Washington Post poll - vast majority want OL drafted

[grego]

That is the Falcons analysis I have previously done, I can do the Ravens later, but suffice to say, Odgen going into 2008 was like Samuels going into 2010, and they put the future of their franchise behind Gaither, a 5th round supplimentally drafted LT with no starting experience whatsoever who had just flunked out of Maryland.

actually, you did kind of say that their lines werent very good. i dont know. i thought they werent too bad at all.

FO had them ranked 11th and 9th overall. in actual pass pro, bal was ranked 20th and atl was ranked 5th.

(on a side note, i dont necessarily agree with how they have ranked the skins O line. i think they were too generous, actually. but that might be a result of their formula. the other link i posted uses a formula involving negative plays, rushing YPA and 3rd down conversions. campbell was actually 16 in 3rd downs- 1 spot away from a good offensive team like dallas. so, campbell doing well on third downs is added into the equation to make the line much higher than their rush rank and neg play rank. i dont really agree with that.)

but you said they 'succeeded' despite not having good lines. while i think their lines were pretty good, specifically atlantas, their stats were pretty mediocre, to be generous. not horrible for rookies- but not anything to write home about.

they both had top 5 running games, btw. thats doesnt hurt.

heck, even last year, both those guys are seen as having successful years and both had nearly identical stats to our guy. and both were in far better situations than campbell. but i dont want this to get into a campbell war. i've stated that as much as i hate our line, i'm ok with bradford at 4, and campbell may not have what it takes to take us to the next level.

i digress....

[elkabong82]

That is exactly what I am saying in the case of the Falcons. Minimal improvement to a bad line from the season before results in much better overall line play. And I attribute that to an improvement in the QB department.

The Falcons line was excellent in 2008, not so much in 2007...what, Harvey Dahl was the upgrade that propelled the Falcons line from 6th worst to 5th best? Bringing in a 37 year old coming off a blown knee was the improvement that allowed Matt Ryan to blossom? No, the line didn't improve quality wise, but its play did, and that can be attributed to minimal moves and better QB play, not an overhaul of the OL.

Turner's 1700 yds should be considered in that, it took a lot of pressure off of Ryan.

And the Falcons saw their franchise QB and got him, as you and I agree is a good to do when you think you have one. But then the Falcons traded, with us, back into the first round to take Baker. Why? Because they knew they needed some higher investment in OL to help their new QB.

Jenkins stepping up the season before with Redman and Harrington throwing also helped the next season when Ryan was throwing to him.

A new head coach and system was also beneficial.

In other words, there were more changes going on than what you've mentioned which played a role in the Falcon's success.

[The Tris]

actually, you did kind of say that their lines werent very good. i dont know. i thought they werent too bad at all.

they both had top 5 running games, btw. thats doesnt hurt.

heck, even last year, both those guys are seen as having successful years and both had nearly identical stats to our guy. and both were in far better situations than campbell. but i dont want this to get into a campbell war. i've stated that as much as i hate our line, i'm ok with bradford at 4, and campbell may not have what it takes to take us to the next level.

i digress....

Yeah, thats one point to mention, both teams also got a fresh RB that was able to establish a running game. That certainly helps the OL play, and prevents the D from pinning the ears back and teeing off on the QB. When you have to throw every down, it makes a bad line look worse.

It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think its possible to improve line play with improve QB and RB play, as well as improved scheme and game planning. By the end of the year, with what we had on the line, what we had in the back field, and being forced to throw the ball constantly, it was like the perfect storm of OL suck.

[Morneblade]

This what you have scouts for. Imagine the amount of lower round linemen for other teams who have become stand out players. Don't misunderstand me, i'm not saying that OL is not a serious need. But, if the FO is convinced that a QB (hopefully Bradford) is "The Guy", then they should draft him and then surround him with the other pieces.

And if they dont think there is a franchise QB in this draft, what should they do then? I mean, it's certainly not a given, and the only 2 guys that are given a 1st round grade have questionmarks. Draft one anyways, because it will sell jerseys? The problem with your argument is that it also works both ways, but you guys seem to not see that point. It's not like you cant draft a QB outside the 1st round, as you like to say about the 4 positions on the line that need to be filled. Or in FA, since I know there are some people around that think that Vick can actually (laugh) play QB at a higher level than Campbell.

