Skinscast: What they should do, what they will do

Not interested in a Ramsey debate, but I will say that if you think many QBs could have survived behind that line in that crappy system, well, we will just have to agree to disagree. I never said Patrick was a good QB, merely that he did not have the pieces around him that could have made him slightly more successful than the enormous bust we remember him as.

Here's the way I look at this. Is any QB we pick this draft going to be substantially better than Rex? Probably not. On the other hand, will a center we draft be substantially better than Rabach? I hope so. How about a better tackle than the Brown/Heyer pupu platter? Right. So why not trade down and fill more holes, thus also giving the QB we draft next year a modicum of a chance to succeed.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

fansince62 said:

surrounding talent obviously makes a crucial difference. that said...more often than not....when I listen to coaches, GMs, etc...the single factor most often discussed is the match between QB skills/talents and the offensive system he must perform inside of.

Click to expand...

Boone said:

The problem isn't picking a QB with a top pick - it's trying not to screw up the pick when you make it that is the issue

Click to expand...

Thank you fansince and Boone, you're going to make it easier for me to clarify the direction I was going in my post.

G., I apparently inadvertently may have led you to a conclusion that wasn't actually what I was aiming at. The fact is that QB selection is the most important selection of any position-my point is that there are enough limitations on the use of statistical analysis to avoid relying on it as the sole or even preeminent means of decision making when it comes to deciding where in the draft a team should pick a QB. The mention of other team needs was simply an example of one of several variables that limit the accuracy of using a strict number-crunching approach to decide which QB and where in the draft to pick them. Fansince mentioned another confounding variable, that of the system the team uses and the likelihood of a particular QBs skillset fitting that particular system And as Boone mentioned what you do with the pick trumps where the pick is made. This brings in the whole area of coaching styles, player development philosophy, things of that sort. All these and more make the use of statistical analysis problematical and at present not reliable enough to draw sufficiently valid conclusions.

The Ramsey argument is crucial though Goal...
We took both Ramsey and Campbell with late 1st round picks. The conclusion Redskins fans have drawn from that experience is that it's a bad idea to pick a QB in the first round.

It's the exact wrong conclusion. It's a bad idea to pick the wrong QB in the first round. Both those guys were seriously flawed QBs. The supporting cast wouldn't have mattered. Seriously - Joe Gibbs took a month to conclude that Ramsey was never going to be the guy. Ramsey got one forearm to the jaw and Mark Brunell succeeded him. Game over.

If we have the chance to pick a legitimate QB with the 10th pick, Lord I hope we do. We haven't a real talent behind center in a decade. That's all I'm saying.

interesting thread from many angles!

Boone, you making an interesting point. Having chosen 2 so-called 1st round QB's in the last 10 years, essentially wasting picks, some have been soured on a QB first mentality. You can even throw in Heath Shuler to boot! I think if you couple that with the glory years during our 3 SB wins, it is easy to see less importance of a great QB as it is to have an O-Line in front of them.

I am still of the school that if you have a dominating offensive line, you can win. Look at the Giants. Eli is no slouch, but he is far from great. That team has had an offensive line that is dominant for years. Without that O-line, he is another Jason Campbell.

I am not trying to argue against a franchise QB. We need one! I just don't know if any QB in this draft is worthy of choosing with our #10 pick. Especially not when there are so many other glaring needs. If we draft a 1sr round QB, will Shanahan and Allen be hard pressed to rush the young QB in to action like Serv mentioned?

I would like more picks to choose O-line, D-line or both. But then again, any one of them can be busts too, so who the heck really knows?

Edit: Just got done watching Jake Locker and Andy Dalton on Gruden QB Camp. Gruden is a bit of an egoist, but I like that he pressured those guys. Coming away from this, I gotta say I would like to see Andy Dalton in B&G!

Boone said:

The Ramsey argument is crucial though Goal...
We took both Ramsey and Campbell with late 1st round picks. The conclusion Redskins fans have drawn from that experience is that it's a bad idea to pick a QB in the first round.

