Not drafting a QB a mistake?

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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?" Kidding....don't get upset 30Gut.

CRedskinsRule, I like your post about questioning QB need when the rest of the team sucks.
As has been discussed on this thread about how to rate a draft pick as mistake or not, it seems to me there is a gray area and brings to mind Doug Williams. Drafted high in the draft by a perennial loser of a franchise and ends up leaving that team. He could and should be considered by Tampa a mistake for Tampa. Years later he goes to Washington and wins a Superbowl. Not a mistake. So what is he?

[SirLK26]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

<snip>

I think the draft board and how the prospects were ranked have everything to do with this discussion. If there had been a QB Scot and Jay liked in a pick range that suited his talent/potential, I do not think they would've passed(especially from the mid-rounds down). If that's the case, and there were no QBs they thought were worth it, then no, it wasn't a mistake. Drafting a QB out of his value range or when there were better players available, now that would have been a mistake.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

you make the point (not yours, but everyone else's) well.......
I am willing to wager anything that when they traded down, they accepted the fact that a qb wouldn't be in the cards.

In the name of speculation its just as possible they thought the QBs would be available at their next pick.....and were wrong. I think we are all aware that happens all the time in the draft because its a gamble. For all we know they could have wanted one of the QBs and miscalculated.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SirLK26

I think the draft board and how the prospects were ranked have everything to do with this discussion. If there had been a QB Scot and Jay liked in a pick range that suited his talent/potential, I do not think they would've passed(especially from the mid-rounds down). If that's the case, and there were no QBs they thought were worth it, then no, it wasn't a mistake. Drafting a QB out of his value range or when there were better players available, now that would have been a mistake.

Well none of us knows the draft board. So to me speculating about the draft board is fine but its just rationalizing based on our respective view points.

Your argument sounds a lot like the front office made the decision and therefore its not a mistake, and that reason is just as good as as any other I guess.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

In the name of speculation its just as possible they thought the QBs would be available at their next pick.....and were wrong. I think we are all aware that happens all the time in the draft because its a gamble. For all we know they could have wanted one of the QBs and miscalculated.

Really stretching the point there. If you want to take a qb, you don't drop to the bottom of a round from the top. Between that, SM's drafting history, and the lack of agreement in general on this board, I think you are just barking up the wrong tree.

What could anyone say that would make you change your mind?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Really stretching the point there. If you want to take a qb, you don't drop to the bottom of a round from the top. Between that, SM's drafting history, and the lack of agreement in general on this board, I think you are just barking up the wrong tree.

It was speculation which I admit isn't really meaningful in this discussion but if others are gonna throw out there speculations then my speculation is equally as valid or not.

And again. I am not trying to make a point only to have a dialogue.

Teams trade down all the time with the expectation that the player they want will still be on the board. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. To me the process is an unknown so the speculation can go either way.

Scott's drafting history (btw Scott wasn't the principal decision maker in his previous spots) doesn't have bearing on whether not taking a QB in this situation was the right decision.

I'm perfectly comfortable with disagreement.
We could go pick by pick and I'm sure there would be disagreement. I was one of the people, even before the draft, that thought Scherff was both an OT as opposed to a guard and worthy of the 5th pick. I'm sure those were minority opinions before the draft. And this thread was meant as a discussion.

What could anyone say that would make you change your mind?

I'm not sure, what would change your mind?

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

CRedskinsRule, I like your post about questioning QB need when the rest of the team sucks.

If you think the QB position is fine going forward then I can see why you think it was fine not to address the position.

As has been discussed on this thread about how to rate a draft pick as mistake or not, it seems to me there is a gray area and brings to mind Doug Williams. Drafted high in the draft by a perennial loser of a franchise and ends up leaving that team. He could and should be considered by Tampa a mistake for Tampa. Years later he goes to Washington and wins a Superbowl. Not a mistake. So what is he?

Neither here nor there but when Doug was in Tampa it was that franchises only successful seasons (playoffs, conference title game iirc) prior to Dungy.

[MTK]

A lot of smoke here with little fire. If QB was a huge need and there was a legit guy that SM was targeting, pretty sure he would be here. Besides I don't think drafting a later rd QB in a mediocre QB class was going to do anything to help in the short term.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I thought they'd draft a QB, but you don't draft a position just to draft a position.

Lol, maybe I should have phrased the question 'did you think they would draft a QB somewhere'.

I thought they would too.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Hog1

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.

I agree, but I hold the above position and still think they should have drafted a QB.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by 30gut

It was speculation which I admit isn't really meaningful in this discussion but if others are gonna throw out there speculations then my speculation is equally as valid or not.

