Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: RedskinsInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

When Mike Shanahan drafted Jay Cutler ...

In this morning's story, we took a closer look at Sam Bradford, a prospect who seems to very much intrigue the Redskins. If he's really on their radar, then it's a stark departure from the way Mike Shanahan handled the stealthy pursuit of last quarterback he drafted.

The Broncos had to trade up to get Jay Cutler in 2006 (giving St. Louis a first- and third-rounder to move up to No. 11). But while we know the Redskins have had multiple meetings with Bradford, in 2006 Shanahan gave absolutely no indication before the draft that he liked Cutler. In fact, Denver met with Cutler at the NFL Scouting Combine, but the quarterback wasn't invited to Denver for an in-person visit before the draft and wasn't put through a private workout either.

This time around, Shanahan said he personally wanted to workout the top four or five quarterback prospects and the team invited Bradford, Jimmy Clausen, Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow to Redskins Park for visits.

Shanahan said he recently that he wants the "total package" in a quarterback and tried to explain what he specifically looks for:

"There's so many different things. You just don't know for sure how a guy's going to play in a game or how important the game is to him," he said. "You can take a look at a lot of quarterbacks - arm strength, intelligence - but on gameday, can they make plays? Are they enjoying the game? Would they play without getting paid? Some of the things that you look for in a John Elway, Joe Montana, Steve Young, different guys that I've coached. Or when you watch a guy like Peyton Manning and how he prepares.

"You're always looking for those intangibles. I think everybody can see if a guy can make all the throws. And if a guy can make all the throws, if a guy is a smart guy, people project him in the first round. Why are there so many busts in the first round? Can they play the game? Can they focus on the job at hand? Can they not focus? I don't think you ever know that for sure until you've got the guy in your locker room."

By Rick Maese  |  April 20, 2010; 9:00 AM ET
Categories:  Mike Shanahan , NFL Draft  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Kiper on Redskins' quarterback situation and the draft
Next: Redskins' schedule to be released at 7 p.m.

Comments

"Boom, Boom Dark Roasted Maxwell House!!"


Starbuck's Morning Blend, whole bean (my machine grinds it on a timer and then brews it while I'm in the shower): lukewarm, black, and strong--it's the stuff my posts are made of.


Posted by: MistaMoe | April 20, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

It seems to me they're going lineman. Which makes me happy.

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 20, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

We've said we like everybody.

QBs, Berry, etc.

Which means we want people to come up and trade for #4.

If we stay put, it's going to be Okung/Williams.

Unless Suh is on the board...then we may have to think about it.

Posted by: Rypien11 | April 20, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Nobody can expect the Skins to take a QB with the fourth pick, so let's start breaking down the O-linemen who are going to be available at that spot.

Posted by: rich20ssu | April 20, 2010 9:09 AM | Report abuse

I love Orakpo but if would have taken Oher last year, and one of these Tackles this year, we would be set at the position for a good while. I hope we can get a second somehow in a trade and snag our RT of the future.

Posted by: FedorEm | April 20, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

HAPPY 4 20 everybody.

Posted by: last1 | April 20, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Texas Ranger: [after Ricky asks him about his day] Well, the teacher asked me what was the capitol of North Carolina. I said Washington D.C.
Cal: Bingo!
Ricky: Nice.
Texas Ranger: And she said 'No, you're wrong.' I said 'You got a lumpy butt!' She got mad at me and yelled at me, and I pissed in my pants. And I never did change my pee pants all day, I'm still sittin' in my dirty pee pants.
Cal: I wet my bed until I was 19. There's no shame in that.

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | April 20, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: BeantownGreg1 | April 20, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

"Suppose Nancy sees me coming out of the shower and decides to come on to me. I'm looking good, got a luscious vee of hair going through my chest pubes down to my ball fro. She takes one look at me and goes "Oh my god, I've had the old bull, now I want the young calf," and grabs me by the wiener."

Posted by: skinsfanintampa | April 20, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Top five coming into focus
Posted by Mike Florio on April 20, 2010 9:35 AM ET
On Sunday, it appeared that the first five picks in the 2010 draft could unfold in several different ways.

