Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;665247]So I was talking to my neighbor, whose an Oklahoma alum, played football there a few years as a walk on, watches every OU game on TV, has raised his kids to love OU, and is also a Skins fan. I said to him [B][I]"Do you think the Skins should get Bradford?" He said "Not behind that OLine...until the redskins show me that they want to protect the QB, then no, he'd get killed because he's a rookie.[/I][/B] He does have better awareness of pressure and when to release the ball, unlike Campbell, but I would draft an OLineman and keep Campbell back there and let him and his shoulder take the hits than Bradfords."

I then asked him "Do you think Bradford could be a good QB in the NFL or is he a system guy, because Landry Jones stepped in and played well for you all this past year."

He said "Well yeah OU plays the spread offense, but Bradford would make some throws that spread or not, makes him look like an NFL QB. Yeah I definitely think he'll be a good NFL QB, but he needs an OL to protect him which he doesn't have here... And Landry Jones was good because he was a highly rated QB coming out of high school and sat a year on the bench to study the offense and watch Bradford, as well as the fact that OU's offense is for the most part QB friendly, but also great players around them." He also said he would have liked to see Bradford this year with a worse OL like what OU had this year, so he could see how he would respond more to pressure." He also said that he wouldn't want Clausen, we need OLineman.


That said, and the fact that I trust him, I'd say, get Okung or the next best starting LT.[/quote]
This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665411]This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.[/quote]

It's not the same line, yet the deficiencies at the offensive line are far greater than those at the QB position. Your basically building the offensive line from scratch, since out of that group that you have listed there, only Dockery is a quality starter, maybe Levi Jones (if he returns). And while you could rebuild the line with players picked up in the later rounds and UFAs that are in their 30s, adding a franchise tackle picked up in the draft could make it a much better line.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=paintrain;665411]this again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft bradford then our opening day starting ol will be levi jones, derrick dockery, casey rabach, edwin williams and stephon heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft bradford at #4 then we are not going address the ol at any other point in the offseason? If i hear 'not behind that same ol' or 'if they don't address the ol' once more i am going to choke someone.[/quote]


amen!

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665411]This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.[/quote]


I think he's talking about a proven OL, not a bad one or a whole new one which we would have no idea what it would be like.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Ruhskins;665420]It's not the same line, yet the deficiencies at the offensive line are far greater than those at the QB position. Your basically building the offensive line from scratch, since out of that group that you have listed there, [B]only Dockery is a quality starter, maybe Levi Jones[/B] (if he returns). And while you could rebuild the line with players picked up in the later rounds and UFAs that are in their 30s, adding a franchise tackle picked up in the draft could make it a much better line.[/quote]

Why is no one showing love to Rabach? Trust me people Rabach is a zone blocker that in spite of what has been written on this board has been praised by the media and experts alike for his solid play. Right now the interior line is one or two players away from being fixed from a starter and depth perspective and luckily it's a lot easier to find interior lineman. The hard part is really going to be what tackles we can get our hands on.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Ruhskins;665420]It's not the same line, yet the deficiencies at the offensive line are far greater than those at the QB position. Your basically building the offensive line from scratch, since out of that group that you have listed there, only Dockery is a quality starter, maybe Levi Jones (if he returns). And while you could rebuild the line with players picked up in the later rounds and UFAs that are in their 30s, adding a franchise tackle picked up in the draft could make it a much better line.[/quote]

An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665411]This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.[/quote]We can add a second rounder to that group without actually getting it to respectability.

Furthermore, the difference is that some lines have issues in the middle at guard, or just a single guard or center to replace, but they have both the tackles in place. For those partially built lines, a single second round pick is often adequate to get an interior lineman who can play as a rookie and be good at what he does. This is more or less what Arizona did when they drafted Deuce Lutui in the second round after taking Matt Leinart in the first in 2006.

