Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Dear Howie
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
nephillymike
You know, even though you signed Sam, you weren't really sure he was your guy. The contract said so.

So much so, that right after signing him, you signed the supposed best backup QB in the NFL who had years of experience with the Pederson offense. You signed that guy to huge "backup" money.

Maybe you intended to draft a QB all along at #13, then at #8, then it got too expensive and you had to trade to get up to #2 to get one of your two guys, who, were supposed to be there picks later.

So he was a safety net, an expensive one at that. In case you couldn't land a new young QB, or even if you couldn't land Daniel, he was your safety net.

You got Daniel.

You'll get the kid.

You have no need for Bradford, with the exception of maybe winning 9 games instead of 8, with Sam over the well versed in this offense Daniel. If that.

He is holding out.

He wants to be traded.

Surely you weren't naive to think this wouldn't happen. Surely someone in the circle knew this was coming.

Furthermore, if he misses the mini camp installation of an offense that Daniel knows that he doesn't, then you need him less that you would have is he was here.

Sure you paid $11M in signing bonus. Hard to see it this way, but it is sunk cost.

Cut the ties.

At $7M, he should be an attractive option for SOMEBODY.

Put the ball in his court.

Tell him and his agent to go out and find a team that will pay him his $7M and pay us a 3rd round pick.

If they won't do both that tell him to take a pay cut to get us our 3rd round pick.

If he can't do that, then tell him to get the fuck in camp and shut the fuck up.
Joegrane
Or does the contract say they could not agree on a long-term deal but there was plenty of interest on both sides to continue the relationship? Given Sam's strange history and the Eagles transition the deal seems reasonable for both sides.

I don't see anything unfair to Sam for Howie to try to get Wentz. Sam gets his $. They had to know it was a long-shot. Ask Chip!

So I don't think he was the "safety net." He was the odds-on favorite to be the starter even though they planned to try to get Wentz.

QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 25 2016, 09:55 PM) *
You know, even though you signed Sam, you weren't really sure he was your guy. The contract said so.

So much so, that right after signing him, you signed the supposed best backup QB in the NFL who had years of experience with the Pederson offense. You signed that guy to huge "backup" money.

Maybe you intended to draft a QB all along at #13, then at #8, then it got too expensive and you had to trade to get up to #2 to get one of your two guys, who, were supposed to be there picks later.

So he was a safety net, an expensive one at that. In case you couldn't land a new young QB, or even if you couldn't land Daniel, he was your safety net.

...
nephillymike
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000065...here-will-he-go

Click on the trade link in this article and you get something interesting.

How about:

Kaep to DEN

Sam to SF

A 3rd round pick this year and future 5th round pick (from DEN) to Philly?

With DEN 3rd being so low, the 5th raises it up a few notches to almost lower middle 3rd round value. Maybe the SF kick in the 5th instead.

I'd be OK with that. Essentially getting the value of the 87th pick in the draft (lower middle 3rd) for Bradford after we subsidized $11M of his deal.

C'mon Don Howie, get it done. This is the last family business you need to settle. Go meet with Chip Tataglia in the Irish Pub and make him an offer he can't refuse!!
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 26 2016, 04:42 AM) *
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000065...here-will-he-go

Click on the trade link in this article and you get something interesting.

How about:

Kaep to DEN

Sam to SF

A 3rd round pick this year and future 5th round pick (from DEN) to Philly?

With DEN 3rd being so low, the 5th raises it up a few notches to almost lower middle 3rd round value. Maybe the SF kick in the 5th instead.

I'd be OK with that. Essentially getting the value of the 87th pick in the draft (lower middle 3rd) for Bradford after we subsidized $11M of his deal.

C'mon Don Howie, get it done. This is the last family business you need to settle. Go meet with Chip Tataglia in the Irish Pub and make him an offer he can't refuse!!

I hope you can work a spreadsheet with only one hand, because I'd take your arm off for that deal. It's about as good as we could hope for, unless we could get a conditional fourth/fifth in 2017.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 26 2016, 06:39 AM) *
I hope you can work a spreadsheet with only one hand, because I'd take your arm off for that deal. It's about as good as we could hope for, unless we could get a conditional fourth/fifth in 2017.



