Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=djnemo65;652127] Doesn't the evidence suggest that the first round is overwhelmingly the most likely place to find a legit franchise QB?[/quote]

Yes. You are technically correct. If only the Redskins had a starting quarterback drafted in the first round . . .

We are not forced into selecting a QB with our 1st round pick nor are we doing it at random. Therefore, "most likely" means very little. Look specifically at the QBs available in the first round this year. Do they, as individuals, bring more value to the QB position than Jason Campbell?

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Yeah, I think we load up by taking a QB in 2010 and another in 2011 or 2012. Mallet of Arkansas, and Moore from Boise St are sophmores. Top juniors include Dalton of TCU, Keenum of Houston, and Enderle from Idaho. Todd Reesing is also a junior I believe. I like the second tiers because they are gunslingers working with less talent than these media created superstars that could be a just a good QB on a loaded team. McCoys' backup is heating things up now after a rather shaky start.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=djnemo65;652135]Moreover, I think drafting a QB high in the first round is historically the best way to get such a player. There are too many other factors that go into catching lightning in a bottle and having your undrafted backup Kurt Warner flourish, or you catfish wrastling journeyman Jake Delhome suddenly morph into a fearless gunslinger in time for the playoff run. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot more than it does.[/quote]Well, the star QB in SB42 put up 17 points and lost to the pedistrian player, who was admittedly a first overall pick himself. But hardly established or even a sure thing to succeed in the NFL had he lost that game. In SB41, the game was so sloppy that another special teams or defensive touchdown could have helped Rex Grossman defeat (in my opinion) the greatest quarterback to ever lace them up. As good as Matt Hasselbeck was in the mid-2000's, Hasselbeck-types are available in the third or fourth round of any draft. Ditto Jake Delhomme.

Really, I think the common link about getting to the next level in the common game is that the quarterback must play well for most of the season, particularly in the post-season. Whether the quarterback is a franchise player, or merely posing as one in the right situation doesn't seem to matter.

I agree with you that a quarterback can't get his team to the level of a champion playing like Trent Dilfer did in 2000 anymore. Well, except for Grossman.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=GTripp0012;652136]I'm in favor of it, although this class is so
deep that you can probably get a second round value in the fourth round.

All you're getting after the top ten picks is a system guy, so I don't see why we'd spend a pick at the top of the second on anyone but McCoy. However, as the draft gets deeper, I'd take pretty much any one of those players as a No. 2 QB who doesn't prevent us from drafting a No. 1 QB in 2011. I like the flexibility of that option.[/quote]

I think QB in the 2nd or later makes for sense, but why do you have a G. Williams avatar?

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=The Goat;652160]I think QB in the 2nd or later makes for sense, but why do you have a G. Williams avatar?[/quote]Pent up frustration.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Admittedly, I don't know a lot about draft strategy, but:

Do we go ahead and trade with K.C., allowing them to reunite Clausen with Weis?

I don't know anything about the Chiefs. Are they committed to Matt Cassel?

The Chiefs have a young, versatile O-lineman from Glen Burnie (former UVA guy Branden Albert). He's now starting at left tackle, but he lined up in college mostly at left guard. With the 5th pick we pick up Okung. We just bolstered the left side of the O-line by [U]not[/U] picking up Clausen. Albert and Pick #5 (Okung) for the rights to Clausen.

How realistic is this (again, I have no feel for trades)? Do we "shop" Jason Campbell around to make it look like we're going for Clausen?

We get the O-line we need, K.C. gets a franchise QB who has demonstrated success under their new O-coordinator. Is this even in the realm of possibility?

UPDATE: I just walked away from the computer, went to the bathroom, thought about it, and realized Weis and Matt Cassel have a pretty good working relationship, too. Oh well.

Maybe this becomes a three-way trade with us getting Albert and Pick 5, KC getting Clausen (and maybe someone/something else from Team X), and Cassel going to Team X and team X getting something from Washington? Portis?

So we get O-linemen and offload Portis (maybe picks from Team X).
KC gets Clausen and something from, um, somebody.
Team X gets Cassel and Portis.

