• Welcome to the New BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the new software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you find potential glitches, please report those in the Possible New Site Glitches and Issues thread. If you have questions, post them in the New Site Questions? thread.
  • The 2020 Season will be the last for our little community. Following the final WFT game of the 2020 season, the site will close it's doors. We wanted to give you a little advance notice so that you could retrieve any photos, content, or other material from the site before it became unavailable, so that you could exchange contact info with anyone you may desire, and ensure that folks would forgo any site donations going forward. We have had a blast being your favorite Redskins and WFT watering hole for the past decade. We had a great run and each of you were a part of it. Thanks to all of you for your amazing contributions and camaraderie. You made this a special place.

I favor drafting a QB at #4 and here's why:

One of many experimental iterations ...

B&G

The Cheerleader
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
0



I've been thinking about this issue for several weeks now, ever since it became clear that we would have the #4 pick. Finally, it became clear to me that we should use that pick to select a QB even though my heart yearns for a dominant left tackle.

The reason? Simple. It seems unlikely to me that we will have the opportunity to draft this high for some time and so may not have this chance to acquire a top flight QB for many years. If the organization believes that Bradford or Claussen or another QB shows the potential to be worthy of this elevated draft position, perhaps we should pull the trigger. It seems more likely that we could acquire a great OT later in the first round next year than we could a similarly rated QB at that position.

That being said, I favor keeping Campbell via a high tender, a 1 and a 3 for example, because he will be better, as many have already said, that any rookie we might field. We don't have to demand those two particular picks even though we might have tendered him so. As an example we could, accept a 2 and a 3 if we found that acceptable. If someone bites on him, that's ok, as either of our other two QB's will be just fine until the rookie is ready to play and we can load up on other positions of need, in particular the OL if we don't address that significantly in free agency. At this low point in our franchises history, I'm much more concerned about building a proper foundation for the future than I am about our record next season.

If we choose to go QB, that does not relieve us of the responsibility to bolster the OL though. Disregarding draft day trades or trading down. both of which seem like distinct possibilities to me in this uncapped season, we can still acquire a great tackle with our high 2nd rounder and a very good guard or center with our # 4.

Pity is we have more needs that we have draft picks....hopefully, we can acquire additional ones come draft day.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,488
Reaction score
385
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


Brees was the 32nd pick in 2000.

Marino was taken #27 overall, Montana was a 3rd round pick.

No need to rush things UNLESS Shanahan really believes one of these guys is truly franchise material.

One could easily make the same statement about left tackles.

Ogden, Pace, Samuels,etc.

The best tackles of the past decade plus were mostly first rounders if not top 10-15 picks.

Doesn't seem the path to acquiring a dominant left tackle is any easier than finding a quarterback.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 

Billfishead

The UDFA
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
342
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Salisbury, Md.


Well you said it yourself, " I'm much more concerned about building a proper foundation for the future than I am about our record next season".

That is exactly why we need to draft OL and not QB. Your OL is your foundation of all things to come. Without it, it doesn't matter who plays QB. No blocking, no offense.

That being said, I've drunk the kool-aide and whatever the FO and Coaching staff decide, I'll roll with it.
 

The Burgundy Ghost

The Starter
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,911
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Location
The Shadows of the Unknown

Navy Salisbury

Got to find a elite LT who can protect whomever is QB for the next 10 years or so.

The foundations of the Redskins have been built on a strong running game throughout their most successful periods in their history.

The foundations of Shanahan's (Mike) offense has been predicated on strong running performances.

The same argument could be said about an elite offensive tackle at this spot as well.

But I also have faith that Shanahan/Allen will find the right player at #4 unlike my total fear of a Snyder/Cerrato pick.
 

B&G

The Cheerleader
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
0


I don't believe there is a LT in the draft worthy of the 4th pick. I'm not sure any of the QB's are supportable either. If Shanahan must pick at 4, and judges the QB's and OT's fairly equal, I hope he goes QB. Sit the young man on the bench, developing him for a year and draft OL in the 2nd and 4th rounds with the notion that we will pick up our LT in next years draft when there are expected to be several franchise types. Add that to a pickup or two in free agency and that's a plan I can support.
 

