Bradford/Clausen now split among Mock Drafts

[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.

[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.

[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

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.

I have a feeling if Bradford is there, we will take him. I don't think he's going to make it there though, and I don't think Shanahan will trade up for him.

Realistically though, these are pretty exclusive options. At least in the context of the argument that, "we won't be picking in the top five next year", which is hopefully accurate. This is the single best chance we will ever have to fix the offensive line via the draft. It's also the best draft position we will ever have to land a quarterback of choice. There, of course, will be other times where we can address one thing or the other, but some issue is going to be put off until later.

To me, Colt McCoy is the one way we could have our cake (offensive line at No. 4), and eat it too (potential franchise quarterback, at least as good a shot as Bradford). A lot of people don't see him in the same way I do though, so I don't have a problem with them saying that if we pass on a QB at No. 4, we can't expect to get a future star at the position in this draft.

I don't have a problem with that. If the line becomes a strength for us in 2010, suddenly the quarterbacks in future drafts who would be a good fit here become way more numerous. As well as the fact that the current guy might post a 90.0+ QB rating for the first time.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I have a feeling if Bradford is there, we will take him. I don't think he's going to make it there though, and I don't think Shanahan will trade up for him.

Realistically though, these are pretty exclusive options. At least in the context of the argument that, "we won't be picking in the top five next year", which is hopefully accurate. This is the single best chance we will ever have to fix the offensive line via the draft. It's also the best draft position we will ever have to land a quarterback of choice. There, of course, will be other times where we can address one thing or the other, but some issue is going to be put off until later.

To me, Colt McCoy is the one way we could have our cake (offensive line at No. 4), and eat it too (potential franchise quarterback, at least as good a shot as Bradford). A lot of people don't see him in the same way I do though, so I don't have a problem with them saying that if we pass on a QB at No. 4, we can't expect to get a future star at the position in this draft.

I don't have a problem with that. If the line becomes a strength for us in 2010, suddenly the quarterbacks in future drafts who would be a good fit here become way more numerous. As well as the fact that the current guy might post a 90.0+ QB rating for the first time.

I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?

If Bradford had stayed healthy AND as productive as the past, he would have been the unquestioned No. 1. But if you take his (small sample) stats from three games, and prorate them into a 13 game season, he's probably dropping to the fringe of the first round. It's possible that Bradford might actually be getting the benefit of the doubt due to his injury.

[PHazard]

I see where ur goin wit this man but think about if we go by BPA (best player available). What if in EVERY round the BPA is better than the top Olineman left. Then we end up with the same line as last year. Due to just how terrible our line is, even if we hafta take a small reach, we hafta change the line from last year.

[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 SmootSmack

What if Berry is there at 4? Which is very possible. Do you take him over OL or QB?

Sorry, I missed this post when I viewed the rest of the thread.

Yes, I'd take Berry at No. 4 if there was a huge value dropoff between him and any other offensive player.

I don't believe safety to be a deal-breaking concern, and to me, a LaRon Landry that can't develop as a free safety is a valueless player. This pick would more or less be an admission that we're done trying to salvage him as a player, we'll just trade him and move on with Berry back there.

I would find it hard to pass up a golden chance to draft a franchise lineman, but I have Berry graded a lot higher than my top QB, so that would be an easy pick if there weren't a slam-dunk left tackle in the eyes of our evaluators.

And hopefully, we could pick up a late second or an early third in a trade for Landry and use the pick on an offensive player, if we went the Berry route at four.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by PHazard

I see where ur goin wit this man but think about if we go by BPA (best player available). What if in EVERY round the BPA is better than the top Olineman left. Then we end up with the same line as last year. Due to just how terrible our line is, even if we hafta take a small reach, we hafta change the line from last year.

Exactly. That's the point. The logic fail, in my eyes, is that the second round (37th overall) is being viewed as a sufficient time to start addressing needs at the expense of potential draft values. That's the point of desperation in the eyes of many.