Oh, and if the think Bradford is the next Manning, they SHOULD draft him. I just dont think he is even close to that.

We on the same page now?

[wdcredskins]

];7322624']You don't have to turn into a hater every time you post.

You could have just as easily said' date=' "The last time we drafted a QB in Round One, we ended up with a less-than-successful prospect. We can't handle another QB with a poor Win/Loss record."

But you had to turn this into a JC ****fest. Than we wonder how all of our discussions turn into unintelligent name calling arguments.[/quote']

you coudlve easily said " his win/loss record is misleading.....etc"

but u chose the above route. what did u accomplish? nothing.

perhaps conentrate more on defending candle rather than trying to tell what others should say might make your arguments more compelling.

hey but who i am to tell you what you should say. you have a mind of your own.

[texasthunder]

Good point that should definitely bare consideration. Did the Post give an official number as to how many voted on the poll? Because if the number is large enough than the factors you have mentioned might not be enough to skew the results, same with the Pres. debate stats. At a certain point you have enough data to eliminate skewing and establish general trends. That's why they are able to call states in favor of candidates many times despite only a small number, like 3%, being reported at that time.

Should the Redskins take a quarterback with the No. 4 pick in the draft?

22% yes

77% no

5807 votes.

It doesnt say anything about taking a lineman, it is limited to taking a QB or not.

[grego]

That is exactly what I am saying in the case of the Falcons. Minimal improvement to a bad line from the season before results in much better overall line play. And I attribute that to an improvement in the QB department.

i'm not familiar with their personnel moves on the O line, but turners 1700 yards and 17 TD's probably helped ryan.

but i do know that they brought in a new coach and got rid of a bad one. i am a believer than coaching can make a big difference in player performance- esp being a redskin fan.

but no, i wouldnt say a rookie coming in would be the reason they got better, esp given the above major changes. not ryan anyway, he's not peyton manning.

btw- i wouldnt say sanchez was the reason the jets got to the afc title game either. a great run game and coaching go a long way.

[[[ghost]]]

you coudlve easily said " his win/loss record is misleading.....etc"

but u chose the above route. what did u accomplish? nothing.

perhaps conentrate more on defending candle rather than trying to tell what others should say might make your arguments more compelling.

hey but who i am to tell you what you should say. you have a mind of your own.

I could have, because either argument demonstrates intelligence and doesn't turn into a argument without any logic.

The only thing you accomplished with your post is proving mine right. Call him Candle, call him a loser, because you can.

It's not like you can't make an intelligent debate as to why Campbell is no good. There is plenty of evidence on that. But his critics insist on name calling and branding anyone who decides to defend him. What is the point of this? Nothing ever gets done.

[SoCalSkins]

];7322624']You don't have to turn into a hater every time you post.

You could have just as easily said' date=' "The last time we drafted a QB in Round One, we ended up with a less-than-successful prospect. We can't handle another QB with a poor Win/Loss record."

But you had to turn this into a JC ****fest. Than we wonder how all of our discussions turn into unintelligent name calling arguments.

[/quote']

You would be far more qualified to comment on intelligent discussion if you used "then" and "than" appropriately.

Regardless, the underlying message is the same: Leave JC Alone!!

[elkabong82]

Should the Redskins take a quarterback with the No. 4 pick in the draft?

22% yes

77% no

5807 votes.

It doesnt say anything about taking a lineman, it is limited to taking a QB or not.

I don't think 5800 is a large enough number to accurately represent the Skins fan base.

Yeah, that's funny it only mentions QB yet the OP correlated it to meaning they want OL and everyone ran with it, including me, doh.

I think because the majority of discussions have split our draft possibilities into Bradford/Clausen vs. Okung/Davis, that the OP and others assumed that because 75% said no to QB it means they want OL, when really all it could mean is that 75% of those who voted just aren't sold on Bradford or Clausen.

