General off-season news thread

[rcubed]

Originally Posted by Spike

I don't think Irsay blew it with Luck. Everyone loved the Luck pick and he played well. No one could have anticipated Luck retiring this early in his career. The only other option was RG111 and he was good for 1 year. Can't blame Irsay for picking Luck.

You missed the whole point of his post. It was about the leadership paired with the great QB he was referring to. Polian/Mora/Dungy vs the clown show.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JAFF]

Originally Posted by Spike

I don't think Irsay blew it with Luck. Everyone loved the Luck pick and he played well. No one could have anticipated Luck retiring this early in his career. The only other option was RG111 and he was good for 1 year. Can't blame Irsay for picking Luck.

Not what I was saying. He got a GM who put tools around Manning and made them competitive.

Pagano and Grigson couldn't buid an O line or muscle up a D to help Luck. Oh and having an offense that had him throw out of a 7 step drop with an O line that couldn't block got Luck hurt. I know, Luck wouldn't slide. But the admin of the Colts couldn't protect him and he took a beating.

[Pez]

Originally Posted by Chromeburn

Well they had a HOF defense and Flacco played at a HOF level that other year so QB play did matter.



I honestly don't know why some of you are leaning towards average QB play. A great QB always has you in a position to win year in and year out. It just makes things easier. A game manager is only as good as the team around him and that never last and is frankly a shorter time frame.

I agree that a great qb will have us in a position to win. I just don't think we will without spending too much. Burrow and tuna are likely off the table for us. Let's keep building the teams pass protection and pass rush, then see who we can get in the late second or early third.
Then we follow Ballard's philosophy and let that qb compete with hoyer and brissett for the job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Colt Classic]

How did Mariota go from winning a playoff game to where he is now?

[Mr. Session]

Originally Posted by Pez

I agree that a great qb will have us in a position to win. I just don't think we will without spending too much. Burrow and tuna are likely off the table for us. Let's keep building the teams pass protection and pass rush, then see who we can get in the late second or early third.
Then we follow Ballard's philosophy and let that qb compete with hoyer and brissett for the job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I'm with you.

The mocks that have us taking Love @ 13 make me uncomfortable.

go DB, DT, OT, WR; Whatever. Don't reach on the QB and if the team crashes and burns again next year perhaps we will be in position to draft the right guy.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Pez

I agree that a great qb will have us in a position to win. I just don't think we will without spending too much. Burrow and tuna are likely off the table for us. Let's keep building the teams pass protection and pass rush, then see who we can get in the late second or early third.
Then we follow Ballard's philosophy and let that qb compete with hoyer and brissett for the job.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

To me there is almost no price too high for a great QB. The issue is of course the risk in moving up and being wrong, but a really good team will likely be wasted without having a QB so to me standing pat carries substantial risk as well. I do agree that they need to look at shoring up OT. If they don’t move up for a QB this year (or take one at 13) solidifying the line is probably the next best thing they can do for the QB position long term.

As far as letting guys compete, QB is the one position I’m not a fan of having a competition for. If you have 3 guys battling for the starting QB job, you simply don’t have a starting quality QB.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Mr. Session

I'm with you.

The mocks that have us taking Love @ 13 make me uncomfortable.

go DB, DT, OT, WR; Whatever. Don't reach on the QB and if the team crashes and burns again next year perhaps we will be in position to draft the right guy.

I’m uncomfortable about Love at 13 because of the concerns I’ve seen about his accuracy and understanding of defenses. The second MAY be able to be taught, but the first I think is hard to improve. I seen an article discussing it before, but my basic understanding is people talk about changing mechanics and footwork etc, but guys that have made it to this level and still aren’t accurate usually don’t get fixed.

[Dam8610]

No to Love. Not at 13. Maybe at 34, but I'd prefer to get a QB like him on Day 3. I'm not big on QBs with accuracy issues, so I'm going to be lower on Herbert and Love than most.

[Pez]

Originally Posted by rm1369

To me there is almost no price too high for a great QB. The issue is of course the risk in moving up and being wrong, but a really good team will likely be wasted without having a QB so to me standing pat carries substantial risk as well. I do agree that they need to look at shoring up OT. If they don’t move up for a QB this year (or take one at 13) solidifying the line is probably the next best thing they can do for the QB position long term.

As far as letting guys compete, QB is the one position I’m not a fan of having a competition for. If you have 3 guys battling for the starting QB job, you simply don’t have a starting quality QB.

I take your points here as well. I'm not saying that if we somehow managed to trade up (more or less two years worth of picks) to get Burrow, he would be demolished behind this line, as that is not likely to be the case, but:

1. He will have a defense that is not remarkably improved
2. He will have questions at OT with Constanzo and Smith
3. He will have the same WR questions that Brissett had
4. He will have thin depth at TE with Ebron's departure

My $0.02 uninformed scenario:

1. Address OT with our first, and pick up a reasonable OT from free agency also. If Costanzo re-ups, we will get improvement at guard with Smith moving inside (Nelson, Smith and Kelly in the middle of our line would be fantastic.
2. Address DE with our first second and see if Eason lasts to our second second, if not, use our second second for WR.
3. Get best QB with our third
4. Get WR or TE with 4th.

I don't like how my scenario fails to address WR until the 4th (or perhaps late 2nd).

I think at the end of the day when fans think stuff like this through you have to admit that we have zero idea of what Ballard will actually do.

I just don't want to see us trade two years worth of development to get a franchise QB that we cant keep upright or cant support with an improved defense.

[Pez]

Another scenario if we are not going to trade up for a QB is that we trade down our first for another second and another 3rd. Get the best QB available with our first second rounder, then use our remaining two seconds rounders on OL & DL... then we would have two thirds to address WR and TE.