QB is supposed to be the last piece to a re-build.. No? If no, explain your logic please.......

[SkinsTillIDie]

It's foolish to look at every draft selection and more or less blindly take the "BPA." Let's say you need an inside linebacker, and there's one rated 92 on your board, he's one of a few players with 90-92 ratings available. But we also have a huge need at, say, wide receiver, and there's a wide receiver with a 90 grade. Some are saying it's wrong to take the wide receiver over the inside linebacker in this situation.

However, if there is an enormous wide receiver drop off, and the next crop of receivers that will be available when we pick again are in the 78, 79, 80 range -- but the inside linebacker class is deep, and there are opportunities to grab an 89 or 90 backer at that second spot -- you take WR, then ILB.

You have to maximize the value of your picks, given who's available, who's going to be available and what your short-term and long-term needs are. There's no simple answer, and it really varies draft by draft.

There were two clear "elite franchise quarterbacks" in the two offseasons Shanahan has been around, and both were available only with the 1st overall pick. Given what was available, it's hard to find fault with the manner we are being rebuilt, particularly with this upcoming class of quarterbacks. But if Shanahan took over the team Vinny Cerrato left and Luck/Griffin/Barkley/Tannehill were available in the 2009 draft, you could've probably bet your house that he would've taken one of them at the time.

---------- Post added November-5th-2011 at 01:51 PM ----------

So, you would passed on Adrian Peterson and taken Landry as the Skins did in 2007 then?

Would've passed on Peterson yes, but to take Patrick Willis.

Taking a first round running back is, generally speaking, a foolish move, with the least shelf-life, in a position that declines the fastest. And of course, we had a top-10 back in Portis on a huge contract, so we would've had an overabundance of cap space allotted to one position. For every Peterson there's a Marshawn Lynch

Of course, if Sean Taylor hadn't died and Landry's development hadn't been stunted by being played out of position, we would've had easily the most dynamic, devastating and intimidating safety duo in the NFL today, and probably in history. As the league has become more and more pass-centric, having Sean Taylor and Laron Landry back there would've been our greatest advantage, and a nationwide reason to tune in to watch the Redskins play every week

[PeterMP]

It's foolish to look at every draft selection and more or less blindly take the "BPA." Let's say you need an inside linebacker, and there's one rated 92 on your board, he's one of a few players with 90-92 ratings available. But we also have a huge need at, say, wide receiver, and there's a wide receiver with a 90 grade. Some are saying it's wrong to take the wide receiver over the inside linebacker in this situation.

However, if there is an enormous wide receiver drop off, and the next crop of receivers that will be available when we pick again are in the 78, 79, 80 range -- but the inside linebacker class is deep, and there are opportunities to grab an 89 or 90 backer at that second spot -- you take WR, then ILB.

You have to maximize the value of your picks, given who's available, who's going to be available and what your short-term and long-term needs are. There's no simple answer, and it really varies draft by draft.

There were two clear "elite franchise quarterbacks" in the two offseasons Shanahan has been around, and both were available only with the 1st overall pick. Given what was available, it's hard to find fault with the manner we are being rebuilt, particularly with this upcoming class of quarterbacks. But if Shanahan took over the team Vinny Cerrato left and Luck/Griffin/Barkley/Tannehill were available in the 2009 draft, you could've probably bet your house that he would've taken one of them at the time.

I think OldFan has already said that BPA has to take into account value and scheme. The real value of the WR would be increased in that situation IMO.

What OldFan is really arguing is a number variables, but NOT need, should impact who you draft. I'd take it a step further and say you can take need into account with what you do with the pick in terms of making the pick or trading the pick, but you shouldn't draft need over real value.

I'll say it now, there is NO WAY that there will be 4 EXPECTED "elite franchise" QBs out of this draft. At least one of the guys in your list will be a "bust", and another will be no better than "good" (or they aren't really "elite franchise" QBs and some of them will slip into the late first round AT LEAST).

[Oldfan]

...Would've passed on Peterson yes, but to take Patrick Willis...

I asked the question of NLC1054 since he said he would draft the BPA at a position of need. We didn't need an ILB (Willis) in 2007.

[PeterMP]

Of course, if Sean Taylor hadn't died and Landry's development hadn't been stunted by being played out of position, we would've had easily the most dynamic, devastating and intimidating safety duo in the NFL today, and probably in history. As the league has become more and more pass-centric, having Sean Taylor and Laron Landry back there would've been our greatest advantage, and a nationwide reason to tune in to watch the Redskins play every week

I think part of Oldfan's point is that unexpected things happen.