Now, with the draft little more than two days away, it's getting clearer.

Here are the first four names we think we'll hear on Thursday night: (1) Sam Bradford; (2) Ndamukong Suh; (3) Gerald McCoy; (4) Trent Williams.

At No. 5, it's unclear what will happen. The Chiefs, who have a left tackle in Branden Albert, could take Russell Okung and move one of them to the right side. Or they could take safety Eric Berry, at whom we're told they're taking a "hard look." (Some think that the Chiefs wouldn't use a top-five pick on a safety, no matter how good he may be.)

The other option is to dangle the pick to a team that may want to jump up and draft Okung or someone else.

Posted by: Flounder21 | April 20, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

bakatcha, last1!

legalize!

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 20, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I'll kiss you on the mouth, Kenny Rogers.

Posted by: Original_etrod | April 20, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

"In 2006 Shanahan gave absolutely no indication before the draft that he liked Cutler"

All signs point to Clausen at #4....just think about it!!!! All this talk about moving up and taking Bradford, sliding back to get more picks, staying and taking Okung!! Not much has been said about taking Clausen......very large smokescreen!!!

Posted by: chicoexcell | April 20, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

All signs point to Clausen at #4....just think about it!!!! All this talk about moving up and taking Bradford, sliding back to get more picks, staying and taking Okung!! Not much has been said about taking Clausen......very large smokescreen!!!

Posted by: chicoexcell

all this talk has been by the non-experts(Kiper/McShay) and the RI hamsters..so it seems that people are smoke-screening themselves..

Posted by: jcnjcnj | April 20, 2010 9:53 AM | Report abuse

I would love to trade down, but I just dont think its going to happen. Taking Williams seems to be the splashier choice as he has more upside (but also more bust potential), while Okung seems to be the sure thing.... I also read that Williams might be a better fit for the zone blocking that the Shannys love to use... but still its tough to pass up a "sure thing" like Okung.

If we trade down we have to make sure not to trade down toooo far because there could be a run on tackles early and it would really suck to be stuck with a Bruce Campbell, as much of a freak as he is the man cannot block at the moment and is a project...

Posted by: peoplearestupid1 | April 20, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

"Unless Suh is on the board...then we may have to think about it."


I think the team showed its cards in regard to Suh or McCoy when it loaded up on backup type vet defensive tackle types and made sure Golston was re-signed.

It is more than obvious an offensive is what the FO wants as that roster area (and linebackers) has been the most neglected during FA.

Artis Hicks will play right tackle opposite a rookie.

And my money says it's T Williams.

Posted by: MistaMoe | April 20, 2010 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Since when did williams leap frog Okung? I honestly dont care as long as we get a stud OL.

Although if Suh was there at 4....

Me gusta Suh.

Posted by: chrislarry | April 20, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

so it seems that people are smoke-screening themselves..

Posted by: jcnjcnj | April 20, 2010 9:53 AM

sounds like that would be last1 and DikShuttle today...

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | April 20, 2010 10:00 AM | Report abuse

I'm inclined to go w/ Moe given the latest reports on Okung.

But would we really have a problem w/ either.

btw - I don't see any way Samuels is shaking hands and back patting a smallish [QB, FS] player.

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 20, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Sports Center is reporting that McNabb wants T.O. to be considered as a signee...as per Ed Warder.
I hope they don't do this...and its all draft week BS

Posted by: jcnjcnj | April 20, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

btw - I don't see any way Samuels is shaking hands and back patting a smallish [QB, FS] player.

Posted by: DikShuttle | April 20, 2010 10:01 AM

hold on there, might be some good punters available with the 4th.

Posted by: moodlymoodlymoo | April 20, 2010 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"I don't see any way Samuels is shaking hands and back patting a smallish [QB, FS] player."

I think the selection of C Samuels to announce the skins' pick is more about him than the guy we choose.

C Samuels was a great player and is a HOF'er, no doubt.

So far, Samuels and K Warner will be in the same HOF class: not bad for a 'Bama.