You don't like that deal, hence my arm coming off??
Eyrie
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 27 2016, 12:36 AM) *
You don't like that deal, hence my arm coming off??

Other way round - you hold that offer out and I'd grab it so fast that I'd take your arm at the same time.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 27 2016, 05:10 AM) *
Other way round - you hold that offer out and I'd grab it so fast that I'd take your arm at the same time.



Got it.

I'm hoping we get something decent.

We'll see.
Zero
Which is better, a "meh" pick in 2016 or a good pick in 2017? I doubt anyone would give up more than a 4th right now, even without the pout drama. But if Sam plays and plays well this year not only will it improve his worth but it will give him leverage to be sure he gets out before next April.
D Rock
QUOTE (Zero @ Apr 27 2016, 01:21 PM) *
Which is better, a "meh" pick in 2016 or a good pick in 2017? I doubt anyone would give up more than a 4th right now, even without the pout drama. But if Sam plays and plays well this year not only will it improve his worth but it will give him leverage to be sure he gets out before next April.

I don't get this at all.

Last season, we weren't the only team interested and we gave up a "starting QB" and a 2nd rounder. I don't think a 3rd is too much for a QB with fewer questions now, than at this time last year.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 11:42 AM) *
I don't get this at all.

Last season, we weren't the only team interested and we gave up a "starting QB" and a 2nd rounder. I don't think a 3rd is too much for a QB with fewer questions now, than at this time last year.

The only team we know definitively was interested last year was the Browns. Their entire FO and coaching staff have been replaced.

It doesn't seem like he and Chip have any desire to reunite.

Sam, like a handful of members of this board, have a false perception as it relates to his abilities and value.
D Rock
If he ends up in Denver, I'd wager a playoff run.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 11:57 AM) *
If he ends up in Denver, I'd wager a playoff run.

Bold claim. You think he could lead a team coming off a SB win with below average QB play to the playoffs.
Zero
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 12:42 PM) *
I don't get this at all.

Last season, we weren't the only team interested and we gave up a "starting QB" and a 2nd rounder. I don't think a 3rd is too much for a QB with fewer questions now, than at this time last year.

Who else is was interested besides Cleveland and Chip? And, I don't think there was a line of teams waiting for him to clear to FA. The market doesn't seem strong for Sam but should improve if he plays well.
The Franchise
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 12:57 PM) *
If he ends up in Denver, I'd wager a playoff run.


If he can put together a 7 game stretch with a QB rating around 100 throwing to Jordan Matthews and Riley Cooper under the idiot Chip Kelly, I'd wager the Broncos to be the hands down Super Bowl favorites with him throwing to Thomas and Sanders under Kubiak.
mcnabbulous
Jesus, this put [insert QB] under center on the Broncos and they are SB favorites is fucking worse than put [insert RB] on the Broncos and he'll run for 1000 yards 15 years ago.

It's bullshit. The last time a team even made it to two SB's within five years of each other with two different QB's was 1992.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 02:42 PM) *
Jesus, this put [insert QB] under center on the Broncos and they are SB favorites is fucking worse than put [insert RB] on the Broncos and he'll run for 1000 yards 15 years ago.

It's bullshit. The last time a team even made it to two SB's within five years of each other with two different QB's was 1992.


Well, from 1995-2006 the Broncos DID have a 1,000 yard rusher every single year, except one year where Davis and Anderson split the carries and combined for 1,400 yards. rolleyes.gif

And it isn't 'insert QB,' it's about plugging in a proven one, a star isn't needed. Kaep and Bradford would both thrive there, while we're here booing the guy from South Dakota for 4 months.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Apr 27 2016, 02:07 PM) *
And it isn't 'insert QB,' it's about plugging in a proven one

Sam Bradford can be called a lot of things, but "proven NFL starter" is absolutely not one. And Kaepernick has gotten beaten out for a starting job by Blaine Gabbert.

Blaine Gabbert, a guy who has been worse throughout his career than worst player of all time, Geno Smith.

