|
Danica! posted:2 - If you are going 0-16, the number one pick is pretty much only valuable in trade. You have way too many issues to address and way too many holes in your roster to fix with one guy. Do you think there is anyone in this draft that will draw enough picks in a trade for the first overall that would make up for being that god drat lovely of a team? Probably not. Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. It's impossible to say now, it all depends on who wants who. It's a boring answer, but probably the right one
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Danica! posted:2 - If you are going 0-16, the number one pick is pretty much only valuable in trade. You have way too many issues to address and way too many holes in your roster to fix with one guy. Do you think there is anyone in this draft that will draw enough picks in a trade for the first overall that would make up for being that god drat lovely of a team? Probably not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. That's what they said with the Colts too. A good QB can mask a lot of other deficiencies. While we're not looking at a Luck caliber prospect this year, there's no reason to think that even good QB play wouldn't turn things around quite a bit for Jacksonville.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. This is looking like a deeper QB class than last year's. No amazing prospects but decent guys available. If I were them I'd see how much Clowney is worth to someone wanting to trade up for him and grab a QB in the mid-first or early second.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:This is looking like a deeper QB class than last year's. No amazing prospects but decent guys available. If I were them I'd see how much Clowney is worth to someone wanting to trade up for him and grab a QB in the mid-first or early second. No, if you're not sold on Bridgewater then you take Clowney. Stocking draft picks is nice but if you have the chance to take a potential generational prospect, you take him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Counterpoint, the best QB Jax has ever had is probably circa 2005 Garrard. Do you remember 2005 Garrard? Garrard doesn't remember 2005 Garrard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:This is looking like a deeper QB class than last year's. No amazing prospects but decent guys available. If I were them I'd see how much Clowney is worth to someone wanting to trade up for him and grab a QB in the mid-first or early second. I'm starting to feel like a Browns fan re: quarterbacks, in that if they don't pull the trigger and draft the best QB (if the best QB isn't a mid-first round prospect himself, that is) this year, and instead trade down and pick some other guy, that other guy is going to end up Gabbert 2.0 and we'll be doing this whole dog-and-pony show all over again two years from now. It's hard to imagine them NOT drafting a QB with wherever their 1st round pick is, though, even if they aren't 100% on Bridgewater and Clowney's available, unless like they sign Cutler or something equally crazy. Edit: Eifert Posting posted:Counterpoint, the best QB Jax has ever had is probably circa 2005 Garrard. Do you remember 2005 Garrard? I think Brunell probably beats out Garrard. The team went to a couple AFC Championship games under him, anyway. jeffersonlives posted:Throwing picks away on a quarterback just because that's what you're "supposed" to do is how you get in Jacksonville's talent paucity scenario to begin with. Eh, that's what happened with Gabbert but that's the only real QB drafting misfire that's bitten them in the rear end on this level (though boy did it ever bite them). They just had a poo poo-ton of drafting misfires (Derrick Harvey, Quentin Groves, MATT JONES) in general and a severe inability to field even passable receiving options until the past couple years. Garrard with Blackmon/Shorts would have fared a lot better than he did with Reggie Williams/Matt Jones/Ernest Wilford/other revolving door WRs that succeeded Jimmy Smith. xeria fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Throwing picks away on a quarterback just because that's what you're "supposed" to do is how you get in Jacksonville's talent paucity scenario to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:52
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:Counterpoint, the best QB Jax has ever had is probably circa 2005 Garrard. Do you remember 2005 Garrard? No Mark Brunell was better
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
It's all still up in the air, but if Clowney proves himself absolutely incredible at DE then you just take him and take a QB in round 2. And sign Jason Campbell or Matt Schaub or Josh Freeman or whoever hits the market that year. I don't think trading down is a wise option, it's hard to get a fair return for it.jeffersonlives posted:Throwing picks away on a quarterback just because that's what you're "supposed" to do is how you get in Jacksonville's talent paucity scenario to begin with. If that's the only reason, then yeah, but if Bridgewater or Mariota or any QB has a top-5 grade (which they do, it seems) then it would be JUST because that's what they're supposed to do, it would also be a defensible pick in its own right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
There was a debate about whether or not Clowney should take the year off because of how great hes been (this season it would seem hes playing with injuries). The only question about him is if you think he has..."character issues"... or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. Lions fans had this exact debate after 2008. Most of them didn't want Stafford because he didn't seem that impressive and they thought he'd be the next David Carr, thrown behind a bad line. The fans wanted to plug holes with Jason Smith or Aaron Curry  , then draft Sam Bradford the next year.There is no position that can make a greater difference than quarterback. If a franchise quarterback is available, you take him. The Browns have failed to learn this lesson yet. VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV All of the above is assuming that you are in fact a competent GM. But who is to be the judge of that? 
