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

[Ryko]

True, not many second round QBs have been that great besides Brees, but theres always exceptions and you dont want to be the coach/GM that missed out on one. I dont think Clausen is worth the #4 pick at all, I think it HAS to be Okung, Bradford, or trade. QB then OT should be more successful according to stats than OT-QB, but if we cant even get the 1 great QB in the draft then go with the OT.

[JoeKnowsBest]

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.

How can you acually make that claim? The Colts were horrible with no O-line when they drafted Peyton #1 overall, The Chargers didn't even know they had a franchise QB in Drew Breese and went and drafted Eli/traded for Rivers after that fact in their quest for a franchise QB, and the only reason Tom Brady ever sniffed the surface of a playing field was because Drew Bledsoe got knocked out to the sidelines for the season. What a great offensive line those Patriots had! [sarcasm]

Bottom line I saw the lack of credibility from this and all else in the post was moot.

[brdawk20]

Just looking at the list of QB's who won the Super Bowl, one should wonder if the QB was more responsible for the win or other factors. Just off the top of my head, Namath and Plunkett won their Super Bowls with teams that only gave up 7 points to the opponents. I believe the scores were 16-7 and 27-7. McMahon won his I believe in a 46-14 blow out that featured a strong running game led by Walter Payton (and fat boy Fridge getting a TD). And didn't the Redskins win a Super Bowl with a scrub named Timmy Smith running for an ungodly amount of yardage? I think using Super Bowls as a criteria is a bit overrated, since so many factors go into winning the big game...heck, any game in particular.

[elkabong82]

How can you acually make that claim? The Colts were horrible with no O-line when they drafted Peyton #1 overall, The Chargers didn't even know they had a franchise QB in Drew Breese and went and drafted Eli/traded for Rivers after that fact in their quest for a franchise QB, and the only reason Tom Brady ever sniffed the surface of a playing field was because Drew Bledsoe got knocked out to the sidelines for the season. What a great offensive line those Patriots had! [sarcasm]

Bottom line I saw the lack of credibility from this and all else in the post was moot.

Interesting. I wasn't aware the previous record or early accomplishments somehow negated the fact that those teams still developed their current franchise QBs behind OLs with at least 1 high pick invested in it.

If you want to refute the claim, show me the starters on their OLs in the first seasons for those QBs and show me how none of them are high picks. You won't be able to do so.

Rivers has succeeded much the same reason Brees eventually did, because the OL developed and they were able to enjoy consistency there as well as with the offense, which featured LT in his prime as well as Gates.

Bledsoe got knocked out running by the sidelines. Does that somehow negate that Brady developed behind an OL with high picks invested in it?

Bottom line, you either don't understand my point, which is that franchise QBs are developed behind OLs with at least some high draft picks invested in them, or you somehow think early results in their careers negates the development method, eventhough it doesn't. In either case, perhaps you should have read my whole post instead of just jumping the gun because you saw something you didn't like, maybe then you would have actually understood the point, and if you still disagreed you could have at least tried to refute the right way, which would be by showing franchise QBs who developed behind sub-par OLs or OLs with only low draft picks and UDFAs and no high picks.

[kiingspadee]

: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.

Man why didn't I PUT that in the original post oh wait

[elkabong82]

Man why didn't I PUT that in the original post oh wait

It's valid to be wary of drafting a QB after the 1st round if you are looking for your franchise QB. The statistics and bust rates definitely prove that.

However, don't you think that with a high bust rate in the 1st round as well that a team has to be even more careful/reserved when deciding whether or not to take a QB in the 1st round? The statistics seem to suggest it's almost a 50/50 shot.

I don't think looking over Superbowl winners tells enough of the story either. Looking back at the past decade of Superbowl winners, for example, Brees, Brady, Brad Johnson, were drafted rd 2, rd 6, rd 9 respectively. Brees was the 33rd pick, so while he technically is a 2nd rounder, I think he can still be viewed as a 1st being just 1 pick removed. If you count him as a 2nd, then near half the Superbowls the past 10 years have been won by QBs not taken in the 1st round.