And you can draw the desperation line there. Maybe we don't need to look exclusively at tackles at No. 4. This is a logical position. But I don't understand what makes the second round the holy-grail-of-crap-we-haven't-drafted-a-tackle-in-five-years.

You've framed it perfectly: at some point it becomes completely preposterous that you wouldn't draft a quality lineman no matter who is available as a draft steal. For a lot of people, I think that point is going to be in the second round of this upcoming draft. For me, that point was October, 2009. And neither of those perspectives is more or less "right" than the person whose threshold for not drafting a tackle is out in 2012.

I just think people are going to be pissed if they have to watch more awful Redskins line play in 2010. I'm going to be pissed if I watch another unit that I know is not as good as it should be at this point.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I hear what you're saying and if I were more convinced on McCoy I'd probably agree with you more than I currently do. If Bradford would have stayed healthy this year he would probably be the unquestioned #1 pick coming into the draft. If we believe that his shoulder is healthy then him at #4 is a steal. McCoy seems to have either slipped or remained stagnant in the evaluations of him as a pro QB during the '09 CFB season. I think he can be a DECENT QB but I don't get 'star' when I watch him. Bradford reminds me of Carson Palmer when he came out. Who is your McCoy comparison?

The #1 McCoy comparison is Chad Pennington.

There isn't really a close No. 2, but Brian Brohm is up there as a comparable who just didn't pan out. Graham Harrell is another strong college comparable, but I don't think we're ever going to have an NFL projection for him, despite my personal objections. I had a second round grade on Harrell, and he never even got a contract with an NFL team.

Clausen projects as some mix of Campbell, Matt Leinart, Roethlisberger, and Aaron Rodgers, though probably closer to Campbell in the yards per attempt category (and sack rate, to his credit...the other three seem to sense pressure and move into it).

I really don't have a very good Bradford comparable at all. Statistically, Roethlisberger is a lot closer than anyone else (Leinart is right behind him), but those two are very, very different players. And a lot of Big Ben's college stats would not have predicted his NFL success. He's just a really weird draft comparable in general, mostly because if you told me a guy would be "the next Roethlisberger", I would probably pass.

You're also going to get Brees' name thrown around because of his recent success and spread-offenseness. All three (McCoy, Bradford, and Clausen) have elements of Brees in their games, but again, if we're talking about draft profiles, none of these players are anywhere near Brees. I think he's on McCoy's top seven mostly for a similar number of college starts, but anyone out of the top three I would estimate has little to no predictive value (not that my system is proven anyway, so take it all with a grain of salt). Brees is also a much different player than when he came into the league.

[PHazard]

The power of perception is ridiculous. i know everyone likes to have an opinion and stand by it. But be honest, since the end of season/mock drafts/espn/profootballtalk etc. has anyone kept one solid vision for this QB situation?

This has been hard for me. When everything started i said we need an OT @ #4. Gimmie Okung! Im a Colt Brennan supporter so i figured he could battle in camp again and hopefully beat out Jason Campbell for the spot. Being a CB supporter, you get alot of shit on this board. And even through all that shit, i stood strong. Then the 1st Mock Draft came out.

SAM BRADFORD TO THE REDSKINS says Mel Kiper! So now i get down because my big Colt Brennan plan isnt workin out how i wanted it to. Okay no biggie, ill check out film on him. Did sum research, very accurate, prototypical size (cuz hes added weight), is very smart with the football. despite his cons, Injury (not nearly as bad as drew brees's) and spread offense (but played a pro offense freshmen year), i liked what i saw and convinced myself that if we got bradford, id be okay with it.

JIMMY CLAUSEN TO THE SKINS says Mel Kiper! What the hell? What the hell could have happened that propelled Jimmy Clausen higher than Sam Bradford? So i go and look at tape, also accurate, extremely competitive, pro style offense for 3 years, threw 28 td's and 4 int's behing a bad Oline. Now despite his flaws, weaker arm and maturity issues, i convinced myself, that if we Draft Jimmy Clausen id be okay with it.

