Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

I must admit that as time goes by the thought of drafting Bradford does get me excited. I think he has what it takes to be a very, very good QB. But then with the annoucement of Russ Grimm going into the HOF, I think again of how much we need a good OL. I read somewhere about how amazing it is that JC's numbers went up playing behind possibly one of the worse OL's in history. With the Hogs, it really didn't matter that we didn't have a franchise QB. And behind the Hogs, even someone like Timmy Smith could run for over 200 yards in the Super Bowl. How much better would JC be, or one of our RB's be running behind a great o-line? It would be nice for the first time in a long time, to be strong in the trenches so we could really know how strong our skill positions really are. I'm so tired of our o-line sucking and our QB getting eaten alive. Maybe it's all the talk about the Hogs lately.....I just wish we could be strong up front once again instead of being a joke.

I 100% agree with you. I keep thinking "Man Bradford sure would look good in a Skins uniform, and he looks like the real deal." Then I see fans posts and comments about this guy who say he has a glass shoulder and he played in a QB friendly system offense. Then I, like you, see that a good OL is needed for most NFL teams, except Indy, Pittsburgh, and kind of New Orleans. The reason why those teams have bad OL's and succeed is because they have the right QB back there who knows when to get rid of the ball. Which then makes you wonder, is Bradford the right QB that can get rid of the ball quickly? Who knows/then again why would you want to see if your QB's are getting slammed to the ground and Bradford has a fragile shoulder, then again on another flip side Brees really, really messed up his shoulder and he has been getting hit to the ground, but still seems to be doing just fine to me.

Thats why I think that Shanahan will make the right decision with whatever he and Bruce Allen do. We know Shanahan has been able to get good OLineman throughout the draft, but he's always needed to get a good QB. I think he'll continue this trend, and draft Bradford, then draft OLineman throught the draft and free agency. I don't know if he'll have the patience to develope a guy like Dan LeFeavor or Zac Robinson or Mike Kafka and groom him to be our QB of the future. I honestly don't care who we draft whether its a QB or an OL, just as long as its not a position we don't need.

[53Fan]

I found this interesting. Especially since only 2 QB's were sacked more than JC last year, (Thanks Vinny), and our DC the last couple of years didn't consider sacks very important.

NFL: Sack differential growing in importance - ESPN

I'm really happy we've made some changes in the way this team will be run this year. HTTR!!!

[BigHairedAristocrat]

hopefully we can find a trading partner to trade down. theres not that great a difference between the top OL in the draft and ones that will be available in the bottom of round 1 and the top of round 2. None of the OL in this draft strike me as top 5 material. Also, as many have noted, neither of the "top" QBs in this draft are top 10 material. If we're stuck at 4, we'd be much better off in the long run drafting BPA than reaching for Bradford or Clausen. Atleast, thats how things look now. Alot can - and will - change over the next 2 months to affect players draft stock.

[Chico23231]

Before this year Snead was considered easily a first round pick....

[SmootSmack]

Snead had a terrible year. But he's got a low of raw talent. Someone will take a chance on him somewhere between the 3rd and 5th round. That someone could could be Shanallenahan.

When he year started Snead was projected much higher, first round even

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Snead had a terrible year. But he's got a low of raw talent. Someone will take a chance on him somewhere between the 3rd and 5th round. That someone could could be Shanallenahan.

When he year started Snead was projected much higher, first round even

Snead scares me. Sure he has a lot of great physical tools, and the poor mechanics make you think that maybe if you improve the mechanics you can improve everything else, but I keep on hearing that he has a lot of trouble reading defenses and that is a deal breaker in my mind.

Personally I would much rather have Zac Robinson. However then again why go after a QB half cocked? Why not go after the best prospects available in the first round?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

Snead scares me. Sure he has a lot of great physical tools, and the poor mechanics make you think that maybe if you improve the mechanics you can improve everything else, but I keep on hearing that he has a lot of trouble reading defenses and that is a deal breaker in my mind.

Personally I would much rather have Zac Robinson. However then again why go after a QB half cocked? Why not go after the best prospects available in the first round?

I think because the need on the depth chart exceeds the need on the field. There's just not much (if anything at all) behind Campbell.

To me, the argument for taking BQBA at #4 is entirely different from the one at taking BQBA at #173 (or whatever). We wouldn't be addressing the same need.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Snead had a terrible year. But he's got a low of raw talent. Someone will take a chance on him somewhere between the 3rd and 5th round. That someone could could be Shanallenahan.

When he year started Snead was projected much higher, first round even

Generally speaking, I would expect players who are supremely skilled to have their talent show through at the college level at some point, even if inconsistently over a career. Based on the available evidence, which includes a disappointing transfer, a wildly inconsistent debut season at Ole Miss, followed by a terribly disappointing one, I have only to conclude that Snead is either really, really unlucky, or not very talented.