Deuce Lutui was never going to be asked to play left tackle because they had a need there. Four years later, he's now Arizona's best offensive lineman at a Guard position. Which is not all that uncommon for an early second round pick.

My point is: adding a Deuce Lutui (Mike Iupati/Maurkice Pouncey?) type to this offensive line doesn't really make a dent in the quality of the OL. It's probably too late to expect a turnaround in the quality of the unit at that point. Taking a LT at No. 4 guarentees you nothing, but it's unquestionably the best shot at turning the unit into a strength within a reasonable timeframe.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;665425]I think he's talking about a proven OL, not a bad one or a whole new one which we would have no idea what it would be like.[/quote]

Define a 'proven OL'.. We're not going to be able to completely remake the OL but with a couple of additions/subtractions we should be able to improve over what we trotted out there (8 starting RG and Stephon Heyer) for most of '09.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665445]An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.[/quote]

Rinehart really needs to turn the corner, hopefully in similar manner to that of Dockery in 2004 (when Gibbs arrived). Otherwise I would rather start Kory L at Guard or better yet hope that we find a way to get Chris Kuper. This scheme will make people play better then they really are but it can only do so much.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665445]An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.[/quote]

And QB guys know that you need to protect the QB, something that Washington hasn't done well for a while. I just don't see how you can look at our line from last season, look at the limited UFA talent, and say that you're not going to pick up a tackle with either the first or second rounder.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665445]An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.[/quote]Even though I tend to think we will pick up an offensive lineman and a quarterback with the first two picks we make, taking the OT at No. 4 certainly doesn't lock you into taking that quarterback at No. 37 in the same way the reverse scenario dictates who you take. I think Colt McCoy would make a very good value around the time we pick, if not a flat-out steal, but if we grab another offensive lineman or maybe a skill position player there who we had a first round grade on, we could still address QB later.

It wouldn't be shocking if we did what Jacksonville did last year in the draft.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=GTripp0012;665448]We can add a second rounder to that group without actually getting it to respectability.

Furthermore, the difference is that some lines have issues in the middle at guard, or just a single guard or center to replace, but they have both the tackles in place. For those partially built lines, a single second round pick is often adequate to get an interior lineman who can play as a rookie and be good at what he does. This is more or less what Arizona did when they drafted Deuce Lutui in the second round after taking Matt Leinart in the first in 2006.

Deuce Lutui was never going to be asked to play left tackle because they had a need there. Four years later, he's now Arizona's best offensive lineman at a Guard position. Which is not all that uncommon for an early second round pick.

My point is: adding a Deuce Lutui (Mike Iupati/Maurkice Pouncey?) type to this offensive line doesn't really make a dent in the quality of the OL. It's probably too late to expect a turnaround in the quality of the unit at that point. Taking a LT at No. 4 guarentees you nothing, but it's unquestionably the best shot at turning the unit into a strength within a reasonable timeframe.[/quote] At this point I am actually fine if we go with Okung OR Bradford at #4, I won't be disappointed in either case. The issue I have is the notion that improving one area is exclusionary of improving another.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Ruhskins;665454]And QB guys know that you need to protect the QB, something that Washington hasn't done well for a while. I just don't see how you can look at our line from last season, look at the limited UFA talent, and say that you're not going to pick up a tackle with either the first or second rounder.[/quote]
Well that's not what I said, I expect them to pick a OT in the 2nd (assuming the Bradford pick) if not try to trade for one before the draft.

Of course the line needs to be addressed and improved but just as foolish as the notion is that Bradford will solve all of our QB questions and issues, the same can be said for the notion that a 1st round tackle is the answer to our OL problems.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665456]At this point I am actually fine if we go with Okung OR Bradford at #4, I won't be disappointed in either case. The issue I have is the notion that improving one area is exclusionary of improving another.[/quote]I have a feeling if Bradford is there, we will take him. I don't think he's going to make it there though, and I don't think Shanahan will trade up for him.

