Can't see the Forest Through the Trees (People advocating the neglecting of the trenches)

[illone]

Drafting a QB first does NOT advocate neglecting the Oline as there are more than one draft pick that can be used.

I think most fans WANT a top QB and a good oline and supporting cast around him.

I will agree that this team is at least two years from competing and that Oline is important, but just because some of us want Luck/barkley, that does not suggest we are willing to neglect Oline in order for that to happen.

:2cents:

[KDawg]

Drafting a QB first does NOT advocate neglecting the Oline as there are more than one draft pick that can be used.

Where are people getting the notion that I said this? C'mon folks. Read.

From the OP:

It's a theme I'm seeing more and more around here, and I have to admit, it's somewhat disconcerting. People are rightfully advocating the drafting of a QB. I agree with that as I believe QB, OL and DL are the starting points for any team, and once those positions are filled with reasonable talent, you can move elsewhere.

But the next spots people want shored up are completely baffling to me. I see people wanting us to draft Trent Richardson, LeMichael James, Justin Blackmon, etc, etc, etc over linemen.

And:

If I were starting an expansion team, what areas would I address first on my team... And for me its simple: Quarterback, offensive line, defensive line, MLB, one cover corner (and in that order) and then BPA at the rest of the positions.

There is a larger picture, its time to understand that a better line makes mediocre "skill" players look remarkably better.

[Mahons21]

Remember when we had Chris Samuels, Jon Jansen, Derek Dockery all drafted by us where did that get us.. If we Drafted a Top Flight Qb instead of Jason Campbell with that OLINE we would have been a contender.. instead we got a bunch of horrible qb's and had good RB's.. Sure the RB's racked up tons of Yards but we got nowhere.. Stephen Davis and Clinton Portis racked up thousands of yards behind the OLINE but without a top flight QB we got nowhere..

So yes we need OLINE desperately but if they are blocking for a nobody it wont really matter

That depends are you referring to when they were healthy?

IIRC the Redskins did quite well when they all were healthy, the problem wasn't the starting talent, the problem was we traded away much needed draft picks which should have given the Redskins depth behind these players.

Off the top of my head though, when they were healthy.

6-2 start with a mediocre QB and joke of a HC in Jim Zorn. It wasn't until Stephon Heyer was a starting tackle that this season went to ****.

And what was it a 4-0 or 5-0 close of a season to take the Skins to the playoffs with Todd friggin Collins at QB, after they all got healthy again.

[Darkstarr]

In today's NFL, a game manager doesn't cut it anymore, you need a good or great QB. The Panthers have a great offensive line and look where that took bums like Clausen and Pike, they got all that time in the pocket yet they couldn't make anything happen. The Jets have a top 5 offensive line, elite defense, elite running game, elite WR corp and Mark Sanchez has a career 70 QB rating (much, much worse than Jason Campbell). The QB is everything now, you are worth as much as your QB in today's league. If we had an elite QB then investing in more linemen would be a wise investment, but a line full of hall of famers doesn't mean anything when your QB is passing up open WRs because he's too scared to throw down field. If we want a QB in round 1 and go offensive line in the 2nd round that's fine I'm cool with that. But people go overboard on the whole offensive line thing, overkilling a posistion, and especially drafting all o linemen in a draft will do more damage to this team than good, we need more depth and quality starters but a QB is way more important right now.

hmm i would call sanchez a game manager, and his 70 qb rating has gone to 2 afc championship games. I would think most redskins fans would take that atm.

[illone]

Where are people getting the notion that I said this? C'mon folks. Read.

Weird, I think I read the other thread about Cincy having success and merged it into my thoughts in this thread. My bad!

Yea, can't say I disagree with the OP at all:ols:

Drafting a WR in the first round would be something Vinny or Millen would do. Not the right idea.

