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

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

As I said in a different thread I would rather take the shot at a franchise QB and fail then take the shot at OL and fail. Not saying I want us to fail it's just the upside to the QB is sooooo much greater.

you dont get good by playing it safe all the time. with QBs its definitely a risk/reward type scenario and frankly there is not much risk at the moment, because we cant get much worse.

[Morneblade]

Bradford was rated higher than Stafford and Sanchez last year by some people. The only thing "iffy" is his injury. Mayock thinks he's a top ten player. Both Kiper and McShay think he's a first rounder. He isn't just rated highly this year because of the other QB's in his class.

Clausen's questions? Outside of questions about his personality/leadership, there aren't many. Many see him as a guy with all the tools who is ready to go right away. He's a college player who spent 3 years in a pro style offense and produced at a decent level. Charlie Weiss and ND's defensive coordinator both vouch for the guy.

I'm thinking more about his size and his lower ceiling than his personality. So yeah, there are multiple questions with him. And there are others questions (like the fact that he didnt win much) that other posters will point out, but I dont look at so much. So, there are more than what you're talking about.

And if this draft is so very deep in OL, or OT specifically, then wouldn't it stand to reason that you can pick some up outside of the first round?

Mike has done very well with later round OL.

duh. But...................how many new OL do we need?

Three at the very least. 1 2nd round pick is not going to fix that OL. FA as it stands now, doesnt have much to offer. Now, if we have some quality guys get released and we manage to get a couple sizable upgrades to the line, feel confident we can get a starter in the 2nd round I might look to take a qb @4 if I thought I had a line that was at least....average. But that being said, that is asking alot.

My feeling is that if Bradford is there and he's been medically cleared, we'll take him. I see no QB on the horizon next year that would make me want to forgoe taking somebody of Sam's talent this year.

It's possible. I'll be honest though, I dont like the idea of taking a spread offense QB that high. Too much of a project for a #4 pick. All we have to do is look at our own roster to see how they struggle with aspects of a pro style offense.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Can someone define "ceiling" in regards to QBs?

I can think of a whole lot of star QBs who were percieved to have "low ceilings" coming out.

[ArmchairRedskin]

I'm thinking more about his size and his lower ceiling than his personality. So yeah, there are multiple questions with him. And there are others questions (like the fact that he didnt win much) that other posters will point out, but I dont look at so much. So, there are more than what you're talking about.

His size? He's the same size as Mark Sanchez who went top ten last year. His wins? He won more than Jay Cutler who went top ten in his class.

duh. But...................how many new OL do we need?

Three at the very least. 1 2nd round pick is not going to fix that OL. FA as it stands now, doesnt have much to offer. Now, if we have some quality guys get released and we manage to get a couple sizable upgrades to the line, feel confident we can get a starter in the 2nd round I might look to take a qb @4 if I thought I had a line that was at least....average. But that being said, that is asking alot.

Nobody thinks we'll fix our whole OL longterm this season. Not even with a first rounder dedictated to OT. It's a little naive to think we'll draft 3 starting OL this year. You might get one or two tops. It'll be a process to get a line together. Not something that you can hope to accomplish in one offseason.

Then again, nobody is saying a new QB would have to come in right away, either. That means next offseason could also be used to shore up OL before we stick the new guy in there. If need be we can get some two years from now.

It's possible. I'll be honest though, I dont like the idea of taking a spread offense QB that high. Too much of a project for a #4 pick. All we have to do is look at our own roster to see how they struggle with aspects of a pro style offense.

Sam isn't just a spread QB. He spent a lot of time under center his freshman year. He's able to do the 3,5,7 step drops just fine.

[Gregpeck99]

I do see the argument, no matter how naive it is.

