OK those that feel like we should draft an OL over a QB at #4 - interesting stuff regarding QBs and the Draft

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Here is another article on success of 2nd round QBs if you are interested.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/23qb/23qbs.php

I started reading this but it's too out of date. It says Schaub is a disappointment. Doesn't list Kolb or Henne.

[Sellersfan]

http://www.nfl.com/goto?id=09000d5d81698c0a

Well here's an interesting read too.

[McSkin30]

What I would like to know is can someone go ahead and check on say TOP OL that were drafted on a team and who won Super Bowls WITHOUT a FRANCHISE QB, who went to the pro bowl, and so forth.

The problem with that request lies in the changing nature of the game. QB has always been a vital position, thus meriting the consistently high draft selections throughout the history of the NFL. Tackles did not become marquee players until much later; therefore, it would be really deceptive to compare the success of high-pick QB vs. OL as a matter of fact.

[Tay]

I started reading this but it's too out of date. It says Schaub is a disappointment. Doesn't list Kolb or Henne.

Yea, its from 2008, but it does provide a list in which you can base your own judgement off of.

[CG]

I don't mean to marginalize your hard work, but I really dislike statistics like these. They have 0 bearing on this year's draft and this year's talent. A QB doesn't become a franchise QB or super-bowl winner because they were drafted in the top 5. Drafting Clausen or Bradford at #4 doesn't give him a better chance at being a franchise QB.

I'm not against drafting a QB or OL or DT or whatever if that's what Allen and Shanny want, but lets keep our expectations in check and realize that by and large this is a weak QB class and QBs more than any other position get inflated draft stock.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

The problem with that request lies in the changing nature of the game. QB has always been a vital position, thus meriting the consistently high draft selections throughout the history of the NFL. Tackles did not become marquee players until much later; therefore, it would be really deceptive to compare the success of high-pick QB vs. OL as a matter of fact.

Good point. Our Hogs line is what made people slowly start to realize that OL is actually very very important.

[pastha40]

What do you use to determine a FRANCHISE qb?

How can you say Stafford, Flacco, Sanchez, and Cutler are franchise qb's?

They all had worse seasons than Cambell.

Good points. I get the gist of his post(which is good), hes obviously adovacting drafting Clausen.

But I cant get on board with that. The 2010 1st round "Franchise" qb pool is basically Bradford and Clausen. So i suppose the logic is since we have a top 5 pick we use it on a qb because history dictates he has a less chance to flame out than someone taken in rounds 2-7.

Well I dont buy it, not this year. I've seen Clausen dropping as low as the 30th spot to the Vikings if the skins dont take him. That tells me hes really not great if 29 teams are willing to pass on this "franchise" qb.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Great thread.

I don't have a problem with people who don't want to draft a QB at 4 if they don't think there is a QB worthy of that slot (as long as their opinion is based in logic and on facts, unlike most of the Clausen hate). I do have a problem with people who don't think a franchise QB is an absolute must or that the OL is more important. This thread does a lot to show why that is just utter garbage.

[McSkin30]

my question is: what makes this crop of QBs so good?

That's the thing. I don't believe it necessarily is. This same thing happens every year.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Yea, its from 2008, but it does provide a list in which you can base your own judgement off of.

Yep. Pretty damning really. Although incredibly accurate, smart, and quick releasing QB's that slip in the draft should be picked up whenever you can. Dan Marino almost slipped into the 2nd round.

Doesn't that list also leave off Brett Favre?

[Conn]

No need to get defensive. The point is simply that even if it is true that it is much easier to get franchise QBs in the first, which it obviously is, there's no point in drafting one if you already have one.

We don't have one dude. Wake up, this isn't 2005. That Koolaid's no longer for sale.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

That's the thing. I don't believe it necessarily is. This same thing happens every year.

I didn't like the Stafford or Sanchez picks last year. Now I think Sanchez will come around, but I don't think Stafford will amount to much.

We all remember that if Bradford had come out last year, he would've gone #1 and Stafford would have slipped pretty far. Jets might not even have traded up, thinking if someone traded up they'd get Stafford instead of Sanchez.

[Tay]

Yep. Pretty damning really. Although incredibly accurate, smart, and quick releasing QB's that slip in the draft should be picked up whenever you can. Dan Marino almost slipped into the 2nd round.

Doesn't that list also leave off Brett Favre?

Nope, I think Farve was drafted in like 1904.

But, I think the main point is, often time QB's w/ "something missing" usually fall and are seen as projects. These projects rarely pan out, but it can happen.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Nope, I think Farve was drafted in like 1904.

Hahahaha

But, I think the main point is, often time QB's w/ "something missing" usually fall and are seen as projects. These projects rarely pan out, but it can happen.

But so often the QB's that "rise" are the ones with the sexy cannon of an arm and not much else.

Some of the guys that slip are the ones that only have an average arm, but can do the little things very well.

