Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=dmek25;663152]pay your bill in full. then you get the whole article:)[/quote]

Bastardo, I doa pay me bill What you think I is, some sort of funny pastrami?

Still it seems to happen in one out of every 10 reports, some section ends up incomplete. The way they also post stats in the production section is also pretty annoying:

[quote]2007: (12/3) 43 rec., 622 yards, 6 TD. 2008: (13/13) 87 rec., 1,480 yards, 19 TD. 2009: (3/3) 17 rec., 323 yards, 4 TD. Career: Averaged 19.6 yards on 22 punt returns, including three for scores, also averaged 23.8 yards on six kickoff returns.[/quote]

I mean WTF? How am I suppose to read that?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;663151]Wait Dez Bryant is available this draft :eek: ????????!??!?! Forget everything I said, this is a game chnager!! We're taking him at #4 if we're lucky enough that he falls to us. And you know what on top of that I'm trading this years second next years 1st and 3rd to move up to select Jermaine Gresham!!!!

In the meantime I'll sign Peyton to the vet min plus incentives!!!!!!!

On a somewhat related note ESPN Insider is ticking me off. Look at what they have written in Dez Bryants scouting report keep in mind I didn't leave anything out in this section:


"Difficul"? I assume they mean difficult but difficult what? What am I paying you for ESPN?[/quote]

Didn't you hear there's a new Elite Insider package that spells check all of their articles, it will just cost you an extra 20 bucks. :laughing2

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Offensive lines are clearly incredibly important, but PHazard's post above notes why a great QB is so much more important. Neither the Colts nor the Saints offensive lines are riddled with natural talent. They're all smart, hard working players. But they weren't protypical linemen coming out of college. Some are undersized, some aren't that quick, some are free agent castoffs, but they play well enough as a unit to allow their QBs to work. Manning and Brees didn't have the greatest lines, but Brees has enough escapability and accuracy on the run to be elite behind that line. And Manning has a knack for getting the ball out so quickly that he's elite behind his line.

When you have a Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, the offensive line doesn't need to dominate games like the Hogs. You want to talk about Redskin QBs, the reason we didn't need a dominant franchise QB is because our offensive line was DOMINANT. But look at the Saints, they don't need a dominant offensive line because their QB is dominant.

So clearly that says there are plenty of ways to build a championship team. But look at history, how many Super Bowls have been won using the Hogs formula, dominating with an offensive line with an adequate-to-good QB? How many have been won with dominating QBs but less-than-dominant lines? Bradshaw, Staubach, Montana/Young, Aikman, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Brees. Some of those lines were very good and occasionally dominant, but mostly those guys played behind good-but-not-great lines. And look at how many of them won multiple times.

The elite QB just makes everything easier. They open up the secondary, teams think twice about blitzing QBs who are cool as a cucumber, elite QBs audible into successful plays to cover for their line's susceptibilities. And most importantly, they complete passes to covered receivers who most QBs wouldn't even throw to.

In history, it's a lot rarer for the offensive line to make the offense dominate than it is for the QB to make the offense dominate.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

