|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
02-14-2010, 04:50 PM | #31 | |
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,570
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Quote:
__________________
Defense wins championships. Bring it! |
|
Advertisements |
02-14-2010, 04:53 PM | #32 |
Naega jeil jal naga
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 39
Posts: 14,750
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Aside from the idea of weather or not they're worthy the question becomes will we be in position to select them, and if not initially what will it cost to get them. Will it be at the expense of a second round pick that could become a lineman? Or maybe we get the O-Line situated and need to find a LB to pair with Fletch on the inside.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG |
02-14-2010, 04:58 PM | #33 |
Special Teams
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
I wanna lean towards trading back and aquiring more picks. But the more i think about it and analyze the more i wanna lean on taking bradford. The NFL has become a pass happy league, not saying the run game and good defense cant win championships because the jets were only a step away, but more often than not, you need a franchise QB to lead you. And as been said, there are a quality amount of tackles in most any draft, but not a good quality amount of QB's in each draft. I think since we are in need @ both positions (campbell doesnt cut it) i think it would be more important to get a franchise QB then a franchise Tackle, cuz you can find quality starters on OLine in round 2-5, while if you take QB's in those rounds, now they are labeled as "projects." With all the OTHER needs we have (RB, MLB, FS, possibly CB) i dont think we can afford to use a pick that SHOULD go towards not a star, but a quality producer (offense/defense/special teams) on a QB project that prolly wont pan out. Everyone says well grab an LT here and keep campbell and draft a QB next year. Well Bradford AND Clausen are above the QB's that will be coming out next year. When you're picking this high you grab an impact player that wont involve us choosing this high again. Take this years Super bowl for example, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Draft insiders said Sam Bradford had the highest grade of any QB coming out since Peyton Manning. Thats higher than eli manning, phillip rivers, tom brady, ben rothlinsberger, etc. And Drew Brees was takin in the 2nd round, but this years QB's isnt as deep as the one brees was in. After Bradford/Clausen, they start getting tagged with the "project" label. Tebow (throwing motion, spread offense) McCoy (small stature, not alot of arm strength) Now lets look at the Super Bowl Olines
Super Bowl Runner up Colts: LT Charlie Johnson - Round 6 pick LG Ryan Lilja - Undrafted Free Agent C Jeff Saturday - Undrafted Free Agent RG Mike Pollack - Round 2 pick RT Ryan Diem - Round 4 pick So the highest pick on the Colts Oline was a 2nd round pick. Super Bowl Champ Saints: LT Jeremy Bushrod - Round 4 pick (they have a 1st round pick in Jammal Brown but he was injured this season) LG Carl Nicks - Round 5 pick C Jonathan Goodwin - Undrafted Free Agent RG Jahri Evans - Round 4 pick RT Jon Stinchcomb - Round 2 pick So the highest drafted player on the Saints starting Oline for the super bowl was ALSO a 2nd round pick. Now granted with a rookie QB in order for him to have an easier time to succeed you need to have a run game. And with saints finishing #21 and the colts finishing #24 on the NFL's list this year that appears to be a chink in the armor of my case for a QB. But those #'s are misleading. Neither team ran enough to put up the #'s of some of the other teams. The colts averaged 4.3 yards per carry and the saints averaged 4.5 yards a carry. Thats BOTH more than the 4.0 the redskins put up this year. Now Mike Shanahan has a knack for finding smaller Olineman that other teams wont use cuz he is the master of the zone blocking scheme. Someone might have to correct me but i believe the only 1st round tackle Shanahan took was R. Clady. And the very next year he was fired. So even tho Clady is a great player, that pick didnt save his job. This also brings me back to the Washington Redskins 1994 draft........yes....you know what im talking about. With the 1st round selection, the Washington Redskins take, Heath Shuler, Quarterback, Tennessee Volunteers. But what did they do in the 7th round of that draft? took a chance on a project who otherwise prolly could have came in as an undrafted free agent. A man by the name of Gus Frerotte. Shuler was an EPIC FAIL and we put in that "project" and that "project" turned into a Pro Bowler for us. So if you really wanna take a QB as a project, then grab one that is undrafted, or use the current one on our roster Colt Brennan. Shanahan has proved he can do alot with a little. |
02-14-2010, 04:59 PM | #34 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Woodbridge, VA
Age: 41
Posts: 3,238
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Quote:
__________________
"I don't think anybody should have regrets, especially me, ... You don't regret what you do in your life. If you do it, you do it for a reason." ST21 |
|
02-14-2010, 05:02 PM | #35 |
Naega jeil jal naga
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 39
Posts: 14,750
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
George Foster would be the only other first round lineman selected by Shanhan. He ended up being a bust.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG |
02-14-2010, 05:09 PM | #36 |
Gamebreaker
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 41
Posts: 12,514
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Yeah.. Shanahan needs the right linemen for his system as well, which might not be the top guy or whatever.
