zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Reading comprehension for the win!
REAL FOOTBALL Thread
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Reading comprehension for the win!
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
DOn't know who I like more, Falcons getting Tice or Bucs getting Sparano. Both I think will help bolster what was a weakness for both teams.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Saw the dumbest mock on Bleacher report. Mainly because they have the Falcons using the number 6 pick on a Cornerback. Ignoring the quality play of Trufant, the talent of Alford, and the still solid play if they wanted to keep him of Samuel, you dont' use that high of a pick on corner when you have massive needs on both lines.
That said, I'm rooting more and more for a good tradeout. Maybe a team will do a trade like we did when we got Julio. Get 2 1s a 2 and a pair of 3s for our pick. Say the Browns make that move with their COlts' 1 as being one of the ones. I doubt it because the Browns are more trade down but maybe they'll relish a shot to get a QB and a playmaking WR which they should have. But anyway, that's my dream, but I'd also be happy picking up a 2 and moving downa handful of picks. Quality guys in the teens as well.
That said, I'm rooting more and more for a good tradeout. Maybe a team will do a trade like we did when we got Julio. Get 2 1s a 2 and a pair of 3s for our pick. Say the Browns make that move with their COlts' 1 as being one of the ones. I doubt it because the Browns are more trade down but maybe they'll relish a shot to get a QB and a playmaking WR which they should have. But anyway, that's my dream, but I'd also be happy picking up a 2 and moving downa handful of picks. Quality guys in the teens as well.
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
Unless JC falls out of top 5, I don't see how TB or ATL get that kind of return for their pick. Maybe if it's a big jump like low teens to 6 or 7 but I wouldn't want to trade that far down. There's no one after Teddy and JC that would warrant that kind of return.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Probably not but you never know. And if Clowney fell to 6 Falcons better take him.
Better question will be though, will the Falcons or Bucs trade up to 2 to get Clowney assuming the Texans go Bridgewater or another QB.
I'd trade into the teens. Barr, Mack, Watkins, Matthews, and a few others are well worth it for some team. I'm fine with Barr/Mack as well. I'm just hoping Clowney falls.
BRule
<B>BBQ Lead Hostess</B>
Well yeah, that's my point as well....IF JC actually fell to 6, you're taking him. I assume you end up with Barr, as Matthews and JC will prob go top 5.
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
Some people think the Auburn OT, Robinson will go ahead of Matthews.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
There's a lot of quality guys, just only a handful of true top talent.
For me right now before seeing more of some of the other QBs, the only top talent are Bridgewater, Clowney, Barr, and Matthews. Then after that you have the second tier guys which are large like Mac, Watkins, Manziel, Lewan, Nix, Evans, Mosely, Beasey, Tuitt, etc. making up the second tier. What will make this drafty interesting though is Carr and Bortles. I like Bortles, I think he's the Tannehill of the draft, underrated by many, may climb to number 1 depending on how he and Bridgewater show. If Bortles and Carr have strong showings, the chances the Falcons get Clowney or Matthews go up. Assume the Rams don't trade out to someone who'll take CLowney, the Texans, Vikings, Browns and Raiders can all use a QB, or a WR. Say we mock out Watkins to the Raiders, Bortles to the Vikings, Bridewater to Texans and Manziel to the Browns. Then the Falcons are in a position to get Matthews or Clowney. That's the best case for them.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
He physically has what it takes to be a QB in the NFL. Mental is a quesiton but aside from Luck and Peyton that's a question with every QB prospect coming out. But I'd take him over Manziel. UCF runs a much more NFL style offense than a lot of schools so he's ready to play in a larger variety of schemes.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
I agree. I think almost every QB that comes out should sit for AT LEAST a year. Go through NFL training, learn the playbook, get stronger, get used to the game. I don't think Aaron Rodgers is the stud he is today if he is starting year 1.
I don't know why more franchises don't take that approach. They wait until they absolutely need a QB to draft one early, and don't take the time to groom them, even though it's proven to be effective. That's why I would love the Cowboys to take a QB in the 2nd or 3rd to let sit for two years behind Romo. I believe it's detrimental to most QBs to start year one, but there's such a focus on WIN NOW, and teams end up screwing themselves at the QB position for a while.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Teams don't do it because of the success of the start immediate QBs. Ryan, Luck, Wilson, RG3, etc. all succeeded with no hand holding. Some others had guys in front of them (Brady/Rodgers) and others don't.
As far as why most teams get QBs when they need them, that's because most of the best QBs in the NFL go top 10. Sure there are exceptions. But of the 32 starting QBs in the NFL, 11 were top 10 picks(maybe 12, list I'm looking at doesn't have Locker, I can't remember if he was top 10 or not), meaning just about a third of all NFL QBs came in the top 10. Of the 32 Starting NFL QBs, 19 were grabbed in the first 32 picks. Which means the odds of finding a starting QB in the NFL outside of the first round are not very high. Generally players drafted in the first round are used to compete immediately so generally they're not used for QBs to be stashed on the bench.
In reality, the reason QBs go high is teams need QBs to win, and typically the best QBs go in the top 10 picks. Obviously there are some big exceptions to that rule, but there are exceptions to every rule.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
If he's smart he takes more. At least more guaranteed.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
There are so many 1st round busts though. A lot of guys drafted in the 1st that are put in there immediately that fail. I think if some of them sat for longer (Locker is definitely one), they'd be much better off.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Many more QBs taken in later rounds failed.
And didn't Locker ride the pine for much of his rookie season? How much longer can he sit the bench?
A few QBs can do better with more time on the bench I'm sure, but plenty succeed immediately.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
More don't succeed than do if they start immediately. Ryan was not that good at the start. And you named 3 guys who were drafted in the top 3 overall. Those are the cream of the crop guys.
I'm talking more guys like Bortles, coming in from a school like that. He will probably be starting by the end of the year, and that's a mistake to me. Bridgewater should even sit for a year IMO. The Texans should sign McCown to a nice 1-year deal, draft Teddy, and let him sit and learn. There is no QB in this draft who should not sit for at least one year.
I think teams not drafting QBs early when they have a guy in place is more due to the fact that most teams have a lot of holes to fill, and simply can't worry about it. It would not surprise me to see Belichick take a QB early next year in anticipation of Brady leaving. It's a very smart thing for a franchise to do.