Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

The Consigliere

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About The Consigliere

  • Rank
    The Role Player
  • Birthday 12/13/1974

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Washington Football Team Fan Since
  • Favorite Washington Football Team Player
    Art Monk
  • Location
    Alameda, California
  • Interests
    Writing, Reading, Travelling, Music, Film, Athletics, Comedy etc
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. and borrow the Delorian from Back to the future and get us to lose that Eagle game. That, and I'd be satisfied w/the '20 season.
  2. How many of those guys you hate were actually seen as stud future QB prospect? The answer is next to none. Troy Smith: A late fifth rounder that did well to actually log a reasonable amount of starts in a nondescript career. Pryor and Miller: Pryor spent time with the Raiders playing as both a QB and a WR drafted in the early third, and was drafted as a kind of slash player, while Miller was drafted to play WR. JT Barrett: Never seen by anyone as much of an NFL prospect. Dwayne Haskins: Had 1 studly season as the starter. Now we
  3. The good news is LB is cheap in terms of FA SB $$ cost, and draft capital cost, and the bad news is it's terribly inefficient to address LB needs early in the draft, but that's no big deal because if we're this bad, we can always use an early 2nd or 3rd this year or next on LB help to augment whatever is done in FA. The only thing I'd 1000% eschew is going LB in round 1, it's a monstrously ineffiecient use of draft resources to do so and is cap idiocy of the highest order. Save top 10 picks for QB, OT, Edge, DT, DB and if necessary, WR/G. Eschew LB, C, RB, and to some extent, G w/those early p
  4. I don't really disagree w/your indictment of the organization at all. I hold the organization in contempt as well w/only rare exceptions. My only quibbles would be: #1 we still have to take the actions most likely to generate positive results and #2 our history with Quarterbacks is superficially bad, not really in actuality bad. If you look at what we've done in terms of ruining young QB's since Gibbs I ended it's really nondescript. What QB's have we drafted that went on to do stuff elsewhere? I can't think of any other than Cousins. RGIII? I do think we ruined him, playing him wh
  5. This isn't analysis. 99.5% of QB's don't translate well to the NFL. Any given year you get about 0-2 starter caliber QB's out of all the prospects in the entirety of hundreds of college football organizations. There is no "that school just can't produce QB's". If you want to argue that some schools have better hit rates than others, I'd agree, probably based upon whom they recruit and land and then what style of offense they run and how well they teach to a much smaller degree, that's fine, but arguing that some schools are bad at it when nearly all schools produce 0 NFL QB's a decade, and the
  6. The hit rate w/OL early is also higher than most other positions, although in fairness it's probably simply because the lines demand a ton of players compared to other positions in terms of starters, depth, and swing options. So I'm not sure if the hit rate is more a byproduct of need much like crappy teams should have a higher hit rate in drafts than good teams because they have the roster space and good teams are usually tighter (although there's no evidence to suggest they do any better in terms of landing roster and starter talent). Anyway, I think it should be pretty simple if for no othe
  7. I think it depends on the eval. I don't think you should force picks necessairly, pedigree/CV so to speak is what it is and sometimes QB need causes people to make stupid decisions. As bad as Haskins may have been at 15, it was infinitely better than reaching for Jones at 5. That 5 slot could've gotten a mountain of goodies in a trade down and there was NO WAY that Jones was a top 5 talent. Once the blue chip zone evaporates, usually somewhere outside the top 10, but sometimes earlier, and sometimes later taking a flyer on guys that could be Flacco's, or could be Haskins or Locker
