LT, 30)

Michael Westbrook (WR, 4)

Top 24:

CB (2) LB( 2) WR (2) S (2) OT (2) DE (1) QB (0)

I find it slighty suspicious that we drafted 2 QBs in the 1st round, but you break off the list at 24 at the bottom. You also included a #30 tackle in your list of top 24 picks....almost as if to skew the list to prove a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Going Commando

Going Commando

Posted
Posted

You are pretty wide of the mark saying Okung has few if any weaknesses. It would be closer to say he has many weaknesses.

Anthony Davis and Bryan Bulaga are the top two tackles in this class. Davis is the premier talent at tackle this year. You should use them as the options at 4.

Also don't count out defenders. Haden, Pierre-Paul, McCoy, McClain, those would all be better options at 4 than Okung or Clausen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bostic Hog

Bostic Hog

Posted
Posted
I don't care where he played. I'm not a ND fan at all but I've watched this kid alot and I think he's gonna be a star.

Aside from my hatred of ND, I watched Claussen (pickle name) a few times. I don't like his arm. Against Stanford, I remember a bunch of deep throws that were like moon shots. He completed them because Stanford's DBs sucked (and he had Golden Tate) -- but they went over the top of the stadium. I mean, they were MOON SHOTS! I just don't like his arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skinsfan190

skinsfan190

Posted
Posted
Why?

Great Mechanics

Great accuracy

can throw on the run

Played behind a terrible oline (played through adversity)

Pro style offense

Reads defense well

Throws ball to recieves before they make their breaks

These are just some of the things I've noticed. I think he is a better prospect than Stafford and Sanchez

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Going Commando

Going Commando

Posted
Posted
Aside from my hatred of ND, I watched Claussen (pickle name) a few times. I don't like his arm. Against Stanford, I remember a bunch of deep throws that were like moon shots. He completed them because Stanford's DBs sucked (and he had Golden Tate) -- but they went over the top of the stadium. I mean, they were MOON SHOTS! I just don't like his arm.

You are definitely right about him floating anything over 25-30 yards. And he has poor accuracy on his deep ball too since he almost always underthrows it.

I don't like his arm either. It's average at best and I think it's definitely weaker than Bradford's and he doesn't have a gun either. He also has a low, side-arm release and he might be 6'2 in his shoes on his best day so the ball comes out low already so he got a lot of passes tipped in college and it will only happen more often in the NFL.

I also don't like the offense he played in college where 75% of his passes were quick slants and screens to his all american receivers. Watch him and he never attacks the middle of the field or works the safeties. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that he lacks the arm and the timing to do so. The two biggest things people bring up about him to argue he's a top QB are his 2009 efficiency stats and his experience in a "pro-style" offense. It's not hard to avoid interceptions and complete a high number of passes when you are almost never asked to throw longer than 10-12 yards and never over the middle of the field. No pro offense will be as ridiculously conservative as the one he ran at ND.

Lastly, I really don't like his career record. I don't understand how a QB from Notre Dame who never, ever, won a big game can be talked about as a potential top 10 pick. ND played a cream-puff schedule for the past three years and Clausen never beat a ranked team. And those impressive numbers he put up this season were done against 6 of the worst 30 passing defenses in the FBS, and he never played a passing defense better than Purdue which was ranked in the 40's.

Clausen screams bust. He's like a worse version of Matt Leinart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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