How is drafting a QB in the first not the same old Skins?

[mnb123]

Im telling you that we are 2-3 years from having a rookie start.

You can fix this OL in 2 years, especially if there is a CBA next year.

Throwing a rookie into the mix without the OL being fixed is insanity. You need to put the pieces in place before drafting the QB.

Tell Allen and Shanny to put a rookie out there with our current OL and they will laugh in your face.

A) A rookie QB sitting for a year or two (or three) while the team is being built around him is apparently outside the realm of your understanding, so I won't elaborate on that anymore.

Whatever O-linemen we have next year will be dramatically different than this year, even if we draft a QB in the first round, because apparently understanding that there are 7 rounds in the draft is beyond your understanding as well. Whoever is under center next year is not going to be put behind "our current OL".

C) You saying we should draft OL with our first four picks as you say is beyond stupid as well, and as I said before, something Vinny would do. You realize that say, if we get three second round picks somehow by trading down or trading our players, by the time you hit that third pick, and other teams pick some OL as well, you are taking someone that doesn't deserve to be taken in the 2nd, and could probably be picked up in the third or fourth. its called supply and demand.

[wvtbred]

12th in comp

10th in comp%

14th in yards

15th in average

16th in yards/game

29th ranked OL in overall stats.

27th in rushing yards/game'

So again, no OL and no Rushing and still he puts up numbers. :cool:

You left out INT's and total fumbles. He has to ranked pretty high there too huh?

[mnb123]

No, we trade down this year to pick up extra draft choices next year. We combine those picks with our first rounder next year to get our QB of the future.

As I've said before, I'd much rather have a Bulaga/Locker combo than a first round offensive lineman next year combined with Clausen/Bradford.

And what if Locker gets injured, or we are not in a position to pick him, or a million other things happen that could prevent us from getting him? What would be your plan then? Keep on sucking until the next sure-thing Peyton Manning is available, then leverage three years worth of picks for him?

There is a reason everyone says that if there is a QB available that you think can be your guy, you pick him, no questions asked.

[Springfield]

Unless you fix the OL, youre not going to be close to 8-8.

While I'd tend to agree with you, football changes greatly year to year. Any given Sunday.

Anybody figure that the Bengals would be playoff bound this season?

We can't just assume that we will have a top 5 or even top 10 pick next season... regardless of picking a QB or an OT.

[Redskinzfan30]

Really?

And what position will be drafting in next year?

Tell me you don't want another loser drafted in the 20s.

Or maybe we can trade up from 20, to the top 5. And to do so, forfeit our first rounder the following year.

No chance in hell. We are drafting 4th. You take the QB.

Exactly. It's not often you pick in the top 5 and when you do you get the guy that will make you a perennial super bowl contender. That means take the QB over the LT. Good LT's can be had in the lower teens or look at Oher he was had a 23 last year.

[GregBroChill]

I can not believe all you JC applogists I mean seriously JC is not a Franchise QB and will never be, he will be a good back up and nothing more. Most of JC's TD and yards were in garbage time.

Name 5 franchise QBs taken in the past 5 years.

How many of those 5 did JC out perform this year?

[DolphinsGuy23]

The stupidity level around here is unfortunately increasing, not decreasing.

Maybe it is because many here don't watch other teams? Or they don't know what real teams look like?

Or they have just been used to crappy, bottom of the league football for so long, that they don't know any better.

For everyone against a QB in the first, please answer this:

You go O-line as many times as you like. Trade down, whatever. Pick up even 10 o-lineman.

Great.

Now how are you going to get a franchise QB?

I think the reality is that it's just pure luck when your team manages to get a true franchise QB on your team. Your team just happens to be terrible and get a top 10 1st round pick in the same year that a QB that everyone is wild about is coming out of college.

Other times you just find a "diamond in the rough" like Bill Belichick did with Tom Brady. Tom Brady was a 6th round draft pick. That's what you call hitting the lottery right there. It totally turned around the Patriots organization.

A lot of the time, your team has to wait 20 years to get another "great one". Believe me, Dolphins fans are dying to get their hands on "the next Marino". We're sick and tired of waiting I know that. We've had about about a dozen mediocre or poor QBs since Marino.

