Redskins pick 4th in the draft

tony pike

I'm honestly surprised because no one seems to be mentioning him. I saw him in the Big East Championship and he looks like a very talented quarterback. I would prefer Bradford or Clausen, but Pike is a good backup plan.

We trade Jason Campbell and the #4 pick for the 49ers 13th, 17th and 3 rounder. Use those picks to select Mike Iupati and Bruce Campbel in the first round. Pick Colt McCoy or the top QB Shanahan sees fit.

We trade Jason Campbell and the #4 pick for the 49ers 13th, 17th and 3 rounder. Use those picks to select Mike Iupati and Bruce Campbel in the first round. Pick Colt McCoy or the top QB Shanahan sees fit.

That is so not going to happen. So you're telling me Campbell is worth a 1st and a 3rd..............ummmm we'd be lucky to get just a 3rd round pick for him.

We trade Jason Campbell and the #4 pick for the 49ers 13th, 17th and 3 rounder. Use those picks to select Mike Iupati and Bruce Campbel in the first round. Pick Colt McCoy or the top QB Shanahan sees fit.

Iupati is not a good fit in this scheme. Maybe they could make it work but he's to much of a mauler to fit into a zone blocking scheme. Iupati is also likely to be available in the second round.

If JC is worth a 1rst and a 3rd....why would we WANT to get rid of him?

I think a top 5 pick and JC would be enough to get those picks from SF. I would even be willing to trade Carter instead JC (he's not as good in a 3-4) if they wanted him.
If Iupati is around in the second round I'd take him in a heart beat. He will be the next Kevin Mawae, Mangold, Faneca type of interior lineman and I would draft him based off of his talent and will coach him into the type of lineman that I want him to be.

cause JC is a indecisive bum!

1. St. Louis (1-15)
2. Detroit (2-14)
3. Tampa Bay (3-13)
4. Washington (4-12)
5. Kansas City (4-12)
6. Seattle (5-11)
7. Cleveland (5-11)
8. Oakland (5-11)
9. Buffalo (6-10)
10t. Denver (acquired from Chicago) (7-9)*
10t. Jacksonville (7-9)*
12. Miami (7-9)
13. San Francisco (8-8)
14. Seattle (acquired from Denver) (8-8)
15. New York Giants (8-8)
16t. Tennessee (8-8)
16t. San Francisco (acquired from Carolina) (8-8)
18. Pittsburgh (9-7)
19t. Atlanta (9-7) *
19t. Houston (9-7)

Out of the 1st 20picks, the only teams i could see that could draft a QB are St Louis, Sea, Buff, SF (maybe if they are not sold on Alex S and his improvement). Yes, SF could move up from 13 or 16 and get our 4th and still have their 2nd 1st rounder. I'm sure we would be able to snag a 2nd rounder from SF too. Win/Win for both teams. We may not get JC or SB but we'd have 3 picks in the top 40 or so.

If St Louis doesn't take a QB and takes Suh. I think we are going to have many options. Sorry if all this has been said, just trying to talk some Skins.

I just don't think SF will make that trade man, I really think we are going to go Bradford with this choice...there is a reason that 90% of the mock drafts have us taking Bradford....like it or not, it's time for a new QB change in the nation's capital.

Bradford is who I would go with of the two of them as well, but he's just the classic college underclassman top ten quarterback. He's got a legitimate track record of success (two years worth) under one team. This year was supposed to be the big test to Bradford's candidacy of a first overall type quarterback, and well, it was incomplete at best and a massive failure at worst.

Bradford could be a Mike Williams (the WR, not the OT) or a Rex Grossman. There's little statistical evidence to suggest he isn't. But what film we actually have on him is overwhelmingly positive. That doesn't mean he's not a bust, especially in Washington, but he does LOOK like a first overall type quarterback for the world. Obviously, things aren't as they appear, but he appears to be an accurate passer behind a great offensive line. A team like St. Louis with a strong, young OL should seriously consider Bradford at first overall. A team like Washington probably shouldn't risk it.

Clausen is someone I think we know way more about. He holds the ball a long time, he has a good arm (but not a great arm), is accurate downfield, but definitely lived off the jump ball as a sophomore and a junior. If we take Jimmy Clausen at No. 4, I think we know what we are getting: a guy who in many ways is a Jason Campbell clone, but does offer the ability to throw downfield and to the sideline with intent, where Campbell is a lot more comfortable throwing in the middle of the field.

Right now though, our passing game is built to go to the middle of the field. We'd be better in the short-term with Campbell than Clausen, and Campbell is a better fit for a Shanahan styled offense than Clausen is. He'd probably be more decisive in the offense than Clausen would be. But obviously, you could take Clausen with the intent to put the offense around him over time, and then it would make more sense.

In the end, you'd probably get an efficient passer who has a good TD/INT ratio and high completion percentage who sometimes makes boneheaded plays with the football. Essentially, Campbell, but younger. Bradford gives us something that we don't currently have, but someone who would probably need to sit, for risk of getting killed with these current teammates.