Honestly though, I think if trading down was put as an option most would go for that, but that's JMO.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

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...

um, i think youre not remembering my original complaint with vinny. it was ignoring the DLINE in the draft, as we hadnt used a 1st day pick on dline since 1997. remember we took jansen, samuels both on day one in 2000 and 2001 and dockery in round 3 of 2003, who were all very very successful here, and in 2006 when i was furious about the dline, both guys were still playing well, especially samuels. our oline really never had major problems until this year, when vinny just let it go too long.

its not a flawed argument about samuels. everyone is saying we need a dominant LT and how thats the first step at building a team. we already had a dominant LT on offense and it got us nowhere because of the lack at QB. put it this way, if you had the chance at a franchise QB or franchise LT, which one is more valuable? can you honestly tell me youd rather have an orlando pace or jonathan ogden over a peyton manning or aaron rodgers? in short, its not necessary to have a bluechip LT on your oline to succeed, however, it is pretty necessary to have a bluechip QB behind center to succeed. look at the playoff teams over the past decade, i think its a pretty proven track record that good QBs get you to the playoffs, not good LTs.

i dont know how taking a tackle at 36 is some sort of neglect. no one is saying "lets wait til round 6". the 36th pick in the draft is still a very high pick and can net a quality lineman. history shows most great QBs are taken early or in the 1st round. you can find good lineman anywhere in the draft, and again, the 36th pick is no slouch pick.

we get bradford, 36th pick tackle, and one more guard, sign a free agent here or there, and maybe leave one hole on the oline for one season. once we have our QB, we can focus on the 1st round blue chipper olineman next year. in two years we could have a young hungry mostly drafted oline blocking for potential stud sam bradford to start 2011. i dont know how this sounds bad to anyone thats a fan of this team.

[grego]

It may seem counterintuitive to some, but I think its possible to improve line play with improve QB and RB play, as well as improved scheme and game planning. By the end of the year, with what we had on the line, what we had in the back field, and being forced to throw the ball constantly, it was like the perfect storm of OL suck.

thats true. i dont think peyton mannings line is as good as 13 sacks a year. he helps them alot, at least in pass protection categories.

[skinsdude]

There's slim pickings in FA, and after 1st and 2nd rd, we have a 4th, 5th, and 7th rd pick. We need a starting LT, C, RG, and RT as it stand right now.

LT/RT would be the 2nd rd, 4th or 5th would net us a guard, then we have to hope a 7th rounder and UDFAs pan out into immediate starters since we'd still have 2 holes on OL. And in that plan we'd have 1 other pick to fill needs in the draft.

So if we draft a QB at 4 and he started this coming season, he'd play behind a rookie LT or RT, the other OT is a stop-gap at best likely (such as Pashos), and the middle is comprised of OGs with upside and either Rabach or an unknown quantity at center, possibly another stop-gap such as Wrigmann.

I think trading down is our best option, but if we don't and we do take a QB at 4, unless Shanny really works his magic to the point of miracles, the OL is going to be suspect and patchwork for the most part. It could work out, but the odds are against it, which puts the new QB in a poor situation, IMO.

I don’t necessarily disagree with all of your post. This draft is short on talent all of the way around outside the top ten. There are a couple of viable O-line candidates in free agency and in the draft. Someone projected to go high in the first round may fall and there are also some O-lineman projected to go in the second. A trade is an option as well. We don’t need a center next year; we are going to resign Rabach. We need to focus on left tackle.

My point is this. We have the 4th overall pick in this year’s draft because we were 4-12 last year. The year before we had the 13 th pick because we finished at 8-8. We are in a position to draft a franchise quarterback this year (assuming Allen and Shanahan want to). Hopefully we do not finish worse than 500 next year. The 13th pick would not get us either of this year’s top 2 quarterbacks.

We have been without a franchise quarterback for over two decades and we can’t afford to go fishing for one outside the first round, especially when we have the 4th overall pick. We have invested 5 years screwing around with Jason and we can’t do it again.

[elkabong82]

You would be far more qualified to comment on intelligent discussion if you used "then" and "than" appropriately.

Regardless, the underlying message is the same: Leave JC Alone!!

No, the underlying message is: learn how to communicate like a mature adult.

Maybe you don't give a **** about the quality of this board, but many of us do and actually believe in holding our discussions and conduct to a higher level just as we demand our players/coaches teams to perform at a higher level. Your posting quality is just as bad, if not worse, as you claim JC's play to be.

