Not drafting a QB a mistake?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

It was speculation which I admit isn't really meaningful in this discussion but if others are gonna throw out there speculations then my speculation is equally as valid or not.

And again. I am not trying to make a point only to have a dialogue.

Teams trade down all the time with the expectation that the player they want will still be on the board. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. To me the process is an unknown so the speculation can go either way.

Scott's drafting history (btw Scott wasn't the principal decision maker in his previous spots) doesn't have bearing on whether not taking a QB in this situation was the right decision.

I'm perfectly comfortable with disagreement.
We could go pick by pick and I'm sure there would be disagreement. I was one of the people, even before the draft, that thought Scherff was both an OT as opposed to a guard and worthy of the 5th pick. I'm sure those were minority opinions before the draft. And this thread was meant as a discussion.

I'm not sure, what would change your mind?

About the only way I could ever see not drafting a qb this year as being a mistake is if all 3 qb's on roster walked away from the game before training camp.

In other words, nothing.

Out of all the areas that we needed to draft, Safety, CB, OL/DL and the amount of depth we need, I see no reason at all to waste a pick on an at best developmental qb. We weren't taking a qb in the first 2 rounds, where the pick would mean we at least expect him to compete for a starting spot in training camp, and round three, as you pointed out, they chose specifically to skip the round where the best of the rest qb's were going to go. In rounds 4-7 a qb pick is a guy who's going to sit behind your starter, learn your system and hope that he can cover for a game or two. We needed much more than that out of the picks we had.

Next year, we will have our qb situation sorted out, either releasing RGIII or paying to keep him. And hopefully our lines will be a bit more stable, but certainly we will pick more OL/DL. So any QB move should most definitely have waited till next year. No matter who was running the show.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I see no reason at all to waste a pick on an at best developmental qb.

Since when did developmental QBs become wasted picks?

We weren't taking a qb in the first 2 rounds, where the pick would mean we at least expect him to compete for a starting spot in training camp,

I'm guessing you saw their draft board? Or just unintentionally started stating your opinions as facts?

What if Mariota fell? We already know what Scott said he would do.
And just because a QB is drafted in the first 2 rounds does it mean they need to compete for the starting spot.

they chose specifically to skip the round where the best of the rest qb's were going to go.

You mean they traded down and in the process missed the opportunity to draft 2 QBs. Lol, it just happened to be where the QBs were drafted there is no way they knew they were 'going' to be drafted there.

In rounds 4-7 a qb pick is a guy who's going to sit behind your starter, learn your system and hope that he can cover for a game or two. We needed much more than that out of the picks we had.

There is value to developing a QB in your system. And in round 4-7 you have players every year that don't even make the club so while its a nice sentiment to expect 'much more' from those picks that's not the reality.

Next year, we will have our qb situation sorted out,

Sorted out in what sense? Next year we could be starting fresh with a rookie QB knew to the system.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Since when did developmental QBs become wasted picks?

I'm guessing you saw their draft board? Or just unintentionally started stating your opinions as facts?

What if Mariota fell? We already know what Scott said he would do.
And just because a QB is drafted in the first 2 rounds does it mean they need to compete for the starting spot.

You mean they traded down and in the process missed the opportunity to draft 2 QBs. Lol, it just happened to be where the QBs were drafted there is no way they knew they were 'going' to be drafted there.

There is value to developing a QB in your system. And in round 4-7 you have players every year that don't even make the club so while its a nice sentiment to expect 'much more' from those picks that's not the reality.

Will we?

So you are basically questioning the drafting philosophy of a well respected NFL talent evaluator (Scot McC) with this whole thread. Who in his time at Seattle, built everything else for two years, and didn't draft a QB until his third year (Wilson).

Seattle's QB option in McC's first two years were an aging Matt Hasselbeck, Tavaris Jackson, and Clipboard Jesus (a.k.a. Charlie Whitehurst).

I think it's okay to wonder why we didn't draft a QB, but I doubt the whole franchise is going to come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

So you are basically questioning the drafting philosophy of a well respected NFL talent evaluator (Scot McC) with this whole thread. Who in his time at Seattle, built everything else for two years, and didn't draft a QB until his third year (Wilson).

If that's what disagreeing with a draft decision means to you then sure. And oh btw, I'm probably one Scott's biggest proponents but that doesn't mean I agree with every decision.

I think it's okay to wonder why we didn't draft a QB, but I doubt the whole franchise is going to come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB.

Yup, because this is exactly what i've been saying this thread the franchise is gonna come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB. Yup that exactly, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Yup, because this is exactly what i've been saying this thread the franchise is gonna come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB. Yup that exactly, thanks for clearing that up for me.

But that's my whole beef with using the term "mistake" here. If a move didn't do damage then it's really hard for me to call it a mistake. The most you can say at this point in time is "potential missed opportunity".

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But that's my whole beef with using the term "mistake" here. If a move didn't do damage then it's really hard for me to call it a mistake. The most you can say at this point in time is "potential missed opportunity".

I know right? I truly had no idea that people were this sensitive to the word 'mistake'.

For me a move doesn't have to do damage to be a mistake. Passing on player that the team could have used is a mistake right? And just because I disagree with a specific move or consider not addressing an area a mistake doesn't mean that I think its a big deal or I consider it a huge need. I also consider not drafting a TE a mistake, and again I don't think the team will implode because of the lack.

Anyhow, I like our QBs, (from Griffin to Colt, yes Colt). I'm a big fan of Scott and I'm all about building the trenches. But from a team building perspective being that we're a WCO in year 2 of a new regime with a QB specialist HC and unless we forget everything was not good with the QBs last year the HC/OC was unhappy enough to bench 2 QBs last year and looking forward none of the QBs are signed for 2016 for me it made sense to me to select a QB somewhere in this draft.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I know right? I truly had no idea that people were this sensitive to the word 'mistake'.

For me a move doesn't have to do damage to be a mistake. Passing on player that the team could have used is a mistake right? And just because I disagree with a specific move or consider not addressing an area a mistake doesn't mean that I think its a big deal or I consider it a huge need.

Anyhow, I like our QBs, (from Griffin to Colt, yes Colt). I'm a big fan of Scott and I'm all about building the trenches. But from a team building perspective being that we're a WCO in year 2 of a new regime with a QB specialist HC who benched 2 QBs last year and having no QBs signed for 2016 it made sense to me to select a QB somewhere in this draft.

Then every draft every year is filled with mistakes.

I really don't get the point you are trying to convey. I think this is what your OP and basis for this thread is:

Given: the qb's we have on the roster before the draft aren't likely to be successful.
Belief: we should have used at least one pick on a qb in the draft.
Result: the fact that we didn't was a bad decision by those doing the drafting.

Is that right?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I know right? I truly had no idea that people were this sensitive to the word 'mistake'.

For me a move doesn't have to do damage to be a mistake. Passing on player that the team could have used is a mistake right? And just because I disagree with a specific move or consider not addressing an area a mistake doesn't mean that I think its a big deal or I consider it a huge need. I also consider not drafting a TE a mistake, and again I don't think the team will implode because of the lack.

I am one of those who is struggling with your wording and your stance. I would not classify passing on the QB or the TE as a mistake, even if they could have helped, unless the players that they did draft don't pan out.

We could have used a developmental QB and another depth TE, but we could use players at every single position except punter (yeah Tress!).

If we didn't pick up a G and went for a TE instead the shoe would just be on the other foot. Just one example.

The draft is full of missed opportunities and also full of opportunities fulfilled. Only time can tell where we came out. I can't call passing on a QB a mistake, it's simply the wrong word at this point in time.