ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think sometimes people think saying you need strong line play makes you a more intelligent fan, as if saying QB play is important is something only casual, even ignorant fans who don't know any better would say.

Line play is important but too many of us are really underestimating the importance of good QB play. A good QB can make an average line look much better than it really is.

Isn't this a weak year for first round qb's, that is good enough reason to not take what is already a very risky pick.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

Isn't this a weak year for first round qb's, that is good enough reason to not take what is already a very risky pick.

I'm not arguing for a QB but it seems that this is a weak year for first round tackles, too.

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I'm not arguing for a QB but it seems that this is a weak year for first round tackles, too.

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

Say what?

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Say what?

Maybe i should have said more trade value. Not saying great but more than a bust qb would get. Or i could have never said that haha.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

[Redskin Warrior]

Originally Posted by celts32

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

I think it's a either or situation. If that is the case he feels that one of them are the franchise QB then you take the franchise QB. Or you draft a OT and keep Campbell.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by celts32

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

Well Okung could be a franchise tackle too. I honestly feel that it will all depend on who's available at #4.

If Okung is there, let's take him.

If Clausen or Bradford are there...we could take them but either one of them being there could also lead to a trade (i.e. Seattle).

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Well Okung could be a franchise tackle too. I honestly feel that it will all depend on who's available at #4.

If Okung is there, let's take him.

If Clausen or Bradford are there...we could take them but either one of them being there could also lead to a trade (i.e. Seattle).

We've had a franchise tackle for the last 10 years, it's only done us so much good. If we want to get to a level where we're going to compete on an annual basis then we need a franchise QB. As has been said before we don't need to use our first pick on an offensive lineman. We can use the rest of the draft to add guys along the O-Line which will be very different from not taking any lineman and saying that they just weren't the best players available.

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by celts32

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

I trust Shannahan and he hope whatever he does works, just when a qb is picked high the pressure is to put him in quickly and we see how that works. While i dont want a qb picked first, i can live with it as long as we address the line with the rest of the draft.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

You are right that a first round QB is a greater risk than a first round tackle. But sometimes the risk pays off. What if the Colts had never risked taking Manning? Or if the Chargers had never risked taking Rivers? Etc. etc. The first round qb is high risk but also very high reward.

Again, I'm not arguing for a qb. And I sure don't want us to squander a pick on a Ryan Leaf. But if we could find the next Rivers, wouldn't that be cool?

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You are right that a first round QB is a greater risk than a first round tackle. But sometimes the risk pays off. What if the Colts had never risked taking Manning? Or if the Chargers had never risked taking Rivers? Etc. etc. The first round qb is high risk but also very high reward.

Again, I'm not arguing for a qb. And I sure don't want us to squander a pick on a Ryan Leaf. But if we could find the next Rivers, wouldn't that be cool?

Well i am just giving my opinion, i am not a gambling type. So most of my posts on different matters will reflect that. Of course some teams have taken the risk and won, but FAR more have suffered much from high QB picks. I dont think LT busts hurt a team as much. Thats what i was trying to point out earlier but i didn't make it clear.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

Well i am just giving my opinion, i am not a gambling type. So most of my posts on different matters will reflect that. Of course some teams have taken the risk and won, but FAR more have suffered much from high QB picks. I dont think LT busts hurt a team as much. Thats what i was trying to point out earlier but i didn't make it clear.

It is hard to argue with that.

BTW I have not been arguing with you, just trying to think through the possible draft-the-QB scenarios. I'd be psyched if we took a franchise LT at #4.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

Well i am just giving my opinion, i am not a gambling type. So most of my posts on different matters will reflect that. Of course some teams have taken the risk and won, but FAR more have suffered much from high QB picks. I dont think LT busts hurt a team as much. Thats what i was trying to point out earlier but i didn't make it clear.

Good point. Robert Gallery comes to mind. Bust as a left tackle but apparently has turned out to be a decent guard.