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

[gaskinsfan]

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.

I agree it would be nice to trade back but it takes two to tango. Unless there is a player that someone really wants at #4 no one will trade with us. A difficult scenario, but unless something changes in FA and we fill at least one of the starting tackle spots I don't see how we can do anything else but reach for the next best lineman if Okung is not there.

[skinsdude]

I agree it would be nice to trade back but it takes two to tango. Unless there is a player that someone really wants at #4 no one will trade with us. A difficult scenario, but unless something changes in FA and we fill at least one of the starting tackle spots I don't see how we can do anything else but reach for the next best lineman if Okung is not there.

I agree. If Bradford and Okung are gone that means that either Suh or McCoy is left. So a team is going to have to need D-line help. After that there probably is not a player worth trading up for.

[Sellersfan]

I agree it would be nice to trade back but it takes two to tango. Unless there is a player that someone really wants at #4 no one will trade with us. A difficult scenario, but unless something changes in FA and we fill at least one of the starting tackle spots I don't see how we can do anything else but reach for the next best lineman if Okung is not there.

Good point. Would you agree that Bulaga at 4 is less of a reach than Clausen?

[kingdaddy]

Can you post the numbers on O-linemen drafted in the 1st round and how many SB's they've won?

[elkabong82]

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

1 member of a 5 man unit, out of 53 on the roster. Yet the team results are all lon him now? This argument with Samuels keeps getting thrown around and it's complete bunk.

Chris Samuels just retired. Can we at least respect him enough not to completely devalue his worth with ignorant logic?

How many playoff appearances have we had with the QBs we've taken in rd 1 the past decade? That doesn't bolster the QB argument much either.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should be looking at the success of those positions overall, not just thru the W-L column of 1 team. Or maybe we could acftually examine the players available, instead of acting like whoever we pick will be fine because we picked a certain position rather than the player.

[Sellersfan]

1 member of a 5 man unit, out of 53 on the roster. Yet the team results are all lon him now? This argument with Samuels keeps getting thrown around and it's complete bunk.

Chris Samuels just retired. Can we at least respect him enough not to completely devalue his worth with ignorant logic?

How many playoff appearances have we had with the QBs we've taken in rd 1 the past decade? That doesn't bolster the QB argument much either.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should be looking at the success of those positions overall, not just thru the W-L column of 1 team. Or maybe we could acftually examine the players available, instead of acting like whoever we pick will be fine because we picked a certain position rather than the player.

Agreed!

LT's dont single handidly win games. They are however CRITICAL to offensive success.

Equating playoff appearances to Chris Samuels is like blaming him for receivers dropping balls, and RB fumbles.

BTW, he was rated as a top 10 LT going into the 09 season, despite his age and health issues.

[skinzwiz]

I think teams have started to realize how important OL is in the recent drafts. In 2008, I never saw so many OLmen taken in the first round.

[skinsdude]

1 member of a 5 man unit, out of 53 on the roster. Yet the team results are all lon him now? This argument with Samuels keeps getting thrown around and it's complete bunk.

Chris Samuels just retired. Can we at least respect him enough not to completely devalue his worth with ignorant logic?

How many playoff appearances have we had with the QBs we've taken in rd 1 the past decade? That doesn't bolster the QB argument much either.

Or maybe, just maybe, we should be looking at the success of those positions overall, not just thru the W-L column of 1 team. Or maybe we could acftually examine the players available, instead of acting like whoever we pick will be fine because we picked a certain position rather than the player.

The comparison that I made was a tribute to Chris. As great as he was at the left tackle position he was unable to take us over the top without a quarterback. The fact of the matter is that Jason Campbell, even when he has protection, is at best, an average quarterback. Numerous instances and videos posted on ES show this to be the case. As someone said earlier, we cannot assemble an offensive line that can give Jason the 30 seconds of protection that he needs each down. If he had 30 second he would still throw the ball out of bounds.

The fact that we haven't had any success with our past two first round quarterbacks is due to the fact that they should have been picked in the second round. Ramsey was the 32nd overall pick that should have gone at the end of the second round. The spot that Jason Campbell was chosen is really beyond belief. No one but the Skins make that deal. Three picks to move up to pick a player that should have been chosen, again, late in the second round. An alltime blunder by our team.

