The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Seems like a pretty PROTOTYPICAL 3-4 guy to me. I suppose he could wieigh 400 and run a 3.9 and have an olympic gold in the decathlon, pentathlon, and gymnastic all-around.



DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

skins2357 wrote:1. Marcel Dareus DT/DE

Projects as a 4-3 DT everywhere that I've seen. We don't need any more guys who aren't PROTOTYPICAL 3-4 players.

First Google hit on "Marcell Dareus scouting report":

Marcell Dareus, DL, Alabama (Junior)
Height: 6’3″
Weight: 306
Projection: 1st Round

Last Updated: November 6th, 2010

Strengths: Excellent size and bulk – Elite strength/speed ratio – Quick reaction to the snap – Never stops moving his feet – Plays the double team very well – Sheds single blocks with ease – Is able to consistently collapse the pocket – Coached up and NFL ready – Versatile enough to play all three 3-4 positions.

I'd love to see this guy at #10.

DarthMonk

yea he's a beast, as is clayborn. Somebody said it was a bad draft talentwise earlier, I disagree. It's just stocked with a lot of D-linemen and Corners. Not glamor positions. And no matter what you think of him, Newton could be the most talented player to be in the draft in a LONG time. And Ingram is one of the most productive players to be in the draft in a long time.

If I were to make a list of players that are likely to be around when we draft I would take, I would be looking at

Marcell Dareus
Adrian Clayborn
Cam Newton
Blaine Gabbert
Julio Jones
Justin Blackmon
Prince Amukamara(maybe)
Nate Solder(maybe)
Jake Locker (maybe, not likely, but you never know)

If the front office really feels there's a potential franchise QB available at #10 we gotta take them. Whether it's Jake Locker or Cam Newton or whoever. The quarterback is the most important position on the field. If they feel someone is there who is a franchise player, there's no other choice.

A top ten QB ought to be able to start right away and I think since teams have seen a lot of success lately starting rookie QBs that should be the plan. Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Mark Sanchez, Josh Freeman, Sam Bradford. Pretty much every first round QB drafted in the last few years has started right away. It doesn't make sense to spend a high pick on someone and then sit them behind Rex Grossman to "learn" for a year.

With all the QB talent available I hope there's one left at #10 who Shanny really likes because he's shown he can get the most out of a QB in the past. He made Jake Plummer, Brian Greise and Jay Cutler into Pro Bowlers.

DarthMonk wrote:Seems like a pretty PROTOTYPICAL 3-4 guy to me. I suppose he could wieigh 400 and run a 3.9 and have an olympic gold in the decathlon, pentathlon, and gymnastic all-around.



DarthMonk

Let's look at that. Aside from his off-field suspension issues, here's what Scouts, Inc and Mel Kiper have to say about him....

Scouts, Inc. wrote:
Prototypical height and weight for a DT prospect. Also has enough size to play DE in certain 3-4 schemes. Top-end speed is excellent for his size.

He's never going to be a great fit as a two-gap defensive lineman but he does show the leverage and strength to hold his ground in the phone booth when teams run at him.

…..Has always played in a heavy rotation. Needs to prove he is capable of maintaining effectiveness with an increased role……

Size for a DT, not a NT. Projects as an END in CERTAIN 3-4 schemes. Never going to be a great fit as a two-gap player (which is required of a NT). No proof that he can be an every-down player. Better pass rusher than run stopper. Doesn't exactly sound like a PROTOTYPICAL, IMMEDIATE IMPACT STARTER at Nose Tackle to me.

Mel Kiper wrote:A solid penetrator; pass-rush skills trump run-stopping performance thus far. Best suited at 4-3 DT, needs to show consistent effort to scouts.

I think that probably speaks for itself. He is NOT a Prototypical NT.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:He is NOT a Prototypical NT.

Well, there's another opinion. Certainly speaks for itself.

