Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

[WaldSkins]

Let's just trade for Billy Volek and be done with it.

[SmootSmack]

Never mind Billy Volek. Two words Charlie Whitehurst

[WaldSkins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Never mind Billy Volek. Two words Charlie Whitehurst

He threw less interceptions then JC last year so that is a plus.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Never mind Billy Volek. Two words Charlie Whitehurst

Former High School teammate of mine. I'm actually kind of surprised that they haven't bumped him up ahead of Volek yet but the fact that he's stayed in the league as long as he has must mean they see something in him.

I also got a chance to play with his cousin who was ironically a lineman. He has a little brother named Kane who's also a pretty good QB at my old high school, but he doesn't have the same height that Charlie has, so I'm not sure how aggressively he's going to get recruited.

But yeah, I'd love to see him get a shot at starting somewhere. I remember on draft day a few of the gurus felt he could easily develop into a starter one day. Still not a bad life. Making over $300,000 a year while living in San Diego playing football.

[Dirtbag59]

Thought this was interesting. Per Mel Kiper:

Q: How much does the way Jimmy Clausen play remind you of Brady Quinn? I'm only wondering because Quinn slipped in the draft and hasn't made an impact in the NFL yet.

-- Jordan (Melrose, Mass.)


A: They're two completely different guys, the biggest (and closest) similarity being that both were coached by Charlie Weis. In the case of Quinn, let's at least point out that the jury is still out on how this guy will be perceived as an NFL quarterback. He still has a chance, bottom line, and that's up to Mike Holmgren and Eric Mangini. But to compare, start with style. Clausen, despite really gaudy TD-INT numbers, has a bit of riverboat gambler in him, and until this year, his surrounding team and blocking were bad. Quinn played with much better talent and didn't have to gamble as much. Clausen played for a team where the defense wasn't stopping people, and it became clear he felt he had to score. That he took his shots and still didn't make mistakes says a lot. Clausen is also a more accurate thrower. Their arm strength is similar -- neither guy is remarkable there, but both can get it done. Neither is a scrambler, but they can both maneuver decently around the pocket.

One thing I'll say about Clausen: He's tough, and when I talk to people who know, his marks as a competitor are simply off the charts. Former Notre Dame defensive coordinator Jon Tenuta told me that if everyone played with Clausen's competitiveness, everyone on the previous coaching staff would still have their jobs. Golden Tate said he can't remember throws that were off the mark, and Tate, as good as he is, doesn't get much separation as a receiver. Clausen had to put it on him. I know Clausen could drop, and I'm higher on him than a lot of people, but this kid's done well and played hurt, and he's done it under center, which means a lot. He could even go higher than Bradford when it's all said and done.

[GTripp0012]

I think Kiper's really underselling the quality of the Notre Dame offense. Yeah, that 2007 season offered nothing in terms of skilled players or line protectoin, and Clausens overall numbers are somewhat weighed down by that season, but he had two years of a strong pass protecting OL, and with the exception of some injuries to players in 2008, it's hard to argue that the skill position players weren't better than what Quinn had (which, admittedly, was also a very strong offensive unit, independent of the quarterback).

If nothing else though, you don't have a toughness issue in Clausen. In Bradford...who knows, really?

[CultBrennan59]

This is a good article from Rich Tandler:

Redskins Draft Order Dilemma: QB Or OL At Number 4?


Recommend Comment(26) Email Print Sharing RSS Thursday, February 11, 2010, 8:45 PM

By Rich Tandler
Redskins Correspondent
CSNwashington.com

The NFL draft is over two months away, and Free Agency, The Combine, and Pro Day workouts have yet to take place. However premature, there is a lot of speculation as to the route the Washington Redskins will take on the first day of the draft, which occurs on prime time TV on Thursday, April 22.

The Redskins have the fourth and 36th overall picks (number 4 in round 2). The team is under extreme pressure to get these picks right. If they use them well, they will have two players who will be able to step in as starters right away and contribute. If they blow one of them, it will be a major setback.

One possible scenario that has been discussed by fans and the media would have the Redskins taking an offensive lineman with one of those top picks, and a quarterback with the other. That is logical speculation given that the O-line is in major need of rebuilding and that starting quarterback Jason Campbell will be an unrestricted free agent next year.

What is up for debate is the order in which the team should take the quarterback and lineman, probably an offensive tackle. There are those who want them to take an offensive tackle, such as Russell Okung or Anthony Davis, at the top of the draft, and then get the best available quarterback with that 36th pick. Others favor taking the quarterback first, landing someone like Sam Bradford or Jimmy Clausen, and start the offensive line rebuilding in the second round with the best lineman on the board.

