2011 NFL Mock Draft thread.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

A different POV by Kevin Ewoldt:

We all know the Redskins are rebuilding, here's why drafting a QB makes zero sense.

1. There are no elite QBs in this draft. Every GM is saying this and it's obvious to numbnuts like me. The Redskins have a defense that can't get off the field and an offense line that is missing legit starters from Left Guard through Right Tackle. How does adding a flawed QB really help this team? (see next point)
2. We already have not one, but TWO average QBs. What's really the difference between Chris Ponder, Jake Locker, Andy Dalton, Rex Grossman, and John Beck? Nothing. They're all the same size with mobility, so what's the point of burning a quality pick on another QB? Grossman is 30 and knows the offense. Are any of these college QBs going to outplay Grossman the next 3 years? NO. Build the team where we need starters and fill the QB when a legit prospect rolls through.
3. Starting talent is deep in the draft. Parks Smith and I just did a live mock draft on Twitter where trades were allowed. We had several offers to move back at #10, which we did. The Redskins will have that opportunity and there were still quality players on the board in the 2nd and 3rd rounds.
4. Redskins need starters. This is huge. With two average QBs on the bench, why add a 3rd when the Redskins have so many holes? Grossman can hold this ship for multiple years until we get a line that can protect him and some skilled players to bail him out. The Redskins are a bad team all around, so adding a QB that will ride the pine is criminal when that 2nd round pick is more likely than not to net a starter for several years to come.

Note: This isn't meant to be a "Bring back the Hogs" post. It's simply a fact our OLine is atrocious. It's a shame we didn't have free agency to help things out pre-draft, but perhaps it's a blessing in disguise in that it forces the front office to build our team through the draft.

They also came up with a pretty good article on Landry44's boy Mallet.


A Solid Case Why The Redskins Are Targeting Ryan Mallett
by back_to_the_future on Apr 20, 2011 12:35 PM EDT


149 COMMENTS EMAIL PRINT
Editor Update: A fine post possibly ruined by this breaking news on Mallett.

This is not Mike Shanahan's offense...it is Kyle's. Why do people talk about the type of QB Mike Shanahan likes (which most get it misconstrued), when Kyle's QB is on the contrary.The difference in both systems is that Mike is run first and Kyle is pass first.

Mike Shanahan
He runs first to set up play action and bootleg. His basic package is with 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 HB, and a FB. To succeed in this system, Mike NEEDs a QB that can throw on the run. That is why the trade for McNabb made perfect sense. Cutler thrived in it.

Kyle Shanahan
Shotgun heavy with emphasis on stretching the field. Basic package: 3 WR, 1 TW, and 1 HB. To succeed in this system, Kyle Shanahan NEEDs a Qb with pocket presence to allow the play to develop. Matt Schaub thrived in it.

McNabb, prior to the trade, fit the bill for both Shanahans. He can pass on the run with pocket presence. Late in the season, it was clear that Rex rossman ran the offense more smoothly then McNabb. Not because he can throw off the run, but because of pocket presence. Looking into this years draft, the only QB that makes sense for Kyle's system is Ryan Mallet. Jake Locker is what I stated about McNabb, but without pocket presence. Accuracy is a huge factor to be a pocket passer in Kyle's system. How many deep balls were under or over thrown by McNabb? And for that matter, even intermediate routes?




Don't be fooled by all the smoke and mirrors. We were sure to receive Russell Okung last year (Jake Locker this year) for a system he did not fit in. Mallet is this years Trent Williams.


The Redskins WILL DO WHATEVER it takes to draft him.

Editor update: This YouTube highlight shows Mallett running and gunning out of the pocket quite a bit.

YouTube - Ryan Mallett

The last part interest me the most. Maybe I was thinking that I was looking at the QB version of Williams when in fact I may have been looking at OKUNGGGGGGGGGGGGG! (Sorry I've gone to long without saying that). In my defense though I did say earlier in the offseason that Mallet reminded me of Schuab. But alas my faith in my Locker prediction can't be shaken. I must stick to my guns and become the Warpaths Rain Man, which will be a step up from my current position as QB whore.

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

They also came up with a pretty good article on Landry44's boy Mallet.


A Solid Case Why The Redskins Are Targeting Ryan Mallett
by back_to_the_future on Apr 20, 2011 12:35 PM EDT


149 COMMENTS EMAIL PRINT
Editor Update: A fine post possibly ruined by this breaking news on Mallett.

This is not Mike Shanahan's offense...it is Kyle's. Why do people talk about the type of QB Mike Shanahan likes (which most get it misconstrued), when Kyle's QB is on the contrary.The difference in both systems is that Mike is run first and Kyle is pass first.

Mike Shanahan
He runs first to set up play action and bootleg. His basic package is with 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 HB, and a FB. To succeed in this system, Mike NEEDs a QB that can throw on the run. That is why the trade for McNabb made perfect sense. Cutler thrived in it.

Kyle Shanahan
Shotgun heavy with emphasis on stretching the field. Basic package: 3 WR, 1 TW, and 1 HB. To succeed in this system, Kyle Shanahan NEEDs a Qb with pocket presence to allow the play to develop. Matt Schaub thrived in it.