Now when i researched bradford and compared him to clausen, i liked bradford more. And when i researched clausen and compared him to bradford, i liked clausen more. When i clamored for Brennan, i spoke about the "IT" factor. So when comparing the two QB's, i realized there are TWO different types of IT factor. Theres the Peyton Manning IT factor (smart, lead by example, support your team) and theres the Phillip Rivers IT factor (Big RAH RAH guy, attitude, big voice, celebrates) Bradford looks to have the Manning factor while Clausen looks to have the Rivers factor. But at the same time, i would put Jason Campbell in the Manning IT factor failures and i would put Ryan Leaf in the Rivers IT factor failures. So nothing is guaranteed.

And now someone mentioned today that Kyle Shanahan likes Colt Brennan and his attitude/what he brings to the table. It may or may not even be true but it made me realize how far i had let other opinions influence how i felt. So after that whirlwind of opinions, imma go back to hoping Brennan comes out our starter and we grab Okung or Davis with the #4 pick (whoever is rated better) Perception is everything and i trust Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan to do what is right for the Washington Redskins. HTTR!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by PHazard

The power of perception is ridiculous. i know everyone likes to have an opinion and stand by it. But be honest, since the end of season/mock drafts/espn/profootballtalk etc. has anyone kept one solid vision for this QB situation?

Yes.

And I sure as hell hope the FO has.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by PHazard

The power of perception is ridiculous. i know everyone likes to have an opinion and stand by it. But be honest, since the end of season/mock drafts/espn/profootballtalk etc. has anyone kept one solid vision for this QB situation?

This has been hard for me. When everything started i said we need an OT @ #4. Gimmie Okung! Im a Colt Brennan supporter so i figured he could battle in camp again and hopefully beat out Jason Campbell for the spot. Being a CB supporter, you get alot of shit on this board. And even through all that shit, i stood strong. Then the 1st Mock Draft came out.

SAM BRADFORD TO THE REDSKINS says Mel Kiper! So now i get down because my big Colt Brennan plan isnt workin out how i wanted it to. Okay no biggie, ill check out film on him. Did sum research, very accurate, prototypical size (cuz hes added weight), is very smart with the football. despite his cons, Injury (not nearly as bad as drew brees's) and spread offense (but played a pro offense freshmen year), i liked what i saw and convinced myself that if we got bradford, id be okay with it.

JIMMY CLAUSEN TO THE SKINS says Mel Kiper! What the hell? What the hell could have happened that propelled Jimmy Clausen higher than Sam Bradford? So i go and look at tape, also accurate, extremely competitive, pro style offense for 3 years, threw 28 td's and 4 int's behing a bad Oline. Now despite his flaws, weaker arm and maturity issues, i convinced myself, that if we Draft Jimmy Clausen id be okay with it.

Now when i researched bradford and compared him to clausen, i liked bradford more. And when i researched clausen and compared him to bradford, i liked clausen more. When i clamored for Brennan, i spoke about the "IT" factor. So when comparing the two QB's, i realized there are TWO different types of IT factor. Theres the Peyton Manning IT factor (smart, lead by example, support your team) and theres the Phillip Rivers IT factor (Big RAH RAH guy, attitude, big voice, celebrates) Bradford looks to have the Manning factor while Clausen looks to have the Rivers factor. But at the same time, i would put Jason Campbell in the Manning IT factor failures and i would put Ryan Leaf in the Rivers IT factor failures. So nothing is guaranteed.

And now someone mentioned today that Kyle Shanahan likes Colt Brennan and his attitude/what he brings to the table. It may or may not even be true but it made me realize how far i had let other opinions influence how i felt. So after that whirlwind of opinions, imma go back to hoping Brennan comes out our starter and we grab Okung or Davis with the #4 pick (whoever is rated better) Perception is everything and i trust Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan to do what is right for the Washington Redskins. HTTR!

Where did you copy this from?