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

[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?

When are you JC haters going to realize that just because someone make a point that's not bashing JC it doesn't mean we think he's the answer but we're supporting him because he's our starting QB and a decent one that we can win with if we take the time a put this team together.

I ask you this question, what has JC shown you that would make you say he's not the answer? Every QB you've named have had a consistant offensive scheme since they came in the NFL and have been in that system for years before they ever won a Superbowl with the exception of Big Ben. Do you not remember that the fans in NY much like the ones here on ES was screaming get rid of Eli the same year he won the Superbowl?

Fact is this, I like JC as a person and as a QB to whom was given a bad set of cards here in D.C. but through all of that his has improved every year regardless. So if you don't like JC fine, if you do fine.........but that's not going to change the fact that we can win with him, and PLEASE don't say look at his record because I can blast you with Hall of Fame QB's that looked horrible on other teams and then went on to have great careers. Steve Young and Brett Farve to start with.

RED06

[wvtbred]

I ask you this question, what has JC shown you that would make you say he's not the answer?

19-32 lifetime starts

6-18 in last 24 starts

and throwing a Hail Mary 10 yards out of bounds

[pjfootballer]

Even if a good Tackle isn't there at 36, we can go RG and plug Levi Jones in for one year.

[ArmchairRedskin]

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

I didn't miss anything. I'm saying that you're throwing around conjecture to support your opinion.

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?

So you should be saying IN YOUR OPINION they are poor prospects which, of course flies directly in the face of what the consensus is about the guys, which is that they are first round prospects. (McShay's opinion of Clausen notwithstanding.)

The reason I like Bradford is similiar to the reason I liked Sanchez. He performs well against good competition. Sanchez performed really well against Penn State and Bradford performed well against Texas and Florida, depsite the losses. Then you have his overall ridiculous production whether it's out of the spread or from behind center. Then there's the usual things like size, accuracy, respect of his teammates etc..

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.

Shrill, huh? Your arguments are simple. I'm not sure they require more than shrill rebuttals.

You're supporting the idea of not drafting a QB becuase of a higher than OL bust rate. That ignores the fact that a lot of QB indeed DO suceed and when they do, the benefit is a lot higher than it is when an OT succeeds.

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. 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.

What makes you think Schwartz is anything but a good defensive coordinator? What makes you think he knows anything about quarterbacks or even running an offense?

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.

Yeah, you may think Stafford was a better prospect than Bradford, but that sure wasn't the consensus last year. Bradford had a lot of people saying he'd be the first QB taken.

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.

Yeah, you're kidding yourself there. You can find a great OT in any given draft. It's not necessarily true that you can find a great QB. Henne is servicable, but without that wildcat with those two RB's that offense is dead in the water. With Matt Ryan at the helm, there is a lot more upside for them. Especially longterm.

[Going Commando]

I ask you this question, what has JC shown you that would make you say he's not the answer?

I think a more relevant question is "what have either Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford shown us that makes us think they would be more successful than Jason Campbell?" They would have to represent a clear and substantial upgrade over him in order to justify drafting them rather than trying to build a strong supporting cast around Campbell for at least the free year we get with him.

I honestly can't think of many specific ways in which Bradford and Clausen will be better than Campbell already is now. And a lot of the biggest complaints people have about Campbell apply to Bradford and Clausen too such as timidity and lack of leadership qualities (even more pronounced in Bradford) and inaccuracy on his deep passes (marked in Clausen).

[ArmchairRedskin]

I think a more relevant question is "what have either Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford shown us that makes us think they would be more successful than Jason Campbell?" They would have to represent a clear and substantial upgrade over him in order to justify drafting them rather than trying to build a strong supporting cast around Campbell for at least the free year we get with him.

I honestly can't think of many specific ways in which Bradford and Clausen will be better than Campbell already is now. And a lot of the biggest complaints people have about Campbell apply to Bradford and Clausen too such as timidity and lack of leadership qualities (even more pronounced in Bradford) and inaccuracy on his deep passes (marked in Clausen).

Here's what KC Joyner said about Clausen

Clausen also displayed superb accuracy on the long passes that require more arc than the deep out. He was one for two on the corner route and would have been two for two if not for a dropped pass. Clausen also completed the only deep post route he threw.

Throwing into high traffic areas also was an area of strength for Clausen, something that is evidenced by his seven completions in eight attempts on deep in passes.

[Gregpeck99]

The Skins will never compete successfully in the NFCEast without an upgrade at QB ... I don't care how many super stars you get to surround the incumbent. I'm sick and tired of losing and being laughed at as a Skins fan. If you like losing and enjoy boring football Campbell is perfect!

