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

[skinsdude]

and this is my dream draft.

#1 QB (Bradford please)

#2 LT (Shanny's choice)

#3 OL or RB (draft choice recived in trade for JC)

#4 BPA

etc.

Rodger Saffold, the OT from Indiana was projected to go in the second round somewhere around our 37th pick but a couple of mock drafts now have him going as a high first now. He would be a nice pick.

[elkabong82]

Looking at OL drafted high and whether or not they've been in Superbowls provides no conclusive evidence, regardless of the results, that OL shouldn't be drafted high.

Has there been a Superbowl winning team with a bad OL? Has a QB been developed behind an OL with no high draft picks invested in it at all and had success? Even Peyton Manning and Drew Brees began their careers behind OLs with at least 1 high draft pick invested in it.

What's the bust ratio for high drafted OL, in terms of whether or not they are still a viable starter? It doesn't seem like 1st rd OL bust out as often as QBs do.

Shouldn't it be about taking the best player anyways? Each draft is unique, and the idea you should stay away from a position because of past occurences, on other teams no less, seems faulty to me. Whichever player grades out as the best available, whether it be OL or QB, should be the one we take.

[TerpSkin]

The problem I have with trying to use stats like these are that they are just way too simplistic. Simplistic to the point of being useless. I'm not tryin to bash, because it is interesting -- but I sure hope no professional GM or scout would even really take a stat like that into consideration. I bet most of those QBs who turned out to be good to great either were drafted into situations with good OL, or good OL were developed around them soon after their acquisition. Moreover, I bet most of those busts were drafted into bad situations that didn't get better fast. The real reason for drafting OL early and often has nothing to do with success rates in the draft, but the fact that this position has been ignored in the draft for too long. We have so much more ground to make up on the OL than we do at QB. We have tried the QB without OL approach many times in recent history. Time to try something new.

[Sellersfan]

That was my response to the statement that teams don't trade franchise QB's away.

Jerry Glanville said it would take a plane crash for Favre to start. BTW, did you look at his stats in Atlanta? 4 pass attempts, 2 ints, 0 completions. Glanville right or wrong didn't even agree with drafting him.

In this context, he is not a franchise QB when he was traded.

[DCMONEY]

Botom line is the Skins need to address their o-line 1st in this draft period.

[Morneblade]

I don't buy that one bit especially the mile high crap. Some drafts are deeper then others especially at one position so if they think the kind of guys they like will go late then the trend will continue. I also expect them to bring in a lot of undrafted guys that fit their mold.

My prediction is they will find a late or undrafted oline and rb this year that makes the team. Again oline and rb I am not worried about at all.

Well, considering that when Shanahan was the only guy running a ZBS at first and now I think 50% of the league runs it...........you ought to get back to reality. Now, the elevation thing is much more subject to debate. However the fact that now half the league is looking for those types of players (smart and mobile, not big road graters) are in much more demand then when there was 1 team looking for those guys.

I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but UDFA's and starting OL hasnt realy worked here. That's been the problem, lack of talent. I suppose I could just respond with:

"Vinnie, is that you?"

[TheLongshot]

Jerry Glanville said it would take a plane crash for Favre to start. BTW, did you look at his stats in Atlanta? 4 pass attempts, 2 ints, 0 completions. Glanville right or wrong didn't even agree with drafting him.

In this context, he is not a franchise QB when he was traded.

Actually, Glanville claimed he traded Favre away to sober him up.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/03/18/jerry-glanville-i-traded-brett-favre-for-drinking-too-much/

"I had to get him out of Atlanta. . . . I could not sober him up," Glanville said. "I sent him to a city where at 9:00 at night the only thing that's open is Chili Joes. You can get it two ways, with or without onions. And that's what made Brett Favre make a comeback was going to a town that closed down. If I would have traded him to New York, nobody to this day would have known who Brett Favre ever was."

[Sellersfan]

Actually, Glanville claimed he traded Favre away to sober him up.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/03/18/jerry-glanville-i-traded-brett-favre-for-drinking-too-much/

I saw that the other day too. Makes you wonder how true it is. Favre's battles with pain killers was well documented. I think Glanville is right in that a big city would have eaten Favre alive, and he would have ended up a nobody.

[kiingspadee]

Botom line is the Skins need to address their o-line 1st in this draft period.

