Washington Post poll - vast majority want OL drafted

[Mooka]

its not obvious the new coach and the new 1700 yard RB didnt? it was the rookie QB?

we will agree to disagree, i suppose.

What is it? The franchise was in complete disarray and Petrino was a complete bust in Atlanta. Of course those are obvious.

But you don't think Matt Ryan, even a rookie Matt Ryan, isn't a vast upgrade over the scraps of QBs left to the Falcons after Vick went away?

[grego]

What is it? The franchise was in complete disarray and Petrino was a complete bust in Atlanta. Of course those are obvious.

But you don't think Matt Ryan, even a rookie Matt Ryan, isn't a vast upgrade over the scraps of QBs left to the Falcons after Vick went away?

i'm not trying to be a dick, but the discussion was centered around ryan (and flacco) coming into a situation with a less than decent O line and having 'success'. it was then debated how good the line(s) was/were and was he really even 'successful' since his/their numbers are very close to our own embattled QB.

i posited that both came into situations that were beneficial to them, specifically regarding their lines. both also had top 5 running games and essentially had to manage games, a la mark sanchez 09. specifically, turner was a monster that year and the coaching change from petrino to smith was a huge difference when it came to player performance.

that was 'it'.

[Skin'Em84]

The thing is, with a stocked OL draft and a draft that's short on possible franchise QBs, I'd rather get a couple OLinemen.

Mainly because a great offensive line is essential to winning, but it doesn't win you games. We get a solid line, and have a season with a team stronger than its record.

We get a high draft choice and get a franchise QB in the next years draft, and have a solid line to put him behind.

[Loco Bob]

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.

The problem is that there is no guarantee that you can trade down or that anybody useful will be available. This is the same mentality which put the team in this fix. Draft OL in lower rounds.

[Loco Bob]

As abit of a segue I believe that Mike will put a running game on the field before he worries about the passing game. That means OL all the way.

[Mooka]

that was 'it'.

Yes I read the discussion and understand your position very clearly on why QBs like Flacco and Ryan were drafted into situations with strong teams around them.

What I was questioning was why Matt Ryan is not a reason why the Falcons "got better" considering they did not have a starting QB before drafting him.

[grego]

Yes I read the discussion and understand your position very clearly on why QBs like Flacco and Ryan were drafted into situations with strong teams around them.

What I was questioning was why Matt Ryan is not a reason why the Falcons "got better" considering they did not have a starting QB before drafting him.

i think ryan could be said to be 'part' of the reason they got better, but i would put him down the list after turner and coach smith (i called him 'white' above and it must be cuz of his hair....).

the real conversation was 'could a rookie come in a be successful behind a 'bad' line' (like a rookie QB could be facing if the skins drafted one). it was said that flacco and ryan came into situations where the lines werent good, and the conversation went from there. i think the lines for both teams were actually good to very good (atl was 6th in pass pro in 08 according to football outsiders, though i'm not sure i agree with their ranking system for O lines), and both QB's had to basically game manage and had a lot of help.

nothing against ryan, even though statistically he's essentially JC.

[darrelgreenie]

its not obvious the new coach and the new 1700 yard RB didnt? it was the rookie QB?

we will agree to disagree, i suppose.

Don't forget Mike Mularkey.

I think he desereves as much if not more credit then Coach Smith.

That dude imo does a great job with their offensive gameplanning.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The thing is' date=' with a stocked OL draft and a draft that's short on possible franchise QBs, I'd rather get a couple OLinemen.

Mainly because a great offensive line is essential to winning, but it doesn't win you games. We get a solid line, and have a season with a team stronger than its record.

We get a high draft choice and get a franchise QB in the next years draft, and have a solid line to put him behind.[/quote']

so if the lineman we draft this year dont pan out, do we still draft a QB next year? i mean how can we put a QB behind any line that isnt the best?

no one is even taking into account the easily possible scenario that the OT we might draft busts and were left with a busted LT and no QB. then the process gets pushed back even further.

newsflash: QBs dont always come into perfect situations. the good ones make the best of it, the bad ones complain and have fans make excuses for them because they cant admit their highly drafted supposed stud is a failure.

