ESPN: Bradford selection 'catastrophic'?

[honejc]

Thought that this would be an interesting article.




http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/16564/bradford-selection-catastrophic



Trent Dilfer's interview with 101ESPN St. Louis is worth a listen for those interested in a different take on quarterbacks.

Dilfer thinks the Rams would be best off taking defensive tackle Ndamukong Suh first overall, then trading up from the 33rd pick to select Colt McCoy as their quarterback. He thinks Jimmy Clausen is by far the best college quarterback right now. He thinks Sam Bradford faces a tough transition. He sees McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft.

What does Dilfer know? Well, he's played the position and studied the players. Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, Jim Zorn and others.

"This is my passion," Dilfer said during the interview.

Dilfer attributes Bradford's perceived rise to hype and misinformation from personnel people with agendas.

"In my opinion," Dilfer said of Bradford, "he is not even close to the best player in this draft."

Dilfer sees Bradford as extremely raw and a player who hasn't performed in a system even remotely close to the ones preferred by NFL teams. He thinks Bradford's accuracy falls off as the Oklahoma quarterback goes through his reads.

Further, drafting Bradford could be a "catastrophic mistake" for the Rams if they did not handle him properly.

"Bradford is a talented guy," Dilfer said. "I understand why the perception has become what it is -- because he looks good in shorts. But that is the way he has played football, too. He has played in a 7-on-7 environment, not an 11-on-11 environment."

McCoy's competitiveness, leadership and athletic ability to extend plays will set him apart over time, Dilfer predicted.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

He does not note that he and McCoy are represented by the same agency.

[Hitman#21]

When did Dilfer become a scout!? i guess when they started paying him to be one :)

[Coolio47]

I stopped reading when I saw Jim Zorn's name.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Jim Zorn is one of the best QB coaches in the game, and took a quarterback with immense technical flaws and sorta-bad accuracy and made him into a decent to good short-intermediate passer.

Joe Bugel looked bad as a head coach too. So did Petitbon.

The point is, Zorn knows QBs.

Anyway, Clausen is the best QB in the draft, no questions asked, and he will go no later than 6th. The Seahawks won't be bad enough for Locker, and they're a solid franchise overall that's just going through some down years.

[TomE]

I stopped reading when I saw Jim Zorn's name.

yeah, some of them words do get pretty big after "Zorn"

[HailNatsSkinz]

I stopped reading when I saw Jim Zorn's name.

:ols:

Dude Zorn might have been a horrible head coach, but he knows QBs.

[Destino]

The fact that Bradford, and in fact every skill position player on his team, looks to the sideline for THEM TO READ THE DEFENSE is a huge red flag for me. I'd draft Clausen over him because let's face it there is no guarantee that Bradford will ever be good at it. It's the hardest part of NFL football.

Clausen already reads defenses. He played a pro offense and called out blitzes to his line and read the corners body position to know where to put the ball.

When your franchise is on the bottom about to pay out 70 million you need more assurances than "raw talent". There are a ton of talented athletes that never become great or even good football players.

[TheMan CC47]

yeah, some of them words do get pretty big after "Zorn"
:ols:

[HailNatsSkinz]

By the way, I am one of the people who agrees with Dilfer that Clausen is the better QB. I was calling for the Redskins to draft Clausen before we got McNabb.

[darrelgreenie]

He sees McCoy as the player most likely to develop into the best quarterback from this draft.............Dilfer said he has watched every 2009 snap from all three quarterbacks -- two and three times in some cases -- using a template he developed with input from Mike Holmgren, Brian Billick, Jim Zorn and others............McCoy's competitiveness, leadership and athletic ability to extend plays will set him apart over time, Dilfer predicted......................................
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/16564/bradford-selection-catastrophic

I've felt this way all year.

[sly]

Pretty interesting. Makes me feel better about the McNabb acquisition.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

If only a Dilfer were in place at ESPN before Dilfer was drafted by the Bucs!

[modazfuk]

Why do people think that Zorn "knows QBs"? Is this because his claim to fame is working with Matt Hasselbeck? Seriously? LOL

[Oldskool]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/07/trent-dilfer-denies-conflict-of-interest-regarding-colt-mccoy/

Trent Dilfer denies conflict of interest regarding Colt McCoy

Posted by Mike Florio on April 7, 2010 10:43 PM ET
Former NFL quarterback and ESPN analyst Trent Dilfer recently gave a candid assessment of former Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford, saying that Bradford "is not even close to the best player in the draft." In the same interview, on ESPN Radio's St. Louis affiliate, Dilfer said that former Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen is the best prepared to play right away, and that former Texas quarterback Colt McCoy eventually could be the best of the trio.

The assessment of McCoy raised eyebrows, given that McCoy and Dilfer are both clients of Athletes First -- and that Peter King recently said that Dilfer "works with" McCoy. Several blogs, such as JoeBucsFan.com and TheBigLead.com, openly have questioned whether Dilfer has a conflict of interest.

