Pre Draft Thread 2.0

Quarterback: Washington doesn’t need a quarterback. It will enter the draft with four of them. But it needs the right quarterback, someone who has the ability to become the starter and hold that role for years to come. Given Ryan Fitzpatrick’s presence and the team’s other needs, it’s a crapshoot whether Washington decides to draft one. The team has an interest in Stanford’s Davis Mills, as The Athletic’s Ben Standig has reported, but that’s no guarantee it would take him — or any other player at the position — for the sake of having one.

We don't need to take a QB. But if the value is there when our pick comes around, regardless of round, we should pull the trigger.

If Lance falls out of the top 10 (I know very unlikely) then I pull the trigger

I'm not a fan of trading up, and I definitely wouldn't trade up for Lance. If he's there at 19, and they like him, fine...

IF a QB falls and they decide to trade up, I would rather that target be Fields.

Staying at 19 or trading back if it makes sense is what I would rather them do.

I'm not a fan of trading up, and I definitely wouldn't trade up for Lance. If he's there at 19, and they like him, fine...

IF a QB falls and they decide to trade up, I would rather that target be Fields.

Staying at 19 or trading back if it makes sense is what I would rather them do.

The biggest, dumbest mistake would be trading up for Lance, Mac or Fields

I’m strongly on the not trading up for a QB after this weekend.

I’m strongly on the not trading up for a QB after this weekend.


I'm with ya (although not sure what happened this weekend).

I would rather grab an OT or LB at 19 ...
... continue balancing need with BPA in the second round ...
... and then maybe grab Kellen Mond or Davis Mills at QB with one of the 3rd round picks ....

And that's IF you feel the need to draft a QB.

I wouldn't be opposed to NOT drafting a QB at all, and rolling with what we have in the room currently.

I'm with ya (although not sure what happened this weekend).

I would rather grab an OT or LB at 19 ...
... continue balancing need with BPA in the second round ...
... and then maybe grab Kellen Mond or Davis Mills at QB with one of the 3rd round picks ....

And that's IF you feel the need to draft a QB.

I wouldn't be opposed to NOT drafting a QB at all, and rolling with what we have in the room currently.

I think you can draft a QB round 3 or later that will be better than at least half the QBs drafted higher. Happens every year. I am for not spending a 1st or 2nd round pick on QB, barring some unforeseen plummet, but you absolutely want to get one more young guy in to replace Allen. He has no upside, should be replaced with someone that has some.

I still hate going with stopgap Fitz instead of giving reps to potential long-term answer, horrible decision. There could very well be a QB none of pundits favor that team loves, but I think you have to take one QB somewhere in draft, but not necessarily high, if one you like is available.

Best outcome besides something improbable like Parsons falling to us, is getting a franchise LT in 1st round and locking up QB blindside next decade. None of other holes, LB, S, TE, are as important as protecting your QBs long term.

Worth pointing out with Miami that a number of their trades started out as moving players that were arguably top level to start with (Landry, Tunsil etc.). I get the idea of trading players that are not as good as you hoped or have passed their peak, but moving good players for future picks isn't always wise. Using Miami as an example with this years haul of picks is a little disingenuous, given their recent history. They've traded multiple times in recent years with middling success to show for it. Having a raft of picks doesn't translate to success half as much as knowing what to do with those picks does.

In other words I'd rather stick with what we've got and pick the BPA than have more picks and ending up with little to show for them. I mean if the brain trust thinks they have 2 or 3 nailed on studs further down the order and trading out of #19 will deliver those guys to our roster then maybe, but I'd want to be pretty damn certain before I pull the trigger on that trade. Especially if we then see the guy we would have picked at #19 become a star.

Miami turned Tunsil into an OBSCENE bounty. Now granted, they were lucky enough to have Cerrato 2.0 in O'Brien to trade with, deep QB class, etc.

Concur that FO must make good picks, but if they can't, you need a new GM and FO. Can't be afraid of picks just because some crappy FOs suck.

I would not simplistically ever say I'm picking and not trading until I hear offers, unless sitting #1 with surefire franchise QB and don't have one already. Nor would I say I am trading. It is about opportunity cost of player might have taken vs. gains in picks. Best teams maximize number of picks, which are lottery tickets with historical 50% rate of payout for good GMs.

We could realistically use a starting caliber MLB,WLB,SLB,TE,LT,FS,#3CB,#3WR. Plus a QB obviously. Plus a backup RB. Plus. . .

So if you feel like plenty of players available later then trading down can make sense. especially when a roster still has as many holes as ours. We would need this year and another solid offseason next year to have any hope of speaking of our roster as rounded out.

I STRONGLY favor nabbing a franchise LT if there with #19, but this would not preclude from listening to any serious trade down offer. It could be FO sees tons of 2nd-3rd round LTs that grade out similar, and trading down makes sense.

I'd say we're of similar mind, I'm just saying unless you have your eye on 2-3 players in later rounds that you're pretty sure you can nab with those picks AND you don't see the BPA's available at your pick as franchise level stars you want, then trading down doesn't make sense. If you trade back AND then miss out on the guys you wanted then you're left pretty much high and dry. It all hangs on how good you are at assessing talent, as always, but with a trade like this it's about the benefit from those 2-3 plays being greater than that one guy at 19. Simply filling a hole isn't enough in the NFL, you need to put a body in that hole that elevates the position if you have the opportunity to do so.

If you have a potential pro bowl LT or LB in that slot, I say you take them as the longer term benefits to this roster from that one guy outweigh the benefits of picking up guys that just make you better instead of great.