WP/Jason Reid: Mike Mayock agrees with taking a QB at 4

[The Tris]

it's about quality, not quantity.

hate that damn broken record.

You can win without a quality (read: first round) LT. You CANNOT win with out a quality QB

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I worry that because we've neglected our OL for a decade that we've lost the right to hope a quality OL may still be around when we pick in the second round.

Judging by the state of our current OL and how barren the FA OL market projects I would rather start our draft by addressing our biggest need which imo remains OL because if we can't upgrade the OL we will get our rookie QB killed.

What good is it if we draft a QB with the 4th pick and we're stuck with an OL rated significantly below the top 7 OL?

I guess the question is wether there is a bigger gap between the top 7 OL and the 8th best OL or is there a bigger gap between the top 2 QBs and the 3rd QB?

And what are our odds of landing our top rated QB and a top 7 OL in the 37th?

Okung/Davis and Colt McCoy

Bradford/Clausen and Charles Brown/Vlad Ducasse

a post that explore this scenario:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=7308315&postcount=84

or worst case

Okung/Davis and a late round QB

Bradford/Clasuen and reaching for an OT not in the top 7?

I would rather have the top OL and the 3rd best QB then the 8th best OL and the top QB.

One thing though Mike Mayock says that about every top QB. But he is right though if Bruce Allen and Shanny thinks that either QB's are Franachise QB's then they should pull the trigger.

[blindlywewander]

We are allowed to trade back into the first round and grab a tackle you know.

And I'm not sure why you would not want the best QB. Guess QB play is not as valuable to you as OL play. We've had a pro-bowl tackle for years, and we keep settling in the QB department, why don't we try and learn from the rest of the league and stop settling in the QB department.

Trading back would be a great play - if we could make it. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done. Trading back is not something we can rely on. I'd much rather build a strong OL. There will be QBs coming out every year. Why waste a top pick on such a risky candidate? I'd much rather wait on a guy like Locker next year with a solidified offensive line from this years draft.

[blindlywewander]

You can win without a quality (read: first round) LT. You CANNOT win with out a quality QB

But you can't win without a first round quarterback? Hmm.. Tom Brady and Brett Favre would probably argue that. Obviously over history 1st round qbs have more success, but the argument goes both ways.

[spyder462]

If we do draft a QB at 4 I hope its Bradford...I really hope we are smart and go for OL needs then take Pike in the 4th if he is still there..

The only people that want Jimmy Clausen are Notre Dame fans....Everyone says he was in a pro-style offense well he couldnt even lead his team to a victory over NAVY and they want us to have him as our QB over JC....

Atleast Bradford led his team to winning seasons in his college career....HAIL...:dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck

[MartinC]

The title of the article is a bit misleading.

He isn't saying he thinks the Redskins should draft a QB at #4 no matter what, he's saying if you think that QB is a franchise QB, then do it. He isn't saying QB is our biggest need.

From what I've seen/heard, the QBs this year are kind of a weak class. I don't watch too much NCAA but even Mayock has questioned whether or not any of the QBs this year are top 10 talent.

Not in this article he didn't. He clearly says he thinks Bradford is a top 10 talent but he has Clausen rated a bit lower.

[The Tris]

But you can't win without a first round quarterback? Hmm.. Tom Brady and Brett Favre would probably argue that. Obviously over history 1st round qbs have more success, but the argument goes both ways.

I absolutely didn't mean for quality in second case to be read first round. I but I think if you look at the Playoff QBs from the past five years, you will see an overwhelming majority of first round QBs. The percentage of 1st round LT is much lower.

The funny thing is, I wouldn't bet my life on Bradford or Clausen, but I would bet my life that we can fix our OL problems without overreacting and without blindly taking a LT at #4.

[[[ghost]]]

Mayock said that if you think there is a Franchise QB at #4, you take him regardless.

Obviously. But that's only IF you find there to be a Franchise QB.

Every single person on this board would take Bradford or Clausen if they were convinced that they were the real deal. It's not like anyone is saying "Yeah, that Clausen kid is definitely gonna be a HOF, but we need OL!"