[Dark Acre]

I haven't started seriously tracking prospects, but early reports I've read (won't say where) indicate that it's not a good ZBS draft for OL. OTOH, there could be some 2nd - 4th round talent at CB, ILB, and S, which we need or are going to need next year. We're getting Jarvis Jenkins back healthy as a bonus DE, so CB, ILB, and S should solidify what could be a very good D. I'd be fine with drafting a QB in round 1 -- I'm assuming we're in position to draft one of the top 4 w/o trading up. I can't believe we're talking draft 1/2 of November.

[pjfootballer]

I don't like Jones as a prospect. OU has traditionally not pumped out great QBs, the exception being Bradford (thus far). He's got way too good of a supporting cast to be having the kinds of struggles he's been having as well. He's got happy feet, for sure, he turns the ball over and he buckles under pressure. All assessments I agree with. I fail to see why anyone has him on our radar.

As for saying RG3 is Cam Newton Lite... Well... Cam Newton Heavy is doing pretty well right now, isn't he? If the worst he turns out to be is Cam Newton Lite, I'd say we're in a good place

Oh, I agree. I just think everyone is too negative about Jones. Not that I'm advocating we draft him, but I think he'll be the 2nd or 3rd QB off the board. I guess I see more good things about him then other people do. While he, Tannehill and RGIII play in the same conference (that some say is weak) I think Oklahoma plays a tougher out of conference schedule. I like Jones smarts, decision making and the way he reads defenses. In other words, he knows where to go with the ball. I'm not down on RGIII, I'm just not sure about him and I've not seen alot of his games as opposed to seeing Jones practically every week. And I hope our scouting staff doesn't dismiss Jones just because there isn't a long lineage of Sooner QBs in the HOF.

[KDawg]

I haven't started seriously tracking prospects, but early reports I've read (won't say where) indicate that it's not a good ZBS draft for OL. OTOH, there could be some 2nd - 4th round talent at CB, ILB, and S, which we need or are going to need next year. We're getting Jarvis Jenkins back healthy as a bonus DE, so CB, ILB, and S should solidify what could be a very good D. I'd be fine with drafting a QB in round 1 -- I'm assuming we're in position to draft one of the top 4 w/o trading up. I can't believe we're talking draft 1/2 of November.

First off, the whole ZBS blocking lineman myth really irks me to no end. A good, technically sound lineman can fit in either scheme. You don't NEED smaller lineman to run a ZBS, it's preferred generally because they're faster. But a faster lineman with awful technique that doesn't get to the point of attack is never as good as a lineman that may be a bit slower, but gets to their assignment and makes the block. A good lineman is a good lineman.

Second, you completely neglect the lines in your strategy. That's mind boggling to me. Perhaps you have a plan that you didn't note.

[RyansRangers]

That depends are you referring to when they were healthy?

IIRC the Redskins did quite well when they all were healthy, the problem wasn't the starting talent, the problem was we traded away much needed draft picks which should have given the Redskins depth behind these players.

Off the top of my head though, when they were healthy.

6-2 start with a mediocre QB and joke of a HC in Jim Zorn. It wasn't until Stephon Heyer was a starting tackle that this season went to ****.

And what was it a 4-0 or 5-0 close of a season to take the Skins to the playoffs with Todd friggin Collins at QB, after they all got healthy again.

Im talking about way before Jim Zorn... Im talking about 2000 -2005 when we drafted these OLINE men.. This was the Patrick Ramsey era.. we drafted a great oline and 1 great linebacker (arrington) or so what we thoght would be a great linebacker.... Instead of taking a top flight Qb we kept taking chances on Ramsey then Campbell ... We passed up on franchise QB's

[TK]

Totally agree on the QB. But why not address the OL in the draft and snatch someone like Bowe up in FA instead of using picks on a WR that will take a few years to develop (and may or may not even pan out)?

Good chance Bowe doesn't get out of KC. And if Dirty's contract gets sticky, he could get tagged as well.

[RyansRangers]

Good chance Bowe doesn't get out of KC. And if Dirty's contract gets sticky, he could get tagged as well.