[Morneblade]

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.

In reference to Clausen? Hardly, which is whom I was refering to. As for Bradford, Spread Offense is the big ?, as well as playing behind a dominante OL.

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.

I agree

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.

Well, I say throw him to the wolves if we draft him. If Campbell is half as bad as some people say he is, Bradford should be able to do better as a rook with our OL.

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.

I like his footwork when he is not pressured. It's the "read" stuff tha bothers me.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

When are you JC haters going to realize that just because someone make a point that's not bashing JC it doesn't mean we think he's the answer but we're supporting him because he's our starting QB and a decent one that we can win with if we take the time a put this team together.

I ask you this question, what has JC shown you that would make you say he's not the answer? Every QB you've named have had a consistant offensive scheme since they came in the NFL and have been in that system for years before they ever won a Superbowl with the exception of Big Ben. Do you not remember that the fans in NY much like the ones here on ES was screaming get rid of Eli the same year he won the Superbowl?

Fact is this, I like JC as a person and as a QB to whom was given a bad set of cards here in D.C. but through all of that his has improved every year regardless. So if you don't like JC fine, if you do fine.........but that's not going to change the fact that we can win with him, and PLEASE don't say look at his record because I can blast you with Hall of Fame QB's that looked horrible on other teams and then went on to have great careers. Steve Young and Brett Farve to start with.

RED06

Jason Candle is that you?

Seriously JC is not the answer is going to take another 5 years to realize that? Going from 31 best QB to 30 is not the improvement we need. The difference between JC and Favre and Young is that they are both winners. What has JC done in the past five years to say this guy is a winner? When was the last time JC took this team on a 2 min drive to win the game? Lets face it JC is an above average QB and in this league you need that Franchise QB in order to win this league.

Your right JC has been in a bad situation here in DC and that’s why we need to start over fresh with a new QB at the helm. We could go maybe 8-8 or 9-7 with JC at the helm but honestly I would like to go 12-4 or 13-3 and I don’t think we can do that with JC. I like JC as a person I think he is a stand up guy but this is a business and we have to move on from here. I think if we can get something for him I say go for it.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

I think a more relevant question is "what have either Jimmy Clausen or Sam Bradford shown us that makes us think they would be more successful than Jason Campbell?" They would have to represent a clear and substantial upgrade over him in order to justify drafting them rather than trying to build a strong supporting cast around Campbell for at least the free year we get with him.

I honestly can't think of many specific ways in which Bradford and Clausen will be better than Campbell already is now. And a lot of the biggest complaints people have about Campbell apply to Bradford and Clausen too such as timidity and lack of leadership qualities (even more pronounced in Bradford) and inaccuracy on his deep passes (marked in Clausen).

Are you kidding me Bradford is a stud if it wasn't for his shoulder issue. Bradford may not be a stud next year but long term Bradford will be better then Campbell.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Are you kidding me Bradford is a stud if it wasn't for his shoulder issue. Bradford may not be a stud next year but long term Bradford will be better then Campbell.

its hilarious. mcqueen is talking about how he thinks bradford is overrated or has big question marks, yet this is a kid who was considered the consensus #1 overall pick last year had he come out, and he didnt even play his senior season and hes STILL considered a top 10 pick by just about every draft guru.

clausen is up and down in all drafts, but bradford is consistently in the top 10 on every mock ive seen. taking him at 4 isnt a reach at all.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

its hilarious. mcqueen is talking about how he thinks bradford is overrated or has big question marks, yet this is a kid who was considered the consensus #1 overall pick last year had he come out, and he didnt even play his senior season and hes STILL considered a top 10 pick by just about every draft guru.

clausen is up and down in all drafts, but bradford is consistently in the top 10 on every mock ive seen. taking him at 4 isnt a reach at all.

He is the only one who thinks Bradford is overrated. Bradford has one question mark his shoulder. I agree with Clausen I think it would be a reach to take him at 4.

[ArmchairRedskin]

In reference to Clausen? Hardly, which is whom I was refering to. As for Bradford, Spread Offense is the big ?, as well as playing behind a dominante OL.

Yeah its referring to Clausen. He's 6'2 and some change and 225 lbs. Same as Sanchez.

And like I keep repeating about Bradford, he played behind center a lot in his freshman year, and more than you'd think his sophomore year. He's not a pure spread guy like McCoy or Tebow.

[Morneblade]

Yeah its referring to Clausen. He's 6'2 and some change and 225 lbs. Same as Sanchez.