This isnt on the topic of anything but does anyone have a link to the Inside the Redskins edition "Meeting the coaches". The coaches were suppose to talk in length about some of their philosophies but since i dont live in the area, it obv. wasnt on my television station. can anyone help?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Well just to put it out there, Bill Polian blamed the o-line and ST's for losing the SB. And if Bradford or Clausen are Peyton Manning, draft one. Peyton is being touted as the best QB to ever play the game so they would have some pretty big shoes to fill. If Jake Locker would have come out, it's very possible he would be the #1 pick this year, not Bradford or Clausen. The argument seems to be if we don't get a QB at #4 this year, we won't be in position to get a top one next year. I would assume that's because the thought is our record is going to be better....even without a new QB. Schneed is right, not many teams won the same way the Redskins did. I just think the first round, especially this high, is much more hit or miss as far as Franchise QB's go compared to offensive linemen. Now I'm not talking about starters, we have a first round starter. The argument is for FRANCHISE QB's. Franchise QB's can take many picks and years to find, or you may hit one after the first round like Brady, Brees, Favre, or Warner.[B] None of whom were selected in the first round.[/B] THOSE guys are true Franchise QB's and will be going to the HOF. It's a hard call. I really like Bradford, but I'm tired of trying to catch lightning in a bottle with FA's, UDFA's, guys off the street and 3rd round picks for our o-line. It may take time, but draft o-line high and you can have a dominant line.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;663166]This isnt on the topic of anything but does anyone have a link to the Inside the Redskins edition "Meeting the coaches". The coaches were suppose to talk in length about some of their philosophies but since i dont live in the area, it obv. wasnt on my television station. can anyone help?[/quote]
Hey, I did watch it, but they had all 11 coaches on in a half hour, there want much philosophy talked about. The TE coach interview was [paraphrased] its great to coach 2 top tight ends like cooley and davis right? Yes I have watched cooley a lot because tony gonzalez would always watch him. Cool to know but not very substantive. They all were one to two sentence clips. I think haslett and shanahan said more but still nothing substantive.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=53Fan;663171]Well just to put it out there, Bill Polian blamed the o-line and ST's for losing the SB. And if Bradford or Clausen are Peyton Manning, draft one. Peyton is being touted as the best QB to ever play the game so they would have some pretty big shoes to fill. If Jake Locker would have come out, it's very possible he would be the #1 pick this year, not Bradford or Clausen. The argument seems to be if we don't get a QB at #4 this year, we won't be in position to get a top one next year. I would assume that's because the thought is our record is going to be better....even without a new QB. Schneed is right, not many teams won the same way the Redskins did. I just think the first round, especially this high, is much more hit or miss as far as Franchise QB's go compared to offensive linemen. Now I'm not talking about starters, we have a first round starter. The argument is for FRANCHISE QB's. Franchise QB's can take many picks and years to find, or you may hit one after the first round like Brady, Brees, Favre, or Warner.[B] None of whom were selected in the first round.[/B] THOSE guys are true Franchise QB's and will be going to the HOF. It's a hard call. I really like Bradford, but I'm tired of trying to catch lightning in a bottle with FA's, UDFA's, guys off the street and 3rd round picks for our o-line. It may take time, but draft o-line high and you can have a dominant line.[/quote]

I can't argue with the logic too fervently, simply because LTs are incredibly important. Not quite as important as the QB, which is why I prefer going for the gusto and grabbing one if you think they're a star in the making. But getting a franchise LT is critical to future success and I can't say I'd be upset with a decision to go with Okung.

But it should be noted that Chris Samuels has not announced his retirement yet. He's older and will need replacing soon even if he doesn't retire, so maybe it doesn't change things all that much. But if before the draft he announces that he's still playing, that's all the more reason to go QB.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663178]I can't argue with the logic too fervently, simply because LTs are incredibly important. Not quite as important as the QB, which is why I prefer going for the gusto and grabbing one if you think they're a star in the making. But getting a franchise LT is critical to future success and I can't say I'd be upset with a decision to go with Okung.

But it should be noted that Chris Samuels has not announced his retirement yet. He's older and will need replacing soon even if he doesn't retire, so maybe it doesn't change things all that much. [B] But if before the draft he announces that he's still playing[/B], that's all the more reason to go QB.[/quote]

As much as I like and respect Samuels, at really hope it doesn't come to this. Barring a miracle, Samuels is not going to be 100% especially with the whole danger of being paralyzed.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Ruhskins;663181]As much as I like and respect Samuels, at really hope it doesn't come to this. Barring a miracle, Samuels is not going to be 100% especially with the whole danger of being paralyzed.[/quote]

I agree, the guy hasn't even lived half his life yet. To risk it in the way he would most likely have to, it defies logic.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Thanx CRedskinsRule. Damn tho, they made it seem like this big production like it was gonna get really in-depth n stuff. Bullshit lol

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

If we draft a QB so be it i don't agree but i support whatever our new regime does. I would like for us to trade back pick up more picks & go OL, OL, & OL you can fill in the rest. I'm JC supporter but whatever happens i'll back it.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;663191]Thanx CRedskinsRule. Damn tho, they made it seem like this big production like it was gonna get really in-depth n stuff. Bullshit lol[/quote]

Yeah just saw some of the interviews no new info, but then again with free agency & the draft coming you can't expect them to tip their hand.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

To add further credibility to the support of 1st round QB selections and their success and failure in Super Bowls, here is a graphic I found.