Bulldog

The All-Time Great
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
15,488
Reaction score
385
Points
363
Location
Bethesda Md


If Vinny Cerrato were still here Jimmy Clausen would be the pick at #4.
 

Call me Ismail

The Rookie
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Falls Church VA


LT LT LT LT LT LT

and I dont mean the RB or the one who killed our last franchise QB

you put a big ol slab of beef on the left side and let him sit there for 10+ years then thank him for the job he's done for you.
We just had one of the best ever play for us in Chris Samuels.

The result? 0 division titles and 2 playoff apperances, 1 playoff win.

Its the 21st century NFL. You need a top flight QB and when you have the chance to get one you do.
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,821
Reaction score
460
Points
1,113

Florida State

....The reason? Simple. It seems unlikely to me that we will have the opportunity to draft this high for some time and so may not have this chance to acquire a top flight QB for many years....
The argument that we should take a QB with this pick because it is such a high pick is invalid. It is just as important to have a franchise LT as there is a franchise QB. Too many questions about the 2 QB's being discussed.

Joe Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QB's for a reason! He had dominant offensive lines!

Trade down and get one of the other offensive tackles, we don't have to have Okung. Campbell, Davis, Bulaga, Williams, and Brown all appear to be fairly close in ability.
 

Call me Ismail

The Rookie
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Falls Church VA


that excuse is like the pig that built his house of straw. you cant even mean what you just said.

the fact that we had that nutjob cerrato here, spurrier here and danny here trumps anything chris could do.

its football 101 to know that you need a solid LT to defend the QBs blind side. they love him..we love them..coaches love them.

you could have carl lewis out there and if he is getting his from his blind side he isnt winning any games
We also had coach Gibbs here for 4 years. The downfall of Gibbs 2.0? Mediocre QB play, and the one year we got good QB play (2005) the offense was effective, even with late season injuries

The only other time Gibbs 2.0 had good QB play was when Todd Collins came in at the end of 2007.

Can you name Drew Brees' LT? Or Ben Rothlisberger's? Tom Brady?

The point is, an o-line is a unit, you need 5 pretty good players there that work well together.

As I showed on the other board, the last 10 Superbowl champions only had 7 first round o-linemen, and 12 UDFA o-lineman!

You need quantity and quality, but without a QB you end up being the Cleveland Browns (who have a franchise LT in Joe Thomas) or the Vikings pre Brett Favre

The argument that we should take a QB with this pick because it is such a high pick is invalid. It is just as important to have a franchise LT as there is a franchise QB. Too many questions about the 2 QB's being discussed.

Joe Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls with 3 different QB's for a reason! He had dominant offensive lines!

Trade down and get one of the other offensive tackles, we don't have to have Okung. Campbell, Davis, Bulaga, Williams, and Brown all appear to be fairly close in ability.
The thing is, 21st century NFL success requires a quick thinking QB with a fast release. You won't be building Great Wall of China Hog like o-lines anymore.

You need the QB first and let him develop and build the castle around him. If anything, you want him in sooner because of the learning curve it takes to be a QB
 

Call me Ismail

The Rookie
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Falls Church VA


how about when trent freaking dilfer won one? who was the stud on the left side that time?

big ben? youre going to talk about the same big ben who is always picking himself up off the dirt when he drops back to pass?

and tom brady? What knee was hit when he got hurt?

kurt warner's release has gone down dramatically since his days with the rams but yet he still went to the big dance. protection...

ps..jermon bushrod
Dilfer and the Ravens are the exception

Or else you have Brady, Manning, Brees, Big Ben, Eli Manning

The big number of course being that the last 10 Superbowl winning teams had more UDFA starting o-lineman then first round o-lineman

Again, its a unit you are building with the o-line. The QB is one position.

