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

[53Fan]

You make a good case for Clausen Sammy, and you may very well be right about him. I won't pretend to know his future one way or the other. But I do have a couple of questions. You say if Clausen busts, what have we lost, just a single 1rst round pick. But if Okung is only "good", what good was the #4 pick then? I would rather have a good player than a bust. I think you may have been a little biased there. Also, why do guys like Mike Mayock say that if you draft a QB in the first round and he's a bust, your franchise is screwed for the next 5 years?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 53Fan

You say if Clausen busts, what have we lost, just a single 1rst round pick. But if Okung is only "good", what good was the #4 pick then? I would rather have a good player than a bust. I think you may have been a little biased there.

Pocket mentioned the same thing you said below about missing at #4 sets the franchise back 5 years. What I was trying to point out was that no matter who we pick at #4 there's a chance he could not live up to expectations. Then where are we?

Look at some of our recent high picks that haven't lived up to expectations:
- Carlos Rogers
- Landry
- Sean Taylor (IMO, he would've. RIP)

I don't think these picks set us back 5 years. Had these guys been more productive we would've been in better position, but they haven't destroyed the franchise. If Okung turns out to be just good, not Pro Bowl level, but our expectation at #4 is Pro Bowl, we lost some value at the pick but it doesn't cripple the franchise (I believe Okung will be a Pro Bowl level player within 2-3 years)

In our situation, if we draft Clausen and he's a Matt Leinart, what have we lost. We didn't make a massive trade ala the Bears for Cutler, which will cripple their franchise for years if he has another season like last year. We won't have given up any promising players to move up to get Clausen. If we don't trade Campbell we still have a starting QB, although one with limitations. A miss on Clausen at 4 will realisitcally hurt us for a couple of years at that position. If he doesn't pan out, we're still in the same position we have been since Joe T., looking for the franchise QB.

Every team and situation is different, for a team that's rebuilding around a highly drafted QB and they miss, I think it could take 5 years to recover. Had Manning busted in Indy, they would've been in bad shape. SD was a mess after Leaf. But that's not our situation today.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Pocket mentioned the same thing you said below about missing at #4 sets the franchise back 5 years. What I was trying to point out was that no matter who we pick at #4 there's a chance he could not live up to expectations. Then where are we?

Look at some of our recent high picks that haven't lived up to expectations:
- Carlos Rogers
- Landry
- Sean Taylor (IMO, he would've. RIP)

I don't think these picks set us back 5 years. Had these guys been more productive we would've been in better position, but they haven't destroyed the franchise. If Okung turns out to be just good, not Pro Bowl level, but our expectation at #4 is Pro Bowl, we lost some value at the pick but it doesn't cripple the franchise (I believe Okung will be a Pro Bowl level player within 2-3 years)

In our situation, if we draft Clausen and he's a Matt Leinart, what have we lost. We didn't make a massive trade ala the Bears for Cutler, which will cripple their franchise for years if he has another season like last year. We won't have given up any promising players to move up to get Clausen. If we don't trade Campbell we still have a starting QB, although one with limitations. A miss on Clausen at 4 will realisitcally hurt us for a couple of years at that position. If he doesn't pan out, we're still in the same position we have been since Joe T., looking for the franchise QB.

Every team and situation is different, for a team that's rebuilding around a highly drafted QB and they miss, I think it could take 5 years to recover. Had Manning busted in Indy, they would've been in bad shape. SD was a mess after Leaf. But that's not our situation today.

Have you not noticed in the last ten years other then two playoff years we have sucked big time, I am not saying just those miss picks have made us suck but sure didn't help us get better.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Have you not noticed in the last ten years other then two playoff years we have sucked big time, I am not saying just those miss picks have made us suck but sure didn't help us get better.

Nothing like a nice dose of hyperbole.

Just looking at winning percentage since 2000, ours is 43.7%. A quick glance at Cleveland at 31% shows a big difference. Cleveland sucks. We're mediocre, sub-par, below average, but we don't "suck".

Teams that "suck" don't make the playoffs twice in the last five years. We had a horrible season last year (it sucked), but IMO that was the best thing long term for the franchise. It spurred a much needed house cleaning and hopefully we're moving forward in the right direction.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Nothing like a nice dose of hyperbole.

Just looking at winning percentage since 2000, ours is 43.7%. A quick glance at Cleveland at 31% shows a big difference. Cleveland sucks. We're mediocre, sub-par, below average, but we don't "suck".

Teams that "suck" don't make the playoffs twice in the last five years. We had a horrible season last year (it sucked), but IMO that was the best thing long term for the franchise. It spurred a much needed house cleaning and hopefully we're moving forward in the right direction.

Agreed, we've been painfully mediocre. There are several teams that have been much worse off.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Agreed, we've been painfully mediocre. There are several teams that have been much worse off.

Great summary of the skins 2000s