So we reached out to ESPN for an opportunity to talk to Dilfer, and before I could even get his number, Trent called me.

He denied strongly the suggestion that he was compensated to work out with or to endorse McCoy. "Dave Dunn pays me nothing," Dilfer said. "Athletes First pays me nothing."

Dilfer candidly acknowledged that, from time to time, Dunn will ask him to talk to potential clients -- and Dilfer will do so. He said he doesn't get paid for this, and he said that many former players do the same thing.

Dilfer's right. We've been hearing about this practice for years. The problem arises if/when the former player is getting paid to make a recommendation -- especially if the former player is also employed as an on-air analyst.

Dilfer told me that he has limited such efforts since being hired by ESPN, because he wants to be sure to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest. And he explained that he completed his evaluation of the top three quarterbacks (Bradford, Clausen, and McCoy) before any of them hired agents.

"I gonna to speak the way I see it regardless of who Dave represents," Dilfer said. "I'm only gonna tell the truth."

During the 10-minute conversation, Dilfer was passionate, candid, and credible. And he made no attempt to hide the relationship with Dunn. Still, while we believe that Dilfer has handled the situation appropriately, the safest approach for any on-air analyst would be to secure representation from a firm that does not represent the players that the analyst will be evaluating.

[Timmy Smith]

As a Skins fan, I don't want Bradford's stock to fall, so that he goes first overall, thereby increasing the odds that Okung drops to 4.

[hitmandm]

If only a Dilfer were in place at ESPN before Dilfer was drafted by the Bucs!

Pretty funny...but he did win a SB. No drafted QB, no matter how high, is ever a bust if he QBs a team to a SB victory.

[Chicken Fried]

I'll get shredded for saying this, but I would take Clausen at #4. Yes, our OL will suck, but we need to think ahead about life after McNabb (which could potentially be VERY soon depending on his performance and health at 33-34 years old). I'm not sold on Okung. We can always trade players for picks to use on OL. We can make it work, especially considering Shanny like a lot of the OL talent on our team already. I don't see a QB prospect I like as much as Bradford and Clausen until 2012 with Matt Barkley (has a ton of potential to develop) and Andrew Luck. I'd start grooming our future now under a great QB like McNabb and deal with the growing pains of the OL (which might not be bad considering how we play with picks and player development). Realistically, we aren't going to win the Super Bowl under McNabb. Our team has too far to go from the point we're at right now. That's my 2 cents.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Pretty funny...but he did win a SB. No drafted QB, no matter how high, is ever a bust if he QBs a team to a SB victory.

Eh, Jim Plunkett was pretty damn big bust. Went #1 overall after being called the greatest pro QB prospect ever, flamed out on two teams (NE and San Fran), had a completion percentage over 50% like once in his first six years or so, and then rode the bench in Oakland for two years before lucking into the starting job on some money Raider teams. I always assumed he was a good QB until I started doing research into SB-winning QB's.

On a completely unrelated sidenote, Joe Montana was about as average as you can get in college. Threw for 10 TD's and 9 INT's his senior year at Notre Dame.

[Oldskool]

I'll get shredded for saying this, but I would take Clausen at #4. Yes, our OL will suck, but we need to think ahead about life after McNabb.

Life after McNabb is 2-3 years away. This team needs to worry about 2010 and actually protecting McNabb. Just because we have McNabb, doesn't lessen the fact that LT>QB.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

No way in hell we would, or should, lock up $30+ mil more in the QB position drafting Clausen after we ink McNabb to an extension. And think what that would to Shanahan's relationship with McNabb. "Welcome to D.C.!!!! :) " *two weeks later* "With the 4th pick in the draft the Washington Redskins select QB..."

[stevemcqueen1]

I'll get shredded for saying this, but I would take Clausen at #4. Yes, our OL will suck, but we need to think ahead about life after McNabb (which could potentially be VERY soon depending on his performance and health at 33-34 years old). I'm not sold on Okung. We can always trade players for picks to use on OL. We can make it work, especially considering Shanny like a lot of the OL talent on our team already. I don't see a QB prospect I like as much as Bradford and Clausen until 2012 with Matt Barkley (has a ton of potential to develop) and Andrew Luck. I'd start grooming our future now under a great QB like McNabb and deal with the growing pains of the OL (which might not be bad considering how we play with picks and player development). Realistically, we aren't going to win the Super Bowl under McNabb. Our team has too far to go from the point we're at right now. That's my 2 cents.

I agree with you only I actually like Bradford for us and not Clausen. Clausen's a guy with average upside who's primary appeal is that he'll be ready to go pretty soon. We can afford to take a long term project like Tebow, McCoy, or Bradford and let them acclimate.