$ 45 million for a non-blue-chip OLineman ... you must be kidding.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

its a two year plan dudes. draft bradford at 4, best availabe OT at 36, then snag one guard in another round. thats 2 rookie lineman out of the 5 total lineman spots. we'll probably sign one free agent starter, have dock return, and maybe this licthenstoienrernser kid can outset rabach. that gives us a pretty decent looking NFL line if the rookies play well.

next season we'll probably have another high draft pick, in which we take the best OT we can. so at the start of the 2011 we have:

potential franchise QB ready to take the reigns

2nd round tackle from 2010

1st round tackle from 2011

i dont know how this doesnt sound good to some of you.

[ArmchairRedskin]

The Saints may have been as comically managed as us to start the decade with Ditka but they turned it around and we never did. Say what you want about them losing, but they've only had two head coaches in the 2000's, both of whom won coach of the year honors at some point. Shanahan will be our 6th.

In this time Brees has been with the Saints, we'll have had 3 different head coaches and 4 different play-callers.

You think we'd have had as much turnover with Brees at the helm? I don't. You can build around a great QB much easier than you can a bad or mediocre one. It's easier to build a successful team around a guy like Brees than a guy like Jason Campbell. Campell had a top defense to help. He had a 1500 yard rusher and a top talent at TE. Yet, we floundered. We probably wouldn't have NEEDED to draft 3 pass catchers in one round for Brees. Campbell NEEDED taller receivers.

It's funny that you mention that because each of their most successful picks this decade were offensive linemen: Ryan Clady and Davin Joseph. BTW, it's more than a few first round mistakes. They've missed far more than they've hit.

So answer the question. Because they've missed on picks before they should not draft a QB right now. We have to get a whole lot of talent on the rest of the team so that any QB we take has minimal chance of failing. Is that what you're saying? That's what I got out of it and if that's how you think then you have a battered view of things.

[shemp nixon]

hes the most accurate DRAFT guru out there, if he says it, i believe it...

Mayock was very high on Jason Campbell coming out of AU... As recently as this past season he was high on him.

[Going Commando]

The problem is, it would take Jesus Christ reincarnate at QB for some posters here to believe that someone is a QB prospect worth drafting. I guarentee that if we don't go QB this year, and we are looking at Mallett or Locker or Ponder next year, the same arguments about "them not being worth the pick with all their question marks" will come out. The only difference being I hope we are not in a position again next year to have the luxury of the 4th pick. Then its going to cost even more in terms of trading up, and that will only intensify the "not worth the risk camp."

If you want us to be in position to not have a top 5 pick then our best bet would be to draft a left tackle who could start from day 1 like Anthony Davis or Russell Okung. I speak for myself and others probably have similar viewpoints but I'm not against drafting a QB. I was gung ho for Mark Sanchez last year and I like the idea of drafting Andrew Luck or Jake Locker and am very intrigued by Blaine Gabbert and Nick Foles.

I am specifically against drafting Jimmy Clausen at 4, and I'm coming to the position that we shouldn't draft Sam Bradford at 4 either.

Just because it's true that you have to take a risk in drafting a QB at some point to get one, doesn't mean we should make the risk as great as we possibly can when we pick one. For god's sake step back for a moment and think about these QBs. Jimmy Clausen is an underclassman QB prospect with marginal physical gifts, patchy throwing mechanics, average accuracy and below average timing, and an awful record against a creampuff schedule where he never beat anybody and got to pad his stats because half his schedule constituted some of the worse passing defenses in the country in his one and only good season. His head coach was fired on his watch! Can anyone ever remember a QB prospect ever succeeding after coming from a set of circumstances like that? The mere fact that he's an underclassman should be enough of a red flag to underscore the massive risk he entails.

Sam Bradford is a lanky underclassman QB prospect coming from a college system that is a notoriously difficult translation to the NFL. He got to play on an offense that enjoyed a massive talent advantage at nearly every single position against nearly every opponent he faced and when this wasn't the case he either lost (against Texas and Florida) or got hurt... twice. He only played one full game last year (where he didn't look that great) and we are talking about him at 4? I think the most damning argument of all is that, as good as Sam Bradford is, can anyone tell me definitively why he's much better than Colt McCoy? Why is he worth the fourth overall pick and McCoy is a second rounder at best?