|
02-14-2010, 05:11 PM | #37 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,323
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Quote:
You don't have to draft top 5 to get a good QB. And there is some room between top 5-15 and mid round. I don't put a lot of faith in 'stats' like this because every situation is different and there are so many variables in the development and success of QB apart from where they're drafted. I think the coach is an important factor. I don't think Holmgren has ever taken a top 5 QB and he's developed a lot of QBs over that period. Shanny has taken 1 top 15 QB. Payton coached Romo then traded for Brees. Reid drafted McNabb a special talent but groomed Kolb. McCarthy groomed Rodgers. On the flip side many top QBs have been drafted to bad teams with either no plan for their development or poor coaching from the QB coach or OC or HC only to fail. I agree that you should spend a quality draft pick to aquire any good player. But, it doesn't have to be top 5-15. I just find the risk and cost prohibitive. |
|
02-14-2010, 05:33 PM | #38 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,331
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Quote:
__________________
R.I.P. #21 |
|
02-14-2010, 05:55 PM | #39 | ||
Naega jeil jal naga
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 39
Posts: 14,750
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Quote:
In the meantime I'll sign Peyton to the vet min plus incentives!!!!!!! On a somewhat related note ESPN Insider is ticking me off. Look at what they have written in Dez Bryants scouting report keep in mind I didn't leave anything out in this section: Quote:
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG |
||
02-14-2010, 06:10 PM | #40 |
MVP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 63
Posts: 10,672
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
pay your bill in full. then you get the whole article
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan |
02-14-2010, 06:19 PM | #41 | |
Naega jeil jal naga
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 39
Posts: 14,750
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Bastardo, I doa pay me bill What you think I is, some sort of funny pastrami?
Still it seems to happen in one out of every 10 reports, some section ends up incomplete. The way they also post stats in the production section is also pretty annoying: Quote:
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice." - Scooter "I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now." - FRPLG |
|
02-14-2010, 08:01 PM | #42 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,331
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Quote:
__________________
R.I.P. #21 |
|
02-14-2010, 08:22 PM | #43 |
A Dude
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 45
Posts: 12,421
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Offensive lines are clearly incredibly important, but PHazard's post above notes why a great QB is so much more important. Neither the Colts nor the Saints offensive lines are riddled with natural talent. They're all smart, hard working players. But they weren't protypical linemen coming out of college. Some are undersized, some aren't that quick, some are free agent castoffs, but they play well enough as a unit to allow their QBs to work. Manning and Brees didn't have the greatest lines, but Brees has enough escapability and accuracy on the run to be elite behind that line. And Manning has a knack for getting the ball out so quickly that he's elite behind his line.
When you have a Drew Brees or Peyton Manning, the offensive line doesn't need to dominate games like the Hogs. You want to talk about Redskin QBs, the reason we didn't need a dominant franchise QB is because our offensive line was DOMINANT. But look at the Saints, they don't need a dominant offensive line because their QB is dominant. So clearly that says there are plenty of ways to build a championship team. But look at history, how many Super Bowls have been won using the Hogs formula, dominating with an offensive line with an adequate-to-good QB? How many have been won with dominating QBs but less-than-dominant lines? Bradshaw, Staubach, Montana/Young, Aikman, Brady, Roethlisberger, Manning, Brees. Some of those lines were very good and occasionally dominant, but mostly those guys played behind good-but-not-great lines. And look at how many of them won multiple times. The elite QB just makes everything easier. They open up the secondary, teams think twice about blitzing QBs who are cool as a cucumber, elite QBs audible into successful plays to cover for their line's susceptibilities. And most importantly, they complete passes to covered receivers who most QBs wouldn't even throw to. In history, it's a lot rarer for the offensive line to make the offense dominate than it is for the QB to make the offense dominate.
__________________
God made certain people to play football. He was one of them. |
02-14-2010, 08:23 PM | #44 |
Special Teams
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
This isnt on the topic of anything but does anyone have a link to the Inside the Redskins edition "Meeting the coaches". The coaches were suppose to talk in length about some of their philosophies but since i dont live in the area, it obv. wasnt on my television station. can anyone help?
|
02-14-2010, 09:09 PM | #45 |
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kill Devil Hills, N.C.
Posts: 7,570
|
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
Well just to put it out there, Bill Polian blamed the o-line and ST's for losing the SB. And if Bradford or Clausen are Peyton Manning, draft one. Peyton is being touted as the best QB to ever play the game so they would have some pretty big shoes to fill. If Jake Locker would have come out, it's very possible he would be the #1 pick this year, not Bradford or Clausen. The argument seems to be if we don't get a QB at #4 this year, we won't be in position to get a top one next year. I would assume that's because the thought is our record is going to be better....even without a new QB. Schneed is right, not many teams won the same way the Redskins did. I just think the first round, especially this high, is much more hit or miss as far as Franchise QB's go compared to offensive linemen. Now I'm not talking about starters, we have a first round starter. The argument is for FRANCHISE QB's. Franchise QB's can take many picks and years to find, or you may hit one after the first round like Brady, Brees, Favre, or Warner. None of whom were selected in the first round. THOSE guys are true Franchise QB's and will be going to the HOF. It's a hard call. I really like Bradford, but I'm tired of trying to catch lightning in a bottle with FA's, UDFA's, guys off the street and 3rd round picks for our o-line. It may take time, but draft o-line high and you can have a dominant line.
__________________
Defense wins championships. Bring it! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|