[Newera]

Yeah, me too. I was never high on Stafford. We will see with him.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Good point. Our Hogs line is what made people slowly start to realize that OL is actually very very important.

it is 100% impossible to rebuild a line like that in the modern NFL, which is why a number of us would like to see a dominant QB instead of a dominant oline. with free agency its impossible to keep a group like that together.

wait til the jets have to deal with free agency, not a chance in hell they keep that line together for much longer. once mangold and ferguson realize its payday, theyll be outta there. if this was 1985, the jets would be sitting pretty, but dominant olines usually dont last in the modern NFL because they rely on 5 people. dominant QBs usually rely on themselves, so teams can lock them up for a decade once they strike gold.

we need to strike gold.

[Conn]

Yeah, me too. I was never high on Stafford. We will see with him.

I never was either, and really still am not, but remember that 5 TD game? With a hurt shoulder? His ROOKIE year? At least he's already showing flashes of being a playmaker.

[Sellersfan]

Great thread.

I don't have a problem with people who don't want to draft a QB at 4 if they don't think there is a QB worthy of that slot (as long as their opinion is based in logic and on facts, unlike most of the Clausen hate). I do have a problem with people who don't think a franchise QB is an absolute must or that the OL is more important. This thread does a lot to show why that is just utter garbage.

I agree with you. If there isn't a true first round qb available at #4, why reach for one? We reached big time with Cambell, and gave up alot. I would hate to see us do that again (definiton of insanity anyone?)

We now have an even bigger problem IMO. We have lost our pro bowl LT! Samuels allowed us to ignore the position for 10 years. Not saying Oline is more important, but i would offer that LT is JUST as important.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I agree with you. If there isn't a true first round qb available at #4, why reach for one? We reached big time with Cambell, and gave up alot. I would hate to see us do that again (definiton of insanity anyone?)

We now have an even bigger problem IMO. We have lost our pro bowl LT! Samuels allowed us to ignore the position for 10 years. Not saying Oline is more important, but i would offer that LT is JUST as important.

Not sure you totally agree with me. I think Clausen is worthy of the top 5. And while Samuels retiring is a huge hit and the position must be filled, as this thread shows, it's easier to hit on an LT later in the draft then to hit on a QB. Thus a QB graded out the same as an LT, or even slightly lower, should be given first priority.

[Tay]

But so often the QB's that "rise" are the ones with the sexy cannon of an arm and not much else.

Some of the guys that slip are the ones that only have an average arm, but can do the little things very well.

True. Those are seen as projects with UPSIDE. I'de stay away from them too. Remember when Boller stock seemed to rise when he threw a bomb from his knees? What a joke. I would prefer to just draft a QB that has shown on film that he can make all the throws at the next level. Those guys usually go in the top 15. There are a few exceptions tho.

[Sellersfan]

Not sure you totally agree with me. I think Clausen is worthy of the top 5. And while Samuels retiring is a huge hit and the position must be filled, as this thread shows, it's easier to hit on an LT later in the draft then to hit on a QB. Thus a QB graded out the same as an LT, or even slightly lower, should be given first priority.

we will agree to disagree about Clausen at #4. Some pudits have him top 10, others top of round #2. What I will say, is whatever Shanny decides I will support. There is a reason he is a HC, and we follow along at home.

I strongly believe that there are some round #2 qb's who Shanny could coach up to a higher level. Look what he did with Plummer. What he started to do with Cutler.

I would hate to say it, but thats why I can see him going Tebow over Clausen.

If he goes Clausen, I am wrong, and will support his decision.

[GIBBY!]

The solution is simple draft Tebow with the #4 pick that way he can't be a second round bust and will be a super bowl champion!

[Skin'Em84]

The only question is whether or not Clausen (I'm assuming Bradford goes to the Rams at #1) is worth the number 4, and whether or not he's worth it for the Redskins at #4.

It may be better to pick an OL at the 4 spot, and get a QB next year.

[hieverybody]

The first quarterback taken is more than six times likelier to make 3+ probowls than the second quarterback taken.

The third quarterback taken is twice as likely to make 3+ probowls as the second quarterback taken.

The second quarterback taken is usually not very good.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

it is 100% impossible to rebuild a line like that in the modern NFL, which is why a number of us would like to see a dominant QB instead of a dominant oline. with free agency its impossible to keep a group like that together.

wait til the jets have to deal with free agency, not a chance in hell they keep that line together for much longer. once mangold and ferguson realize its payday, theyll be outta there. if this was 1985, the jets would be sitting pretty, but dominant olines usually dont last in the modern NFL because they rely on 5 people. dominant QBs usually rely on themselves, so teams can lock them up for a decade once they strike gold.

we need to strike gold.

That is very true. And the dominant o-lines usually last only 2-3 years because of age-injuries anyways. Think Giants o-line back in like 2006-2008.

Feneca, LG with the Jets, might retire when his contract is up, he's getting old.

No team has ever really aspired to have a truly amazing o-line for a long time since Free Agency began. Teams usually get content when they're two or so pieces away and just fill those gaps with average guys.