Nobody is saying leave JC alone, many of us are saying learn how to communicate your opinion in a logical and somewhat respectable manner. ES is a community and I believe the community at the very least deserves an attempt of betterment.

[[[ghost]]]

You would be far more qualified to comment on intelligent discussion if you used "then" and "than" appropriately.

Regardless, the underlying message is the same: Leave JC Alone!!

Go ahead and pick on the tiny unrelated details, whilst ignoring the obvious.

And nice try to spin my argument, but I clearly stated twice that you have every right to criticize Campbell, because he has major flaws. I was just hoping I could talk you into doing it like on a more intelligent basis.

[grego]

Nobody is saying leave JC alone, many of us are saying learn how to communicate your opinion in a logical and somewhat respectable manner. ES is a community and I believe the community at the very least deserves an attempt of betterment.

thats a good point.

[elkabong82]

My point is this. We have the 4th overall pick in this year’s draft because we were 4-12 last year. The year before we had the 13 th pick because we finished at 8-8. We are in a position to draft a franchise quarterback this year (assuming Allen and Shanahan want to). Hopefully we do not finish worse than 500 next year. The 13th pick would not get us either of this year’s top 2 quarterbacks.

We have been without a franchise quarterback for over two decades and we can’t afford to go fishing for one outside the first round.

Trimmed down your post to take away space being used, but I did read it all.

Good points, and I understand the want for a franchise QB. While I happen to think JC can be that guy as we improve other parts of the team, I fully support Shanny if he drafts a QB.

Personally I am not sold on Bradford, nor Clausen right now. The risk has to be considered, and if you don't want another 5 years like we've had with JC, as you put it, then don't you think we shouldn't be trying to reach for a QB just because we are drafting high as we could wind up down the same road again? Don't you think giving a new QB a better situation than what we've given our past QBs is a good idea?

I have gone through Shuler, Frerotte, Wuerffle, Ramsey, Campbell. Each one of them played for a franchise which lacked proper organization and was marred by constant turnover. None of them was given a stable situation to grow into. I want to make sure that the next time we bring in a QB, he's coming into a stable situation that has already had some success to prove itself.

[[[ghost]]]

No, the underlying message is: learn how to communicate like a mature adult.

Maybe you don't give a **** about the quality of this board, but many of us do and actually believe in holding our discussions and conduct to a higher level just as we demand our players/coaches teams to perform at a higher level. Your posting quality is just as bad, if not worse, as you claim JC's play to be.

Nobody is saying leave JC alone, many of us are saying learn how to communicate your opinion in a logical and somewhat respectable manner. ES is a community and I believe the community at the very least deserves an attempt of betterment.

It's a shame that it's come to this. Gone are the days of debate. Now we just call players we don't like names, same goes for the posters who disagree with that notion.

[elkabong82]

thats a good point.

save for a week or 2 ago in 1 thread, it's why I stay out of the JC threads now. I want the quality of the board to improve, and I don't believe that can happen as long as I, and others, continue to post and argue in those threads.

[grego]

save for a week or 2 ago in 1 thread, it's why I stay out of the JC threads now. I want the quality of the board to improve, and I don't believe that can happen as long as I, and others, continue to post and argue in those threads.

i've been staying out of them too. i'm right there with you, bro.

[skinsdude]

Trimmed down your post to take away space being used, but I did read it all.

Good points, and I understand the want for a franchise QB. While I happen to think JC can be that guy as we improve other parts of the team, I fully support Shanny if he drafts a QB.

Personally I am not sold on Bradford, nor Clausen right now. The risk has to be considered, and if you don't want another 5 years like we've had with JC, as you put it, then don't you think we shouldn't be trying to reach for a QB just because we are drafting high as we could wind up down the same road again? Don't you think giving a new QB a better situation than what we've given our past QBs is a good idea?

I certainly agree that we should trade down if we are not going to go QB at 4and gain additional picks. There are a number of impressive OT's that should be available in the middle to end of the first round. It would be nice to have a second, 2nd round pick.