[elkabong82]

The comparison that I made was a tribute to Chris. As great as he was at the left tackle position he was unable to take us over the top without a quarterback. The fact of the matter is that Jason Campbell, even when he has protection, is at best, an average quarterback. Numerous instances and videos posted on ES show this to be the case. As someone said earlier, we cannot assemble an offensive line that can give Jason the 30 seconds of protection that he needs each down. If he had 30 second he would still throw the ball out of bounds.

The fact that we haven't had any success with our past two first round quarterbacks is due to the fact that they should have been picked in the second round. Ramsey was the 32nd overall pick that should have gone at the end of the second round. The spot that Jason Campbell was chosen is really beyond belief. No one but the Skins make that deal. Three picks to move up to pick a player that should have been chosen, again, late in the second round. An alltime blunder by our team.

Thread is about OL vs. QB for the 1st pick, not about Jason Campbell.

How is saying we shouldn't draft OL at 4 because we only went to the playoffs twice with Chris Samuels a tribute to him?

In hindsight maybe the QBs should have been taken lower. That same thing could wind up applying to Bradford or Clausen, much like it has applied to Alex Smith, Jamarcus Rusell, etc. Since you are saying OL shouldn't be drafted high since we didn't have a lot of success overall with Samuels here, doesn't that mean in hindsight he too shouldn't have been taken so high, going by your logic? So if those other QBs don't count because they should have been taken lower, then the same would apply to Chris Samuels by your statements.

Like I said, if you can use Chris Samuels and team performance overall to justify not taking OL, then I can use our past 1st round QBs and team overall success nto justify not taking QB.

But really, again, neither justification should be used. What should be used is evaluation of the players at both positions that will be available and whether or not they garde out as being worth the pick. You shouldn't give blind allegiance to one position, you should give it to the player you have graded highest when you pick.

[skinsdude]

Thread is about OL vs. QB for the 1st pick, not about Jason Campbell.

How is saying we shouldn't draft OL at 4 because we only went to the playoffs twice with Chris Samuels a tribute to him?

In hindsight maybe the QBs should have been taken lower. That same thing could wind up applying to Bradford or Clausen, much like it has applied to Alex Smith, Jamarcus Rusell, etc. Since you are saying OL shouldn't be drafted high since we didn't have a lot of success overall with Samuels here, doesn't that mean in hindsight he too shouldn't have been taken so high, going by your logic? So if those other QBs don't count because they should have been taken lower, then the same would apply to Chris Samuels by your statements.

Like I said, if you can use Chris Samuels and team performance overall to justify not taking OL, then I can use our past 1st round QBs and team overall success nto justify not taking QB.

But really, again, neither justification should be used. What should be used is evaluation of the players at both positions that will be available and whether or not they garde out as being worth the pick. You shouldn't give blind allegiance to one position, you should give it to the player you have graded highest when you pick.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the first sentence of your post. Of course the debate is about o-line vs. quarterback at 4 but you have to consider your options as well as what you currently have. Jason Campbell was our starting quarterback last year. We don’t have an adequate starting quarterback. Not Jason, not Rex, not Colt, not Richard. That’s not about Jason alone, it’s about our entire QB roster.

I guess that you will have to take my word for the fact that my Chris Samuels analogy was a complement to him. He alone could not take us over the top. Not with the likes of Mark Brunnel, Patrick Ramsey, Jason Campbell and the host of other Florida quarterbacks that we had under center. I don’t think that you will find many NFL executives who will say that Chris Samuels was drafted in the incorrect draft position but I doubt that you will find many that feel that Patrick Ramsey or Jason Campbell were chosen in the correct spot. Is that their fault? No, but it’s obvious now and it’s time to move on.

We do not necessarily need a franchise quarterback or a franchise left tackle. We need an above average quarterback and an above average left tackle. I feel that Shanahan will do whatever he can to draft Sam Bradford with our first pick and I feel like that would be the right move. We can then take o-linemen with our third and fourth picks. That would upgrade our team.

