Just a thought...

AS a skins fan, I have read on their fan boards about the disappointment of not getting a QB. Personally I am glad as Gabbert or Mallet were only two that we really could of got. Gabbert i think is disgustingly overrated due to his stats and dumping off in a spread offence (and i am disagreeing with Mayock here which i dont often do as he knows the draft, and more importantly QBs) and Mallet is to slow for the system

Even with that aside, was this the year to pass as they all have flaws and more importantly if the preseason and workouts looking like it may not happen they will mis valueable time, and if they start it could ruin their confidence and there fore career. Not being able to get to grips with the play book, and have the coaches explain exactly what they want will mean that they will have bad rokie season. Lots of positions will suffer from this but i think they QBs have the most to lose.

Thoughts...

I agree that really this was a decent year to not take a quarterback, all of them have issues and with the reduced preseason this is the position which I think will be the most badly affected. Also I wouldn't really say any of the quarterbacks massively out performed the others. But really taking a quarterback never comes with a guaranteed return and there are some in the draft class who have the potential to succeed in the NFL.

This is the 100th topic in the American Football section.

Do i win a prize?

I don't know maybe you need to ask Pr4wn as he is the moderator for our section.

No.

Hi Guys.
Been away, only grabbed a quick look at the draft last night.
Interesting point re QBs this year, yet judging by the picks you'd think this was a vintage bunch (yet could be I guess).
4 of the first 12 picks were QBs and 6 of the first 36 overall - can't remember so many QBs going so early in previous drafts though probbaly more a reflection on teams needs (magnified by the lack of FA) than the quality of these guys.

Hope you enjoyed Oz mate

You missed a classic draft, the drama was intense! We all stayed up and had the chatbox going, was some good banter.

What do yuo think of the Chiefs' draft?

Pr4wn wrote:Hope you enjoyed Oz mate

You missed a classic draft, the drama was intense! We all stayed up and had the chatbox going, was some good banter.

What do yuo think of the Chiefs' draft?

Yeah really good thanks mate.
Answer me this, was Taylor still on the board when we traded ?
I'm not sure what to make of it - Baldwin appears to be another hothead with character issues and given Bowes problems in the past I'm very surprised we went for him. I like the look of Hudson and the two DEs we nabbed, not sure why we took another CB when we already have huge talent there.
All a bit puzzling to be honest....

Falcs traded up for what appears one last superbowl shot - shades of Vikes/Favre ?
Got to love the Lions draft.
What about your Buccs ? Happy ?

Yeah happy overall mate. If Bowers gets healthy, we have the steal of the draft there. I couldn't believe the Falcons. They've mortgaged their whole future on this year and I honestly don't believe that Ryan is good enough.

Why love the Lions draft? They get an overrated DT with character issues to fill a position that they don't even need. Amukamara was still on the board.

Taylor was still there, the Browns traded with you to take him.

I look at the Lions and think they've addressed every need they had, there are plenty in the league with character issues it's down to the coaching staff to get the best out of everyone.

Yeah, just read up some more. Browns seem to have done well though it'll take something special for there to be a changing of the guard in the North.

Browns are in a 4-3 though, why do they need a 340lb DT? I didn't understand that pick. Marvin Austin would have been better.

I liked the Lions draft, if the QB is running for his life every other play with Suh and Fairley coming for him, then that will do a lot to help mask a poor secondary. There are also quite a few CBs who could be free agents depending on the lockout situation.

They also picked up 2 arguable late first/early second talents in Titus Young and Leshoure, who should help make the offence tick a bit better. They could be a wildcard for a playoff place you never know.

Why is he overrated? He has the better stats from college football, and his number of sacks last year is greater than Dareus' career sacks. Even if he is overrated they have still added a good DT making them have a very good D-line in a division which currently contains the super bowl mvp, a rookie at the vikings, and Cutler who depending on how the draft picks turn out may have to be picking himself off the floor a lot this season too.

I'm still a little bit confused why we took Taylor, if we're moving from the 3-4 to a 4-3 then why trade up to take a NT?

yeah a NT to play DT wa silly, bet alot of 3-4 teams where raging at that, as the second best has big off field issues.

