Post draft breakdown

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Scalper

2021 Draft Grade - B-

Let's suppose Smith was GM. He would have told entire scouting staff, there are hundreds of QBs in North America entering the draft or exiting college this year. Somewhere right now, there is one QB with upside. I don't care if he's playing in a bush league on the backside of the moon or Mars, find him.

I think you are so off with almost all of your analysis with this draft, I don't even know where to begin. I'll just take this point.

So you want your GM to tell your entire scouting staff to move heaven and earth trying to find the QB of the future - and essentially force the pick of a QB, "some QB with upside" ... and that is a long term approach? No. That is wasting scouts' precious time at the expense of improving the other 95% of the roster, and likely a waste of a pick.

I'm sure they scouted QBs, but I'm glad that's not the only position they scouted, and they didn't just draft one to draft one.

RR and company have said it a million times, about taking a measured approach, not forcing anything, not mortgaging the future, etc. They have proven that through free agency, and I see nothing that changed that with this draft.

Did they draft needs? Of course they did. Every team did. That's why when it's a team's turn to draft, the analysts talk about what that team NEEDS, not who is their best player on the board.

For me, it's just nice to have grown men in charge for a change.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I think you are so off with almost all of your analysis with this draft, I don't even know where to begin. I'll just take this point.



So you want your GM to tell your entire scouting staff to move heaven and earth trying to find the QB of the future - and essentially force the pick of a QB, "some QB with upside" ... and that is a long term approach? No. That is wasting scouts' precious time at the expense of improving the other 95% of the roster, and likely a waste of a pick.



I'm sure they scouted QBs, but I'm glad that's not the only position they scouted, and they didn't just draft one to draft one.



RR and company have said it a million times, about taking a measured approach, not forcing anything, not mortgaging the future, etc. They have proven that through free agency, and I see nothing that changed that with this draft.



Did they draft needs? Of course they did. Every team did. That's why when it's a team's turn to draft, the analysts talk about what that team NEEDS, not who is their best player on the board.



For me, it's just nice to have grown men in charge for a change.

Well said!

Funny thing is Atlanta (where Smith went) also didnt draft a qb.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well said!

Funny thing is Atlanta (where Smith went) also didnt draft a qb.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

They have Matt Ryan, LOL.
Not an apples to apples, or even apples to oranges, more like apple to cactus.
Behind Ryan they have veteran backup and then signed Franks as a UDFA, as a developmental prospect.
Matt Ryan isn't Montana, but he's been a solid starter and led his team to SB and multiple playoff appearances.
We don't have anything even approaching Matt Ryan, but didn't sign a developmental prospect.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I think you are so off with almost all of your analysis with this draft, I don't even know where to begin. I'll just take this point.

So you want your GM to tell your entire scouting staff to move heaven and earth trying to find the QB of the future - and essentially force the pick of a QB, "some QB with upside" ... and that is a long term approach? No. That is wasting scouts' precious time at the expense of improving the other 95% of the roster, and likely a waste of a pick.

I'm sure they scouted QBs, but I'm glad that's not the only position they scouted, and they didn't just draft one to draft one.

RR and company have said it a million times, about taking a measured approach, not forcing anything, not mortgaging the future, etc. They have proven that through free agency, and I see nothing that changed that with this draft.

Did they draft needs? Of course they did. Every team did. That's why when it's a team's turn to draft, the analysts talk about what that team NEEDS, not who is their best player on the board.

For me, it's just nice to have grown men in charge for a change.

A good FO can find one QB they like somewhere in draft in any given year. We didn't because RR wants Allen. Period. You can draft one QB instead of a LS or 10th WR and still have a measured approach. Not drafting a QB was unacceptable, in at least late rounds.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

I think you are so off with almost all of your analysis with this draft, I don't even know where to begin. I'll just take this point.

So you want your GM to tell your entire scouting staff to move heaven and earth trying to find the QB of the future - and essentially force the pick of a QB, "some QB with upside" ... and that is a long term approach? No. That is wasting scouts' precious time at the expense of improving the other 95% of the roster, and likely a waste of a pick.

I'm sure they scouted QBs, but I'm glad that's not the only position they scouted, and they didn't just draft one to draft one.

RR and company have said it a million times, about taking a measured approach, not forcing anything, not mortgaging the future, etc. They have proven that through free agency, and I see nothing that changed that with this draft.

Did they draft needs? Of course they did. Every team did. That's why when it's a team's turn to draft, the analysts talk about what that team NEEDS, not who is their best player on the board.

For me, it's just nice to have grown men in charge for a change.

Concur on grown men, and its okay to disagree, LOL.
In the end, only time will tell, and I hope every pick is a HOFer, LOL.