The fact is, neither of them are that convincing in the Franchise QB department. If they were, St. Louis would be taking them.

[TheLongshot]

Good thing we have more than one draft pick then!

Cue broken record: drafting a QB does not equal not drafting OL.

Nor did I suggest that. That being said, it is harder to find and immediate impact player as you go down in the draft. Also, QB is one position where we don't need an instant impact player.

BTW, I am not against selecting a QB. But, things are bad enough right now on the line that that needs to be squared away somehow.

[#1HIT]

I respect Mayock's opinion more than anyone elses...

LOL, that's because you want a QB, now if he said Eric Berry, im sure you wouldn't say that:pfft:

[Xero21]

Not in this article he didn't. He clearly says he thinks Bradford is a top 10 talent but he has Clausen rated a bit lower.

Eh. It's been iffy. In his first Top 5 At Each Position list, he said something to the effect of "If there is a QB in this draft worthy of the Top 10, it's Bradford."

Which sounds a lot like "If I HAD to go with a QB in the Top 10, I guess it would have to be Bradford."

[MartinC]

Eh. It's been iffy. In his first Top 5 At Each Position list, he said something to the effect of "If there is a QB in this draft worthy of the Top 10, it's Bradford."

Which sounds a lot like "If I HAD to go with a QB in the Top 10, I guess it would have to be Bradford."

Here is a direct quote from his interview with some Washington area writers. It seems he has changed his opinion on Bradford.

"I've done an awful lot of work on the quarterbacks the last couple of weeks and I've kind of evolved in my opinion of Bradford, and I do think that he's a franchise quarterback, with the caveat being that he's got to check out medically. I went back and watched a bunch of his game tapes from two years ago, including his two losses-the national championship game and the Texas game-and I needed to see him get hit more. I needed to see him be under some duress because two years ago, for the most part, he stood in a pocket that was beautiful with nobody around him and played pitch and catch and put 60 points a game up there. But in those games I just mentioned, he was under duress. He got hit. I thought in the Texas game he struggled a bit in the fourth quarter because he got hit an awful lot. I thought his accuracy went down a little bit. But bottom line, to me, I think Sam Bradford is a franchise quarterback and I think he is a top 10 player."

I have no idea if that is correct or not but there does seem to be a strong body of opinion that Bradford is the best QB option in the draft and worthy a top 10 pick.

[Forehead]

ive been saying that EXACT same scenario for over 2 months.

i was even told by a few posters that not a single good tackle would be available at #36 where we pick next, so clearly mayock disagrees with them as well.

how do i get my resume to NFL network! lol

I'm assuming the 6 tackles he's referring to are:

Russell Okung

Bruce Campbell

Trent Williams

Bryan Bulaga

Anthony Davis

Charles Brown

I can't think of who would qualify as #7. Assuming we take a QB, we can be pretty sure that Okung, Campbell, Davis, and Bulaga won't be there. I've seen Williams and Brown fall in some mocks, but if all 6 are gone, are we really going to be comfortable having Campbell (or our prize rookie) being defended by someone not on this list?

[Xero21]

Here is a direct quote from his interview with some Washington area writers. It seems he has changed his opinion on Bradford.

"I've done an awful lot of work on the quarterbacks the last couple of weeks and I've kind of evolved in my opinion of Bradford, and I do think that he's a franchise quarterback, with the caveat being that he's got to check out medically.

Ah. I guess he has watched more tape and come to a more clear conclusion then.

[Xero21]

I'm assuming the 6 tackles he's referring to are:

Russell Okung

Bruce Campbell

Trent Williams

Bryan Bulaga

Anthony Davis

Charles Brown

I can't think of who would qualify as #7. Assuming we take a QB, we can be pretty sure that Okung, Campbell, Davis, and Bulaga won't be there. I've seen Williams and Brown fall in some mocks, but if all 6 are gone, are we really going to be comfortable having Campbell (or our prize rookie) being defended by someone not on this list?