God no - you can get OL later in the draft and not only that I hope we do not have a top 5 pick for a very very long time - therefore we should snag a QB NOW while we are still primed for a shot at having what great teams have....a quarterback.

Let's look at all 32 teams and who their QB is in regards to where they are drafting.

*Rookie

1. St. Louis (1-15) - Marc Bulger
   
2. Detroit (2-14) - Matthew Stafford *
   
3. Tampa Bay (3-13) - Josh Freeman *
   
4. Washington (4-12) - Jason Campbell
   
5. Kansas City (4-12) - Matt Cassel
   
6. Seattle (5-11) - Matt Hasselbeck
   
7. Cleveland (5-11) - Brady Quinn
   
8. Oakland (5-11) - Jamarcus Russel
   
9. Buffalo (6-10) - Ryan Fitzpatrick
   
10. Jacksonville (7-9) - David Garrard
    
11. Chicago (7-9) - Jay Cutler
    
12. Miami (7-9) - Chad Henne
    
13. San Francisco (8-8) - Alex Smith
    
14. Denver (8-8) - Kyle Orton
    
15. New York Giants (8-8) - Eli Manning
    
16. Tennessee (8-8) - Vince Young
    
17. Carolina (8-8) - Matt Moore (or also Jake Delholme)
    
18. Pittsburgh (9-7) - Ben Roethlisberger
    
19. Atlanta (9-7) - Matt Ryan
    
20. Houston (9-7) - Matt Shaub
    
21. Cincinnati* (10-6) - Carson Palmer
    
22. New England* (10-6) - Tom Brady
    
23. Green Bay* (11-5) - Aaron Rodgers
    
24. Philadelphia* (11-5) - Donovan McNabb
    
25. Baltimore* (9-7) - Joe Flacco
    
26. Arizona* (10-6) - Kurt Warner
    
27. Dallas* (11-5) - Tony Homo
    
28. San Diego* (13-3) - Phillip Rivers
    
29. New York Jets* (9-7) - Mark Sanchez*
    
30. Minnesota* (12-4) - Brett Favre
    
31. Indianapolis* (14-2) - Peyton Manning
    
32. New Orleans* (13-3) - Drew Brees
    

Just seems to me the better your QB the better your record. Now let's take the top 10 teams as far as draft order goes seeing as how they are some of the better quarterbacks in the league - so 22-32. They were sacked with a combined total of 310 sacks. With those 10 quarterbacks they avg. being sacked 1.9 times a game.

Now let's look at the top 10 QBS in the league which from NFL.COM they are, Brees, Favre, Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Matt Shaub, Homo, Brady, Warner. These QBS had a combined total of 288 sacks. Those 10 quarterbacks they avg. being sacked 1.8 times a game.

Time to flip the script and look at the bottom 10 quarterbacks as far as team records and the bottom 10 quarterbacks according to NFL.COM. the bottom 10 quarterbacks had a combined 290 sacks so a 1.8 avg of being sacked per game. The bottom 10 quarterbacks according to NFL.COM had a combined 280 sacks which is 1.7 avg. of being sacked per game.

However I am sure if you looked at their win/loss and touchdowns I am sure you will see a significant difference. What matters to me is can the QB win and can the QB put points on the board. Quite simply - Jason Campbell can NOT do that.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I'm not sure if you have been paying attention, but UDFA's and starting OL hasnt realy worked here. "

Why hasn't it though? Has it been a bad scheme? Lack of quality scouting?

Take a look at this:

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/saints_and_colts_take_different_route_to_building_nfl_super_bowl_lineups/

Patriots have Neil and Kazcur as two undrafted linemen and no first rounders.

The Bengals drafted Smith #5, but he didn't start much. Whitworth was a 2nd round converted guard.

Chargers have an undrafted converted DEFENSIVE LINEMAN, a few late rounders and not a single 1st round pick on their line.

The Giants don't have a single first rounder on their line too, and one first day pick they drafted- Chris Snee.

Why have we failed to develop late-round talent on the line? Have we simply not brought in enough of it? Or does our scouting suck in regards to finding starting quality linemen? Or was Bugel's scheme not that good, or outdated in the modern NFL?

Also, considering that Shanahan's lines were elite up until the day he got fired, I don't see how the "ZBS monopoly" thing works. Did everyone just start running ZBS in 2008?