Super Bowl records of starting Quarterbacks by round drafted:

Round W L Pct.
1 24 19 .568
2 2 3 .400
3 5 6 .455
4 1 3 .400
8 0 1 .000 - David Woodley - Miami
9 1 1 .500 - Johnny Unitas - Baltimore
10 2 2 .500 - Roger Staubach - Cowboys (twice)
17 2 0 1.000 - Bart Starr - Green Bay (twice)
18 0 1 .000 - Joe Kapp - Vikings
24 0 1 .000 - Daryle Lamonica - Raiders
Undrafted 1 3 .250 - Jake Delhomme - Carolina, Kurt Warner (twice) Ariz. St. Louis

The wisdom of selecting a QB in the top ten is supported by the finding that their SB winning totals surpass all QB's drafted in other rounds combined. This graphic dates back to when the draft consisted of twenty four rounds, but is inclusive of every Super Bowl win since 1967.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;663191]Thanx CRedskinsRule. Damn tho, they made it seem like this big production like it was gonna get really in-depth n stuff. Bullshit lol[/quote]

I agree that the hype around made it sound like you would get some depth of discussion. In the end it was just a meet and greet session. I would like it if after the draft there will be much more in depth.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Longtimefan;663213]To add further credibility to the support of 1st round QB selections and their success and failure in Super Bowls, here is a graphic I found.

Super Bowl records of starting Quarterbacks by round drafted:

Round W L Pct.
1 24 19 .568
2 2 3 .400
3 5 6 .455
4 1 3 .400
8 0 1 .000 - David Woodley - Miami
9 1 1 .500 - Johnny Unitas - Baltimore
10 2 2 .500 - Roger Staubach - Cowboys (twice)
17 2 0 1.000 - Bart Starr - Green Bay (twice)
18 0 1 .000 - Joe Kapp - Vikings
24 0 1 .000 - Daryle Lamonica - Raiders
Undrafted 1 3 .250 - Jake Delhomme - Carolina, Kurt Warner (twice) Ariz. St. Louis

The wisdom of selecting a QB in the top ten is supported by the finding that their SB winning totals surpass all QB's drafted in other rounds combined. This graphic dates back to when the draft consisted of twenty four rounds, but is inclusive of every Super Bowl win since 1967.[/quote]

I know Brady is the exception to the rule, but wasn't he drafted in the 6th round but your graphic has no 6th round win/loss record. Just nitpicking though.

I think if Shanahan is sold on a qb in the draft he should get him, but I would really like to see a lot of quality OL talent brought in through FA AND Draft.

We hopefully won't see a pick this high for a longtime, so whichever way they go, I hope they have a plan in place to develop the player to be a franchise player.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;663215]I know Brady is the exception to the rule, but wasn't he drafted in the 6th round but your graphic has no 6th round win/loss record. Just nitpicking though.

I think if Shanahan is sold on a qb in the draft he should get him, but I would really like to see a lot of quality OL talent brought in through FA AND Draft.

We hopefully won't see a pick this high for a longtime, so whichever way they go, I hope they have a plan in place to develop the player to be a franchise player.[/quote]

You're absolutely correct about Brady, and I don't know why he wasn't included in the graphic, But you'll notice there were no mention of 5, 6, or 7.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;663215]I know Brady is the exception to the rule, but wasn't he drafted in the 6th round but your graphic has no 6th round win/loss record. Just nitpicking though.

