Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

So I was talking to my neighbor, whose an Oklahoma alum, played football there a few years as a walk on, watches every OU game on TV, has raised his kids to love OU, and is also a Skins fan. I said to him "Do you think the Skins should get Bradford?" He said "Not behind that OLine...until the redskins show me that they want to protect the QB, then no, he'd get killed because he's a rookie. He does have better awareness of pressure and when to release the ball, unlike Campbell, but I would draft an OLineman and keep Campbell back there and let him and his shoulder take the hits than Bradfords."

I then asked him "Do you think Bradford could be a good QB in the NFL or is he a system guy, because Landry Jones stepped in and played well for you all this past year."

He said "Well yeah OU plays the spread offense, but Bradford would make some throws that spread or not, makes him look like an NFL QB. Yeah I definitely think he'll be a good NFL QB, but he needs an OL to protect him which he doesn't have here... And Landry Jones was good because he was a highly rated QB coming out of high school and sat a year on the bench to study the offense and watch Bradford, as well as the fact that OU's offense is for the most part QB friendly, but also great players around them." He also said he would have liked to see Bradford this year with a worse OL like what OU had this year, so he could see how he would respond more to pressure." He also said that he wouldn't want Clausen, we need OLineman.


That said, and the fact that I trust him, I'd say, get Okung or the next best starting LT.

This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.

It's not the same line, yet the deficiencies at the offensive line are far greater than those at the QB position. Your basically building the offensive line from scratch, since out of that group that you have listed there, only Dockery is a quality starter, maybe Levi Jones (if he returns). And while you could rebuild the line with players picked up in the later rounds and UFAs that are in their 30s, adding a franchise tackle picked up in the draft could make it a much better line.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

It's not the same line, yet the deficiencies at the offensive line are far greater than those at the QB position. Your basically building the offensive line from scratch, since out of that group that you have listed there, only Dockery is a quality starter, maybe Levi Jones (if he returns). And while you could rebuild the line with players picked up in the later rounds and UFAs that are in their 30s, adding a franchise tackle picked up in the draft could make it a much better line.

Why is no one showing love to Rabach? Trust me people Rabach is a zone blocker that in spite of what has been written on this board has been praised by the media and experts alike for his solid play. Right now the interior line is one or two players away from being fixed from a starter and depth perspective and luckily it's a lot easier to find interior lineman. The hard part is really going to be what tackles we can get our hands on.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

It's not the same line, yet the deficiencies at the offensive line are far greater than those at the QB position. Your basically building the offensive line from scratch, since out of that group that you have listed there, only Dockery is a quality starter, maybe Levi Jones (if he returns). And while you could rebuild the line with players picked up in the later rounds and UFAs that are in their 30s, adding a franchise tackle picked up in the draft could make it a much better line.

An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.

Rinehart really needs to turn the corner, hopefully in similar manner to that of Dockery in 2004 (when Gibbs arrived). Otherwise I would rather start Kory L at Guard or better yet hope that we find a way to get Chris Kuper. This scheme will make people play better then they really are but it can only do so much.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.

And QB guys know that you need to protect the QB, something that Washington hasn't done well for a while. I just don't see how you can look at our line from last season, look at the limited UFA talent, and say that you're not going to pick up a tackle with either the first or second rounder.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

And QB guys know that you need to protect the QB, something that Washington hasn't done well for a while. I just don't see how you can look at our line from last season, look at the limited UFA talent, and say that you're not going to pick up a tackle with either the first or second rounder.

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.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

I think that for many Warpathers that scenario is as unthinkable as having Britney Spears for President.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

An argument can be made that a 2nd round tackle, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a veteran free agent/trade) and Bradford would be a better long term strategy than Okung, Dockery, Rabach, Rinehart, Levi Jones (or a vet FA/trade) and Colt McCoy. If we're going to draft OT and QB with our first two picks, I'd lean towards getting the QB first-tackle second. Anyone who thinks Shanahan is going to draft OL with the first two picks is just setting themselves up for massive disappointment. He's a QB guy and his kid is a QB guy, we're picking a QB early.

Even though I tend to think we will pick up an offensive lineman and a quarterback with the first two picks we make, taking the OT at No. 4 certainly doesn't lock you into taking that quarterback at No. 37 in the same way the reverse scenario dictates who you take. I think Colt McCoy would make a very good value around the time we pick, if not a flat-out steal, but if we grab another offensive lineman or maybe a skill position player there who we had a first round grade on, we could still address QB later.

It wouldn't be shocking if we did what Jacksonville did last year in the draft.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by paintrain

this again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft bradford then our opening day starting ol will be levi jones, derrick dockery, casey rabach, edwin williams and stephon heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft bradford at #4 then we are not going address the ol at any other point in the offseason? If i hear 'not behind that same ol' or 'if they don't address the ol' once more i am going to choke someone.

amen!

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.

I think he's talking about a proven OL, not a bad one or a whole new one which we would have no idea what it would be like.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I think he's talking about a proven OL, not a bad one or a whole new one which we would have no idea what it would be like.

Define a 'proven OL'.. We're not going to be able to completely remake the OL but with a couple of additions/subtractions we should be able to improve over what we trotted out there (8 starting RG and Stephon Heyer) for most of '09.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

This again relies on the flawed logic that if we draft Bradford then our opening day starting OL will be Levi Jones, Derrick Dockery, Casey Rabach, Edwin Williams and Stephon Heyer. Are there actually fans who believe that if we draft Bradford at #4 then we are NOT going address the OL at any other point in the offseason? If I hear 'not behind that same OL' or 'if they don't address the OL' once more I am going to choke someone.

We can add a second rounder to that group without actually getting it to respectability.

Furthermore, the difference is that some lines have issues in the middle at guard, or just a single guard or center to replace, but they have both the tackles in place. For those partially built lines, a single second round pick is often adequate to get an interior lineman who can play as a rookie and be good at what he does. This is more or less what Arizona did when they drafted Deuce Lutui in the second round after taking Matt Leinart in the first in 2006.

Deuce Lutui was never going to be asked to play left tackle because they had a need there. Four years later, he's now Arizona's best offensive lineman at a Guard position. Which is not all that uncommon for an early second round pick.

My point is: adding a Deuce Lutui (Mike Iupati/Maurkice Pouncey?) type to this offensive line doesn't really make a dent in the quality of the OL. It's probably too late to expect a turnaround in the quality of the unit at that point. Taking a LT at No. 4 guarentees you nothing, but it's unquestionably the best shot at turning the unit into a strength within a reasonable timeframe.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We can add a second rounder to that group without actually getting it to respectability.

Furthermore, the difference is that some lines have issues in the middle at guard, or just a single guard or center to replace, but they have both the tackles in place. For those partially built lines, a single second round pick is often adequate to get an interior lineman who can play as a rookie and be good at what he does. This is more or less what Arizona did when they drafted Deuce Lutui in the second round after taking Matt Leinart in the first in 2006.

Deuce Lutui was never going to be asked to play left tackle because they had a need there. Four years later, he's now Arizona's best offensive lineman at a Guard position. Which is not all that uncommon for an early second round pick.

My point is: adding a Deuce Lutui (Mike Iupati/Maurkice Pouncey?) type to this offensive line doesn't really make a dent in the quality of the OL. It's probably too late to expect a turnaround in the quality of the unit at that point. Taking a LT at No. 4 guarentees you nothing, but it's unquestionably the best shot at turning the unit into a strength within a reasonable timeframe.

At this point I am actually fine if we go with Okung OR Bradford at #4, I won't be disappointed in either case. The issue I have is the notion that improving one area is exclusionary of improving another.