2012 Draft - "And with the 6th pick, the Washington Redskins select...Riley Reiff OT from Iowa"...

[terpskins10]

Its funny that the recurring theme seems to be "let's try to remember that its 2011, not 1985".

With FA and strict IR rules, OL's like the Redskins had in the 80's aren't really viable anymore. Most teams with elite offenses and franchise QB's prove that every year.

Sure, it's viable. If you decide to start undrafted free agents at every other position.

Talking to some people on this site, they may think that's a good plan.

[JerseyGator]

You can build solid OLs through the draft if you have good scouting. Lots of teams do that nowadays, but not the Skins.

[Conn]

You can build solid OLs through the draft if you have good scouting. Lots of teams do that nowadays, but not the Skins.

Building a solid OL is not the same as assembling the Hogs 2.0. There's a big distinction there.

[JerseyGator]

Where did I mention the Hogs? This thread is all over the map ... just like the logic of ESPN analysts.

[BleedBNG]

If we're going BPA, I'd prefer CB, S (get rid of Doughty) or WR. We could still get decent OL depth in later rounds.

[nwoganja]

Anyone who thinks QB is much more important than the Oline should not be allowed to talk about football.

Take a stopwatch and actually check how many seconds our QB has to throw and then compare it to Brees/Brady/Rodgers.

After you measure that, you might actually understand why Oline is so important compared to the QB.

Even a good Oline can make Mark Sanchez look pretty good. Oh yah and they did beat Brady and his Pats team in the playoffs last year.

Also, our offense scheme is more reliant on Running. Oline is not just for protecting QBs, they are there to help the run as well.

[Main-Maine]

ever paid attention to how good brees looks with TIME?

I've seen how Bree's look without sufficient time. Brees make some very quick decision. I think your trapt in the belief that I think a Qb can do with out an average o-line. I feel the Qb need time, but not infinite amount to where we need to draft 1st round O-line men.

---------- Post added December-26th-2011 at 04:41 PM ----------

Anyone who thinks QB is much more important than the Oline should not be allowed to talk about football.

Take a stopwatch and actually check how many seconds our QB has to throw and then compare it to Brees/Brady/Rodgers.

After you measure that, you might actually understand why Oline is so important compared to the QB.

Even a good Oline can make Mark Sanchez look pretty good. Oh yah and they did beat Brady and his Pats team in the playoffs last year.

Also, our offense scheme is more reliant on Running. Oline is not just for protecting QBs, they are there to help the run as well.

But if you look from a different angle. The reason may be, because most defenses don't fear our Qb. They may feel our Qb can't dismantle their defense like some of the other elite Qb.

[SkinsTerps26]

The Packers OL is average at best. So is the Steelers.

What teams have the best OLs in the NFL? Does anyone even know? Does anyone outside Redskins fans really even care that much? QB play matters a lot more. Get a great QB and you can win Super Bowls with average OLs.

The Texans. And without Shaub they look much worse. You nailed it, need a QB.

Pats, Steelers, Saints, Packers, Giants, Colts, last winners, what do they share in common. All have legit QBs, and the one team that lost his, are 2-14.

[Main-Maine]

Its funny that the recurring theme seems to be "let's try to remember that its 2011, not 1985".

With FA and strict IR rules, OL's like the Redskins had in the 80's aren't really viable anymore. Most teams with elite offenses and franchise QB's prove that every year.

It's like trying to teach an old dog new tricks. They're just stuck in 1980's, and us young generation redskin fans are stuck with this mind set.

[8181]

If RG3 and Luck are gone, which is very possible... Hey why not.

[Koala]

The OL is fine. Building another Hogs is impractical if not impossible. The best teams don't have the best OLs, they have the best QBs. Join us in 2011.

San Francisco -- Alex Smith

Houstoun Texans -- Someone off the street / Matt Schaub

Pittsburgh Steelers -- Ben Roethlisberger

NE Patroits -- Brady

Baltimore Ravens -- Flacco (on an off year)

Those are all the 10+ win teams right now.

What you notice about all those teams is the presence of a veteran QB. Which, if anyhing, would seem to indicate our best chance of winning would be to forget about drafting a QB, focus on other parts of the team, and then hope a vet QB becomes available via trade or FA. Since we're talking about drrafting a young QB, if we just throw him to the fire with a bad OL, he'll never get to the point of being a veteran QB. Now, veteran QB's dont necessarily need awesome OL's, but young QBs need a lot of help from Oline, running game, etc.