In choosing between these two possibilities (and a myriad of others), one thing that Mike Shanahan must assess is the risk-reward equation. The Redskins need to avoid having one of these picks turn out to be a bust much more than they need to send both of them to the Pro Bowl.

And a look a recent draft history indicates that, if they want to go OL-QB in some order with their first two picks, they should take the quarterback early and the lineman in the second round.

We reached this conclusion by doing a study to measure the bust potential for quarterbacks and linemen selected in the first and second rounds of the draft. We used a simple measuring stick: how many games the player actually has started compared to how many games he possibly could have started. This method is far from comprehensive, but it’s a good, basic indication of whether or not a given player is a bust, or if a group of players has succeeded or failed. After all, if a first or second round player isn’t starting after a short period of time, that’s an indication that something isn’t right.

Players selected in the 2009 draft could have started 16 games; those picked on 2008 have 32 possible starts, and so on. By adding up the players’ possible starts and comparing them to their actual starts, we are able to see how much impact they had as a group, again on a very basic level.

From 2004 through 2009, 17 quarterbacks were taken in the first round. Of a possible combined 1,024 starts, the players in this group actually have started 638, or 62 percent.

In that same period of time, 27 offensive linemen were taken in the first round, and they have started 1,093 games out of a possible 1,328. That comes out to 82 percent.

Comparing first-round quarterbacks to first-round linemen, then, it would appear that if the goal is to avoid a bust, taking a lineman first is the way to go.

But let’s take a look at selections in the second round. The 29 linemen selected have started 1,077 of a possible 1,648 games, or 65 percent.

The eight second-round quarterbacks have started 49 out of 352 games. That’s a paltry 14 percent. Just looking at that number, one would have to say that the potential for a second-round quarterback being a bust is alarmingly high.

Let’s look at those second-round quarterbacks individually:


Year Team Quarterback Starts:
Actual/Possible
Percentage
2006 NYJ Kellen Clemens
9/64 14%
2006 MIN Tavaris Jackson
19/64 30%
2007 PHI Kevin Kolb
2/48 4%
2007 MIA John Beck
4/48 8%
2007 DET Drew Stanton
1/48 2%
2008 GB Brian Brohm
1/32 3%
2008 MIA Chad Henne
13/32 41%
2009 MIA Pat White
0/16 0%


No quarterbacks were drafted in the second round in 2004 or 2005.

Out of the eight names, you can indentify two who most think could end up being unquestioned starters, Kolb and Henne. If Henne can take control in Miami, White may change positions. It may be premature to write off Clemens and Jackson although neither has take possession of the job when given the opportunity to do so. It is not premature to affix the “bust” label to Beck, Stanton, and Brohm.

Just to take a peek a little further in the past, we looked back at the second-round quarterbacks in the 2000-2003 drafts. It turns out that only two quarterbacks were taken in the second round of those four drafts. Both were selected in 2001. One, Drew Brees, certainly is one quarterback who is the exception to the rule. Although he didn’t start until his second season, and was just OK that year and in 2003, he broke out in 2004 and has been a stud ever since.

The other 2001 second-rounder was Quincy Carter, drafted by the Cowboys. He did start 31 games in three seasons there, but he never developed into a solid starter, and he was out of the league after starting three games for the Giants in 2004.

One can only theorize as to why so few second-round quarterbacks work out. One possibility may be that since quarterbacks are so highly valued, teams may reach to take them. You can see some quarterbacks who may have had second-round talent--players such as J. P. Losman, Jason Campbell and Brady Quinn--being snatched up in the first round because teams are so anxious to get their signal caller. That leaves lesser talent available in the second round.

That also might account for why about half as many quarterbacks were taken in the second round (8) as in the first round (17). With the quarterback talent so depleted by the time the second round arrives, most teams may decide to address other needs there and take a flyer on a developmental quarterback later in the draft. The numbers of offensive linemen drafted early were almost evenly split between the first round (27) and the second (29).

Certainly, there is more risk taking a first-round quarterback than there is in selecting a first-round offensive lineman. But you are taking much, much less of a chance if you take an O-lineman in the second round than if you take the quarterback.

Drafting a quarterback this year is not the only option the Redskins have to address the position. But on the list of possibilities, it appears that drafting one in the second round may be the least desirable.

