BGO.C.D.: The 'IT Factor'

[Boone]

There are as many theories on what our Washington Redskins should do in the 2010 NFL draft as there are recipes for 'NC barbecue’ in my neck of the...

More...

 

[Elephant]

I agree with just about everything you said. The only thing I question is taking a QB that high because we have a draft pick that high. "The most crucial factor which will drive the Redskins inexorably towards making that crapshoot selection of a quarterback with pick number 4 is that it could be a decade before we’re in a position to use a top 5 pick again. That’s it."

If Shanahan thinks Clausen or Bradford are worthy of a pick that high, I will have to accept it and, of course, I will root for that QB to succeed. I just can't subscribe to the notion that we have to take a QB because we have such a high pick.

Again, here's the reality of the QB position in the last 10 years and Super Bowl Champs. The Saints just won a SB with a QB who was not acquired in the draft. Pittsburgh has won 2 with a QB that wasn't selected in the top 5. New England 3 with a 6th Round choice, Tampa with a Free Agent, Baltimore with a free agent and St. Louis with a free agent. In fact the only teams in the last 10 years that have won a SB with a QB that was selected in the top 5 were the Colts and the Giants.

 

[Boone]

Good points Elephant.

I'm not so much arguing that the only way to find a QB with the 'IT Factor' is with a top 5 pick. That's obviously not the case. What you've pointed out is that you can find those guys through a variety of ways. What I'm saying is really very simple. We don't have a QB with the qualities we absolutely need to consistently win on our roster. We have to find one and sooner rather than later. It's highly probable there is a QB in this years draft who can be that guy. We have the #4 pick. If there's a QB there for the taking who Shanahan thinks has the 'IT Factor', we have to take him.

That's not the same as saying there is no other way to find that guy.

Regarding your examples, I'll immediately shoot down the idea that we're going to find some gem like New England did in round 6. Of course, those kinds of finds happen, but you can't operate on the assumption it's going to happen for you. We aren't going to find our franchise QB in free agency, not right now anyway, because that guy simply doesn't appear to be out there for us. If he were, I'd support getting him here that way if thats what we wanted to do.

 

[CarolinaSkin43]

that' goods food for thought ele...what happens if we take the best athelete at No. 4... if it happens to be Eric Berry for a safety...will that be a bad choice...? I say not.. only becuase we could use a safety .. but we neglected the QB and offensice line needs at the first pick ... it would not surprise me if he's there at no. 4 we pick him.

 

[Elephant]

I'm not so much arguing that the only way to find a QB with the 'IT Factor' is with a top 5 pick. That's obviously not the case....

Regarding your examples, I'll immediately shoot down the idea that we're going to find some gem like New England did in round 6... .

I didn't think you were denying other possibilities and I know that Tom Brady was an aberration. I don't expect that ever. Colt Brennan?

I have been resigning myself to the fact that we are likely to take one of the QB's I don't feel comfortable about. I am one of the "O-line is a must" guys. But, the most important thing for me to remember is I am just a fan on a message board offering my opinion with no football experience other than years of fandom.


Carolina, I want to first say welcome to the board. Not sure if I had done so yet. As far as Berry, I would love to see he and Landry take the field together. He would definitely compliment Laron and perhaps bring the best in him out. But I am not sold that any defender is a critical need for us. I can wrap my head around a QB even if I don't agree, but I cannot accept a defensive player in light of how good our D can be and the obvious urgency on offense. A defensive star falling in our lap like one of the 2 DT's would be great trade bait!

 

[servumtuum]

Good, stuff, Boone (except the Eastern vs. Western NC barbecue thing, but I'll save that for another time.

)

You made me think of yet another, perhaps small reason, to back up your argument. In this year's draft, at least in my observations and reading, the level of talent available drops off more quickly among the QBs than it does among offensive linemen. Past the early second round the number of QBs that have been written about and discussed as being of potential team-changing quality almost vanishes. This is not so among OL personnel-a lot of the mocks and draft prospect analyses I've seen list good to very good picks for LT, RT and center at least through the fourth and fifth rounds. From that perspective, grabbing what seems to be "the guy" at QB actually makes pretty good sense to me.

Therefore, since I have already conceded to Shanahan experience, and football knowledge far exceeding my own I'm taking the position of being ok with the #4 pick being a QB-and since I still haven't settled on who I like best, which one he picks-if indeed things go that way-will be all right with me. Of course, you know, this opens up all kinds of possibilities of trades and maneuvers to take place before and during the draft. Let the rumors fly!

 

[Alaskan]

This being Easter, I suppose it make sense to use a chicken and egg argument. What comes first, the OL or the QB?

I agree that Campbell doesn’t have “IT” although I was really hoping that he did, mainly because of how much we gave up for him and because he looks so darn good wearing that #17 jersey.

