Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

We need to set up two Threads one Rumors & Reports & the other Opinions & change them weekly.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;676199]Playing it safe is one way to look at it, but a clear, decisive plan for improvement at our weakest position would be another.

What frustrates me is when people say: let's [I]take a chance[/I] on a quarterback. There are a lot of people who have an irrational man crush on Sam Bradford, but at the very least, those people are convinced that if you do get him, the rest will fall into place. And as wrongheaded as I think the logic is, I can respect the sentiment.

If you're "taking a chance" on a guy that high, you're setting your team up for failure, I think. Some people believe the draft is a crapshoot. If the draft is a crapshoot, I don't think a QB at No. 4 can be defensed. You really do have to [I]know[/I] what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, [I]taking a chance[/I] on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as [I]finding a way[/I] to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.[/quote]

I have no problem with an intelligent, disciplined approach to building the team. And I utterly agree with you on the difference between "knowing" a player will help and "taking a chance" that a player will help.

But several people here argue, essentially, that when it comes to our first pick we should "play it safe," aka "play not to lose." I don't think that playing not to lose is helpful either on a Sunday or on draft Thursday. In both cases, you play to win. Playing not to lose just leaves you at 8-8 or 4-12.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;676197]Ehhhhhh.

I don't know if I'd go that far. [B] I just don't think there's a guy in that bunch I'd support taking in the top five.[/B]

If there was one, it'd be Stafford most likely, but dude has some serious accuracy issues with the football that might prevent him from being anything more than passable.

I had a second round grade on Stafford compared to mid-to-late firsts on both Clausen and Bradford, and a fourth on Sanchez. But if there was one guy I would knowingly overdraft based on intangibles, it'd be Stafford (Detroit might have done just this).[/quote]

i think your grades may on stafford and sanchez may be a bit harsh, but the part i bolded is my main point - when a team has a pick this high, they can't afford to screw it up. sure, any player at any position can pose a risk, but clausen and bradford are simply [I]too great of a risk[/I].

[quote=Lotus;676196]I agree that taking a tackle high is generally safer than taking a QB high. That said, it is not perfectly safe.

But that is not my real argument here. My real argument is that we have sucked for some time, were especially bad last year, and have a new regime. [B]Because of this, perhaps now is the time when we should be least worried about playing things safe. Maybe some draft daring is just what we need. Not stupid picks, of course, but not playing it safe, either.[/B]

In other words, why worry too much about what is "safe"? Because otherwise we might finish 3-13 instead of 4-12?[/quote]

So far, the team has played it safe in free agency, and youre suggesting taking chances in the draft? if anything, a team should take chances in free agency (where the risk is always smaller) and play it safe in the draft. you obviously recognize the difference between taking chances and being stupid. Drafting Bradford or Clausen at 4 falls into the later category. Both are reaches in the top 5, and Clausen is a reach in the top 15. I acknowledge that Bradford and Clausen could end up being the next Brady and Manning, but theres a far greater chance they'll end up as busts... especially behind our line. If our team had a solid, established line, playmakers at WR and RB positions, and a proven defense good at generating turnovers, then, the story might be different. But taking a chance on a QB now would be like trying to install a pimp home theater system in a house that didnt have a its foundation, roof, or walls completed yet. we need to build a solid foundation by making smart, calculated, lower risk moves. Once we've done that, then, lets start taking some risks.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

I just wonder where and when we will pick up the franchise QB this team has needed since the early 70's?

People suggest we take a QB in the second round, ok, we already have a QB with the talent a 2nd rounder would offer. Plus he's been in the NFL for 6yrs already. If your suggesting taking a QB next year we'll end up with the same talent we have now cause no way we do as poorly as last year and get top 10 in the draft.

In either situation your either wanting to stick with JC who is not bad but has not taken it to the next level over 6yrs. If we were talking about the RB spot most of you would have moved on long before now. Example: Mason. Ganther. Alridge. If this was the WR spot you would have moved on by now; example: Too many to list over the past 10 yrs, but ARE rings a bell. Name any position on this team and you can find many of players who were drafted, didn't live up or take it to their full potential, or failed to live up to their contract. Yet when it comes to JC, for whatever reason, people want to see what one more year has in store. Wait he didn't do well can we get another gimmie.