I have a bad feeling that Landry's contract is gonna be a fight.. He has watched a lot of Safety FA's come and go while he has been here and get paid..

[Dark Acre]

I would prefer to sign a mediocre OL who can play ZBS rather than take a chance on a draftee who hasn't played it if there are sounder prospects in positions of need. When healthy, our line isn't that bad. I've always been an advocate of drafting linemen, but in this case, we really do need a QB. Now, if Shanahan thinks his guy will be there in round 2, ok, in Mike we trust, but I still wouldn't take an OL in round one next year.

First off, the whole ZBS blocking lineman myth really irks me to no end. A good, technically sound lineman can fit in either scheme. You don't NEED smaller lineman to run a ZBS, it's preferred generally because they're faster. But a faster lineman with awful technique that doesn't get to the point of attack is never as good as a lineman that may be a bit slower, but gets to their assignment and makes the block. A good lineman is a good lineman.

Second, you completely neglect the lines in your strategy. That's mind boggling to me. Perhaps you have a plan that you didn't note.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

Good chance Bowe doesn't get out of KC. And if Dirty's contract gets sticky, he could get tagged as well.

theyd keep baldwin and bowe? that would be surprising to me, but maybe if his deal isnt crazy he'll stay.

but hes gotta know that teams are gonna wanna pay him big bucks so id assume he tests the market.

[bird_1972]

theyd keep baldwin and bowe? that would be surprising to me, but maybe if his deal isnt crazy he'll stay.

but hes gotta know that teams are gonna wanna pay him big bucks so id assume he tests the market.

They (KC) could tag him.

As for Landry, why on earth would we tag him (per TK's post)? He has shown flashes of the player he could be for one season, has a nagging Achilles injury, and some questions around PEDs.

We can make an effort, I guess, but would rather concentrate our efforts on keeping Fletcher, F. Davis, Monty, and maybe even Rex (for backup QB purposes).

[skinsdude]

They (KC) could tag him.

As for Landry, why on earth would we tag him (per TK's post)? He has shown flashes of the player he could be for one season, has a nagging Achilles injury, and some questions around PEDs.

We can make an effort, I guess, but would rather concentrate our efforts on keeping Fletcher, F. Davis, Monty, and maybe even Rex (for backup QB purposes).

Agreed on Landry. I think that we would be crazy to tag him. Let him walk.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

They (KC) could tag him.

As for Landry, why on earth would we tag him (per TK's post)? He has shown flashes of the player he could be for one season, has a nagging Achilles injury, and some questions around PEDs.

We can make an effort, I guess, but would rather concentrate our efforts on keeping Fletcher, F. Davis, Monty, and maybe even Rex (for backup QB purposes).

id rather keep landry than fletcher. fletcher is poor in coverage and at some point age will catch up to him. i love his heart and passion but nature is nature, he wont last forever and hes getting down to the end.

but landry should be tagged as a SS, where the salaries probably arent crazy, and give him one more year to realize his full potential.

[bird_1972]

id rather keep landry than fletcher. fletcher is poor in coverage and at some point age will catch up to him. i love his heart and passion but nature is nature, he wont last forever and hes getting down to the end.

but landry should be tagged as a SS, where the salaries probably arent crazy, and give him one more year to realize his full potential.

It won't be expensive to keep Fletch and he's a leader on D. I think we should try and keep him and I don't think we'll have much competition.

Landry is very overrated, in my opinion. Would rather let him walk so we don't have to take up too much cap room on him. That, plus tagged players can sometimes be a distraction if those players are unhappy about their situation (not saying that Landry is or isn't, it's just a possibility).

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

It won't be expensive to keep Fletch and he's a leader on D. I think we should try and keep him and I don't think we'll have much competition.

Landry is very overrated, in my opinion. Would rather let him walk so we don't have to take up too much cap room on him. That, plus tagged players can sometimes be a distraction if those players are unhappy about their situation (not saying that Landry is or isn't, it's just a possibility).

if the staff thinks landry is overrated i wont argue. hes definitely not some megabeast but hes a young, very talented player that knows our scheme and has shown flashes of being great. if we're building for the long haul, he is the type of player we want to keep on defense. fletcher is not a long term solution, id rather get his replacement started now rather than wait til later.