I think if Shanahan is sold on a qb in the draft he should get him, but I would really like to see a lot of quality OL talent brought in through FA AND Draft.

We hopefully won't see a pick this high for a longtime, so whichever way they go, I hope they have a plan in place to develop the player to be a franchise player.[/quote]

I found another graphic that did include the 6th round selections but nothing for 5 and 7.

Round w L Pct.
6 4 3 .571

The four Super Bowl QB's were: Tom Brady, Stan Humphreys. Mark Rypien and Matt Hasselbeck drafted in the 6th round.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

If the whole point is thinking we need a first round quarterback to compete....you know, just whoever, as long as they were highly touted in college and can produce: I'd like to introduce you to our current roster.

No one, myself included would be mad for taking the best quarterback in the draft at fourth overall. But it's HIGHLY probable that whoever the best quarterback in this draft class is will be around until the second, third, or maybe fourth round.

The problem is, as Paintrain laid it out, is that while someone is going to get a major steal on that quarterback, waiting until the middle rounds and then drafting some guy promises you absolutely nothing. While I think it's a virtual certainty that someone will get lucky in this draft, if there was a predictive measure that could project the difference between mid rounders (outside of eliminating the obvious characters, like Snead), they would start to rise towards the second or back end of the first round. I do not believe it's a crapshoot, but the predictive ability of any team at that level of the draft is questionable...no one's best quarterback is available at that point.

There's no way you can simply count on getting a QB in the middle rounds to be your franchise player eventually. You would take a QB first to be the back-up, and only to play if he performed above expectation or the starter got hurt.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

2000-2010 SB QB's with round selected in nfl draft:

2000
W- K.Warner-UDFA---L-S.McNair-1
2001
W-T.Dilfer-1---L-K.Collins-1
2002
W-T.Brady-6---L-K.Warner-UDFA
2003
W-B.Johnson-9---L-R.Gannon-4
2004
W-T. Brady-6---L-J.Delhomme-UDFA
2005
W-T. Brady-6---L-D.McNabb-1
2006
W-B.Roethlisberger-1---L-M.Hasslebeck-6
2007
W-P.Manning-1---L-R.Grossman-1
2008
W-E.Manning-1---L-T.Brady-6
2009
W-B.Roethlisberger-1---K.Warner-UDFA
2010
W-D.Brees-2---L-P.Manning-1

Out of the last 11 SB's, 6 times the winning QB was not drafted in the first round.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

About ten years ago, the scouts declared that there would be a bonanza of QBs in the draft. If I recall the order correctly it went like this:
[INDENT]1st overall: Tim Couch to the Browns

2nd overall: Donovan McNabb to the Eagles

3rd overall: Akili Smith to the Bengals

10th overall: Duante Culpepper to the Vikings

12th overall: Cade McNown to the Bears[/INDENT]
Couch, Smith and McNown were busts to say the least. Culpepper had some good years until he suffered a humongous knee injury. McNabb has been a star.

The moral of the story is that a team's scouts had better know what they are doing when they feed the GM data on the player to take in the early rounds of the draft. There are quality players out there; it really hurts if a team misses out on the quality players and takes a dud.

For April 2010, an important - - and totally unanswerable - - question is this:

[INDENT]Will the Redskins' scouts get accurate data to the draft day decisionmakers on the potential players available in the early rounds of the draft?[/INDENT]
It matters more than the Redskins get a quality player than the position that quality player occupies. I say this having been on record for 2 years now that the Skins' OL must be upgraded.

The team has multiple needs (as witnesed by a 4-12 record in 2009); what they cannot afford to do is to waste early round picks on players who are merely "decent". They need to find positive impact players in this draft - - and more than one.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

I think 30Gut said it best when he said "Everything is true...until it isn't"

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Final point: if you could have taken a future franchise quarterback at No. 4, and you decide to pass and go with the best OT, and Sam Bradford ends up being the next Philip Rivers...then who cares? A franchise-changing pickup for the team who did draft him for less money, but no one in the NFC East is sniffing around QBs, so it's no skin off our back.