Realistically though, these are pretty exclusive options. At least in the context of the argument that, "we won't be picking in the top five next year", which is hopefully accurate. This is the single best chance we will ever have to fix the offensive line via the draft. It's also the best draft position we will ever have to land a quarterback of choice. There, of course, will be other times where we can address one thing or the other, but some issue is going to be put off until later.

To me, Colt McCoy is the one way we could have our cake (offensive line at No. 4), and eat it too (potential franchise quarterback, at least as good a shot as Bradford). A lot of people don't see him in the same way I do though, so I don't have a problem with them saying that if we pass on a QB at No. 4, we can't expect to get a future star at the position in this draft.

I don't have a problem with that. If the line becomes a strength for us in 2010, suddenly the quarterbacks in future drafts who would be a good fit here become way more numerous. As well as the fact that the current guy might post a 90.0+ QB rating for the first time.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=GTripp0012;665464]I have a feeling if Bradford is there, we will take him. I don't think he's going to make it there though, and I don't think Shanahan will trade up for him.

Realistically though, these are pretty exclusive options. At least in the context of the argument that, "we won't be picking in the top five next year", which is hopefully accurate. This is the single best chance we will ever have to fix the offensive line via the draft. It's also the best draft position we will ever have to land a quarterback of choice. There, of course, will be other times where we can address one thing or the other, but some issue is going to be put off until later.

To me, Colt McCoy is the one way we could have our cake (offensive line at No. 4), and eat it too (potential franchise quarterback, at least as good a shot as Bradford). A lot of people don't see him in the same way I do though, so I don't have a problem with them saying that if we pass on a QB at No. 4, we can't expect to get a future star at the position in this draft.

I don't have a problem with that. If the line becomes a strength for us in 2010, suddenly the quarterbacks in future drafts who would be a good fit here become way more numerous. As well as the fact that the current guy might post a 90.0+ QB rating for the first time.[/quote]

I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665460]Well that's not what I said, I expect them to pick a OT in the 2nd (assuming the Bradford pick) if not try to trade for one before the draft.

Of course the line needs to be addressed and improved but just as foolish as the notion is that Bradford will solve all of our QB questions and issues, the same can be said for the notion that a 1st round tackle is the answer to our OL problems.[/quote]Don't forget that taking a LT at No. 4 doesn't limit the team from taking any player in the second round who we would have taken if we took a QB. It just gives us the opportunity to go elsewhere in the second round. Taking a QB at No. 4 pretty does take the position out of question until at least the fifth round though, no matter who falls.

Here's where the logic fail is: no body has brought up a scenario where the team doesn't address the offensive line in either the first or second round. If the selection at No. 4 is Sam Bradford, because he's the best available, and then in the second round, we take a linebacker or a wide receiver, because they are the best available, would anyone be pissed at our draft strategy?

It's a better defined strategy than the one a lot of the Bradford/Clausen people are suggesting. There's no logic gap there. They are ignoring needs and instead focusing on the player that they feel can best help the Redskins win in the future. They're doing it at the expense of the OL in the early rounds. I don't have any more of a problem with them passing on OL in the second round than I would with them passing on OL in the first, but I feel that a lot of people will complain if we do the above.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665470]I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?[/quote]If Bradford had stayed healthy AND as productive as the past, he would have been the unquestioned No. 1. But if you take his (small sample) stats from three games, and prorate them into a 13 game season, he's probably dropping to the fringe of the first round. It's possible that Bradford might actually be getting the benefit of the doubt due to his injury.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

I see where ur goin wit this man but think about if we go by BPA (best player available). What if in EVERY round the BPA is better than the top Olineman left. Then we end up with the same line as last year. Due to just how terrible our line is, even if we hafta take a small reach, we hafta change the line from last year.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=GTripp0012;665472]Don't forget that taking a LT at No. 4 doesn't limit the team from taking any player in the second round who we would have taken if we took a QB. It just gives us the opportunity to go elsewhere in the second round. Taking a QB at No. 4 pretty does take the position out of question until at least the fifth round though, no matter who falls.

[B]Here's where the logic fail is: no body has brought up a scenario where the team doesn't address the offensive line in either the first or second round.[/B] If the selection at No. 4 is Sam Bradford, because he's the best available, and then in the second round, we take a linebacker or a wide receiver, because they are the best available, would anyone be pissed at our draft strategy?

It's a better defined strategy than the one a lot of the Bradford/Clausen people are suggesting. There's no logic gap there. They are ignoring needs and instead focusing on the player that they feel can best help the Redskins win in the future. They're doing it at the expense of the OL in the early rounds. I don't have any more of a problem with them passing on OL in the second round than I would with them passing on OL in the first, but I feel that a lot of people will complain if we do the above.[/quote]

I think that for many Warpathers that scenario is as unthinkable as having Britney Spears for President.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=SmootSmack;665016]What if Berry is there at 4? Which is very possible. Do you take him over OL or QB?[/quote]Sorry, I missed this post when I viewed the rest of the thread.

Yes, I'd take Berry at No. 4 if there was a huge value dropoff between him and any other offensive player.

I don't believe safety to be a deal-breaking concern, and to me, a LaRon Landry that can't develop as a free safety is a valueless player. This pick would more or less be an admission that we're done trying to salvage him as a player, we'll just trade him and move on with Berry back there.

I would find it hard to pass up a golden chance to draft a franchise lineman, but I have Berry graded a lot higher than my top QB, so that would be an easy pick if there weren't a slam-dunk left tackle in the eyes of our evaluators.

And hopefully, we could pick up a late second or an early third in a trade for Landry and use the pick on an offensive player, if we went the Berry route at four.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665490]I see where ur goin wit this man but think about if we go by BPA (best player available). What if in EVERY round the BPA is better than the top Olineman left. Then we end up with the same line as last year. Due to just how terrible our line is, even if we hafta take a small reach, we hafta change the line from last year.[/quote]Exactly. That's the point. The logic fail, in my eyes, is that the second round (37th overall) is being viewed as a sufficient time to start addressing needs at the expense of potential draft values. That's the point of desperation in the eyes of many.

And you can draw the desperation line there. Maybe we don't need to look exclusively at tackles at No. 4. This is a logical position. But I don't understand what makes the second round the holy-grail-of-crap-we-haven't-drafted-a-tackle-in-five-years.

You've framed it perfectly: at some point it becomes completely preposterous that you wouldn't draft a quality lineman no matter who is available as a draft steal. For a lot of people, I think that point is going to be in the second round of this upcoming draft. For me, that point was October, 2009. And neither of those perspectives is more or less "right" than the person whose threshold for not drafting a tackle is out in 2012.

I just think people are going to be pissed if they have to watch more awful Redskins line play in 2010. I'm going to be pissed if I watch another unit that I know is not as good as it should be at this point.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=Paintrain;665470]I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?[/quote]The #1 McCoy comparison is Chad Pennington.

There isn't really a close No. 2, but Brian Brohm is up there as a comparable who just didn't pan out. Graham Harrell is another strong college comparable, but I don't think we're ever going to have an NFL projection for him, despite my personal objections. I had a second round grade on Harrell, and he never even got a contract with an NFL team.

Clausen projects as some mix of Campbell, Matt Leinart, Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers, though probably closer to Campbell in the yards per attempt category (and sack rate, to his credit...the other three seem to sense pressure and move into it).

I really don't have a very good Bradford comparable at all. Statistically, Roethlisberger is a lot closer than anyone else (Leinart is right behind him), but those two are very, very different players. And a lot of Big Ben's college stats would not have predicted his NFL success. He's just a really weird draft comparable in general, mostly because if you told me a guy would be "the next Roethlisberger", I would probably pass.