Then you scream that we need an outstanding first round offensive line. Officially no you don't. Many of teams have won SB's with less then all first round talent. But I'll give you one thing though if we did have that talent it would matter who we stuck back there caues his butt should have all day to throw the ball. I will add that JC's issues are not all centered around his not having time to throw the ball. Some of it is knowing what the defense is giving you, some of it is knowing what play would work best for what the defense is giving you and being able to adjust the protection to give yourself the best blocking in order to get the ball where it needs to be. Lastly you need an accurate QB which JC is not. Yes I know about his QB rating, his interception rating and so forth but his issue is getting the ball to the receiver. Too many times he threw dirt balls, over the receivers heads, or behind them. Not to mention he's not that great at clock management. Maybe someone can train him to be like Payton when it comes to clock management but after six years I just don't see it happening.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=SmootSmack;676175]Is anyone concerned we're looking at Tony Mandarich 2.0 in Russell Okung?[/quote]

Russell is not on the juice.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;676193]Stafford/Sanchez >>>>> Bradford/Clausen[/quote]

WOW...You're saying they're both worse than Sanchez? Major insult!

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;676199]Playing it safe is one way to look at it, but a clear, decisive plan for improvement at our weakest position would be another.

What frustrates me is when people say: let's [I]take a chance[/I] on a quarterback. There are a lot of people who have an irrational man crush on Sam Bradford, but at the very least, those people are convinced that if you do get him, the rest will fall into place. And as wrongheaded as I think the logic is, I can respect the sentiment.

If you're "taking a chance" on a guy that high, you're setting your team up for failure, I think. [B]Some people believe the draft is a crapshoot. If the draft is a crapshoot, I don't think a QB at No. 4 can be defensed.[/B] You really do have to [I]know[/I] what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, [I]taking a chance[/I] on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as [I]finding a way[/I] to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.[/quote]

Umm, I think any and all positions are a crapshoot. No different then Okung having an upside so does Bradford and Clausen. But all the drafties have a down side... no one actually knows how well they will perform in the NFL or with the scheme their team will be running.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

I'm starting to think there's less downside for the Skins to go ahead and draft Clausen, package Campbell et al to move up in the second to draft another tackle, rather than take a Okung or Williams with the first pick and mine for a quality prospect at QB in the later rounds.

I think there might be less room between the top 5-8 tackles than there is between, say, the top 5 quarterback prospects. After Clausen and Bradford are off the boards, a team would have to have done their homework to pin point who's the third best quarterback in the draft, if there is one.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;676203]i think your grades may on stafford and sanchez may be a bit harsh, but the part i bolded is my main point - when a team has a pick this high, they can't afford to screw it up. sure, any player at any position can pose a risk, but clausen and bradford are simply [I]too great of a risk[/I].

So far, the team has played it safe in free agency, and youre suggesting taking chances in the draft? if anything, a team should take chances in free agency (where the risk is always smaller) and play it safe in the draft. you obviously recognize the difference between taking chances and being stupid. Drafting Bradford or Clausen at 4 falls into the later category. Both are reaches in the top 5, and Clausen is a reach in the top 15. I acknowledge that Bradford and Clausen could end up being the next Brady and Manning, but theres a far greater chance they'll end up as busts... especially behind our line. If our team had a solid, established line, playmakers at WR and RB positions, and a proven defense good at generating turnovers, then, the story might be different. But taking a chance on a QB now would be like trying to install a pimp home theater system in a house that didnt have a its foundation, roof, or walls completed yet. we need to build a solid foundation by making smart, calculated, lower risk moves. Once we've done that, then, lets start taking some risks.[/quote]

I mean no offense but that is precisely the kind of thinking that I don't get. It amounts to:
"We're 4-12. Now is not the time to step up and grab a player who could be a fine franchise QB for years to come."

It seems to me that 4-12 is the perfect time to step up and make bold moves. I just don't get that "we have to play it safe" thinking.