You get your franchise QB and you are penciling yourself into the playoffs each year, something we haven't been able to do in 2 decades.

The last 3 "successful" Redskins seasons were a result of excellent QB play (1999- Johnson, 2005-Brunell, 2007-Collins) The o-line was outstanding in 2006 but the team sucked because the QB play was subpar

As the rules continue to evolve giving offenses more advantages, you'll only see this correlation increase.

Again, we had one of the best o-lineman in the history of this franchise the past decade in Samuels, but his only playoff appearances were in seasons where the QB play was excellent (or in Collins case, 4 games)
 

Elephant

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
24,821
Reaction score
460
Points
1,113

Florida State

Can you name Drew Brees' LT? Or Ben Rothlisberger's? Tom Brady?...

...The thing is, 21st century NFL success requires a quick thinking QB with a fast release. You won't be building Great Wall of China Hog like o-lines anymore.

You need the QB first and let him develop and build the castle around him. If anything, you want him in sooner because of the learning curve it takes to be a QB
Drew Brees - late 1st round pick!
Ben Rothlesberger - #11 pick!
Tom Brady - 6th round pick!

There is no QB in this draft worthy of the #4 pick. Okung seems to be worthy of the #4 pick but I believe we should trade down to pick up one of the nearly as talented lineman and gather another draft pick. I would rather have Dan Lefevour than take a chance on Bradford at #4.

I know you are sold on Bradford! I agree, it would be nice to have a QB in position for the next 6-8 years at least! You are correct that we need a QB who can make quick decisions! But offensive line is still more important! Did you see how atrocious our offensive line was this past season? We had a QB who threw for over 3500 yards under those circumstances. What could he do if he had some protection? This draft is ripe with offensive line talent, not QB talent. We should strengthen our greatest weakness now while there is an abundance of lineman!

I will admit that Brees is a great QB and is the Franchise QB that you suggest we should take with the #4 pick, but do you realize that the New Orleans Saints had 3/5's of their offensive line voted into the Pro Bowl?
 

Cycleans

The Starter
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,328
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Wheatland, ca


I don't see a qb worthy of a 4th pick as well late in the first round there are a few but not at the 4th.
 

Neophyte

GM
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,531
Reaction score
168
Points
218
Location
Dallas


As I showed on the other board, the last 10 Superbowl champions only had 7 first round o-linemen, and 12 UDFA o-lineman!
I think it should be noted that none of the starting LTs in the last 11 Super Bowls were UDFAs. In fact, all but two were drafted in the first 3 rounds (3 1st rounders, 1 2nd, 2 3rds). Only Jermon Bushrod of the Saints and David Diehl of the Giants where drafted below the 3rd round (4th round and 5th round respectively) and Diehl was originally drafted to play G (he did not switch to LT until his third or fourth season).

So while there maybe more UDFA lineman than 1st round picks playing in the SB, the same cannot be said for the LT position in particular where the draft position of the starters since 2000 has averaged pick #62 (low second round).


You need the QB first and let him develop and build the castle around him. If anything, you want him in sooner because of the learning curve it takes to be a QB
Current practice would seem to indicate otherwise. The Ravens, Falcons and Jets have all had good success with rookie signal callers precisely because they put an emphasis on having built the offensive line and putting in place a strong running game. They were thus allowed to put together winning seasons while garnering experience for young QBs. Frankly, I think this will pay huge dividends for all three of these teams long term.
 

B&G

The Cheerleader
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Points
0


I'm proposing we take a QB only if the organization sees value in one of the QB's at that pick. And I feel the same way about the OT's. Hopefully we won't have to pick one that isn't worthy simply because we have the 4th selection in this draft.