I liked the Lions pick. All he had against him was that he doesnt try every play, but he can be rotated, as the have williams and then it will be a great force. Also LeShoure and Best will be a good power-pace combo.

The LeShoure pick was great value.

I just feel that from watching Fairley's tape, he beat up on guards smaller than him a lot. He also takes plays off and acts too violently. He could well draw a few flags.

I just feel that with Amukamara, Jimmy Smith, Castonzo and Carimi on the board, the Lions should have filled the position of need. They already have Suh and Williams in the middle making up what is probably the best DT pairing in the NFL. Are you seriously justifying spending a first round pick on a rotational player?

Having said that, I'll probably be proved wrong.

Pr4wn wrote:I just feel that with Amukamara, Jimmy Smith, Castonzo and Carimi on the board, the Lions should have filled the position of need.

If they had taken Jimmy Smith, you (and I, and most of us) would probably be here saying they should have taken Amukamara.

From the sounds of it, the Lions were looking to trade down a few spots. I don't remember who posted that on Twitter but it looks like they couldn't find a trade partner.

They also seem to have a bit of history with going with the highest rated player on their board, regardless of need. Remember them choosing Brandon Pettigrew over Michael Oher, when the world and its mother could see they needed a tackle. Not too surprised they took Fairley remembering that

Bambam makes a great point. High up in the draft you take the best player available. Or should between spots 3-10sih, if not all of first round. Im not saying he is a total rotation player, just a very good starter who if hes is tired there is a good replacement.

Not many DT stay on the field the whole time. Some do but its hard for them to have the cardio at that weight.

And the only offering you give are CB, princes bad hands is obviously why he fell, and at Tackle, Solder seemed to have biggest upside, as he is huge, quite quick and long arms. Only they could of gone with, as he is talented and a need, but Fairley is extremely talented, and he will get single teamed most of the time, so i think he should become a fantastic player.

Shaun Rogers played NT for the Browns last year and played in a 4-3 for the Lions, he's signed to play in a 4-3 with the Saints. Just because Taylor has the size to play NT doesn't mean he has to. In a division were teams like to run the ball i think it’s a good pick, he might not be in on 3rd downs thou.
I like Gregg Little in 2nd too.

100% agree Virgil, they dont have to, but they tend to only be good against run. Shaun Rogers was a fantastic NT/DT. He could actually sack aswell as being great against the run. That being said he only had on average under 4 sacks a season.

A good comparison would be Pat Williams, who is a fantastic DT, but only good against the run, and he wouldnt be as highly regarded unless he had his namesake next to him.

So ofcourse he can play in 4-3, but he would be more appreciated playing in a 3-4, might not be as good stats, due to the system, but better pick for that system.

Taylor is a good old fashioned run clogger, you could even use him on some plays to play DE, he might not have initial pace to rush the QB but he will sure keep opposing OT busy allowing the Defence to attack elsewhere, plus stick him in on either a 1-3 technique and he will need to be doubled team by a OG and OC, I cant see him being a 3 down guy all the time, but he has enough to make opposition O lines think about him.

Leedscowboys wrote:Taylor is a good old fashioned run clogger, you could even use him on some plays to play DE, he might not have initial pace to rush the QB but he will sure keep opposing OT busy allowing the Defence to attack elsewhere, plus stick him in on either a 1-3 technique and he will need to be doubled team by a OG and OC, I cant see him being a 3 down guy all the time, but he has enough to make opposition O lines think about him.

certainly is not a 3 down guy. 3rd and long and you would have him on the field? At BAylor got 2.5 sacks in 2 seasons at colege level?

That's what I am getting at, he will be nothing more than a 2 down guy 90% of the time, but they might keep him in some situations on 3rd down, more so if teams have like a 3rd or 4th and 1 in the red zone

He could also be used like Haloti Ngata as a blocker on goal-line running plays.

This is the analysis of the Browns taking Taylor from NFL.com: The Browns nabbed a replacement for Shaun Rogers by trading up with the Chiefs. He gives new defensive coordinator Dick Jauron an anchor on the interior of the line. He is ideally suited to man the one-technique spot but could play over the top of the guard as the shaded defensive tackle. His run-stopping skills will certainly help the Browns in a division that features several physical offences.

