Not drafting a QB a mistake?

Eff Colt McMidget

http://icanhasinternets.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/haters5.jpg

also, i think calling jones a alfmo replacement at this point is probably premature. he's here to block on 3rd downs and work short yardage. his vision isn't good, so he has things to work on and i don't think he's really ready, but who knows.

Yeah, I mean we're talking about next year when Morris will be up for a new deal. And obviously Jones has a lot to proven in the meantime.

Not quite so simple for me:
QB needs to be addressed? TBD
Was that area addressed? insufficient info at this timeI think it requires a certain level of dishonesty to say the QB didn't need to be addressed somewhere within the draft.

I think it takes an even greater degree of dishonesty to say there is insuffient info to know whether or not it was addressed when they didn't draft a QB. Seem pretty straight forward in that regard.


I personally think like many others the SB winning QB of the Redskins may not be in Burgundy and Gold. You're making my point.

No. That is not what I think happened. I feel our draft board and ranking of Qb's (in terms of value and where they should be drafted) resulted in us not finding value enough to select one.
So rather than REACHING for a QB, like we reached for OG Josh LeRibeus years ago, what a mistake that was. Our GM decided to stick to his draft board. That is all. No grand mistake or colossal problem as your hoping someone will say. It is not a big deal that we did not spend a draft pick in this draft on a QB.
We can still get one that is cut from another team or get one next draft.In fairness and with no disrespect intended I don't see how your speculation on what happened with the draft and draft board relates to this discussion. Neither of us know the process. We can only judge the result. The result is they didn't draft a QB.

And c'mon really 'grand mistake or colossal problem' I'm hoping someone will say? That's a false claim, strawman and exxagerration all rolled into one phrase. Impressive use of internet debate tactics but unnecessary. You can't quote anywhere that I've even remotely intimated that sentiment. How you define a mistake is your construct not mine. And the only thing I hope for is good dialogue.



The draft is zero sum. Every draft pick can be judged as a mistake or not. Even the best GMs don't bat anywhere close to 100%. Bill Polian said that the best GMs hit at about a 60% rate give or take. So every draft there are gonna be mistakes either or comission or omission. And no believes in BPA more then me. But most teams choose based on BPA but that doesn't mean their BPA evaluation was correct, only time can tell that answer. So speculating well they chose BPA there, doesn't mean that selection can't be a mistake.

I just happen to think for reasons I've already expressed that not taking a QB somewhere in this draft was a mistake. There is no need to jump to any wild conclusions or conjecture.

And even though my speculation on what may have happened is just as irrelevant as your; since you brought it up here's my speculation:

I think Scott and Jay both thought that they would and should draft a QB somewhere in this draft. This QB could be a potential starter caliber to groom or a developmental prospect to mold in the system. I think that Jay, like his brother Jon, liked Garrett Grayson. And even aside from Grayson may have liked other pro-style/pro-concept familiar QBs available in the draft. At pick 69Grayson was available. BUT they chose to trade down with Seattle which cost them Grayson and Mannion. At the bottom of round 3 they chose Matt Jones at pick 95 by their next selection at 105 it looked like Bryce Petty was gonna fall into their laps but the Jets traded up to get him at pick 103. Round 5 they chose Martel Spaight (who I think is a stud btw, he's one of the guys I wanted in this draft and mentioned in the draft thread) over Brett Hundley.


Jay's specialty is QBs and its his 2nd year and he still hasn't drafted "his" guy. And fact is many teams (especially WCO) draft a QB to develop somewhere in almost every draft. Andy Reid and Mike Holmgren were masters of the QB pump and dump scheme where they would draft a developmental QB and trade them down the line for more value. Jay wasn't happy with the QB position last year it just seems like good planning to have one of 'his guys' waiting/developing in pipeline.