By coming out early, he leaves that dualism unanswered, which is probably his best bet to get drafted.

[bdubin]

I think we should trade away the pick -- one of these guys will be there later in the round

[WaldSkins]

It's not like if we draft Bradford that we are going to ignore the Oline. We still have free agency, trades, and picks in rounds 2,4,5 and 7 to address the line. The line will be addressed,it's just a matter of how.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

It's not like if we draft Bradford that we are going to ignore the Oline. We still have free agency, trades, and picks in rounds 2,4,5 and 7 to address the line. The line will be addressed,it's just a matter of how.

I just don't understand how you could justify taking a QB at #4 (being a weak QB class according to pundits) and ignoring the disgusting play by the offensive line last season.

Given the success of first round tackles over the past few seasons, to me taking a QB with that #4 is not an option. If Okung is not available at #4, then the next best solution is to trade down and get more picks and still pick up a tackle with the first rounder.

Honestly, with the uncapped year free agency is going to be pretty bad, and most of your young talented players are going to be RFAs. Trading picks for players is something that I don't want to see happen in this team for a loong time. And to me saying "we'll take care of the line with the later rounds" sounds a lot like Vinny Cerrato.

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I just don't understand how you could justify taking a QB at #4 (being a weak QB class according to pundits) and ignoring the disgusting play by the offensive line last season.

Given the success of first round tackles over the past few seasons, to me taking a QB with that #4 is not an option. If Okung is not available at #4, then the next best solution is to trade down and get more picks and still pick up a tackle with the first rounder.

Honestly, with the uncapped year free agency is going to be pretty bad, and most of your young talented players are going to be RFAs. Trading picks for players is something that I don't want to see happen in this team for a loong time. And to me saying "we'll take care of the line with the later rounds" sounds a lot like Vinny Cerrato.

1.) I never said that we should take a QB at #4.
2.) Just because it's a weak QB class doesn't mean that Bradford isn't worthy of a top ten pick (He would have been the #1 QB off the board last year if he didn't return to school)
3.)If Okung is gone and we can't trade back who do you select?
4.)Cerrato didn't really address the line with later picks, he always seemed to go for LB's and speacial team players in the later rounds.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

1.) I never said that we should take a QB at #4.
2.) Just because it's a weak QB class doesn't mean that Bradford isn't worthy of a top ten pick (He would have been the #1 QB off the board last year if he didn't return to school)
3.)If Okung is gone and we can't trade back who do you select?
4.)Cerrato didn't really address the line with later picks, he always seemed to go for LB's and speacial team players in the later rounds.

It's not just you, it seems like a everyone is saying this, "we must pick a QB at #4, we must pick a QB at #4".

I'm sure that if Bradford is there at #4, there will be some interest for that pick by a few teams that are in desperate need of a QB.

And Cerrato didn't address the line period. We always seem to pick up old lineman as a way to patch things up.

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

1.) I never said that we should take a QB at #4.
2.) Just because it's a weak QB class doesn't mean that Bradford isn't worthy of a top ten pick (He would have been the #1 QB off the board last year if he didn't return to school)
3.)If Okung is gone and we can't trade back who do you select?
4.)Cerrato didn't really address the line with later picks, he always seemed to go for LB's and speacial team players in the later rounds.

i think it is the complete opposite, there might not be a manning, or a rivers thats a lock to go number one, but as far as depth goes i have been saying for a while that there is a ton of depth at the qb position you can get a guy like snead pike, mccoy, or smoots boy from fordham, in the later rounds. i see no reason to take a qb at number 4 overall unless shanny really falls in love with him. i'm alaborad the eric berry bandwagon, but what i would love is to trade down i just don't see anyone doing that

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

1.) I never said that we should take a QB at #4.
2.) Just because it's a weak QB class doesn't mean that Bradford isn't worthy of a top ten pick (He would have been the #1 QB off the board last year if he didn't return to school)
3.)If Okung is gone and we can't trade back who do you select?
4.)Cerrato didn't really address the line with later picks, he always seemed to go for LB's and speacial team players in the later rounds.

If he's not gone, you take him. After the combine we may find that Davis, Campbell, or another LT is worth the pick if he is gone and we can't trade back. If not, there are other players/positions to consider also. Obviously Suh, Berry, McCoy and McClain can't all be gone if Okung is off the board. Joe Haden would be a nice addition also. But obviously if the staff thinks Bradford or Clausen are a once in a decade type of QB, they'll probably pick one of them. I personaly have no problem at all with taking a highly regarded LT with our first pick. I wish we would have done more of it in the last 10 years. Picking a franchise LT with the #4 pick isn't such a bad thing. If you get a chance to get a FLT you take him. If they pick a QB I can only assume they feel JC cannot win in this league, which I disagree with, and the QB they draft is going to be much better. Of course whatever they do I'll probably be behind it, I just hope it's the right thing. And I'm a big fan of Bradford.