I could never be a GM. My head hurts.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Zorn on the 4th of July;652162]Admittedly, I don't know a lot about draft strategy, but:

Do we go ahead and trade with K.C., allowing them to reunite Clausen with Weis?

I don't know anything about the Chiefs. Are they committed to Matt Cassel?

The Chiefs have a young, versatile O-lineman from Glen Burnie (former UVA guy Branden Albert). He's now starting at left tackle, but he lined up in college mostly at left guard. With the 5th pick we pick up Okung. We just bolstered the left side of the O-line by [U]not[/U] picking up Clausen.

How realistic is this (again, I have no feel for trades)? Do we "shop" Jason Campbell around to make it look like we're going for Clausen?

We get the O-line we need, K.C. gets a franchise QB who has demonstrated success under their new O-coordinator. Is this even in the realm of possibility?[/quote]

I might be exaggerating this...but I think the Chiefs are stuck with Cassel. I think the best scenario for us it would be this...

1. St. Louis - Clausen
2. Detroit - Suh
3. TB - Berry
4. Skins - Okung

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Ruhskins;652167]I might be exaggerating this...but I think the Chiefs are stuck with Cassel. I think the best scenario for us it would be this...

1. St. Louis - Clausen
2. Detroit - Suh
3. TB - Berry
4. Skins - Okung[/quote]

This to me sounds just about right! However after tonight's Alabama beat down of Texas and Ingram showing what type of RB he is it only makes it real difficult to pass a Heisman trophy winner and the Offensive player of a BCS Championship game. Don't get me wrong I love C.P. but his time is up. Gotta go young and gotta go strong! BTW hopefully now everyone can stop talking about Colt McCoy. Like he just said in his interview his arm feels dead. Can't take no risk. Also 2011 Draft we get Jake Locker at QB! We can't waste Draft picks this year!

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Team X in my scenario: the Cleveland Browns, who badly need both Cassel and Portis.

Side note: Jahri Evans (Saints RG) should be our main target for free agency for the OL.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Zorn on the 4th of July;652121]Very thought-provoking post, but remember that great QB play is different than hot QB draft prospects, and improving QB play doesn't necessarily involve the draft or even the QB himself.

Gentlemen, your conference-winning quarterbacks of the last ten years (and NFL draft round):

John Elway (1)
Chris Chandler (3)
Kurt Warner (undrafted)
Steve McNair (1)
Trent Dilfer (1)
Kerry Collins (1)
Tom Brady (6)
Brad Johnson (9)
Rich Gannon (4)
Jake Delhomme (undrafted)
Donovan McNabb (1)
Ben Roethlisberger (1)
Matt Hasslebeck (6)
Peyton Manning (1)
Rex Grossman (1)
Eli Manning (1)

[/quote]

Thank you for that fine list. Let's look at it again:
1) 7 out of 16 were not drafted in the first round. So the statement, "Winning teams can find QB's in later rounds, or even undrafted" appears to be true.
2) But 9 out of 16 came in the first round. The most common draft position, by far, is the first round. So the statement, "Winning teams most commonly have QB's taken in the first round" also appears to be true.

Put it together and we see that winning teams can draft QB's late (or not at all), but the best-worn path to winning is with a first round QB.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=mlopez0529;652170]This to me sounds just about right! However after tonight's Alabama beat down of Texas and [B]Ingram[/B] showing what type of RB he is it only makes it real difficult to pass a Heisman trophy winner and the Offensive player of a BCS Championship game. Don't get me wrong I love C.P. but his time is up. Gotta go young and gotta go strong! BTW hopefully now everyone can stop talking about Colt McCoy. Like he just said in his interview his arm feels dead. Can't take no risk. Also 2011 Draft we get Jake Locker at QB! We can't waste Draft picks this year![/quote]

As a true sophomore, Ingram is not eligible for the draft this year.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Lotus;652175]Put it together and we see that winning teams can draft QB's late (or not at all), but the best-worn path to winning is with a first round QB.[/quote]