And again. I am not trying to make a point only to have a dialogue.

Teams trade down all the time with the expectation that the player they want will still be on the board. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. To me the process is an unknown so the speculation can go either way.

Scott's drafting history (btw Scott wasn't the principal decision maker in his previous spots) doesn't have bearing on whether not taking a QB in this situation was the right decision.

I'm perfectly comfortable with disagreement.
We could go pick by pick and I'm sure there would be disagreement. I was one of the people, even before the draft, that thought Scherff was both an OT as opposed to a guard and worthy of the 5th pick. I'm sure those were minority opinions before the draft. And this thread was meant as a discussion.

I'm not sure, what would change your mind?

About the only way I could ever see not drafting a qb this year as being a mistake is if all 3 qb's on roster walked away from the game before training camp.

In other words, nothing.

Out of all the areas that we needed to draft, Safety, CB, OL/DL and the amount of depth we need, I see no reason at all to waste a pick on an at best developmental qb. We weren't taking a qb in the first 2 rounds, where the pick would mean we at least expect him to compete for a starting spot in training camp, and round three, as you pointed out, they chose specifically to skip the round where the best of the rest qb's were going to go. In rounds 4-7 a qb pick is a guy who's going to sit behind your starter, learn your system and hope that he can cover for a game or two. We needed much more than that out of the picks we had.

Next year, we will have our qb situation sorted out, either releasing RGIII or paying to keep him. And hopefully our lines will be a bit more stable, but certainly we will pick more OL/DL. So any QB move should most definitely have waited till next year. No matter who was running the show.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I see no reason at all to waste a pick on an at best developmental qb.

Since when did developmental QBs become wasted picks?

We weren't taking a qb in the first 2 rounds, where the pick would mean we at least expect him to compete for a starting spot in training camp,

I'm guessing you saw their draft board? Or just unintentionally started stating your opinions as facts?

What if Mariota fell? We already know what Scott said he would do.
And just because a QB is drafted in the first 2 rounds does it mean they need to compete for the starting spot.

they chose specifically to skip the round where the best of the rest qb's were going to go.

You mean they traded down and in the process missed the opportunity to draft 2 QBs. Lol, it just happened to be where the QBs were drafted there is no way they knew they were 'going' to be drafted there.

In rounds 4-7 a qb pick is a guy who's going to sit behind your starter, learn your system and hope that he can cover for a game or two. We needed much more than that out of the picks we had.

There is value to developing a QB in your system. And in round 4-7 you have players every year that don't even make the club so while its a nice sentiment to expect 'much more' from those picks that's not the reality.

Next year, we will have our qb situation sorted out,

Sorted out in what sense? Next year we could be starting fresh with a rookie QB knew to the system.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Since when did developmental QBs become wasted picks?

I'm guessing you saw their draft board? Or just unintentionally started stating your opinions as facts?

What if Mariota fell? We already know what Scott said he would do.
And just because a QB is drafted in the first 2 rounds does it mean they need to compete for the starting spot.

You mean they traded down and in the process missed the opportunity to draft 2 QBs. Lol, it just happened to be where the QBs were drafted there is no way they knew they were 'going' to be drafted there.

There is value to developing a QB in your system. And in round 4-7 you have players every year that don't even make the club so while its a nice sentiment to expect 'much more' from those picks that's not the reality.

Will we?

So you are basically questioning the drafting philosophy of a well respected NFL talent evaluator (Scot McC) with this whole thread. Who in his time at Seattle, built everything else for two years, and didn't draft a QB until his third year (Wilson).

Seattle's QB option in McC's first two years were an aging Matt Hasselbeck, Tavaris Jackson, and Clipboard Jesus (a.k.a. Charlie Whitehurst).

I think it's okay to wonder why we didn't draft a QB, but I doubt the whole franchise is going to come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

So you are basically questioning the drafting philosophy of a well respected NFL talent evaluator (Scot McC) with this whole thread. Who in his time at Seattle, built everything else for two years, and didn't draft a QB until his third year (Wilson).

If that's what disagreeing with a draft decision means to you then sure. And oh btw, I'm probably one Scott's biggest proponents but that doesn't mean I agree with every decision.

I think it's okay to wonder why we didn't draft a QB, but I doubt the whole franchise is going to come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB.

Yup, because this is exactly what i've been saying this thread the franchise is gonna come down in shambles because the team didn't draft some low-round project QB. Yup that exactly, thanks for clearing that up for me.

[CRedskinsRule]

I love the offseason

[/sarc]