Agree about his usefulness in stopping the run, when you look at some of the running backs that play in AFC North, but then teams are going to know this is his best assett and so will surely then when for the majority of the time he is on the field either run outside or pass, and leave running inside for when he is off the field.

The Lions did the right thing in selecting Fairley IMO, you can never have too many good defensive linemen plus I think the value was too much to pass up at that point. Schwartz has already said that he'll work in a three man rotation which will keep things fresh and I think it offers some flexibility to the DL as well.



Phil Taylor will have no problem playing in a 43 defense.

Grizzly wrote:Hi Guys.
Been away, only grabbed a quick look at the draft last night.
Interesting point re QBs this year, yet judging by the picks you'd think this was a vintage bunch (yet could be I guess).
4 of the first 12 picks were QBs and 6 of the first 36 overall - can't remember so many QBs going so early in previous drafts though probably more a reflection on teams needs (magnified by the lack of FA) than the quality of these guys.

This draft could be a repeat of the '83 draft. 6 QB's in the first round, only 3 of them went on to successful careers.

I can't help thinking the 1st round is when you look at a need, and if there isn't the right player at the slot for your team, you trade down. Taking the best player available only works if it coincides with your needs. I think there are still teams out there who think they have to take a QB in round 1 simply because they have a 1st round pick!

Skins - agreed, but the lack of any FA movement has exagerated each teams needs.
We know there are 4 or 5 teams who simply have to have a new starting QB next season, FA might have addressed some of their needs and because this hasn't been possible they've all had to go in head first at draft.

skins4ever wrote:

Grizzly wrote:Hi Guys.
Been away, only grabbed a quick look at the draft last night.
Interesting point re QBs this year, yet judging by the picks you'd think this was a vintage bunch (yet could be I guess).
4 of the first 12 picks were QBs and 6 of the first 36 overall - can't remember so many QBs going so early in previous drafts though probably more a reflection on teams needs (magnified by the lack of FA) than the quality of these guys.

This draft could be a repeat of the '83 draft. 6 QB's in the first round, only 3 of them went on to successful careers.

I can't help thinking the 1st round is when you look at a need, and if there isn't the right player at the slot for your team, you trade down. Taking the best player available only works if it coincides with your needs. I think there are still teams out there who think they have to take a QB in round 1 simply because they have a 1st round pick!

I have to disagree with you here. In the first round if there is a guy you think is too talented to pass up on, like the Lions did, then you have to take them. Admittedly, if you rank say a CB the highest and you have two good starting CBs then maybe you dont take them. But majority in 1st you should take the best player available (including consideration of red flags ofcourse). 3-5th rounds i thnk needs become a bigger part part of the decision. and 6-7 is people you think have a good upside, and might develop into a starter so more talent, or people with red flags who hsould of gone higher.

I disagree, if you have a bigger need than the best guy on the board.

Look at the teams that traded, particularly the Pats. When looking at the board, they say do I want to be forced to take a player I don't really need or overlook a crucial need on the team because I have a high draft pick? Is there another team that sees this guy as a great fit for them and do they want to trade? If the answer is no and yes, then you have to trade picks, even if you only get a marginal improvement in your situation.

For example, the Skins felt they could get the defensive help they wanted with a later pick and decided to turn their 1st rounder into more picks. Had they stayed at 10, they'd probably have to take Gabbert. Instead they get the man they wanted and had an extra pick to plug a second hole. Pick up Gabbert and we have an unknown prospect we have to pay pretty big money to, and still have gaps at OLB and DT.

For me there were too many questions about the capability of this years QB crop to step up to the NFL, hence my comparison with '83 (if Newton turns out to be a solid pick and Locker a bust, it virtually matches the Elway/Blackledge scenario for '83). For me, you cannot take the best available if you have other options and/or needs. Get it right then at best you are lucky, get it wrong and you are likely to be out of a job soon. Look at how many GM's and coaches have lost their jobs as a result of big picks that didn't pay off because they took the best and not what they needed.

skins4ever wrote:I disagree, if you have a bigger need than the best guy on the board.