[Sellersfan]

God no - you can get OL later in the draft and not only that I hope we do not have a top 5 pick for a very very long time - therefore we should snag a QB NOW while we are still primed for a shot at having what great teams have....a quarterback.

Let's look at all 32 teams and who their QB is in regards to where they are drafting.

*Rookie

1. St. Louis (1-15) - Marc Bulger
   
2. Detroit (2-14) - Matthew Stafford *
   
3. Tampa Bay (3-13) - Josh Freeman *
   
4. Washington (4-12) - Jason Campbell
   
5. Kansas City (4-12) - Matt Cassel
   
6. Seattle (5-11) - Matt Hasselbeck
   
7. Cleveland (5-11) - Brady Quinn
   
8. Oakland (5-11) - Jamarcus Russel
   
9. Buffalo (6-10) - Ryan Fitzpatrick
   
10. Jacksonville (7-9) - David Garrard
    
11. Chicago (7-9) - Jay Cutler
    
12. Miami (7-9) - Chad Henne
    
13. San Francisco (8-8) - Alex Smith
    
14. Denver (8-8) - Kyle Orton
    
15. New York Giants (8-8) - Eli Manning
    
16. Tennessee (8-8) - Vince Young
    
17. Carolina (8-8) - Matt Moore (or also Jake Delholme)
    
18. Pittsburgh (9-7) - Ben Roethlisberger
    
19. Atlanta (9-7) - Matt Ryan
    
20. Houston (9-7) - Matt Shaub
    
21. Cincinnati* (10-6) - Carson Palmer
    
22. New England* (10-6) - Tom Brady
    
23. Green Bay* (11-5) - Aaron Rodgers
    
24. Philadelphia* (11-5) - Donovan McNabb
    
25. Baltimore* (9-7) - Joe Flacco
    
26. Arizona* (10-6) - Kurt Warner
    
27. Dallas* (11-5) - Tony Homo
    
28. San Diego* (13-3) - Phillip Rivers
    
29. New York Jets* (9-7) - Mark Sanchez*
    
30. Minnesota* (12-4) - Brett Favre
    
31. Indianapolis* (14-2) - Peyton Manning
    
32. New Orleans* (13-3) - Drew Brees
    

Just seems to me the better your QB the better your record. Now let's take the top 10 teams as far as draft order goes seeing as how they are some of the better quarterbacks in the league - so 22-32. They were sacked with a combined total of 310 sacks. With those 10 quarterbacks they avg. being sacked 1.9 times a game.

Now let's look at the top 10 QBS in the league which from NFL.COM they are, Brees, Favre, Rivers, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Peyton Manning, Matt Shaub, Homo, Brady, Warner. These QBS had a combined total of 288 sacks. Those 10 quarterbacks they avg. being sacked 1.8 times a game.

Time to flip the script and look at the bottom 10 quarterbacks as far as team records and the bottom 10 quarterbacks according to NFL.COM. the bottom 10 quarterbacks had a combined 290 sacks so a 1.8 avg of being sacked per game. The bottom 10 quarterbacks according to NFL.COM had a combined 280 sacks which is 1.7 avg. of being sacked per game.

However I am sure if you looked at their win/loss and touchdowns I am sure you will see a significant difference. What matters to me is can the QB win and can the QB put points on the board. Quite simply - Jason Campbell can NOT do that.

The list needs to be updated, as there have been some qb moves. In looking at the list however, there are about 10 teams (skins included) that have question marks on the qb position.

Interesting to note that Seattle, and SF both have 2 first round picks, and I would consider both teams needing upgrades at qb. Not sure what Seattle is doing, seeing they grabbed the backup from SD, and are paying 5 mill.

[Morneblade]

Why hasn't it though? Has it been a bad scheme? Lack of quality scouting?

Take a look at this:

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/saints_and_colts_take_different_route_to_building_nfl_super_bowl_lineups/

Patriots have Neil and Kazcur as two undrafted linemen and no first rounders.

The Bengals drafted Smith #5, but he didn't start much. Whitworth was a 2nd round converted guard.

Chargers have an undrafted converted DEFENSIVE LINEMAN, a few late rounders and not a single 1st round pick on their line.

The Giants don't have a single first rounder on their line too, and one first day pick they drafted- Chris Snee.