But alright....
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 03:13 PM) *
Sam Bradford can be called a lot of things, but "proven NFL starter" is absolutely not one. And Kaepernick has gotten beaten out for a starting job by Blaine Gabbert.

Blaine Gabbert, a guy who has been worse throughout his career than worst player of all time, Geno Smith.

But alright....


IMO Bradford has shown that as long as he can stay healthy he can compete at an above average level. He also still has potential upside.

Enough of the 'beaten out by Gabbert' horseshit. Kaep was benched because he was performing poorly - in that dumpster fire, shit organization. Jed York makes Jeff Lurie look like Steinbrenner.

He almost went to 2 Super Bowls in a row, and came within a few yards of winning one. He's more than capable of tossing the ball to D. Thomas and Sanders.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Apr 27 2016, 02:17 PM) *
IMO Bradford has shown that as long as he can stay healthy he can compete at an above average level. He also still has potential upside.

Seriously, I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but I can't believe people are still talking about this guy's "upside."

He has thrown for 6.5 ypa in his career. That is the definition of low upside. He's been the worst QB in football that has gotten significant playing time during his career.

If you want to tell me you think the guy can be a successful game manager, maybe I can buy it. But he has shown absolutely no upside.

QUOTE
Enough of the 'beaten out by Gabbert' horseshit. Kaep was benched because he was performing poorly - in that dumpster fire, shit organization. Jed York makes Jeff Lurie look like Steinbrenner.

He almost went to 2 Super Bowls in a row, and came within a few yards of winning one. He's more than capable of tossing the ball to D. Thomas and Sanders.

He's a bad QB. He's a hell of an athlete, but he seriously has very little understanding of the passing component of NFL football. When you take his first read away, he becomes virtually useless as a passer.

The 49ers have become a dumpster fire, but that doesn't change the reality that he has gotten worse as a QB each year he has been in the league. That happens because NFL teams have caught on to how to defend Kaepernick. It's make him pass.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 03:13 PM) *
Sam Bradford can be called a lot of things, but "proven NFL starter" is absolutely not one. And Kaepernick has gotten beaten out for a starting job by Blaine Gabbert.

Blaine Gabbert, a guy who has been worse throughout his career than worst player of all time, Geno Smith.

But alright....


You are tough....

I get that Kaepernick had a bad year but give the guy some credit......he had a pretty meteoric rises. What about San Fran was not a mess last year? You could put the shoe on the other foot and say he kept Alex Smith on the bench....

Even in 2014 he was still effective until the Harbaugh vs. management boiled over. I get you may not like him but lets not re-invent history...last year he started 8 games and then went on the IR 3 games after getting benched....he had a torn labrum. (and yes...he has asked for a trade and is not attending OTAs)
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 27 2016, 02:33 PM) *
You are tough....

I get that Kaepernick had a bad year but give the guy some credit......he had a pretty meteoric rises. What about San Fran was not a mess last year? You could put the shoe on the other foot and say he kept Alex Smith on the bench....

Yeah, but as time has gone on, he has gotten worse. It's like Chip Kelly's offense. Give NFL DC's a few years to make adjustments and they will.

QUOTE
Even in 2014 he was still effective until the Harbaugh vs. management boiled over. I get you may not like him but lets not re-invent history...last year he started 8 games and then went on the IR 3 games after getting benched....he had a torn labrum. (and yes...he has asked for a trade and is not attending OTAs)

His TD's continue to go down, along with his YPA. He's an athlete. It has some value, but he's just not a good QB.

I really have doubts that a team with serious SB hopes would rely on him at this point.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 07:30 PM) *
Seriously, I'm really not trying to be a dick here, but I can't believe people are still talking about this guy's "upside."

He has thrown for 6.5 ypa in his career. That is the definition of low upside. He's been the worst QB in football that has gotten significant playing time during his career.

If you want to tell me you think the guy can be a successful game manager, maybe I can buy it. But he has shown absolutely no upside.


He's a bad QB. He's a hell of an athlete, but he seriously has very little understanding of the passing component of NFL football. When you take his first read away, he becomes virtually useless as a passer.

