Are you ready to draft a 1st round QB?

[PMG12569]

I have to admit I am slightly leaning towards trying to get the future QB this year. I know we need a lot but if we are not planning on starting McNabb this upcoming season, then I dont see any reason not to. Most teams who draft a first round QB signify that they are rebulding. Which I think is what this team needs to do and just commit to a rebuild. If were just gonna throw Rexy out there let him take a beating and let the Rookie QB sit for a year or two while you take 1-2 years to build around him, that sounds like an alright time table for me. You also never know, some of these teams that think theyre going to rebuild get surprised by their QB and their turnaround and are much better then predicted (Falcons: Matt Ryan, Jets: Mark Sanchez, Bucs: Josh Freeman) There is a lot of these cases and it is possible to turn around a team in a year. It can also go the other way and be Stafford and the Lions (who are getting better). I know Luck isnt going to be there and I would like to just get someone at 10 without trading up to get one. I like Mallet and Gabbert. I am not a big Newton fan though....Anyways I am ready to send the statement of a rebuild and starting with our franchise QB this year. What about you guys?

[KazooSkinsFan]

I vote no because the only way I want to draft a QB is if we don't want to and there's a guy the coaches decide they can't pass on. If we go in thinking yes, we're a lot more likely to get the next Heath

[PMG12569]

I vote no because the only way I want to draft a QB is if we don't want to and there's a guy the coaches decide they can't pass on. If we go in thinking yes, we're a lot more likely to get the next Heath

Well I thought that would be understood. I dont want to take a QB just to take a QB I meant only if Shanahans really like a 1st round prospect.

[CajunSkin]

If we get good picks for fat al and mcnugg, and Newton is on the board. I say go for it. Luck isnt gonna be on there and newton is the only other i think worthy of that high a pick

[KazooSkinsFan]

I vote no because the only way I want to draft a QB is if we don't want to and there's a guy the coaches decide they can't pass on. If we go in thinking yes, we're a lot more likely to get the next Heath

Well I thought that would be understood. I dont want to take a QB just to take a QB I meant only if Shanahans really like a 1st round prospect.

I don't think you quite get what I was saying. I understand you don't want to take one for the sake of taking one. What I mean is I want our objective to be to not take a QB. That's stronger then not having an objective of taking a QB. Then if and only if the coaches think a guy's too good to pass up we take them.

[SkinsJock]

I think we'll get a QB in this draft but I'm not sure that we'll take him with our first pick at #10

I hope we get a QB that will be able to play the way Kyle and Mike want him to play and not get a QB like Vick (as an example) and then have to 'fit' an offense to his strengths - I like Vick but I would hope we never have a QB like that here - this flash and dash style is not what most offenses are about - give me the 'boring/basic' QB like Brady, Manning, Rivers and Brees

we saw what happens when you bring in players that don't suit what the team needs when Snyder and Cerrato were bringing in all these "star" players that were great football players but did not suit what the coaches here want to do

I'm not sure what Mike wants but I doubt that we get a QB with pick #10

[frankcal20]

Build the team from the inside out. Start with both sides of the line and then get key weapons. There's enough guys on the street who can keep things a float if protected behind the line.

[Countertrey]

I'm hoping we can trade down, and get a replacement for that missing 3rd round pick.

[markshark84]

It disappoints me to see another year with depleted draft picks. Personally, I think that we need an OL first, but if the guy they want is there at 10 (which I doubt), then take him.

[Redskins_Fanatic]

Nope.

While I believe that QB is our number one need, I don't believe there will be anyone that I want at that position available at #10.

Since I am not a fan of taking skill position players below the second or third best at a position until the later rounds, I would look to trade down and expect that we'll be an 8-8 team with Grossman next year.

[Snout]

Please please please no quarterbacks, wide receivers or running backs. We need young linemen on both sides of the ball, and we need a lot of them.

Besides, Shanahan and Allen have no talent to evaluate quarterback talent and whether a quarterback fits the system -- as the McNabb experience clearly showed.

[Redskins_Fanatic]

I'm hoping we can trade down, and get a replacement for that missing 3rd round pick.

I want to see us trade down MULTIPLE times. Maybe to somewhere in the mid-teens, then into the upper 20's and eventually into the 25-28 range. That should allow us to pick up a number of second and third round picks to upgrade the Offensive Line, Linebacker, and maybe even D-Line.

Additionally it will ensure that I don't have to pay any attention to the draft after we make the first trade and I won't feel a necessity to waste a weekend on the NFL draft.