Why have we failed to develop late-round talent on the line? Have we simply not brought in enough of it? Or does our scouting suck in regards to finding starting quality linemen? Or was Bugel's scheme not that good, or outdated in the modern NFL?

Also, considering that Shanahan's lines were elite up until the day he got fired, I don't see how the "ZBS monopoly" thing works. Did everyone just start running ZBS in 2008?

Shanahan also spent the #12 pick on Clady.

Your other points of course have merit. I dont think we have scouted well or picked well with lat OL picks, or UDFA's. Vinny was very candid about both the lines in general and about how much he thought of them. So glad he is gone. We have seemingly brought in alot of bodies, but not much talent. I honestly cant say anything on Buges though.

My point about just "expecting" to be able to have a undrafted guy come in and start, just because the ZBS isnt in demand (which...it is) is how stupid it was. You have to put talent there and you are very likely going to have to draft high for it at times. If you think you can just throw fat guys in there and it be servicable, you're not going to last long. I think we can agree on that.

[mistertim]

God no - you can get OL later in the draft and not only that I hope we do not have a top 5 pick for a very very long time - therefore we should snag a QB NOW while we are still primed for a shot at having what great teams have....a quarterback.

Yes, you can get OL later in the draft. And teams with decent OLs can do that and develop them and hope they can turn into starting material, or even a good LT eventually. The problem is we don't have that luxury. We have NO LT. None. We need a guy who can come in and start at that postion from day 1 and be decent. You find those guys in the 1st round. It is very rare that a later round pick turns out to be an immediate stud at LT.

As far as QBs go, you don't draft one JUST because you have a high pick. That is just asking for a bust. Especially when you have so many glaring needs on an OL as god awful as ours. If the scouts and GM, etc TRULY believe the guy is definitely an elite talent and franchise QB material then fine, but reaching on a QB just because you'd like a new one is pure lunacy given the bust rate.

Our OL is easily the most glaring problem on the team right now. Easily. I know Campbell bashers will contend that he is horrible, etc. But he is a decent QB and a known commodity who put up decent numbers last season behind arguably the worst OL in the league. Rookie QBs who have success early are almost always surrounded by at least a decent surrounding cast. Ours is basically the antithesis of that.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Ah, yes. Vinny did show consistent disdain for line play on both sides. Most of these other teams have made the lines an organizational focus even when they have not spent lots of high picks on them.

I wonder what kind of support is given in the locker room to linemen to get the most out of them - specialized coaching, more personnel, etc - haven't we had linemen on our PS that have gone on to become starters on other teams? The reason we're seemingly being "forced" into taking a LT (especially if he's the 2nd best on the board, as is possible if the Lions draft OKung) is because we don't even have, say ,a raw but talented LT to evaluate, because we've done so badly at finding them for so long.

mistertim: Make no mistake - I am under no illusions as to how we will do if we don't draft a top LT, or otherwise find a servicable starter as well as upgrade the rest of the line. We will struggle. We may not be better than 4-12 if the 3-4 doesn't gel quickly. Taking a QB resigns us to at least 2 offseasons of rebuilding. And we probably won't see our new QB get significant playing time year 1 unless a miracle happens.

I'm fine with that. We have been putting off the inevitable rebuild for so, so, so long, always trying to RETOOL instead of REBUILD. If we can get two drafts of high picks, and use those to rebuild, while developing unheralded guys as well as a new star QB, then we'll position ourselves for long-term success.

[elkabong82]

Why hasn't it though? Has it been a bad scheme? Lack of quality scouting?

Take a look at this:

http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/saints_and_colts_take_different_route_to_building_nfl_super_bowl_lineups/

Patriots have Neil and Kazcur as two undrafted linemen and no first rounders.

The Bengals drafted Smith #5, but he didn't start much. Whitworth was a 2nd round converted guard.

Chargers have an undrafted converted DEFENSIVE LINEMAN, a few late rounders and not a single 1st round pick on their line.

The Giants don't have a single first rounder on their line too, and one first day pick they drafted- Chris Snee.

Why have we failed to develop late-round talent on the line? Have we simply not brought in enough of it? Or does our scouting suck in regards to finding starting quality linemen? Or was Bugel's scheme not that good, or outdated in the modern NFL?

Also, considering that Shanahan's lines were elite up until the day he got fired, I don't see how the "ZBS monopoly" thing works. Did everyone just start running ZBS in 2008?

You should consider, I believe, the actual development of those OLs.