Scot M drafted exactly 1 qb in 4 years with Seattle. His 3rd year. Russell Wilson

Scot M drafted exactly 2 qb's in 5 years at SF. His 1st year, a #1 pick, which some might argue has to be a qb nowadays. Alex Smith. and his last year ( a 5th rounder with no stats next to his name)

A mistake or not (I say not), Scot M clearly doesn't play the revolving qb game through the draft. We have a qb taken #2 overall, and a qb that was a 4th round pick. In 9 drafts before this Scot M took 3 qb's, I think it's safe to say that he doesn't value yearly picks on QB's.

81 total selections by SM at SF and Sea, 3 qb's (4% of draft picks ).

In those 81 selections, you know what he took a lot of? DE/DT/OL 29 out of 81 picks(35%).

We could be so lucky to have that type of focus on the line.

In the same 9 years the Redskins took twice as many qb's, 6, in 14 less picks (67 total, 9%), and nearly half as many DE/DT/OL 15 (22%).

I also take exception with QB being a need as a blind statement of fact. When our line caves in half the time, the qb's (as has been discussed to the nth degree) tended to fall back on their bad tendencies (Griffin holding and running, KC throwing quick INT's). Let's let these guys have quality line play (and blocking TE/RBs) for 1 season then we can go into the qb pool if we have too.

... At pick 69 Grayson was available. BUT they chose to trade down with Seattle which cost them Grayson and Mannion. ...

you make the point (not yours, but everyone else's) well. It wasn't a mistake, it was in fact a calculated choice by SM which, if history holds true, he has been very good at.

I am willing to wager anything that when they traded down, they accepted the fact that a qb wouldn't be in the cards.

The fact of the matter is that just about any QB we would have drafted would have been a project...and likely never would have been more than a backup-type. Look around the league, it isn't swimming with 4th/5th/6th round starting QBs with rings. Your top guys are all early rounders with the very obvious and rare exception of Brady. Even the next tier guys are pretty much 1/2/3's. Mostly 1s. I am not even remotely concerned that we didn't bother drafting a long shot QB project.

I think it requires a certain level of dishonesty to say the QB didn't need to be addressed somewhere within the draft.

I think it takes an even greater degree of dishonesty to say there is insuffient info to know whether or not it was addressed when they didn't draft a QB. Seem pretty straight forward in that regard.


You're making my point.

To early to....walk away from Robert. Way to many positive unknowns going into this season. Improve the team.....improve Robert, or whoever may be at the helm. Has to be done and the logical time to do it is now.

NOTE: "May"
1) expressing possibility

Scot M drafted exactly 1 qb in 4 years with Seattle. His 3rd year. Russell Wilson

Scot M drafted exactly 2 qb's in 5 years at SF. His 1st year, a #1 pick, which some might argue has to be a qb nowadays. Alex Smith. and his last year ( a 5th rounder with no stats next to his name)

A mistake or not (I say not), Scot M clearly doesn't play the revolving qb game through the draft. We have a qb taken #2 overall, and a qb that was a 4th round pick. In 9 drafts before this Scot M took 3 qb's, I think it's safe to say that he doesn't value yearly picks on QB's.

81 total selections by SM at SF and Sea, 3 qb's (4% of draft picks ).

In those 81 selections, you know what he took a lot of? DE/DT/OL 29 out of 81 picks(35%).

We could be so lucky to have that type of focus on the line.

In the same 9 years the Redskins took twice as many qb's, 6, in 14 less picks (67 total, 9%), and nearly half as many DE/DT/OL 15 (22%).

I also take exception with QB being a need as a blind statement of fact. When our line caves in half the time, the qb's (as has been discussed to the nth degree) tended to fall back on their bad tendencies (Griffin holding and running, KC throwing quick INT's). Let's let these guys have quality line play (and blocking TE/RBs) for 1 season then we can go into the qb pool if we have too.

Someone should start another thread called, "Drafting too may Qb's a mistake?"

Someone should start another thread called, "Drafting too may Qb's a mistake?"

Or "Not drafting a QB likely to start about 15 games and lose most of them a mistake?"