So what process do we take to get that elusive franchise quarterback that can elevate the play of those around him, that can win with backup linemen when the starters go down or who can win with rookie wide receivers?

Now I have never bought into the argument that you need to let a rookie 1st round quarterback “sit and watch for a year.” The contracts are too short and the salaries are too high. The biggest adjustment for QB between the college game and the NFL is the speed of the game and what is considered an “open” receiver. The only way a QB is going to get use to that is to play. Practice isn’t going to do it and neither is playing the equivalent of one preseason game.

So I look at the Jets and ask myself if the Jet would have been able to win in 2009 without the great line and defense and the answer is probably no. But then I ask myself, will they be able to win in 2015 without the great line and defense and my answer is quite possibly yes. It is possible that Sanchez will be one of those elusive franchise quarterbacks. In the meantime, the Jets have the luxury of winning while Sanchez either proves that he has it or not.

So as temping as taking a QB with the 4th choice is, I would first build up the team around the quarterback and let the team carry the quarterback until the quarterback is ready to carry the team. So as frustrating as Campbell often is, he is as serviceable as anybody given the condition of the total roster.

 

[Jimbo]

While I'm on record as wanting a LT at #4, I would have no problem if we ended up with Bradford or Clausen or traded down from that spot either. The arguments for taking a QB are all very valid. I just worry that a QB seems a little harder to hit on than a LT at #4.

I'd probably be a bit upset if we took a Defensive player though considering there is value at need spots at #4.

 

[The Burgundy Ghost]

I've said my opinion on the subject and frankly I think we'd be much better off with Okung at #4 and McCoy at #37 in both the short and long term.

But right now if that's where Mike Shanahan thinks is the way for us to go....then I'm fine with it, I have faith in his moves.

That said. If the Skins go this way, we better start praying that Charles Brown or Roger Saffold are there at #37 (there is no guarantee that they will be, I have 6 OTs going in the first in my mock, with Saffold going to the Lions in the 2nd round) or we can trade back and get Jared Veldheer or Jason Fox and they can start right away at LT......unless we take a shot at Flozell Adams.

If this was the "other" site I'd end this post with a warning for those who want the QB at #4 and expect to win now to not come here and meltdown when the skins have an average to poorer than you expect season. Going with the rookie QB, there are going to be set backs......especially with little talent on the O-line to block for him. But this is BGO and I've yet to see a meltdown which is just another reason why I enjoy my time here, so I 'm not worrying about that as much.

Great article Boone, don't agree with it but you and Om have made valid points. And I do agree that we need a QB of the future and now for that matter and currently he's not on the roster.

 

[The Burgundy Ghost]

Also, quick question.

I know Shanahan is high on Bradford and apparently Tebow anybody have any inside information on whether the Skins like Clausen or McCoy?

I do know McCoy said he had a great meeting with the Skins (and Broncos) during the combine and could see himself playing here (which could be a smokescreen).

 

[Goaldeje]

Boone, you articulated very nicely my feeling on Campbell. Should we keep him as the starter, I feel he can and will be servicable, just not good enough to win extra games for us.

Question for you: would you trade up to take Bradford? We can talk all we want about how good he is going to be, is he worth the pick, etc. But if Shanahan believes he is a franchise QB, what do you think about the trade up option?

Personally, having talked to an OU grad-friend of mine who has seen every game Bradford played at OU, I would worry a little about his injury history, but not his abilities.

I guess the other question for you is, if Bradford is gone, would you take Claussen with the 4?

 

[Boone]

It's hard to voice an opinion on a trade up scenario without being qualified to evaluate Bradford, and I ain't qualified to evaluate Bradford If in Shanahan's eyes he is a true franchise QB, and we're convinced without a trade up we can't get him, I don't think you rule it out entirely. Problem is, the cost of that kind of move could be astronomically high and as we're still paying for the sins of Snyderrato and the lack of value they placed on former picks. We'd likely have to give picks we simply don't have to give.

The other thing is, if the Rams really believe Bradford is that guy, that just makes what it would cost to get them to relinquish that pick that much more exhorbitant. If they don't believe he's really that guy, it's worth the risk that that they'll go another direction and Bradford could fall to us.

 

[Goaldeje]

It's hard to voice an opinion on a trade up scenario without being qualified to evaluate Bradford, and I ain't qualified to evaluate Bradford If in Shanahan's eyes he is a true franchise QB, and we're convinced without a trade up we can't get him, I don't think you rule it out entirely. Problem is, the cost of that kind of move could be astronomically high and as we're still paying for the sins of Snyderrato and the lack of value they placed on former picks. We'd likely have to give picks we simply don't have to give.

The other thing is, if the Rams really believe Bradford is that guy, that just makes what it would cost to get them to relinquish that pick that much more exhorbitant. If they don't believe he's really that guy, it's worth the risk that that they'll go another direction and Bradford could fall to us.

Or.... we could trade for McNabb...