I too would rather have Newton if he's there at 10 but I'm certainly not gonna turn my nose up at Marcell Dareus if he is because Mel and you don't think he's ideal for the nose (Oh no! He's not ideal at nose. Better not draft him because we have a 3-4 and he's not a prototypical nose in one guy's opinion even though he can play every position in the 3-4 explosively. Oh no! ) ... and I DEFINITELY will cheer for him to play well if he is a 'Skin.

So summarizing - would love to trade down if we have a taker but would definitely draft either one of these tremendous athletes at a position of need if available at 10.

ps - can you think of anything about Cam Newton that is not prototypical? If so, does it disqualify picking him. On 2nd thought, never mind.

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:So summarizing - would love to trade down if we have a taker but would definitely draft either one of these tremendous athletes at a position of need if available at 10.

I WOULD take Newton at #10. I WOULD NOT take Dareus there. Hell, I wouldn't take Dareus at #25 if he were still there (which he obviously won't be).

QB is a position where I would not expect Newton (or anyone else) to come in and be an IMMEDIATE IMPACT PLAYER. That is because they have to learn a new system and everything that goes with it. Even if we draft Cam Newton at #10, I don't want him starting next year (unless Shanny and Co. think he's ready in week 12 or later, after we're out of playoff contention). I'll take a year of Grossman under center while Newton learns the system and gets tutored by Kyle and Rex. It's not like we're going to be Super Bowl contenders next year anyway.

NT is a position where I WOULD expect a player to be able to come in and make an immedate impact. From everything I read, Dareus is not the sort of guy who is going to come in and make an immediate impact like Suh did for Detroit this year.

skinsfan#33 wrote:NO, and I repeat, NO, WR is worth a top ten pick! I don't care who it is. Jerry Rice, Charlie Taylor, Art Monk, Randy Moss, Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or any other WR you want to name. They simply aren't worth being taken that high.

Not exactly. If you know that with the #10 pick you can pick up the next Hall of Fame WR, you make that pick in a heartbeat. If you KNOW you're going to get one of the best players at their position...ever, you just don't pass it up. From the history of the #10 pick, you're more likely to get a bust than you are to get a pro bowler.

Look at the last 10 drafts...there isn't a single player picked at #10 who can sniff Jerry Rice's jockstrap as an NFL player. It's Tyson Alalu, Michael Crabtree, Jerod Mayo, Amobi Okoye, Matt Leinart, Mike Williams (WR), Dunta Robinson, Terrell Suggs, Levi Jones, Jamal Reynolds, and Travis Taylor. Of those picks, combined they have 5 Pro Bowls (and those 5 are by 2 players; 4 by Suggs, 1 by Mayo). 4 of those players were total busts for their team (Taylor, Reynolds, Leinart, Williams). So at the #10, history tells you that you have a 40% chance of getting a decent player, 40% chance of getting a bust, and 20% chance of getting a Pro Bowler. Notably, none of those picks would be regarded as a Hall of Fame player.

Are you telling me that Jerry Rice or Charley Taylor isn't a better value pick than any one of these guys? I mean, the best of all of these players is Terrell Suggs, and he's a nice player and all...but he averages 8.5 sacks a season. He's not exactly Lawrence Taylor.

However, I do agree that because the bust factor with WR is so high, it's not worth it generally to use a top 10 pick on a WR...but that's a different statement than what you made.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:QB is a position where I would not expect Newton (or anyone else) to come in and be an IMMEDIATE IMPACT PLAYER. That is because they have to learn a new system and everything that goes with it. Even if we draft Cam Newton at #10, I don't want him starting next year (unless Shanny and Co. think he's ready in week 12 or later, after we're out of playoff contention). I'll take a year of Grossman under center while Newton learns the system and gets tutored by Kyle and Rex. It's not like we're going to be Super Bowl contenders next year anyway.

