The Mid Round QB fallacy

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

And that's the reason that once a QB becomes elite.. that the team is rarely in the position to draft a top QB prospect again.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.I think Jason Campbell could easily enter the top echilon of quarterbacks. Still. Problem is that I absolutely do not think that he WILL, and especially not here. I used to think it was only a matter of time before he'd be in the top ten, but the quality of our offense has declined greatly since 2007 and the beginning of 2008. And thusly, while I can still see the potential there, I think the longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to achieve anything beyond what he already has.

Same deal with any rookie we might draft. The quality of the offense he'd be in from day one is pathetic. The system, however, would be the one proven thing we'd have to work with. We don't have great talent on the outsides or in the backfield, or up front, so in effect what we're looking for is a system quarterback. Can he execute the Shanahan playbook as well as any other player in this draft? If the answer is yes, I don't see why we wouldn't take one at four.

I honestly have no idea if a system quarterback drafted in the second round is as good as a system quarterback drafted in the first. I really don't think any team has ever tried to take a system quarterback in the top ten picks. And I don't see why Washington would be any different. But I think Shanahan has to at least evaluate all the options. If his system values accuracy above all, and Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are the two most accurate passers in the entire class (ignoring McCoy), then I think you almost have to take one of them.

But are we rebuilding on offense? Or are we just adding Shanahan players to what already exists? And if we're rebuilding, why did we hire Shanahan? And what of 2011? There's so much context I can't answer here, but the one thing I think I can answer is that, context-neutral, Bradford and Clausen are both reaches at No. 4.

Shanahan's mentor, Walsh, was famous for taking undervalued quarterback prospects and building a system that hid their weaknesses while exposing those of the defense. In a class like this, I find it hard to believe we won't even try that.

And that's why I feel that we will spend a first round pick on a quarterback, but that it won't be at No. 4. It will be at No. 25 or something, and it will be McCoy.

But it's an interesting thought that we may do that, and Clausen might still be available at that point. And then there's a legitimate dilemma that we'll have to pick between Clausen and McCoy at the back end of the first round to be our quarterback of the future.

I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!

Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last

I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!There are a lot of teams that need a QB, but a lot of them are going to go the veteran route. Come draft day, there might be two or three teams that need one, and one of those might be Carolina who doesn't pick before we pick twice. Arizona could be the other, and they don't pick until right around 25. Every team, however, has needs outside of quarterback.

There's also a bunch of teams that will be perfectly happy to test the draft later. Cleveland's run by Holmgren now, and he's NEVER taken a QB in the first round.

Someone is going to take Bradford within the top ten picks. After that, who knows.

You also have to consider that the Raiders don't think they need a quarterback, even though they obviously do.

Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last

Dan LeFevour.

yeah i was going based on my opinion. but still that makes it 8 or 9 teams that pick before then and there are only 2 QB's considered "elite"

It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).Manning had a third year Marvin Harrison when he got there, and a fourth year Marshall Faulk, who was later replaced by Edgerrin James. And they had a 1997 1st round draft pick at LT named Tarik Glenn. It was a bad team anyway, in part because the defense there was terrible. Still, it was five years or so before the guy became a perennial all-pro. And we're talking about the greatest of all time.

I don't think you can separate this organization from the Oakland's and Cincinnati's of the world. We have been more successful than those franchises, but we also have way more resources year-to-year. On one hand, I think you need to assume that we're going to be better in the future than we have been in the past regarding player development. That's the only way we can improve to a team that wins in line with our resources.

But on the other hand, what's here is what's been built by that inept management. We don't have a Marvin Harrison in either Thomas or Kelly, we don't have a Marshall Faulk, and we certainly don't have a Tarik Glenn. We just have a pair of tight ends. That doesn't mean we can't draft the next Reggie Wayne or Edgerrin James in the future, and certainly if the next Peyton Manning is out there, we can wait.

But when we're comparing the offenses, we're best compared to the situations that Tim Couch and David Carr failed in. Any advantages we have over those expansion teams is on the defensive side of the ball, which won't affect the quarterbacks numbers very much.