What makes everyone so sure we take QB early in draft???

[THEREALTOR1]

I've been saying for months that this year is not like any other year that most Skins fans have even known. We are going to have to rebuild the OL though the draft and a QB may have to wait until 2011.

And I would think most rational fans would rather see us do that. If all the cogs are in place, and the QB position is still questionable during the 2010 season, then our needs are glaring.

Currently I don't know where to place the blame for our Offensive inabilities to produce, so the only justified way for clarification would seem to be through deduction, not self destruction as we've done in years past.

[Oldskool]

Why is it so hard to imagine that we can draft multiple OL and QB this draft, in some order? I can guarantee you that OL will not be the only position picked this year, and there is good reason to assume that one of those picks will be a QB.

It's not hard to imagine but if you look closely at this years draft when it comes to left tackles, you'd understand where my concern. The OL class this year is deep but not many can play Left Tackle in the next level.

Unless something out of the ordinary happens, you won't find Left Tackles outside of the 1st round in the draft this year.

[wvtbred]

We get it, you guys don't like JC. No big news there. But we cut 10 other players, and tendered another 10.

http://blog.redskins.com/2010/03/04/redskins-release-10-players-tender-10-free-agents/

Where have they visited? How come all the first and second round picks for those players aren't flying in the door?

Looks obvious to me but maybe not to you that Allen and Shanahan are trying to right the wrong that Vinny created. Overspending, play with monopoly money or whatever you want to call it they are being tight at the beginning and personally I love it.

From now on it will be frugal spending with a endless bank account instead of throwing money everywhere. It takes time to go from the team that every free agent wants to get paid by to the team they gets to really work the system in a proper way.

Again nobody else has even (as far as we know, trying to be fair) asked JC to take a trip.

Call me a hater or whatever but all I want is what's best for my beloved team, PERIOD and in MY opinion we are a lot better off with out JC.

[commyderm2]

In my opinion it does so re-read the thread OR put me on ignore

HTTR!

:point2sky

Edit........

Done!!!!!! Thanks for the suggestion..

[darrelgreenie]

UMMMM..... Let's see here since shanny/allen have taken over they have seemed to make every good move to benifit our beloved skins. Everyone has speculated on what they're going to do and what they should do and pretty much so far everyone has been pretty much wrong (brodcasters that is). Everyone had the skins to chase after every big name in free agency. Everyone from peppers,dansby, sproiles, rolle etc.... but yet we went after a OT that we didn't even get signed. Here's the point I'm trying to make they were so wrong about our FA approach what makes them think they know what are draft approach is going to be. They are so certain that shanny will take bradford if he's there how do they know for certain. He has been great so far at not revealing his intentions until he does it........... I'm just throwing the idea out there to hear your responses....................:logo:

Good point, the sports media talking heads still seem to believe the Allen/Shanahan Skins are operating under the same MO as the Vinnie/Synder Skins.

They assume were gonna to be chasing every 'sexy' option available and looking to make a 'splash'.

And its easy to understand why; for the past 10 or so it was an easy story to link any big name FA to the Redskins because it was true Bruce Smith, Prime Time, Mark Carrier, #40, ARE, Marcus Washington, Flethcer, Portis, Hall, Haynseworth etc...etc...etc....

What makes everyone so sure we take QB early in draft???

I think there are 2 main reasons if by 'everyone' you're refering to the media:

1) They aren't allowing that the Redskins FO has changed their mindset

2) There assuming that Shanahan will follow the football cliche that every offensive minded coach wants to draft 'his' will hold up

.........Then there is the loud minority on this board that harbors a strong dislike for Campbell who cannot fathom that JC could start next season and consequently assume a QB will be taken.

the reason why i think there sure we'll get a QB is because they can't imagine a world in which JC is the Redskins starting QB next year.

[Gregpeck99]

The Skins will be an embarrassment until they upgrade the QB position ... all the other tweaking is tertiary.

[darrelgreenie]

Why is it so hard to imagine that we can draft multiple OL and QB this draft, in some order? I can guarantee you that OL will not be the only position picked this year, and there is good reason to assume that one of those picks will be a QB.