[elkabong82]

I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the first sentence of your post. Of course the debate is about o-line vs. quarterback at 4 but you have to consider your options as well as what you currently have. Jason Campbell was our starting quarterback last year. We don’t have an adequate starting quarterback. Not Jason, not Rex, not Colt, not Richard. That’s not about Jason alone, it’s about our entire QB roster.

I guess that you will have to take my word for the fact that my Chris Samuels analogy was a complement to him. He alone could not take us over the top. Not with the likes of Mark Brunnel, Patrick Ramsey, Jason Campbell and the host of other Florida quarterbacks that we had under center. I don’t think that you will find many NFL executives who will say that Chris Samuels was drafted in the incorrect draft position but I doubt that you will find many that feel that Patrick Ramsey or Jason Campbell were chosen in the correct spot. Is that their fault? No, but it’s obvious now and it’s time to move on.

We do not necessarily need a franchise quarterback or a franchise left tackle. We need an above average quarterback and an above average left tackle. I feel that Shanahan will do whatever he can to draft Sam Bradford with our first pick and I feel like that would be the right move. We can then take o-linemen with our third and fourth picks. That would upgrade our team.

It's your opinion we don't have an adequate QB on the roster, Shanny may feel differently. However, this thread is examining the success of OL drafted high vs. that of QBs. So the parameters assume both OL and QB are already needed. If you want to get into a comparison of our current QB vs our current OL, the need on OL is going to win every time. We had no run game, we had street guys blocking who couldn't give enough protection for 5 and 7 step drops, and now we need 3 starters on the OL. Jason Campbell at least had middle of the pack stats, overall, but the OL wasn't even close to middle of the pack.

If Chris Samuels was drafted in the correct position, then it means OL are worthy of being picked high and it negates your whole argument about him. Well, that and logic that 1 player is not solely responsible for the success of the team, as you tried to imply by saying we didn't do much with Chris Samuels here.

But again, if you can use Chris Samuels and the team success as justification to not draft OL high, I can do the same with the QBs. Also, why aren't you bringing up Shuler in these discussions? Also, why are you only looking at the Redskins? How about Alex Smith, Rusell, Quinn, Carr, and the other high 1st QBs who have busted? Those teams didn't have success with those QBs, so if team performance with Samuels is justification for not taking OL, these guys are also justifcation for not taking QB. And again, in hindsight it could just as easily happen with Bradford and Clausen that they were drafted too high, as that's typically what happens with 1st rounders who don't perform well. The argument that other players don't count because they shouldn't have been drafted that high is invalid.

I just posted a page or two back about how extremely rare it is for a QB to be developed behind an OL comprised of mid and low round picks and UDFAs. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, all started out behind OLs with at least 1 high round pick invested in it. Their current OLs have lower picks on them now because the core was talented so those teams could afford to draft projects and develop them under the starters. Our Redskins never replinished the OL depth with draft picks, save for 1-2 guys in the low rounds who busted, because we kept trading picks away, and that is why the line is in shambles today and why the Colts, Pats, etc. still have good lines.

You want to bring Bradford, who already has an injury concern, and hope you land your franchise LT in the 2nd and franchise RT in the 4th? Yeah, a franchise QB, LT, and RT all in one draft, that's a very realistic scenario to count on happening, lol.

We need to start developing our OL now by bringing in high quality young talent, that way whoever becomes our franchise QB will have a solid unit to play in front of. That's what the succesful teams have done in this league, save for the Saints, who, as I mentioned earlier, were lucky that a franchise QB hit the FA market, so they didn't have to develop a good OL and then develop a QB behind it. They were able to skip the process.

[TerpSkin]

We don’t have an adequate starting quarterback. Not Jason, not Rex, not Colt, not Richard. That’s not about Jason alone, it’s about our entire QB roster.