[Irn-Bru]

Personally, I'd like to see us go with OL. We can be 9-7 next year with a better OL, a little more talent at WR, and some improvements on defense. I don't think we'll see as much immediate progress if we go with a QB. Once the line is more solidified, then I'm all for trying to find a franchise QB.

[Manchester_Redskin]

If we dont draft a QB then who starts next season? Grossman?

On a related question, if 2011 is a lockout, how will the 2012 draft order be determined? by a raffle ?

[Countertrey]

I'm hoping we can trade down, and get a replacement for that missing 3rd round pick.

I want to see us trade down MULTIPLE times. Maybe to somewhere in the mid-teens, then into the upper 20's and eventually into the 25-28 range. That should allow us to pick up a number of second and third round picks to upgrade the Offensive Line, Linebacker, and maybe even D-Line.

Additionally it will ensure that I don't have to pay any attention to the draft after we make the first trade and I won't feel a necessity to waste a weekend on the NFL draft.

I certainly wouldn't object. The problem is, it rarely happens these days... it's simply too hard to find willing trade partners. You are lucky to find a partner for the first trade... much less for follow-on trades.

[TCIYM]

Nobody in their right mind is trading up to #10 in this draft. I think that's a pipe-dream. We had better take the best available player regardless of position if we aren't enamored with any of the remaining QBs in the draft at #10.

[Redskins_Fanatic]

I certainly wouldn't object. The problem is, it rarely happens these days... it's simply too hard to find willing trade partners. You are lucky to find a partner for the first trade... much less for follow-on trades.

True. That's why I think they should be trying to get this started NOW rather than waiting until Draft Day. Don't wait until the last minute.

Assuming they can't get it done, I'm at a total loss as to what they should do with the #10 pick. I don't believe there will be anyone there at a position of need who will be worthy of the selection. I am solidly AGAINST the idea of "Best Player Available" and always will be. At that point I'd almost take less than market value to get rid of the pick.

[Redskin in Canada]

I do not find an answer in the poll that satisfies me.

I say MAYBE. If a franchise QB is available as the best player when we pic, the answer is yes.

Otherwise, no, just take the best player at a position of need.

And draft smart in later rounds !!!

[SkinsJock]

I'm hoping we can trade down, and get a replacement for that missing 3rd round pick.

say what - I really don't think that's happening

great for us - that is just not happening

[PMG12569]

I understand what all the people clamoring for OL are saying. But Offensive lines usually arent built with consecutive 1st round draft picks. Its about fiding those guys in later rounds, being able to evaluate, and picking the right guys. Also look at all the teams in the playoffs...almost all have 1st round pick QB's

Roethlisberger, Flacco, Sanchez, Manning, Rodgers, Cutler, Vick, Ryan, Brees (1st Pick 2nd Round)...All pretty much 1st Round QB draft picks. The only ones not are Brady, Cassell, and Whitehurst (he dosnt even count in this argument) Also the best 3 teams not in the playoffs Freeman, Manning, and Rivers. Also have 1st round QB's. I think you can build a great offensive and defensive line without drafting them in the 1st round. As long as its treated as a main priority but, I think to become a championship contender eventually we need our franchise QB asap.

[SprintRightOption]

I wouldn't take a chance on Luck. Luck can only get you so far. Nobody had heard of Jay Cutler when Mike drafted him so he probably has an eye on some strong armed QB not in the spot light.

[Irn-Bru]

I'm hoping we can trade down, and get a replacement for that missing 3rd round pick.

I want to see us trade down MULTIPLE times. Maybe to somewhere in the mid-teens, then into the upper 20's and eventually into the 25-28 range. That should allow us to pick up a number of second and third round picks to upgrade the Offensive Line, Linebacker, and maybe even D-Line.

Additionally it will ensure that I don't have to pay any attention to the draft after we make the first trade and I won't feel a necessity to waste a weekend on the NFL draft.

I certainly wouldn't object. The problem is, it rarely happens these days... it's simply too hard to find willing trade partners. You are lucky to find a partner for the first trade... much less for follow-on trades.

Also, trading down doesn't necessarily mean very much if your scouting department isn't up to the challenge. See Redskins, 2008 for an example of that. Yes, we got some role players, but also a few busts and certainly no diamonds in the rough.