Again, I am not counseling foolhardy stupidity, but calculated, educated risks seem like exactly what we need.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Buster;676210]WOW...You're saying they're both worse than Sanchez? Major insult![/quote]

not really. Sanchez got better and better as the seaosn progressed. he'll be a pro-bowlder by his third year... i don't think its smart to make QBs start right away, although it seems thats what alot of teams are doing now.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=12thMan;676219]I'm starting to think there's less downside for the Skins to go ahead and draft Clausen, package Campbell et al to move up in the second to draft another tackle, rather than take a Okung or Williams with the first pick and mine for a quality prospect at QB in the later rounds.

I think there might be less room between the top 5-8 tackles than there is between, say, the top 5 quarterback prospects. After Clausen and Bradford are off the boards, a team would have to have done their homework to pin point who's the third best quarterback in the draft, if there is one.[/quote]DING, DING, DING, we have a winner. Thanks to everyone else for playing.

You've articulated in a paragraph what I've been saying for months in multiple posts. Man, I've got to learn how to write. I thought all those classes I was taking at the Firstdown School of Speeling & Grammer were paying off, what a waist. :)

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=slingin sammy 33;676230]ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Thanks to everyone else for playing.

You've articulated in a paragraph what i've been saying for months in multiple posts. Man, i've got to learn how to write. I thought all those classes i was taking at the firstdown school of [b]speeling & grammer [/b]were paying off, what a [b]waist.[/b] :)[/quote]



lmfao

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=12thMan;676219]I'm starting to think there's less downside for the Skins to go ahead and draft Clausen, package Campbell et al to move up in the second to draft another tackle, rather than take a Okung or Williams with the first pick and mine for a quality prospect at QB in the later rounds.

I think there might be less room between the top 5-8 tackles than there is between, say, the top 5 quarterback prospects. After Clausen and Bradford are off the boards, a team would have to have done their homework to pin point who's the third best quarterback in the draft, if there is one.[/quote]

I'd be perfectly fine with that. I definitely agree that the difference between Okung to Williams to Bulaga to Davis to Brown to Campbell to Capers is much smaller than say Bradford to Clausen to McCoy.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Buster;676210]WOW...You're saying they're both worse than Sanchez? Major insult![/quote]

Especially since most pundits are saying that Bradford is probably the most accurate passer to come out of college since Payton Manning. Maybe it's just me. I haven't heard that about Clausen but I'm beginning to hear nice things about him as well. After those two it's major drop off.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

The other part of the equation: If we're going to take Clausen, again which I'm not totally wild about, I'm okay with Rex Grossman starting on day one and Clausen, who's been in a pro style offense for the past three years, backing him up.

The thing with Rex isn't that he's a horrible quarterback all the time, it's when he's bad he's really bad and when he's good, he makes you think you've just discovered water in a desert. He's like the little girl with the curl, you know:)

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;676197]Ehhhhhh.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I just don't think there's a guy in that bunch I'd support taking in the top five.

If there was one, it'd be Stafford most likely, but dude has some serious accuracy issues with the football that might prevent him from being anything more than passable.

I had a second round grade on Stafford compared to mid-to-late firsts on both Clausen and Bradford, and a fourth on Sanchez. But if there was one guy I would knowingly overdraft based on intangibles, it'd be Stafford (Detroit might have done just this).[/quote]

Gtripp - im confused on how you evaluate qbs. im starting to think you undervalue the position way too much.

you gave stafford a 2nd round grade - he was drafted 1st overall

sanchez a 4th round grade - he was drafted 5th overall

bradford and claussen a mid-late 1st round grade - bradford is projected to be 1st overall, claussen in the top 10.

in another thread you said its stupid to pick a QB at value. so if you need a qb, theres a qb with a top 5 grade and your picking 4th, you dont pick the qb? b/c that would be picking him at his value?

i get wanting to draft a qb with a pick later than his value but good luck finding that buggy with a porsche engine under the hood. i think every team would love to draft guys later than what they have them graded as is, but while players might slip here or there, its just not realistic.

idk man, just odd how to treat these rookie qbs compared to your assessments of JC.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

Breaking news: Laron Landry traded for a grilled cheese to Buffalo. (Not the team, but the actual city) Laron will be in charge of the monkey cages at the Buffalo Zoo. His responsibilties include cleaning monkey feces and getting the piss knocked out of him by the gorillas.