I guarantee these are the kinds of things people will bring up if in 3-4 years we're having the conversation about why Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are the latest draft busts.

The best part about the not worth the risk camp? I haven't seen a single mock lauding Okung as being one of the best OT prospects to come out in a while. He is simply the best T in a deep, but not top-heavy tackle draft. We are one year removed from the best T in a deep AND top heavy tackle class busting out to RT, but everyone has convinced themselves that QB is the only position with risk involved. Sheesh.

I saw you write this else-where, but it's absolutely ridiculous to call Jason Smith a bust after 7 mixed bag starts in a season that was cut short by injury. And he was moved to RT in order to ease his transition to the NFL with the plan that he'd move to LT once Alex Barron's contract ran out.

And I for one actually think this OT class is comparable to '09's in terms of its big five versus '09's big four. And the interior line class is comparable too and much deeper. But this is beside your point. Do you seriously think Okung, Davis, and Bulaga aren't unequivocally safer prospects as individuals than either Bradford or Clausen? You are too sensible to disagree with this.

I would also not be surprised to see a team in the top 4 take a risk on a questionable franchise QB prospect that looked like he would slide to #9 or even out of the top 10 like in the 2008 draft.

That doesn't mean he's going to be good or any less risky. It just means the team was desperate.

The great thing is for all the belly aching on one side or the other, whatever ends up happening, everyone should be able put their personal opinions aside and trust in the first real front office in a decade. At least there is cause for optimism these days.

I like the way Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan do business in general but that doesn't leave me blind to the fact that both have dubious records in the first round of the draft. They are fallible. If we draft a QB at 4 I imagine most people will be excited because it's a new face, but I'm definitely going to have a wait and see skepticism about the guy. A swing and a miss on this QB pick means this "real" front office will be gone in 4 or 5 years anyway.

We can get our QB eventually, it doesn't have to be this year. You can't fight the draft board and wishing a franchise QB was there when we pick high so we can hurry up and get back to contention doesn't make one available. Patience and risk management are essential parts of team-building.

[Coolio47]

I wouldn't necessarily be against getting Bradford, but really only if we can acquire more picks somehow. If we cannot get more picks, take Okung at #4. Of course, we are going to have to wait to see what happens.

****ing offseason.

[jtpop]

I trust this guys opinion more than anyone else's so what he says makes some sense. I still think that any FA signings need to be the best lineman they can find.

[Going Commando]

You think we'd have had as much turnover with Brees at the helm? I don't. You can build around a great QB much easier than you can a bad or mediocre one. It's easier to build a successful team around a guy like Brees than a guy like Jason Campbell. Campell had a top defense to help. He had a 1500 yard rusher and a top talent at TE. Yet, we floundered. We probably wouldn't have NEEDED to draft 3 pass catchers in one round for Brees. Campbell NEEDED taller receivers.

You're basing your assessment on a what if contingency. I can just as easily say Brees would have floundered amidst our organizational dysfunction and would be on IR or a new team by now. Both are equally valid in the realm of possibility and I doubt anyone could pose a convincing probability argument for or against my position or yours. The only facts there are to go on are that we've had three head coaches and four different primary play callers in the time Drew Brees has been with the Saints.

So answer the question. Because they've missed on picks before they should not draft a QB right now. We have to get a whole lot of talent on the rest of the team so that any QB we take has minimal chance of failing. Is that what you're saying? That's what I got out of it and if that's how you think then you have a battered view of things.

No they shouldn't draft Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen at 4 because they aren't very good prospects and they aren't better prospects than Anthony Davis, Russell Okung, or Bryan Bulaga. The fact that Allen and Shanahan have missed on so many first rounders before should just make us more cautious as fans at accepting their decisions, particularly in selecting a quarterback instead of an offensive lineman because the position is inherently more difficult to scout and project. Rich Tandler wrote an article about this recently: in the past decade, more first round QBs have busted per capita than first round offensive linemen. That's incontrovertible fact.

