Washington Post poll - vast majority want OL drafted

[The Tris]

Look in the mirror. You think a 2nd round pick can play 4 positions? Or did you forget that we only have 1 guy that started alst year that was anything better than "terrible"? And yet you want to throw lower round picks at it, like we have done in the past (with horrid results) and expect a different outcome? That is the definition of insanity right there.

Colts:

LT Johnson, 6th 2006

LG Lilija, UDFA 2004

C Saturday, UDFA 1998

RG DeVan, UDFA 2008 (by the Redskins originally FWIW)

RT Diem, 4th 2001

Saints:

LT Bushrod, 4th 2007

LG Nicks, 5th 2008

C Goodwin, 5th 2002

RG Evans, 4th 2006

RT Stinchcomb, 2nd 2003

Cardinals:

LT Gandy, 3rd 2001

LG Wells, 6th 2003

C Sendlein, UDFA 2007

RG Lutui, 2nd 2006

RT Brown, 1st 2007

Steelers:

LT Starks, 3rd 2004

LG Kemoeatu, 6th 2005

C Hartwig, 6th 2002

RG Stapleton, UDFA 2007

RT Colon, 4th 2006

Past 4 teams in the Super Bowl, one 1st round OL, and he was a LT bust moved to RT.

It is possible to build a line without first rounders, and with late round picks. Insanity would be not addressing the line yet again...that has been our problem, no picks WHATSOEVER on the line, and the reason we are in the position we are now, b/c none of the late and UDFA picks that all teams make at the OL are seasoned up and becoming starters. We didn't use to rely on lower round picks - we just didn't make any, and when an aging starter got injured, we were screwed.

Rather than overreact and ignore any other postion of need and draft all OL all day, we can begin the multi-year process of stocking our roster with talented capable OL as most successful teams do. We need to make a long term and responsible commitment to building the line, not just make a show out of it by using every pick this year on the line, while ignoring our many other holes. This problem isn't going to get solved in one year, and isn't going to be solved with the #4 pick. So lets not compound the draft mistakes of our past by overreacting and picking need over value. And in this draft, there is SIGNIFICANT OL value after the first round.

[elkabong82]

Yes, let's draft a LT at #4, that will make us good.

Just forget about the last 10 years when when we had a great LT and crappy QBs. This time, the LT is going to carry us to the Super Bowl.

there's 52 other players on the roster. but you're right, LOT isn't important at all, which is why it never gets drafted high.

we had a great LOT for the past several years, but the team as a whole, with 52 other players, hasn't been that good, and that somehow negates the importance of having a good LOT? That's a pretty ignorant conclusion to make, and seems to be one you could only make if your agenda lies elsewhere and you're trying to twist reality into compliance.

[Annonymous Source]

If this poll had included the option to trade down then that would have been the easy winner. No one pick can fix the problems with our offense. We are probably going to have 6 new opening day starters on our offense alone, and most of those positions are currently gaping holes or at least giant (?). A new left tackle will not fix our O-Line, but just look at how well the Jets did with no passing game whatsoever as a model of how defense and running can win games in the NFL. It is time to stop making the flashy picks and make more restrained picks that are meant to help the team 3-5 years down the road.

[War Paint]

This is our one chance to draft a legit franchise QB. Ramsey and JC were reaches. Most scouts had Ramsey as a 2nd or 3rd rounder, same with JC. We have a very high pick and we might not get another pick this high for a long time, because for the most part, the Skins have been on average an 8-8 team. Unless Shanahan doesn't think Clausen or Bradford has it, we have to take a QB.

We need help on oline, but I think it would be a huge mistake if spend our #4 overall on the line. We have to get a legit QB. If we don't, we'll be last in the NFC East for a long time.

What I'm hoping for is that we draft a QB in the first round, hopefully trade JC for a third or wishfully thinking a second rounder, and spend the rest of our picks on the oline.

[elkabong82]

Past 4 teams in the Super Bowl, one 1st round OL, and he was a LT bust moved to RT.