Right, BUT: we're not forced to pick a QB in the first round at random. You have to actually look at the QBs who are entering the draft as individuals. The highest-valued QBs in the draft this year don't provide as much of a guarantee of success as Jason Campbell (himself a first round pick) does. We've got a cupcake non-conference road schedule in 2010, so it would be a pity to throw out Campbell and write 2010 off as a rebuilding year, which it certainly does not have to be.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Zorn on the 4th of July;652179]Right, BUT: we're not forced to pick a QB in the first round at random. You have to actually look at the QBs who are entering the draft as individuals. The highest-valued QBs in the draft this year don't provide as much of a guarantee of success as Jason Campbell (himself a first round pick) does. We've got a cupcake non-conference road schedule in 2010, [B]so it would be a pity to throw out Campbell and write 2010 off as a rebuilding year, which it certainly does not have to be.[/B][/quote]

I agree. We could combine strategies by keeping JC, drafting a QB (even at #4), and letting the Anointed One watch and learn behind JC for a year or two.

If we drafted a QB high, picked up a left tackle through free agency or trade, drafted a running back in the 4th or 5th, and used the rest of our choices on the offensive line, we could have a significantly remade offense now and into the future.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

the line needs to be young and drafted, we shouldnt be trying to patch it together like we always have. These guys need to be raised together and learn the scheme from day 1, not retraining them. GET OKUNG or Anthony Davis... BLING BLING!

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

A lot of people here are quick to rip on QB prospects like Clausen ("southern california douche" "why wasn't the Irish in a Bowl game if he was so good?") and Bradford ("one hit to that shoulder and he's done" "all he do is throw out of the shotgun")...but why don't we give that same scrutiny to the offensive linemen? Just because we want to draft an offensive lineman so badly? Why is there no mention of Jason Fox's bad knee? Of Bruce Campbell's chronic turf toe and MCL sprain? Of Anthony Davis' multiple team violations? Of Bulaga's questionable pass blocking skills?

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=SmootSmack;652225]A lot of people here are quick to rip on QB prospects like Clausen ("southern california douche" "why wasn't the Irish in a Bowl game if he was so good?") and Bradford ("one hit to that shoulder and he's done" "all he do is throw out of the shotgun")...but why don't we give that same scrutiny to the offensive linemen? Just because we want to draft an offensive lineman so badly? Why is there no mention of Jason Fox's bad knee? Of Bruce Campbell's chronic turf toe and MCL sprain? Of Anthony Davis' multiple team violations? Of Bulaga's questionable pass blocking skills?[/quote]

Good point. You know how it goes though, QB always gets too much focus.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Zorn on the 4th of July;652179]...[B] We've got a cupcake non-conference road schedule in 2010[/B]...[/quote]

Ya know, I am as optimistic as the next guy, maybe moreso, but after the start of our season last year, I don't think anyone associated with the Redskins, or any fan of the Skins, should be talking about a cupcake schedule in any form or fashion. Our Skins have made beating the easy teams as hard (or harder) than climbing Mt. Everest.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=SmootSmack;652225]A lot of people here are quick to rip on QB prospects like Clausen ("southern california douche" "why wasn't the Irish in a Bowl game if he was so good?") and Bradford ("one hit to that shoulder and he's done" "all he do is throw out of the shotgun")...but why don't we give that same scrutiny to the offensive linemen? Just because we want to draft an offensive lineman so badly? Why is there no mention of Jason Fox's bad knee? Of Bruce Campbell's chronic turf toe and MCL sprain? Of Anthony Davis' multiple team violations? Of Bulaga's questionable pass blocking skills?[/quote]
soulja boy tell em

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=SmootSmack;652225]A lot of people here are quick to rip on QB prospects like Clausen ("southern california douche" "why wasn't the Irish in a Bowl game if he was so good?") and Bradford ("one hit to that shoulder and he's done" "all he do is throw out of the shotgun")...but why don't we give that same scrutiny to the offensive linemen? Just because we want to draft an offensive lineman so badly? Why is there no mention of Jason Fox's bad knee? Of Bruce Campbell's chronic turf toe and MCL sprain? Of Anthony Davis' multiple team violations? Of Bulaga's questionable pass blocking skills?[/quote]

I don't think your run of the mill fan wants to draft an offensive lineman, since everyone talks about a QB. And as someone said it, no one talks about lineman they way they talk about QBs or WRs or RBs. Heck, even in the mock drafts they have us drafting a QB, which boggles me because we are in such a desperate need for linemen.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Well it's not like the only thing we need are linemen, and it's not like we're only allowed to make one move this off-season-1st round draft pick.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

I had to laugh when JC recently remarked with everything the team needs to fix all everyone still wants to talk about is him. So true.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=GTripp0012;652131].....But, get your act together as a team, and then using that top five pick on a quarterback with elite talent is so much more worthwhile.[/quote]Problem, if you have your act together as a team then you're not going to have a top five pick to get that QB with elite talent.