McNabb, prior to the trade, fit the bill for both Shanahans. He can pass on the run with pocket presence. Late in the season, it was clear that Rex rossman ran the offense more smoothly then McNabb. Not because he can throw off the run, but because of pocket presence. Looking into this years draft, the only QB that makes sense for Kyle's system is Ryan Mallet. Jake Locker is what I stated about McNabb, but without pocket presence. Accuracy is a huge factor to be a pocket passer in Kyle's system. How many deep balls were under or over thrown by McNabb? And for that matter, even intermediate routes?




Don't be fooled by all the smoke and mirrors. We were sure to receive Russell Okung last year (Jake Locker this year) for a system he did not fit in. Mallet is this years Trent Williams.


The Redskins WILL DO WHATEVER it takes to draft him.

Editor update: This YouTube highlight shows Mallett running and gunning out of the pocket quite a bit. YouTube - Ryan Mallett

The last part interest me the most. Maybe I was thinking that I was looking at the QB version of Williams when in fact I may have been looking at OKUNGGGGGGGGGGGGG! (Sorry I've gone to long without saying that). In my defense though I did say earlier in the offseason that Mallet reminded me of Schuab. But alas my faith in my Locker prediction can't be shaken. I must stick to my guns and become the Warpaths Rain Man, which will be a step up from my current position as QB whore.

You're looking to deep into this.

Ryan Mallett is a mess and does not have the personality to be the franchise player of the Redskins. It really is that simple.

Not only that but it's just too easy to beat a QB like Mallett when your O-line is so sketchy, and it's not like we can rely on our receivers to be making plays.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

A different POV by Kevin Ewoldt:

We all know the Redskins are rebuilding, here's why drafting a QB makes zero sense.

No one told Shanahan this last year!

On a serious note, I think we should draft a QB. Having a coach and offensive coordinator that insist on having their QB fit their system, it is logical for them to pick up a young QB to groom. However, Shanny and Co. need to figure out how to get a QB and additional picks.

Right now I think it would have been great if the team had traded Haynesworth for a 3rd rounder. That would have given us picks in the first three rounds, without the need of trading down. Or we could have traded down and have a low first, a second, and two third rounders.

Oh well, I just hope they do the right thing this offseason.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

No one told Shanahan this last year!

On a serious note, I think we should draft a QB. Having a coach and offensive coordinator that insist on having their QB fit their system, it is logical for them to pick up a young QB to groom. However, Shanny and Co. need to figure out how to get a QB and additional picks.

Right now I think it would have been great if the team had traded Haynesworth for a 3rd rounder. That would have given us picks in the first three rounds, without the need of trading down. Or we could have traded down and have a low first, a second, and two third rounders.

Oh well, I just hope they do the right thing this offseason.

I was going to say something sarcastic but I'll just politely ask.... you really think the Skins would get a 3rd rounder for Haynesworth? I'd say 4th is a pipe dream. After he sabatoged the year I'd think we would be lucky to get a 5th or later.

McNabb we might have gotten a 4th.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

I hope and pray all this QB talk is just that.....TALK.

If we stay at #10 and don't wind up with JJ Watt, Cam Jordan, Von Miller (if he drops like Orakpo) or Quinn I will not be a happy camper.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I hope and pray all this QB talk is just that.....TALK.

If we stay at #10 and don't wind up with JJ Watt, Cam Jordan, Von Miller (if he drops like Orakpo) or Quinn I will not be a happy camper.

Now here is a person who makes sense.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I was going to say something sarcastic but I'll just politely ask.... you really think the Skins would get a 3rd rounder for Haynesworth? I'd say 4th is a pipe dream. After he sabatoged the year I'd think we would be lucky to get a 5th or later.

McNabb we might have gotten a 4th.

Probably a 4th rounder, heck a 5th rounder...I know a 3rd is a reach. My point is that Shanny should've been thinking more about acquiring picks for this upcoming draft, than whatever the hell he was thinking when they decided to keep him in the team.

[Swarley]

1. The coaches definitely want a young QB to develop

2. The Draft is still a crapshoot no matter what position you decide to draft.

3. I don't get how you can honestly say we don't need a QB.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

1. The coaches definitely want a young QB to develop

2. The Draft is still a crapshoot no matter what position you decide to draft.

3. I don't get how you can honestly say we don't need a QB.

I'll do my best to help out.... with #3.....

I think he's half right/half wrong. I've been saying all along as well it doesn't matter who you bring in if there is no protection for them. The team will get the same results out of a Rookie QB or a Vet who is scrambling for their life.

Second point is .... No matter who you, me, the coaches or anyone else think is the best QB prospect this year it's going to take time for them to learn the scheme, and play calls. This is where some people differ but you can't tell me McNabb being a future HOF playing in the NFL after so many seasons and having the game already slowed down because he knows what to look for and where to go with the ball... can't get the job done but a Rookie will come in and play better? Aint going to happen.

I'd rather keep McNabb or Grossman for another year while said Rookie learns the system for next year. Which is more likely to happen.