Shangri-Law School fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Sometimes your franchise QB is addicted to codeine and the WR taken with the next pick becomes one of the best of all time and gets 320+ yards a game SIGH
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. The answer is how much can you get. If you are only going to get a few extra picks then you draft Clowney and hope you strike gold with the rest of your picks and work some of those Belichick trades where you get Randy loving Moss for a bucket of steam, some pocket lint and a bag of magic beans. If you can sucker someone in (think the Saint's Ricky Williams trade) then you take the trade and run.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Ravens Needs Tackle - May not seem like an immediate need but Oher and Monroe are both free agents at the end of the season so it wouldn't be that surprising to see Baltimore attack this position in the first round. Center - Gino Gradkowski is horrible. No offense can survive the kind of pressure he lets through up the middle. The man is small, weak, and does not seem to have the requisite football IQ to play center. He can snap the ball okay but that's about it. Ravens absolutely need to address this in the off-season. Tight End - Ed Dickson isn't an NFL caliber player, Dallas Clark only has one hand, and Dennis Pitta is coming off a serious injury that we aren't certain how he will recover from. More essential to fill a role here than at WR because the line will likely need some help blocking. Wide Reciever - Jacoby Jones is an aging not solid number two who is also a free agent next year. He is also easily the Ravens second best receiver. Marlon Brown and some others will likely improve as they get more games under their belts but a play maker is definitely needed to compliment Torrey Smith. Safety - James Ihedigbo is not a long term answer to anything. Preferably a free safety so that Matt Elam can play his more natural position. Cornerback- Ladarius Webb is injury prone but amazing. Jimmy Smith is mediocre and the drop off after him is tremendous. So the Ravens don't need a guard, linebacker, defensive tackle, or quarterback. We might be a pretty bad team. Edit: If we were to rate players by ball catching ability alone what would the TE/WRs list look like? The Ravens need a dependable set of hands badly. The Puppy Bowl fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
xeria posted:I'm starting to feel like a Browns fan re: quarterbacks, in that if they don't pull the trigger and draft the best QB (if the best QB isn't a mid-first round prospect himself, that is) this year, and instead trade down and pick some other guy, that other guy is going to end up Gabbert 2.0 and we'll be doing this whole dog-and-pony show all over again two years from now. It's a little misguided to look at the 2011 draft and think the Jags did something stupid by taking Gabbert. There were tons of people (including people on TFF) who mocked the Panthers for taking Newton because he was considered a huge risk as a QB prospect. Literally, people here were expressing sympathy to Panthers fans because they were "stuck" with Newton. Gabbert was, at one point, considered the #1 prospect and was even considered a reasonable pick for the Jags when they drafted him. Meanwhile, Locker and Ponder were overdrafted according to most people. It's not always the case that the first quarterback taken turns out to be the best in that draft. It's almost a crapshoot, even within the first round. Plenty of highly touted prospects like Leinhart and Quinn turn out to be busts. What I meant in my post is, if some team is willing to hilariously overpay for the chance to draft Clowney they should take the trade. I'm talking Julio Jones-type return. Clowney may be the best defensive player in the league three years from now, but that alone is not enough to win consistently. Hell, some of the best defensive players in the league right now play on poo poo teams or teams that are underperforming. Revis, Ware, Allen, etc. J.J. Watt is playing at a high level still and the Texans are still 2-5. Quarterback is the most important thing, but if there's a group of quarterbacks more or less equal in their estimation, they may as well trade down and try to accumulate more picks. They're so talent-starved that even a good quarterback takes them to 6-10 at most probably. They need most of an offensive line, running backs, tight ends, and like 7-8 starters on defense (not to mention a QB). It's going to be a multi-year project.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:Clowney may be the best defensive player in the league three years from now, but that alone is not enough to win consistently. The dirty little secret is that neither is a high pick quarterback even if the pick works out. Newton is below .500 for his career, and so is Stafford, and those are some of the relative success stories. It's an important position, no doubt, but its importance is highly overrated because of how visible it is. oldfan fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:It's a little misguided to look at the 2011 draft and think the Jags did something stupid by taking Gabbert. There were tons of people (including people on TFF) who mocked the Panthers for taking Newton because he was considered a huge risk as a QB prospect. Literally, people here were expressing sympathy to Panthers fans because they were "stuck" with Newton. Gabbert was, at one point, considered the #1 prospect and was even considered a reasonable pick for the Jags when they drafted him. Meanwhile, Locker and Ponder were overdrafted according to most people. I remember Gabbert being a pretty clear case of talking up some dude for no clear reason. Half of the posts in the 2011 draft thread were people asking why he was rated so high.