  8. The hit rate is incredibly low, it's rare as heck, and considering the odds, we already kind of got that hit w/Cousins, though that's bad math, you can hit whenever, it's just the hit rate plummets dramatically after the blue chip zone and especially after round 1, and it's getting harder, not easier, as teams apply analytics in order to try and stop themselves from missing on guys like Brady, Brees, and Wilson. Take a look at those teams? The Browns were coming off multiple near 0-16 runs when he arrived, Darnold arrived alongside a bottom 5 NFL coach and a bottom 5 NFL GM having napalmed the
  9. If we pick third, it would be super interesting to see if we tried to sign Dak, or went after a Darnold or something, I definitely see us getting a starter in the '21 offseason, just not sure what the team will decide. For the Sewell fans, all I ever need to say is: Samuels+Silverback for 18 straight seasons earned us 1 playoff win total, and a bottom 5 in the league record during that time period. Having an elite LT doesn't mean squat. It's only relevant if you have a great QB AND you also build at bare minimum an adequate OL or a + one. I just think some fans h
  10. No and I remain 100% convinced that was the wrong choice. It didn't shock me that a defensive minded coach/former player w/a chance to select a generational (hah!, used the phrase for the haters ) on defense at one of the few positions worth using a top 10 pick on (QB, Edge, Interior DL, OT, DB, WR) did so considering the team had just used a top 15 pick a year earlier on a QB that was the owners favorite and had at least some exculpatory evidence to suggest that there was hope. Still, I see zero chance the team passes on a QB if we slot in at 1 or 2, if we slot in below that, the
  11. Could be, I just think, if you give a QB: *PFF's 27th ranked OL heading into the season. *No RB whatsoever (I get that they had Bell, but he didnt want to be there, neither did the coach, and that's how ineffectual their approach w/him was) *A WR corps whose best option, Jamison Crowder, hasn't finished above the top 50 in production ever, and is a slot option. *TE Corps that isn't used at all for whatever reason despite the talent Chris Herndon clearly has. You're going to have problems, like, HUGE problems. It's rare to find QB's suceedi
  12. *If we have a top 2 pick, I'd take a QB. *If we have a pick in a zone where someone at 1 or 2 would be willing to trade down with us, I'd trade up, no matter the cost. *If we can't move up because slot 1 and 2 won't trade, I'd trade down. This draft has like 3 or 4 top 10-12 rated OL's, and the top 5 WR's all have first round grades, in terms of top end elite depth, it's one of the top 3 WR crops I've ever seen alongside classes like '96, '01 (which had a lot of busts) and the mythical '14 crop that was the greatest ever. I'd be tempted to take Chase, but I think you c
  13. It's a good question, I don't know enough about Lance, I know I'm 100% sold on Lawrence and Fields being elite prospects, not sure about Lance, I always say go QB, but I don't see Lance as in their territory, though maybe I'm wrong. It would just be hard to say no to the stud OT, or a trade down and taking a Rashaad Bateman, Rondale Moore etc and adding more pieces, imagine trading down and getting the ammo to land two legit OL prospects in the top 50 to go with that? I prefer the QB, but after the QB, trading down for multiple pieces is attractive, or even '22 pieces depending upon the qualit
  14. The problem is that if you're throwing a 50/50 dart, Lance makes more sense because you have 4+1 years of a rookie deal, Darnold will only have 1+1 left. I'd rather take Lance at that point unless I could steal Darnold for nothing (like a conditional 3rd and 5th in separate years for Darnold and like a 4th. I'm not giving them much value when 3 of the 5 potential cheap years of his deal are already out the door and I'm actually somewhat of a Darnold believer, but the same issues that have people considering moving away from going QB round 1 are what make it hard to trade for him. It's one thin
  15. Athletes are athletes in any sport. Good, bad, and indifferent. I agree that this has ruined basketball in a way that people like Bill Simmons, or Lakers fans, Miami fans etc don't seem to get, but basically like baseball, but much worse, the NBA is an exclusive club in terms of winning, and it's nearly hopeless if you're not in a "no income tax state" and/or in a big attractive city. Over time it's only gonna get worse, and the NBA will continue to look like the EPL, or La Liga, or the Bundesliga where there are 1-2 or 3 contenders, and everyone else just hopes for a run to the playoffs and l
  • Create New...