The Mid Round QB fallacy

Take the QB next year if ya can't get him in 2nd round. Otherwise we gotta be dealing some shit soon!

pain, good read. and some great points. too me, it boils down to being easier to evaluate an offensive lineman as compared to a q-back. im not a huge Campbell supporter. but i do think he would be a decent starter with an NFL caliber line

Don't forget Micahel Roos, Marcus McNeil, Jason Peters, Eric Winston, Jeremy Trueblood, Donald Penn, David Stewart, and Matt Light. All guys selected after the first round.

We're also in an era were 7 first round lineman have started for a Super Bowl champion. Yet 8 of the last 10 Super Bowls were won by franchise QB's.



Keep in mind you're also coming off a Super Bowl where the starting Left Tackles were a 5th round pick and an UDFA.



And yet there are a handful of quality tackles that were selected in the 2nd round in recent years. This past year for instance there wasn't a whole lot of difference in performance between the first round tackles and the second round guys, in fact I think the second round guys made a much stronger statement this past year then the guys selected in the first round.

Eben Britton, Phil Loadholt, and Sebastian Vollmer all became regular starters by season end and are now staples on their line for years to come. If it hadn't been for Michael Oher the second round tackles would have outperformed their first round counterparts.

Plus we had a franchise tackle for the last 10 years while struggling with an anemic offense that suffered from *surprise* QB problems.



Again a one year jump start on developing a blue chip QB prospect is extremely valuable especially when it means you'll probably save draft picks down the line. Trust me we will not be picking in the top 10 for a while, unfortunately I can't promise you that we'll be picking in the bottom 10 either.



The type of accuracy Bradford has is rare so of course I want us to draft him, especially after Shanahan says the number 1 quality he wants in a QB is accuracy. By the way I don't want moderate success, I want a freaking championship. I want Obama leaning into the mic with a football asking "whereeee's Chris Cooley?" I'm tired of hoping we limp into the playoffs. Of course over the next year or two that will be our goal but I want something to look forward to after that.





Third degree AC joint sprain that was fixed with a 35 minute operation. Compare that to Drew Brees who came off a 360 degree tear.

Knock out analysis from Dirtbag, well done.

You have a much better chance of getting a good player at any position in the first round. I don't think that's a surprise. If you draft a QB in the first round you'd better hope he's a good one because it can set your franchise back for years if he isn't.

There are 32 starting QB's in the NFL. In the last 10 years 26 QB's have been drafted in the first round. That's 26 out of 32 positions available.

There are 160 starting o-line positions available and 42 o-linemen have been drafted in the first round in the last 10 years. That's 42 out of 160 available positions.

It's obvious that the percentage of QB's taken in the first round compared to the positions available is pretty high compared to o-linemen. In that case more starting QB's should come from the first round percentage-wise than o-linemen. There are simply more players from the o-line starting in the NFL who were taken in the later rounds because there are more positions to fill. Just because you start on the o-line doesn't mean you're one of the best. I think we're proof of that. So I agree with Paintrain that your chances of getting a quality QB are better in the first round. The same goes with any position.

dang, some good back n forth analysis in here.

go skins!

Also, counting Pennington, Jamarcus Russell and Brady Quinn, if you want to count them as starters, 15 of the 26 first round QB picks start. 11 first round picks don't, and if you take away Russell and Quinn who haven't proven much, 50% of the QB's taken in the first round in the last 10 years did not start last year. Take away Pennington, which I guess you could since Henne is starting for Miami, it becomes even more who are not starting.

This is just my opinion and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really count for much, but there are 2 things I feel strongly about.

1- Considering the personell we have, the Redskins needs at o-line are far greater than our need at QB to become a winning team.

2- Russell Okung is much less of a risk than Bradford or Clausen at #4.

I'm of the opinion that if you have a chance to get a QB you think will be great, you absolutely can't pass up the opportunity. No other position impacts the game nearly as much, and the point was already made that nobody is going deep in the playoffs these days without an elite QB.

If you have a great QB prospect available when you pick, it's a mistake to fulfill any other need, including LT.

Could you miss on the QB? Sure. Schuler anyone? But imagine if you hit, and you end up with the next Drew Brees or Peyton Manning. If you hit on an LT, you end up with a Chris Samuels, which is great for 10 years. But without the QB you see where that got us.

Football's a team sport and you need it all, but first and foremost you need the QB. The question isn't whether we should go LT over QB, the question is whether Bradford or Clausen are tremendous prospects. If we think one of them is, we've got to pull the trigger. We'll find our LT later, despite what people think, there are Sam Baker's out there who can make an impact outside of the top 10.

I'm of the opinion that if you have a chance to get a QB you think will be great, you absolutely can't pass up the opportunity. No other position impacts the game nearly as much, and the point was already made that nobody is going deep in the playoffs these days without an elite QB.

If you have a great QB prospect available when you pick, it's a mistake to fulfill any other need, including LT.

Could you miss on the QB? Sure. Schuler anyone? But imagine if you hit, and you end up with the next Drew Brees or Peyton Manning. If you hit on an LT, you end up with a Chris Samuels, which is great for 10 years. But without the QB you see where that got us.

Football's a team sport and you need it all, but first and foremost you need the QB. The question isn't whether we should go LT over QB, the question is whether Bradford or Clausen are tremendous prospects. If we think one of them is, we've got to pull the trigger. We'll find our LT later, despite what people think, there are Sam Baker's out there who can make an impact outside of the top 10.

Great post. I still want McCoy in the 2nd though.

would this change things?
EXTREMESKINS.com (http://www.extremeskins.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=43173&stc=1&d=1266164265)

Just for the sake of argument, we've won 3 Super Bowls and gone to 5. In the SB era, besides Sonny Jurgenson who didn't win any, what Franchise QB's have we had?