[quote]If you're going to pay all that money out to a position on the field that, in my opinion, is fairly easy to fill adequately, you might want to get to the winning right away.[/quote]QB is a position that can be filled "adequately" fairly easily. But to get where we want to be, finding that elite QB is much more difficult (and costly).

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=djnemo65;652083]I love how people prescribe trading down as the solution to everything, as if it's easy to do that. People in general don't like to trade up into the top 5 picks. It rarely happens, and not because the teams in the top 5 don't want to trade down.

I tend to agree with Jamf, it is so rare that a team has an opportunity to secure a franchise quarterback that, when the opportunity arrises, it has to be taken. Superstar QB play is the common thread linking the great teams of the past 10 years, and really through most of the history of the league. Arguments about the weakness of the line, about someone like Bradford getting pummeled like Campbell was this year, demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to rebuild. You don't draft a QB when you are close, you take one when you have a lot of building left to do; and hopefully, you have the luxury, as we will likely have, of having a veteran to carry the load for a year or two while the kid gets ready, time that will also be spent solidifying the line presumably. As Mel Kiper says, you can't do it all in one draft, and it will likely take us at least two years to restock our offensive front after the draft neglect it has endured the last several years.

Moreover, I would argue that while it is necessary to have a functioning line, drafting elite players is not at all necessary to be successful. Having a dominant QB on the other hand is. Of the dominant teams in the league this year - Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings let's say, the bye teams - how many sport a premium left tackle? The Colts scored all over the league with a 6th round pick anchoring the blind side. The Saints lost Jammal Brown and plugged in a fourth round guy. The Chargers go to war with Marcus McNeill, a second rounder. Only the Vikings have a Mercedes-type guy in McKinney, and even he wasn't chosen in the top 5. The QB's? Two were type five picks, the third is statistically the greatest QB in the history of the league, the last an unusual late bloomer who was only let go because of injury and the emergence of the aforementioned top fiver. This is not to say that it's necessary to draft a QB highly, but rather that obtaining an elite QB has to be the top priority of a team with championship aspirations, and taking one in the top 5 is the easiest way to get one.

Now, if Bradford (or even Clausen who I don't have a good feeling about) turns out to be a bust, all this is moot. You could write a response about guys like Alex Smith and Jamarcus Russell and what they cost their franchise. That's up to the front office to determine. But if you think there's a chance the kid might be elite, you have to roll the dice and pick him. A great LT can get you to 10-6, but you are going to need a superstar QB to go all the way, and I think we all agree that that should be the goal.[/quote]

I heard this same argument last year when people told me I was stupid for wanting to use the number one on Mack, Oher, or Loadholt. [I]Well that's a reach Tramp! Those guys aren't worth that high of a pick.[/I] Those guys are starting this year. They're not getting schooled up like Rinehart. Two of the teams that drafted these guys, one in the first and the other in the second I believe in Loadholt's case, are in the playoffs (Ravens & Vikings). Oher has played RT and LT this year. Those teams had decent lineman already. We've got a bunch of effing bums. 75% of the offensive linemen on our roster right now are going to hit the bricks as soon as Shanny starts looking at film.

I want the next Chris Samuals at LT for the next ten years, not a FA for the next year. Chris was the third pick in the first, not a deal they found in the fifth or some UDFA from Maryland. I'll eat my words if they draft some wonderboy and we go to the playoffs. I don't see that going down. I see some poor kid eating turf as the NFC East uses him like toilet paper.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Mattyk;652392]I had to laugh when JC recently remarked with everything the team needs to fix all everyone still wants to talk about is him. So true.[/quote]

Boo-yah!