*Long Response*

Its not hard to imagine and its a very logical conclusion.

I think the order in which they are selected is what's really up for speculation.

I think a LT should be taken with the 4th pick because we probably

won't be able to find a starting LT in the later rounds and i think

its a big risk to wait to the 37th pick to land a starting LT.

I emphasize LT because as we all know its the key position for pass protection

and if we don't land a starting LT via FA (and to this point we haven't)

and we draft a QB @ 4 that would leave Stephon Heyer as our LT.

I don't consider Levi Jones a viable option because he was actually

worse at LT then the injured Stephon Heyer was at RT.

Levi was tied for 75th out of 77 Heyer was 71st but keep in mind

he was injured for most the better part of the season and the year prior

Stephon was ranked 46th and was actually better at LT then at RT.

(My opinion here is based on the eye ball test and stats are from:football prospectus

http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_player.php?tab=by_player&season=2008&lastname=Heyer&surn=Heyer&playerid=3961 )

I'm one of the few people that isn't down on Heyer's ability and

when healthy i would view Stephon Heyer as an improvement over Levi Jones

that would leave our starting RT spot to a rookie draft pick at 37.

There's a good likelyhood that 7 OL will be taken maybe more since

Bruce Campbell improved his stock and there are questions about wether

the OT available at 37th pick will be ready to come in and start.

But, on our team they would instantly be the starter.

LT-Heyer- LG-Dock C-Rabach RG-Mike William RT-Rookie: Duccase, Veldeer, Saffold?

But, i think the OL would be better off by getting the best LT in draft and then playing Heyer at RT.

Past recnt history of top 5 OL has shown that the top OL have all played well and contributed

to their respective teams improvement across the OL: Joe Thomas rank 1st, Jake Long 2nd, Ferguson 9th.

Therefore i believe a OL of:

Top LT-Okung LG-Dockery C-Rabach RG-Mike Williams RT-Heyer

Would give the Redskins a chance to actually execute Kyle Shanahan's offense

which is heavy with 5 and 7 step dropped based pass routes and play-action which place a premium on pass protection.

Are both OL an improvement over the OL we had last year?

I think so, but i think the 2nd hypothetical OL would give us a better chance to be a decent to good OL.

The second factor that effects my opinion that we should take the LT boils down to philosophy.

Do you believe in nature or nuture when it comes to QB development?

I believe in nuture.

The coaches that now how to coach the QB position often get their QBs outside of the 1st round

because they have faith in there ability to coach the QB position.

I don't think that teams with a decent starting QB in place need to draft their QB top 5-10-15. (or teams with QB guru's).

I don't think Holmgren has ever taken a top 5 QB and he's developed a lot of QBs over that period.

Shanny has taken 1 top 15 QB (after his hand was forced by Plummer's attitude problems)

Payton coached Romo sits to pee (not a 1st round pick) then traded for Brees.

Reid drafted McNabb a special talent but groomed Kolb.

McCarthy groomed Rodgers.

I agree that you should spend a quality draft pick to aquire any good player.

But, if you have a coach that specializes in a certain position like Mike and Kyle Shanahan you don't need to spend a top 5-15 or even a 1st round pick.

If we have start building a good OL i believe with the quality of our coaching at the QB position

is good enough to get production if they find a QB they like in the later rounds like Colt McCoy, Tebow, LeFeour, Robinson, Pike, Brown etc.

The QB could even be added via FA or trade after the team is built.

And i believe that having a good OL with good coaching (which i believe we have in spades) makes any QB we draft or groom virtually bust proof and creates a situation where they could become 'franchise' caliber.

[THEREALTOR1]

*Long Response*

If only we could get a descent draft trade option... and I don't think that's out of the realm of possibilites... otherwise, I think I get what you're saying.

[Skinem]

No worries Shanahan is too smart to select a QB in the first.

[The Tris]

I think we are not so far apart in opinion as you would think, but I have a couple comments.

I think a LT should be taken with the 4th pick because we probably won't be able to find a starting LT in the later rounds and i think its a big risk to wait to the 37th pick to land a starting LT.