Oh, and all of those teams have solid, good offensive lines. Good OL play and good QB play go hand in hand, they always have and they always will. Join us in the reality of football for the last 100 years.

[8181]

I don't think we have a bad OL at all anymore at this point. Average, yes. Bad, no. The last time we had a bad OL was mid-2008 and 2009.

Last year was bordering on bad, but not as awful as people make it out to be.

Also, Brady took a lot of sacks his first year as did Ben Roethlisberger. Yates lost to the Colts and Panthers and has hit 20 points just once, so that really shows you how important a QB is.

Joe Flacco in an off-year is still a 20+TD season.

[Dan T.]

If RG3 and Luck are gone, which is very possible... Hey why not.

As far as I can tell, there is no quarterback other than Luck or RG3 worthy of being picked as high as the Redskins' 1st pick. So, are people advocating the Redskins badly reach for a QB with that pick? Or trading down and getting a lesser quarterback along with an extra pick or two? Trading for an NFL QB?

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

As far as I can tell, there is no quarterback other than Luck or RG3 worthy of being picked as high as the Redskins' 1st pick. So, are people advocating the Redskins badly reach for a QB with that pick? Or trading down and getting a lesser quarterback along with an extra pick or two? Trading for an NFL QB?

I'd just take Tannehill and sign a guy like Orton, even more so if we can trade down. Tannehill's problem is that he's raw (he's essentially a sophomore in terms of QB experience) not that he's a bad prospect. If we went with something other than QB, I'd take the best CB on the board and take Weeden in the 2nd round.

[moondog]

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2011/12/26/cosell-talks-youre-seeing-the-real-mark-sanchez/?module=HP11_cp

Teams with good offensive lines and a good running game can consistently win games in this league. However, the margin for error is much smaller. An average quarterback can manage this system. But if the running game is off for any reason (injury to RB, lineman, etc.) or the defense cannot create turnovers and shut down the other team, you are pretty much screwed. A team like this can get by with an average quarterback, however, a team with a great quarterback can mask an entire team (see this year's Colts or Brett Favre's good year in Minnesota).

Clearly it is best to have both. I think it is important to point out that we have proved we are capable of a consistent, reliable running game which is absolutely a positive factor for quarterbacks, especially young ones, and especially in our offense which is based on play-action off the running game. Yes, we need to upgrade our offensive line, especially at RT and it would be nice to upgrade the interior as well. But I think it is much more important long-term for the consistent success of the franchise to find the quarterback. By all means, once we have him then surround him with the best offensive line possible, but it is much higher on my list to have a great QB and then go to work on the less obvious offensive line holes then to go ahead with a poor quarterback situation and a great offensive line.

I also think our coaching staff needs to put a lot of time and effort into developing Willie Smith as a RT this offseason. I think he's shown some serious potential as a fill-in UDFA rookie at LT against excellent pass-rushers. He's another young guy that looks like in time he can be a good player.

[8181]

Teams with good offensive lines and a good running game can consistently win games in this league. However, the margin for error is much smaller. An average quarterback can manage this system. But if the running game is off for any reason (injury to RB, lineman, etc.) or the defense cannot create turnovers and shut down the other team, you are pretty much screwed. A team like this can get by with an average quarterback, however, a team with a great quarterback can mask an entire team (see this year's Colts or Brett Favre's good year in Minnesota).

I think just as Redskins fans we should know this by now... We had great running games with Terry Allen and Stephen Davis and Clinton Portis... Even Ladell Betts. And we really don't have much to show for it.

Sample size may be small, but just looking at this season, the top 10 running teams are:

Broncos - Great team? No.

Texans - Doing crappy now that Schaub is gone, losing to the Panthers.

Panthers - They have a great POTENTIAL QB, but the passing game still struggles understandably at times.

Vikings - Crappy team.

Eagles - Underwhelming due to inconsistent QB play.

Raiders - Mediocre team.

49ers - Good team.

Bears - Out of playoffs without Jay Cutler. With cutler, they looked dangerous.

Dolphins - Crappy team.

Saints - Good team.

So out of the Top 10 running teams, we have only two teams that are actually considered "good", and only one of them without a dangerous passing attack.

[GSF]

It's like trying to teach an old dog new tricks. They're just stuck in 1980's, and us young generation redskin fans are stuck with this mind set.