So all I think he was pointing out is if there is no clear cut top QB in the draft then it might be best to draft for OL and DL and fix those problems in order to give the QB more time in the pocket and next year when there are fewer teams who need a QB hopefully a top ranked one will fall to us. At that time yes he will still have to learn the system but he will have better protection around him vs. what he would have now which is very little.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

1. The coaches definitely want a young QB to develop

2. The Draft is still a crapshoot no matter what position you decide to draft.

3. I don't get how you can honestly say we don't need a QB.

re:#2 - Yes, there is a variable amount of luck involved in picking a player due to injuries and bust factor. But there is much less of a crap shoot chance a blue chip player like LB Vonn Miller or CB Patrick Petersen is going to be bust than say a Mallet or Locker. It is not a complete crap shoot.

re:#3 - Nobody is saying we do not need a young Qb of the future. What the people that are against taking a QB at #10 is there is no QB in this draft worthy of projecting at the #10. The two QB's that most "so called experts" are projected worthy of being a top 10 pick Blaine Gabbert and Cam Newton, will most likely be gone. I really am not too impressed with those two either anyway.
At this point filling the huge holes in our starting line up with quality players is more important then reaching for a Qb with question marks.
This is a deep draft, so spending such a valuable (#10 pick) at this point on a questionable QB (Locker) when there much less questionable talented players like a OT Anthony Costanzo or even possibly Tyron Smitho or a JJ Watt or Cam Jordan might still be there. There are so many other greater foundation needs to address then a luxury pick of a future franchise Qb that will sit on the bench come September. A day one starter at OT or DE/LB would be ideal at #10.
We have to get value player or else trade back.

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

re:#2 - Yes, there is a variable amount of luck involved in picking a player due to injuries and bust factor. But there is much less of a crap shoot chance a blue chip player like LB Vonn Miller or CB Patrick Petersen is going to be bust than say a Mallet or Locker. It is not a complete crap shoot.

re:#3 - Nobody is saying we do not need a young Qb of the future. What the people that are against taking a QB at #10 is there is no QB in this draft worthy of projecting at the #10. The two QB's that most "so called experts" are projected worthy of being a top 10 pick Blaine Gabbert and Cam Newton, will most likely be gone. I really am not too impressed with those two either anyway.
At this point filling the huge holes in our starting line up with quality players is more important then reaching for a Qb with question marks.
This is a deep draft, so spending such a valuable (#10 pick) at this point on a questionable QB (Locker) when there much less questionable talented players like a OT Anthony Costanzo or even possibly Tyron Smitho or a JJ Watt or Cam Jordan might still be there. There are so many other greater foundation needs to address then a luxury pick of a future franchise Qb that will sit on the bench come September. A day one starter at OT or DE/LB would be ideal at #10.
We have to get value player or else trade back.

I assumed you said we don't need a QB in the draft as you said it numerous times in your post. I personally don't mind if we take a QB high as long as the coaches really want him, but at the same time just look at the suggestion I have in my sig. I would love for us to get help on the DL and OL and draft a QB later. That way you aren't as tied to him next year as you would be a first round QB.

To that point though I definitely won't be disappointed if we go QB high, the coaches would have there reason for doing so. I highly doubt Vonn Miller or Patrick Peterson will be available at 10 anyways.

another point I want to make is that our O-line got better toward the end of the season and it isn't as atrocious as some would have us thing. They had a few good games and hopefully with at least a few weeks of FA we can sign a few players to help out, on top of the players we already have getting better.

[Dirtbag59]

This is my new selling line. If we draft a QB this year, success or not, we won't have to worry about the front office drafting the position for at least the next 3 years. And hey if it works out then you get to draft all the lineman you want for the next 10 to 15 years and no one will challenge you. And best of all I won't have to hear about next years QB class being better for at least the next 2 or 3 years.

[MTK]

Kyle's offense has a lot of bootleg actions in it too, Schaub might not be all that mobile but he's athletic enough to run the boots and move around. I don't see Mallett as a good fit here at all from that perspective.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Kyle's offense has a lot of bootleg actions in it too, Schaub might not be all that mobile but he's athletic enough to run the boots and move around. I don't see Mallett as a good fit here at all from that perspective.

Yeah neither do I. Totally understand what he's saying though and agree this was not MS's offense, however I think the idea was to have MS's run package meet up with KS pass package and I think for what ever reason the OL failed to execute the run package well. Almost no holes were created for the run so the team leaned heavily on KS's passing scheme.

I think it will be interesting to see how the OL does this year after having been in it for a year and having a better understanding of where and how to zone block. But it could just as easily be MS handing over the offense to KS and letting him implement the scheme. Which would mean Dirtbag is correct... the QB's mentioned might not be the type needed for this scheme.

which is why I still like Dalton. He can run, he can pass, he is pretty accurate, and he threw for a lot of yards in college. Plus he's a winner...... "If you aint first your last." lol.

[Landry44]

@IrMitchell

Ryan Mallett is the best qb in this draft. He has played behind a really poor line for the last 2 years and still put up huge numbers against top quality opponents.

@Mattyk

If you actually watched any Arkansas games you would know that they run a lot of bootlegs. You don't have to be a mobile qb to run the bootleg successfully on a consistent basis.