IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

[skinsfaninok]

Heck I hope RG starts all season and becomes a very good QB but we all know that probably wont happen

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by cdskins26

Do you think locker could beat out grossman and start day 1?

No, nor would I want him to if we selected him. As a refererence Cutler didn't play until week 13 his rookie year. Griese threw 3 passes in one random game during his rookie year.

Still I would rather our QB have sometime to learn weather it's most of his rookie year or into his second year. The trick is time everything up. QB's take two to three years till they really get it at the NFL level. Really good lineman like Trent take about half a season, while most lineman need a year or two. Receivers take about a year. Personally I never believed the whole 3 years for receivers. If they get it you'll see sooner rather then later.

[WaldSkins]

Id either like to take Andy Dalton in the third this year or Landry Jones in the second next year.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by WaldSkins

Id either like to take Andy Dalton in the third this year or Landry Jones in the second next year.

What if we took a QB at #10 though?

[SOUL-SKINS]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

What if we took a QB at #10 though?

It floors me that people don't understand this question. Yeah I get it alot of us don't wanna take a QB at the 10th pick but this question CLEARLY states "IF" we take a QB....... I've read over 15 post saying no I wouldn't take a qb or we need to address the Oline or Dline first!!! OMFG REALLY.

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

It floors me that people don't understand this question. Yeah I get it alot of us don't wanna take a QB at the 10th pick but this question CLEARLY states "IF" we take a QB....... I've read over 15 post saying no I wouldn't take a qb or we need to address the Oline or Dline first!!! OMFG REALLY.

Yes people are stupid. No suprise there.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SOUL-SKINS

It floors me that people don't understand this question. Yeah I get it alot of us don't wanna take a QB at the 10th pick but this question CLEARLY states "IF" we take a QB....... I've read over 15 post saying no I wouldn't take a qb or we need to address the Oline or Dline first!!! OMFG REALLY.

People can read and they do understand the question. People do not like being forced into a decision that they do not agree with. They feel that they are intelligent and want to be heard. Telling them to not respond to the question is ridiculous. Asking someone for their opinion but telling them only if "condition a" exists is not really asking someone for their opinion.

Perhaps the better way of doing this would have been to ask "Who are the best QB's available this year?" and "Which of those are worthy of a top 10 pick?"

To suggest that the Skins take a QB at number 10 and then to ask who I want is not fair because I do not want a QB nor do others on here.

I want the BPA... period if it just so happens that the BPA when we pick is a QB then so be it. In my opinion however, there is not a single QB in this draft that is worth a top 10 pick so taking a QB at 10 is a reach.

For shits and giggles if I have to take a QB at the 10 spot then I am going to take the guy that I believe is the best QB in the Draft (See previous posts).

Go ahead and laugh now but I would rather look like the fool now and the genius later than the genius during the draft and the fool later. This QB class is extremely weak. Tyrod Taylor will be the only one with a job 5 years from now.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Yes people are stupid. No suprise there.

You mean surprise?

Angry, it's called a hypothetical question. To say that you can't ask a question where conditions exist is simply not true. We have plenty of threads talking about the draft in general, who will be there at our pick, who/what position we should take, etc. This thread is designed to look at the QBs only, and there's not a problem with that. If people want to be 'heard' there are multiple other threads they can post in. Keeping a thread on topic is important. If I read through this thread, I expect to find insight on QBs, not debate on if we should or shouldn't draft a QB.

Hypothetical threads play an important part in a Redskins off-season and it is perfectly acceptable to post a question that limits responses.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Angry

People can read and they do understand the question. People do not like being forced into a decision that they do not agree with. They feel that they are intelligent and want to be heard. Telling them to not respond to the question is ridiculous. Asking someone for their opinion but telling them only if "condition a" exists is not really asking someone for their opinion.

Perhaps the better way of doing this would have been to ask "Who are the best QB's available this year?" and "Which of those are worthy of a top 10 pick?"

To suggest that the Skins take a QB at number 10 and then to ask who I want is not fair because I do not want a QB nor do others on here.

I want the BPA... period if it just so happens that the BPA when we pick is a QB then so be it. In my opinion however, there is not a single QB in this draft that is worth a top 10 pick so taking a QB at 10 is a reach.

For shits and giggles if I have to take a QB at the 10 spot then I am going to take the guy that I believe is the best QB in the Draft (See previous posts).

Go ahead and laugh now but I would rather look like the fool now and the genius later than the genius during the draft and the fool later. This QB class is extremely weak. Tyrod Taylor will be the only one with a job 5 years from now.