We'd just keep plugging.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663224]But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.[/quote]
You said it much better than me GTripp. [B]Great post[/B].

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663224]But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.[/quote]

I'm glad that you weighted in on this subject, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Campbell isn't really an experiment any more. We pretty much know what we can expect if we don't change the status quo. The only thing we don't know about Jason Campbell is how good he would be if we change the talent around him.

For all the talk about systems and changes, Campbell hasn't missed his potential because of a lack of consistency. He's probably fallen short of greatness due to a lack of talent, possibly on his part, but probably on everyone elses.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663226]Final point: if you could have taken a future franchise quarterback at No. 4, and you decide to pass and go with the best OT, and Sam Bradford ends up being the next Philip Rivers...then who cares? A franchise-changing pickup for the team who did draft him for less money, but no one in the NFC East is sniffing around QBs, so it's no skin off our back.

We'd just keep plugging.[/quote]

I think a lot of this depends on what situation Bradford gets put in. For instance, there is no way in hell that Sanchez has the same success here in DC, that he found with the Jets. While a talented QB, I just don't think he would have been successful here with the Redskins with our terrible offensive line, poor running game, and our signature "bend-but-don't-break" defense.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Ruhskins;663232]I think a lot of this depends on what situation Bradford gets put in. For instance, there is no way in hell that Sanchez has the same success here in DC, that he found with the Jets. While a talented QB, I just don't think he would have been successful here with the Redskins with our terrible offensive line, poor running game, and[B] our signature "bend-but-don't-break" defense[/B].[/quote]

I really hope that's a thing of the past. We broke too many times last year with the game on the line.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663224]But here's the more important point: addressing the line "later on in the draft" is no less of a fallacy, especially for a team that appears to need a pair of tackles.

You can choose to not take the best tackle on your board at No. 4, opting instead for a higher player on your board. That's the BPA principle. It's worked for teams in the past. But it's a poor strategy to BPA the first round, and then try to compensate for that by drafting for need after that.

It's contradictory, in my mind, to identify the line (specifically tackle) as a pressing need, which I believe it is, and then look at the number four pick and say: let's try to pick up one later. Sure, it's a strategy that might pay off. Heck, we could not draft a tackle until 2014 and win two super bowls before then. It's certainly possible.

If you do well in your evaluations, going BPA in every round could land us three starting quality football players in addition to a pretty solid quarterback prospect who is only 22. If you're right, of course. And maybe the value suggested that no OT should be taken at any pick we had.

But I'll say this. In every draft I can remember, there has been an offensive tackle, if not two, who was worthy of a top five draft choice, who went somewhere in the first round. This player has not always been the first guy drafted. Mike Williams was the first guy off the board in 2002. Alternatively, there have been 3, maybe 4 years, in the last decade where a quarterback taken in the first round was worthy of a top five draft choice.

So if you have good scouting, and the market conditions are equal (not heavily weighted towards either QBs or OTs), which I think they are, and you have a shot at the No. 1 QB, and No. 1 OT on your board, the OT is the more valuable player about 2/3 of the time in a ten year sample.

When you consider that our needs between the positions are certainly NOT equal, the confidence level in the QB has to be extremely high to justify the pick. There are people here who believe Clausen is the best QB, and those who believe Bradford is the best. The point is, if it's not really, really, REALLY obvious to the front office who the best of the two is, (and if it is, that's a very easy BPA pick), then this is without a doubt the wrong course of action.[/quote]

I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting [B]great[/B]. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663236]I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting [B]great[/B]. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.[/quote]

Now [I]that[/I] was a great post

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

^^ agreed.

thats all i got.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

What makes you think Bradford can be elite without a shitload of talent around him? That is my point with going for these second tier guys who have played great ball without the great talent around them. It might take us at least 3 years to produce a winning product, and that is if Allen and co get it right, no draft busts, etc. IF Shanny likes Bradford and thinks he is a gamer who am I to say any differently, but if Bradford starts in 2011 he still is going to have to deal with a less than stellar crop of talent around him. Bradford's potentially bum shoulder, aside, he might suck when faced up against a superior opponent or one that is on par with the Skins. He never had to face that at Oklahoma, except maybe twice a year at the most.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663236]I'd say this is very much black-and-white thinking. You seem to hone in on two possible courses of action: draft best player available vs draft for need.