[RonArtest15]

It could just be smoke and mirrors.....for all we know, the Skins could be talking up Bradford/Clausen to put some pressure on teams who are drafting behind them to MAYBE trade up. If this is indeed what they are doing, the Skins are smart. We could get a team to bite...we trade down and recoup some picks in the process. I'm sorry...but there are way too many questions surrounding/concerning both Bradford and Clausen for any one of them to have a tag of "franchise" QB. I'm not seeing it. It's a VERY weak QB class. SOmeone will be fooled into taking one of these guys entirely too high.

[RED06]

It's changed enough in the last 5 years.

When Polian got the NFL Competition Committee to change the rules on DBs roughing up receivers back in 2004 or 2005, that began a marked change in the way offense, particularly passing offense, was viewed in the league.

On top of the tightening of rules to protect QBs following the Carson Palmer and Tom Brady injuries, it's absolutely a more pass happy league in 2010 than it was even in 2001.

Big Ben is a better QB than Campbell. That's not even worth debating. Statistically, they're probably about even, but the guy makes the plays that count when the game is on the line. And I don't dislike Campbell, I think he's had some reasonably difficult things to try and overcome during his time in Washington, but come on.

Ben Roethlisberger > Jason Campbell > Trent Dilfer.

Dilfer went 5 for 16 for 117 yards against the Titans in a victory during the Ravens' playoff run. He also went 12 for 25 for 150 yards in the Super Bowl.

Big Ben went 21 for 30 for 260 yards in the Super Bowl, including an 80 or 90 yard game winning TD drive. So he wasn't just a "game manager" like Dilfer was.

You can pull off some wins riding a great defense and a great running game, but that will only take you so far. The Trent Dilfer/Ravens example just doesn't carry any weight.

I will ask only 1 question, where in my post did I state that Jason Campbell was better than Big Ben? You threw out stats for Dilfer and you also stated that you can't win in this leagues these days with the blueprint of the 2000 Ravens, and I showed you where Big Ben stats where not that great in 2008, and they where comparible to Jason Campbell.

I never said once that JC was better than Big Ben, but yes you can win in this league often with a great or even a good defense, and a running game see uhhh.............Mark Sanchez for instance in "todays" NFL.

See the Giants who's defensive line man handled one of the best OLINE and QB's todays NFL has ever seen " Tom Brady and the undefeated up until that point New England Patriots". And don't say Eli Manning who threw up a prayer and the WR made the MVP play of that game.

Was it Jake Delhome who took the Panthers to the Super Bowl or was it that stellar defense? See how bad Jake Delhome looks now with no real supporting cast and a not so good defense to give them the ball back on a short field? Dude there are tooo many examples of "Defense wins Championships" for me to even entertain this QB garbage.

Name ALL the "Franchise QB's" in the league right now that has more than 2 Superbowls to their name besides Tom Brady? It takes way more than a great QB, it take the rest of the puzzle being put together before Superbowls are won and that would be called the "TRENCHES".

Most if not ALL Superbowl teams have had consistant OLINE and DLINE play for years, not swapping around every year because the OLINE as a unit can never make it through a whole season together. We need to go OLINE to anchor this team then think about a QB..............

RED06

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

If you want us to be in position to not have a top 5 pick then our best bet would be to draft a left tackle who could start from day 1 like Anthony Davis or Russell Okung.

I don't mind having another top 5 pick next year as long as we draft well. I'm fine with a long rebuilding process. I'd prefer another top 5 pick to an 8-8 season, actually. 8-8 is the number of hope where there should be none, the record of "just a player away". We need to get past this.

Jimmy Clausen is an underclassman QB prospect

Yet you wanted Sanchez, who not only was an underclassman, but had 11 games of college starting experience? Luck and Gabbert will be underclassmen too with less starting experience as well, and I like Luck and I kind of like Gabbert.