It's the exact wrong conclusion. It's a bad idea to pick the wrong QB in the first round. Both those guys were seriously flawed QBs. The supporting cast wouldn't have mattered. Seriously - Joe Gibbs took a month to conclude that Ramsey was never going to be the guy. Ramsey got one forearm to the jaw and Mark Brunell succeeded him. Game over.

If we have the chance to pick a legitimate QB with the 10th pick, Lord I hope we do. We haven't a real talent behind center in a decade. That's all I'm saying.

Click to expand...

Fine. But what in God's name makes you think we can accurately pick THAT guy? Throwing out Shuler, Campbell and Ramsey, because the Shanahans weren't involved in any of those, they still traded for McNabb, presumably because they thought he would fit the system. I sure as hell hope they didn't trade for him because they didn't think he would fit. So now you're asking me to trust their judgment at the ten slot? We can't afford to screw up the number ten of the draft. I guess I'm more about mitigating loss at this point, which is sad I will grant you. If we trade down for more picks (assuming the offer is good), we have more chances to get good, maybe even one day great players. I like increasing our odds by increasing the picks.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Goaldeje said:

Fine. But what in God's name makes you think we can accurately pick THAT guy? Throwing out Shuler, Campbell and Ramsey, because the Shanahans weren't involved in any of those, they still traded for McNabb, presumably because they thought he would fit the system. I sure as hell hope they didn't trade for him because they didn't think he would fit. So now you're asking me to trust their judgment at the ten slot? We can't afford to screw up the number ten of the draft. I guess I'm more about mitigating loss at this point, which is sad I will grant you. If we trade down for more picks (assuming the offer is good), we have more chances to get good, maybe even one day great players. I like increasing our odds by increasing the picks.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Click to expand...

that's also what concerns me. one has to accept that at the end of the day...Shanahan knows his QBs.

McNabb did fit the Shanahan system...Mike's system. Unfortunately he was not much of a fit for Kyle's system. Also, it became apparent that he's a much lesser QB without a Brian Westbrook to bail him out.

The Ramsey debate always makes me chuckle, because its a classic chicken & egg argument. Would Ramsey have been better with a good team around him, or was Ramsey never going to be good enough to make the team better? My opinion: the whole "shell shock" theory is either A) horse manure - its football, taking a few hits is what's SUPPOSED to happen, or B) if true, proof that he wasn't much of a QB in the first place if a little adversity is going to throw him completely off his game for the rest of eternity. Either way, poo-poo to Ramsey.

As to whether or not they should take a QB this year, well you just have to trust in the Shanahans to make the right call. Personally, I think if they like a guy enough to take him at 10 this year, I say go for it. There are plenty of defensive line playmakers I think the defense needs at 10, and I also think they will go in that direction, however I'm going to support Jake Locker if he's the guy at 10.

I think they go Mr Mustard...with a knife.........in the first round......

everything aside...if they stick at 10 it'll be hard to mess it up...looks like a lot of top flight talent will still be around for that pick.

Elephant said:

Edit: Just got done watching Jake Locker and Andy Dalton on Gruden QB Camp. Gruden is a bit of an egoist, but I like that he pressured those guys. Coming away from this, I gotta say I would like to see Andy Dalton in B&G!

Click to expand...

Ya know what, El? I wouldn't be at all surprised if we took Andy Dalton with the 10th pick for a couple of reasons.

1. Kyle Shanahan supposedly LOVES him.
2. Yes, Mike is the HC but at some point he has to trust OC/son, whom he'd like to turn the reins over to at some point. Mike already has his Super Bowls, not to mention a strong desire to win, but he has to trust Kyle to sink or swim on his own at some point so it might as well be under Mike's watch.
Kyle supposedly didn't want McNabb, most likely because he wanted a QB to mold into HIS scheme, not change his scheme to fit a veteran QB.