Couldn't (and shouldn't) teams be using a hybrid formula?

[B]If the goal is to get better as a whole, teams should be drafting players for the value they provide over the player currently on the roster who will be displaced. So the possible Sam Bradford selection should be evaluated in light of the quality QB he's replacing, Jason Campbell. A Russell Okung selection should be evaluated in light of the T he's replacing, Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones (assuming Samuels retires). But further compounding matters is whether or not another player is available later in the draft who also represents an equal upgrade over the current roster.[/B]

And really, the crux of your argument is risk. You're saying that QBs are so hit and miss while Ts are more likely to pan out. Fair point. But I'd counter by noting that I'm not interested in getting better, I'm interested in getting [B]great[/B]. It doesn't do much for me to see a great LT come on, protect a mediocre QB for years, and watch us fade in and out of mediocrity.

I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year.[B] Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB[/B].[/quote]

Good points Schneed. I just happen to think Okung would be a huge improvement over any LT we have. I love Samuels but think his better days are behind him. I don't feel anywhere near as sure that Bradford or Clausen are a big improvement over JC. They may be, they might not be. If the people in charge think so, so be it. Like I said, I'm a big fan of Bradford. I don't think anyone disagrees that nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB. If we draft a QB with the #4 pick, I certainly hope he's elite. If not, we'll probably spend the next 3-5 years trying to make him one. I hope that's not the case. And even he would benefit from an elite o-line.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663236]I'm interested in a player we can build around, who covers for the deficiencies of others, who makes the team a more attractive destination for free agents, and who makes his teammates better rather than playing at a level commensurate to his teammates.

Granted the risk is there, but so is the reward. I'm in the camp that feels Campbell is not championship material, in my mind no offensive line (save the Hogs) could make Campbell a SB winning QB. IF Shanny sees something in Bradford or Clausen, that elite potential, I say go for it. I get what you're saying, you need to be right.

But still, sack up and put the chips on the table, I'm tired of being a fringe playoff team every single year. Nothing transforms your franchise like an elite QB.[/quote]

Sounds like you want a quick fix with a franchise QB. The funny thing is that isn't that what Snyder wanted to do all along and why he wanted to get Sanchez or Cutler in the offseason? Get that franchise QB at all cost that will miraculously carry this team on his shoulders.

The funny thing about all of this is that while no one (including myself) is complaining about picking up Orakpo, had we picked up Michael Oher last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion about picking up a tackle vs. a QB with the #4 pick. By now, Oher would have had a year under his belt, and probably would have started a lot of games, and we would be free to pick up Bradford or Clausen.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Ruhskins;663243]Sounds like you want a quick fix with a franchise QB. The funny thing is that isn't that what Snyder wanted to do all along and why he wanted to get Sanchez or Cutler in the offseason? Get that franchise QB at all cost that will miraculously carry this team on his shoulders.

The funny thing about all of this is that while no one (including myself) is complaining about picking up Orakpo, had we picked up Michael Oher last year, we wouldn't be having this discussion about picking up a tackle vs. a QB with the #4 pick. By now, Oher would have had a year under his belt, and probably would have started a lot of games, and we would be free to pick up Bradford or Clausen.[/quote]

Actually I'm not calling for a quick fix, because my opinion is colored by a sound understanding of recent league history when it comes to QBs. Peyton Manning took several years to reach the AFC Championship and ultimately win a Super Bowl. Drew Brees was mediocre early in his SD days, then got better with experience, and eventually reached all-pro level. Matt Ryan was impressive his first two years but he hasn't yet made the leap to become an elite QB. Phillip Rivers and Eli Manning took a few years to really get up and running (Eli's not even elite, but he still took time to win the SB).

