Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain
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.
|
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.