If Dalton IS the pick, I think it would show a much-needed change in Mike Shanahan's philosophy. Except for the Defense, delegating has never been his strong suit. Handing over the Offensive reins to Kyle would allow him to step back and perhaps get a better look at the big picture.

Yes, there will be growing pains but this team is not a strong playoff contender so this would give Mike a chance to step back and work with Bruce Allen to build one.

DISCLAIMER: If it were me, I would draft DEFENSE in the first two rounds.

The more I read, the more it seems like another battle of wills btw father & son, Locker vs. Dalton.

Boone said:

As we have done repeatedly over the years, we've undervalued our draft picks and find ourselves well short of a full complement of them. So our natural response as fans is to want the team to somehow 'undo' that - by trading down for more picks.

Even if we find a partner (and that's proven far more difficult with recent drafts than previously), there's a problem with trading down.

* * *

What I mean is, the chances of landing a bonafide long-term starter drop exponentially as the draft goes on. The Redskins haven't exactly dazzled even with their 1st and 2nd round picks - when you take a close look at rounds beyond that, it gets pretty ugly. The vast majority of their picks there are distant memories, many of whom aren't even in the league.

Click to expand...

1) This year, with the potential for a lowered rookie salary cap, I'd think it would be somewhat easier to trade down/get more.

2) It's true that in the Vinny era we generally did ok at the top of the draft and poorly after that--but I think there's enough turnover of personnel in the draft room that there's no reason to believe that our drafting ability this year will be more like prior Skins' teams than like the league in general. And in the league in general, there's not an exponential drop off.

So, e.g., dropping from 10th to 14th or 17th doesn't significantly lower our chance of getting a long-term starter for that 1st round pick, and it gets us back a third round pick (plus some change to go to 17)--and third round picks have a reasonable success rate for becoming long term-starters. So trading back and picking up a third gives us a significantly higher chance for getting more long-term starter(s), and the cost is predominantly a moderately lower ceiling on the first round pick. Given our roster (as opposed to, say, NE), we should much prefer the trade down scenario (i.e., we're relatively advantaged by quantity over quality).

I think I'm going to have to disagree somewhat with Boone's assertion that we've generally done well in the upper part of the draft. While the number of busts we've suffered from that part of the draft is relatively low, I think we've also squandered a lot of opportunities there as well. Off the top of my head one example is the trade down we did with the Falcons which could have been a good move if we'd made the right picks in the 2nd.

So Davis and Thomas weren't bad value picks even though they haven't worked out as well as we might have hoped. However wasting a 2nd rounder on a gimpy, slow WR given the players still on the board at the time was/is unforgivable. However I think the most glaring example of getting the wrong guy was taking "Stone Hands" Rogers ahead of Demarcus Ware and Aaron Rodgers. So no, there aren't any first round draft busts there but wow did we ever screw the pooch on those first round picks.

Even so, there's a new sheriff in town these days and I'd like to think Allahan won't be making nearly as many of these types of mistakes, whether in the first or seventh round. So with that in mind, I sincerely hope they're not planning to go QB this year. Yes, we desperately need one. However I'm a big believer in not going against the strength of a draft unless there's a can't miss prospect available. This year's draft is absolutely stacked with defensive players, especially D-line and rush LBs. Almost equally important, many of the defensive players are also thought to be low risk picks.

Speaking of risk, I think we'd be foolish to spend anything above a 3rd on any of the QBs this year given how weak the class is. I mean really, the top two prospects are a guy that strikes me as the biggest QB bust since J. Russell along with a taller version of Chase Daniel. Even worse, perhaps the best pure passer of the bunch (Mallett) is slow of foot and seems to suffer from the delusion that he's the reincarnation of Jeff George. Ponder, who I do like, seems destined to be the next Chris Chandler. So even though we need a QB, none of these guys are that can't miss prospect that would make me consider swimming upstream against the tide of talent in this draft.

If we must pass on a DT/DE or rush LB that will improve our 3-4, about the only pick on the offensive side of the ball at #10 that I could probably stomach would be one of the top two WRs.