The 49ers have become a dumpster fire, but that doesn't change the reality that he has gotten worse as a QB each year he has been in the league. That happens because NFL teams have caught on to how to defend Kaepernick. It's make him pass.

Geno Smith.

That is all.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 05:00 PM) *
Geno Smith.

That is all.

What's your point.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 10:21 PM) *
What's your point.

laugh.gif

Just pointing to your credibility issue around here.

Geno Smith = Good.

Offensive Line = Bad.

Just boiling the mountains of nonsensical rhetoric down to the core.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 06:30 PM) *
laugh.gif

Just pointing to your credibility issue around here.

Geno Smith = Good.

Offensive Line = Bad.

Just boiling the mountains of nonsensical rhetoric down to the core.

Cool when did I say Geno Smith was a good pro? Or that he would even be definitively a good pro. I just said he had the tools to warrant a high selection.

Your schtick now consists of using the same material as The Franchise/HouseOPain/Zed2K. You can do better than that.

But sure, tell me again how awesome the Cowboys are with their blue chipper OL that everyone agrees is so good.

I just wonder if Geno Smith looked more like Sam Bradford, if he'd get the fucking leash you guys give the latter. Because their on field performance isn't too dramatically different. But that's right. One guy has "upside." laugh.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 07:45 PM) *
But sure, tell me again how awesome the Cowboys are with their blue chipper OL that everyone agrees is so good.

I just wonder if Geno Smith looked more like Sam Bradford, if he'd get the fucking leash you guys give the latter. Because their on field performance isn't too dramatically different. But that's right. One guy has "upside." laugh.gif


Two things.....Gino was an interception machine as a starter.....so easy on the "if he looked like" bullshit. I get the race card is the default defense for a failing argument but take it elsewhere. There is nothing even remotely valid regarding it. Geno is a toolbag, his teammates don't like him or respect him...maybe you think that is because he doesn't :look like Sam".

Next is Dallas's line....weren't they 12-4 the year before? Their inability to find a viable option to Romo was not indicative of their line....that was on their FO
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 27 2016, 07:10 PM) *
Two things.....Gino was an interception machine as a starter.....so easy on the "if he looked like" bullshit.

Lots of great NFL QBs have struggled with INTs early in their career. It's actually kind of a problem. We want our young QBs to be aggressive and see the whole field, but we chastise them for making mistakes. One of the best ways to learn out there is by throwing those down the field INTs. It's largely the product of coverages they've never seen before.

His raw number and INT% were both lower than arguably the best QB ever as rookies thrust into immediate action. Obviously it's night ideal, but INTs for young QBs aren't that indicative of much.

Not to mention that he had no business starting as a rookie, as I've always said.

QUOTE
I get the race card is the default defense for a failing argument but take it elsewhere. There is nothing even remotely valid regarding it. Geno is a toolbag, his teammates don't like him or respect him...maybe you think that is because he doesn't :look like Sam".

This is bullshit. There is nothing to indicate he's not well liked by the vast majority of Jets. Many have gone to bat for him.

Yeah, there was that one dude that had obvious issues. It's a small sample.

QUOTE
Next is Dallas's line....weren't they 12-4 the year before? Their inability to find a viable option to Romo was not indicative of their line....that was on their FO

So you're telling me the QB is much more important to the record than the OL? Is that what you're saying? Or is that simply how you're presenting your argument? Because you may want to consult with the rest of your team if so.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 09:15 PM) *
Lots of great NFL QBs have struggled with INTs early in their career. It's actually kind of a problem. We want our young QBs to be aggressive and see the whole field, but we chastise them for making mistakes. One of the best ways to learn out there is by throwing those down the field INTs. It's largely the product of coverages they've never seen before.

His raw number and INT% were both lower than arguably the best QB ever as rookies thrust into immediate action. Obviously it's night ideal, but INTs for young QBs aren't that indicative of much.

Not to mention that he had no business starting as a rookie, as I've always said.


This is bullshit. There is nothing to indicate he's not well liked by the vast majority of Jets. Many have gone to bat for him.

Yeah, there was that one dude that had obvious issues. It's a small sample.


So you're telling me the QB is much more important to the record than the OL? Is that what you're saying? Or is that simply how you're presenting your argument? Because you may want to consult with the rest of your team if so.