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

I am not saying I would take Bradford...but one of the best things about Shanahan is that he has always had good OL's without using high draft picks to build them for the most part. So I don't think it's LT or bust for the skins at #4.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=celts32;652462]I am not saying I would take Bradford...but one of the best things about Shanahan is that he has always had good OL's without using high draft picks to build them for the most part. So I don't think it's LT or bust for the skins at #4.[/quote]

Shanahan also picked Clady with a first rounder. I think taking a top tackle would be a good way to start rebuilding the line.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;652053]I still don't get it? We have no O-line starters that are worth a damn and no depth. I don't consider Heyer to be depth. I consider him to be an UDFA that had his chance. There are maybe a few players we can use for another year if possible: Dockery, Raback, Mike Williams . . . maybe. Randy Thomas and CS are retiring. If they don't they'll not last very long.

So why is it I keep hearing about this [B]douche[/B] Clausen and that broke-ass Bradford? Why do I hear about Berry and his peeps, Franken-berry and Boo-berry? Count Chocula? He can't block man!?

How are you guys gonna feel when Clausen, Bradford, or Pineapple Jesus gets destroyed just like Campbell, Brunnell, and Ramsey did? Didn't Pineapple Jesus get put on IR for taking just a little bit of the punishment in pre-season, that JC took ALL YEAR!? What makes y'all think the [B]douche[/B] can take that kind of punishment? Tebow maybe . . . but he isn't worth a 1st round pick by a long shot. And Bradford . . . . The man has already missed almost his entire senior year because of injuries. You guys want to waste a pick on him?

How about trading down for starting linemen and depth? If you want to draft a [B]douche[/B] like Clausen, do it in the fourth. Let him suck his thumb on the bench for a year or two, while the line is transformed into something that doesn't resemble a effing sieve. No QB can throw TDs from his back.

Some of you guys think like those jerks in Detroit do. You want to see where drafting one of these guys will take you? Look up footage of Stafford getting destroyed on the NFL's site. Listen to him scream in pain like a little girl as they scrape him off the turf. That's how you destroy a QB. He's only been in the league for a year and he's already jacked up. Throw Clausen or Bradford to the wolves. See what happens.

I hope Shanny-han isn't that stupid.[/quote]
Is that a record for the # of times 'douche' was used in a post? Wow.

Kiper projected on M&M this morning that McCoy probably fell into the late 2nd, early 3rd and possibly 4th because of last night. He will likely need an amazing combine/individual workout to put himself back up as a sure fire first day pick.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;652445][B]Problem, if you have your act together as a team then you're not going to have a top five pick to get that QB with elite talent.[/B]

QB is a position that can be filled "adequately" fairly easily. But to get where we want to be, finding that elite QB is much more difficult (and costly).[/quote]It is quite the conundrum. But, if quarterback play is still an issue that needs to be solved, you'll be around the 4-6 win mark, and be picking in the top five or so.

I mean, I'll cite the Raiders, Seahawks, or Rams as an example. These are teams who all have picked in the top five as recently as 2007. All of them have offensive pieces superior to what the Redskins have. But they're still losing. Now, if any of those teams drafted a QB and hit, they would start to see the fruits of the pick pretty immediately. The receiver numbers would see a major boost, and the sack rates would drop concurrently to the pick if they HIT.

Now, in the case of the Raiders and the Seahawks, those teams would have to build the lines concurrently to the QB pick. In the case of the Rams, they need to add receiving talent concurrently. They could have picked Sanchez last year, but it would have been a disaster because they wouldn't have had even a single adequate tackle. They took Jason Smith because it was a building block who they could build around. This year, if they want to take Jimmy Clausen with the first overall pick, they are in a much better situation to do so than last year (not to mention that Clausen is a lot stronger of a prospect than Sanchez, not that the bar is set all that high).

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Remember that the last two expansion franchises started with quarterbacks, and got nothing out of them not because the picks were all that terrible, but because when the QB is the first part, and not part of an existing system, there's nothing to build on, no place to go. And David Carr got to play with Andre Johnson for the better part of four seasons.