I think #7 is Vladimir Ducasse from the University of Massachusetts. Apparently a lot of scouts like him.

[Forehead]

I think #7 is Vladimir Ducasse from the University of Massachusetts. Apparently a lot of scouts like him.

I heard he looked pretty bad during senior bowl practices, and I think he may wind up being a guard.

[JaimeDeCurry]

If we do draft a QB at 4 I hope its Bradford...I really hope we are smart and go for OL needs then take Pike in the 4th if he is still there..

The only people that want Jimmy Clausen are Notre Dame fans....Everyone says he was in a pro-style offense well he couldnt even lead his team to a victory over NAVY and they want us to have him as our QB over JC....

I despise Notre Dame and I think Clausen is going to be a better pro QB than Bradford.

[darrelgreenie]

We are allowed to trade back into the first round and grab a tackle you know.

Again trading up is a hope.

You hope to find a trading partner and hope your player is still on the board.

When it comes to OL i'm tired of hoping a player X stays healthy or hoping that a player that's been out of the league for 2 years contribute.

I want to see bonafide talent out there as the centerpiece around which a good to dominant OL is built.

And I'm not sure why you would not want the best QB. Guess QB play is not as valuable to you as OL play

Its not that i don't want the best QB. I think the difference between the best QB in this draft and the 3rd best (McCoy) is nominal.

I think a QB success is dependent upon there situation not where they're drafted.

I guess it isn't imo you have to have at least decent but preferable good OL for a QB to have a chance to succeed.

We've had a pro-bowl tackle for years, and we keep settling in the QB department, why don't we try and learn from the rest of the league and stop settling in the QB department

I don't agree with your logic.

You mean learn from the rest of the league by building a quality OL which gives our QB a chance?

Over the past 2 season we've have good OL for less then half the time and without good OL i don't think a team can win, even if you had a good QB.

Also, if we start fixing the OL this year if we still need a QB next year the team will be in a better position to support their development/success.

[tex]

play a franchise qb behind the skins oline with a rookie LT? no thanks. patrick ramsey got beat down so bad he was ducks whenever someone raises their hand to say hi. sit the new franchise qb for a year while JC gets crushed? that might work.

[icbmayday]

OT only please

[RED06]

You can win without a quality (read: first round) LT. You CANNOT win with out a quality QB

The Baltmore Ravens would disagree with this statement as they won the Super Bowl with a not so great QB.

RED06

[GSF]

Just about everyone in here agrees with Mayock that IF there is a franchise QB at 4 you take him. The problem is a lot of people think that Bradfod and Clausen are both big ifs.

I kinda hope the skins get the opportunity to trade down and add picks. There are going to be a lot of quality players available lower in the first and into the second rounds. A good trade down could darn near rebuild the oline in 1 draft.

[Spartacus87]

The Baltmore Ravens would disagree with this statement as they won the Super Bowl with a not so great QB.

RED06

Anything but that argument.

Dilfer threw for 12 TDs to 11 INTs and 1500 yards that year. While the Ravens' defense allowed 10 points a game.

Try recreating that in the 2010 NFL and you'll end up with a 5-11 record pretty often.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Anything but that argument.

Dilfer threw for 12 TDs to 11 INTs and 1500 yards that year. While the Ravens' defense allowed 10 points a game.

Try recreating that in the 2010 NFL and you'll end up with a 5-11 record pretty often.

no, the ravens were able to do it so lets just follow that method.

we just need to focus on building the best defense since the 70s steelers, so lets get started. we'll need multiple pro bowlers and potential hall of famers, and a ridiculous coordinator. a 2000 yard rusher is a must as well.

when we get all of that stuff, then we can ignore the QB position.

[GSF]

Anything but that argument.

Dilfer threw for 12 TDs to 11 INTs and 1500 yards that year. While the Ravens' defense allowed 10 points a game.

Try recreating that in the 2010 NFL and you'll end up with a 5-11 record pretty often.

Not that I'm advocating following the Ravens blueprint from that season, but that was the 2000 season, not 1977. The game hasn't changed that much since then.