Of the remaining Superbowls, the QBs were taken pick 6, pick 11, pick 1, pick 1. Eli Manning was taken 1st and traded, Big Ben was 11 and won twice. Pick 6 was Dilfer, who was underwhelming overall and did not win with the team that drafted him and did not leave SF as a highly vaunted FA, like Brees did when he left SD.

Superbowl winners, however, get there and win as a team. They do not achieve greatness through the accomplishments of the QB alone. The winners of the past decade were all solid teams who had other strengths which gave them an edge. The 2000 Ravens, '01, '03, '04 Pats had a solid defense and system, '02 Buccs had a great defense, same with Steelers and Giants in more recent seasons. Even the Colts needed a surge from their D upon the retirn of Bob Sanders to give them en edge in the playoffs. In other words, few of the teams that won can be said to owe most of the success to the QB.

I point this out because you can get a franchise QB and still never win a Superbowl because it takes more than just the QB. Dan Marino is a perfect example. Great QB, never won the big game though. So using Superbowl-winning QBs as the qualification for success for QB is invalid because it does not take into consideration the contributions of the rest of the team. For example, Trent Dilfer is 1st rd, 6th pick overall QB. But the Ravens won the Superbowl for many reasons besides Dilfer, who wasn't even drafted by the Ravens and wouldn't typically be defined as a franchise QB moreso than a journeyman FA.

I just sooner believe looking at each draft on a case-by-case basis. Players buck trends all the time and the exclusion that occurs through developing trends over draft history can cause talented players to be ignored. That's not to say the trends can't be useful, but I'd sooner prefer an analysis and comparison of the top QBs and LOTs in this draft class to determine which of the two choices would be best. Then again, I am a proponent of BPA, so I am a bit biased in my reasoning if you're more of a draft-by-need person.

Ultimately though, I will support Shanny whichever he chooses. Just, to me, neither Bradford nor Clausen strike me as top 5 draft picks. Okung, on the other hand, does look to be a very promising franchise LT, and I do believe a franchise LT is worth the #4 pick. JMO though, and since opinions are all we can form on the players themselves, we'll probably have to agree to disagree.

[No Excuses]

This is what I've been saying all along. We had Chris Samuels for so long and we wasted his career by having him block for poop.

[Ryko]

Elkabong hit it dead on, atleast from my POV. No QB looks to be worth a top 5 pick this year, hopefully bradford is gone by our pick so it makes the decision easier on us. I want it to be Okung, because he looks deserving of a top 5 pick AND fits the biggest need on the roster. To me, Clausen does not look even close to a top 5 pick and I would be disgusted if we take him, Id rather take one of the DTs or Berry in that case. But what do I know? Shanny might take Clausen and end up being a franchise guy

[elkabong82]

This is what I've been saying all along. We had Chris Samuels for so long and we wasted his career by having him block for poop.

So because the team overall didn't do that well while Samuels was here, that alone is justification for taking a QB at 4? We should just take a QB at 4 because we are picking high, regardless of the actual person?

I'm really getting tired of Chris Samuels being used as an excuse not to draft OL high. He was a stud LT for us, and though the TEAM as a whole didn't do well over his tenure, we can at least say we did not have to worry about the LT position, one of the most important in football, for a decade thanks to Chris. And he didn't "waste" his career here. He had a solid career and retired as what fans would consider a "true Redskin." Dan Marino didn't win a Superbowl, is his career a waste? It's convenient for your argument to use ignorant comments such as that to devalue Chris Samuels, doesn't mean its true, or right. Chris Samuels "wasted" his career? That's something a Dallas troll would say for the benfit of their own argument. I thought Redskins fans were above such rubbish...

How do you know the situation couldn't happen tin reverse? A team has a good QB, but that QB can't do much or even retires early because we couldn't tie down the LT position or the OL? It's just as plausible.