It's not that you have to have a pro bowl offensive line to draft a QB, not that you have to spend a top five pick on a receiver first, but you should have SOMETHING. It's my conclusion that the Redskins have a pair of TEs right now, and nothing more but potential prospects and non-prospects.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Smoot mentioned McClain, LB from bama, the other day. I think Smoot, you said there was some early interest from the skins?

Regardless, just want to remind everyone that the 1st pick is likely not a debate simply of qb v. O line w/the new regime. I'm sure there are some defensive players that they like quite a bit. Seems this draft is tilted to defense in the top players.

If the 1st 3 picks are Clausen, Okung & Berry, I think Suh is too much to pass up. It is not all that unrealistic. That's kind of what I'm hoping for, and that we draft o line in the 2nd & get D. LeFevour in the 3rd via trade or 4th.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;652447]I heard this same argument last year when people told me I was stupid for wanting to use the number one on Mack, Oher, or Loadholt. [I]Well that's a reach Tramp! Those guys aren't worth that high of a pick.[/I] Those guys are starting this year. They're not getting schooled up like Rinehart. Two of the teams that drafted these guys, one in the first and the other in the second I believe in Loadholt's case, are in the playoffs (Ravens & Vikings). Oher has played RT and LT this year. Those teams had decent lineman already. We've got a bunch of effing bums. 75% of the offensive linemen on our roster right now are going to hit the bricks as soon as Shanny starts looking at film.

I want the next Chris Samuals at LT for the next ten years, not a FA for the next year. Chris was the third pick in the first, not a deal they found in the fifth or some UDFA from Maryland. I'll eat my words if they draft some wonderboy and we go to the playoffs. I don't see that going down. I see some poor kid eating turf as the NFC East uses him like toilet paper.[/quote]

Tramp is back with a vengeance! I found what GTripp said very interesting. If you're going to draft a QB that high, you're basically saying you think he's the best who will come out in the next 3 years. If not, why draft him? If I thought as highly as some do of Clausen or Bradford I would want to draft QB first myself. JMO, while they are both very talented, I think they have as much potential to be busts as they do of being great. With Locker available next year, I would rather draft OT in the first and someone like LeFevour later. JC may work out pretty well with a decent line and someone like LeFevour, or whoever, could turnout to be a steal. If not, we should have a pretty good pick next year. I think it's easier to get an OT with the 4th pick who will be what you think he is, than a QB. At least in this draft. I know there are no sure things, but I hope the coaches don't gamble with this pick.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=GTripp0012;652496]Remember that the last two expansion franchises started with quarterbacks, and got nothing out of them not because the picks were all that terrible, but because when the QB is the first part, and not part of an existing system, there's nothing to build on, no place to go.

It's not that you have to have a pro bowl offensive line to draft a QB, not that you have to spend a top five pick on a receiver first, but you should have SOMETHING. It's my conclusion that the Redskins have a pair of TEs right now, and nothing more but potential prospects and non-prospects.[/quote]

I think you can look at it this way, which position would you rather play a rookie? I would always say you play a rookie O linemen, even LT, before a rookie qb. So, if you follow that logic, you draft a qb earlier (as in year, not round) but sit him.

If JC isn't veiwed as the future here, than I think Shanny needs a qb pick this year. Doesn't have to be the 1st round, but would almost have to be this year.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=freddyg12;652499]Smoot mentioned McClain, LB from bama, the other day. I think Smoot, you said there was some early interest from the skins?

Regardless, just want to remind everyone that the 1st pick is likely not a debate simply of qb v. O line w/the new regime. I'm sure there are some defensive players that they like quite a bit. Seems this draft is tilted to defense in the top players.

If the 1st 3 picks are Clausen, Okung & Berry, I think Suh is too much to pass up. It is not all that unrealistic. That's kind of what I'm hoping for, and that we draft o line in the 2nd & get D. LeFevour in the 3rd via trade or 4th.[/quote]

No, I just said he could be a sleeper pick. If I said there was interest from the Redskins I didn't mean to

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=SmootSmack;652510]No, I just said he could be a sleeper pick. If I said there was interest from the Redskins I didn't mean to[/quote]

I certainly wasn't quoting you, I just remembered you mentioned him.