I respect what Dilfer is trying to say, and I could easily see McCoy ending up as the best QB of the bunch given his athleticism and intangibles. But without a doubt, Bradford is the best prospect. I think if you plop him down in St. Louis and expect him to start midway through his rookie season, he will bust. Basically, you could combine all of the hallmarks of a bust that Matt Leinart and Alex Smith demonstrated into Sam Bradford--Heisman trophy, junior prospect, average physical attributes, spread option offense, "pitch and catch" caliber supporting cast...

BUT, if we draft Bradford, he'll come into a pretty stable situation here and get 3 seasons of mentorship under one of the best veteran QBs and best QB tutoring coaching staffs (a la Aaron Rodgers). Plus we'll have several offseason to team build and get a cohesive offensive line up in front of him. Under those circumstances, I think Bradford has all of the tools and talents and mental ability to become a legit star. I like Bradford for us a lot more than I did pre-McNabb. No one else in this class could have the profound impact on the course of our franchise than he could, not even Suh. And now I think we've taken most of the initial steps to establish a very good environment for him to develop in. He or Suh would be my top choices at 4 if they're available.

As for the complaint about investing so much money in the QB position, who really gives a ****? It's not our money. And it's the quarterback position we're talking about not a guard. If Sam Bradford worked out like Aaron Rodgers has, then it will damn sure have been worth it.

Lastly, going into the draft and next season with the mentality that we have to win a Superbowl now with McNabb would be disastrous IMO. We need to continue thinking long term here because our team still sucks whether we added a 34 year old QB or not. McNabb is a means to an end at the position, not a real solution. We are not one, two, three, or four players away from championship contention. We need to be trying to get younger at pretty much every position outside receiver and looking to have our pieces come together over a three year window. We need to find and groom our future QB in the draft while we have the luxury of letting him sit for a while, stockpile draft picks, and start building from the trenches outward going almost exclusively BPA.

[BruinSkin]

And think what that would to Shanahan's relationship with McNabb. "Welcome to D.C.!!!! :) " *two weeks later* "With the 4th pick in the draft the Washington Redskins select QB..."

I don't think it would bother McNabb all that much. The Eagles drafted Kolb in 2007 when McNabb was 30. It didn't ruin his reputation with Reid or the team, he went out and played well when healthy. At any point, this game can knock you out for the season, and McNabb knows that all too well.

Also, Shannahan told Bradford's agent that they were looking to acquire a veteran quarterback over a month ago, so it's been in the works. It wouldn't surprise me if Shannahan told McNabb when he came here that they were looking for a young QB to develop.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I seem to remember McNabb not being happy with the pick, but maybe I'm mixing that up with Favre being bitter over the Rodgers pick. I'll have to ask Who Del about that.

Still, I think it's bit different taking a project QB in round 2 on a solid team and taking a hot prospect top 5 on a team filled with holes. After being unceremoniously jettisoned from Philly for being "too old", I just don't see McNabb being happy or down with us taking Bradford/Clausen. Just not a good way to start a new relationship with a guy you're bringing in to be the leader of the team you just took over.

Feelings aside, the money thing still stands. No way you lock up that kind of money in the QB position.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

As for the complaint about investing so much money in the QB position, who really gives a ****? It's not our money.

Because I care about Dan Snyder's money and that's why I brought it up.

[BruinSkin]

I seem to remember McNabb not being happy with the pick, but maybe I'm mixing that up with Favre being bitter over the Rodgers pick. I'll have to ask Who Del about that.

Still, I think it's bit different taking a project QB in round 2 on a solid team and taking a hot prospect top 5 on a team filled with holes. After being unceremoniously jettisoned from Philly for being "too old", I just don't see McNabb being happy or down with us taking Bradford/Clausen. Just not a good way to start a new relationship with a guy you're bringing in to be the leader of the team you just took over.

Feelings aside, the money thing still stands. No way you lock up that kind of money in the QB position.

If McNabb wants to play another 3 years, couldn't Shannahan have told him that that he was the guy as long as he was healthy and winning games? And that they wanted to bring in a young QB to groom and eventually succeed Donovan after he retired. I don't think it's totally out of the realm of possibility for that to be discussed, especially if a guy like Bradford falls (unlikely as that may be).

[Spartacus87]

I agree with you only I actually like Bradford for us and not Clausen. Clausen's a guy with average upside who's primary appeal is that he'll be ready to go pretty soon. We can afford to take a long term project like Tebow, McCoy, or Bradford and let them acclimate.
Agreed completely with this post.

Doesn't make any sense to go with a likely tapped out guy like Clausen, over a guy with a huge ceiling. In the contest of who would be best to sit behind McNabb and learn the Shanahans' system for 3 years while the team is built up, Bradford wins.