Agree that he wouldn't be an immediate impact player but TOTALLY disagree that Cam Newton (or Locker, or Mallet, or Gabbert) should sit behind Grossman for a year. It just makes zero sense. A top ten QB should start immediately. Grossman is a nobody but can still help teach the system as a backup. The best way to learn is by doing, just look at the first round QB's drafted in the last 5 years:

2010

1st- Sam Bradford, looks like a future franchise player. Started right away.
25th- Tim Tebow, was a HUGE reach at the time but player well in limited duty and future is still up in the air.

2009

1st Matthew Stafford, looks like a future star, injury problems but started right away.
5th- Mark Sanchez, two trips to the playoffs in two years, started right away.
17th- Josh Freeman, Dragged a terrible team kicking and screaming from the cellar into respectability. Didn't have to wait long for his shot.

2008

3rd- Matt Ryan, arguably the best young QB in the game. Has turned the Falcons into a contender. Started right away.
18th- Joe Flacco, extremely talented. Started immediately. Three playoff seasons in first three years in the league.

2007

1st- JaMarcus Russell, weak QB class and he had terrible work ethic. Held out in camp and got his first start in the last game. Raiders were a mess at the time with no business drafting a QB.
22nd- Brady Quinn, same story, franchise was in shambles and should have passed on a QB. Held out, sat most of first season.

2006

3rd- Vince Young, has been successful when he's played but his heart and work ethic are questionable. Started pretty soon after being drafted.
10th- Matt Leinart, held out, didn't start immediately, organization did not develop him at all and looks like a wasted pick.
11th- Jay Cutler, started only 5 games his first season but went on to success.

-----

Pretty much since 2008 the culture of training quarterbacks has changed. It's like in baseball. You have a hot rookie prospect. You don't bring him to the big leagues to sit on the bench and learn from the veterans. You let him get his reps in the minors or struggle through some growing pains in the pros!

My trust in Shanahan was shaken a little bit this season, but if there's one thing I trust him on, it's how to get a quarterback NFL ready. In 2006 when he sat Cutler for most of the season it was because he had a Pro-Bowl quarterback who'd just won 13 games the previous season... with Grossman on the team he has no such player blocking a rookie. If we spent 10th pick on a QB and then sat them for most of the season it would be an absolute waste. The last few years prove, undoubtedly that starting a young guy pays off, sitting them does not. Pick any QB who you think benefited from a year away from the playing field. There just isn't one.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Agree that he wouldn't be an immediate impact player but TOTALLY disagree that Cam Newton (or Locker, or Mallet, or Gabbert) should sit behind Grossman for a year. It just makes zero sense. A top ten QB should start immediately. Grossman is a nobody but can still help teach the system as a backup.......

Alright.... so you'd be happy with a 4-12 season next year while Newton takes his lumps and tries to learn the system?

Skinsfan55 wrote:My trust in Shanahan was shaken a little bit this season, but if there's one thing I trust him on, it's how to get a quarterback NFL ready. In 2006 when he sat Cutler for most of the season it was because he had a Pro-Bowl quarterback who'd just won 13 games the previous season... with Grossman on the team he has no such player blocking a rookie. If we spent 10th pick on a QB and then sat them for most of the season it would be an absolute waste. The last few years prove, undoubtedly that starting a young guy pays off, sitting them does not. Pick any QB who you think benefited from a year away from the playing field. There just isn't one.

Realize that I'm not a huge fan of ROOKIES to begin with. I prefer to acquire PROVEN VETERANS through FREE AGENCY over ANY draft pick.

I have no trust or faith in Shanny or Bruce Allen. Trust and faith are EARNED in my mind and they've done nothing to EARN it yet.

How many of those young QB's have a Super Bowl ring? NONE. This team is much more than just a QB away from being a PLAYOFF TEAM, nevermind a Super Bowl contender.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:So summarizing - would love to trade down if we have a taker but would definitely draft either one of these tremendous athletes at a position of need if available at 10.

I WOULD take Newton at #10. I WOULD NOT take Dareus there. Hell, I wouldn't take Dareus at #25 if he were still there (which he obviously won't be).