[53Fan]

^ So the absolute best way to go would be to draft o-line with the first 2 picks. I'll take R. Okung and C. Brown...T. Williams...B. Buluga. Whichever is still there in the second. I mean the odds are in our favor we'd get 2 young starters for the o-line right?

[wilsowilso]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

^ So the absolute best way to go would be to draft o-line with the first 2 picks. I'll take R. Okung and C. Brown...T. Williams...B. Buluga. Whichever is still there in the second. I mean the odds are in our favor we'd get 2 young starters for the o-line right?

I sure won't be complaining if they do this.

Doubt it happens though.

I am really starting to get the feeling that we are going to draft Sam Bradford.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

^ So the absolute best way to go would be to draft o-line with the first 2 picks. I'll take R. Okung and C. Brown...T. Williams...B. Buluga. Whichever is still there in the second. I mean the odds are in our favor we'd get 2 young starters for the o-line right?

Buluga....Second Round....????? *very confused face* You do realize that Buluga is being projected right now as a top 10 pick right?

Iowa OT Bryan Bulaga (6-6, 311); Grade: 94 -- Bulaga jumps from No. 20 to No. 6 in large part because he appears far more comfortable in pass protection on the left side than Oklahoma's Trent Williams.

Bulaga isn't as explosive or as athletic as Rutgers OT Anthony Davis (No. 4 overall to Washington), but Bulaga is quick enough to prevent edge rushers from turning the corner and shows excellent balance when forced to change directions quickly. Bulaga also has the frame, strength and toughness to develop into an effective drive blocker.

Bulaga could continue to climb and jump ahead of Oklahoma State OT Russell Okung, who played well enough to be an early first-round pick but did not dominate the point of attack as we expected. Bulaga is also helped by the changes to the final draft order, which now has three teams with significant need at offensive tackle among the top six overall picks.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

^ So the absolute best way to go would be to draft o-line with the first 2 picks. I'll take R. Okung and C. Brown...T. Williams...B. Buluga. Whichever is still there in the second. I mean the odds are in our favor we'd get 2 young starters for the o-line right?

It's impossible to argue w/ this kind of sound logic 53

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

^ So the absolute best way to go would be to draft o-line with the first 2 picks. I'll take R. Okung and C. Brown...T. Williams...B. Buluga. Whichever is still there in the second. I mean the odds are in our favor we'd get 2 young starters for the o-line right?

If I was running the team, I'd draft a LT with the 4th overall pick, and a RT with the 37th overall pick. The RT market is pretty strong this year (might even be able to trade down), while the LT market, you pretty much need to pick in the top ten or nail a sleeper.

[Dirtbag59]

I find myself torn on JC. I mean I look at the poor line play and I see a guy who was able to get an 86.4 rating despite pressure being constantly in his face. Then I see the guy who couldn't put up over 200 yards passing against the Giants on 28 pass attempts but Todd Collins gets 57 yards in 4 attempts (by the way might not be the worse idea to keep Collins instead of Colt).

How much of the yardage was garbage yardage from teams playing prevent after building a great lead on our bend don't break defense? Do you guys have THAT MUCH FAITH in JC, or are you truly scared of the prospect of a rookie QB. I mean what if we get similar results next year? Are you guys going to look at the rookie QB class and say "no, next years will be stronger, yeah definitely not this one."

Either way I don't care if it's Bradrod, Clausen, or even McCoy. We need a plan B. This is a very good QB class and I'd rather get a one year jump on a young QB while we're rebuilding rather then making sure the line is absolutley Madden perfect before we even consider going through the growing pains of adding a rookie QB.

And on a slightly seperate note: Do not, I repeat DO NOT, tell me that when Matt Ryan came into the Falcons as a rookie that they had their line situated. Their line was actually just as bad as ours giving up 47 sacks in 2007 and the only real addition was Sam Baker who started a grand total of 5 games.

I've seen this argument on ES as a way to discourage people for calling for a rookie QB and while thats just fine and dandy over there I will not tolerate it over here. It's also fine if you don't want us to draft a QB,there's no right or wrong answer at this point and there are strong points for both sides, I myself frequently find myself torn between my love for the line and my knowing the importance of the QB position but for the love of God please stick to the facts.

Cabin Fever FTW (you guys aren't the only ones snowed in)

[SmootSmack]

I think we actually have the 4th and 37th picks (5th pick in the 2nd round)

[SmootSmack]

I could see Bulaga to the late 1st, maybe even the top of the 2nd. More likely late 1st though