Look at the teams that traded, particularly the Pats. When looking at the board, they say do I want to be forced to take a player I don't really need or overlook a crucial need on the team because I have a high draft pick? Is there another team that sees this guy as a great fit for them and do they want to trade? If the answer is no and yes, then you have to trade picks, even if you only get a marginal improvement in your situation.

For example, the Skins felt they could get the defensive help they wanted with a later pick and decided to turn their 1st rounder into more picks. Had they stayed at 10, they'd probably have to take Gabbert. Instead they get the man they wanted and had an extra pick to plug a second hole. Pick up Gabbert and we have an unknown prospect we have to pay pretty big money to, and still have gaps at OLB and DT.

For me there were too many questions about the capability of this years QB crop to step up to the NFL, hence my comparison with '83 (if Newton turns out to be a solid pick and Locker a bust, it virtually matches the Elway/Blackledge scenario for '83). For me, you cannot take the best available if you have other options and/or needs. Get it right then at best you are lucky, get it wrong and you are likely to be out of a job soon. Look at how many GM's and coaches have lost their jobs as a result of big picks that didn't pay off because they took the best and not what they needed.

Some interesting points here. Notice how you state the pats trade out, rather than pick for need. They traded out of a position when they could of filled a need, but felt the player whos talents would fit their system came later. Look at their second pick, or first if you want. Their biggest need is the pass rush, and neither were that. Infact the didn't pick one in the whole draft. Because they look at position they are in, the top few best players, and if they don't fit they trade down. Otherwise they would reach.

The skins are another example that i think helps my case, you may think otherwise i feel. At 10 they have chance of a QB, but they don't like him, trade down to get picks. At that pick they were lucky/planned, that the one of the nest players was a need, but he was rated talentwise to go at that place in the draft. Skins could of got a need player, Gabbert, but didn't think his talent was enough to warrent the pick.

Now ofcourse if you have a need, and a player is there at your draft selection, and you evaluate his talent to be worthy of that pick, then you take him. And there is a part of need and talent, that different teams use in picking, but i feel the first is more about talent that need. Unless you are the vikings this year, but notice every ones shock, thats the reaction you get if need over talent, but who knows it may turn up to be good pick.

BB never takes pass rushers in the early rounds because of the high risk of them busting. He was always going to address the lines and secondary first, we all knew that.

The lines sure, but the secondary are very solid.

AdZacO - after that second post, I think your position is clearer. I thought you were arguing that you take the best player REGARDLESS. What you seem to be saying is you take the best OR trade. That I can agree with.

One point that may actually be contentious is that the Skins didn't need to draft a QB. I'm making a distinction between a need and actually drafting for it. I might have gone with Mallett (by that time we'd addressed our biggest need - pass rush) so you could almost waste a pick on him, but maybe there is something Shanny has seen in Rex? Remember, many journeymen QB's have survived years in the NFL then found an ideal team for them. I have my doubts, mind, but right now, particularly after some of last years results (Texans and Buccs for example) we really needed to improve our defensive front above all else.

skins4ever wrote:AdZacO - after that second post, I think your position is clearer. I thought you were arguing that you take the best player REGARDLESS. What you seem to be saying is you take the best OR trade. That I can agree with.

One point that may actually be contentious is that the Skins didn't need to draft a QB. I'm making a distinction between a need and actually drafting for it. I might have gone with Mallett (by that time we'd addressed our biggest need - pass rush) so you could almost waste a pick on him, but maybe there is something Shanny has seen in Rex? Remember, many journeymen QB's have survived years in the NFL then found an ideal team for them. I have my doubts, mind, but right now, particularly after some of last years results (Texans and Buccs for example) we really needed to improve our defensive front above all else.

Well my apologies for not being clear.

And about the skins QB situation. I don't think we needed to draft a QB, but we do need to have one obivously. I don't see how it ends up well for us. As Beck looks week, and hasnt started since his rookie season on a bad team, and don't buy it as when he bence McNabb he went for Rex. Also in the supplemental draft only has pryor, and a free agent would have to learn our system. Shanahan says he has a plan, and i will just have to trust him.

I see one of two alternatives. He re-signs Rex, and then goes with Grossman, Beck and an FA/UFA, or he has something up his sleeve in terms of a trade or a FA grab - Bulger maybe?

