#151
|
||||
|
||||
Nice thing about QB's, they retain their value better than other positions. I bet if the Dolphins wanted to trade Rosen they would still get a decent pick for him and the Cardinals got a 2nd for him from the Dolphins.
College NC on tonight. The next two number one picks playing each other. Doesn't happen often. Tigers are going to kill them. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#154
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid. |
#155
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I like the RB's in this game. Etienne is a mismatch nitemare and has really good hands. Edwards-Helaire is really under used. Did you see that sliding jumpcut, it was so fast and smooth, just amazing. Hope we draft one of them. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Chromeburn For This Useful Post: | ||
smitty46953 (01-14-2020) |
#156
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I haven't done a comprehensive survey, and maybe you can think of a few, but I think its fair to say that the franchise QBs usually flash early. I can think of several - Rodgers, Mahomes, Jackson for instance. Even Tom Brady, a 6th round afterthought, was installed as the starting QB two games into his second season. In short, I think we'd know in a year if we have something special. And, by the way, I never said one year was all we'd give a developmental QB, just that I think in a year we'd have a much better idea of what we have. And if it looks like it's going nowhere, then by all means cut bait. |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It’s very often not obvious what you have until they see the field for real games and you see if they progress. That’s why Brady didn’t see the field until Bledsoe was hurt. The greatest coach in history didn’t recognize Brady as a HOFer at practice. Jackson didn’t start until Flaco was hurt. Warner didn’t become the starter until Green was hurt. Yes it’s possible he’s so bad you move on after a year (bad pick) and it’s possible he’s so good you bench JB this year for him. But BY FAR the most realistic scenario is that you still see promise in the guy and he becomes your starter next year. Unless he is absolutely awful you don’t draft another high QB next year, you use the picks to shore up the rest of the team to try to lessen the load on a young QB. So that makes it at least a 2 year investment. And if the guy shows flashes of good play mixed with some bad play (like many do) then it’s possible he gets another year to see if he improves. I don’t want the team drafting a guy because the timing is right. I want them drafting a guy because they absolutely believe in him. If they decide to move on from him after a year then they spectacularly fucked up their evaluation of him. I don’t see how that is in anyway arguable. And I certainly don’t see that as a plan. I’d much rather they target and go get a guy they believe in than giving up 2-3 years on their 4th or 5th choice because he happened to be available. |
#158
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Keep your political crap out of a football forum! Nobody here gives a rat's a** |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If that’s not enough or I don’t see a guy after Burrow that I believe in enough then I’d turn my sights to next years draft. I’d look to move two of this years top 3 pics to next years draft to build up the ammo I need to get my guy. It wouldn’t be unrealistic to end up with 3 #1s next year as early to mid 2nds are fairly commonly traded for future #1s. So next year three #1s and a #2 should move you up pretty damn high. Sprinkle in some swaps or lower pics if absolutely necessary. And what if you don’t see a guy next year? Well being the GM of a QBless team is a shitty deal. I don’t have much else to say. At some point you have to identify a guy and be willing to pull the trigger. The real cost to me is time, not picks. I don’t see the need to waste time (and draft pics) on someone the team doesn’t completely believe in. That’s why I don’t agree with the idea that they draft someone just to have them in the pipeline. It not only wastes a valuable pick, but you can only really develop one QB at a time, it’s not like other positions. The team would only do what Chaka is suggesting and move on after a year if they completely, completely fucked up the pick. So while my scenario looks scary because there is a chance that in two years time you still haven’t been able to acquire that guy, I believe that chance is much smaller than the likelihood that if you draft a guy you aren’t sold on (because this is the year it makes sense), you will still be evaluating him 2 years or 3 years down the road. Then when he doesn’t pan out you start the process again without the drafts pics having been pushed into the future to go get your guy. You are in the typical QB purgatory - too good to draft high, but not good enough to get a Super Bowl. |
The Following User Says Thank You to rm1369 For This Useful Post: | ||
Pez (01-14-2020) |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Some really good posts in this thread from rm, chaka, race etc.
I think the Constanzo situation plays big into this. If he retires it hoses us pretty seriously. Even if he doesnt retire, we have to get an FA OT, and we have to draft an OT. We really want Braden Smith to be playing guard opposite Q. The only first rounder that makes sense to me is OT Andrew Thomas. (He may be gone by 13) This allows us to keep investing in the OL, and provided we got a free agent tackle, we can move Smith to guard. If we still have Costanzo, it's an embarrassment of riches and perhaps trade capital. I think we get a QB in the second, If QB Eason is still available at #34 we go for it. If not, we get CB or DT or WR. We can get Fromm with #44.
__________________
** 2017 Premier league champion ** "I want to dominate all my opponents, and take their will away to play the game, by each play, and finishing them past the whistle." |
|
|