Coach Shann-y-han said, quote: "Laron has been a vulgar err . . valuable part of our team, but when a deal like that comes along you just can't let it get away."

General Manager Bruce Allen has denied reports that he has considered trading falling-star RB Clinton Portis for a pack of Kools. "I'm not a big smoker, and I discourage our nation's youth from picking up a nasty habit like cigarettes."

You heard it here first folks.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=over the mountain;676258]Gtripp - im confused on how you evaluate qbs. im starting to think you undervalue the position way too much.

you gave stafford a 2nd round grade - he was drafted 1st overall

sanchez a 4th round grade - he was drafted 5th overall

bradford and claussen a mid-late 1st round grade - bradford is projected to be 1st overall, claussen in the top 10.

in another thread you said its stupid to pick a QB at value. so if you need a qb, theres a qb with a top 5 grade and your picking 4th, you dont pick the qb? b/c that would be picking him at his value?

i get wanting to draft a qb with a pick later than his value but good luck finding that buggy with a porsche engine under the hood. i think every team would love to draft guys later than what they have them graded as is, but while players might slip here or there, its just not realistic.

idk man, just odd how to treat these rookie qbs compared to your assessments of JC.[/quote]

as far as evaluating absolute best player his rankings could be spot on

there IS an inflation of ranking though due to being a QB, teams need QBs.. there's only 1 of them on the field at any given time typically... so even if a guy is 2nd round talent someone WILL take him in the 1st regardless

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=12thMan;676219]I'm starting to think there's less downside for the Skins to go ahead and draft Clausen, package Campbell et al to move up in the second to draft another tackle, rather than take a Okung or Williams with the first pick and mine for a quality prospect at QB in the later rounds.

I think there might be less room between the top 5-8 tackles than there is between, say, the top 5 quarterback prospects. After Clausen and Bradford are off the boards, [B]a team would have to have done their homework [/B]to pin point who's the third best quarterback in the draft, if there is one.[/quote]

so, basically youre saying that we should reach for clausen to save us from having to do our homework to identify a good QB in the later rounds?

Also, if Clausen doesn't have a high probability of being better than Jason Campbell, a QB who is already on the team, then why a QB at all?

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=over the mountain;676258]Gtripp - im confused on how you evaluate qbs. im starting to think you undervalue the position way too much.

you gave stafford a 2nd round grade - he was drafted 1st overall

sanchez a 4th round grade - he was drafted 5th overall

bradford and claussen a mid-late 1st round grade - bradford is projected to be 1st overall, claussen in the top 10.

[B]in another thread you said its stupid to pick a QB at value. so if you need a qb, theres a qb with a top 5 grade and your picking 4th, you dont pick the qb? b/c that would be picking him at his value?[/B]

i get wanting to draft a qb with a pick later than his value but good luck finding that buggy with a porsche engine under the hood. i think every team would love to draft guys later than what they have them graded as is, but while players might slip here or there, its just not realistic.

idk man, just odd how to treat these rookie qbs compared to your assessments of JC.[/quote]Come again?

The idea behind my projections is not to guess how the draft will value the players, but rather to try to provide an accurate picture of how good the players actually are. Could I find a fourth rounder in this draft capable of doing exactly what Sanchez did last year? Easily. Could I find a second rounder who could do what Stafford did? Of course.

It's all about having perspective. The truth of the matter is that, when it comes to first round quarterbacks, about 2/3rds are going to be less valuable than Jason Campbell. Is their anyway to identify the much better prospects from the much worse prospects? You betcha. When guys (like Bradford and Clausen) are just guys, someone needs to be willing to say that. I am.

The point is not to say that Bradford can't be better than Campbell or that Clausen can't be better than either of them. The argument that, by outbidding other desperate teams for the services of good but not great draft prospects, you can somehow land a franchise player, is IMO preposterous.

I don't think it matters whether Bradford or Clausen will be more successful in their careers than Campbell has been. I don't think it matters where someone else will take them. A marginal improvement in quarterback play, the kind people seem to be willing to jump through hoops for the mere opportunity of, just isn't worth that much. To be frank about it.