I am absolutely, unshakably opposed to drafting Jake Locker as our starting QB, regardless of our QB situation in 2011. If we need a QB and we're in position to draft it next year, take Luck, hope Gabbert comes out, or trade down for Ponder (who may fall because he's not an overwhelming athlete). Just no to Locker in any way, shape or form, unless we draft him in the middle of the draft and convert him to H-Back.

with marginal physical gifts

"and"

Brady has marginal physical gifts. So does Brees.

patchy throwing mechanics

Rivers and Schaub had mechanics issues coming in. (BIG mechanics issues in the case of Rivers). So did Warner, apparently. Mechanics issues are some of the most fixable parts of a QB's game (just ask Jason Campbell) in any case.

average accuracy and below average timing

I'm sorry...you are like the only one who believes this. You may be right, but I can't find anything that suggests that his accuracy is being severely overrepresented by the numbers.

, and an awful record against a creampuff schedule where he never beat anybody and got to pad his stats because half his schedule constituted some of the worse passing defenses in the country in his one and only good season.

I thought his junior season was at least decent. Yeah, yeah, the competition argument, but 25 TDs, 17 Int with a worse supporting cast doesn't strike me as a bad season.

Even so, Peyton Manning had a tendency to lose big games at Tennessee.

Cutler had a terrible record at Vandy, and while you may say "duh, it's Vandy", he still was terrible at Vandy.

[ArmchairRedskin]

You're basing your assessment on a what if contingency. I can just as easily say Brees would have floundered amidst our organizational dysfunction and would be on IR or a new team by now. Both are equally valid in the realm of possibility and I doubt anyone could pose a convincing probability argument for or against my position or yours. The only facts there are to go on are that we've had three head coaches and four different primary play callers in the time Drew Brees has been with the Saints.

But yet you can make a claim that not even Brees would have succeeded here based on your own personal "what if" scenario and I can't? Both scenarios are what ifs.

No they shouldn't draft Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen at 4 because they aren't very good prospects and they aren't better prospects than Anthony Davis, Russell Okung, or Bryan Bulaga. The fact that Allen and Shanahan have missed on so many first rounders before should just make us more cautious as fans at accepting their decisions, particularly in selecting a quarterback instead of an offensive lineman because the position is inherently more difficult to scout and project. Rich Tandler wrote an article about this recently: in the past decade, more first round QBs have busted per capita than first round offensive linemen. That's incontrovertible fact.

Says who? Who says they're not very good prospects? You? Now you're just making stuff up.

And who cares about stats? If you go by those stats then nobody would ever pick a QB first round. Stop being ridiculous.

By the way, here's what Mayock said about the Lions picking Stafford last year. It just goes to show you that there is hardly ever a total conscensus on a QB.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2009/03/10/could-drafting-matt-stafford-be-a-5-year-mistake-for-the-detroit/#cntnt

Mayock said that if the Lions make a mistake at quarterback with that pick, "they won't recover for five years.''

Mayock spoke very highly of Stafford, saying he has great arm strength and is a good athlete, but also said "There are some things about him that bother me. If I was the Lions, I'd take (Aaron) Curry or one of those left tackles (Jason Smith or Eugene Monroe).

"If you have any doubts about the kid, in my opinion, you have to pass. I told everybody last year that Matt Ryan was the guy. I have questions about the guy this year.''

You think the Lions are regretting taking Stafford? I think Stafford can be really good. For instance, if Shanahan and company were to all walk into Detroit next season and take over for them, I'd have very little doubt that he'd become a really good QB.

You think Miami might be a little mad at themselves that they passed on Matt Ryan and opted instead to go for the first round OT, second round QB route?

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I will ask only 1 question, where in my post did I state that Jason Campbell was better than Big Ben? You threw out stats for Dilfer and you also stated that you can't win in this leagues these days with the blueprint of the 2000 Ravens, and I showed you where Big Ben stats where not that great in 2008, and they where comparible to Jason Campbell.