[grego]

i mean how can we put a QB behind any line that isnt the best?

hyperbole? maybe a little?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Where is the proof on this. Just take a look at the teams that have finished poorly in the past decade. Most of the teams that had the same "knee jerk" reaction (that you are expressing) have not turned it around.

San Fran reached for the QB and failed

Smith was a reach. But he was a fairly consensus #1 at the time, and nobody knew that the Meyer spread was disasterous for QBs. And if you want to get into situations, Smith is ahead of JC as a QB right now with a MUCH worse situation that Campbell has had to work with.

Detroit reached for the QB and failed

Harrington had crap for intangibles - the guy needed a sports psychologist to cope with the pressure from sucking in Detroit! He was NEVER going to be a good QB, EVER.

Houston reached for the QB and failed

Comparing those Houston lines and our lines is an exercise in absurdity. David Carr was a homeless man's version of Campbell - no pocket presence, no intangibles, slow release, slow progressions, slow EVERYTHING.

Buffalo reached for a QB and failed

Losman was just a bad pick - he was a raw, big-armed QB just like JC was. Except that JC was in a way better situation which allowed him to become just decent. Switch Losman and JC and I think you get the same results for each team.

Oakland reached and failed

Russell failed more because of poor work ethic and not being that intelligent as a QB.

KC reached and failed

KC never drafted a QB high. Unless you're talking about Cassell.

Chicago reached and failed

Cutler had 27 TDs. 26 INTs sure, but Ints are harder to lower than TDs are to raise.

AZ reached and failed

Leinart was like Russell - poor work ethic and attitude. That's not contingent on the line, that's contingent on the organization as a whole. Leinart still has a chance to be good though.

Cleveland reached and failed

Jury's still out on Quinn. Cleveland's organization is a mess from top to bottom, or was.

See - you seem to think that a QB's development is entirely based on him going on a good team early. This is simply not true. While organizational factors such as coaching matter, the supporting cast, not so much. If they're a good QB, they can overcome it. Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell and David Carr were mental midgets with bad fundamentals and mediocre work ethic. Same with Leinart to an extent. Cutler is not a failure at QB, don't discount him just because of a bad season with a team almost as bad as us offensively.

Then, you take a look at the teams that drafted/signed linemen to support their offenses... Miami, NY Jets, Baltimore, San Diego, Denver, Giants, Minny, Atlanta... These teams (if not there yet) are all up and coming right now. I think these few examples speak volumes about what NOT to do in our current situation.

Of course, there's this absolutely inane leap of logic that maddens me every time I see it.

"Not taking a OLT first = not drafting linemen = neglecting the line".

Those teams built their lines through years of patience and years of lumps - some of those lines started out absolutely pitiful. And then, many of them drafted QB prior to drafting line. Baltimore drafted Flacco before they drafted Oher (who is their RT, not LT). San Diego drafted Rivers before they drafted McNeill. Denver drafted Cutler/traded for Orton before drafting Clady. Giants drafted Manning before their line gelled. Atlanta drafted Ryan before Baker.

What about Kyle Boller? Why didn't HE become a stud? He had a 2000 yard rusher, an elite defense giving him the ball, and the best LT in history to go along with a very solid line.

Why didn't those Vikings journeyman QBs produce? They had AP and an elite line.

My point is that the QBs you mention would likely have failed no matter what situation they were in. Because they were bad quarterbacks to begin with. Mental midgets, system QBs, or just plain unintelligent. They had the physical gifts, but they lacked it upstairs. Bradford and Clausen and McCoy and even Tebow (I really feel he has a chance at being a good NFL QB) do NOT, I repeat, do NOT lack anything upstairs.

Organizational stability IS important...but that doesn't mean they have to have a perfect NFL team waiting for them.

All those teams you talk about got their franchise QB early, and THEN built the team around him. So it comes down to, and goes back to, the conviction that Campbell is indeed a franchise QB in waiting, which is a position taken in blind faith, not in consideration of established fact other than the ASSUMPTION that he will be better if his supporting cast improves.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

hyperbole? maybe a little?

honestly, no. the more i read what people want, all they want is 1st rounders and 1st day picks on the oline, because anything less than that is considered "a vinny move". its as if the other rounds disappeared and the idea of taking a tackle or guard in the 4th round is completely ignoring the oline.