The difference between Peyton Manning and Jason Campbell, or the difference between Philip Rivers and Jason Campbell is worth using a top five draft choice on. The difference between Eli Manning and Campbell, or Carson Palmer and Campbell is probably not worth it.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Buster;676170]Clausen AND Bradford. I think we should avoid them both at #4.[/quote]
I agree. I don't like any of the QBs in this draft at all.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=tryfuhl;676302]there IS an inflation of ranking though due to being a QB, teams need QBs.. there's only 1 of them on the field at any given time typically... so even if a guy is 2nd round talent someone WILL take him in the 1st regardless[/quote]tryfuhl is correct. There is an inflation of QB talent in the draft that is specifically not counted for in my analysis. Campbell is probably a second round talent who went in the late first. We took him above value. Was it smart with Ramsey on the roster? Probably not, but I only reference the past for perspective, not to dwell on what should or should not have happened.

It's specifically because of this inflation that you need to make large jumps in position value to justify the cost of the pick. So if we're picking at four, and there's a legitimate number one overall type available (Manning, Rivers, and maybe Matt Ryan), then we're making a big enough jump as to where you could release or trade Campbell and not really kill your prospectus in the short term.

On average, there's a player of this caliber in the draft once every four to five years. The kind of guy you should take at the position without question, the kind of player who tops a draft board. This is no more or less frequent than any other position, so the opportunity cost is the same.

It's very safe to say that this is not the year that this player is available. I have a great projection for McCoy, but not the kind of projection that would make his choice at No. 4 justifiable. Only that I expect him to be better than Campbell.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;676312]Also, if Clausen doesn't have a high probability of being better than Jason Campbell, a QB who is already on the team, then why a QB at all?[/quote]Essentially, this is the crux of all my first round arguments. We're not really concerned with whether or not he'll be better or worse than Campbell. We're concerned with will he be a TOP 5 NFL quarterback by 2012. Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady, [I]Clausen?[/I]

If the shoe fits, draft him. But three teams are already passing on that, if he's there.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;676186]You've got to be kidding....:doh:

Aren't you concerned about the possibility of Jason White 2.0 in Bradford?[/quote]

Sammy, maybe you have explained this but why are you 1000% sure about Clausen? You don't waver at all, I just want to know why you think he is an absolute no brainer at 4 when historically the draft is a glorified crapshoot.

Given the fact that if we pick him and he is a failure, like many of the ND QBs, we are screwed for years.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

Who is on the Block around the league? Instead of trading Carter for some bottom half draft pick, it might be more beneficial to straight up trade him for another player. Maybe someone that can play DE in the 3-4? (I dont trust daniels because hes too old/broken down and I dont trust golston because it seems too out of position)

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;676331]
If the shoe fits, draft him. But three teams are already passing on that, if he's there.[/quote]

27 Teams Passed on Marino. 32 on Brady. I'm not saying that message board types know more then scouts and GM's (God knows the wonderful trade scenarios we come out with provide undeniable proof that we are in fact inferior) but at the same time GM's and scouts constantly make mistakes. So just because Bradford is there at 4 doesn't mean that 3 teams were correct in passing him up. In fact could very well mean 3 teams were stupid in passing him up. Though in this case it's really more like 1 team since the Buc's and Lions already have made commitments to first round QB's.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=skinster;676338]Who is on the Block around the league? Instead of trading Carter for some bottom half draft pick, it might be more beneficial to straight up trade him for another player. Maybe someone that can play DE in the 3-4? (I dont trust daniels because hes too old/broken down and I dont trust golston because it seems too out of position)[/quote]

While they haven't exactly come out and said it, the Adam Carriker deal was/is that deal.

It's common wisdom around the league that both Carriker and Carter are better suited for the other team's defensive style. Unless you land an absolute stud in a trade, you're more than likely going to get a guy that's a project more than a proven commodity.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=over the mountain;676258]in another thread you said its stupid to pick a QB at value. so if you need a qb, theres a qb with a top 5 grade and your picking 4th, you dont pick the qb? b/c that would be picking him at his value?

i get wanting to draft a qb with a pick later than his value but good luck finding that buggy with a porsche engine under the hood. i think every team would love to draft guys later than what they have them graded as is, but while players might slip here or there, its just not realistic.[/quote]Okay, I think I get what you're saying here. Let me explain.