We chose him and Arrington while the Bungles snagged P Warrick (memba him?).

And whereas LaVar fizzled out to injury, Chris Samuels showed up Sunday after Sunday without complaint.

I can't even think of a time when C Samuels whined in the media about his contract or the weird coaching changes that went on during his career.

Too, we forget how we were once blessed with the tackle tandem of Samuels and Jansen, a goodness that makes the present situation now greater than when seen in hindsight.

Let Samuels bask on the stage at the draft before he calls the name of the guy we choose.

And if it's a guy like him, I hope he's just as much a bama as Samuels was.

Posted by: MistaMoe | April 20, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

We've said we like everybody.

QBs, Berry, etc.

Which means we want people to come up and trade for #4.

If we stay put, it's going to be Okung/Williams.

Unless Suh is on the board...then we may have to think about it.

Posted by: Rypien11 | April 20, 2010 9:09 AM

If they find a trading partner, it would be someone who wants to get a left tackle.

I'm glooming out that the only scenario where the #4 spot is valuable enough to convert into more picks is where one of the LTs is already gone and the Skins have the choice to pick the other one ... and then that they do the trade, not get one of those two guys, but instead pick up more picks elsewhere. [I'm not sure why I'm glooming out ... getting three picks in the second/third round in exchange for the #4 spot seems like it would result in more improvement for the team ... maybe Skins would pull the trigger on trading for Jammal Brown ...]

Posted by: dcsween | April 20, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Moe, the two great tackles are the reason we are in this mess. Danny Boy go so comfortable with Samuels and Jansen that he forgot that they were getting older. Both were so dominant and solid for 10 years that we simply assumed they'd be here forever and didn't even look to begin grooming their replacements when both began breaking down 3-4 years ago. No knocks on Samuels or Jansen, as they were both tremendous Redskins and will be remembered as such, but their dominance lead to our FO's belief that we were set at the tackles position...

Sad to think that 2 of the best players in the past decade are now gone and because of that we have been screwed for the last 2 years, and possibly for forseeable future (depending on how this, and next years, draft goes).

Posted by: peoplearestupid1 | April 20, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Since when did williams leap frog Okung? I honestly dont care as long as we get a stud OL.

Posted by: chrislarry | April 20, 2010 9:59 AM

Go back to the previous thread (or maybe the one before) for a yahoosports link that TWISI posted that compares the two guys. The thinking is that Williams is faster and has more potential for "growth" ... and that maybe Okung is already fully there ... or something like that. Okung seems like the consensus "best" left tackle, though on a year in, year out basis, he might not be as good as some of the top guys in recent drafts such as

Posted by: dcsween | April 20, 2010 10:22 AM | Report abuse

beep beep

Posted by: dcsween | April 20, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

It is becoming quite evident that coach Shanhan is clueless when it comes to drafting a quarterback, Jay Cutler is a freaking bust.... Hopefully this is just a smoke screen to draft lineman just not a left tackle but a right tackle, a center and a guard..I don't know what film these new coaches saw maybe they made a mistake and saw old film of the hogs!
The 2009 Washington Redskins offensive line stunk, they not only lacked strength, agility, or quickness they did not possess any toughness or a mean streak..
Bradford is not worth giving up any draft picks now or in the future he is not a franchise quarterback

Posted by: BeatDontStop | April 20, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

In a previous post I pointed that ROk and TW were very similar. The difference is that TW is a bit quicker (great for a RB or WR) but ROk is much stronger. In the bench press ROk had nearly twice as many pumps as TW (very telling at LT). One other hit on ROk is that he is not nasty. Sounds alot like Chris S. My choice is simple ROk will be there and near great for many years.

Agreed, if Suh is available we must get him or trade down and get real value for Suh. I prefer the trade down option only if we get great value. That would be a #1 and #2.

I also believe a deal with Oakland for AH, LL and Carter could bring us some add'd picks. This only if we can land Suh.

I vote no on a QB this year. I realy like Locker next year for the Skins.

Go Skins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: changer2 | April 20, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company