So I guess you are saying that Manning is the comparable except you lefy out that Manning threw nearly as many TDs where as Geno was 12 TDs vs 21 picks and Manning reversed it in year 2 with 36 and 25. Not to mention Manning threw the ball about 130 times more.

and his own coach did not stand up for him and neither did nay of his teammates.
http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2015/08/w...about_jets.html
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/...th-deserved-it/

One player was quoted as saying that the guy who hit him just did what alot of guys on the team wanted to do.

He is not loved at all.

But it is funny how the guy who loves to Kill Bradford could even attempt to paint Smith in any favorable light.

Now on to Dallas.....the issue was not so much that Romo got hurt as it was that they were inept at having even a remotely serviceable backup...their OL only gave up 33 sacks which tied them for 11th. If you put a decent QB behind them they finish much better. I am not the one who discounted their line, that was you....and you ignore one year where they have stability and success and focus on the one where they were forced to play Brandon Weeden and Kellen Moore and Matt Cassel whi had to learn their offense on the fly... Many teams have success with that kind of upheaval.(sarcasm) But even your hero Andy felt it was one of the most important areas to draft..
nephillymike
I can't believe this thread went the Geno Smith route sad.gif
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 27 2016, 09:44 PM) *
I can't believe this thread went the Geno Smith route sad.gif


Strange days indeed

But hey...Gino is the next Peyton Manning....hahahahaha
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 27 2016, 08:44 PM) *
I can't believe this thread went the Geno Smith route sad.gif

They all do. Which is especially sad coming from DRock, because it's simply a reminder that he wanted us to take a shitty guard with the 4th pick in the draft.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 27 2016, 08:52 PM) *
Strange days indeed

But hey...Gino is the next Peyton Manning....hahahahaha

Yeah literally no one said that. I'm convinced you have the reading comprehension skills of a 4th grader.

Take a look at the list of guys who you would deem "interception machines" and it's a who's who of HOF QBs.

It's a stupid thing to get hung up on regarding a young QB. And certainly not worth writing someone off for.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 27 2016, 09:55 PM) *
Yeah literally no one said that. I'm convinced you have the reading comprehension skills of a 4th grader.

Take a look at the list of guys who you would deem "interception machines" and it's a who's who of HOF QBs.

It's a stupid thing to get hung up on regarding a young QB. And certainly not worth writing someone off for.



I did the opposite...I went back and looked at the list of Passing leaders all time and then went and looked at the rookie or first years starting and guess what? I think I went through the first 15 and none had the number of Ints vs TDs....I am sure if I look through 50 of them maybe 1 or 2 might...But you were the guy who went with the the greatest of all time...who started every game of his rookie year by the way

And I look ay guys who throw a lot more picks than TDs.....those are INT machines....

I agree...you don't write a guy off for it...but combine that with the perception that half the guys on his team want to kill him and you get the idea that he is a tool.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 27 2016, 08:44 PM) *
So I guess you are saying that Manning is the comparable except you lefy out that Manning threw nearly as many TDs where as Geno was 12 TDs vs 21 picks and Manning reversed it in year 2 with 36 and 25. Not to mention Manning threw the ball about 130 times more.

and his own coach did not stand up for him and neither did nay of his teammates.
http://www.nj.com/jets/index.ssf/2015/08/w...about_jets.html
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/...th-deserved-it/

One player was quoted as saying that the guy who hit him just did what alot of guys on the team wanted to do.

He is not loved at all.

But it is funny how the guy who loves to Kill Bradford could even attempt to paint Smith in any favorable light.

Jesus Christ you're obtuse.

I fucking went to bat for Bradford all last offseason. I made every excuse available. But after his 6th year in the league and his age 27 season, I realized he is what he is. At best a game managing, average QB.

That's the main difference between me and you guys. I look for the good in these players. I didn't believe Geno was the second coming of Manning or Luck. I thought he was a young kid with tons of physical talent who could do good things in the right situation. At the time, I believed Chip was going to cultivate that situation (especially cause of Geno's athletic ability). If you had told me he was going to the Jets and play 16 games, I would have told you it would be a monumental failure. In fact, I did say that.