Top five pick [I]in the draft[/I] and top five player [I]at his position[/I] are completely different concepts that I've erroneously referred to simply as "top five". If I were to give a quarterback a top five grade in the draft, it would imply that there are fewer that five players who have as much draft value as this player in the entire draft. On this principle alone, i.e. there's no one better available, the pick could make sense. If there's no one out there that fills a need, picking a quarterback isn't an inherently bad thing.

When I go to the numbers from 2009, I get about 11 players who, this season, provided more value to their teams than the expectation for Campbell. I get: Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, Romo, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, Warner, and Favre. Going back one year adds Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, and Chad Pennington (with McNabb on the very fringe), and drops Roethlisberger and Favre. I think that's a pretty exhaustive list of active players I'd take over Campbell. It's also about half the league.

I don't doubt that either Bradford or Clausen will someday be on this list of "top half" QBs. I doubt they will both be on it, just playing the probabilities. Unlikely, but certainly not impossible. The premise I'm going on is that not all of the above players were worth a top five pick.

Brady, definately. Peyton, sure, Rivers, Brees, Favre, Warner, and then [I]maybe[/I] Pennington and Ryan are the cream of that crop. 8 active quarterbacks drafted between 1991 and 2008 might have deserved top five pick status. I'd be willing to throw Steve McNair and Trent Green onto that list as well if you want to expand it to 10 quarterbacks.

How many of the 10 were actually drafted in the first round? I count 5, including McNair. How many were actually drafted in the top five? Four of the five.

I think this shows if you're after GREAT, you're not really more likely to get GREAT performance in the first five picks than in the rest of the draft. You're very likely to get [B]great[/B] if you pick up a Brady, Warner, or a Brees and also have great structure and talent around them. Now, performance on the whole is quite relative to draft position, so top ten quarterbacks outpeform quarterbacks from the lower half of the round, and while the second round has produced some great steals, the vast majority of second round quarterbacks are backup types.

I do not know how good Matt Ryan will be, but I think the Dolphins would have been justified taking him at No. 1 in 2008. Still, the Dolphins ended up better off not taking him, because Henne was a first round value that they took in the back end of the second round. And they got Jake Long. So given what they knew, it made sense to pass on Ryan. The Rams, on the other hand flat out made a mistake. It's fine that they wanted to work on their defense, and Chris Long is a great prospect still, but they banked heavily on Marc Bulger to bounce back and lost. He was even worse in 2008 than in 2007.

The Rams, of course, should have added offensive help via the draft if they were going to commit to Bulger. By drafting defense, even a great talent like Long, they sort of sealed Bulger's fate. 2008 was the terrible receiver year, and the Rams ended up being the first to take one, but tackles were plentiful (they would address this in 2009, but too late).

Most teams do draft most of their picks later than where they have them rated on their board. In the event that a QB comes out with tools and production (a rare combination in the age where coming out early means $), then teams shouldn't hesitate on pulling the trigger. It's key though to know that when players like this aren't around, that you have to make due with what you have.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;676312]so, basically youre saying that we should reach for clausen to save us from having to do our homework to identify a good QB in the later rounds?

Also, if Clausen doesn't have a high probability of being better than Jason Campbell, a QB who is already on the team, then why a QB at all?[/quote]

if you can get the better QB, take him

I'm not saying Clausen's the guy but do you want a great QB or a great QB for being picked in the 4th round?

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;676339]27 Teams Passed on Marino. 32 on Brady. I'm not saying that message board types know more then scouts and GM's (God knows the wonderful trade scenarios we come out with provide undeniable proof that we are in fact inferior) but at the same time GM's and scouts constantly make mistakes. So just because Bradford is there at 4 doesn't mean that 3 teams were correct in passing him up. In fact could very well mean 3 teams were stupid in passing him up. Though in this case it's really more like 1 team since the Buc's and Lions already have made commitments to first round QB's.[/quote]Right, I agree with you, first overall types have made it as far as pick 4 in the past (specifically, Rivers). Usually after that point, there's some development to be done.