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Clowney would transform Minnesota's defense almost immediately. I seriously would rather take lesser talent at QB to secure him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I remember Gabbert being a pretty clear case of talking up some dude for no clear reason. Half of the posts in the 2011 draft thread were people asking why he was rated so high. I don't really remember it that way beyond a bunch of "who is this guy?" posts who hadn't really seen him play. Obviously he turned out to be terrible but he clicked with just about every offseason drill you can do. The biggest knock on him was that he didn't deal with being rushed well at all (this is an understatement), and I still think is the main reason he's been awful in the NFL. I mean, at this point it's only part of the problem, but it hurt in every other phase of the game to the point where he's broken now. But anyway, speaking just as a prospect he had a good arm, pretty damned good physical characteristics, and for whatever reason I remember his ability to read defenses/routes being sort of praised--at least as much anyone will do that with a spread QB coming out of college. Mayock had him as his #1 QB for a while, so there was something that people liked about him 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Cruel and Unusual posted:Lions fans had this exact debate after 2008. Most of them didn't want Stafford because he didn't seem that impressive and they thought he'd be the next David Carr, thrown behind a bad line. The fans wanted to plug holes with Jason Smith or Aaron Curry This was exactly me during the 2008 draft. I really thought that the best use of our pick would be to pick up O/Dline help because I thought Culpepper/Drew Stanton could do a serviceable job of QBing if they had either an Oline that could give them time or a better D that wasn't giving up 31 ppg. I couldn't be happier with the pick now, but if Stafford had ended up busting we would have been about as bad as the Jags have been.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
Gendo posted:Clowney would transform Minnesota's defense almost immediately. I seriously would rather take lesser talent at QB to secure him. If he pans out, and if he doesn't get injured. And as a Vikings fan I don't get why you'd take lesser talent at QB over any position. Sure Adrian Peterson is awesome and all but he won't win poo poo unless they get a quarterback. Same for Jared Allen or any other great player they've had recently. He could end up like Jared Allen and Demarcus Ware; elite pass rushers who've wasted their careers on underperforming teams due to failure to either provide quality quarterback play (Minnesota, except for 2009) or to provide other talent at key positions (Dallas). If the Vikings finish #3 overall, do you want them to trade up for him? How much are you trading for him?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I remember Gabbert being a pretty clear case of talking up some dude for no clear reason. Half of the posts in the 2011 draft thread were people asking why he was rated so high. There was at least a little "Seriously, HIM?" in TFF after the draft, I vaguely recall, because both Allex and I were like, "Well at least they drafted SOMEONE at quarterback. Garrard's never going to be more than woefully average at best." Little did we know the terror that was to unfold... (And yeah, their OL has certainly done him no favors and the guy's been injured somehow in probably 80% of the games he's played by now. And Del Rio similarly did him no favors by having the sole buffer between Gabbert starting in the NFL as a rookie be Luke McCown.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:If he pans out, and if he doesn't get injured. The Cowboys finished 13-3 one year with Ware. And made the playoffs a few times before and after then with him. Construct your team to win in your division, makes the playoffs, and hope it goes well from there gently caress I've become Marty
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:And as a Vikings fan I don't get why you'd take lesser talent at QB over any position. Sure Adrian Peterson is awesome and all but he won't win poo poo unless they get a quarterback. Same for Jared Allen or any other great player they've had recently. The Vikings made the playoffs just last year with bottom 5 quarterback play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
xeria posted:There was at least a little "Seriously, HIM?" in TFF after the draft, I vaguely recall, because both Allex and I were like, "Well at least they drafted SOMEONE at quarterback. Garrard's never going to be more than woefully average at best." As someone who grew up less than 15 miles from where he lived, who watched him play all throughout high school, who watched him struggle to do anything worthwhile in college, and who never understood why Mel Kiper was fascinated with him going back to when he was projected 1st overall at the beginning of the 2010-11 season, I am still shocked that Jake Locker isn't the one who ended up becoming Blaine Gabbert from that draft class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:
Mike Evans is probably pretty solid. He's responsible for at least half of the Manziel Bullshit that happens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wl2OfgKbEBs
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The Vikings made the playoffs just last year with bottom 5 quarterback play. This sounds like an excellent long-term strategy and not at all like an unsustainable fluke that would crater horribly the following season.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:52
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:Hypothetically, if the Jags go 0-16 - what would be their best strategy? Should they trade their 1st overall pick and get a couple of early picks for the next few years, or do you straight up draft Bridgewater or Clowney? Establishing a franchise QB is nice, but the Jags have so many holes, it's gonna be a long rebuild. I think you take Bridgewater and dump as many resources into the OL as possible. Like at least one quality free-agent signing and one round 2-3 draft pick. They need a franchise quarterback to rebuild around, but it's definitely possible to ruin a guy if you pick him and then just throw him to the wolves. With even a middle-of-the-pack o-line, Bridgewater/Blackmon/Shorts would be a pretty nice foundation for your offense. And they're all young, so you'd have a chance at some long-term stability there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