Now with that being said, he's shown some intriguing things and some awful things. But he's still only 25. Meaning he's still pretty young and has thrown less than 900 career passes. Bradford, on the other hand, has thrown nearly 3 times as many.

If/when Geno gets to that point, and still hasn't accomplished anything, I will also write him off. Mostly because I'm not a hypocrite.

QUOTE
Now on to Dallas.....the issue was not so much that Romo got hurt as it was that they were inept at having even a remotely serviceable backup...their OL only gave up 33 sacks which tied them for 11th. If you put a decent QB behind them they finish much better. I am not the one who discounted their line, that was you....and you ignore one year where they have stability and success and focus on the one where they were forced to play Brandon Weeden and Kellen Moore and Matt Cassel whi had to learn their offense on the fly... Many teams have success with that kind of upheaval.(sarcasm) But even your hero Andy felt it was one of the most important areas to draft..

Yeah, stability and success with a very good QB and great WR. Which are the areas I believe we should be exhausting our resources. You can make all the excuses you want for why they failed, but the point is that they failed. Miserably. With the best OL in football.

Because having a great OL doesn't mean shit. Having great players at the skill positions does. Which is and always has been my point.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 27 2016, 09:08 PM) *
But you were the guy who went with the the greatest of all time...who started every game of his rookie year by the way

I went with him precisely because he started every game as a rookie. Which is a rarity. In fact, only 15 guys have done it in the past 20+ years.

One guy who did was Geno. Against all conventional logic, because he clearly wasn't ready and was playing on an awful team. Which is something you make excuses for for one guy. Hmmm.

QUOTE
And I look ay guys who throw a lot more picks than TDs.....those are INT machines....

Oh okay. It has to do with how many TDs they throw. That's what makes them INT machines. Got it.

QUOTE
I agree...you don't write a guy off for it...but combine that with the perception that half the guys on his team want to kill him and you get the idea that he is a tool.

Your insight to the inner workings of multiple NFL teams is so impressive.

D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 28 2016, 02:44 AM) *
I can't believe this thread went the Geno Smith route sad.gif

Whenever nabby get's on his "QB-whisperer-soap-box-of-nonsense", St. Geno must be brought out to remind the masses.

laugh.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 27 2016, 09:21 PM) *
Whenever nabby get's on his "QB-whisperer-soap-box-of-nonsense", St. Geno must be brought out to remind the masses.

laugh.gif

Chance Warmack

That is all.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2016, 03:14 AM) *
Yeah, stability and success with a very good QB and great WR. Which are the areas I believe we should be exhausting our resources. You can make all the excuses you want for why they failed, but the point is that they failed. Miserably. With the best OL in football.

Because having a great OL doesn't mean shit. Having great players at the skill positions does. Which is and always has been my point.

And it's especially important to have a great OL to give the great QB time to find the great WR, or open holes for the great RB.

Having a shit OL means it's especially important to have a great back up QB, because he's going to see a lot of game time when the shit OL gets the great QB killed. Meanwhile the great WR is running routes for balls that will never be thrown and the great RB is getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage.

You can win with a great QB behind a good OL, or a good QB behind a great OL, but your team is fucked if either is shit.

The evidence shows that NFL teams value great OLs by using high draft picks for Ts and spending big money in FA on them.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 28 2016, 07:36 AM) *
And it's especially important to have a great OL to give the great QB time to find the great WR, or open holes for the great RB.

Having a shit OL means it's especially important to have a great back up QB, because he's going to see a lot of game time when the shit OL gets the great QB killed. Meanwhile the great WR is running routes for balls that will never be thrown and the great RB is getting stuffed at the line of scrimmage.

You can win with a great QB behind a good OL, or a good QB behind a great OL, but your team is fucked if either is shit.

The evidence shows that NFL teams value great OLs by using high draft picks for Ts and spending big money in FA on them.

I've always said you can't have a shit OL, but you don't need to spend premium resources to build a cohesive unit.
Joegrane
I like the use of a high 1st rounder for L OT, but generally I agree with you. That's why I was opposed to selecting OT at #8 or #13. My impression is that you can get a R OT when you are a good team picking around #20. I wanted them to do that last year, Fisher, the OT from Oregon.

QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2016, 08:59 AM) *
I've always said you can't have a shit OL, but you don't need to spend premium resources to build a cohesive unit.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2016, 01:59 PM) *
I've always said you can't have a shit OL,

We're getting worryingly close to agreeing at last .... cheers.gif

QUOTE
but you don't need to spend premium resources to build a cohesive unit.

... but normal service has been resumed duel.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 28 2016, 09:53 AM) *
We're getting worryingly close to agreeing at last .... cheers.gif


... but normal service has been resumed duel.gif

Well, what do you deem premium resources? I guess maybe that can help close the gap. Because I'm because I'm basically just saying the first round is relatively off limits. Beyond that, OL is fine by me.

There are exceptions to every rule, but if you're suggesting that we should be spending multiple first round picks to bolster our OL, I would strongly disagree with you. And I would also be curious if you had a reference point for that resulting in a championship caliber team.
The Franchise
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 27 2016, 09:44 PM) *
I can't believe this thread went the Geno Smith route sad.gif


At this point nobody should be surprised when Geno's Law applies. Geno's Law, of course, meaning that the longer a thread about QB's goes on, the more likely it is that someone will have to remind a certain esteemed board member that he was totally wrong about Geno Smith, who completely sucks ass.
Eyrie
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2016, 04:00 PM) *
Well, what do you deem premium resources? I guess maybe that can help close the gap. Because I'm because I'm basically just saying the first round is relatively off limits. Beyond that, OL is fine by me.

There are exceptions to every rule, but if you're suggesting that we should be spending multiple first round picks to bolster our OL, I would strongly disagree with you. And I would also be curious if you had a reference point for that resulting in a championship caliber team.

We can't close the gap - what will we have to argue about? sad.gif

Premium resources come in two flavours - high salaries and high draft picks. Teams regularly pay big money to Ts and draft that position in the top ten. Gs and occasionally Cs will earn good money and be taken in the first round. I'd also say that a second round pick is still high, although not a premium.

I'd be very relaxed about drafting two Ts in round one and my preference would be to take the interior in rounds two and three. As with any scenario however, when a position is addressed will depend on the current roster. A top G makes sense in round one if you have your QB and elite WR, but not if you're missing one of those players or have holes on the defence.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 28 2016, 01:48 PM) *
We can't close the gap - what will we have to argue about? sad.gif

Excessive use of the letter "u"?

QUOTE
Premium resources come in two flavours

See, knock that off.

QUOTE
- high salaries and high draft picks. Teams regularly pay big money to Ts and draft that position in the top ten.

The ones that are regularly drafting the position in the top-ten haven't had a whole lot of success as a result. The one team which has done so recently and been a winning organization is the Chiefs, and that's with the draft pick in question being largely a bust.

QUOTE
Gs and occasionally Cs will earn good money and be taken in the first round. I'd also say that a second round pick is still high, although not a premium.

Yeah and I'd argue it's a pretty large waste of a high pick. There are obvious exceptions, but the value of a "great" guard over an acceptable one is pretty insignificant in my opinion.

QUOTE
I'd be very relaxed about drafting two Ts in round one

There is simply not a case study of a successful team doing this.

QUOTE
and my preference would be to take the interior in rounds two and three.

Hey, Wizniewski was taken in the 2nd round. He must be great, right? Right?

QUOTE
As with any scenario however, when a position is addressed will depend on the current roster. A top G makes sense in round one if you have your QB and elite WR, but not if you're missing one of those players or have holes on the defence.

Yeah, I'd much rather fill the positions which have been historically hard to fill with those picks.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Apr 28 2016, 01:20 PM) *
At this point nobody should be surprised when Geno's Law applies. Geno's Law, of course, meaning that the longer a thread about QB's goes on, the more likely it is that someone will have to remind a certain esteemed board member that he was totally wrong about Geno Smith, who completely sucks ass.

Tell me what I said that I was "totally wrong" about. Since you weren't a board member here during that time (just kidding, we all know you're just ruining this board with a different moniker), why don't you use the search feature and find all the "wrong" stuff I posted about Geno.