It seems to me a lot of people are looking at the current OLs of good teams from the perspective that those OLs all started out with those same people from those same rounds and that success was developed with the philosophy of grabbing lower round OL and seeing what stuck.

The Patriots, Colts, and Bengals have all had the same head coach for a while now, save for the recent change with the Colts. They all found a franchise QB who has been there for years, and they all developed their QBs into franchise QBs behind OLs with at least a couple higher round draft picks invested in them. As their QB and OL improved and gelled, some OL remained, while others went on to other teams for more money or were released. As they improved though, it meant the resources needed did not have to be such high investments as previously, especially once they got to the point they are now.

A good OL can be DEVELOPED into one which doesn't require several, if any, high round investments. But, the foundation should be based upon talented, young players, which you acquire in the high rounds.

Most people used to bash the FO for not drafting an OL high early since Samuels and Jansen, and praised teams like the Patriots who did draft OL high at some point. But now all of a sudden a bunch of those same people are basically saying the previous FO strategy of building OL is valid? That can't be right. It seems it has developed out of a desire for QB to be taken high instead.

However, making an argument that a good OL unit can be founded on low picks and UDFAs is not good because the current examples of good OL units did not start out that way. The Saints would be a good example, btw, if Brees had been there the whole time, but he developed behind an OL with higher picks in it in San Diego. What the Saints basically did was skip the development part because they got lucky and a franchise QB who'd already been developed became available.

Besides, like I said before in this thread, the highest graded player should be the one taken, not a specific position.

As it stand right now, we have bupkus at the tackle positions. I don't want to bring a high pick QB into that situation because I don't think there are enough examples, if any, of a QB being succesful despite being developed behind an OL comprised of low picks and UDFAs.

I also don't think that the odds of landing a franchise LT and RT with the 2nd and 4th rounders in one draft, ones who can play right away, are very good at all.

I also believe Bradford is the only one worth taking at QB that high in this draft, but even he is a stretch.

I'd sooner like to see us trade down given our limited number of picks.

However, if Shanny goes Bradford with 4, what I believe could be a feasible plan is to trade down our 2nd rounder. While relying on a trade down is risky because you don't know if you'll get an offer, there is always a decent chance someone slips out of the 1st and could wind up being trade bait. We more than likely could ne a low 2nd and 3rd, one of which could be counted on to start, the other you hope will, but you can still find a stop-gap in the FA market until the other player comes along. I;d say actually a RT 2nd would be good, less development, and a project with a lot of upside in the 3rd to develop with a stop gap at starter, wouldn't be bad to develop a rookie under, considering that rookie might not even play until the following season anyways.

[Kindred]

Do the original stats factor in QB's drafted that were actually given a chance to start? I know there are often NFL politics at play that pressure coaches to play the higher draft picks.

[elkabong82]

***Look at our Redskins. We had a pretty good starting OL for a few years until injuries hit. We developed Samuels, Jansen, and Dock. We upgarded at center and RG with Rabach and Thomas, 2 good free agents. But we barely drafted OL for depth and eventual replacements. One major reason was because we kept trading away draft picks. IF we weren't looking for starters at a bunch of positions, as well as depth, then I'd say we could afford to use lower round picks to fill the OL. In fact, the previous Redskins OL unit, had we drafted a couple OL in 3-6th rounds, some might have stuck around like they did in the case of Colts, Pats, Bengals, Chargers, etc. Since we didn't, our lack of depth at OL plagued the starting unit as they got older and injured more often. Those other teams acquired depth they had time to develop among quality starters. The 2 guys we did draft, and in very low rounds, didn't pan out and we never drafted anymore until Rinehart in '08.

So if we were replenishing an OL that just had a hole or two but has already established itself as a unit overall, then sticking to the mid and lower rounds as the Colts, Pats, etc. have done more recently might be a solid strategy, especially given our weaknesses elsewhere.

HOWEVER, because we are replacing LT, RG, and RT, and we are trying to acquire depth there as well, it is a much bigger project, and thus is in a much earlier stage of development than the lines in Indy, NE, NO, SD, etc. Since this is an entire unit we need to develop, and the only 2 mainstays, Rabach and Dockery, have limited shelflives, we need to upgrade it with major talent, IMO.

But again, BPA is my preference.

[IronMike]

Let's see if I understand this argument?