What a stupid, insulting comment. You act like anyone over 25 is senile lol. I think the older guys in here want to see more resources spent on the line because the remember what a dominant oline looks like. The Skins haven't had a dominant oline since you were a toddler.

If you want to have a consistent, championship offense, you need a good QB and oline. Right now the skins really don't have either. I expect them to work hard on improving both of these areas this off-season, but it's just silly to say in December that a certain draft pick must be used on a certain position. There's just too many variables between now and the draft.

[moondog]

I think just as Redskins fans we should know this by now... We had great running games with Terry Allen and Stephen Davis and Clinton Portis... Even Ladell Betts. And we really don't have much to show for it.

Sample size may be small, but just looking at this season, the top 10 running teams are:

Broncos - Great team? No.

Texans - Doing crappy now that Schaub is gone, losing to the Panthers.

Panthers - They have a great POTENTIAL QB, but the passing game still struggles understandably at times.

Vikings - Crappy team.

Eagles - Underwhelming due to inconsistent QB play.

Raiders - Mediocre team.

49ers - Good team.

Bears - Out of playoffs without Jay Cutler. With cutler, they looked dangerous.

Dolphins - Crappy team.

Saints - Good team.

Exactly my point. I was discussing with my friend (a Browns fan) my opinion that the Browns would be wise to trade both their 1st rounders this year and their 1st next year if it would net them Andrew Luck. Could they possibly get Trent Richardson if they stay put? Most likely. But look at a few excellent case studies:

1) Minnesota Vikings draft AP. He is probably a consensus pick as one of the best 2-3 RB's in the league (unfortunately he's seen some tough injuries). And yet the Vikings, sans one great year with Favre, have continued to be awful despite one of the league's most feared running games, EXCEPT when they had excellent quarterback play. I think they recognized this and it's why they "reached" for a guy the liked in Ponder.

2) The Eagles this year have probably the consensus BEST RB in the league (emphasis on "this year" but he could continue to play at this level). Yet they are all but eliminated from the playoffs because of inconsistent QB play and turnovers. Again, the margin for error is very small when the running game is so heavily needed because you don't have "the" guy at QB.

3) 49ers - here is a tough team that will warrant watching in the playoffs. The defense is exceptional and the running game is tough as nails. That being said, their offense is pretty lacking and almost relies completely on the defense to give them short fields. They have the worst red zone offense in the league and rely on 4-5 field goals and one TD a game to win. Have they won all year with that recipe? Absolutely. Would I bet my money 10/10 times on the Saints or the Packers over them? Absolutely.

The QB is the essential piece to long-term success and a consistently good team. These great "running" or "defensive" teams typically are not great teams every year, and in some cases (such as a team like the Ravens) beat almost impossible odds to reach the Super-Bowl, if they ever do.

Did Ricky Williams turn the Saints around? Reggie Bush? No, it was Drew Brees.

Was it Marshall Faulk or Edgerrin James that made the Colts one of the most consistent and best teams of the last decade or so? No, it was Peyton Manning.

Were these guys aided along the way by these guys in the backfield? Absolutely, but it is important to recognize who THE ONE guy is that clearly cannot be replaced on these teams.

[terpskins10]

Exactly my point. I was discussing with my friend (a Browns fan) my opinion that the Browns would be wise to trade both their 1st rounders this year and their 1st next year if it would net them Andrew Luck. Could they possibly get Trent Richardson if they stay put? Most likely. But look at a few excellent case studies:

1) Minnesota Vikings draft AP. He is probably a consensus pick as one of the best 2-3 RB's in the league (unfortunately he's seen some tough injuries). And yet the Vikings, sans one great year with Favre, have continued to be awful despite one of the league's most feared running games, EXCEPT when they had excellent quarterback play. I think they recognized this and it's why they "reached" for a guy the liked in Ponder.

2) The Eagles this year have probably the consensus BEST RB in the league (emphasis on "this year" but he could continue to play at this level). Yet they are all but eliminated from the playoffs because of inconsistent QB play and turnovers. Again, the margin for error is very small when the running game is so heavily needed because you don't have "the" guy at QB.

3) 49ers - here is a tough team that will warrant watching in the playoffs. The defense is exceptional and the running game is tough as nails. That being said, their offense is pretty lacking and almost relies completely on the defense to give them short fields. They have the worst red zone offense in the league and rely on 4-5 field goals and one TD a game to win. Have they won all year with that recipe? Absolutely. Would I bet my money 10/10 times on the Saints or the Packers over them? Absolutely.