In a draft where at least half of the first round were complete bust, and there are only a handful of guys who are making positive impacts on their team, saying that Geno warranted a first rounder that year is hardly an egregious statement.

Imagine had he been drafted by a responsible organization that allowed him to be groomed on the sidelines appropriately for a few years.
The Franchise
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2016, 03:07 PM) *
In a draft where at least half of the first round were complete bust, and there are only a handful of guys who are making positive impacts on their team, saying that Geno warranted a first rounder that year is hardly an egregious statement.


Actually, it was a pretty unbelievably stupid statement - even more so in hindsight, knowing how terrible he is. And you're also wrong about that draft. The 2013 first round has produced 9 Pro-Bowlers already, and a couple more will probably join that list in the next couple of years per historical trends. There were a couple busts like in any draft, but there are many serviceable starters, such as the guy we took with our #4 pick. Hell, we could've grabbed Geno in the early 2nd, but instead wisely chose Ertz, who has star potential. Shit, even Manti Te'O (taken right before Smith) has turned out to be a decent starter. I wouldn't have used our #4 pick on Johnson, but oh well.

As for the search feature, this is what you wrote on March 22nd of 2013:

QUOTE
I think Geno gets picked by Jax or Oak.


You came close - you were only 36 picks away from being correct. Actually, scratch that, 37 - Oakland traded their #3 pick to Miami. laugh.gif

I want to take you to a casino with me, and I'll just do the exact opposite of everything you say, and we'll split the winnings. Of course, you'll probably take your cut and put it in penny stocks.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Apr 28 2016, 06:56 PM) *
Actually, it was a pretty unbelievably stupid statement - even more so in hindsight, knowing how terrible he is. And you're also wrong about that draft. The 2013 first round has produced 9 Pro-Bowlers already, and a couple more will probably join that list in the next couple of years per historical trends. There were a couple busts like in any draft, but there are many serviceable starters, such as the guy we took with our #4 pick. Hell, we could've grabbed Geno in the early 2nd, but instead wisely chose Ertz, who has star potential. Shit, even Manti Te'O (taken right before Smith) has turned out to be a decent starter. I wouldn't have used our #4 pick on Johnson, but oh well.

Well the fine people at NFL.com had this to say about it:
The 2013 draft is on the fast track toward becoming recognized as one of the worst in NFL history. The only reason it is not in the top spot here is because it happened just two years ago.
Link

Literally everyone recognizes that. It's especially pathetic when you look at the first half of the first round. You can try to distort reality, but taking a chance on a high risk, high upside mobile QB when we had Chip coming in to be our HC was hardly an outrageous thought. Especially when our QBs at the time were Mike Vick and Nick Foles.
QUOTE
As for the search feature, this is what you wrote on March 22nd of 2013:



You came close - you were only 36 picks away from being correct. Actually, scratch that, 37 - Oakland traded their #3 pick to Miami. laugh.gif

I want to take you to a casino with me, and I'll just do the exact opposite of everything you say, and we'll split the winnings. Of course, you'll probably take your cut and put it in penny stocks.

I'm not talking about where he got drafted. That's irrelevant. I have no inside information about where players are getting selected. Leading up to the draft, it was pretty clear he was slipping, but he was in early consideration for the #1 pick.

I'm talking about something I said about his game that was so terribly wrong.
mcnabbulous
Hey Eyrie - the Titans just took their third OL in the top-11 in recent years. The Titans. A hot garbage organization.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 28 2016, 08:09 PM) *
Well the fine people at NFL.com had this to say about it:
The 2013 draft is on the fast track toward becoming recognized as one of the worst in NFL history. The only reason it is not in the top spot here is because it happened just two years ago.
Link


Whoa horsey.....take it easy...it is one guy's opinion and 4 more guys from the first round made the Pro Bowl AFTER he wrote it.....you need to read the fine print....lol

You have 9 pro bowlers from that first round....what hurt it was Dion Jordan

Also 4 more Pro Bowlers in the 2nd round...always tough to judge a class after 2 years
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.