It is possible to build a line without first rounders, and with late round picks. Insanity would be not addressing the line yet again...that has been our problem, no picks WHATSOEVER on the line, and the reason we are in the position we are now, b/c none of the late and UDFA picks that all teams make at the OL are not seasoned up and becoming starters. We didn't use to rely on lower round picks - we just didn't make any, and when an aging started got injured, we were screwed.

Rather than overreact and ignore any other postion of need and draft all OL all day, we can begin the multi-year process of stocking our roster with talented capable OL as most successful teams do. We need to make a long term and responsible commitment to building the line, not just make a show out of it by using every pick this year on the line, while ignoring our many other holes. This problem isn't going to get solved in one year, and isn't going to be solved with the #4 pick. So lets not compound the draft mistakes of our past by overreacting and picking need over value. And in this draft, there is SIGNIFICANT OL value after the first round.

The examples you give are teams who have established veteran QBs, and teams who did not need to completely rebuild their OL. The Colts previously had a 1st round LT protecting Manning, for example, but the OL group gelled over the years and the system stayed succesful, so OL didn't need as high of an investment by that point.

You can't simply look at the OLs of other teams and say that because they had success with low picks and UDFAs that we will as well employing that same strategy. We've done it and it didn't work because we never replenished our good OL group we started with like the others did.

We need a good OL, we need new starters at almost every position. So some will be stop gaps for now. But as we build the OL up, it would make more sense, to me, to add a couple high-quality pieces as the guarantee of them contributing is much greater than the lower round picks.

Redskins in 2005 gave us a great season because of how solid our OL was. Mark Brunell put up a Probowl-worthy year statistically and CP broke the franchise record for rush yds in a season. We drafted the bookends on that OL, as well as the LG, and the C and RG were 2 solid FAs we brought in. Had we not traded away so many damn picks over the years, we might have been able to invest mid-round picks and replenish the line by grooming eventual new starters, but that never happened and our OL crumbled as a result.

The 4 OLs you brought up were not built like that from day 1. They grew over time and changed over time into what they are today. We need to start out with a solid group. Looking at OLs that are in "step 5" of their plan and saying we should do that step means skipping the first 4 steps, which means ignoring what those other teams did to get to that 5th step in the first place.

[Botched]

there's 52 other players on the roster. but you're right, LOT isn't important at all, which is why it never gets drafted high.

we had a great LOT for the past several years, but the team as a whole, with 52 other players, hasn't been that good, and that somehow negates the importance of having a good LOT? That's a pretty ignorant conclusion to make, and seems to be one you could only make if your agenda lies elsewhere and you're trying to twist reality into compliance.

Like I said, keep on pretending the last 10 years didn't happen.

At times in the past decade we have had great o lines, great receivers, great RBs, and great defenses. Never had anything close to a great QB. Didn't work out so well and now you want to do it again.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Yes, let's draft a LT at #4, that will make us good.

Just forget about the last 10 years when when we had a great LT and crappy QBs. This time, the LT is going to carry us to the Super Bowl.

exactly. i mean our passing game really benefited from him being here. imagine if samuels hadnt been here the last decade, our passing game might have been even worse! (if thats possible).

[Rocky21]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/redskinsinsider/mike-shanahan/redskins-first-question-center.html

Current WaPo poll results here.

[Rocky21]

That asshat Cerrato put us in this position.

Even when he's gone, he's still dividing us.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Like I said, keep on pretending the last 10 years didn't happen.

At times in the past decade we have had great o lines, great receivers, great RBs, and great defenses. Never had anything close to a great QB. Didn't work out so well and now you want to do it again.

denial isnt just a river in egypt dude.

its amazing though that weve had top flight players come and go at pretty much every position and the only position we havent had work out is QB, yet people still wanna just keep treading water with the garbage we currently have.