There will be plenty more threads and polls between now and draft day where we'll ask "Who do you want to draft?" "Should we trade down/" "Should we trade up?" "Who's the best available QB" "Do we even need a QB"

But with so much speculation about the Redskins taking a QB at #10, I simply asked if that did happen who would you want the Redskins to take a #10.

I don't understand why this question has to cause such consternation.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure why you choose to post in this manner and to be honest i'm a bit surprised and dissappointed.
But, to each their own.

Wow um okay, why would i do that?
My point is that having watched the USC game i know that Locker had 5 drops.
If you look only at the stats you don't get the context.
And the context is that Washington is a re-building program w/ limited talent on offense outside of Locker.

-Judging by your response i take you aren't interested in discussing the way Locker played in the actual game?


Those predictions are close to meaningless.
One could easily have a model that projected QBs from college w/ high comp% that either went undrafted or were total busts in the NFL.

Ugh.

The point was that you made a argument based around Locker's dropped passes. It's not the first time I've heard the argument; Todd McShay (for example) made the same one before he changed his opinion on Locker. "He's accurate, but the numbers don't show it. You'll just have to trust me on this one." It's not a unique or insane argument, it's just weak.

There is a standard expectation for ability for a college quarterback who wants to be drafted in 2011, and Locker falls well short of that standard. That's what his whole body of work says. I am VERY interested in looking at Locker's film to see what he does well and not so well. I am far less interested in trying to cross my eyes while watching said film to see a passer with requisite NFL accuracy. Which apparently is something that Bill Walsh didn't value.

I'm perfectly willing to give you that Locker had five dropped passes in the USC game against him if you're willing to give me the fact that, in the course of a college career, that doesn't change much (he won the game after all).

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

There will be plenty more threads and polls between now and draft day where we'll ask "Who do you want to draft?" "Should we trade down/" "Should we trade up?" "Who's the best available QB" "Do we even need a QB"

But with so much speculation about the Redskins taking a QB at #10, I simply asked if that did happen who would you want the Redskins to take a #10.

I don't understand why this question has to cause such consternation.

Because we have been burned by drafting QB's in the first round.

Because we are weaker at so many more positions. We do not have the tools to surround the QB with to be successful.

Because drafting a QB in the first round does not put an impactfull player on the field right away. We know that it will take 2 or 3 years in the Kyle Shannahan system to start.

Drafting a QB with the 1st pick does not support the "win now" mentality.

[SmootSmack]

You just want to be difficult I guess

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ugh.

The point was that you made a argument based around Locker's dropped passes. It's not the first time I've heard the argument; Todd McShay (for example) made the same one before he changed his opinion on Locker. "He's accurate, but the numbers don't show it. You'll just have to trust me on this one." It's not a unique or insane argument, it's just weak.

There is a standard expectation for ability for a college quarterback who wants to be drafted in 2011, and Locker falls well short of that standard. That's what his whole body of work says. I am VERY interested in looking at Locker's film to see what he does well and not so well. I am far less interested in trying to cross my eyes while watching said film to see a passer with requisite NFL accuracy. Which apparently is something that Bill Walsh didn't value.

I'm perfectly willing to give you that Locker had five dropped passes in the USC game against him if you're willing to give me the fact that, in the course of a college career, that doesn't change much (he won the game after all).

So his 35 INTs (had 53 TDs) were not from inaccuracy, but due to his WRs bobbling the ball into the defenders' hands?

In his Jr. and Sr. seasons, he had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio, which is not exactly a #10-pick type of stat line. 17 TDs and 9 INTs this season.

Mallet on the other hand had closer to a 3:1 ratio with his 32 TDs, 12 INTs.


Sure Locker is no Cutler statistically, or even the 2010 McNabb with more INTs than TDs, but we should expect better numbers from a QB we're talking about taking at #10. Locker seemed to have regressed slightly in his senior season and hurt his draft value, which should have gone up after deciding to stay a fourth year.

Mallett and Newton, along with the obvious Luck and Gabbard who will be gone at #10 are all better picks than Locker in Round 1. I'd perfer Andy Dalton (TCU) over Locker as well.


I don't even think Locker is a First Round pick.


Personally, I say keep McNabb another year and keep working on that O-line, but that's not the question in the thread...so Mallett.

[skinsnut]

Smootsmack,
I think this is a great thread...it's pretty clear to me....otherwise you would have said, who do you want to take with the 10th pick..but you cant possibly poll the huge # of options.

I don't neccessarily agree with the best player available, since that was Vinny's angle.
We just don't have the luxury to take the best player if the guy happens to be a TE, LT or SS.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Buster

Mallett and Newton, along with the obvious Luck and Gabbard who will be gone at #10 are all better picks than Locker in Round 1. I'd perfer Andy Dalton (TCU) over Locker as well.

You stopped at 4 there, but I could keep going.