Let's play a little altering history game:

Would you rather have QB Heath Schuler or Chris Samuels?

According to this thread we should draft Heath again!

:-)

:beatdeadhorse:

[skinzwiz]

http://extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=320037

[UK Redskins Fan]

For me the issue with this draft is not a general point about whether it is worth spending a No.4 pick on an elite QB. It is specifically whether Bradford or Clausen actually represent elite QB prospects.

[RedskinTerrorist]

Let's see if I understand this argument?

Let's play a little altering history game:

Would you rather have QB Heath Schuler or Chris Samuels?

According to this thread we should draft Heath again!

:-)

:beatdeadhorse:

Your aregument rests on the fact that you already know the ENTIRE careers of both players. There are more than enough examples of the exact opposite senerio.

[skinsdude]

Yes, you can get OL later in the draft. And teams with decent OLs can do that and develop them and hope they can turn into starting material, or even a good LT eventually. The problem is we don't have that luxury. We have NO LT. None. We need a guy who can come in and start at that postion from day 1 and be decent. You find those guys in the 1st round. It is very rare that a later round pick turns out to be an immediate stud at LT.

As far as QBs go, you don't draft one JUST because you have a high pick. That is just asking for a bust. Especially when you have so many glaring needs on an OL as god awful as ours. If the scouts and GM, etc TRULY believe the guy is definitely an elite talent and franchise QB material then fine, but reaching on a QB just because you'd like a new one is pure lunacy given the bust rate.

Our OL is easily the most glaring problem on the team right now. Easily. I know Campbell bashers will contend that he is horrible, etc. But he is a decent QB and a known commodity who put up decent numbers last season behind arguably the worst OL in the league. Rookie QBs who have success early are almost always surrounded by at least a decent surrounding cast. Ours is basically the antithesis of that.

Once again, why does the left tackle have to come at number 4? We are more likely to get a quarterback that can start on day 1 at 4 and a left tackle that can start on day 1 at 37 than the other way around. We need both this year. Okung or Bugala, alone, is not going to significantly upgrade our team this year. An o-lineman at 4 and 37 is not going to be enough. A quarterback taken in the second round or beyond is not going to help our team for another 2 to 3 years. We don't have that long.

[skinsdude]

Your aregument rests on the fact that you already know the ENTIRE careers of both players. There are more than enough examples of the exact opposite senerio.

Very true. We only had two playoff appearances the entire time that Chris was here. That doesn't bolster the argument much.

[Sellersfan]

Once again, why does the left tackle have to come at number 4? We are more likely to get a quarterback that can start on day 1 at 4 and a left tackle that can start on day 1 at 37 than the other way around. We need both this year. Okung or Bugala, alone, is not going to significantly upgrade our team this year. An o-lineman at 4 and 37 is not going to be enough. A quarterback taken in the second round or beyond is not going to help our team for another 2 to 3 years. We don't have that long.

Reading your post actually makes me support the trade down for more picks option. Mock drafts out there right now have around 8 OT's going in the first round. Now how many of them can be LT's I dont know. Bradford will definetly be gone by #4, so is Clausen worthy of that spot? Some say yes, others no, me I wasn't totally blown away by him in the very little I saw him play.

There will be alot of movement on the draft rankings for the next month, mostly agents positioning their players. There is a high probability that Bradford goes #1, and Okung #2. Bulaga and Clausen IMHO, are not #4 worthy, so we trade back.

[gaskinsfan]

The Skins need better QB play. I agree 100%, Jason has not looked great even when he has protection. Anybody can go to youtube and watch Charlie Casslery or NFL.com to see Jason's struggles. Not sure if the other guys can step up or not.

However for the 2010 Draft; Bradford to me is a big question mark and there is no other QB that has immediate sure thing written all over them in this draft. We have Colt and Rex to fight Jason and the Skins will at the very least be decent at QB if JC starts, maybe better if Colt steps up.

You can't say the same about our O line. It was horrible last year. It's not just that we don't have a single LT on the roster, we don't have a starting tackle period on the roster. Heyer and Reinhart are backups at best, Mike Williams was a disaster at Tackle last year, we need a new starting LT and RT.

If Okung is there you take him at #4 without reservation. If he is not, you have to make the tough choice of taking someone a little ahead of their projection because OT is such a need on the Skins.

Too much need at OT to do anything else.