Anyway, dude is a beast & I agree w/the sleeper call, especially if the 4-3 system is kept in place. In the pregame last night several teamates talked about how well he quarterbacks the D. Would be a good replacement of Fletcher. Not sure HB Blades is the long term answer at MLB.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

I wanted to go through and declare the best QB picked in the first round in every three year window going back to 1991.

[B]1991-1993[/B]
Brett Favre

[B]1992-1994[/B]
Drew Bledsoe

[B]1993-1995[/B]
Steve McNair

[B]1994-1996[/B]
Steve McNair

[B]1995-1997[/B]
Steve McNair

[B]1996-1998[/B]
Peyton Manning

[B]1997-1999[/B]
Peyton Manning

[B]1998-2000[/B]
Peyton Manning

[B]1999-2001[/B]
Chad Pennington OR Drew Brees

[B]2000-2002[/B]
Chad Pennington OR Drew Brees

[B]2001-2003[/B]
Carson Palmer OR Drew Brees

[B]2002-2004[/B]
Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger

[B]2003-2005[/B]
Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger

[B]2004-2006[/B]
Philip Rivers or Ben Roethlisberger

[B]2005-2007[/B]
Aaron Rodgers or Jay Cutler or Vince Young or Jason Campbell or Kevin Kolb or something

[B]2006-2008[/B]
Matt Ryan

[B]2007-2009[/B]
Matt Ryan

If you don't count anyone in my hodgepodge mess of 2005-2007 where I don't feel there's a clear cut best quarterback drafted in those three years (most would say Rodgers, but that's based on this year alone...I'd go Young, gun to my head, also based on this year alone), there's been 10 different passers to lead this category since 1991, but 16 different opportunities.

Basically, I think there's been a lot of underwhelming quarterback classes. At times, the league has gone more than three years without a surefire success story at QB, and even moving Matt Ryan to that category might be a little premature.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=freddyg12;652512]I certainly wasn't quoting you, I just remembered you mentioned him.

Anyway, dude is a beast & I agree w/the sleeper call, especially if the 4-3 system is kept in place. In the pregame last night several teamates talked about how well he quarterbacks the D. Would be a good replacement of Fletcher. Not sure HB Blades is the long term answer at MLB.[/quote]

That would most likely mean a trade down since McLain is not going 4th. You never know. I still think we're in a pretty good position to trade down w/ a team who falls in love w/ Bradford or Clausen.

St Louis...not sure they'll pass on Suh.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=hail_2_da_skins;651969]Russell Okung, OT Oklahoma St, 6-5 300 lbs

Picking any quarterback in the first round is a big mistake. Jimmy Clausen QB Notre Dame is the only franchise quarterback in the draft. The rest can be had a later rounds. The Skins need to lock down left tackle. Okung will sure up that weak offensive line.[/quote]

Agree 120% should be the chief concern above all else - if it were possible trade up/down as necessary to acquire fresh/healthy O-linemen, if for no other benefit than Campbell's to give him the time he needs. In my opinion, Clausen and Bradford are both bad choices if we take a quarterback (health/leadership in question) - the only skill and charisma worthy of future field marshal status in the NFL is Tebow and I have a feeling he'll end up in TB. I believe we can all agree the skins do need a field marshal of the same cut of Favre and P.Manning, if not now then maybe in another year.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

Replace Fletcher? You serious? :(

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=Paintrain;652488]Is that a record for the # of times 'douche' was used in a post? Wow.

Kiper projected on M&M this morning that McCoy probably fell into the late 2nd, early 3rd and possibly 4th because of last night. He will likely need an amazing combine/individual workout to put himself back up as a sure fire first day pick.[/quote]

Have you seen the mug on the guy? Three times is an understatement.

Re: 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
 

[quote=redsk1;652520]That would most likely mean a trade down since McLain is not going 4th. You never know. I still think we're in a pretty good position to trade down w/ a team who falls in love w/ Bradford or Clausen.

St Louis...not sure they'll pass on Suh.[/quote]

At this point, but after the combine, interviews, workouts, etc. he may be considered worth the #4. If you want a LB to call signals & make plays, it's worth using a high pick IMO.