Shanahan has won with guys like Griese and Plummer. He hasn't won with a shoddy OL.

I'm also not seeing very many using the "we have to pick QB at 4" mantra actually discussing Bradford. He's the top QB prospect, but has already had at least a somewhat serious shoulder injury, he hardly played last season, and played in a spread offense which typically its QBs don't transfer well to the NFL. Clausen doesn't even have a first round grade by some scouts.

I think some are not focusing enough on Bradford, Clausen, but rather are focusing on the position itself. Locking in on the position, rather than the player, is what leads to drafting Alex Smith, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Akili Smith and other top draft picks who were chosen, seemingly, with the same belief that the position had to be taken. The fact that the draft class may be a weak one overall for QBs is not considered as much as it should be by some, IMO.

Like I keep saying though, I will support Shanny's decision, whatever it is, but Bradford is the only QB even worth being mentioned in draft talks at #4, and I'm not sold on him as a top 5 pick. I am sold on Okung as a franchise LT, which is worth a pick that high, IMO.

I see the bust rates of QBs after the 1st get brought up. But I don't see the bust rates for LTs in the 2nd round. I say LTs, purposefully excluding RTs and LTs who couldn;t cut it there and converted to RT, because if we draft QB at 4, that means the 2nd rounder has to be LT for this line.

I also see no consideration for a drop-off in talent at LT by the time the 2nd round hits, eventhough current mocks have 8 or so OL being taken in just the 1st round.

I know some may not want to consider it because we have the 4th pick overall, but this may be a draft year where there isn't a QB worth taking early.

[Forever21]

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.

My logic for taking a QB with the 4 (and for the record I think Bradford is the only QB worth the 4 and I am hoping the football gods let us have him) is because QB's need more time to develope than OL do. Plus everything I read tells me this a deep draft for OL (and DT) so why not take a QB with 4 then OL with our 2nd and 4th picks?

I figure the odds of finding a starting calibre OL in the 4th are better than finding a starting caliber QB in the 4th.

It's just some logic is all and I understand if other people don't follow it but it's how my brain has analyzed this.

[elkabong82]

My logic for taking a QB with the 4 (and for the record I think Bradford is the only QB worth the 4 and I am hoping the football gods let us have him) is because QB's need more time to develope than OL do. Plus everything I read tells me this a deep draft for OL (and DT) so why not take a QB with 4 then OL with our 2nd and 4th picks?

I figure the odds of finding a starting calibre OL in the 4th are better than finding a starting caliber QB in the 4th.

It's just some logic is all and I understand if other people don't follow it but it's how my brain has analyzed this.

If you're sold on Bradford being a franchise QB, then yeah I'd say wanting him at 4 is fine, so long as the reasoning for liking him is sound.

But, you're assuming, as others are, that there will be quality OL in the 2nd round. Now, if you want to lock up RT, then yes, there may be 1 available, I highly doubt the same could be said of LT, especially one that can start right away, which is what we'll need in the 2nd rd if we take QB 1st.

Looking at just the recent drafts, in 2008 there were 7 OTs taken in the 1st, 0 in the 2nd. In 2009, just 4 OTs were taken in the 1st, so 5 were taken in the 2nd. This year, there's 7 or 8 projected to go in the 1st. Just because a draft is deep at one position doesn't mean that position will last until you pick again.

Unless we trade up back into the lower 1st, like ATL did a few seasons ago with Ryan and Baker, we likely won't land a solid LT that can start sooner than later if we draft Brdford at 4. However, if we take Okung at 4, then it's likely we won't land a franchise QB in this draft, going off statistics already provided in this thread, we'd have a 10% chance.

So basically, to me anyways, we will not likely be able to get QB and LT in this draft, we likely will only be able to get one. So it really is a Bradford vs. Okung debate, not a debate over draft trends. The players themselves need to be analyzed, because if someone likes a player, then there won;t be much convincing them otherwise.