As far as Jason being our franchise quarterback; we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've sat in the stands for every one of Jason's home games and I'm ready to watch someone else under center.

[elkabong82]

I certainly agree that we should trade down if we are not going to go QB at 4and gain additional picks. There are a number of impressive OT's that should be available in the middle to end of the first round. It would be nice to have a second, 2nd round pick.

As far as Jason being our franchise quarterback; we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've sat in the stands for every one of Jason's home games and I'm ready to watch someone else under center.

And I can absolutely respect that opinion of JC because of how you expressed it.

I just want us to find a way to draft down and gain more picks and solidfy this team first before bringing in a new QB. I want our new guy, if we get one, to come into a good situation, not a chaotic and changing mess like his Redskins predecessors at QB all experienced for the most part.

For every high draft pick QB like Manning and Rivers, I see others like Brees and Roethlisberger drafted, or Cutler to pull a Shanny example, in the lower 1st/2nd. So even if we had a low 1st rd draft pick the following year, we could still net a franchise QB if we needed one at that point.

I see it as 2 options: draft a QB high and bring him into a mess still being fixed -or- trade down/recoup picks and solidfy as much of the team as possible, and bring a franchise QB in the following season(s) into a stable situation. Heck, then you can afford a lower 1st rd QB, similar to the route the Steelers and Packers took, as oppossed to grabbing a QB high for a 4-12 team, like the Lions, 49ers, etc. did without improving many other areas first.

[SoCalSkins]

No, the underlying message is: learn how to communicate like a mature adult.

Maybe you don't give a **** about the quality of this board, but many of us do and actually believe in holding our discussions and conduct to a higher level just as we demand our players/coaches teams to perform at a higher level. Your posting quality is just as bad, if not worse, as you claim JC's play to be.

Nobody is saying leave JC alone, many of us are saying learn how to communicate your opinion in a logical and somewhat respectable manner. ES is a community and I believe the community at the very least deserves an attempt of betterment.

Says the man who accuses other posters of racism when they criticize Campbell.

[grego]

As far as Jason being our franchise quarterback; we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've sat in the stands for every one of Jason's home games and I'm ready to watch someone else under center.

i'm not really firm on campbell as a 'franchise' QB, (mostly i like to see quick feet and lots of plays on the run, the latter we may see this year) but i do think he could be pretty good at least with more than 2 years in one system and an nfl caliber line.

i did find this page earlier. i dont know all the x's and o's of how they get the ratings they get, but with alot of people not happy with the traditional method of QB rating, i thought it was interesting.

http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/01/2009-nfl-season-passer-ratings.html

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

And I can absolutely respect that opinion of JC because of how you expressed it.

I just want us to find a way to draft down and gain more picks and solidfy this team first before bringing in a new QB. I want our new guy, if we get one, to come into a good situation, not a chaotic and changing mess like his Redskins predecessors at QB all experienced for the most part.

For every high draft pick QB like Manning and Rivers, I see others like Brees and Roethlisberger drafted, or Cutler to pull a Shanny example, in the lower 1st/2nd. So even if we had a low 1st rd draft pick the following year, we could still net a franchise QB if we needed one at that point.

I see it as 2 options: draft a QB high and bring him into a mess still being fixed -or- trade down/recoup picks and solidfy as much of the team as possible, and bring a franchise QB in the following season(s) into a stable situation. Heck, then you can afford a lower 1st rd QB, similar to the route the Steelers and Packers took, as oppossed to grabbing a QB high for a 4-12 team, like the Lions, 49ers, etc. did without improving many other areas first.

we cannot wait to draft a QB. you realize that if we dont take a QB in this draft, then we potentially wont draft one until next year, making him not even possible to start by 2012?? thats over half of shannys contract up, and hes supposed to turn this team around. teams that go 4-12 and have dreadful offenses take QBs to help spark a turnaround, they dont wait years to build everything else then draft a QB. and if they that QB doesnt hit early, shanahans tenure is over.

we need to take a QB this year and get this process started. bradford could potentially finish out this season, just like cutler did for shanny in 06, and bradford would be ready to go by 2011, and we'd get to see him for a full season and get a pretty good idea of how good hes going to be.

not taking a QB wastes a ton of time.