My real point is, there are many more OLineman becoming franchise players when chosen in the later rounds than there are QB's. For every Brees or Brady, there are 10 QB's chosen in the top 15 picks who go on to be top flight field generals. Further, because of that, it is important to choose a QB at this high position if Shanahan wants to develop one, because we (and I'm being optimistic here) may not have so high a pick again for many years unless we trade away our drafts. The salary and cap implications are also favorable in this uncapped year, particularly if we keep Jason as I hope.
 

romberjo

The Rookie
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
Points
16


We've all been over this thousands of times, but the signal to noise ratio on this board is high enough that it's worth another thousand.

Relevant factors in choosing b/w QB and LT include:

  • How our staff evaluates the top QB and the top LT; obviously, if they are convinced Bradford or Clausen or Okung or whoever is the answer, especially taking into account our system, so be it, I'll be fine w/ any of 'em;
  • A franchise QB is the most important single player in the game--though a franchise LT is only somewhat less so;
  • There's a higher bust ratio at the top for QB than LT;
  • Putting the previous two together, that means QB is the higher risk/higher reward route;
  • We have zilch on the line/at LT (assuming Samuels retires), and Campbell is ok/fine at QB, so we have relatively more need (in the short term, at least) at LT;
  • After Clausen and Bradford, the QB class drops precipitously, whereas it seems that there are a handful of LT prospects who seem (at least to us, and to the experts, such as they are) to be of roughly the same quality, thus suggesting that we could trade down in the 1st, or possibly wait till the 2d, and still end up with an LT w/o terribly much less value than whomever we'd choose at #4.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

I don't believe there is a LT in the draft worthy of the 4th pick. I'm not sure any of the QB's are supportable either.
This is why I'm a huge fan of trading down. The 4th overall pick is going to get upwards of $30 million guaranteed - I believe the only players worth that kind of money in this draft are Berry and Suh, both of which will be gone by pick 4. If we can trade down to the mid-1st round, and pick up an additional 2nd rounder, we can get a solid OT, as well as one of the better OC prospects in a long time, Maurkice Pouncey.

big ben? youre going to talk about the same big ben who is always picking himself up off the dirt when he drops back to pass?

and tom brady? What knee was hit when he got hurt?
To be fair, Rothliesberger holds the ball too long, which is why he's constantly sacked (or at least part of it). And Brady's knee was done in by blitzing safety Bernard Pollard who came up the middle.
 

kirbster

Guest
This is why I'm a huge fan of trading down. The 4th overall pick is going to get upwards of $30 million guaranteed - I believe the only players worth that kind of money in this draft are Berry and Suh, both of which will be gone by pick 4. If we can trade down to the mid-1st round, and pick up an additional 2nd rounder, we can get a solid OT, as well as one of the better OC prospects in a long time, Maurkice Pouncey.
Well, it takes two to tango, and it's fine and dandy to say we should trade down, but I seriously doubt there'll be many (any?) takers. In light of the impending capless year and the strong chance of a lockout in 2011, it's commonly believed that owners will be less willing to shell out the huge contracts the top 5-10 picks will command. More so than probably any year in NFL history, trading down will be damn near impossible. So we damn well better be ready to draft at #4. I'm of very mixed mind as to what we should take with the pick. One time I'm thinking QB (probably Bradford) and then the next I'm thinking LT. I dunno! :huh2:
 

@SkinsGoldPants

The Rookie
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
Points
0


exactly, trading down takes two teams. Unless Vinny goes back to San Fran and gets them to offer both their 1st's and something else for the 4th overall. Its unlikely.
 

Lanky Livingston

The Commissioner
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
27,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houston, TX

Florida Atlantic

I dunno how unlikely it is, I tend to think the opposite. Some team is going to fall in love with Claussen or Bradford after the combine (possibly the Skins), and will be willing to move up to get them. It doesn't have to be all draft picks from this year, could be a first & second this year + a first next year, or something like that.
 

Neophyte

GM
Staff member
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
8,531
Reaction score
168
Points
218
Location
Dallas


But with reports of all 4 of the top teams shopping their picks to trade down, teams that want to move up have choices and can play the 4 off against each other.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Chat 0
    Top