QB is a position where I would not expect Newton (or anyone else) to come in and be an IMMEDIATE IMPACT PLAYER. That is because they have to learn a new system and everything that goes with it. Even if we draft Cam Newton at #10, I don't want him starting next year (unless Shanny and Co. think he's ready in week 12 or later, after we're out of playoff contention). I'll take a year of Grossman under center while Newton learns the system and gets tutored by Kyle and Rex. It's not like we're going to be Super Bowl contenders next year anyway.

NT is a position where I WOULD expect a player to be able to come in and make an immedate impact. From everything I read, Dareus is not the sort of guy who is going to come in and make an immediate impact like Suh did for Detroit this year.

The point in taking Dareus or Clayborn would be to put them at DE, not nose

brad7686 wrote:The point in taking Dareus or Clayborn would be to put them at DE, not nose

I do not believe that Defensive END is a large enough need at this time to WASTE the #10 selection on it. We are in much greater need of a PROTOTYPICAL 3-4 NOSE TACKLE than a Defensive End at this time.

brad7686 wrote:

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:So summarizing - would love to trade down if we have a taker but would definitely draft either one of these tremendous athletes at a position of need if available at 10.

I WOULD take Newton at #10. I WOULD NOT take Dareus there. Hell, I wouldn't take Dareus at #25 if he were still there (which he obviously won't be).

QB is a position where I would not expect Newton (or anyone else) to come in and be an IMMEDIATE IMPACT PLAYER. That is because they have to learn a new system and everything that goes with it. Even if we draft Cam Newton at #10, I don't want him starting next year (unless Shanny and Co. think he's ready in week 12 or later, after we're out of playoff contention). I'll take a year of Grossman under center while Newton learns the system and gets tutored by Kyle and Rex. It's not like we're going to be Super Bowl contenders next year anyway.

NT is a position where I WOULD expect a player to be able to come in and make an immedate impact. From everything I read, Dareus is not the sort of guy who is going to come in and make an immediate impact like Suh did for Detroit this year.

The point in taking Dareus or Clayborn would be to put them at DE, not nose

Exactly. Radeskins Fanatic, if you look at my innitial post I agreed that there were no top end NT's in this years draft. Dareus and Claiborne are both 3-4 DE's IMO. IMO, the most imprtant positions on defense for us to draft in the 1st round (if they decide to) goes OLB, DE, MLB. NT is not included bc there are no NT prospects that warrant a pick at 10. Doesnt Miami have a good NT about to hit FA?

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

brad7686 wrote:The point in taking Dareus or Clayborn would be to put them at DE, not nose

I do not believe that Defensive END is a large enough need at this time to WASTE the #10 selection on it. We are in much greater need of a PROTOTYPICAL 3-4 NOSE TACKLE than a Defensive End at this time.

I agree but that's not how the draft works. If they appear to be big upgrades over Golston, which I think they would, they are options. Obviously Qb and WR are bigger needs if they can find a player worth selecting at those positions.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:Alright.... so you'd be happy with a 4-12 season next year while Newton takes his lumps and tries to learn the system?

No, apparently you missed the point. Recent history proves that starting a rookie QB produces success more quickly. Does it take time to master a system? Yes. Is it likely a rookie quarterback right out of college can learn an NFL playbook in 4 months of studying, practicing and playing? YES. Will a rookie better grasp the offense and learn more if they are actually playing rather than riding the pine? YES. It's just so obvious. Most people learn by doing. Not by watching. Starting a QB right away is the best way to ensure future success.

So no, I would not be happy with a 4-12 record. That would be a disaster. It's also terribly unlikely (and would undoubtedly signal that Shanahan drafted the wrong QB.) A top ten pick, whoever we would select in theory should be able to start and would give us a better chance to win on Sundays (present and future) than Rex Grossman.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:Realize that I'm not a huge fan of ROOKIES to begin with. I prefer to acquire PROVEN VETERANS through FREE AGENCY over ANY draft pick.