[Botched]

Colts:

LT Johnson, 6th 2006

LG Lilija, UDFA 2004

C Saturday, UDFA 1998

RG DeVan, UDFA 2008 (by the Redskins originally FWIW)

RT Diem, 4th 2001

Saints:

LT Bushrod, 4th 2007

LG Nicks, 5th 2008

C Goodwin, 5th 2002

RG Evans, 4th 2006

RT Stinchcomb, 2nd 2003

Cardinals:

LT Gandy, 3rd 2001

LG Wells, 6th 2003

C Sendlein, UDFA 2007

RG Lutui, 2nd 2006

RT Brown, 1st 2007

Steelers:

LT Starks, 3rd 2004

LG Kemoeatu, 6th 2005

C Hartwig, 6th 2002

RG Stapleton, UDFA 2007

RT Colon, 4th 2006

Past 4 teams in the Super Bowl, one 1st round OL, and he was a LT bust moved to RT.

And what's really ironic is that we had more first rounders on our o line last year than all of those teams combined.

[elkabong82]

Like I said, keep on pretending the last 10 years didn't happen.

At times in the past decade we have had great o lines, great receivers, great RBs, and great defenses. Never had anything close to a great QB. Didn't work out so well and now you want to do it again.

Hey, we had some great MLBs over those years as well, including Pierce and Fletcher. But we were bad then too, so I guess that means MLB isn't important.

We also had high quality coaches over those years, for the most part, but since we weren't that good overall, I guess that means we need to get a low quality coach.

Hey, we've also had a top rated defense for many of those years, so I guess that means we shouldn't worry about defense being good, since it "didn;t work" before.

I'm not pretending the last 10 years didn't happen. But I'm also not ignorant enough to discount the good players we did have, or the importnace of their position, because of the collective performances of a roster of 53 not performing well over that span.

[elkabong82]

So many used to complain about our lack of drafting OL, and that we needed to replenish it, and that the Patriots were a great example because they drafted so many OL.

Odd that some of those same people are now trying to devalue OL because of the QB agenda.

Didn't the FO used to get bashed for not drafting OL on the first day in a decade? Now all of a sudden it isn;t important or necessary to some of those same complainers. Odd...

[authentic]

Colts:

LT Johnson, 6th 2006

LG Lilija, UDFA 2004

C Saturday, UDFA 1998

RG DeVan, UDFA 2008 (by the Redskins originally FWIW)

RT Diem, 4th 2001

Saints:

LT Bushrod, 4th 2007

LG Nicks, 5th 2008

C Goodwin, 5th 2002

RG Evans, 4th 2006

RT Stinchcomb, 2nd 2003

Cardinals:

LT Gandy, 3rd 2001

LG Wells, 6th 2003

C Sendlein, UDFA 2007

RG Lutui, 2nd 2006

RT Brown, 1st 2007

Steelers:

LT Starks, 3rd 2004

LG Kemoeatu, 6th 2005

C Hartwig, 6th 2002

RG Stapleton, UDFA 2007

RT Colon, 4th 2006

Past 4 teams in the Super Bowl, one 1st round OL, and he was a LT bust moved to RT.

It is possible to build a line without first rounders, and with late round picks. Insanity would be not addressing the line yet again...that has been our problem, no picks WHATSOEVER on the line, and the reason we are in the position we are now, b/c none of the late and UDFA picks that all teams make at the OL are seasoned up and becoming starters. We didn't use to rely on lower round picks - we just didn't make any, and when an aging starter got injured, we were screwed.

Rather than overreact and ignore any other postion of need and draft all OL all day, we can begin the multi-year process of stocking our roster with talented capable OL as most successful teams do. We need to make a long term and responsible commitment to building the line, not just make a show out of it by using every pick this year on the line, while ignoring our many other holes. This problem isn't going to get solved in one year, and isn't going to be solved with the #4 pick. So lets not compound the draft mistakes of our past by overreacting and picking need over value. And in this draft, there is SIGNIFICANT OL value after the first round.

Thanks for proving my point bro. Good analysis.

[StillUnknown]

Yes, let's draft a LT at #4, that will make us good.