They will have Joeckel coming back next year, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:If he pans out, and if he doesn't get injured. This is the caveat for literally every draft pick in the history of ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Eifert Posting posted:I remember Gabbert being a pretty clear case of talking up some dude for no clear reason. Not at all. Gabbert was pretty universally regarded as a top 15 prospect, and rightly so. He had all the physical tools, was very productive in college, seemed diligent and hard working, etc etc. There were no real red flags. Here's what I wrote on him, it was pretty accurate: Blaine Gabbert, Missouri, 1st Huge and very strong, coupled with decent mobility. Probably has the best overall arm strength in the class coupled with solid mechanics and a good release. Can be exceptionally accurate, especially on NFL-style routes, but accuracy comes and goes. Seems to have trouble on touch passes, will often overthrow receivers on short passes. Regarded as an outstanding teammate, smart, and a hard worker. Normal questions about transitioning to a pro-style offense, but he reads defenses well and has very good vision. I personally thought he was a better prospect than Cam right up until the combine. The draft writers' consensus had him at 11: http://walterfootball.com/draft2011bigboard.php Turns out he was just one of those guys for whom the mental side of the game never really caught up to the physical ability.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:26
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:This is the caveat for literally every draft pick in the history of ever. And? Assuming that one rookie player, regardless of how good he is, is going to transform your defense is premature for precisely that reason. People overemphasize the impact of rookies. Very few rookies actually significantly change a team's performance, even first rounders. I'm not saying Clowney would be a bad pick, but it's doubtful that he alone changes a team's fortunes from Day 1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:And? Assuming that one rookie player, regardless of how good he is, is going to transform your defense is premature for precisely that reason. Very few players do, though. Andrew Luck and RG3 seem to be two examples of things changing overnight but in a lot of cases the first quarterback taken doesn't fix everything, unless they're a generational prospect. Clowney is that generational prospect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
Yeah Gabbert was definitely high on the draft board, enough so that Tennessee taking Locker over him was a pretty decent surprise.scouts inc posted:7. 49ers - Blaine Gabbert, QB, Missouri 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:The Vikings made the playoffs just last year with bottom 5 quarterback play. They earned a Wild Card spot on the back of one of the greatest performances by a running back in league history, in a year when the Giants and Bears both collapsed late and the Saints were playing without their head coach. Any one of those three teams were probably better than the Vikings last year, at least in terms of how they could match up in the playoffs. The Vikings had AD and an overperforming defense; even if Ponder were healthy against Green Bay they would've probably still lost and it's doubtful that they could've beaten San Francisco, Atlanta or Baltimore. Of the 12 playoff teams last year, the Vikings had by far the worst quarterback; the next "worst" was probably Andy Dalton who was way better than Ponder. Clearly the Vikings were not one rookie away from going over the top. Hell, they had 3 first round picks last draft. Maybe Clowney will be the difference, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:Very few players do, though. Andrew Luck and RG3 seem to be two examples of things changing overnight but in a lot of cases the first quarterback taken doesn't fix everything, unless they're a generational prospect. Clowney is that generational prospect. I don't think Clowney is generational. This is mainly because Mario Williams was bigger, faster, and stronger, and he wasn't generational either. This draft is very deep, but there aren't Luck/Megatron prospects hiding in there. bewbies posted:Not at all. Gabbert was pretty universally regarded as a top 15 prospect, and rightly so. He had all the physical tools, was very productive in college, seemed diligent and hard working, etc etc. There were no real red flags. I drank the poison on Gabbert because he looked so dang good in those Mizzou uni's. He played like a hulk as well. Too bad he got to the NFL and was suddenly smaller than everyone and couldn't shrug off tackles like Big Ben. The mental errors were all over the place with his time in college, and if I didn't get hyped up on the Gabbert train, I would have correctly called his bust status.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
If only, Doltos, if only
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:Very few players do, though. Andrew Luck and RG3 seem to be two examples of things changing overnight but in a lot of cases the first quarterback taken doesn't fix everything, unless they're a generational prospect. Clowney is that generational prospect. I don't follow CFB so bear with me on this. Weren't Julius Peppers and Mario Williams considered equivalent prospects, more or less? Did they dramatically transform the fortunes of their respective teams? It looks like Peppers went to the Super Bowl his second season and made the NFC championship round later, but didn't they already have a good quarterback in place? Hard to see the Jags making a quick turnaround without having a decent quarterback. Williams never did much with the Texans (not that he was the wrong pick at the time). He had pretty good stats but the team only made the playoffs once with him and then he left. Their defense was also pretty lovely for a while before adding other pieces and getting a good coordinator, so it wasn't as though Williams "transformed" their defense singlehandedly. Suh was a generational DT prospect. He didn't change that defense by himself. After thinking about it more though, it's not as though the Jags are an old team with a short window. If they take Clowney this year and a quarterback next year, they'll still have a young core to build around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:03
|
|