In Bradford's case, his injury kind of makes it obvious that he doesn't hold the elitist "first overall" status that I've referred to in my recent posts (frame, in this case, is a tool). While that's not the end of the argument for, or against, drafting him highly, I think it's inevitable that the time he missed forces him into the Brees/Brady/Marino developmental category, and out of the Manning/Rivers/Ryan "all-american" category (I continue to feel uncomfortable putting Ryan here after a sub-par year, but the luster of his 08 season is still pretty shiny).

And if you're going to have to wait for elite status, in a best case scenario, what are the pros of taking that investment now? We don't know that Terrell Pryor isn't going to light up the NCAA for the next two seasons, or Jacory Harris, or Ryan Mallett. The only argument I can think of for taking Bradford this high when he's not an elite prospect is that you're afraid of losing that chance to develop him to someone else. But isn't the 4th overall pick + $30 million a ridiculous price to pay for the opportunity?

It's like the Daisuke deal with Boston. I'd imagine the market value of the 4th overall pick (if you could sell draft picks on the open market) is $25-$30 million.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=tryfuhl;676343]I'm not saying Clausen's the guy but do you want a great QB or a great QB for being picked in the 4th round?[/quote]I believe the correct answer is yes.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=GTripp0012;676331]Essentially, this is the crux of all my first round arguments. We're not really concerned with whether or not he'll be better or worse than Campbell. We're concerned with will he be a TOP 5 NFL quarterback by 2012. Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady, [I]Clausen?[/I]

If the shoe fits, draft him. But three teams are already passing on that, if he's there.[/quote]

It hard to make a case that Clausen isnt going to be a very good QB, hes got all the intagables, but his attitude and skills remind me of Jay Cutler.
Out of the top 5 teams in the draft only 2 need a QB, so if hes as good as some people think hes gotta go between 1 & 5.....The skins are a 4-12 team so why not pull the trigger...roll the dice...

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=ChickenMonkey;676347]It hard to make a case that Clausen isnt going to be a very good QB, hes got all the intagables, but his attitude and skills remind me of Jay Cutler.
Out of the top 5 teams in the draft only 2 need a QB, so if hes as good as some people think hes gotta go between 1 & 5.....The skins are a 4-12 team so why not pull the trigger...roll the dice...[/quote]If you're asking me why a 4-12 team shouldn't roll the dice high in the draft on some guy, it's because I prefer playing darts--while intoxicated--with the lights out. Personal preference, really. ;)

If your projection for him is Cutler level, I think the reasons why he'd be a reach at no. 4 would be self-evident, but that's me.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=SBXVII;676208]I just wonder where and when we will pick up the franchise QB this team has needed since the early 70's?

[B]People suggest we take a QB in the second round, ok, we already have a QB with the talent a 2nd rounder would offer.[/B] Plus he's been in the NFL for 6yrs already. If your suggesting taking a QB next year we'll end up with the same talent we have now cause no way we do as poorly as last year and get top 10 in the draft.[/quote]There's no bonus for collecting this type of player.

Ideally, we won't be picking in the top ten next year. And it's way too early to call the quality of the class with any certainty. There's one prospect I really like (Ponder), another that really needs to have an awesome year to hold his draft position (Locker), and one guy who could go all over the map, kind of like Snead this year (Mallett), and one more name that could go anywhere from the first to the fifth (Jerrod Johnson of Texas A&M). More guys could throw their names in, but the quality of the depth of the class won't be as good as it is this year.

Which is irrelevant when it comes to projecting top ten quarterbacks. If Locker has his best year in 2010, he'll be a top prospect. Maybe a first overall type. But it has to be a great year. Ponder might get downgraded as we get closer to the draft, but he's a rare talent, I believe.

[quote]In either situation your either wanting to stick with JC who is not bad but has not taken it to the next level over 6yrs. If we were talking about the RB spot most of you would have moved on long before now. Example: Mason. Ganther. Alridge. If this was the WR spot you would have moved on by now; example: Too many to list over the past 10 yrs, but ARE rings a bell. Name any position on this team and you can find many of players who were drafted, didn't live up or take it to their full potential, or failed to live up to their contract. Yet when it comes to JC, for whatever reason, people want to see what one more year has in store. Wait he didn't do well can we get another gimmie.