I never said once that JC was better than Big Ben, but yes you can win in this league often with a great or even a good defense, and a running game see uhhh.............Mark Sanchez for instance in "todays" NFL.

See the Giants who's defensive line man handled one of the best OLINE and QB's todays NFL has ever seen " Tom Brady and the undefeated up until that point New England Patriots". And don't say Eli Manning who threw up a prayer and the WR made the MVP play of that game.

Was it Jake Delhome who took the Panthers to the Super Bowl or was it that stellar defense? See how bad Jake Delhome looks now with no real supporting cast and a not so good defense to give them the ball back on a short field? Dude there are tooo many examples of "Defense wins Championships" for me to even entertain this QB garbage.

Name ALL the "Franchise QB's" in the league right now that has more than 2 Superbowls to their name besides Tom Brady? It takes way more than a great QB, it take the rest of the puzzle being put together before Superbowls are won and that would be called the "TRENCHES".

Most if not ALL Superbowl teams have had consistant OLINE and DLINE play for years, not swapping around every year because the OLINE as a unit can never make it through a whole season together. We need to go OLINE to anchor this team then think about a QB..............

RED06

Eli made some amazing plays in that Super Bowl but their Defense was very good that night also. Eli stepped up that whole post season that year. Eli led the Giants on some big wins throughout that Super Bowl run that year. I would still take Eli over JC any day of the week.

Pittsburg never has had a good OLine. Big Ben has won 2 super bowls and he is a Franchise QB point blank. Big Ben may not have had the stats in 2008 but he it’s his intangibles that what’s makes him so good. Look at what he did at the end of the Super Bowl that year? Has JC every done anything like before? I don't think so.

I would take Sanchez over JC any day of the week point blank. Sanchez may had a strong running game along with a very stout defense all season but the intangibles are there along with his leadership and that’s more then what I can say about JC.

When you are drafting at 4 and as Mike Mayock have stated if you think that Bradford or Clausen is that Franchise QB you take him. If Shanny and Allen thinks that either of them are I will be ok with that as long as they take care of the needs of the O Line later in the draft and via Free Agency. Rome was not built in the day. This is the QB driven league and it has been proven time in time again that you need that big play QB. When are you JC apologist going to wake up and realize that JC is not the answer?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

The 2000 Ravens were arguably better than any defense in the NFL before or since (though there were a few defense that were close - like the 2002 Bucs and 2008 Steelers, who gave up a few more points but produced more sacks and turnovers). You cannot use that argument. Period.

I never said once that JC was better than Big Ben, but yes you can win in this league often with a great or even a good defense, and a running game see uhhh.............Mark Sanchez for instance in "todays" NFL.

The same team that went 9-7 and was a thrown game away from missing the playoffs? They will likely miss the playoffs again if Sanchez doesn't make a big jump in production.

See the Giants who's defensive line man handled one of the best OLINE and QB's todays NFL has ever seen " Tom Brady and the undefeated up until that point New England Patriots". And don't say Eli Manning who threw up a prayer and the WR made the MVP play of that game.

The same line that gave up more sacks than us in 2008? And a single great defensive performance does not discount the overall point.

In fact, using playoff performance as a way to make your point is pretty shaky. Single-elimination ANYTHING is not a way to determine consistency over time, and it's geared towards defense because a defensive gameplan can screw over a powerful offense for one game. If NFL games were 7-game series, then guys like Peyton and Brady would win more consistently.

Was it Jake Delhome who took the Panthers to the Super Bowl or was it that stellar defense?

Delhomme had 29 TDs that Super Bowl year. Try again.

See how bad Jake Delhome looks now with no real supporting cast and a not so good defense to give them the ball back on a short field?

Or could it be that he's washed up? The Panthers were 9th in scoring defense and 8th in yards allowed btw.