[bird_1972]

if the staff thinks landry is overrated i wont argue. hes definitely not some megabeast but hes a young, very talented player that knows our scheme and has shown flashes of being great. if we're building for the long haul, he is the type of player we want to keep on defense. fletcher is not a long term solution, id rather get his replacement started now rather than wait til later.

We should definitely address ILB. I'm with you there. I just think it would be cool to keep Fletch and let a young guy learn from him. Maybe Fletch becomes a situational player or something. Would like him to retire a Skin.

As for Landry, he is quickly revealing himself to be an injury-riddled player. Achilles injuries can ruin a career. Just ask Jon Jansen.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

This is 100% the approach I advocate. I do not advocate selecting him as long as we have holes at QB/OL

Although, if we have a QB we like available, you take him. No trade backs. Get him. That's the caveat for me.

The problem is though, how many QB's do we like? Last years draft we only liked Locker (unsure about Newton, he was out of our reach).

I like being picky about QB's. If we really want a certain QB (besides Luck), we'll probably need to trade up. Somebody like Barkley, we'll still probably have to trade up for.

Let's say we don't like Tannehill, Barkley and RG3 are gone, would you take Jones over Blackmon? Or draft a OT with say the 6th or 7th pick to be our RT of the future?

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

The problem is though, how many QB's do we like? Last years draft we only liked Locker (unsure about Newton, he was out of our reach).

I like being picky about QB's. If we really want a certain QB (besides Luck), we'll probably need to trade up. Somebody like Barkley, we'll still probably have to trade up for.

Let's say we don't like Tannehill, Barkley and RG3 are gone, would you take Jones over Blackmon? Or draft a OT with say the 6th or 7th pick to be our RT of the future?

if this organization is going to be so terrified unless they draft "the guy" then they need to sack up and trade as much as possible to ensure they get their man. this whole being scared about busting on a QB, or not liking every single guy except one QB has got to stop. we just have to roll the dice and see how it goes.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

if this organization is going to be so terrified unless they draft "the guy" then they need to sack up and trade as much as possible to ensure they get their man. this whole being scared about busting on a QB, or not liking every single guy except one QB has got to stop. we just have to roll the dice and see how it goes.

Exactly right. I understand if somehow they just didn't like anything out there. But I have to imagine that a good number of these prospects have tools and upside to work with. Pick the best one and give it a shot. If you spend 2 years tailoring your offense around what the kid does well, so be it.

[Botched]

A year or two ago I would have said we should let Landry walk, and kick him in the ass on the way out. Chris Horton seemed like he had enough potential to take over anyway. Ha.

We really have nobody who could fill in that role. I do not want Reed Doughty starting on this team. Ever. Signing LL to a huge deal would be a mistake, but if we can get him for decent money, I think he's playing well enough that we should re-sign him. If we let him walk we had better hope DeJon Gomes can take over or we're ****ed.

[KDawg]

I would prefer to sign a mediocre OL who can play ZBS rather than take a chance on a draftee who hasn't played it if there are sounder prospects in positions of need. When healthy, our line isn't that bad. I've always been an advocate of drafting linemen, but in this case, we really do need a QB. Now, if Shanahan thinks his guy will be there in round 2, ok, in Mike we trust, but I still wouldn't take an OL in round one next year.

You still didn't read the OP. I never said don't go QB first. In fact, I said the opposite.

[pjfootballer]

LL's contract will not be a problem. This FO has rid us from the "cap hell" we've been in and they've also shown they can sign guys for big deals that are very cap friendly. That is Allen's specialty. I'd rather re-sign Landry and let Fletch hook on with a contender. He still has alot left in the tank, but it would be more useful on a better team. His age will catch up with him and in a way it has this year.