[HighOnHendrix]

I agree with Dilfer that drafting Bradford would be a step in the wrong direction for them right now. However, I predict that they will do so because so many people have been brainwashed into the idea that the QB is "the most important position on the field" and that "you can't win without a franchise QB". It's hogwash. But they will draft him because of that mindset and stick him behind a terrible offensive line on a team with a sub-par defense and a limited number of skill players on offense. All of that is a recipe for disaster. Nonetheless, these player-personnel "experts" never seem to learn from the past: the Browns did it with Couch, the Texans with Carr. The Rams are so bad they may as well be an expansion team like those two teams. You watch, they'll repeat the same mistake as those who came before. But that's good for us if they do as it'll leave the players we're interested in on the board.

[DGREENHULK]

Bradford = HYPE now where have I heard that before? :) Trent also mentioned AGENDAS does anyone think he was directing that at ES?

[Spartacus87]

I agree with Dilfer that drafting Bradford would be a step in the wrong direction for them right now. However, I predict that they will do so because so many people have been brainwashed into the idea that the QB is "the most important position on the field" and that "you can't win without a franchise QB". It's hogwash. But they will draft him because of that mindset and stick him behind a terrible offensive line on a team with a sub-par defense and a limited number of skill players on offense. All of that is a recipe for disaster. Nonetheless, these player-personnel "experts" never seem to learn from the past: the Browns did it with Couch, the Texans with Carr. The Rams are so bad they may as well be an expansion team like those two teams. You watch, they'll repeat the same mistake as those who came before. But that's good for us if they do as it'll leave the players we're interested in on the board. What franchises, in the modern era (especially as the league becomes more and more focused on passing), have won consistently without a "franchise QB?"

I'm looking around and seeing Tom Brady, Donovan McNabb, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Ben Roethlisberger as pretty consistent winners. Guys like Rivers, Rodgers, and Eli Manning have done pretty well for their teams.

[Late Night Roach]

Pretty funny...but he did win a SB. No drafted QB, no matter how high, is ever a bust if he QBs a team to a SB victory.

If it weren't for the Ravens defense, Dilfer would never have gotten a SB ring. He looked horrible.

[HigSkin]

I know Dilfer has been linked to McCoy but there's also a swirl of recent news that the Rams would listen to trades for the #1 and aren't set on Bradford. Yea, they released Bulger and all but maybe they have their eyes on a lower risk QB in the second. Then, we go ahead and pickup McNabb.

All these things might not mean anything but you could deduce teams may be getting cold feet on Bradford. Who knows.

[Sellersfan]

As mediocre Dilfers career was, I have always found his insight into the QB position very insightful. Not saying I agree with him on Bradford.

Zorn was not a good H/C, but I think he did a decent job with the QB position.

I think we would all agree that a #1 overall QB will always have the potential to be catastrophic if they don't succeed. Failure would set a franchise back years.

[Devastate]

I don't take much stock in what dilfer says and Who knows how much input the other guys really had.. Dilfer was a terrible QB who only lucked out by attaching himself to a team that had one of the greatest Defenses in history, much like attaching himself to other people who are more credible than he is at the QB position. Asking Dilfer about QB's is like asking Spurrier about NFL coaching.

Regardless Bradford, Claussen and McCoy have question marks. I've been an Okung guy from the start. But I was hoping we'd of been able to pick up McCoy with our 2nd rounder.. Well looks like that isn't happening.

[jflow78]

Well, because I think the Rams are one of the worst drafting teams in the league, and since Bradford is pretty much gauranteed to go to them, I think he's going to stink too.

Don't get me wrong, if he went to the Skins or nearly any other team (except the Browns), I think he'd be great, but since he's going to the Rams, I feel comfortable saying he's going to be a bust in St. Louis.

They're awful in the draft.

[gortiz]

He does not note that he and McCoy are represented by the same agency.

wow ...

just wow.

that really makes me think twice about his comments.

[Chicken Fried]

Agreed completely with this post.

Doesn't make any sense to go with a likely tapped out guy like Clausen, over a guy with a huge ceiling. In the contest of who would be best to sit behind McNabb and learn the Shanahans' system for 3 years while the team is built up, Bradford wins.
Oh. There's no question about it. I only said go with Clausen because I don't see Bradford falling to #4. I think Clausen is going to be a great prospect, but he's not ready to start right away either. I wish we still had a 2nd rounder s owe could take Tebow as our project. He and McCoy both have a similar style of play to McNabb in that they are mobile, and I think they could learn a lot.

[Chicken Fried]

Life after McNabb is 2-3 years away. This team needs to worry about 2010 and actually protecting McNabb. Just because we have McNabb, doesn't lessen the fact that LT>QB.
My point is that I believe this draft of QBs is the best in quite some time, and I don't see one this good until 2012 at the very earliest. I don't like next year's class at all. I was also arguing that Shanny apparently sees good enough talent right now to shore up some parts of the OL with what we already have, and he's known for doing that in Denver. Finally, with that approach and trading for picks, our OL can be just fine.

[Tay]

I don't think we should bother with QB this year. I'm a big Clausen fan, and I still think he is the best QB in this class, but since we have Mcnabb, we can sure up everything around him until we have a team that can contend year in and year out (I think we are close) then we look to draft a QB to replace him. This isn't the year to do that IMO.