I have no trust or faith in Shanny or Bruce Allen. Trust and faith are EARNED in my mind and they've done nothing to EARN it yet.

How many of those young QB's have a Super Bowl ring? NONE. This team is much more than just a QB away from being a PLAYOFF TEAM, nevermind a Super Bowl contender.

Every single successful team builds around rookies. Basically, they're cheap (unless they're top ten material) and malleable. If you take a young kid right out of school and put him in a well run NFL organization you mold them into the kind of player you need. Take Orakpo for instance. Big time defensive end in the Big 12. The Redskins brought him in as a linebacker and he is excellent there. They molded him. If he had been drafted as an end by another team and 5 years or so down the road we signed him as a free agent he would be entrenched at his position and much more expensive.

Mainly, they key to a well run football team is to build around rookies, and use proven veterans as role players. They are known quantities. You need a stud 4-3 DT, sign Albert Haynesworth... but he is what he is and you can't change that. You want an enforcer over the middle? Go sign Rodney Harrison but he'll be expensive and he is what he is, he won't get better, his skills will slowly deteriorate and he won't adapt well to new assignments. The list goes on and on. Practically no teams build around free agents. They are role players.

As for Shanahan and Allen not having your trust because they haven't earned it? They have a huge body of work. Evidence of their ability to run a franchise. I know, I know, you want to see what they can do for US. That's fine, you don't have to trust them. You or I don't have any say in how they go about their business and our satisfaction or dissatisfaction is practically irrelevant.

Also, quite frankly, it's silly so ask how many of those quarterbacks have won a Super Bowl considering I only listed those drafted in the last 5 years not to mention it's completely beside the point. They are examples of quarterbacks who've shined after starting early on in their careers.

In 2008 when Flacco and Ryan were drafted they started right away and they are both in the second round of the playoffs. Same with Mark Sanchez who was drafted in 09. He started immediately and now his team is in the second round. Time will tell for Freeman and Bradford but they all obviously benefited from starting the second they were drafted.

Of the 8 teams to make it to the second round... (GB/Philly undecided at this time, but they don't factor into this), of those 8 teams, four quarterbacks were drafted and started immediately (Flacco, Sanchez, Roethlisberger and Ryan).

The bottom line was, and still remains: If Shanahan sees a franchise quarterback available at #10 he should draft him and start him immediately, It is patently absurd to think Rex Grossman could block a future franchise player.

Skinsfan55 wrote:No, apparently you missed the point. Recent history proves that starting a rookie QB produces success more quickly. Does it take time to master a system? Yes. Is it likely a rookie quarterback right out of college can learn an NFL playbook in 4 months of studying, practicing and playing? YES. Will a rookie better grasp the offense and learn more if they are actually playing rather than riding the pine? YES. It's just so obvious. Most people learn by doing. Not by watching. Starting a QB right away is the best way to ensure future success.

Will a rookie get his head kicked in behind an offensive line with more holes than a ton of swiss cheese? YES. Will he learn to run the offense while lying on his back or running for his life? PROBABLY NOT.

Skinsfan55 wrote:So no, I would not be happy with a 4-12 record. That would be a disaster. It's also terribly unlikely (and would undoubtedly signal that Shanahan drafted the wrong QB.) A top ten pick, whoever we would select in theory should be able to start and would give us a better chance to win on Sundays (present and future) than Rex Grossman.

In theory, you're right. However, in practical application I believe we're at least TWO offseasons away from having the proper tools for a brand new NFL quarterback to actually be successful in this offense.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Every single successful team builds around rookies....

I would rather LOSE with Vets than WIN with Rookies. Feel free to tear me apart for that, but it's where my principles lay.

Skinsfan55 wrote:As for Shanahan and Allen not having your trust because they haven't earned it? They have a huge body of work. Evidence of their ability to run a franchise. I know, I know, you want to see what they can do for US. That's fine, you don't have to trust them. You or I don't have any say in how they go about their business and our satisfaction or dissatisfaction is practically irrelevant.