[SkinsTillIDie]

I think OldFan has already said that BPA has to take into account value and scheme. The real value of the WR would be increased in that situation IMO.

What OldFan is really arguing is a number variables, but NOT need, should impact who you draft. I'd take it a step further and say you can take need into account with what you do with the pick in terms of making the pick or trading the pick, but you shouldn't draft need over real value.

I'll say it now, there is NO WAY that there will be 4 EXPECTED "elite franchise" QBs out of this draft. At least one of the guys in your list will be a "bust", and another will be no better than "good" (or they aren't really "elite franchise" QBs and some of them will slip into the late first round).

Gotcha.

Maybe not 4 "elite franchise QBs," but I think that when it's all said and done come April, taking into account the quarterback prospects available in 2010, 2011 and 2012, 4 of the best 6 will be in this year's draft. And I believe any of those 4 can thrive as what we need in our system, with our roster and coaches. Ryan Mallet might have busted in Oakland but he could thrive in New England. So, sure, one of them might bust, one might not fulfill his promise

---------- Post added November-5th-2011 at 02:04 PM ----------

I asked the question of NLC1054 since he said he would draft the BPA at a position of need. We didn't need an ILB (Willis) in 2007.

Sorry -- I thought in 2007, we still had that Lamar Marshall, Warrick Holdman, Marcus Washington travesty of a linebacking trio.. forgot we signed London Fletcher in that offseason. Which is probably the best move we ever made in the Cerrato era

---------- Post added November-5th-2011 at 02:07 PM ----------

I think part of Oldfan's point is that unexpected things happen.

Right. But I can completely understand the logic in taking Landry over Peterson in that draft. Of course that same day, the Raiders made the biggest draft gaffe in the past decade+, taking Jamarcus Russell over Calvin Johnson in the worst "need over BPA" decision imaginable

[Rufus T Firefly]

1. And people had Gabbert and Dalton going earlier (Peter King was predicting 4 QBs in the top 15 and 5 in the 1st round.).

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/04/20/2011-nfl-mock-draft/index.html

I don't know how many ways there are to go over this. The demand for QBs pushed them higher in the draft. Posting a link that, on the eve of the draft, predicting QBs going higher than previously thought doesn't refute that.

For the record, your own link was to a columnist who also felt Miami and Washington wanted QBs.

1. 2. People knew that certain QBs would shake lose after the lock out ended and that they then didn't draft a QB and got one later isn't good evidence that demand was high during the draft. It is as likely they weren't too worried about getting QBs because they knew they could get one later, then they wanted one and couldn't get one.

So teams acquiring QBs isn't proof that teams wanted QBs? Interesting.

I have a hard time believing teams who were rumored to be heavily scouting QBs and talking trade-ups for them, really were just content to wait for Tavaris Jackson to become a FA and/or counting on Terrelle Pryor being available in the supplemental draft.

1. If AZ had gotten Kolb before the draft, then you would have said that the demand was lower, but it doesn't make sense to act like that the NFL teams didn't know those people would be availible.at the time of the draft.

Arizona was probably much more interested in vet QBs, true. But they had no way of knowing they would be the team to get Kolb.

1. So IF Manning is healthy AND Lombardi is right, the Colts won't take a QB. Shouldn't we just wait and see what happens?

Really no idea what you're suggesting here.

[KCClybun]

So, you would passed on Adrian Peterson and taken Landry as the Skins did in 2007 then?

Yes. We had Clinton Portis at the time, and as someone pointed out, he was still playing at a fairly high level and we were spending a lot of money on him. Hindsight is great and all, but if I'm looking back to where the team was in 2007 and what they had, my priorities would've been...well, to fix the offensive line, add some younger talent at the wide receiver position, and to find a player to pair with Sean Taylor. Sean at that point was our best player, and our defense was our best asset. Landry looked like a complete monster, and pairing those two together would've solidified our defensive secondary, and it did, unless until Sean died.

CP was coming off injury, but all he'd done was produce at that point. And then he went and rushed for over 1,000 yards again. Big contract, productive player, and a chance to solidify our defense, which was really kind of carrying us at that point. Yes, I would've drafted Landry over AP.