[Fred Jones]

I don't understand the coach em up philosophy some people abide by.

Grab the best player and then develop him. Don't grab a guy you think you can coach up to be the best player. Talent is talent. If Bradford has the talent he will succeed on the Rams just as much as he will succeed on the skins. If you don't agree join the JC, Shuler, Ramsey crowd that thinks they will leave the bad environment of the skins and suddenly have talent and turn into pro bowl QB's.

And, I am not saying don't ride the bench for a season or two to develop. And, some QB's do go to a better environment and do well. But, that has much more to do with the quality of the team said player went too then the talent level of the that QB.

The more I read the more it seems Clausen and McCoy are the best QB's in the draft. The question becomes determining which one of those will be the better NFL QB.

[War Paint]

I'll get shredded for saying this, but I would take Clausen at #4. Yes, our OL will suck, but we need to think ahead about life after McNabb (which could potentially be VERY soon depending on his performance and health at 33-34 years old). I'm not sold on Okung. We can always trade players for picks to use on OL. We can make it work, especially considering Shanny like a lot of the OL talent on our team already. I don't see a QB prospect I like as much as Bradford and Clausen until 2012 with Matt Barkley (has a ton of potential to develop) and Andrew Luck. I'd start grooming our future now under a great QB like McNabb and deal with the growing pains of the OL (which might not be bad considering how we play with picks and player development). Realistically, we aren't going to win the Super Bowl under McNabb. Our team has too far to go from the point we're at right now. That's my 2 cents.

I won't shred you because I feel the same way. I would be cool with taking Clausen at #4 also. Then try to get picks for JC and AH to use on oline. Also, I wouldn't be against signing Flozell Adams as a stop gap.

[deejaydana]

I still think Bradford will pan out...in spades.

Can't we hold onto the 4th and trade it to someone like Buffalo/Seattle/Jags for additional picks?

[angel2]

Jim Zorn is one of the best QB coaches in the game, and took a quarterback with immense technical flaws and sorta-bad accuracy and made him into a decent to good short-intermediate passer.

Joe Bugel looked bad as a head coach too. So did Petitbon.

The point is, Zorn knows QBs.

Anyway, Clausen is the best QB in the draft, no questions asked, and he will go no later than 6th. The Seahawks won't be bad enough for Locker, and they're a solid franchise overall that's just going through some down years.



Well, its obvious to me that Clausen is the best QB in this draft. And remind you, this is strictly from a novice. The draft Bradford crowd are totally blind to the fact that Clausen makes the correct reads and has mobility to pick up first downs if need be.

I totally agree with Dilfer about Bradford, but I don't know that much about McCoy. Skins, draft Okung or Williams at #4.

[morpheusmeyers]

On a side note, I got the latest copy of ESPN magazine in the mail today. Jimmy Clausen is on the cover. Has anyone seen it? If so am I alone in thinking he looks like a complete nimrod in that cover shot?

[War Paint]

On a side note, I got the latest copy of ESPN magazine in the mail today. Jimmy Clausen is on the cover. Has anyone seen it? If so am I alone in thinking he looks like a complete nimrod in that cover shot?

lol..honestly, I think a lot of people who participate in the Clausen vs Bradford argument have no clue about how either will fit in the nfl. It's more like they look at the two and think "Bradford looks cooler than Clausen." "Bradford is taller. Clausen looks goofy".

[TheismannQuote]

Ok. So the Rams are continuing their homework by working out Colt McCoy with plans to fly out to work out Clausen. Say they can't trade out of 1. They draft Suh. Lions grab McCoy, ...then what happens.

SI_PeterKing RT @Adam_Schefter: Rams holding a private workout today in Austin with QB Colt McCoy ... Then they get on a plane to work out Clausen Fri.
18 minutes ago via TweetDeck

[darrelgreenie]

I don't understand the coach em up philosophy some people abide by.

Grab the best player and then develop him.

Many teams and successful franchises have made their living with the 'coach em up' plan.

Just because a player is 'rated' above another player by the media scouts doesn't make them the 'best' player it only makes them the perceived best player.

Maybe the 'best' player on some people's boards doesn't go top 10?

Maybe the No.1 player on your team's board falls to 17th?

Or the a top 3 QB on your team's board falls to the 2nd/3rd?

Their are examples every draft just look at any re-draft article.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/12/15/redraft/index.html?eref=sihp

[hoosandskinsMUSTwin]

I think Dilfer is spot on. Clausen is the best right now, most ready to contribute immediately, while McCoy has intangibles that simply can't be coached. Bradford has a lot of ability, but he has been in a quirky college offense and blocked for by some of the best O-lineman in college football, including what some considered the best EVER during his Heisman season. He has never been forced to go through his progressions as fast as he will need to in the NFL, nor has he ever been under the amount of constant pressure, both mentally and physically, that he will have in St. Louis.