They were also the 3rd best rushing team in football, and yet finished 8-8 with Delhomme throwing 3 TDs and 13 INTs but THE QUARTERBACK IS A PRODUCT OF EVERYONE ELSE RIGHT?

Name ALL the "Franchise QB's" in the league right now that has more than 2 Superbowls to their name besides Tom Brady? It takes way more than a great QB, it take the rest of the puzzle being put together before Superbowls are won and that would be called the "TRENCHES".

Ben Roethlisberger. So yeah, franchise QBs make up half of the SBs this decade. Kurt Warner has been to 3 and won 1.

Peyton Manning has one too. Let's also throw in Drew Brees.

Your "defense wins championships and QBs don't matter" isn't looking so hot now, is it?

[The Tris]

I think the most damning argument of all is that, as good as Sam Bradford is, can anyone tell me definitively why he's much better than Colt McCoy? Why is he worth the fourth overall pick and McCoy is a second rounder at best?

Bradford has a stronger arm, a larger frame, and is taller than McCoy, a lot of McCoy's game was based on zone reads and designed QB runs that will not translate, McCoy can not make every throw and has a weak deep ball, he almost always threw to his first read and locked in on WRs, and has never operated from under center (Bradford at least has limited experience here, McCoy has NONE).

I saw you write this else-where, but it's absolutely ridiculous to call Jason Smith a bust after 7 mixed bag starts in a season that was cut short by injury. And he was moved to RT in order to ease his transition to the NFL with the plan that he'd move to LT once Alex Barron's contract ran out.

I am going off a couple things I have read, notably Daniel Jeremiah who recognizes that Smith doesn't have the natural bend and ability to adjust that is required of a LT. Sure he might be able develop these skills, but isn't the main argument of most OT supporters is that they will instantly impact this team...that a top tackle taken will be able to step in immediately and transform the line? While the QB is going to be the position that will take time to develop.

And I for one actually think this OT class is comparable to '09's in terms of its big five versus '09's big four. And the interior line class is comparable too and much deeper. But this is beside your point.

I do too...thats why I think that a upper echlon tackle can be found in the later part of the first round or second round. You can wait on a LT and get a Rodger Saffold and look to upgrade at G and RT in the later rounds.

Do you seriously think Okung, Davis, and Bulaga aren't unequivocally safer prospects as individuals than either Bradford or Clausen? You are too sensible to disagree with this.

I think that with the QB position there are inherant risks not associated with any other position that always makes them riskier prospects, Bradford and Clausen are no exception. The fall back for a LT is, oh we can move them to RT or G, they might have a second life if they bust. Still, I don't think a good value for the #4 pick is a RT. If the QB busts? Tough ****. If you put a gun to my head and say, of those 5 prospects, which is still playing football in 7 years, I go with a tackle. If you ask me which is most likely to be instrumental in altering the direction of a franchise...gotta be QB.

We can get our QB eventually, it doesn't have to be this year. You can't fight the draft board and wishing a franchise QB was there when we pick high so we can hurry up and get back to contention doesn't make one available. Patience and risk management are essential parts of team-building.

I know we are going to get a QB eventually. It might not be this year, it might not be next, it might not be for a long time, but eventually we will hit on one. But I like what Bradford, and to a lesser extent Clausen, bring to the table. I think you would be hard pressed to find some one on here that would not take one of them with the 20th pick. You can build a team around these guys. But picking in the top 10 is scary, even more so the top 5. And the fear of making a mistake can lead to picking not to make a mistake. Like playing not to lose, thats the wrong strategy. Patience is a virtue when it comes to team building, but if it is extended to over-cautiousness, it becomes a vice. It is a delicate balance between risk and reward, and I am of the opinion where we have reached the point where the upside outweighs the downside.

[fansince62]

Flacco benefits from an awesome defense and punishing offensive line and running game. So based on that, I would say yes Bradford can pull a Flacco, however our defense won't constantly bail him out and we don't have a running game and offensive line for him to lean on like Flacco did.

true dat....but remember...just under two years ago...the Ravens o-line was in shambles and had to be rebuilt entirely.