[Oldfan]

...What OldFan is really arguing is a number variables, but NOT need, should impact who you draft. I'd take it a step further and say you can take need into account with what you do with the pick in terms of making the pick or trading the pick, but you shouldn't draft need over real value...

Talent, scheme fit, and position value should determine the BPA.

Fred Davis was a good BPA pick who created a surplus at the TE position. There were two ways to use the surplus:

Create a unique scheme to use it -- use two TEs as a base formation or

trade the veteran (Cooley) to the highest bidder, thereby getting draft picks and getting younger at the position at the same time

---------- Post added November-5th-2011 at 05:22 PM ----------

Yes. We had Clinton Portis at the time, and as someone pointed out, he was still playing at a fairly high level and we were spending a lot of money on him. Hindsight is great and all, but if I'm looking back to where the team was in 2007 and what they had, my priorities would've been...well, to fix the offensive line, add some younger talent at the wide receiver position, and to find a player to pair with Sean Taylor. Sean at that point was our best player, and our defense was our best asset. Landry looked like a complete monster, and pairing those two together would've solidified our defensive secondary, and it did, unless until Sean died.

CP was coming off injury, but all he'd done was produce at that point. And then he went and rushed for over 1,000 yards again. Big contract, productive player, and a chance to solidify our defense, which was really kind of carrying us at that point. Yes, I would've drafted Landry over AP.

I would have gone the other way. It was an opportunity to get younger, not so much in age as in carries and wear and tear, and better at a position far more important and harder to fill with a high grade player than safety. Safeties and centers are not highly prized in the draft.

[PeterMP]

I don't know how many ways there are to go over this. The demand for QBs pushed them higher in the draft. Posting a link that, on the eve of the draft, predicting QBs going higher than previously thought doesn't refute that.

For the record, your own link was to a columnist who also felt Miami and Washington wanted QBs.

Either the pre-mock drafts took into account the "demand" or they didn't. You can't claim that the pre-mock drafts were WRONG because they underestimated demand (which is what you did), and then when I point out that they in fact thought more QBs were going to be drafted early it is because they were taking into account the real demand.

I know, but I don't care because the mock's don't really know what the demand is. They are just guessing.

So teams acquiring QBs isn't proof that teams wanted QBs? Interesting.

I have a hard time believing teams who were rumored to be heavily scouting QBs and talking trade-ups for them, really were just content to wait for Tavaris Jackson to become a FA and/or counting on Terrelle Pryor being available in the supplemental draft.

It isn't proof that the wanted to DRAFT a QB.

I don't care what you believe. It is what they did.

(Are you one of these people that likes to claim they are mind readers?)

Arizona was probably much more interested in vet QBs, true. But they had no way of knowing they would be the team to get Kolb.

So?

AZ could have drafted any number of QBs. They didn't. Those are the facts.

Really no idea what you're suggesting here.

I'm suggesting that Mike Lombardi doesn't know the future and doesn't REALLY know what the Colts are going to do, and the only real way to see if the Colts want to take a QB is to see if they take one.

[Rufus T Firefly]

LOL. No offense, but there's really nothing there worth responding to.

[SirClintonPortis]

But at that point, you run into the problem we had; we got a lot of really good players (Landry, Orakpo, 'Los), but we kept ignoring the key positions of NEED on the team. And eventually, when you keep drafting BPA over drafting a player that you need, you end up with a bunch of good players you don't need and none of the players you do need.

I mean, how many years did we keep taking corners, over and over and over again, because they were "BPA", while neglecting pretty much every position on the offensive line?

In 2005, we took TWO fullbacks. Why the frak would we need two fullbacks, in addition to Mike Sellers, who was pretty much in his prime at the time? Because they were BPA. I guess. (Or Vinny is an idiot.)

Vinny kept drafting linebackers and DBs and DTs. He ignored our needs year and year out, and likely felt he was taking the BPA in those drafts. But doing that did little to improve our team, either because Vinny is a moron or because those BPAs couldn't rectify us ignoring what we needed for our team for so long.

First things first, I apologize in advance to the mods if this is too long of a quote, but I believe I tried to address every point presented by NLC.