The QB is the essential piece to long-term success and a consistently good team. These great "running" or "defensive" teams typically are not great teams every year, and in some cases (such as a team like the Ravens) beat almost impossible odds to reach the Super-Bowl, if they ever do.

Did Ricky Williams turn the Saints around? Reggie Bush? No, it was Drew Brees.

Was it Marshall Faulk or Edgerrin James that made the Colts one of the most consistent and best teams of the last decade or so? No, it was Peyton Manning.

Were these guys aided along the way by these guys in the backfield? Absolutely, but it is important to recognize who THE ONE guy is that clearly cannot be replaced on these teams.

I think this might be the best post in the entire thread. Seriously, great breakdown and that's exactly how I view the QB/OL/Running game interplay. Obviously no one is advocating ignoring the OL and run game, but if we want to win and win BIG (not just wildcard playoffs, people!), we need a quarterback more than we need an elite OL or elite run game.

We're more likely to win a Super Bowl with a top 5 QB and a middle of the pack OL/run game than we are with a middle of the pack QB and a top 5 OL/Run game.

[Main-Maine]

San Francisco -- Alex Smith

Houstoun Texans -- Someone off the street / Matt Schaub

Pittsburgh Steelers -- Ben Roethlisberger

NE Patroits -- Brady

Baltimore Ravens -- Flacco (on an off year)

Those are all the 10+ win teams right now.

What you notice about all those teams is the presence of a veteran QB. Which, if anyhing, would seem to indicate our best chance of winning would be to forget about drafting a QB, focus on other parts of the team, and then hope a vet QB becomes available via trade or FA. Since we're talking about drrafting a young QB, if we just throw him to the fire with a bad OL, he'll never get to the point of being a veteran QB. Now, veteran QB's dont necessarily need awesome OL's, but young QBs need a lot of help from Oline, running game, etc.

Oh, and all of those teams have solid, good offensive lines. Good OL play and good QB play go hand in hand, they always have and they always will. Join us in the reality of football for the last 100 years.

Lmfao you just proved our point because those Qb were drafted by their organization except Shaub. They din't wait for a veteran qb besides maybe the texans.

[Main-Maine]

What a stupid, insulting comment. You act like anyone over 25 is senile lol. I think the older guys in here want to see more resources spent on the line because the remember what a dominant oline looks like. The Skins haven't had a dominant oline since you were a toddler.

If you want to have a consistent, championship offense, you need a good QB and oline. Right now the skins really don't have either. I expect them to work hard on improving both of these areas this off-season, but it's just silly to say in December that a certain draft pick must be used on a certain position. There's just too many variables between now and the draft.

Well the comment may be insulting and I'm sorry if it offended anyone, BUT I truly feel it makes total sense! The constant that I see is the older Redskin fan crying about drafting O-lineman in the first round. I'm not saying the Qb should be laying flat on his back all the time, but can we stop pretending like our O-line is the worst. All I'm saying is if we have the chance to draft an elite Qb then we better take him instead of drafting a o-lineman.

[JerseyGator]

The Eagles are not in the playoffs because their defensive coordinator doesn't have a clue. That's the consensus up here. Rumor has it that he will be fired after his first year. QB has little to do with it.

[Pedro]

It's like trying to teach an old dog new tricks. They're just stuck in 1980's, and us young generation redskin fans are stuck with this mind set.

Sticking with 'your' timeframe, Peyton Manning is arguably the best QB to ever play the game. Ever. How many SBs has he won as he nears the end of his career?

QB is important, it is still a team game though.

[terpskins10]

Sticking with 'your' timeframe, Peyton Manning is arguably the best QB to ever play the game. Ever. How many SBs has he won as he nears the end of his career?

QB is important, it is still a team game though.

And we've seen how horrible that team is without him. Same exact players around him, different QB, and drastically different results.

Manning hasn't won more championships because the team around him is so poor that he literally was the only reason they were even competitive.

[Pedro]

And we've seen how horrible that team is without him. Same exact players around him, different QB, and drastically different results.

Manning hasn't won more championships because the team around him is so poor that he literally was the only reason they were even competitive.

Still a team game then.

All I'm saying is if we have the chance to draft an elite Qb then we better take him instead of drafting a o-lineman.

That isn't what you originally said, but it is something I think most will agree with.