Then you scream that we need an outstanding first round offensive line. Officially no you don't. Many of teams have won SB's with less then all first round talent. But I'll give you one thing though if we did have that talent it would matter who we stuck back there caues his butt should have all day to throw the ball. I will add that JC's issues are not all centered around his not having time to throw the ball. Some of it is knowing what the defense is giving you, some of it is knowing what play would work best for what the defense is giving you and being able to adjust the protection to give yourself the best blocking in order to get the ball where it needs to be. Lastly you need an accurate QB which JC is not. Yes I know about his QB rating, his interception rating and so forth but his issue is getting the ball to the receiver. Too many times he threw dirt balls, over the receivers heads, or behind them. Not to mention he's not that great at clock management. Maybe someone can train him to be like Payton when it comes to clock management but after six years I just don't see it happening.[/quote]It's insanity to compare Campbell to Ganther/Mason/Alridge, but whatever.

You do have this rare ability to talk yourself into believing what you know to be false at the beginning of your post

[quote]n either situation your either wanting to stick with JC who is not bad but has not taken it to the next level over 6yrs.[/quote]versus:

[quote]Yet when it comes to JC, for whatever reason, people want to see what one more year has in store. Wait he didn't do well can we get another gimmie.[/quote]I don't think anyone is waiting to see if he can become an elite downfield passer. I just think people are averse to taking minor successes on an offense that is generally lacking of a greater purpose, and replacing it with, you know, whatever the heck that fourth overall pick can get you likeitreallymatters.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;676339]27 Teams Passed on Marino. 32 on Brady. I'm not saying that message board types know more then scouts and GM's (God knows the wonderful trade scenarios we come out with provide undeniable proof that we are in fact inferior) but at the same time GM's and scouts constantly make mistakes. So just because Bradford is there at 4 doesn't mean that 3 teams were correct in passing him up. In fact could very well mean 3 teams were stupid in passing him up. Though in this case it's really more like 1 team since the Buc's and Lions already have made commitments to first round QB's.[/quote]
Hard to imagine that Marino and D. Green were the last two players picked in rd 1 ..... 2 HOF's !

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

Redskins schedule a private workout with Sam Bradford the 15th of April according to Jason Reid of the washington post

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=CultBrennan59;676363]Redskins schedule a private workout with Sam Bradford the 15th of April according to Jason Reid of the washington post[/quote]breaking news, it's been pushed back till the day AFTER the draft

originally it was april 20th but then bradford wasn't ready, he would've done it on the 25th but he didn't want to conflict with the schedule of the draft itself

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;676266]Breaking news: Laron Landry traded for a grilled cheese to Buffalo. (Not the team, but the actual city) Laron will be in charge of the monkey cages at the Buffalo Zoo. His responsibilties include cleaning monkey feces and getting the piss knocked out of him by the gorillas.

Coach Shann-y-han said, quote: "Laron has been a vulgar err . . valuable part of our team, but when a deal like that comes along you just can't let it get away."

General Manager Bruce Allen has denied reports that he has considered trading falling-star RB Clinton Portis for a pack of Kools. "I'm not a big smoker, and I discourage our nation's youth from picking up a nasty habit like cigarettes."

You heard it here first folks.[/quote]

:lol:

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;676266]Breaking news: Laron Landry traded for a grilled cheese to Buffalo. (Not the team, but the actual city) Laron will be in charge of the monkey cages at the Buffalo Zoo. His responsibilties include cleaning monkey feces and getting the piss knocked out of him by the gorillas.

Coach Shann-y-han said, quote: "Laron has been a vulgar err . . valuable part of our team, but when a deal like that comes along you just can't let it get away."

General Manager Bruce Allen has denied reports that he has considered trading falling-star RB Clinton Portis for a pack of Kools. "I'm not a big smoker, and I discourage our nation's youth from picking up a nasty habit like cigarettes."

You heard it here first folks.[/quote]


That is funny. What would be really funny is a safety tandum of Doughty and Horton. Our defense would look like Denver's in Super Bowl XXII every game.

Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)
 

[quote=Pocket$ $traight;676382]That is funny. What would be really funny is a safety tandum of Doughty and Horton. Our defense would look like Denver's in Super Bowl XXII every game.[/quote]

I'd like to see one of them playing SS and have a beast FS. They can both change up and play special teams and cost less than Landry.