[Chicken Fried]

Besides the fact that I think this QB class is pretty great, the other reason I feel a need to draft a QB in the first this year is because with McNabb, we will likely not be sniffing a top 5 pick in the next several years. You can always get a really good OLman in the lower first (I don't even think Okung is great enough to go at #4. I think he's just the best LT so he automatically is considered a top 5 pick), but you usually want to draft your QB in the high first because they usually turn out best. I think we should take advantage of our high pick and get a real quality player like Clausen or Bradford if he falls to us.

Just remember, we are one play away from our old QB going out. Do you want Sexy Rexy in there at the helm? I think too many people on ES are expecting McNabb to be around and healthy for 3-4 years. For a 33 going on 34 year old QB, you can 't expect that. Realistically, I say he has 2 years of solid play before something goes wrong and he tanks it. I don't want to be in the position of having to draft a rookie and groom him and wait that much longer for him to be ready.

Having McNabb allows us the opportunity to take the big risk on a high 1st round QB. The risk will be reduced since he will be able to sit and learn for a few years under a great QB. If something goes wrong with McNabb, the rookie will be ready to step in.

It doesn't have to be Clausen or Bradord. I f we can recoup a 2nd rounder, I'd be really happy with grooming Tebow or McCoy, although it looks like both of them could go in the late first.

[darrelgreenie]

BUT, if we draft Bradford, he'll come into a pretty stable situation here and get 3 seasons of mentorship under one of the best veteran QBs and best QB tutoring coaching staffs (a la Aaron Rodgers). Plus we'll have several offseason to team build and get a cohesive offensive line up in front of him. Under those circumstances, I think Bradford has all of the tools and talents and mental ability to become a legit star. I like Bradford for us a lot more than I did pre-McNabb. No one else in this class could have the profound impact on the course of our franchise than he could, not even Suh. And now I think we've taken most of the initial steps to establish a very good environment for him to develop in. He or Suh would be my top choices at 4 if they're available.

As for the complaint about investing so much money in the QB position, who really gives a ****? It's not our money. And it's the quarterback position we're talking about not a guard. If Sam Bradford worked out like Aaron Rodgers has, then it will damn sure have been worth it.

Lastly, going into the draft and next season with the mentality that we have to win a Superbowl now with McNabb would be disastrous IMO. We need to continue thinking long term here because our team still sucks whether we added a 34 year old QB or not. McNabb is a means to an end at the position, not a real solution. We are not one, two, three, or four players away from championship contention. We need to be trying to get younger at pretty much every position outside receiver and looking to have our pieces come together over a three year window. We need to find and groom our future QB in the draft while we have the luxury of letting him sit for a while, stockpile draft picks, and start building from the trenches outward going almost exclusively BPA.

Don't have a lot of time but good post as always.
It could have its own thread as you make alot of good points.
(although i disagree with a large portion of it)

[Mahons21]

DG, I've been trying to respond to your PM, but it says your inbox is full.

As far as this selection goes; I could see how it would make sense. I also see why it wouldn't be very logical. On the one hand, we could get the guy who is considered by most to be the best QB of his class. On the other hand, we've already invested one draft pick from this draft on a QB, can we really afford to invest our top 2 picks on the same position? Either way you look at it, I think draft day will become immensely more exciting if Bradford doesn't go 1st overall. The trade-down possibilities for us will also greatly increase as well.

[Thirtyfive2seven]

:ols:

Dude Zorn might have been a horrible head coach, but he knows QBs.
Yes, clearly hanging his head coaching career on Jason Campbell proves it.

:beatdeadhorse:

[paloosa]

Trent Dilfer was a mediocre QB that happen to win the Super Bowl because he managed the game enough and avoid costly mistakes. So he might know a little about the QB position but it doesn't qualify him as an expert. Bradford lead his team to a lot of wins and was successful. Talent isn't the only thing that makes them a good pick. You have to look at the intanglables that they bring to the table. Can he lead his team? Does he manage the game properly? Is he coachable?

Trent Dilfer in my opinion is just going off what he has seen and giving his best guess. No one, not even the best player in the draft is a sure fire, can't miss hall of fame player. There is no way to predict when the player is going to get injured, get arrested, or even show up out of shape. They can only base it off what they have seen on film or up close. Trent Dilfer is just like all the other "Jabrony" experts. He is a real good guesser.

[jtyler42]

I've felt this way all year.

+1 McCoy has always been my choice if we drafted a rookie QB...

[Hooper]

If the Rams pass on Bradford and take McCoy they will be regretting it for a decade.

McCoy is short and can't make all the throws. He is not Drew Brees -- not even close. Brees has a strong arm and a high release point. Most of McCoy's big plays in college were the result of a receiver taking a five yard pass and turning it into a 60 yard gain.