That is your opinion. Fine. But I would be surprised if you could not acknowledge this fact: no one in the league thinks we had an adequate OL last season. No one. There are many folks who think J.Campbell is at least adequate as a QB. You might not be one of those people, but there are many folks who think he is at least adequate. So unless I weight your opinion much higher than the collection of all educated opinions (which I do not), OL is the MUCH bigger need. This is not just about the general question of whether a QB at 4 or OL at 4 has a better chance of becoming a marquee player. This is about the Redskins' particular situation heading into the 2010 season. We need two starting tackles and we do not have any. We need two starting tackles to even be functional regardless of what talent we have or we acquire at QB. At this point, with what we have seen of FA, our best chance at even being functional is to draft an OT in the first round, and at least one more OT later in the draft. We can worry about becoming good after we at least become functional.

[skinsdude]

It's your opinion we don't have an adequate QB on the roster, Shanny may feel differently. However, this thread is examining the success of OL drafted high vs. that of QBs. So the parameters assume both OL and QB are already needed. If you want to get into a comparison of our current QB vs our current OL, the need on OL is going to win every time. We had no run game, we had street guys blocking who couldn't give enough protection for 5 and 7 step drops, and now we need 3 starters on the OL. Jason Campbell at least had middle of the pack stats, overall, but the OL wasn't even close to middle of the pack.

If Chris Samuels was drafted in the correct position, then it means OL are worthy of being picked high and it negates your whole argument about him. Well, that and logic that 1 player is not solely responsible for the success of the team, as you tried to imply by saying we didn't do much with Chris Samuels here.

I just posted a page or two back about how extremely rare it is for a QB to be developed behind an OL comprised of mid and low round picks and UDFAs. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, all started out behind OLs with at least 1 high round pick invested in it. Their current OLs have lower picks on them now because the core was talented so those teams could afford to draft projects and develop them under the starters. Our Redskins never replinished the OL depth with draft picks, save for 1-2 guys in the low rounds who busted, because we kept trading picks away, and that is why the line is in shambles today and why the Colts, Pats, etc. still have good lines.

You want to bring Bradford, who already has an injury concern, and hope you land your franchise LT in the 2nd and franchise RT in the 4th? Yeah, a franchise QB, LT, and RT all in one draft, that's a very realistic scenario to count on happening, lol.

We need to start developing our OL now by bringing in high quality young talent, that way whoever becomes our franchise QB will have a solid unit to play in front of. That's what the succesful teams have done in this league, save for the Saints, who, as I mentioned earlier, were lucky that a franchise QB hit the FA market, so they didn't have to develop a good OL and then develop a QB behind it. They were able to skip the process.

Why are you laughing in your second to last paragraph? Did you read my post? Apparently not. I plainly stated that I do not feel that we need a franchise quarterback or a franchise left tackle. We need above average players at these positions. We need an upgrade at quarterback and left tackle. Do you know of a team that has a franchise quarterback, franchise left tackle, and franchise right guard? I didn't think so. With a left tackle drafted in the second round our o-line will be adequate for one year until we can draft additional offensive linemen next year. We can't do everything this year but we can address our two most pressing issues.

And lastly it is not only my opinion that we do not have a starting quarterback on our roster, it is the opinion of many others. It is also my opinion that if Mike Shanahan is able to obtain a quarterback in the first round of the draft that he is comfortable with, that will be our pick. That includes trading down to obtain him.

[Sellersfan]

Why are you laughing in your second to last paragraph? Did you read my post? Apparently not. I plainly stated that I do not feel that we need a franchise quarterback or a franchise left tackle. We need above average players at these positions. We need an upgrade at quarterback and left tackle. Do you know of a team that has a franchise quarterback, franchise left tackle, and franchise right guard? I didn't think so. With a left tackle drafted in the second round our o-line will be adequate for one year until we can draft additional offensive linemen next year. We can't do everything this year but we can address our two most pressing issues.

And lastly it is not only my opinion that we do not have a starting quarterback on our roster, it is the opinion of many others. It is also my opinion that if Mike Shanahan is able to obtain a quarterback in the first round of the draft that he is comfortable with, that will be our pick. That includes trading down to obtain him.

We do have a starting qb on our roster who was far from worst in the league last year. We DO NOT have a starting LT.

[elkabong82]

Why are you laughing in your second to last paragraph? Did you read my post? Apparently not. I plainly stated that I do not feel that we need a franchise quarterback or a franchise left tackle. We need above average players at these positions. We need an upgrade at quarterback and left tackle. Do you know of a team that has a franchise quarterback, franchise left tackle, and franchise right guard? I didn't think so. With a left tackle drafted in the second round our o-line will be adequate for one year until we can draft additional offensive linemen next year. We can't do everything this year but we can address our two most pressing issues.

And lastly it is not only my opinion that we do not have a starting quarterback on our roster, it is the opinion of many others. It is also my opinion that if Mike Shanahan is able to obtain a quarterback in the first round of the draft that he is comfortable with, that will be our pick. That includes trading down to obtain him.

I'm laughing because you think netting a franchise QB, which is what Bradford has to be for the investment of the #4 overall pick, and a franchise LT, which is what a high 2nd round OT has to be if it's a LT, and then a good player who can start right away at RT in the 4th round, is a realistic scenario to occur all in just 1 draft.

We need a starting LT, RG, and RT. We have some talent in Rinehart and Lichtenstein(?), the guy from Denver, at RG, we have Heyer at RT and nothing at LT. We have two bookends to seal up still. Counting on a 2nd and 4th round pick to solve those problems is not a wise decision, especially gieb the bust rates increase as you go further down the draft.

Not to mention we still need depth as well at those positions.

And I already gave examples of teams that developed OLs and then franchise QBs behind them. The Colts, Pats, Chargers, all brought their franchise QBs in behind OLs with at least 1 high pick invested in them. So those teams got franchise QBs and at least one on OL, plus developed permanent starters through that cohesion, as I already explained. Plus, it's right tackle, not guard.

You have any people in mind who could be franchise LT that will be available in the 2nd round? Current mocks have 8 OL going in the 1st round alone. Or are you just assuming a franchise LT will be available there? Do you have any examples of franchise/permanent starters at LT that were drafted in the 2nd?

I guess since you are no longer responding to the Chris Samuels info that you've conceded that point.

And again, as I keep saying, it shouldn't be blind allegiance to one position, it should be the player you have graded highest. There are valid arguments for taking QB high and for taking OL high. Saying "because of player X, that position is not good to draft" is ignorant because it closes off good players, which should never be done.

If you want to discuss current team needs, again, OL is a much bigger need with 3 spots having undetermined starters and depth missing as well. Some people do share your opinion Jason Campbell is not adequate, some people don't. Is there anybody out there at all that believes the OL is adequate? Highly doubtful.

If Bradford falls to us and Shanny takes him, it's because he was the highest graded player available. If Shanny passes on him (assuming Bradford even falls to us), it means whoever he picks instead was graded higher. I support his decision either way because I trust his knowledge with football as it is proven. Can you honestly say if Shanny passes on Bradford and goes OL or something else instead taht you will trust Shanny knows what he is doing and may not have liked Bradford, or will you just complain because the team didn;t do what you wanted it to?

[skinsdude]

I'm laughing because you think netting a franchise QB, which is what Bradford has to be for the investment of the #4 overall pick, and a franchise LT, which is what a high 2nd round OT has to be if it's a LT, and then a good player who can start right away at RT in the 4th round, is a realistic scenario to occur all in just 1 draft.

We need a starting LT, RG, and RT. We have some talent in Rinehart and Lichtenstein(?), the guy from Denver, at RG, we have Heyer at RT and nothing at LT. We have two bookends to seal up still. Counting on a 2nd and 4th round pick to solve those problems is not a wise decision, especially gieb the bust rates increase as you go further down the draft.

Not to mention we still need depth as well at those positions.

And I already gave examples of teams that developed OLs and then franchise QBs behind them. The Colts, Pats, Chargers, all brought their franchise QBs in behind OLs with at least 1 high pick invested in them. So those teams got franchise QBs and at least one on OL, plus developed permanent starters through that cohesion, as I already explained. Plus, it's right tackle, not guard.

You have any people in mind who could be franchise LT that will be available in the 2nd round? Current mocks have 8 OL going in the 1st round alone. Or are you just assuming a franchise LT will be available there? Do you have any examples of franchise/permanent starters at LT that were drafted in the 2nd?

I guess since you are no longer responding to the Chris Samuels info that you've conceded that point.

And again, as I keep saying, it shouldn't be blind allegiance to one position, it should be the player you have graded highest. There are valid arguments for taking QB high and for taking OL high. Saying "because of player X, that position is not good to draft" is ignorant because it closes off good players, which should never be done.

If you want to discuss current team needs, again, OL is a much bigger need with 3 spots having undetermined starters and depth missing as well. Some people do share your opinion Jason Campbell is not adequate, some people don't. Is there anybody out there at all that believes the OL is adequate? Highly doubtful.

If Bradford falls to us and Shanny takes him, it's because he was the highest graded player available. If Shanny passes on him (assuming Bradford even falls to us), it means whoever he picks instead was graded higher. I support his decision either way because I trust his knowledge with football as it is proven. Can you honestly say if Shanny passes on Bradford and goes OL or something else instead taht you will trust Shanny knows what he is doing and may not have liked Bradford, or will you just complain because the team didn;t do what you wanted it to?

You don't build a playoff team in one year. You try to acquire bits and pieces over several years. A quarterback at 4, a left tackle at 37 such as Rodger Saffold, and other positions later in the draft. A left tackle taken 5 positions into the second round is a day 1 starter. That combined with the players that we currently have on the roster gets us through until next year, gives the coaching staff something to work with, and allows the team to grow. Another year with Jason Campbell behind even a revamped line is a wasted year. Why teach him another new system when he's only going to be here one year. Almost anyone will tell you Jason is not the quarterback of the future for our football team.

Why does any player need to be a franchise player? That word is thrown around too much and half the players that are called that are just above average players. We can make our team a lot better all of the way around in this draft, not to the playoffs but better.

[Sellersfan]

You don't build a playoff team in one year. You try to acquire bits and pieces over several years. A quarterback at 4, a left tackle at 37 such as Rodger Saffold, and other positions later in the draft. A left tackle taken 5 positions into the second round is a day 1 starter. That combined with the players that we currently have on the roster gets us through until next year, gives the coaching staff something to work with, and allows the team to grow. Another year with Jason Campbell behind even a revamped line is a wasted year. Why teach him another new system when he's only going to be here one year. Almost anyone will tell you Jason is not the quarterback of the future for our football team.

Why does any player need to be a franchise player? That word is thrown around too much and half the players that are called that are just above average players. We can make our team a lot better all of the way around in this draft, not to the playoffs but better.

So if JC starts this year, are you going to call out the Shanny's? Even if we go qb at 4, that player will probably not start immediately.

[pastha40]

If the season began today our oline starting lineup would look something like this:

LT: Hicks

LG: Dockery

C : Rabach

RG: Big Mike W or Lichtensteiger

RT: Heyer

That is a pathetic lineup, I fail to see how people avocating qb at #4 expect to go into the season with those 5. Gotta take a stud LT with our first pick, move Hicks to right side at a bare minimum. Probably should draft a starting RT with our second pick as well.

Heyer went undrafted for a reason; definitely not starting material.

[elkabong82]

You don't build a playoff team in one year. You try to acquire bits and pieces over several years. A quarterback at 4, a left tackle at 37 such as Rodger Saffold, and other positions later in the draft. A left tackle taken 5 positions into the second round is a day 1 starter. That combined with the players that we currently have on the roster gets us through until next year, gives the coaching staff something to work with, and allows the team to grow. Another year with Jason Campbell behind even a revamped line is a wasted year. Why teach him another new system when he's only going to be here one year. Almost anyone will tell you Jason is not the quarterback of the future for our football team.

Why does any player need to be a franchise player? That word is thrown around too much and half the players that are called that are just above average players. We can make our team a lot better all of the way around in this draft, not to the playoffs but better.

The OL is in worse shape than our QB position. You won't even counter the evidence I used to support that because you know it's true. So you say another year with JC is a waste, but you have no qualms about bringing in a new QB with the 4th pick and essentially having him start right away behind a very suspect OL? Because that's what you're implying should happen by saying another year with Campbell is a waste.