[aswas71788]

Quarterback is the most important position on the team. If the Redskins could get a franchise quarterback, I would vote for that unless the cost was unreasonable like Butkus stupidly trading all his picks for Ricky Williams. How many here remember the Colts before Manning, the Patriots before Brady or the Saints before Brees? Those teams were playoff teams, not Super Bowl teams. The quarterback cannot do it alone but the team cannot do it without a franchise quality quarterback. There are exceptions, the Ravens or the Bears (the year Grossman was their quarterback), for example. They had exceptional defenses that got them to th Super Bowl in spite of the offense.

Get a franchise quarterback and build around him.

[PulpExposure]

Quarterback is the most important position on the team. If the Redskins could get a franchise quarterback, I would vote for that unless the cost was unreasonable like Butkus stupidly trading all his picks for Ricky Williams. How many here remember the Colts before Manning, the Patriots before Brady or the Saints before Brees? Those teams were playoff teams, not Super Bowl teams. The quarterback cannot do it alone but the team cannot do it without a franchise quality quarterback. There are exceptions, the Ravens or the Bears (the year Grossman was their quarterback), for example. They had exceptional defenses that got them to th Super Bowl in spite of the offense.

Get a franchise quarterback and build around him.

1) It was Ditka who traded for Williams, not Butkus.

2) You're way underestimating the impact of Brady, Manning and Brees. All three joined losing teams, and almost immediately turned all 3 franchises completely around. Looking it up, the turnarounds are actually pretty shocking. The Colts, Saints, and Pats weren't playoff teams before the QBs joined them...they were gutter teams. Awful teams.

The Colts were 3-13 the season before, and hadn't had a 10 or more win season since 1977. After Manning got there, they had 10 or more wins 11 of the next 13 years (and this includes Manning's terrible 3-13 rookie season).

The Saints were also 3-13 the year before they got Brees, and hadn't been to the playoffs (or even had 10 or more wins in a season) in 5 years; and that one 10 win season (10-6 in 2000) was the first 10 win season since 1992. After Brees got there, they won 10 or more games 3 of the 5 years.

The Patriots were 5-11 the season before Brady took over. They also hadn't won 10 or more games for the 3 previous seasons. In the 20 seasons before Brady, the Pats won 10 or more games five times. In the 10 years that Brady's been there, (well 9 as we'll toss out the year he missed the season), they won 10 or more games every year except once. And they went 9-7 in that year.

Those three examples really seem to support the point that you get your franchise QB, then you build the rest of the team...don't they?

[Deadskins]

Quarterback is the most important position on the team. If the Redskins could get a franchise quarterback, I would vote for that unless the cost was unreasonable like Butkus stupidly trading all his picks for Ricky Williams. How many here remember the Colts before Manning, the Patriots before Brady or the Saints before Brees? Those teams were playoff teams, not Super Bowl teams. The quarterback cannot do it alone but the team cannot do it without a franchise quality quarterback. There are exceptions, the Ravens or the Bears (the year Grossman was their quarterback), for example. They had exceptional defenses that got them to th Super Bowl in spite of the offense.

Get a franchise quarterback and build around him.

1) It was Ditka who traded for Williams, not Butkus.

2) You're way underestimating the impact of Brady, Manning and Brees. All three joined losing teams, and almost immediately turned all 3 franchises completely around. Looking it up, the turnarounds are actually pretty shocking. The Colts, Saints, and Pats weren't playoff teams before the QBs joined them...they were gutter teams. Awful teams.

The Colts were 3-13 the season before, and hadn't had a 10 or more win season since 1977. After Manning got there, they had 10 or more wins 11 of the next 13 years (and this includes Manning's terrible 3-13 rookie season).

The Saints were also 3-13 the year before they got Brees, and hadn't been to the playoffs (or even had 10 or more wins in a season) in 5 years; and that one 10 win season (10-6 in 2000) was the first 10 win season since 1992. After Brees got there, they won 10 or more games 3 of the 5 years.

The Patriots were 5-11 the season before Brady took over. They also hadn't won 10 or more games for the 3 previous seasons. In the 20 seasons before Brady, the Pats won 10 or more games five times. In the 10 years that Brady's been there, (well 9 as we'll toss out the year he missed the season), they won 10 or more games every year except once. And they went 9-7 in that year.

Those three examples really seem to support the point that you get your franchise QB, then you build the rest of the team...don't they?

Not saying those QBs didn't turn those teams around, but those franchises also had front office/coaching turnovers in the exact same time periods that could be the explanation for the turnarounds. Most likely, it's a combination of both.