Their body of work is 6-10 right now so far as I am concerned. My dissatisfaction is definitely irrelevant to THEM, however if they want people like me to buy tickets, jerseys, etc... they do have to pay a little bit of attention to it lest they find themselves a team with no fanbase.

Skinsfan55 wrote:The bottom line was, and still remains: If Shanahan sees a franchise quarterback available at #10 he should draft him and start him immediately, It is patently absurd to think Rex Grossman could block a future franchise player.

A FUTURE franchise player. Not a CURRENT franchise player, a FUTURE franchise player. I agree that we need a franchise Quarterback and if one (that I like) is there, I hope we take him. However, I would rather have Rex lead us to another 6-10 season while we try to put toghether a new offensive line than to see a Cam Newton endure 3 concussions and the rest of the beating back there while trying to learn to read NFL defenses in his first year.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

Skinsfan55 wrote:No, apparently you missed the point. Recent history proves that starting a rookie QB produces success more quickly. Does it take time to master a system? Yes. Is it likely a rookie quarterback right out of college can learn an NFL playbook in 4 months of studying, practicing and playing? YES. Will a rookie better grasp the offense and learn more if they are actually playing rather than riding the pine? YES. It's just so obvious. Most people learn by doing. Not by watching. Starting a QB right away is the best way to ensure future success.

Will a rookie get his head kicked in behind an offensive line with more holes than a ton of swiss cheese? YES. Will he learn to run the offense while lying on his back or running for his life? PROBABLY NOT.

Skinsfan55 wrote:So no, I would not be happy with a 4-12 record. That would be a disaster. It's also terribly unlikely (and would undoubtedly signal that Shanahan drafted the wrong QB.) A top ten pick, whoever we would select in theory should be able to start and would give us a better chance to win on Sundays (present and future) than Rex Grossman.

In theory, you're right. However, in practical application I believe we're at least TWO offseasons away from having the proper tools for a brand new NFL quarterback to actually be successful in this offense.

Skinsfan55 wrote:Every single successful team builds around rookies....

I would rather LOSE with Vets than WIN with Rookies. Feel free to tear me apart for that, but it's where my principles lay.

Skinsfan55 wrote:As for Shanahan and Allen not having your trust because they haven't earned it? They have a huge body of work. Evidence of their ability to run a franchise. I know, I know, you want to see what they can do for US. That's fine, you don't have to trust them. You or I don't have any say in how they go about their business and our satisfaction or dissatisfaction is practically irrelevant.

Their body of work is 6-10 right now so far as I am concerned. My dissatisfaction is definitely irrelevant to THEM, however if they want people like me to buy tickets, jerseys, etc... they do have to pay a little bit of attention to it lest they find themselves a team with no fanbase.

Skinsfan55 wrote:The bottom line was, and still remains: If Shanahan sees a franchise quarterback available at #10 he should draft him and start him immediately, It is patently absurd to think Rex Grossman could block a future franchise player.

A FUTURE franchise player. Not a CURRENT franchise player, a FUTURE franchise player. I agree that we need a franchise Quarterback and if one (that I like) is there, I hope we take him. However, I would rather have Rex lead us to another 6-10 season while we try to put toghether a new offensive line than to see a Cam Newton endure 3 concussions and the rest of the beating back there while trying to learn to read NFL defenses in his first year.

You would rather lose with vets then win with rookies????????????????? What? I would rather win with rookies or vets no matter

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:/rambling lunacy.

Get real. Every single sentence in that post was alarmist nonsense.

A rookie QB would get squashed on our team next season? Two offseasons away from being able to support a prospect at QB? Rather lose with veteran players than win with rookies? A future QB getting three concussions and ruining his season? Being happy with Rex Grossman running the team to another 6-10 season?