Actually, what Vinny, Gibbs, etc had done to skewer the team was to trade away high draft picks to address "needs", i.e Jason Taylor, T.J Duckett, Brandon Lloyd, Pete Kendall, Mark Brunell. Our biggest problem was simply not having 2nd and 3rd rounders at all and having to draft a bunch of ****ing 5th, 6th, and 7th rounders. I view these low round picks as picks to just "throw **** at the wall and hope it sticks" because even with the best scouting, there...are...just...that...many...failures and so-so players in those rounds. You just "trust the scouts" and hope for the best. The point is, what Vinny did to kill us was moreso was not being able to draft often enough in the high rounds in which BPA could be applied, not BPA itself.

If you want to do hindsight drafting, then in 2007, the player to take instead of Landry was Adrian Peterson. Imagine the uproar if we really did take All Day instead of Landry. The need folks would have an aneurysm. Or we could have taken Revis two years after taking 'Los. The need folks would have shot themselves in that case too. A shutdown corner or a monster running back vs. still inconsistent safety....yeah Revis Island or All Day sure looks much better than Landry.

In 2008, we could have taken Sam Baker or Duane Brown with our #1 while we still had Samuels. We could have taken both Ray Rice and Matt Forte after the trade down or stayed at #1 and take CJ2K, Mendenhall, etc. Hmmm, a solid LT to groom for the future or a monster backfield vs. two WRs who sucked and pretty good player. I'll take the LT or monster backfield.

In 2006, the "hindsight" pick might have been Ware or Rodgers instead of Rogers. But Rogers filled in Smoot's vacancy as a "need" pick. Hmmm, 5 years of ok to above-average coverage combined with choker drops....I'll take Ware or Rodgers. In 2008 and 2006, we took need over BPA(in hindsight). The results favor BPA. Landry could be viewed as a BPA in his own right and would have made a formidable safety tandem. The results would have been glorious had it not been for Sean's death.

Vinny only drafted two corners when he was the official "top dog". Those were Barnes and Tryon. Only two picks comitted to the cornerback position during those two years.

Also, Vinny's 2008 draft reeks mostly of "need". Kelly and Thomas had huge red flags, but he took them anyway over a dyanmic smurf in DJax or a "non-need pick" in Matt Forte. Durant Brooks? Need because Frost sucked. Rinehart(yes, an OL!!!!)? Need. Colt Brennan? Just a typical "hope he develops" pick. Two big WRs to complement Moss? Need "addressed". A stud punter? Need "addressed". A third-stringer QB with potential? Colt says "hi:. A OLineman? Need "addressed".

If we look at the positions he drafted for, Vinny did in 2008 what the need pundits would have wanted. Turns out they almost all flamed out. Tryon did too, but Fred Davis, a much maligned pick that "didn't address a need", has been the ONLY bright star from that bunch.

link to our drafts: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/was/draft.htm

[Cpt.Chaos47]

You should have a solid Oline first at the very least. If you let a rookie or young QB get shell shocked he's never the same not to mention he'll get hurt.

[issapunk]

or we could end up with peyton manning 2.0.

we'll never know until we try, and thats the point. we cant be scared about busting.

---------- Post added November-5th-2011 at 12:16 AM ----------

BPA has been debunked numerous times because its not possible. what if the BPA in the first round where we pick is a tight end? would you advocate taking a tight end because hes the best player available at that slot? say we sign laron landry to a long term extension, then spend our 1st rounder on a strong safety, is that smart? no, it isnt.

BPA only works if youre taking the BPA in an area of need. if a team identifies that it needs a CB/QB/LT/FS/G and you come to your draft spot, fine you take the best player available at one of those positions of need. taking the BPA at a position where you are loaded or very content is dumb. think of how stupid the packers would be to use their 1st rounder on a QB if he was the best available player, or if the vikings took the best available running back in round one. dumb dumb dumb.

I agree with this completely. I don't understand how people here can say that "We are rebuilding so taking BPA works perfectly"...Umm, what if the BPA was a left tackle or like you said a TE or Safety, it makes no sense. It makes no sense especially because we are rebuilding. That does not give us the luxury of passing up positions of need just because of the BPA. Teams like the Packers and other successful teams can afford to always take the BPA, because they do not need as much as we do. If the BPA is also an area of need, you take the guy. If not, you pass on him and take the next BPA that fills a need or you trade the pick just like we did last year. We cannot afford to just take the BPA and pass on a QB, unless mediocrity is what you're looking for for the next few years.

