A Burgundy and Gold Obsession
Injuries or not, this one we gotta have.

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Disagree Disagree:  0
Post of the Year Post of the Year:  0
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1

    Join Date
    04-11-09
    Location
    Montclair, VA
    Posts
    4,292
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Virginia Tech

    Default Om Field: The (Sam) Bradford Files

    The Sam Bradford Files

    Whether or not one thinks the Redskins should take a quarterback at the top of April's NFL Draft, or if so, whether or not Oklahoma's Sam Bradford should be that QB, one thing is certain ... the young man nicknamed "The Big Easy" is going to be a big part of the conversation around these parts for at least the next 85 days.

    Given he's the clear early front-runner as the Redskins pick (at #4 overall) in the annual mock draft avalanche ... figured it was time to start sizing him up.

    More...
    Last edited by Om; 01-27-10 at 03:55 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  2. #2

    Join Date
    06-30-09
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    3,960
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    My big issue is that #4 seems really high to draft a guy that you plan on riding the pine for a year. With the holes this team has, I am of the mindset that whoever you draft a #4 has to play as at least a situational guy on opening day 2010 (and I don't count holding for FGs).

    Add to that the idea that putting a rookie QB behind the current O-line appears to me to be a form of punishment likely covered by the Geneva Convention and I have a tough time with picking him.

    However, that might be too short sighted of me. I'm just thinking of all fuss last year over 3 second round guys who reportedly couldn't get their stuff together enough to contribute at all their first year.

    Just sayin'.
    Last edited by Neophyte; 01-27-10 at 04:07 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    Subscribe to our BGO Mailing List

    hailus redskinnus
    COYS

  3. #3

    Join Date
    04-11-09
    Location
    Montclair, VA
    Posts
    4,292
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Virginia Tech

    Default

    Understand the thought process, brother, but would ask you this: would you start any quarterback as a rookie? If you had drafted Peyton Manning, would you have sat him a year or played him? Me, I never start a rookie QB unless all my other options have broken legs.

    Not saying that's the right approach, just mine.

    To me, then, it doesn't matter where I take said QB. If I'm convinced I have a shot at a true Franchise QB I can build around for the next 10-12 years, I'm taking him the second I'm on the clock. And then I'm sitting him for at least a full season to cook.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    Subscribe to our BGO Mailing List

    Eschew obfuscation.

  4. #4
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,121
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default

    Both of you make good points. I want to win now so therefore I want OL. That said, I really don't have a problem if Shanahan wants Bradford. Mark Sanchez led the Jets to the AFC Championship Game his rookie year, with a little help from Nate Kaeding, and you could see him getting better as the season went on. I think Bradford is probably as good as Sanchez. If we take him, I sure as hell hope he is.

    I'm not worried about his shoulder after hearing Brian Griese say he came back from the same surgery as strong as ever. I AM a little worried about what it will do to our QB situation. If the Skins draft Campbell's replacement, why in the world would he come back? I guess he won't have much choice in an uncapped year if the Skins offer him a first round tender. Not sure who would match that or part with a #1 pick so, while we may have leverage, is it a good idea?

    If Campbell leaves via RFA or trade then who is gonna block for Bradford? Wouldn't you have to start him if Campbell leaves? No sense in getting the guy killed. With a new OL coach and new blocking schemes you KNOW there will be mistakes along the line. Our OL is not as good as the Jets and Bradford wouldn't get the protection Sanchez got so that has me worried. Hence, drafting OL might make more sense.

    Lots of other things to factor in though, like grabbing a FA or two along the line or bringing in a vet QB like Garcia for a year if Campbell leaves. I trust the Shanahans have a plan and a non-capped year could put us on the fast track to getting it up and running.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  5. #5
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-28-09
    Location
    Yorktown, VA
    Posts
    2,015
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I guess I am old school and prefer letting the rookie QB carry the clipboard at first. A case can be made to let them play with Sanchez, Ryan, and Flacco being examples.

    For every example of starting a rookie QB there is a couple that went belly up under this approach.

    I look at guys like Rogers as a prime example to let a rookie QB watch and learn the game. Rogers had the advantage of watching Brett Farve and learning the game from him. Rypien for years always got some wierd injury and spent season on IR until Gibbs felt he was ready.