Just forget about the last 10 years when when we had a great LT and crappy QBs. This time, the LT is going to carry us to the Super Bowl.

quoted for emphasis

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

So many used to complain about our lack of drafting OL, and that we needed to replenish it, and that the Patriots were a great example because they drafted so many OL.

Odd that some of those same people are now trying to devalue OL because of the QB agenda.

Didn't the FO used to get bashed for not drafting OL on the first day in a decade? Now all of a sudden it isn;t important or necessary to some of those same complainers. Odd...

the patriots have 1 offensive lineman that was taken in the first round, and he was the last pick of the first round, and hes a guard, not a tackle. all their other guys are 2nd rounders and beyond that.

so somehow its still having an agenda when you want to take an OT with the 4th pick in the 2nd round?

thats odd alright!

[artmonkforHOF]

why are people so hell bent on drafting OL in the first round? We still have a high 2nd round pick where OL can be addressed or we can trade down our 2nd round pick to aquire an extra 2 or 3 picks to draft OL. Closed mindedness can cause one to become irrational.

becasue I would rather miss on a OT at #4 than a QB. The QB will be given far more time to prove himself and if he does not pan out, it can set your franchise back 10 years. If you miss on a stud LT, then you can move him to RT, LG or even back up LT and still get on with building your team. You might be overpaying the guy for a few years, but it wont cost you as much as overpaying for a QB.

Also, remember 2 drafts ago, where there where 4 or 5 "first round" tackle prospects, and 8 went off the board in the first round? I can picture that happening again this year, guys with 2nd or 3rd round grades on them will go late in the first since there is such a drop off in talent from the top 7 to the rest of the group. I would be shocked if one of the top 7 OT is available with the #37 pick.

[grego]

i dont think i see many people (any) saying a LT is going to make us a SB team. just that its a major need at the moment. and another tackle, G and C may be necessary as well. lots of needs on the line.

i think most see a tackle as a bigger problem at the moment than a QB. although i'm personally not opposed to bradford at #4, i dont know how well he'd do if we cant get a decent tackle or 2 at the very least.

[fansince62]

Califan's poll had 75% preferring trade down or draft OL at #4, IIRC

it's really just a very vocal minority that want the other option, IMO

ells bells....why not poll ES for every move the Skins should make? Why have Shanny/Allen involved at all? afterall, one always gets at the truth by following the pack!!!

[Mahons21]

We need to upgrade desperately at both positions. Most will agree to that. Campbell is not the answer, nor is Levi Jones. Fact of the matter is, we can use our first round draft pick on a QB and still attain a good LT prospect out of this draft. Unlike there QB position, where in most experts opinion there is a substantial drop off after the Top 2 QB's. A hypothetical draft could easily be;

1st: QB, 2nd: LT, 4th: DB, 5th G, 6th T, 7th T. If such a draft were to occur, wouldn't everyone agree that we working on addressing the o-line. Even if we didn't take an Okung/Davis.

[fansince62]

i dont think i see many people (any) saying a LT is going to make us a SB team. just that its a major need at the moment. and another tackle, G and C may be necessary as well. lots of needs on the line.

i think most see a tackle as a bigger problem at the moment than a QB. although i'm personally not opposed to bradford at #4, i dont know how well he'd do if we cant get a decent tackle or 2 at the very least.

you need to widen the aperture...that's why you can't see the possibility. fixing the line is a 2 year project - not going to be done this year alone. it doesn't have to be done with first round picks - there is too much evidence from elite tems with lines built from mid/low draft picks, undrafted rookies, FAs and trades to think otherwise. additionally, the line doesn't have to be staffed with future pro-bowlers. it needs to be manned by athletes who have the abilities, intellect and team skills Shanahan is looking for in his scheme.

the whole subject has gotten tireseom. I'll roll with whatever shanny/allen decide to do...understanding that they are somewhat boxed in this year in terms of options.

[skinsdude]

Who we draft with our 4th pick will be determined largely on how successful we are in free agency. I think that if we are able to obtain one or more O-lineman in free agency, will will go QB.