You're also going to get Brees' name thrown around because of his recent success and spread-offenseness. All three (McCoy, Bradford, and Clausen) have elements of Brees in their games, but again, if we're talking about draft profiles, none of these players are anywhere near Brees. I think he's on McCoy's top seven mostly for a similar number of college starts, but anyone out of the top three I would estimate has little to no predictive value (not that my system is proven anyway, so take it all with a grain of salt). Brees is also a much different player than when he came into the league.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

The power of perception is ridiculous. i know everyone likes to have an opinion and stand by it. But be honest, since the end of season/mock drafts/espn/profootballtalk etc. has anyone kept one solid vision for this QB situation?

This has been hard for me. When everything started i said we need an OT @ #4. Gimmie Okung! Im a Colt Brennan supporter so i figured he could battle in camp again and hopefully beat out Jason Campbell for the spot. Being a CB supporter, you get alot of shit on this board. And even through all that shit, i stood strong. Then the 1st Mock Draft came out.

SAM BRADFORD TO THE REDSKINS says Mel Kiper! So now i get down because my big Colt Brennan plan isnt workin out how i wanted it to. Okay no biggie, ill check out film on him. Did sum research, very accurate, prototypical size (cuz hes added weight), is very smart with the football. despite his cons, Injury (not nearly as bad as drew brees's) and spread offense (but played a pro offense freshmen year), i liked what i saw and convinced myself that if we got bradford, id be okay with it.

JIMMY CLAUSEN TO THE SKINS says Mel Kiper! What the hell? What the hell could have happened that propelled Jimmy Clausen higher than Sam Bradford? So i go and look at tape, also accurate, extremely competitive, pro style offense for 3 years, threw 28 td's and 4 int's behing a bad Oline. Now despite his flaws, weaker arm and maturity issues, i convinced myself, that if we Draft Jimmy Clausen id be okay with it.

Now when i researched bradford and compared him to clausen, i liked bradford more. And when i researched clausen and compared him to bradford, i liked clausen more. When i clamored for Brennan, i spoke about the "IT" factor. So when comparing the two QB's, i realized there are TWO different types of IT factor. Theres the Peyton Manning IT factor (smart, lead by example, support your team) and theres the Phillip Rivers IT factor (Big RAH RAH guy, attitude, big voice, celebrates) Bradford looks to have the Manning factor while Clausen looks to have the Rivers factor. But at the same time, i would put Jason Campbell in the Manning IT factor failures and i would put Ryan Leaf in the Rivers IT factor failures. So nothing is guaranteed.

And now someone mentioned today that Kyle Shanahan likes Colt Brennan and his attitude/what he brings to the table. It may or may not even be true but it made me realize how far i had let other opinions influence how i felt. So after that whirlwind of opinions, imma go back to hoping Brennan comes out our starter and we grab Okung or Davis with the #4 pick (whoever is rated better) Perception is everything and i trust Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan to do what is right for the Washington Redskins. HTTR!

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665611]The power of perception is ridiculous. i know everyone likes to have an opinion and stand by it. But be honest, since the end of season/mock drafts/espn/profootballtalk etc. [B]has anyone kept one solid vision for this QB situation?[/B]
[/quote]Yes. :)

And I sure as hell hope the FO has.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665611]The power of perception is ridiculous. i know everyone likes to have an opinion and stand by it. But be honest, since the end of season/mock drafts/espn/profootballtalk etc. has anyone kept one solid vision for this QB situation?

This has been hard for me. When everything started i said we need an OT @ #4. Gimmie Okung! Im a Colt Brennan supporter so i figured he could battle in camp again and hopefully beat out Jason Campbell for the spot. Being a CB supporter, you get alot of shit on this board. And even through all that shit, i stood strong. Then the 1st Mock Draft came out.