    If we take Bradford then that is direction team takes. I would like to see him watch a vet, like Campbell, for a year or two and learn how to read NFL defenses. Good things come to those that wait.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  6. #6

    Join Date
    04-11-09
    Location
    Montclair, VA
    Posts
    4,292
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Virginia Tech

    Default

    Back in the day pro coaches used to say it took five years to make an NFL QB. Think about that ... five years. And that was a generation ago--the 60's, 70's--before NFL defenses made the quantuum leap they did in complexity beginning in the 80's.

    With the money involved today, the idea of patiently developing ANY premium player for that long before expecting a real return is no longer an option--everyone gets that. I'd like to think that those who take the pro game even moderately seriously understand that one or even two years is just plain common sense, however, particularly for a QB.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    Subscribe to our BGO Mailing List

    Eschew obfuscation.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    06-30-09
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    3,960
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Om View Post
    Understand the thought process, brother, but would ask you this: would you start any quarterback as a rookie? If you had drafted Peyton Manning, would you have sat him a year or played him? Me, I never start a rookie QB unless all my other options have broken legs.

    Not saying that's the right approach, just mine.

    To me, then, it doesn't matter where I take said QB. If I'm convinced I have a shot at a true Franchise QB I can build around for the next 10-12 years, I'm taking him the second I'm on the clock. And then I'm sitting him for at least a full season to cook.
    No Om, I am not a fan of starting Rookie QBs either and that is very much at the center of my thought process about this draft. If we were in the opposite position and had something of a stockpile of picks with 4 or 5 spread out over the first 3 rounds, I wouldn't have have much problem with taking a QB in the first and only letting him off the bench for mop up duty.

    The problem is we don't. Worse, with the exception of the 2008 draft, we haven't for a long time meaning this team is not only bad but way behind in the "young" talent department. With the exception of TE and SS this team isn't 2 deep anywhere and often not 1 deep in terms of a legit NFL starter.

    If you are absolutely, positively sure Bradford is a franchise guy then sure. My problem is I just don't believe anyone can be that sure and a miss at #4 this year will set this team back seasons.
    Last edited by Neophyte; 01-28-10 at 12:16 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    Subscribe to our BGO Mailing List

    hailus redskinnus
    COYS

  8. #8
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,121
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Om View Post
    Back in the day pro coaches used to say it took five years to make an NFL QB. Think about that ... five years. And that was a generation ago--the 60's, 70's--before NFL defenses made the quantuum leap they did in complexity beginning in the 80's.

    With the money involved today, the idea of patiently developing ANY premium player for that long before expecting a real return is no longer an option--everyone gets that. I'd like to think that those who take the pro game even moderately seriously understand that one or even two years is just plain common sense, however, particularly for a QB.
    Om, while defenses have made quantum leaps so have college QB's. They watch way more film and are coached up a LOT more than their counterparts in the 60's and 70's were. I agree that some guys are just not ready to play immediately at the NFL level for a while. Bradford might be one of them.

    A lot has to do with the team around them. Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez were able to come in and be successful right away because they were on good teams. Peyton Manning started right away on a crappy team and, while he struggled for a couple of years, really took off. Dan Marino sat behind David Woodley his rookie year but started his second year and the rest is history. Dan played on a pretty good team.

    I know I'm talking HOF QB's here but some guys are just ready quicker than others. I guess it's up to the coach to decide how he wants to work things. Given Shanahan's history with Cutler I don't see Bradford, IF he's the guy, playing much, if at all, in 2010. The 2011 season will depend on how well Campbell, or whatever veteran QB, plays in 2010. If somehow we make the playoffs then Bradford would likely get a second year to sit. If not then 2011 would be the REAL start of the Sam Bradford era.
    Last edited by Jimbo; 01-28-10 at 05:16 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Drew Brees: Consideration for Sam Bradford?
    By Bulldog's Twin in forum Sons of Washington
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-28-10, 01:57 PM
  2. 57 Mocks Munched! Suh Consensus No. 1, Bradford for Skins
    By PennSkinsfan in forum Sons of Washington
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-14-10, 10:31 PM
  3. From the 'It Could Be Worse' Files
    By Boone in forum Sons of Washington
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-22-09, 07:35 PM

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •