A Burgundy and Gold Obsession
The future is NOW.

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Disagree Disagree:  0
Post of the Year Post of the Year:  0
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-14-09
    Posts
    208
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default WPC: Reasons for and against selecting a quarterback at four

    http://web.warpathconfidential.com/?p=3123

    Reasons for and against selecting a quarterback at four

    By John Pappas
    Warpath Confidential Editor

    Its the offseason in Washington, meaning the Redskins are getting set to do what they do best; win in the spring. With an uncapped year looming, and the fourth overall pick in the draft, rumors will soon be flying as to which free agents and draft candidates the team is interested in.

    In fact, it has already begun.

    The biggest single question surrounding the Redskins this year is what they plan to do with the fourth overall selection. The team has grave needs at both offensive tackle spots, guard, as well as in the defensive secondary. This is before we talk about running back (if Clinton Portis is released).

    Then there is the quarterback position.

    Jason Campbell has taken more than his share of heat. Last year this time, the team was staying up late figuring out how to get rid of him. First with Jay Cutler in free agency, and then seeking to move up in the draft to take Mark Sanchez. After leading the team to a 4-12 record, it is difficult to envision the team not at least considering a better option than Campbell. The new coach says he is excited to work with Campbell. But this could be lip service until the next guy is ready.

    Click the link above to read the entire article...
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  2. #2
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-19-09
    Location
    Bethesda Md
    Posts
    6,305
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    quarterback choice this year reminds me too much of 1994 when Norv pushed the envelope in a weak draft where Heath Shuler and Trent Dilfer were the top QB selections.

    the truth is there are no franchise quarterbacks available that are healthy and don't have significant issues translating their game to the next level, so the intelligent decision is to pass and select the franchise OT.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  3. #3

    Vescere bracis meis

    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Mechanicsville, VA
    Posts
    804
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    VCU

    Default

    I agree….mostly. I think we do ourselves a disservice by not keeping our options open. Not tipping our hand will be the key element here.

    We want to have the flexibility to select any player or combination of players and still make everything work. I don’t want us to lock in on one player and then have everything go to hell when a team in front of us picks that player or we get an offer we can’t refuse from a team who wants to move up.

    I want the brain trust to let all of the other teams think we want to draft EVERY player mentioned in the top 10. If we cause a little doubt in the mind of a team who picks a couple of slots below us who have locked on to a single player it can only help when they call to make a trade to move up. If we end up trading down and selecting a Center and QB or RT and G in the first, or some combination of those players, instead of just QB or just a LT, I think we’d be better off.

    In order to be in a position to trade down we need to hard sell our interest in guys at the top. If that makes any sense.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin.
    H. L. Mencken

  4. #4
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    02-02-10
    Posts
    6
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog's Twin View Post
    quarterback choice this year reminds me too much of 1994 when Norv pushed the envelope in a weak draft where Heath Shuler and Trent Dilfer were the top QB selections.

    the truth is there are no franchise quarterbacks available that are healthy and don't have significant issues translating their game to the next level, so the intelligent decision is to pass and select the franchise OT.
    I disagree with you that there are no franchise QB's in this draft class. I believe Bradford has all of the tools needed to be a very successful NFL QB. If Bradford didn't get hurt this past season he would be right up there with Suh to be drafted #1.

    I dont think I have seen a QB come out since Peyton Manning that was as accurate as Bradford. The only knocks on him are that he is injury prone. I dont see one shoulder injury that he re-injured probably b/c he cameback to soon as being injury prone.

    Then again neither of us really know until we see Bradford play on Sunday. I do think your opinion might be different if Bradford didnt get hurt in 2009 and was able to once again put up insane numbers.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    RIP Sean Taylor 1983-2007

  5. #5
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-19-09
    Location
    Bethesda Md
    Posts
    6,305
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Well, that's the question. Is Bradford healthy?

    Want to gamble $60M on it? Want to pass on a franchise LT who has NO outstanding issues and is a safer bet for a team that needs to avoid risk after the selection of Malcolm Kelly in 2008?
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  6. #6
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    02-02-10
    Posts
    6
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog's Twin View Post
    Well, that's the question. Is Bradford healthy?

    Want to gamble $60M on it? Want to pass on a franchise LT who has NO outstanding issues and is a safer bet for a team that needs to avoid risk after the selection of Malcolm Kelly in 2008?
    Well if Dr. James Andrews tells the Skins Bradford is healthy I would easily risk the money for a chance at a QB who could lead us to where we need to go. We have an advantage in knowing if Bradford is healthy. IMO I think the shoulder injury isn't a problem. We will know soon enough if it is or not.

    I wouldn't compare Malcolm Kelly who had problems with both knees to Bradford and his shoulder injury. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

    If the Skins select Okung I wont be upset. The Skins need offensive lineman. I believe they also need a quarterback. Whoever the Skins think is the better overall prospect will be the Skins pick at #4.

    I'm really high on Sam Bradford as you can tell by my screen name. I also realize that we do need offensive lineman. I believe we can still get a lineman in round 2 while getting a potenial franchise QB in Bradford.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    RIP Sean Taylor 1983-2007

  7. #7
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Eastern Shore
    Posts
    946
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    4
    Navy Salisbury

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog's Twin View Post
    Well, that's the question. Is Bradford healthy?

    Want to gamble $60M on it? Want to pass on a franchise LT who has NO outstanding issues and is a safer bet for a team that needs to avoid risk after the selection of Malcolm Kelly in 2008?
    Actually, the more important question:
    Will Bradford stay healthy?