I emphasize LT because as we all know its the key position for pass protection

and if we don't land a starting LT via FA (and to this point we haven't)

and we draft a QB @ 4 that would leave Stephon Heyer as our LT.

I actually agree with you here, and would go one more, I think even if we draft a LT at #4, Heyer stands a good chance of starting from day one on the blind side.

I'm one of the few people that isn't down on Heyer's ability and when healthy i would view Stephon Heyer as an improvement over Levi Jones that would leave our starting RT spot to a rookie draft pick at 37.

Heyer has no business starting at LT in the NFL in my opinion, but circumstances are such that I believe in one way on another he will start multiple games for us on the line. That is where years of OL ignorance have gotten us, and unfortunately even if we devoted EVERY pick this year, Heyer's experience may lend him more capable than a rookie right out of the gate. However, I will be extremely upset if Heyer is our starting LT week 17.

Ideally we should have been stocking our roster with mid-round tackles and guards for years so there is never such a shortage of talent on the line, forcing the disaster that was 2009, but don't compound the mistake by going need over value in 2010.

Past recnt history of top 5 OL has shown that the top OL have all played well and contributed to their respective teams improvement across the OL: Joe Thomas rank 1st, Jake Long 2nd, Ferguson 9th.

Therefore i believe a OL of:

Top LT-Okung LG-Dockery C-Rabach RG-Mike Williams RT-Heyer

Lets look at last year first, when 4 OT were taken in the first round in what was and is considered a better top heavy OL draft in 2009...Only Eugene Monroe started week one at LT, with the Smiths and Oher all making their NFL debut at RT. Monroe was even benched week 5.

Only Vollmer - and perhaps Oher if Gaither is traded - right now has an LT job locked from the 2009 OT class. I have read varied accounts about Okung if he had come out with this class whether he would have been the highest regarded prospect or picked somewhere after J Smith, Monroe, et al, and the consensus is muddled to say the least.

However, what is not muddled is that Long and Thomas were much higher regarded prospects than Okung, and comparing their success as a defense of Okung is a bit like if I were to compare Matt Ryan's success to defend the picking of Bradford...its a hard argument to make.

The ultimate point being is that being the highest regarded prospect is a relative term to each draft, and the top OT prospects year to year should not be considered equals nor should similar success be assumed.

There's a good likelyhood that 7 OL will be taken maybe more since Bruce Campbell improved his stock and there are questions about wether the OT available at 37th pick will be ready to come in and start. But, on our team they would instantly be the starter.

LT-Heyer- LG-Dock C-Rabach RG-Mike William RT-Rookie: Duccase, Veldeer, Saffold?

Again, I agree that there is a good chance that 7 OT will be taken before we pick again. I think this is perhaps the strongest argument for taking a tackle at #4...however, this line of thinking would represent ignoring the strategy of BPA as you are basing you selections on what will be available to fill your needs, rather than the best prospect at the time.

This is why it is imperative that we head into the draft with as few glaring holes as possible, because the goal of a FO should be to go into the draft with as few exterior pressures/needs to pick a player as possible.

I doubt we will fill all our holes, but I am of the mindset that if Bradford and Okung are on the board at #4, Bradford is the BPA - don't know the FO mindset though. If it goes the otherway, I will not be upset with a great LT prospect other than the fact that we are going to hopefully have a lower draft position next year - based on improved record - and will infortunately be behind the 8 ball in selecting a QB in 2011.

However, BPA is BPA, and let's not pick an inferior QB simply because we might not have a great shot at one in 2011...it cuts both ways.

Do you believe in nature or nuture when it comes to QB development?

I believe in nuture.

I think that it is not mutually exclusive when it comes to QB development. There is something to be said for raw talent, otherwise maybe I could be an NFL QB in the right situation. On the otherside, the greatest talents in the world will diminish if placed in a bad situation.

Not to take this off tract, but I feel that we have been fighting both nature and nurture at the QB position for a while now...not an ideal situation coupled with a natural ceiling. If JC as bad as he is sometimes? No, but the flashes when things are going well are just too few and far between for me to believe he is the ultimate answer at the QB position.

