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

[killromo]

I hope this is not the path we take. Bradford and his twice injured shoulder won't last 1 half of play behind our current O-Line. Bradford smells like a heath shuler pick to me and we can't afford to throw away top picks.

[cdskins26]

Originally Posted by killromo

I hope this is not the path we take. Bradford and his twice injured shoulder won't last 1 half of play behind our current O-Line. Bradford smells like a heath shuler pick to me and we can't afford to throw away top picks.

Agreed. I think personally Bradford isnt worth a pick unless we get him second round which isnt likely. The only guy i would take first as a quarterback is clausen and only if i was sure he was the perfect guy in the future.

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by killromo

I hope this is not the path we take. Bradford and his twice injured shoulder won't last 1 half of play behind our current O-Line. Bradford smells like a heath shuler pick to me and we can't afford to throw away top picks.

Here, here my good man. How can anyone want to gamble with Bradford now? The stats for his backup/replacement Jones during the bowl game against Stanford just show me that Bradford is talented, but with that much offensive talent around you and that line, even an average QB can look like a consensus All American. Bradford will come in dealing with inadequate offensive personnel. Do you really think he is going to shine?

[Zorn on the 4th of July]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Superstar QB play is the common thread linking the great teams of the past 10 years, and really through most of the history of the league.

Very thought-provoking post, but remember that great QB play is different than hot QB draft prospects, and improving QB play doesn't necessarily involve the draft or even the QB himself.

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

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

Admittedly, there are more 1st round picks on this list than I anticipated when I started the post, but amongst those 16 quarterbacks: 7 QBs were not selected in the first round, Grossman and Dilfer are amongst the 1st round picks (whose teams won their conferences in spite of the QB's play), and I think the jury is still out on ol' Eli Manning.

As far as the teams that are amongst the tops THIS year (Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings), only the Saints and Colts are overachieving due to their QBs. The Chargers, and (especially) the Vikings are loaded with offensive weapons. Jason Campbell would be in the playoffs if he was throwing to Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin and handing off to Adrian Peterson.

You're absolutely right that we don't have to (nor should we) go crazy drafting O-linemen. But the QB prospects coming out are shaky, what with Bradford's suspect shoulder and Clausen . . . well, anybody who is the "leader" of a team that DECLINES A LOCKED-IN BOWL BID obviously doesn't have the love for football that I'd require of my players. In fact, Notre Dame has lost any remaining respect I ever had for them. Who STOPS playing football? "Stops" isn't the right word. "Quits." That's what I'm looking for. "Fighting Irish." Yeah, right. I digress.

I also don't buy 2010 as a rebuilding year for the Redskins. We've got average or above-average performers at every skill position and outstanding ATHLETES on all sides of the ball. All of our difficult non-conference games are at home (Indy, Green Bay, and Minnesota), and our away non-conference schedule is loaded with some of the worst teams in the league. Our most difficult non-conference road game is vs. Tennessee. The NFL schedule makers are dying for the Redskins to be relevant again.

The single biggest improvement to the team has already been accomplished with the removal of Jim Zorn and the ownership-induced dysfunction in the front office. Now that an experienced head coach is in place, more raw athletic ability will be converted into higher performance. I agree that high-level QB play is critical to improvement, but the QB we have on the roster now gives the team the best chance to improve immediately, taking advantage of our favorable schedule while the gettin's good.

Assuming we make critical upgrades to the O-line (not necessarily through the draft), there's no reason why we can't compete for the NFC East title next season.

Do you think Doug Williams and Mark Rypien were "superstar" QBs?

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Zorn on the 4th of July

Very thought-provoking post, but remember that great QB play is different than hot QB draft prospects, and improving QB play doesn't necessarily involve the draft or even the QB himself.

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

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

Admittedly, there are more 1st round picks on this list than I anticipated when I started the post, but amongst those 16 quarterbacks: 7 QBs were not selected in the first round, Grossman and Dilfer are amongst the 1st round picks (whose teams won their conferences in spite of the QB's play), and I think the jury is still out on ol' Eli Manning.

As far as the teams that are amongst the tops THIS year (Colts, Chargers, Saints, and Vikings), only the Saints and Colts are overachieving due to their QBs. The Chargers, and (especially) the Vikings are loaded with offensive weapons. Jason Campbell would be in the playoffs if he was throwing to Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin and handing off to Adrian Peterson.

You're absolutely right that we don't have to (nor should we) go crazy drafting O-linemen. But the QB prospects coming out are shaky, what with Bradford's suspect shoulder and Clausen . . . well, anybody who is the "leader" of a team that DECLINES A LOCKED-IN BOWL BID obviously doesn't have the love for football that I'd require of my players. In fact, Notre Dame has lost any remaining respect I ever had for them. Who STOPS playing football? "Stops" isn't the right word. "Quits." That's what I'm looking for. "Fighting Irish." Yeah, right. I digress.

I also don't buy 2010 as a rebuilding year for the Redskins. We've got average or above-average performers at every skill position and outstanding ATHLETES on all sides of the ball. All of our difficult non-conference games are at home (Indy, Green Bay, and Minnesota), and our away non-conference schedule is loaded with some of the worst teams in the league. Our most difficult non-conference road game is vs. Tennessee. The NFL schedule makers are dying for the Redskins to be relevant again.

The single biggest improvement to the team has already been accomplished with the removal of Jim Zorn and the ownership-induced dysfunction in the front office. Now that an experienced head coach is in place, more raw athletic ability will be converted into higher performance. I agree that high-level QB play is critical to improvement, but the QB we have on the roster now gives the team the best chance to improve immediately, taking advantage of our favorable schedule while the gettin's good.

Assuming we make critical upgrades to the O-line (not necessarily through the draft), there's no reason why we can't compete for the NFC East title next season.

Do you think Doug Williams and Mark Rypien were "superstar" QBs?

Strong post. I would argue that the game has morphed into a passing game over the last few years to the point that we aren't going to see a Trent Dilfer in the Superbowl again, at least for a while.

But again, my argument was not that it's necessary to take a QB in the first round, but that it's necessary to have a legit star QB to win the Superbowl. This QB doesn't have to be a hall of famer, but he does have to play like one for that championship season. And I think with only a few exceptions your list corroborates this. Of the Superbowl winners of the last 10 years, the only QB's who were mediocre for that season (Dilfer and Johnson, and even Johnson went to the probowl I think) were playing on arguably the two greatest defenses of all time.

Moreover, I think drafting a QB high in the first round is historically the best way to get such a player. There are too many other factors that go into catching lightning in a bottle and having your undrafted backup Kurt Warner flourish, or you catfish wrastling journeyman Jake Delhome suddenly morph into a fearless gunslinger in time for the playoff run. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot more than it does.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Moreover, I think drafting a QB high in the first round is historically the best way to get such a player. There are too many other factors that go into catching lightning in a bottle and having your undrafted backup Kurt Warner flourish, or you catfish wrastling journeyman Jake Delhome suddenly morph into a fearless gunslinger in time for the playoff run. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen a lot more than it does.

Well, the star QB in SB42 put up 17 points and lost to the pedistrian player, who was admittedly a first overall pick himself. But hardly established or even a sure thing to succeed in the NFL had he lost that game. In SB41, the game was so sloppy that another special teams or defensive touchdown could have helped Rex Grossman defeat (in my opinion) the greatest quarterback to ever lace them up. As good as Matt Hasselbeck was in the mid-2000's, Hasselbeck-types are available in the third or fourth round of any draft. Ditto Jake Delhomme.

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

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

[Zorn on the 4th of July]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I could never be a GM. My head hurts.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Zorn on the 4th of July

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zorn on the 4th of July

Very thought-provoking post, but remember that great QB play is different than hot QB draft prospects, and improving QB play doesn't necessarily involve the draft or even the QB himself.

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

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

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

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

[Zorn on the 4th of July]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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

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

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zorn on the 4th of July

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

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

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

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Zorn on the 4th of July

... We've got a cupcake non-conference road schedule in 2010...

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