[grego]

honestly, no. the more i read what people want, all they want is 1st rounders and 1st day picks on the oline, because anything less than that is considered "a vinny move". its as if the other rounds disappeared and the idea of taking a tackle or guard in the 4th round is completely ignoring the oline.

i havent seen anyone say they need a QB behind a line that isnt 'the best'. thus, the hyperbole comment. you are exaggerating peoples opinions that differ from yours (its a strawman, but people say that so much, even when it doesnt apply, i thought i'd be more straightforward).

so, no, nobody is saying we need the 'best' o line in the league. like i said in the other thread, we may have the worst. thats not good. and thats a far cry from the 'best'.

[hellonothing86]

the people on this site amaze me. I have been reading these message boards for a very long time and I think that people need to chill out. No matter what YOUR opininon is, it is always going to be your opinion and not necessarily what the Redskins are going to do. I love arguing my points and I actually like a good old fashioned debate. HOWEVER...

Please keep this debate as civil as possible. We all are Redskins fans, we shouldn't be divided. We all have different opinions but at the end of the day we drink beer, hate the cowboys, and we just want what's best for the Redskins. We are a very passionate fan base and think there is no better message board in the NFL.

I believe in Best Player Available who fits the Redskins system... And that should always be the philosphy. Just look at the Vikings when they took Adrian Peterson, while they already had good production with Chester Taylor that year. Or when the Colts drafted Donald Brown.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

i havent seen anyone say they need a QB behind a line that isnt 'the best'. thus, the hyperbole comment. you are exaggerating peoples opinions that differ from yours (its a strawman, but people say that so much, even when it doesnt apply, i thought i'd be more straightforward).

so, no, nobody is saying we need the 'best' o line in the league. like i said in the other thread, we may have the worst. thats not good. and thats a far cry from the 'best'.

there was a dude in another thread that said unless we take an LT in the first round he will not be able to be successful in the NFC east, which i then proceeded to explain to him there isnt a single 1st round LT currently in the NFC east, and the only one that was, was samuels, which got us nowhere offensively.

maybe you dont think this, but there are plenty of comments i see on here all the time talking about how if we dont take an olineman in round 1, were doomed.

if we dont take a QB in round one, were not doomed, but were surely delaying a slow process by at least 1-2 years.

[Gregpeck99]

The siren song to "Draft an OLineman @ 4" is code for "Keep Campbell."

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Sadly, that's the truth for a lot of posters. The subtext of the OL versus QB debates is that for the pro-QB people who see both as a need and QB as a more important need, the pro-OL at 4 people do not see QB as a need - that JC just needs more help and he will blossom into a franchise QB.

[gortiz]

Doesn't mean the 75% want to keep the existing qb.

Look at the loser we ended up with at QB last time we drafted one in the first round.

good god ...before you use to at least have a little tact. you are just rotten to the core now ...

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The siren song to "Draft an OLineman @ 4" is code for "Keep Campbell."

and i agree with this also. im not sure ive seen a poster that wants campbell gone but really feels its necessary to draft an olineman at #4.

[Wyndorf25]

If there was a QB worth taking 4th overall, I'd be for it. But there isn't IMO. However there are plenty of O-lineman worth taking at #4 and regardless of how you feel about Campbell, the O-line is a severe need. Taking a quality LT at #4 is a safer bet than betting the house on Bradford's shoulder or Clausen's pro-ability.

However, if the Skins can trade down and still get a top-tier QB then I'd be ok with that.

[skins2victory]

Im for taking an O-lineman, or trading down and getting more pick, but still drafting lineman

[TSO]

and i agree with this also. im not sure ive seen a poster that wants campbell gone but really feels its necessary to draft an olineman at #4.

I would love for us to draft an Olineman, and then a QB in the 2nd round or even later who they think can do it. If they then deem Campbell expendable and trade him I'd be all for it as well. That being said, if there isn't any such QB available and Shanny thinks Campbell can play well in his system, I'm all for that as well.

