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

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Is anyone concerned we're looking at Tony Mandarich 2.0 in Russell Okung?

always a possibility but it would be tough to match Mandarich's bust level. He had to be juiced up to a dangerous degree.

The last o line pick that might be called a bust was Robert Gallery, but he at least earned a starting spot at guard for the raiders, till he was injured. O line prospects rarely are total busts (benched, out of the league, etc.), but some of course aren't as good as their billing. It's one of the safest top 10 picks IMO, if not the safest.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

always a possibility but it would be tough to match Mandarich's bust level. He had to be juiced up to a dangerous degree.

The last o line pick that might be called a bust was Robert Gallery, but he at least earned a starting spot at guard for the raiders, till he was injured. O line prospects rarely are total busts (benched, out of the league, etc.), but some of course aren't as good as their billing. It's one of the safest top 10 picks IMO, if not the safest.

Fair enough and good points. Though I'm sure the Raiders didn't expect to spend such a high pick on a guard.

Still, I'm not sure why so many people want to keep ripping on Bradford and Clausen (Ryan Leaf 2.0 really? based on what exactly) just because they want an OT. Or why so few people acknowledge that are issues with linemen as well.

Oh well, it is what it is...SPILLER!!!!

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Fair enough and good points. Though I'm sure the Raiders didn't expect to spend such a high pick on a guard.

Still, I'm not sure why so many people want to keep ripping on Bradford and Clausen (Ryan Leaf 2.0 really? based on what exactly) just because they want an OT. Or why so few people acknowledge that are issues with linemen as well.

Oh well, it is what it is...SPILLER!!!!

Based on the maturity issues that I keep hearing about, primarily.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Based on the maturity issues that I keep hearing about, primarily.

Such as?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Based on the maturity issues that I keep hearing about, primarily.

Any specific examples....other than random blogs citing "unnamed" sources.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Any specific examples....other than random blogs citing "unnamed" sources.

Nothing that I can personally vouch for of course, but a whole lot of little stuff that falls under "where there's smoke there's fire" category.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

always a possibility but it would be tough to match Mandarich's bust level. He had to be juiced up to a dangerous degree.

The last o line pick that might be called a bust was Robert Gallery, but he at least earned a starting spot at guard for the raiders, till he was injured. O line prospects rarely are total busts (benched, out of the league, etc.), but some of course aren't as good as their billing. It's one of the safest top 10 picks IMO, if not the safest.

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. 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.

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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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. 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.

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 take a chance 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 know what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, taking a chance on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as finding a way to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 take a chance 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 know what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, taking a chance on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as finding a way to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 take a chance 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 know what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, taking a chance on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as finding a way to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.

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.