[Ryko]

If you're sold on Bradford being a franchise QB, then yeah I'd say wanting him at 4 is fine, so long as the reasoning for liking him is sound.

But, you're assuming, as others are, that there will be quality OL in the 2nd round. Now, if you want to lock up RT, then yes, there may be 1 available, I highly doubt the same could be said of LT, especially one that can start right away, which is what we'll need in the 2nd rd if we take QB 1st.

Looking at just the recent drafts, in 2008 there were 7 OTs taken in the 1st, 0 in the 2nd. In 2009, just 4 OTs were taken in the 1st, so 5 were taken in the 2nd. This year, there's 7 or 8 projected to go in the 1st. Just because a draft is deep at one position doesn't mean that position will last until you pick again.

Unless we trade up back into the lower 1st, like ATL did a few seasons ago with Ryan and Baker, we likely won't land a solid LT that can start sooner than later if we draft Brdford at 4. However, if we take Okung at 4, then it's likely we won't land a franchise QB in this draft, going off statistics already provided in this thread, we'd have a 10% chance.

So basically, to me anyways, we will not likely be able to get QB and LT in this draft, we likely will only be able to get one. So it really is a Bradford vs. Okung debate, not a debate over draft trends. The players themselves need to be analyzed, because if someone likes a player, then there won;t be much convincing them otherwise.

I think we need more than just one OL.. so the trade back option is definitly the best in my eyes. But if it becomes a bradford v. Okung debate, Im going with Okung. Bradford might be the best QB and "worth" the #4 pick, but odds are against him with his shoulder and the trends of quarterbacks and such. If it was me deciding, I would go Okung, but I won't be disappointed in whoever Shanny picks, as long as its not Clausen, because its time to put our faith completly in Shanny and Allen and not second guess them until multiple seasons have passed

[No Excuses]

I'm really getting tired of Chris Samuels being used as an excuse not to draft OL high. He was a stud LT for us, and though the TEAM as a whole didn't do well over his tenure, we can at least say we did not have to worry about the LT position, one of the most important in football, for a decade thanks to Chris. And he didn't "waste" his career here. He had a solid career and retired as what fans would consider a "true Redskin." Dan Marino didn't win a Superbowl, is his career a waste? It's convenient for your argument to use ignorant comments such as that to devalue Chris Samuels, doesn't mean its true, or right. Chris Samuels "wasted" his career? That's something a Dallas troll would say for the benfit of their own argument. I thought Redskins fans were above such rubbish...

Quit putting words in my mouth.

This is what I've been saying all along. We had Chris Samuels for so long and we wasted his career by having him block for poop.

I said Samuels career was wasted by this organization (to who I referred as WE) because he never had a chance to block for a legitimate QB or play on a playoff contender. I never slandered Samuels. What I said was pretty simple: we had a Pro Bowl tackle who spent his entire career blocking and playing for poop. Now we plan on passing up another chance at a franchise QB to draft a tackle who might spend his career blocking for crap as well. Case in point: a franchise QB > a franchise LT. We might manage to do well enough that we might not have a chance at the BEST available QB. We have that this year and only a fool would pass on this oppurtunity.

[JoeKnowsBest]

This is what I've been saying all along. We had Chris Samuels for so long and we wasted his career by having him block for poop.

Simplified, that's it right there in a nutshell. It's time to trade in the crappy for the happy.

Today is the day, my fellow Extremeskins fans! Today is the day Sam Bradford has his Pro Day and shows us what he's made of.

[Forever21]

If you're sold on Bradford being a franchise QB, then yeah I'd say wanting him at 4 is fine, so long as the reasoning for liking him is sound.

But, you're assuming, as others are, that there will be quality OL in the 2nd round. Now, if you want to lock up RT, then yes, there may be 1 available, I highly doubt the same could be said of LT, especially one that can start right away, which is what we'll need in the 2nd rd if we take QB 1st.