SAM BRADFORD TO THE REDSKINS says Mel Kiper! So now i get down because my big Colt Brennan plan isnt workin out how i wanted it to. Okay no biggie, ill check out film on him. Did sum research, very accurate, prototypical size (cuz hes added weight), is very smart with the football. despite his cons, Injury (not nearly as bad as drew brees's) and spread offense (but played a pro offense freshmen year), i liked what i saw and convinced myself that if we got bradford, id be okay with it.

JIMMY CLAUSEN TO THE SKINS says Mel Kiper! What the hell? What the hell could have happened that propelled Jimmy Clausen higher than Sam Bradford? So i go and look at tape, also accurate, extremely competitive, pro style offense for 3 years, threw 28 td's and 4 int's behing a bad Oline. Now despite his flaws, weaker arm and maturity issues, i convinced myself, that if we Draft Jimmy Clausen id be okay with it.

Now when i researched bradford and compared him to clausen, i liked bradford more. And when i researched clausen and compared him to bradford, i liked clausen more. When i clamored for Brennan, i spoke about the "IT" factor. So when comparing the two QB's, i realized there are TWO different types of IT factor. Theres the Peyton Manning IT factor (smart, lead by example, support your team) and theres the Phillip Rivers IT factor (Big RAH RAH guy, attitude, big voice, celebrates) Bradford looks to have the Manning factor while Clausen looks to have the Rivers factor. But at the same time, i would put Jason Campbell in the Manning IT factor failures and i would put Ryan Leaf in the Rivers IT factor failures. So nothing is guaranteed.

And now someone mentioned today that Kyle Shanahan likes Colt Brennan and his attitude/what he brings to the table. It may or may not even be true but it made me realize how far i had let other opinions influence how i felt. So after that whirlwind of opinions, imma go back to hoping Brennan comes out our starter and we grab Okung or Davis with the #4 pick (whoever is rated better) Perception is everything and i trust Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan to do what is right for the Washington Redskins. HTTR![/quote]


Where did you copy this from?

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=mredskins;665630]Where did you copy this from?[/quote]

I didnt copy it man i wrote it. Ive prolly been puttin in as much time as Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan this offseason but i dont get paid lol sad insight to my life.

-Haz

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665734]I didnt copy it man i wrote it. Ive prolly been puttin in as much time as Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan this offseason but i dont get paid lol sad insight to my life.

-Haz[/quote]


Just interesting how your grammar and level of vocabulary became so good for one post, now it looks like from this post you are back to your old tricks. Just interesting.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=mredskins;665756]Just interesting how your grammar and level of vocabulary became so good for one post, now it looks like from this post you are back to your old tricks. Just interesting.[/quote]
it's more likely to start typing closer to properly when putting together a substantial post

there were still plenty of "gimmie" "alot" "ill (instead of I'll)"

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=tryfuhl;665760]it's more likely to start typing closer to properly when putting together a substantial post

there were still plenty of "gimmie" "alot" "ill (instead of I'll)"[/quote]


Regardless anyone who lumps Ryan Leaf into the same talent pool or "[I]IT[/I]" factor if you will with Phillip Rivers, sure is a football guru.

[I]Eyes rolling...[/I]

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

Last time I checked, this was a football forum and not an english class. Are you so bored with this forum that you must post about others spelling instead of football? I never claimed to be a guru. Sure, you can look at Ryan Leaf now and say "wow, he sucked." But at the time he came out in the draft, they said he had an IT factor. They said he had an attitude but was more NFL ready than Manning. That's why there was a controversy about who would be the 1st overall pick. So don't act all "haha he doesn't know anything about football because he is comparing Ryan Leaf to Phillip River hahaha." It was an observation.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665922]Last time I checked, this was a football forum and not an english class. Are you so bored with this forum that you must post about others spelling instead of football? I never claimed to be a guru. Sure, you can look at Ryan Leaf now and say "wow, he sucked." But at the time he came out in the draft, they said he had an IT factor. They said he had an attitude but was more NFL ready than Manning. That's why there was a controversy about who would be the 1st overall pick. So don't act all "haha he doesn't know anything about football because he is comparing Ryan Leaf to Phillip River hahaha." It was an observation.[/quote]

I agree with you man. I guess it's cool to pick on the freshmen in the post.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=mredskins;665790]Regardless anyone who lumps Ryan Leaf into the same talent pool or "[I]IT[/I]" factor if you will with Phillip Rivers, sure is a football guru.