[Ryman of the North]

I think Mayock hedged his bets by saying IF YOU think Bradford is a franchise type player. I would definately check around and make damn sure my scouts knew their stuff, when it comes to QB's im not so sure we do. I could have told you that Campbell would be a solid ot above average journeyman.

[NorthEast Skin]

Mayock's statements are non-statements. There are a lot of 'ifs' in there. He is really saying nothing.

[Mooka]

You're basing your assessment on a what if contingency. I can just as easily say Brees would have floundered amidst our organizational dysfunction and would be on IR or a new team by now. Both are equally valid in the realm of possibility and I doubt anyone could pose a convincing probability argument for or against my position or yours. The only facts there are to go on are that we've had three head coaches and four different primary play callers in the time Drew Brees has been with the Saints.

We don't have 3 head coaches and 4 different playcallers if Drew Brees is our QB.

Brees would flourish in an Al Saunders passing system or any WCO. He's bred for it and has the best combination of a mental timing clock and field vision then any QB in the NFL. Campbell doesn't seem to fit in either.

[Going Commando]

But yet you can make a claim that not even Brees would have succeeded here based on your own personal "what if" scenario and I can't? Both scenarios are what ifs.

Perhaps you missed where I acknowledged this in the paragraph you quoted:

You're basing your assessment on a what if contingency. I can just as easily say Brees would have floundered amidst our organizational dysfunction and would be on IR or a new team by now. Both are equally valid in the realm of possibility and I doubt anyone could pose a convincing probability argument for or against my position or yours. The only facts there are to go on are that we've had three head coaches and four different primary play callers in the time Drew Brees has been with the Saints.

Says who? Who says they're not very good prospects? You? Now you're just making stuff up.

Yes says me. It's my opinion and its based on extensive observation. I've also given several specific reasons for why I think they are poor prospects in this very thread. Why don't you tell me why you think they are good prospects?

And who cares about stats? If you go by those stats then nobody would ever pick a QB first round. Stop being ridiculous.

Whenever people try and throw statistical evidence out the window, it's usually because their position is in direct opposition to facts conveyed by the statistics. Ignoring an entire type of evidence that seems to challenge your conclusions seems the more ridiculous approach to me. You know, the more shrill you get in your responses, the weaker it makes your position seem.

You think the Lions are regretting taking Stafford?

I think it's too early to tell one way or the other if the Lions will regret taking Stafford. And as promising as he was in a few games, I think you can call his season last year a success only by the standards attributed to rookie QBs.

I think Stafford can be really good. For instance, if Shanahan and company were to all walk into Detroit next season and take over for them, I'd have very little doubt that he'd become a really good QB.

That's speculation that can never be proven. Also Jim Schwartz is an excellent coach, if Stafford can't succeed with him then the chances are he couldn't succeed with anyone. I actually think Stafford was a really good prospect and Mayock had him ranked consistently around 10-15 so he thought so too. I think Stafford was a far better prospect than Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are. But we aren't talking about us drafting Matt Stafford. We're talking about us drafting Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen. Mayock says if you have serious doubts about a guy then you should pass on him. I don't see how any reasonable observer doesn't have serious doubts about Clausen and Bradford as prospects.

You think Miami might be a little mad at themselves that they passed on Matt Ryan and opted instead to go for the first round OT, second round QB route?

Not really since they like Chad Henne and Jake Long was the second best offensive tackle in the league last year while Matt Ryan had a sophomore slump. Again, it's still much too early to tell one way or the other what they should have done in the draft.

[Rocky21]

I have nothing new to add here. I'll just repeat what I saw several other posters have stated. I agree with Moyock if you believe there's a franchise quarterback available at No. 4, you take him. I don't believe either is a franchise quarterback. Neither is a Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Peton Manning, Matt Schaub.

I hope we trade back and get more picks but if we don't I don't see either of these guys as worth the # 4 pick in the draft.