There, now you've seen that poster.

I'm willing to venture that the majority of those who, like me, you guys love to label as "Campbell lovers" (simply because we don't jump in, choosing to openly reject, your Campbell bash-a-thons) are on that train of thought as well. I haven't seen many of those who defend Campbell from exaggerated insults unwilling to part ways with him, or being angry, if Shanny/Allen choose to do so. I'd love to see those guys who would hate the idea of Campbell being gone raise their hands, and then compare that to the amount of raised hands from the people who absolutely abhor the idea of Campbell still being here.

You've got to be kidding me if you think it's anywhere close, lol.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

The primary point of contention is "Can the Washington Redskins win with Jason Campbell?". For me, the answer is either "no" or "No more than they can win with Chad Pennington or Sage Rosenfels". Obviously building the line is important - I would never deny that for a second. I would love to trade BACK into the mid 1st and grab Bulaga after taking Clausen. Or trade down to 9 or so, pick up extra picks, grab the best QB, then use the rest of the picks to make a play for linemen. But we can't continue to spin our wheels with a guy who won't get much better, nor can we hope the 2011 draft class lives up to the hype that the 2010 class apparently didn't (while using multiple picks to fill one position most likely), nor can we spend 3 years developing yet ANOTHER late 1st rounder or mid-round project. There is a REASON these guys fall to the middle of the draft at the most important position in the game.

Look it this way - next year we will be in position to select a good tackle most likely (if not we've already fixed the line) without having to trade. We will not be in position to select a future franchise QB most likely without having to trade.

I'd rather use TWO 1sts to address TWO needs than use 3 firsts and maybe more to address two needs.

[fansince62]

I would love for us to draft an Olineman, and then a QB in the 2nd round or even later who they think can do it. If they then deem Campbell expendable and trade him I'd be all for it as well. That being said, if there isn't any such QB available and Shanny thinks Campbell can play well in his system, I'm all for that as well.

There, now you've seen that poster.

I'm willing to venture that the majority of those who, like me, you guys love to label as "Campbell lovers" (simply because we don't jump in, choosing to openly reject, your Campbell bash-a-thons) are on that train of thought as well. I haven't seen many of those who defend Campbell from exaggerated insults unwilling to part ways with him, or being angry, if Shanny/Allen choose to do so. I'd love to see those guys who would hate the idea of Campbell being gone raise their hands, and then compare that to the amount of raised hands from the people who absolutely abhor the idea of Campbell still being here.

You've got to be kidding me if you think it's anywhere close, lol.

the obvious response: who cares what these people think?

the discussion is comical in the extreme....all the pointless stats notwithstanding....these people HAVE NO IDEA what system the Shanny boys intend to implement, what sort of athlete they are looking for at the tackle position, what their roster management strategy over time (and by implication cap mangement) happens to be, what Shanny/Alen really think about JC and the relative tradeoffs of keeping him another year vice developing another QB, how o-line/QB development is synchronized over time, how the present draft/FA/roster situation boxes Shanny/Allen in in respect to short-term decisions/options, what the defensive coaching staff is claiming are its short term needs......there's a whole bunch of trade-offs that have to be made.

on the theatrics side of things...I have seen very, very few posters who get into the extreme emotional rhetoric vis Campbell ("he suxxs" etc). from where I sit, the folks incessantly responding to this are suckers falling for the bait. the "Jason can be a star with a good O-line" lines are as ridiculous as the "he's a bum" posts. but I don't see the supporters noting "hey...the reality is we have no basis for supporting assertions like this. we just don't know..based on 5 years of up and down performance...what his ceiling is." now, I happen to think the coaches (and FO) know what the ceiling is and that is why we saw trade activity last season...but new folks are in charge...and a different perspective on ends and means is controlling the Redskin ship. ifJC is the signal caller next season...so be it. those of us who seek excellence in our life pursuits will be disappointed. but there are worse alternatives.

[Taylor 36]

Has anyone taken into consideration that this poll how unreliable this poll is? First, a friend of mine has voted six times from six different computers. Second, this poll asks about drafting QB first and nothing about O-line. C'mon, guys!!!