None of that is true, get a hold of yourself.

Go take a couple Tylenol and drink plenty of clear liquids.

skins2357 wrote:You would rather lose with vets then win with rookies????????????????? What? I would rather win with rookies or vets no matter

To me the PRINCIPLE of the matter is more important than the results are. I understand that's not a common viewpoint in any sports fandom, but it is where I come from, philosophically.

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

skins2357 wrote:You would rather lose with vets then win with rookies????????????????? What? I would rather win with rookies or vets no matter

To me the PRINCIPLE of the matter is more important than the results are. I understand that's not a common viewpoint in any sports fandom, but it is where I come from, philosophically.

So look at our position and the Chiefs position. We have alot of vets and lost alot. The Chiefs have a ton of rookies and made the playoffs. You wouldnt want to take the chiefs rookies and make the playoffs? You would rather take our vets and ge 6-10? That is lunacy IMO

skins2357 wrote:So look at our position and the Chiefs position. We have alot of vets and lost alot. The Chiefs have a ton of rookies and made the playoffs. You wouldnt want to take the chiefs rookies and make the playoffs? You would rather take our vets and ge 6-10? That is lunacy IMO

When I look at the two teams you mention I see the same thing.... FAILURE. Neither team is the last one standing at the end of the season.

I would rather go 0-16 with the Veterans than to do what the Chiefs did this year with their Rookies. This reliance on Rookies is mandated by the Salary Cap structure the NFL currently employs. That structure is abhorant to me on ever conceiveable level. Therefore success through that structure is worse to me than failure through a more appropriate structure (veteran free agent acquisitions).

TCIYM wrote:It doesn't matter which comes first because we need both, however there aren't any franchise QBs loitering about in free agency. There are several quality offensive linemen who will be free agents. So, to my thinking it makes more sense to draft a QB and sign line upgrades via free agency. That, and the line positions we need are not ones usually drafted with top 10 1st round draft selections.

Well, that pretty much summarizes the Snyder-Cerrato approach over the last decade. We have already drafted two franchise quarterbacks in the last 10 years, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell, yet we are farther away from our goal than we have been in a long time. When we were not wasting our first round picks on quarterbacks, we were wasting them on wide receivers. When you draft for flash rather than substance, a lot of times you roll snake eyes.

Maybe it would not have been so bad if we had taken a "roll the dice" approach to the draft while taking a more conservative approach in free agency. But it seems like we took high risks on both fronts, and there wasn't enough money left over to play the blue collar guys who fight in the trenches.

Snout wrote:Well, that pretty much summarizes the Snyder-Cerrato approach over the last decade. We have already drafted two franchise quarterbacks in the last 10 years, Patrick Ramsey and Jason Campbell, yet we are farther away from our goal than we have been in a long time. When we were not wasting our first round picks on quarterbacks, we were wasting them on wide receivers. When you draft for flash rather than substance, a lot of times you roll snake eyes.

Maybe it would not have been so bad if we had taken a "roll the dice" approach to the draft while taking a more conservative approach in free agency. But it seems like we took high risks on both fronts, and there wasn't enough money left over to play the blue collar guys who fight in the trenches.

Ramsey, OK. Bad pick. Campbell was drafted to fit Joe Gibbs' offense. Then Joe left. Campbell didn't fit and doesn't fit the schemes since Joe retired. He did OK for himself in Oakland this season. Neither here nor there. If you write a list of the best QBs in today's game, how many of them were drafted by the team for whom they play? How many were not? We don't have Snyder and Cerrato heading the evaluation process any longer. We have Mike Shanahan, who for all of the things I dislike about him and all of the valid criticisms against him has a good track record when it comes to drafting QBs. He made a Pro Bowler out of Jake Plummer. We also have no choice other than to trust his judgment because no team is dumping a Drew Brees this off-season. The closest thing to a "seasoned QB" who isn't over the hill might end up being Kevin Kolb, who supposedly wants out of Philly. Can't imagine the Redskins making another QB trade with the Eagles after the results of the last one. The key to success is to draft and develop and take your lumps along the way. There are no quick fixes. Consistency from the top down has been missing until now. We will have the same management, coaching staff, and schemes in consecutive seasons for the first time since Gibbs left. It's a process. We have to go through the film. Everyone is in the mix. We will be conducting our evaluations. (Want any more cliches?) I'm far from the most positive person when it comes to the Washington Redskins judgment and decision-making processes but we have no alternative other than to trust that Mike Shanahan will draft and develop the QB of the future.