Yeah and that is a negative. I think Sanchez will be a bust in the long run, BTW.

And like I keep repeating about Bradford, he played behind center a lot in his freshman year, and more than you'd think his sophomore year. He's not a pure spread guy like McCoy or Tebow.

And I know that. I'm not worried about his footwork. I think it's quite consistent. It's the other stuff I mentioned. I do think Bradford will be a better pro than Clausen.

[DonMagicJuan]

the love of my life Lindsey Z from nbc4 said HELL no this morning on the junks....no i mean really, she said HELL NO, you fill the needs....Lindsey Czarniak(Sp?) > Mike Mayock....dont know about you guys

[Conn]

the love of my life Lindsey Z from nbc4 said HELL no this morning on the junks....no i mean really, she said HELL NO, you fill the needs....Lindsey Czarniak(Sp?) > Mike Mayock....dont know about you guys

I trust Shanahan and Allen, but trying to just fill needs is how you get ridiculous busts in the top 5/10. You can't afford to reach in that range.

[ArmchairRedskin]

Yeah and that is a negative. I think Sanchez will be a bust in the long run, BTW.

And I know that. I'm not worried about his footwork. I think it's quite consistent. It's the other stuff I mentioned. I do think Bradford will be a better pro than Clausen.

I tend to agree. I think Bradford has the potential to be elite. I like the idea of Shanny and Kyle getting him there. I think it bodes well for him to reach his potential. I think Clausen will probably be good, but not quite at the level of Bradford should they both reach their respective ceilings.

[Sebowski]

I'd have much rather heard if HE thinks Bradford or Clauson are franchise QBs other than, "if they think they are they should take him". That is a much easier thing to say and hide behind.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

here are the 9 top rated tackles in the draft so far:

Anthony Davis

Russell Okung

Brian Baluga

Trent Williams

Bruce Campbell

Charles Brown

Roger Safford

Selvish Capers

Edwin Veldheer

are some of you telling me youd be disappointed in this draft if we took sam bradford and brown, capers, or safford in the 2nd?

[ADF]

I'd have much rather heard if HE thinks Bradford or Clauson are franchise QBs other than, "if they think they are they should take him". That is a much easier thing to say and hide behind.

I agree. Most people would agree with taking a QB, who they believed to be a franchise player, at #4. That's not really saying anything. I get the feeling that he isn't as blown away with Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen as he was with Matt Ryan and Jay Cutler. If he was, then he would have simply said the Skins should take Bradford or Clausen at #4. Heck, he'd probably say the Rams should take one of them.

Personally, I have no idea if either guy will work out. I've never watched either of them play. I'm not someone who is going to pretend to know after watching highlight reels on youtube and reading scouting reports.

[Newera]

The key is will Bradford be better then Campbell.

[MartinC]

I'd have much rather heard if HE thinks Bradford or Clauson are franchise QBs other than, "if they think they are they should take him". That is a much easier thing to say and hide behind.

He has said he thinks Bradford is a franchise QB, assuming he checks out medically. See the transcript of a call with Washington area writers linked below.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/blogs/redskins-confidential/Mayock-Redskins-should-target-Bradford-85130207.html

He thinks Bradford is a legit top 10 pick but has Clausen rated a bit lower.

EDIT: They have trimmed that article down quite a bit from when it was originally posted a couple of days ago. Here is a quote from it which has been taken down.

"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."

[skins2victory]

Um he is NOT agreeing to take a QB at 4.. he is saying if the REDSKINS think there is a franchise QB at 4, they should take him.... hardly breaking news

And there is NOT any QB's in this draft worth spending a 4th on, PASS. Lets trade down!!

[wvtbred]

And there is NOT any QB's in this draft worth spending a 4th on, PASS. Lets trade down!!

Can't disagree more. I think Bradford is the whole package and the upside is huge. Clausen I am torn on and would pass on him waiting for LeFevour.

[blindlywewander]

He is the only one who thinks Bradford is overrated. Bradford has one question mark his shoulder. I agree with Clausen I think it would be a reach to take him at 4.

Absolutely wrong. Plenty of people think Bradford is overrated. He may be a decent qb in the future, but a #4 pick? Not to me.

Also- he has way more than one question mark. The shoulder, his leadership, the system he played in, lack of playing experience, etc. The list is long for a #4 overall pick.

And it's hilarious to me that people are saying 'Well, the fact is he's better than Campbell.' What?! How can you say that? You may have seen highlights from a season and a half in a spread offense IN COLLEGE and you think he's better than a pro QB who's started for years and has improved his numbers every year in the league? Really? Are you serious?