    And can he take the beating that Jason Campbell took with no O-line in 2009? Because without a serious upgrade in the O-line most QBs will be pounded just like Campbell was.
    And that especially means LT.

    There are still some that believe that Levi Jones was an adequate LT this season.
    Sure he was, if you consider DeMarcus Ware hanging off of Jason on many plays adequate.

    #4 is a huge pick that can make or set back a team for years. If Shanahan/Allen believe that Bradford is the guy then, I won't complain. But Okung seems to fit exactly what Shanahan wants in his O-linemen. The guy is an elite pass blocker and looks like is familiar with zone blocking (based on what I saw in the OSU/Ole Miss game). To me Okung is the safe bet and is a day one starter. Bradford with the Redskins maybe not so much.........

    That's my opinion and no slight to Bradford.
    Last edited by The Burgundy Ghost; 02-02-10 at 11:12 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    Formerly known as Walking Deadman

  8. #8

    Join Date
    04-11-09
    Location
    Greensboro, NC
    Posts
    16,740
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Blog Entries
    93
    Marine Corps Virginia

    Default

    Even if you go with Bradford, you don't have to play him one damn down in 2010. Whether you pick a QB this year, next, the year after, or go after a veteran - you'll still need to rebuild the O-line. Rebuilding the O-line and going after a franchise QB aren't mutually exclusive goals. They only look like they are if you're trying to do it all in one draft

    The problem with not going after a QB now is, there's a good chance with a more solid coaching staff and favorable schedule, we don't sniff this kind of draft position for a long time. If you think Bradford's got top NFL-caliber skills, I don't think you can avoid considering him seriously because of 'an injury history' (short of something catastrophic we don't yet know about). Lots of guys get hurt in college and aren't doomed for their career. I think it's kind of a silly reason not to rule a gifted guy out (again, short of irreparable ligament damage or something) on that basis alone.

    On the injury thing, I'll also say I think it's much less of a critical consideration for a QB than say a running back or cornerback - how often have you heard of a college QB not making it in the NFL due to an injury history? I'm sure there are examples, but they don't leap to mind like they would for other positions...

    And as for the sieve that was our O-line putting a first round QB pick at great risk (citing the beating JC took), I'd point out that Campbell was partly responsible for many of the hits he took this year (and throughout his career) both because of his slow wind-up, inability to find an outlet reciever, and stubbornness in holding on to the ball. The ever-rotating O-line was a big part of the problem, but I think JC was particularly susceptible to taking a lot of hits. And when and where you put a rookie QB into the mix is entirely under the coaches control. There would be nothing stopping us from taking a Bradford or Claussen, have them carry the clipboard for a year while they learn and we rebuild the line, then get them out there for real in year two. It's not unheard of.

    Bottom line, if you think there's a franchise QB at #4, I think it's hard to resist going after one.
    Last edited by Boone; 02-02-10 at 11:53 PM.
    0 0 0 0
     
     
    Subscribe to our BGO Mailing List

    You ain't bonafide

  9. #9
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    07-15-09
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)

    Default

    I can certainly understand taking a guy like Bradford at #4 but it would still frustrate me no end to potentially have a high pick like that sit on his butt throughout the 2010 season.

    I may be in the minority but I believe, if we draft a couple of Offensive Lineman in the first two rounds, we can field a winning team in 2010. Hope springs eternal during the offseason.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

  10. #10
    BGObsessed
    Join Date
    10-03-09
    Posts
    81
    Post Responses
    Thanks, Likes, & More
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boone View Post
    Even if you go with Bradford, you don't have to play him one damn down in 2010. Whether you pick a QB this year, next, the year after, or go after a veteran - you'll still need to rebuild the O-line. Rebuilding the O-line and going after a franchise QB aren't mutually exclusive goals. They only look like they are if you're trying to do it all in one draft

    The problem with not going after a QB now is, there's a good chance with a more solid coaching staff and favorable schedule, we don't sniff this kind of draft position for a long time. If you think Bradford's got top NFL-caliber skills, I don't think you can avoid considering him seriously because of 'an injury history' (short of something catastrophic we don't yet know about). Lots of guys get hurt in college and aren't doomed for their career. I think it's kind of a silly reason not to rule a gifted guy out (again, short of irreparable ligament damage or something) on that basis alone.

    On the injury thing, I'll also say I think it's much less of a critical consideration for a QB than say a running back or cornerback - how often have you heard of a college QB not making it in the NFL due to an injury history? I'm sure there are examples, but they don't leap to mind like they would for other positions...

    And as for the sieve that was our O-line putting a first round QB pick at great risk (citing the beating JC took), I'd point out that Campbell was partly responsible for many of the hits he took this year (and throughout his career) both because of his slow wind-up, inability to find an outlet reciever, and stubbornness in holding on to the ball. The ever-rotating O-line was a big part of the problem, but I think JC was particularly susceptible to taking a lot of hits. And when and where you put a rookie QB into the mix is entirely under the coaches control. There would be nothing stopping us from taking a Bradford or Claussen, have them carry the clipboard for a year while they learn and we rebuild the line, then get them out there for real in year two. It's not unheard of.

    Bottom line, if you think there's a franchise QB at #4, I think it's hard to resist going after one.
    perfectly said.
    0 0 0 0
     
     

 

 

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
  •