Even if JC isn't the QB of the future it doesn't make sense to bring in a new QB to a crap situation at OL, especially one that has some injury concern.

By franchise player I mean one who is solid and plays for the team for many years. You seem to have the term confused with "elite player." There are plenty of guys who are franchise players but aren't elite.

And a LT in the 2nd is unrealistic. Like I said, name some permanent starters at LT who are good and were drafted in the 2nd. The bust rate for players increases as you go down in rounds. With 8 OL projected to go in the 1st round, you think we will net a LT in the 2nd who will start right away? How often does that even happen?

You are right on the last part, we can use the draft to make our team a lot better. But we could also set the team back by using a poor philosophy to draft, such as yours of ignoring OL high in the draft because we drafted Chris Samuels before and the team didn't do much.

That's as asinine as thinking we can net a franchise QB, LT and starter at RT all in one draft, without multiple early picks and a 3rd rounder. Seriously, would you be comfortable with Bradford starting behind a line with a question mark at LT, a stop-gap at center, question mark at RG, and Heyer or a 4th rounder at RT? He might not make it past the first game with that kind of line.

[TerpSkin]

Let me try putting it this way. If football were like boxing/MMA and the athletic commission had to sanction a team to even compete... the Skins would not get sanctioned to compete with the current OL as it stands. We would get sanctioned with basically any other team's OL and our starting QBs, but not with any imaginable set of QBs and our current OL. The OL situation (specifically the tackle situation) CURRENTLY is that dire.

Now maybe the OT picked at 4 doesn't pan out... but our only chance at even being a remote possibility of competing without being too severe a health threat to whoever ends up being the QB, is to grab tackles early and often in the draft.

[wvtbred]

If the season began today our oline starting lineup would look something like this:

LT: Hicks

LG: Dockery

C : Rabach

RG: Big Mike W or Lichtensteiger

RT: Heyer

That is a pathetic lineup, I fail to see how people avocating qb at #4 expect to go into the season with those 5. Gotta take a stud LT with our first pick, move Hicks to right side at a bare minimum. Probably should draft a starting RT with our second pick as well.

Heyer went undrafted for a reason; definitely not starting material.

With a different scheme one we haven't seen with our guys yet it is premature to doubt what Team Shanny is putting together. We definitely need some depth but I don't believe we "have" to have Okung and only Okung. I will also say again I don't think Okung is there at 4 and I don't believe the other T's are 4th pick material.

Going to be interesting for sure.

[Sellersfan]

Let me try putting it this way. If football were like boxing/MMA and the athletic commission had to sanction a team to even compete... the Skins would not get sanctioned to compete with the current OL as it stands. We would get sanctioned with basically any other team's OL and our starting QBs, but not with any imaginable set of QBs and our current OL. The OL situation (specifically the tackle situation) CURRENTLY is that dire.

Now maybe the OT picked at 4 doesn't pan out... but our only chance at even being a remote possibility of competing without being too severe a health threat to whoever ends up being the QB, is to grab tackles early and often in the draft.

Good analogy.

Personally, I see the Oline as porn stars the way they got penetrated last year...

[Gold21]

I wouldn't call Trent Dilfer a Franchise QB and if I do recall the Ravens at the time of their Super Bowl win had one of the best left tackles in the game.

[wvtbred]

I wouldn't call Trent Dilfer a Franchise QB and if I do recall the Ravens at the time of their Super Bowl win had one of the best left tackles in the game.

No that their Defense had anything to do with it

[JoeKnowsBest]

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.

:applause::applause: I couldn't have said it any better. That is EXACTLY my logic for this entire draft process. Let's give ourselves the best chance at improvement. QB then OT is more likely to be successful than OT then QB. I saw a stat somewhere on NFL.com tonight that said 2nd round QB picks are busts 90.9% of the time in the last 10 years. Outside of Drew Brees, and even Chad Henne if you want to be generous, can you even name 1 successful QB drafted in the 2nd round in the last 10 years? I know I could name plenty more O-linemen from that round that have been succussful.