We are recovering from an era of many years of being managed by guys who had very little knowledge about what needed to be done

This is really very simple - there are guys now in place here that know what they're doing and they will be in charge here for a little longer - they have not done really well but they have not done too badly either when you consider how bad we were


we are allowed to question their progress and look at all the mistakes and just presume this will not improve very quickly BUT we're also allowed to think that maybe they will get things in gear here a little more this off-season by adding some decent (young) free agents and having a good draft

IMO - the most important thing is to have a roster that is a lot younger than we are used to seeing here - hopefully the guys in charge have a really good player evaluation team together and we'll find a number of players at positions of need (and there are many) and hope that some of the younger guys can become part of a consistently competitive product here

PATIENCE - it's not going to take long to find out if these guys really do have a good player evaluation team - there have been mistakes but we have improved


they will add a QB because it's the most important position - I'm not sure that we can find the guy they need at 10 but I do think that we'll have a young QB via the draft this year

Redskins_Fanatic wrote:

skins2357 wrote:So look at our position and the Chiefs position. We have alot of vets and lost alot. The Chiefs have a ton of rookies and made the playoffs. You wouldnt want to take the chiefs rookies and make the playoffs? You would rather take our vets and ge 6-10? That is lunacy IMO

When I look at the two teams you mention I see the same thing.... FAILURE. Neither team is the last one standing at the end of the season.

I would rather go 0-16 with the Veterans than to do what the Chiefs did this year with their Rookies. This reliance on Rookies is mandated by the Salary Cap structure the NFL currently employs. That structure is abhorant to me on ever conceiveable level. Therefore success through that structure is worse to me than failure through a more appropriate structure (veteran free agent acquisitions).

Wow, you never cease to amaze me!

This is same line of thinking that a lot of the current younger generation has. I have no idea how old you are, but a lot of young people would rather "look good losing, than look bad winning".

This the dumbest thing EVER!

The goal of any NFL franchise should be to win a Championship and how you do that is one of two ways.

You either throw a whole bunch of stars (read aging veterans) together and hope you win the championship in a year or two.
Or you can build a young team full of mostly draft choices and build a team that can compete for almost a decade.

A GM should never consider the social economic ramifications of not retaining has-beens (or veteran FA), but only how it impacts winning and the salary cap.

If you can win with veterans, great, but the core of your team should be young players that are improving, not old players on the decline.

I would rather win with whomever they need to sign to get us sustained competitive team. If they need to start 22 players that are all 25 years or younger to do it great! If they need to add in a few aging player; fine! But I'm done with them building OLD teams that only have a chance to make a SB run for one or two years!

But if you want to have your team of AARP players that are on a team as a reward for their past performances, rather than a team of hungry young players that get paid less, but will be around for longer then go right ahead and root for that.

I want no part of it!

I vote yes. If you take an inventory of the playoff teams over the last several years, most of them have a 1st round quarterback at the helm.

No. That does not mean that drafting one in the first round guarantees you anything, but it's obvious in today's NFL, you need a good quarterback.

I personally feel that this year's QB class is a good one. My ideal scenario would be to slide down in the first (assuming we could of course) and possibly taking Jake Locker or Ryan Mallet.

It appears right now that Blaine Gabbert and Cam Newton are the two top guys position-wise. But, I believe Mallet or Locker could excel in our offense and may be available in the later part of the first round.