QB needs to be taken now. I wouldn't mind Shanny trading anything in order for him to get the guy he believes will run our offense for the next 10+ years. Unwritten law in the NFL is if you don't have a franchise QB, you get one the next chance you get.

[JoeSkins]

Also' date=' I actually find myself agreeing with Longshot. There should always be a young late roundish QB in the pipeline. Other teams have shown that if you develop them at all, you can always - at the very least - flip them for a higher pick than you used on them. Sometimes, they turn into Tony Romo sits to pee. Once every 30 years, they turn into Tom Brady.[/quote']

I'm right there with you. How many Pro Bowl quarterbacks did the Packers develop while they still had Brett Favre? I don't see the harm in having a hand-picked project. Even if Beck turned out to be great, he's no spring chicken.

[SirClintonPortis]

I agree with this completely. I don't understand how people here can say that "We are rebuilding so taking BPA works perfectly"...Umm, what if the BPA was a left tackle or like you said a TE or Safety, it makes no sense. It makes no sense especially because we are rebuilding. That does not give us the luxury of passing up positions of need just because of the BPA. Teams like the Packers and other successful teams can afford to always take the BPA, because they do not need as much as we do. If the BPA is also an area of need, you take the guy. If not, you pass on him and take the next BPA that fills a need or you trade the pick just like we did last year. We cannot afford to just take the BPA and pass on a QB, unless mediocrity is what you're looking for for the next few years.

The "capacity constraint" that is oft cited to "debunk" BPA is often never filled for many positions, QB being the usual exception. The expectation of 1st round picks--especially high and mid ones-- are to pan out as franchise caliber players for the next half-decade or more. The absolute critical matter is getting players that meet that expectation. BPA gives the best shot at meeting such expectation. The case of an All-Pro being established at a position is an exception to the rule that BPA should be priority #1. We absolutely do not have such players on our roster. Almost every position on the Redskins at the current moment could use a great long-term(7+years) player, and we'd be damned to pass up such players simply because a lesser player who'll last 3 years that fills a "need" should be prioritized over said player. And if the actual BPA also fills a position a need. That's a fortunate bonus.

Shanahan, or any personnel man, will not take a QB unless he subjectively likes the QB's skillset, work ethic, etc. That means that should the QB be taken, he has grade himself as being worthy of one of the BPAs, and since he's a QB, the QB gets a tiebreaker.

Drafting players is like mining for gold. You don't get to pick where to mine. You find the mine and then start mining.

[Darth Tater]

I would have gone the other way. It was an opportunity to get younger, not so much in age as in carries and wear and tear, and better at a position far more important and harder to fill with a high grade player than safety. Safeties and centers are not highly prized in the draft.

However, once we had signed Fletcher, safety was obviously the pick. If you knew the Grilliams defense while he was here, you knew we were missing a MLB and a SS.

[wildbill1952]

The 'classic' argument against picking for need usually goes like this. A team will draft a Poudanesh because they need an offensive lineman and pass on a Jerry Rice because they already have a full complement of Wide Receivers. Or, they will pick up a 100th ranked player who happens to be an offensive lineman in the first round because they pick at number 16 and need an offensive lineman The 'classic' agument aginst BPA is that you'll draft 3 or 4 of the same position while always going after the BPA, leaving needed positions to be filled by the luck of the BPA falling into your lap at the right time.

Neither is accurate. A reach of 84 spots to fill a need is highly unlikely. If they need an offensive lineman and the best they can find is rated number 100, odds are they'll wait until they're closer to pick 100 to draft him, despite what their need is. I've never heard of anyone advocating otherwise. But is a reach of 5 spots that fills a need a bad draft? For example, a team has the 16th pick. By their own boards (not by Mel Kipers) they rate an offensive lieneman as the 21st best player in the draft, which concidentally is one of their needs, where players they rate 17 through 20 do not fill any of their needs. I would suspect that a team grabs the needed player instead of those they rated slightly higher. Would they do the same if that OL was the 30th best player? I think the amount of reach would come into play.

BPA. The only team I ever saw do the BPA to the crazy level was Detroit, taking WR's in 4 straight drafts and ending up with one good one out of the bunch. But the norm is to avoid drafting players you already have a surplus of. For example, even though the Rams might have a shot at one of the top 4 QB's they are not going to draft another QB in the top 5 even if that QB rates better than their current QB or better than any other player in the draft at that point, regardless of whether that QB fits the team's scheme or not. Yes, it would be great to have two top 5 QB's on your team. But no team is going to do that. Trust me, the Rams are either going to get a WR or some offensive linemen to help Bradford, not another QB. So, in this case, the lack of need factors into their choice. They might try to trade down, but failing that, the Rams are not going to draft another QB. Neither is Carolina, and a dozen other teams already committed to their current QB, no matter which QB is BPA.