Who knows, maybe he'll get a trade for Fat Al and McNabb. Should be worth at least a second hand car and a months supply of dog food?

Free Agent quarterbacks based up on 2010 rules:
Todd Bouman Jaguars
Marc Bulger Ravens
Kerry Collins Titans
Todd Collins Bears
Brett Favre Vikings
Charlie Frye Raiders
Rex Grossman Redskins
Matt Hasselbeck Seahawks
J.P. Losman Seahawks
Peyton Manning Colts
J.T. O'Sullivan Raiders
Chad Pennington Dolphins
Patrick Ramsey Vikings
Chris Simms Titans
Alex Smith 49ers
Jim Sorgi Giants
Brian St. Pierre Panthers
Michael Vick Eagles
Billy Volek Chargers
(Manning and Vick had the franchise tag placed on them but this may have no relevance in the new CBA)
Which would you want to see at the Redskins?

Re-sign Grossman and maybe pick up Bulger or Hasselbeck. Maybe even Volek or Smith. Manning or Vick would be nice, but we all know that ain't gonna happen!

Definitely go for Brian St Pierre.

Given that the Panthers couldn't get anything going with any of their QB's last year, I'd not be first in line to sign him up.

Bulger or Hasselbeck could turn out to be good to step in for 1-2 seasons and draft a new guy next year, or go youth and see if Volek can step up or if Smith can improve with a change of scenery.

QB available for the right price

Kolb - Eagles (rumoured 1st round plus change)
Palmer - Benglas (if they deal a 2nd or3rd)
McNabb (leaving)
Vince Young(could be a FA)
Orton & Quinn (at least a 2nd for Orton for Quinn a 3rd or4th)

Kolb - not worth a 1st rounder as he's proved nothing yet. He got beat out by an ex-con!
Palmer - damaged goods given his recent behaviour, and most teams will wait to see if he is cut/'retires'.
McNabb - yes, leaving. Pity it didn't work, but his inaccuracy caught up with him finally.
Young - see Palmer, damaged goods.
Orton may be worth a 2nd, but Quinn is waiver material.

Do not be too harsh on Kolb remember Philly were expecting him to be their #1 guy so allowed McNabb to walk, whilst a 1st will be excessive I see a 2nd rounder in 2012, with maybe a 4th/5th in 2013

He's gone this year, depending on how the off season/lockout goes. They've already touted him for a trade.

On the basis that Kolb has proved he can play in the NFL he has to be good for a 1st round pick if traded.
4 of the first 12 picked were QBs and 6 of the first 36, some of those will turn out to be far inferior to Kolb.
Every player taken with no NFL experience is a potential bust, when you have a player who has proved he can play at this level he must be worth more than decent pick ?

You'd think. But what you draft is potential. What you look at in a trade is, can I get better in the draft than the guy I am trading for. This year maybe not, but next year?

I'd say Kolb will be worth a 2nd but you would have to expect to be low in the draft order next year to spend a 1st on him.

Pretty sure I read they've already received offers including 1st round picks for Kolb.

Derbyblue wrote:Pretty sure I read they've already received offers including 1st round picks for Kolb.

Hmmm...i shall wait to see before i beleive that. Which team would do that. 49ers? Miami? I think he will go for a 2nd and 4th max.

And people saying he is proven. Last year, 5 starts, 7 tds, 7 ints, 60.8% completion, 6 fumbles and a QB rating of 76.1 in his 4th year in league. Thats worse than fitzpatrick and grossman last year. Think people tend to remember his good games rather than his over all performance.

Ken Wisenhunt is now a believer of taking a great talent over a need. He said on the radio he learned a lesson and regrets the whole bypassing Adrian Peterson and taking Levi Brown because we had signed Edgerin James.

AdZacO wrote:

Derbyblue wrote:Pretty sure I read they've already received offers including 1st round picks for Kolb.

Hmmm...i shall wait to see before i beleive that. Which team would do that. 49ers? Miami? I think he will go for a 2nd and 4th max.

I believe this was before the draft though and so some of the deals will no longer be available plus less demand for him may mean a lower price.