When it comes to taking a QB number one, there's always a risk. Bradford is more highly regarded than either Stafford or Sanchez were last year and those picks look pretty solid right now.

Thing is, I could actually see St. Louis passing on another potential franchise QB. They've done it with three now, why not make it four? And then what? Does Shanny take him? I think he might.

[stevemcqueen1]

If it weren't for the Ravens defense, Dilfer would never have gotten a SB ring. He looked horrible.

If it weren't for Jerry Rice, John Taylor, Brent Young, Ricky Watters, Ed McCaffrey, having three or four All-pros on his offensive line, and a dominant defense with multi-probowl guys starting at nearly every single position including Deion Sanders, Merton Hanks, Eric Davis, Rickey Jackson, Ken Norton Jr., Lee Woodall, Bryant Young, Richard Dent, Dana Stubblefield, and Charles Mann--Steve Young would never have gotten a SB ring.

If it weren't for Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin...

[darrelgreenie]

+1 McCoy has always been my choice if we drafted a rookie QB...

And up until recently a team could have drafted him in the 3rd round!
That would've been a steal for QB with a similiar if not superior skill set to King Sam.

[Chicken Fried]

DG, I've been trying to respond to your PM, but it says your inbox is full.

As far as this selection goes; I could see how it would make sense. I also see why it wouldn't be very logical. On the one hand, we could get the guy who is considered by most to be the best QB of his class. On the other hand, we've already invested one draft pick from this draft on a QB, can we really afford to invest our top 2 picks on the same position? Either way you look at it, I think draft day will become immensely more exciting if Bradford doesn't go 1st overall. The trade-down possibilities for us will also greatly increase as well.
Yes, we can definitely afford to invest our top 2 picks in the QB position. After all, it's by far the most important position on the field. And it's not like we drafted McNabb. He won't be here long knowing our luck with trading for old vets.

I think we can afford to skip OL in the first . . . as crazy as that sounds. Shanny knows what he's doing. He finds late round gems and random dudes to play in his ZBS that just didn't fit on other teams with their traditional schemes. Anyway, like Mayock saud, Russell Okung may be the best LT in the draft, but he isn't necessarily that great of a fit in a ZBS.

This is what I would do in terms of getting a QB to groom:
If Bradford falls to #4, take him. If not, take Clausen. Hopefully, we'll have a low first or high second after possibly trading Haynesworth/Landry/Moss/insert player here. We can use this pick on Tebow or McCoy, two real projects that have great upside.

I don't like the idea of waiting on a QB in case McNabb plays no more than 2-3 years here, flames out, and . . . well, we know the rest and we're stuck having to immediately draft a Qb in that next draft whether we like the prospects or not because we have no options for a starting QB.

And I still refuse to believe there is no chance we don't trade McNabb to the Rams. It would be the ultimate backstab to a longtime rival QB that has forced us to forget many a Sunday and Monday throughout our lives.:evilg:

Well, I'm done repeating myself for the third time. I'm really pumped for the draft.:)

[addicted]

:ols:

Dude Zorn might have been a horrible head coach, but he knows QBs.

Really?

Really?

Look not to knock Zorn but this is one of the biggest lies in Football today. It's simply not based in facts.

Lots of guys play the QB position but they have no idea how to train QB's. The only guy that is looked at as being helped by Zorn is Matt Hasselback, which happened years ago. While this was going on, the Seahawks also built there line and brought in more WR's to help him. What did he do significantly with our QB's?

1. He dumped Chase Daniels who was picked up quickly by the Saints for Colt Brennan who's likely out of a job soon. Daniels was the much better QB prospect imo

2. He never addressed the offensive line adequately while here. Since when was the offensive line not the QB's best or worst friend? Zorn played with some crap lines and good lines. He didn't address our line and everyone knew this was our problem the past few years

3. While Jason did have career numbers last year the truth is the play calling and Jason's problems never were fixed or we would have not traded for McNabb and those career numbers weren't that good compared to other teams QB's. Someone who knows QB's should have fixed Jason and been able to call plays that worked. He didn't do either.

Jim Zorn's QB coaching ability is over rated and over blown. Show one QB that worked with Zorn outside of Hasselback who was already good before working with Zorn that became a star in this league. Sorry but good riddance to Zorn and that hype crap

[Mahons21]

But Chicken Fried with McNabb we're not forced to take a QB in this round, so if Shanny doesn't feel anyone fits his scheme he can wait until next year. The drafted QB can still sit behind McNabb for one if not two seasons, if we sign McNabb to a 3-year extension.

I just think we should take the best player on our board that is still available, that is if we can't trade down. Which I think we would greatly benefit from.

[Chicken Fried]

But Chicken Fried with McNabb we're not forced to take a QB in this round, so if Shanny doesn't feel anyone fits his scheme he can wait until next year. The drafted QB can still sit behind McNabb for one if not two seasons, if we sign McNabb to a 3-year extension.