[I]Eyes rolling...[/I][/quote]Did you miss his point or something?

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

I think he went well out of his way to miss the point.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665922]Last time I checked, this was a football forum and not an english class. Are you so bored with this forum that you must post about others spelling instead of football? I never claimed to be a guru. Sure, you can look at Ryan Leaf now and say "wow, he sucked." [B]But at the time he came out in the draft, they said he had an IT factor. They said he had an attitude but was more NFL ready than Manning[/B]. That's why there was a controversy about who would be the 1st overall pick. So don't act all "haha he doesn't know anything about football because he is comparing Ryan Leaf to Phillip River hahaha." It was an observation.[/quote]

Good point man. The bolded part sounds like Clausen and Bradford if you think about it.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=PHazard;665922]Last time I checked, this was a football forum and not an english class. Are you so bored with this forum that you must post about others spelling instead of football? I never claimed to be a guru. Sure, you can look at Ryan Leaf now and say "wow, he sucked." But at the time he came out in the draft, they said he had an IT factor. They said he had an attitude but was more NFL ready than Manning. That's why there was a controversy about who would be the 1st overall pick. So don't act all "haha he doesn't know anything about football because he is comparing Ryan Leaf to Phillip River hahaha." It was an observation.[/quote]


Not bored at all! If I was I would not come here nearly everyday. The point I am trying to make is that sometimes your grammar/spelling on here is so bad it is not legable. I will be the first to raise my hand and say my grammar is pretty bad on here at times as well just take sometime to proof your post it will go along way in helping others understand what you are trying to convey.

I now understand where you are coming from with Leaf comparsion. MAkes sense sorry for the cofusing and challenging your football knowledge

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=mredskins;666057]Not bored at all! If I was I would not come here nearly everyday. The point I am trying to make is that sometimes your grammar/spelling on here is so bad it is not [B]legable[/B]. I will be the first to raise my hand and say my grammar is [B] pretty bad on here [U]at times as well just[/U] take [U]sometime[/U] to proof your[U] post it will[/U] go along [/B]way in helping others understand what you are trying to convey.

I now understand where you are coming from with Leaf comparsion.[B] MAkes sense[/B] sorry for the [B]cofusing[/B] and challenging your football knowledge[/quote]
ok, how can we not pick at this post!

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;666063]ok, how can we not pick at this post![/quote]


Did I not say I was the first to raise my hand about poor grammar?

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=mredskins;666065]Did I not say I was the first to raise my hand about poor grammar?[/quote]

I can't say that I saw a raised hand, but yes you acknowledged it. However, when you are writing a reflective post about proofing what you write, it does seem a tad odd to have that many spelling and grammar mistakes bundled tightly together.

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;666067]I can't say that I saw a raised hand, but yes you acknowledged it. However, when you are writing a reflective post about proofing what you write, it does seem a tad odd to have that many spelling and grammar mistakes bundled tightly together.[/quote]


True I rushed it and typed it out of Firefox, no spell check. I am sorry to you also CRedskinsRule, I live just up the road from Pasadena would you like me to bring you a blood offering as a apology as well?

Re: Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;666067][B]I can't say that I saw a raised hand[/B], but yes you acknowledged it. However, when you are writing a reflective post about proofing what you write, it does seem a tad odd to have that many spelling and grammar mistakes bundled tightly together.[/quote]


You even proofed it!


I will be the first to raise my hand and say my grammar is [B] pretty bad on here [U]at times as well just[/U] take [U]sometime[/U] to proof your[U] post it will[/U] go along [/B]way in helping others understand what you are trying to convey.