Looking at just the recent drafts, in 2008 there were 7 OTs taken in the 1st, 0 in the 2nd. In 2009, just 4 OTs were taken in the 1st, so 5 were taken in the 2nd. This year, there's 7 or 8 projected to go in the 1st. Just because a draft is deep at one position doesn't mean that position will last until you pick again.

Unless we trade up back into the lower 1st, like ATL did a few seasons ago with Ryan and Baker, we likely won't land a solid LT that can start sooner than later if we draft Brdford at 4. However, if we take Okung at 4, then it's likely we won't land a franchise QB in this draft, going off statistics already provided in this thread, we'd have a 10% chance.

So basically, to me anyways, we will not likely be able to get QB and LT in this draft, we likely will only be able to get one. So it really is a Bradford vs. Okung debate, not a debate over draft trends. The players themselves need to be analyzed, because if someone likes a player, then there won;t be much convincing them otherwise.

Completely sound and honestly I have no qualms with what you're saying.

It's funny you mentioned trading up to move back into the first to grab OL because I was just saying to a friend yesterday I think it's possible we take Okung at 4 then trade up into the bottom of the 1st to grab Colt McCoy if he's still around or if Clausen falls like Aaron Rogers did in 2005 then we move up for sure to secure him.

[elkabong82]

Quit putting words in my mouth.

I said Samuels career was wasted by this organization (to who I referred as WE) because he never had a chance to block for a legitimate QB or play on a playoff contender. I never slandered Samuels. What I said was pretty simple: we had a Pro Bowl tackle who spent his entire career blocking and playing for poop. Now we plan on passing up another chance at a franchise QB to draft a tackle who might spend his career blocking for crap as well. Case in point: a franchise QB > a franchise LT. We might manage to do well enough that we might not have a chance at the BEST available QB. We have that this year and only a fool would pass on this oppurtunity.

I didn't put words in your mouth. You said Chris Samuels career was wasted here. I simply pointed out that it was an ignorant comment because you are basing that opinion off of team accomplishments. Like I said, was Dan Marino's career a waste then?

What i said was pretty simple: you don't pass on OL high because the last time you drafted OL high the team over that span was not a perennial playoff contender.

If you look at it from the perspective that Samuels was one of the best OL in a Skins uni, which is saying something given we had The Hogs, and locked up a difficult and important position for a decade, retiring as a fan favorite, then no, his career wasn't a waste and OT is still worth taking at 4.

Franchise QB is more valuable than franchise LT. But there's no guarantee Bradford is a franchise QB, and the odds are much more in favor of LT being a succesful pick than QB. You assume because we pick at 4 we have to take QB. You almost completely disregard the actual player at 4, just in the hopes that the QB position itself is taken. Like I said, if you weren't blindly alleged to taking the QB position at 4 then you wouldn't be using Samuels as evidence to NOT take OL high.

The best available QB? Sure, we might have a chance at getting him. But you never considered that if the QB draft class is weak, the best QB available might not be worth taking, ala Alex Smith, Russell, Carr, Harrington, etc. also as mentioned earlier.

I will try not to put words in your mouth if you will try to address my points so I don't have to repeat them, instead of just rewording an argument I already responded to.

[TheLongshot]

I said Samuels career was wasted by this organization (to who I referred as WE) because he never had a chance to block for a legitimate QB or play on a playoff contender. I never slandered Samuels. What I said was pretty simple: we had a Pro Bowl tackle who spent his entire career blocking and playing for poop. Now we plan on passing up another chance at a franchise QB to draft a tackle who might spend his career blocking for crap as well. Case in point: a franchise QB > a franchise LT. We might manage to do well enough that we might not have a chance at the BEST available QB. We have that this year and only a fool would pass on this oppurtunity.

I agree with elkabong that it isn't a real good argument for not drafting an LT high. When you get right down to it, you still don't draft a position just because. You draft a player because you think they fit in to what you are doing.