As someone else posted, the only teams that can go strictly BPA are those that don't need anybody. For every other team, either need, or the lack of need, is going to be a factor, if not the decidng factor.

[Oldfan]

...As someone else posted, the only teams that can go strictly BPA are those that don't need anybody. For every other team, either need, or the lack of need, is going to be a factor, if not the decidng factor.

What you say is correct, Bill. Need is a factor, but need is not relevant to quality. The player selected isn't going to play better because he was needed more. So, over the long term, the more emphasis a team places on using the draft to fill needs, the lower their expected hit rate.

Drafting with a heavy emphasis on need is a win-now strategy.

[Jumbo]

Excellent posts, WildBill and Oldfan. I think readers who go through this thread carefully will be able to form a very coherent and accurate framework for drafting, if they didn't have one previously. I love threads that function in that manner. That's ES at some of its best.

[Oldfan]

Excellent posts, WildBill and Oldfan. I think readers who go through this thread carefully will be able to form a very coherent and accurate framework for drafting, if they didn't have one previously. I love threads that function in that manner. That's ES at some of its best.

Could you explain your logic, please?

[Jumbo]

Could you explain your logic, please?

OK, but I have to go get the chicken entrails and the small mammal bones out of the recycling bin.

[RedskinsInFebruary]

The best thing (imo) I've seen from Shanahan/Allen since they got here was the way they conducted our draft back in April. You have to find ways to somehow outmaneuver the rest of the league, and they did just that.

As far as grabbing a QB, the best time in the rebuilding process is when you have the opportunity to grab one. If there's not one there, keep building the positions that are.

[mi6]

A quality franchise QB is the first piece of rebuilding not the last.

You then get playmakers to help support the QB. A stud RB, and a couple of GREAT WRs.

And, then you fill in the OL with STUDs. LT and RT are key pieces.

[heyholetsgogrant]

A quality franchise QB is the first piece of rebuilding not the last.

You then get playmakers to help support the QB. A stud RB, and a couple of GREAT WRs.

And, then you fill in the OL with STUDs. LT and RT are key pieces.

I tend to agree with this. I think Mike Shanahan has never really been in the position to rebuild from scratch, so who knows if we really knows what he is doing. You kind of saw that at the end of tenure in Denver, but it really never worked out. Counting the last 5 seasons he's coached he hasn't made the play-offs...that is usually not a good sign....However this is a rebuilding process that can take 3-4 years, we just don't have the talent or the depth to make a strides.

[mjpanzer]

The best thing (imo) I've seen from Shanahan/Allen since they got here was the way they conducted our draft back in April. You have to find ways to somehow outmaneuver the rest of the league, and they did just that.

As far as grabbing a QB, the best time in the rebuilding process is when you have the opportunity to grab one. If there's not one there, keep building the positions that are.

+1. Furthermore, while everyone has pointed out how Shanahan/Allen have failed at picking a QB, the two are not getting enough praise for moves they didn't] make: AKA Blaine Gabbert.

Finally, while reading all this please remember one fact: Basically 50% or more of this forum wanted to draft Jimmy Clausen. Basically 35% of this board wanted Gabbert. At the end of the day when it comes to QB evaluation, we really don't know what's going on.

---------- Post added November-6th-2011 at 09:41 PM ----------

The time for a QB is now.

End of discussion.

The offense needs a jolt that a star RT, RB, or WR isn't going to give. Our defense could be great if they weren't on the field every other minute in uninspiring games.

I think this year watching the Colts without Peyton Manning just shows you how important QB's are. While I agree that system is especially vulnerable to losing Peyton, the point remains that everything an offense does goes through a QB.

Shanahan gives us one awesome thing: He can find RB out of nowhere and make them great. We will always have that, and that is something we can all genuinely be excited about. What we need now is the QB to give us the next step.

I can honestly say that if we get a top 10 NFL QB we are a few players away from a great team (2 OL, 1 DL, 1 WR). Can you say that about getting a top 10 RT or a top 10 DE? I don't think you can.