|
I'd probably throw Kessler out there rather than Brock. Brock should be an emergency QB unless he shows some shocking level of improvement in practice.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
CyberPingu posted:Has there been a situation where a team has traded a boat load of picks to move up to get a guy only for him to be drafted by another team before them. I think the MMQB article was pretty clear on how that works: the Bears made an informal agreement to trade up assuming their guy was there. So the first pick happens, the Bears say "yes, our guy is still there, lets pull the trigger." If the Browns had drafted Trubisky, they'd have called up, said they were planning on drafting Trubisky so the deal was off.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Like, fine, I get moving on from Cutler, and giving Glennon the upfront contract because it's short term and you can move away from it if Glennon sucks in a year. But now if Glennon's great next year... do you get rid of that? Do you dump Trubisky? If he's good do you? You franchise Glennon and trade him, or sign him to a long-term contract and trade Trubisky. It's not a bad problem to have.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:This just feels like a sample size problem. I don't see how trading up to get a QB can somehow be intrinsically bad. Trading up for another position, like WR or DE is fine, but not a QB? It doesn't past the smell test. It has an internal logic. If you're trading up, you're either packaging up a lot of picks that year, or picks next year - usually, at least a first-rounder. So your QB will spend his early years with a weaker team around him than he otherwise would. He may get sacked much more because the line is bad. He may have no good running game to lean on to keep other teams honest. His recievers may be Brady-level. Any or all of those things can make it so a QB's career never really takes off, and he never succeeds where he might have in a better situation. Or he just may seem worse than he is and get canned in favor of the next prospect by the next coach. So all things being equal, a QB that wasn't traded up for may work out better than a QB that was. That may or may not be the case, but it passes the smell test.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Looking at current starting QBs isn't a good way to do it. You want to look at the picks, and evaluate what percent of them worked out.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:it's probably also because teams aren't going to trade down on sure fire QBs. the colts were never going trade down from luck or Manning, for instance. the 49ers could reasonably have taken any of the QBs but wanted Thomas instead. Leaf and RG3 were considered almost as good if not as good before the draft.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
LEGO Genetics posted:George W. Bush - Oakland Raiders I think you'll find that Bill Clinton, who got caught cheating repeatedly but just kept on truckin', is the New England Patriots.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:How the hell is it the two best free agent quarterbacks in the last five years both decided to go into broadcasting instead of playing??? The Texans didn't want him, and the Jets did.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
wrong thread
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:Missed this before but there's no way this is true since in his note he told his fiancee "take care of my boys (YOU'RE RICH)" dude may not have been a super great accountant
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
MrLogan posted:Packers/Seahawks aren't great. They made the playoffs due to being in weak conferences. In general, the NFC is really bad; it has two legitimately good teams (Falcons and Cowboys) and then a few ok teams that have good records due to playing against garbage. They are basically at the same level of talent as the Ravens, who didn't even your list of good teams from last year. three times in four years, again 
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Perfectly good backup. Probably one of the better ones.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Gronk has a new, weird contract: Did his option picked up/modified in addition, or is it just flat giving him more money this year?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
fsif posted:He's injured all the time, but his play last year was good enough that he would at least be considered a strong backup. McDermott seems obsessed with character, though, and this happened a month ago: that seems less like a character issue and more like a serious mental health issue unless he was high as balls on some weird-rear end poo poo
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19446657/seattle-seahawks-cornerback-richard-sherman-let-go-problem-nfl-2017 goddamn this makes that win even sweeter
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Kalli posted:I'm going to presume Wes ain't making it in for a long long time if ever. I think Edelman coming in and being Welker 2.0 virtually immediately has made a lot people sort of forget about Welker (much like Welker himself) and/or sort of assume that he was a system receiver. I don't think he'll ever make it in but I think he might have a few votes without Edelman.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:32 |
|
|
Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:Put it another way: with how much the Hall voters love ringz, there is no way a guy who lost three Super Bowls is getting in. Yeah, on that basis I'd expect Edelman to get in over Welker. Not that I expect Edelman to get in either.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 17:12
|
|