I agree that you should spend a quality draft pick to aquire any good player. But, if you have a coach that specializes in a certain position like Mike and Kyle Shanahan you don't need to spend a top 5-15 or even a 1st round pick.

You say Shanahan has only taken one QB in the top 15 picks...well you fail to mention that Shanahan has only had a top 15 pick four times, #12 in 2008, #11 in 2006, #15 in 2000, #15 in 1996.

He has taken a OT, a QB, a CB, and a OLB.

Interestingly enough, the highest pick he has ever had, the closest he has had to his choice of QB prospects, he took a QB.

EDIT: I just realized that Shanny has NEVER pick in the top 10, much less the top 5 of a draft. Who knows what he will do.

The coaches that now how to coach the QB position often get their QBs outside of the 1st round

because they have faith in there ability to coach the QB position.

I don't think that teams with a decent starting QB in place need to draft their QB top 5-10-15. (or teams with QB guru's).

I know he has all the faith in the world in his and Kyle's ability to coach 'em up, but why if he has the shot at a physical specimen at QB would he pass up that opportunity to work with a great talent and make his job harder by going with an inferior prospect. No matter how good you are at your profession, no one in their right mind actively makes things more difficult to succeed.

[darrelgreenie]

Why would you think that i thought our opinions would be far apart?

I actually agree with you here, and would go one more, I think even if we draft a LT at #4, Heyer stands a good chance of starting from day one on the blind side.

I think it depends on which player or where the LT is drafted.

If were talking about the taking the top rated LT then i think they would be the day 1 starter.

You have a lower opinion of Heyer then i do; its strange that you would start him at LT over say Okung?

Heyer has no business starting at LT in the NFL in my opinion

,

However, I will be extremely upset if Heyer is our starting LT week 17.

Dude, i think Heyer can play and i would still be concerned if we intend to have him start at LT but if he finishes the season at LT then it likely means that he either improved or we had a horrible season.

I wouldn't rule out improvement, like i said in the previous post he was hurt last year and wasn't bad in 2008 and has likely improved since then.

but don't compound the mistake by going need over value in 2010.

I don't believe strict BPA or strict need is a good paradigm for team building it has to be mix of both.

There has been talk that the Ram's will take Bradford.

This is actually not in keeping with BPA because based purely on BPA Suh/McCoy are the top prospects in the draft.

And i don't think drafting a LT over Bradford would be a departure from BPA available anyway because some draft experts have Bradford behind Clausen (Kiper), and other like McShay have OTs rated ahead of Bradford and Mayock says that Bradford is the way to go IF a team believes he's a 'franchise' QB.

I think all the top players in the after Suh/McCoy have about the same value.

Lets look at last year first, when 4 OT were taken in the first round in what was and is considered a better top heavy OL draft in 2009...Only Eugene Monroe started week one at LT, with the Smiths and Oher all making their NFL debut at RT. Monroe was even benched week 5.

I don't want to get into a debate about which OL class is rated higher, but this OL draft class has gotten good reviews across the board from what i've read/heard.

I always get the 2 Smiths mixed up and because i thought A. Smith was the 2nd pick and didn't look him up because he was injured and held out. But, yes J. Smith did play RT but he was much better at RT then Barron was at LT, maybe he should have been playing LT?

The other players are outside the comparison because i was looking only at the top OT prospects.

However, what is not muddled is that Long and Thomas were much higher regarded prospects than Okung, and comparing their success as a defense of Okung is a bit like if I were to compare Matt Ryan's success to defend the picking of Bradford...its a hard argument to make..................The ultimate point being is that being the highest regarded prospect is a relative term to each draft, and the top OT prospects year to year should not be considered equals nor should similar success be assumed.

Well, i'm not defending taking Okung i'm giving my reasons. (i don't want to pick nits but the distinction is important, well at least to me)

I was making the comparison based on where they were drafted and how they've played. I'm not saying that Okung is as good as Long/Thomas.