I still retain that the reason for Samuels blocking for "poop", as you say, is because of all the upheaval that has happened in this organization the past decade, and not because we didn't draft a "franchise" QB at the top of the draft. (BTW, Chad Pennington was the top QB in that draft. I don't think I would have passed on the opportunity to draft Samuels to draft him.)

[kiingspadee]

Sad. Bradford had a perfect pro day! Sucks cause there is THE GUY that will become another statistic for this thread

[TheMan CC47]

I'm not against getting a QB with the #4; I just think that there are bigger and more pressing needs that need to be filled right now.

Please understand that I am not a Jason Campbell supporter, actually I am far from it. However, I would much rather draft o-line this year and spend a year letting the O-line come together as a group all while Campbell, Colt and sexy Rexy fight it out to be the QB.

The idea of drafting a high QB only to watch him be Patrick Ramsey'ed by getting the snot kicked out of him and then getting jumpy feet because of the beaten he will take due to have no protection in front of him.

[mistertim]

Sad. Bradford had a perfect pro day! Sucks cause there is THE GUY that will become another statistic for this thread

Scouts gushed all over Alex Smith's "amazing" pro day as well as Jamarcus Russell's, talking about how well he moved and threw. Smith's pro day is one of the reasons the 49ers went with him and Rodgers dropped: Smith looked better throwing pre-defined passes in shorts with no pressure to a wide open guy. These workouts don't mean much to me, to be honest.

[JoeKnowsBest]

Scouts gushed all over Alex Smith's "amazing" pro day as well as Jamarcus Russell's, talking about how well he moved and threw. Smith's pro day is one of the reasons the 49ers went with him and Rodgers dropped: Smith looked better throwing pre-defined passes in shorts with no pressure to a wide open guy. These workouts don't mean much to me, to be honest.

I agree. And I'm a huge Bradford/Sooners fan. The thing is, he has never had to deal with much pressure in his face. And if you take a look at the Texas games, where they had a great D-line (like Orakpo), you'll see he gets happy feet sometimes when they get in his face. Pass rush pressure is something he is not accustomed to and is a real mystery to how he'll react in the NFL.

All that said, I REALLY want and hope the Redskins get to draft him. He will have a great career here and is a better fit here than any where else. Plus it might do wonders for Malcom Kelly's career considering how those 2 had a serious connection in college. I don't think he would have much success as a Ram because they have no recievers or tight ends that are really even starter worthy, plus that dome turf with their horrible offensive line and it's bad for his health. At least here you have the Shannahans' and some weapons with TWO pro bowl running backs in a system that breeds success and also makes no name O-linemen highly effective. Plus he'd play on the same kind of field surface he did in college.

[kiingspadee]

I think we need more than just one OL.. so the trade back option is definitly the best in my eyes. But if it becomes a bradford v. Okung debate, Im going with Okung. Bradford might be the best QB and "worth" the #4 pick, but odds are against him with his shoulder and the trends of quarterbacks and such. If it was me deciding, I would go Okung, but I won't be disappointed in whoever Shanny picks, as long as its not Clausen, because its time to put our faith completly in Shanny and Allen and not second guess them until multiple seasons have passed

What trends do you speak of?

[Warriorzpath]

The problem with most of these posts (and some threads for that matter) is that they seem to address the team in the short-term rather than long-term, which has been the problem with the redskins for awhile now. Everyone should think what's going to be best for the redskins in years 3 -5 and beyonnd rather than the next 2 years.

[Warriorzpath]

And those that object to taking a franchise qb at #4 over a left tackle -- there's a reason why "franchise" is more frequently used with quarterbacks.

[mistertim]

The problem with most of these posts (and some threads for that matter) is that they seem to address the team in the short-term rather than long-term, which has been the problem with the redskins for awhile now. Everyone should think what's going to be best for the redskins in years 3 -5 and beyonnd rather than the next 2 years.

Which is exactly why we shouldn't be selling the farm and giving up multiple picks we can't afford to give up so we can draft a QB who we don't even know will be any good and will have to play behind a craptastic OL.