I understand that a QB will most likely take time to reach that level of dominant force. And I understand that it takes a strong team around him, too.

But the point remains, it's a lot easier to win a SB with a dominant QB and solid LT than it is to win one with a dominant LT and a solid QB. That's a much more important point than the fact that 1st round offensive lineman are more likely to pan out than 1st round QBs.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Don't get me wrong though, something has to be done about LT and the rest of the line. I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer starting at LT, we've got to get better at that spot. It's just I'd gladly get behind rolling the dice on Bradford or Clausen if Shanahan thought he's found his new Elway. Even though we need the LT upgrade, the QB takes priority.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663251]Actually I'm not calling for a quick fix, because my opinion is colored by a sound understanding of recent league history when it comes to QBs. Peyton Manning took several years to reach the AFC Championship and ultimately win a Super Bowl. Drew Brees was mediocre early in his SD days, then got better with experience, and eventually reached all-pro level. Matt Ryan was impressive his first two years but he hasn't yet made the leap to become an elite QB. Phillip Rivers and Eli Manning took a few years to really get up and running (Eli's not even elite, but he still took time to win the SB).

I understand that a QB will most likely take time to reach that level of dominant force. And I understand that it takes a strong team around him, too.

But the point remains, it's a lot easier to win a SB with a dominant QB and solid LT than it is to win one with a dominant LT and a solid QB. [B]That's a much more important point than the fact that 1st round offensive lineman are more likely to pan out than 1st round QBs[/B].[/quote]

Yes but I think when you have the #4 pick, whether they have a better chance to pan out becomes pretty important. In fact that is one of the factors I'm using to form an opinion. I've read it written of Okung, "As close to can't miss as you can get." Samuels went out with an injury/condition that is career threatening. Levi Jones was picked up in the middle of the season because we needed a LT so bad. Good thing no one else wanted him.
Even the experts can't agree to who is the better prospect, Clausen or Bradford. Supposedly neither has an "elite" arm, Clausen is stronger but Bradford is more accurate etc.
If the question for this team this year is, do you take the position of greatest need with the #4 pick by taking the consensus best LT in the draft who is as close to can't miss as you can get, or, do you take a lottery ticket on an elite QB, assuming there even is one, and hope you pick the right one? Give me the tackle.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663256]Don't get me wrong though, something has to be done about LT and the rest of the line. I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Levi Jones or Stephon Heyer starting at LT, we've got to get better at that spot. [B] It's just I'd gladly get behind rolling the dice on Bradford or Clausen if Shanahan thought he's found his new Elway[/B]. Even though we need the LT upgrade, the QB takes priority.[/quote]

If he thinks that, he'd be stupid not to take him. :)

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

I don't think Sam Bradford - - or any QB in this year's draft - - is the new John Elway. I suspect that Mike Shanahan - - having coached Elway and seen him on game film a thousand times - - will not equate any of the QBs coming out of college in 2010 with John Elway.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Redskins Draft Needs by Scouts, Inc.:

Washington Redskins

Top needs:
1. OT: LT Chris Samuels will likely retire and RT Stephon Heyer is inconsistent at both OT spots -- but he is not terrible. He is a restricted free agent and will likely be tendered and given one more year to improve. Levi Jones is an unrestricted free agent and not the answer at LT.

2. QB: What does the new coaching staff do with Jason Campbell? His contract could be up, but is he a guy you give one more shot to? He has good physical skills, but his supporting cast and coaching continuity has always been suspect. It's a big decision for this franchise and new coach Mike Shanahan.

3. RB: Shanahan knows Clinton Portis well, but that doesn't guarantee anything. Portis looks like an "old" 29-year-old back with durability issues and a questionable work ethic. Backup LaDell Betts is 30 and is coming off of knee surgery -- this is not a real stable position right now.

Other needs: OG, C, CB, S