I'm pointing out that the top OL picks have contributed to their respective teams.(Barring injury)

And unlike the QB comparison, which some people do make, a LT/RT performance is much more independent from then the rest of the team unlike a QB performance which for the most part is dependent on the team around them.

Again, I agree that there is a good chance that 7 OT will be taken before we pick again. I think this is perhaps the strongest argument for taking a tackle at #4...however, this line of thinking would represent ignoring the strategy of BPA as you are basing you selections on what will be available to fill your needs, rather than the best prospect at the time.

I don't understand your point.

I'm advocating taking a OT with the 4th pick, which leaves us open to BPA with the 37th pick.

If we take a QB at #4 that creates a scenario where we would be chasing or reaching for OL.

but I am of the mindset that if Bradford and Okung are on the board at #4, Bradford is the BPA - don't know the FO mindset though.

Like i was saying earlier i don't think there is a definitive difference between the top picks.

If the FO thinks that Bradford is the BPA then he'll be the pick.

and will infortunately be behind the 8 ball in selecting a QB in 2011.....However, BPA is BPA, and let's not pick an inferior QB simply because we might not have a great shot at one in 2011...it cuts both ways.

Again this goes to the nature vs nuture philosophy.

Because we could take Colt McCoy or another QB who might turn out to be just as good as QB we taken in the 1st round.

I don't think that taking an OL puts us behind the 8 ball at all i think it puts us ahead of the curve because we'll be creating a situation where a QB won't be judged based on wether they can handle getting sacked 30+ times rather will be creating a situation where the QB will be judged on how quickly then can reach there potential.

I think that it is not mutually exclusive when it comes to QB development. There is something to be said for raw talent, otherwise maybe I could be an NFL QB in the right situation. On the otherside, the greatest talents in the world will diminish if placed in a bad situation.

I'm not saying their completely independent, but that there are philosophical differences.

And the differences between the top QB prospects aren't as great as the pundits make them out to be, or else they wouldn't be top prospects.

not an ideal situation coupled with a natural ceiling.

^^This imo speaks to the nature argument.

How can a players ceiling be established without the right situation around them.

EDIT: I just realized that Shanny has NEVER pick in the top 10, much less the top 5 of a draft. Who knows what he will do.

HC Raiders he picked WR Tim Brown with the 4th pick.

You're right Shanny doesn't make it a habit of drafting in the top 10.

But, outside of Jay Cutler, whose drafting was almost forced upon Shanny by Plummer, has drafted 1 QB in the 3rd round the other 3 in the 7th.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:-I6PCGdezn8J:www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_11586720+Jake+Plummer+Mike+Shanahan&cd=1&hl=en& ct=clnk&gl=us#ixzz0c4fo27Tb

It doesn't really have a bearing on the point I was trying to make the mentor is a key factor in a QBs growth and QB guru's don't need draft a QB in the 1st round to have a good QB.

I know he has all the faith in the world in his and Kyle's ability to coach 'em up, but why if he has the shot at a physical specimen at QB

I didn't know there was such a prospect in this draft. (Jarrett Brown or John Skelton)

And i think the physical comes second in the evaluation process for QBs anyway.

would he pass up that opportunity to work with a great talent and make his job harder by going with an inferior prospect. No matter how good you are at your profession, no one in their right mind actively makes things more difficult to succeed.

Why would you assume the FO/Shanahan don't view other QBs as great talent. Draft status is nothing more then mass opinion and when it comes to QBs as Bill Walsh said...“There are very few people who can evaluate the quarterback, and fewer that can coach him.”

I think between Mike and Kyle the Redskins can do both.

-BTW

Good discussion, its become to rare on this board

[shannyman1]

Everyone is not sure we take a QB in the first round. Some people want it, some don't. But there is NoBODY is certain what the SKINS will take with the 4th pick because nobody can read Allens mind or Shanny's mind. All we know is what we want to happen.

This is fun, isn't it.

[PennSkinsFanhR]

Latest weekly mock munch, 92 mocks updated in last 7 days, has Russell Okung to Redskins.

http://www.dcprosportsreport.com/articles/washington-redskins/92-mega-mock-munch-okung-gains-to-redskins.html