I just think we should take the best player on our board that is still available, that is if we can't trade down. Which I think we would greatly benefit from.
You are correct that it depends on whether Shanny like any of these guys or not. You can never tell (like when he traded up for Cutler without working him out). I know he has gushed over Tebow . . . and I mean gushed. I guess he likes Bradford from what I've heard. I just don't see any real quality guys for a couple years. In a couple years, we might be too late. I can only really think of Locker, Ponder, and Mallett. None of them excite me as having legit pro potential. Barkley and Luck in 2012-13 do, though. That's just a long time away and i don't trust McNabb's injury history.

[myzhi]

You are correct that it depends on whether Shanny like any of these guys or not. You can never tell (like when he traded up for Cutler without working him out). I know he has gushed over Tebow . . . and I mean gushed. I guess he likes Bradford from what I've heard. I just don't see any real quality guys for a couple years. In a couple years, we might be too late. I can only really think of Locker, Ponder, and Mallett. None of them excite me as having legit pro potential. Barkley and Luck in 2012-13 do, though. That's just a long time away and i don't trust McNabb's injury history.

This got me wondering. We all know Tebow is going to take a few years to become NFL QB and what better way to help teach / show him than a former option QB in McNabb. Could Shannahan setting up to draft Tebow. Talk a about a scary thought.

[bobzmuda]

I'd love for the Skins to get Bradford, even trade up for him. It's rare you get a chance to go get a true franchise QB (like I think he is), so if you have to be really aggressive to get him, go do it.

[FrFan]

I wouldn't say it's "catastrophic", but there is an issue about his ability to take hits. He's been injured twice after being hit, last time by a 234 pounds linebacker.

[nebster21]

Why do people think that Zorn "knows QBs"? Is this because his claim to fame is working with Matt Hasselbeck? Seriously? LOL

You should really check out his resume. He is great qith QB's. But I guess a scorned woman!

[Charlied72]

I agree, Bradford is raw good upside but he hasnt played in a pro style system, it will take a min. 2 full years before he could start and just manage a game.

[Chicken Fried]

This got me wondering. We all know Tebow is going to take a few years to become NFL QB and what better way to help teach / show him than a former option QB in McNabb. Could Shannahan setting up to draft Tebow. Talk a about a scary thought.
I've been saying this very thing in several threads. He could have his eye on either Tebow or McCoy (Kyle Shanahan connection). Unlike you, however, I would pee in my pants with excitement. While he learns to play QB, Tebow could then come in and play some wildcat.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

This got me wondering. We all know Tebow is going to take a few years to become NFL QB and what better way to help teach / show him than a former option QB in McNabb. Could Shannahan setting up to draft Tebow. Talk a about a scary thought.

I think Jarrett Brown from WVU is a late round sleeper for us. Ditch this Colt guy and stash Brown on our bench.

Raiders are taking Tebow.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

On a side note, I got the latest copy of ESPN magazine in the mail today. Jimmy Clausen is on the cover. Has anyone seen it? If so am I alone in thinking he looks like a complete nimrod in that cover shot?

My boy Who Del says he's an ostrich. I still he thinks he's a better prospect.

[SkinsGuru]

Trent Dilfer... same guy that once said Jim Zorn was more responsible for the success of Seattle's offense than Mike Holmgren?

[ConnSKINS26]

Trent Dilfer... same guy that once said Jim Zorn was more responsible for the success of Seattle's offense than Mike Holmgren?

Hey, to be fair, look what happened to their offense ;) :silly:

[bulldog]

we could move up and draft Bradford, keep McNabb, keep Campbell and trade next year's #1 pick for a move into the late first for McCoy too :)

is that enough quarterbacks both veteran and rookies to cover all the bases and ENSURE the Redskins aren't leaving anything to chance? :laugh:

of course you can then explain how the team is going to fill out the other 10-15 roster spots that are still open.

[Spartacus87]

You are correct that it depends on whether Shanny like any of these guys or not. You can never tell (like when he traded up for Cutler without working him out). I know he has gushed over Tebow . . . and I mean gushed. I guess he likes Bradford from what I've heard. I just don't see any real quality guys for a couple years. In a couple years, we might be too late. I can only really think of Locker, Ponder, and Mallett. None of them excite me as having legit pro potential. Barkley and Luck in 2012-13 do, though. That's just a long time away and i don't trust McNabb's injury history. You're not "excited" about the pro potential of Locker, Ponder, and Mallett, but you like Tebow?


While he learns to play QB, Tebow could then come in and play some wildcat. The Wildcat doesn't work unless you feature it as a large part of your offense. Not just a few plays here and there every game. That just disrupts your QB.

Also, the Wildcat requires a QB who's a threat to run between the tackles as a serious runner. That's not going to be Tebow's game in the NFL.

Tebow could maybe work in on some trick plays in goal line or short yardage situations, but he's not going to be a Wildcat QB.