[The Tris]

So many used to complain about our lack of drafting OL, and that we needed to replenish it, and that the Patriots were a great example because they drafted so many OL.

Didn't the FO used to get bashed for not drafting OL on the first day in a decade? Now all of a sudden it isn;t important or necessary to some of those same complainers. Odd...

This issue is not about drafting OL vs not drafting OL, this issue is that in a draft that is so deep at OT, is the best move for rebuilding the entire offense really using the #4 pick on a OT? Especially when one who is marginally if not as attractive a prospect can be found with our second pick, or even by trading back into the first round.

If we only had one draft pick this whole draft, OT is the pick all day long in my book. But with multiple picks and potentially even more from trades, our hand is not forced at #4 to take a tackle. What if Okung or who ever you have rated as the #1 tackle prospect gets taken before we pick, do you still take the next best OT just because it is a need? No, you take the best player for our scheme. And maybe thats a tackle, maybe thats a QB, or maybe we trade down if we get an attractive offer. But to pound the table one way or the other and say this HAS to be our pick is stupid, reactionary, and shortsighted.

[elkabong82]

the patriots have 1 offensive lineman that was taken in the first round, and he was the last pick of the first round, and hes a guard, not a tackle. all their other guys are 2nd rounders and beyond that.

so somehow its still having an agenda when you want to take an OT with the 4th pick in the 2nd round?

thats odd alright!

oops, meant trenches with the Pats, but you were active in those threads and you know what I am talking about. You used to bash the FO up and down for not taking an OL on the first draft day (rd 1 and 2) in a decade, many did.

But again, now you and others have magically switched your thinking to "OL can be drafted low."

It's an agenda when you back the notion that LOT doesn't need to be a 1st rdr based on 2 flawed pieces of evidence. The first being the recent Superbowl teams having low rd OL, the second being we weren't good with Samuels.

When you ignore what those other teams did to get their OLs to that point, you assume that all their investments have been low rounds and UDFAs, and you assume that was the group the team first started having success under. Really, the team has been succesfull so the OL gelled and lower round guys not only had longer to learn, but we're learning from solid players. Once the QBs of those teams had become comfortable and established themselves, it also made the OLs job easier, thus lower round OL can be possible.

You want a new QB, but do you think a patchwork OL is the best situation for that QB? Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Roethlisberger, all started off initially behind OLs with much higher investments in them than the OLs the play behind today.

I don;t think I even need to get further into just how ignorant the Chris Samuels argument is. I'm actually pretty surprised you supported a notion that blatantly flawed, and that others are supporting it as well.

You may still think I'm a JC "lover" "apologist" whatever. Again though, keep this in mind when reading my posts here: I am not dedicated to any 1 player, I am dedicated to the team. I think JC is our best option right now, but if Shanny drafts Bradford/Clausen it's because he believes in them, and that's enough for me to support them.

Can you honestly say you'd check your own ego/opinion and support Shanny if his decisions don't vibe with what you want? You said you'd give 3 years of no ****ing if we got a GM...

[grego]

you need to widen the aperture...that's why you can't see the possibility. fixing the line is a 2 year project - not going to be done this year alone. it doesn't have to be done with first round picks - there is too much evidence from elite tems with lines built from mid/low draft picks, undrafted rookies, FAs and trades to think otherwise. additionally, the line doesn't have to be staffed with future pro-bowlers. it needs to be manned by athletes who have the abilities, intellect and team skills Shanahan is looking for in his scheme.

the whole subject has gotten tireseom. I'll roll with whatever shanny/allen decide to do...understanding that they are somewhat boxed in this year in terms of options.

i'm all for picking up starting telent in later rounds, and i think between allen and shanny, it can be done.

i was a little bit encouraged seeing at least 2 guys the skins could use that just got released from denver- the C and a G. i think that would be an instant upgrade. i understand heyer was playing hurt essentially all of last year, so maybe that was a part of his struggles last year, since he's been decent in the past at times.

maybe we'll get lucky and these denver castoffs can make rebuilding the line a little easier.