These days, we'll settle for "above average". I think Jason Campbell could be that guy with our improved Oline and a new #1 receiver next year. He'd have to compete with Chad Henne though. Not sure the Dolphins want to do that since they picked Henne in the draft. They all have their "favorites" you know ... and they tend to stay loyal to them and all that.

[hieverybody]

And what if Locker gets injured, or we are not in a position to pick him, or a million other things happen that could prevent us from getting him? What would be your plan then? Keep on sucking until the next sure-thing Peyton Manning is available, then leverage three years worth of picks for him?

There is a reason everyone says that if there is a QB available that you think can be your guy, you pick him, no questions asked.

And what I'm saying is that there isn't a QB available that can be our guy. You don't draft Jim Druckenmiller just because he is the highest rated QB available.

[BruinSkin]

There is no evidence of teams with horrible OL taking franchise QB's early.

'97 Colts gave up 41 sacks (Drafted Manning, built a line in front of him.)

'98 Eagles gave up 56 sacks (Drafted McNabb, built a line in front of him.)

'02 Bengals gave up 37 sacks (Drafted Palmer, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Giants gave up 44 sacks (Traded for Eli, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Steelers gave up 42 sacks (Drafted Big Ben, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Ravens gave up 39 sacks (Drafted Flacco, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Falcons gave up 47 sakcs (Drafted Ryan, built a line in front of him.)

You can draft QBs high with a bad offensive line (see above) and still succeed in the coming years. The key is to get your QB and build around him. You do not need to have a great line first before getting that franchise QB.

[McD5]

Good God, it's not that difficult:

1. You take the franchise QB with the number 4. No ifs, ands or buts.

2. When Bruce Allen took over in Tampa, he immediately cut/traded 30 people on the roster. He isn't stupid, the same is about to happen here.

3. Cooley=picks Landy=picks Carlos=picks JC=picks

You want more o-line? You bundle those players above, and others, to get your first and second round o-liners.

Under no circumstances, do you pass on QB at 4. The only exception to that, is if Brennan just knocks Shanahan's socks off. If he truly sees a young Cutler in Brennan, then maybe you pass.

[wvtbred]

'97 Colts gave up 41 sacks (Drafted Manning, built a line in front of him.)

'99 Eagles gave up 56 sacks (Drafted McNabb, built a line in front of him.)

'02 Bengals gave up 37 sacks (Drafted Palmer, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Giants gave up 44 sacks (Traded for Eli, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Steelers gave up 42 sacks (Drafted Big Ben, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Ravens gave up 39 sacks (Drafted Flacco, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Falcons gave up 47 sakcs (Drafted Ryan, built a line in front of him.)

You can draft QBs high with a bad offensive line (see above) and still succeed in the coming years. The key is to get your QB and build around him. You do not need to have a great line first before getting that franchise QB.

Very nice info, thanks for taking the time to pull that out. Very telling to say the least.

[mnb123]

And what I'm saying is that there isn't a QB available that can be our guy.

Well luckily we have real football people to determine that now.

If Shanny decides that Bradford our Clausen is that guy, will you be pissed with the pick?

[Oldskool]

A) A rookie QB sitting for a year or two (or three) while the team is being built around him is apparently outside the realm of your understanding, so I won't elaborate on that anymore.

The fact that you can't take a rookie while building the OL as the two are usually mutually exclusive is quite a bit over your football IQ. Let's leave it at that.

Whatever O-linemen we have next year will be dramatically different than this year, even if we draft a QB in the first round, because apparently understanding that there are 7 rounds in the draft is beyond your understanding as well. Whoever is under center next year is not going to be put behind "our current OL".

Where are these magical OL going to come from?

We have 6 picks this year, something you cannot grasp.

You obviously have no understanding of how Free Agency works with no cap. Trying to teach you is a waste of my time.

C) You saying we should draft OL with our first four picks as you say is beyond stupid as well, and as I said before, something Vinny would do. You realize that say, if we get three second round picks somehow by trading down or trading our players, by the time you hit that third pick, and other teams pick some OL as well, you are taking someone that doesn't deserve to be taken in the 2nd, and could probably be picked up in the third or fourth. its called supply and demand.

Vinny wouldn't and didn't draft OL. He decided to chase the shiny bauble. This is his and your greatest flaw.

Again your lack of understanding and fundamental football IQ is your undoing. This team needs to draft OL this year but not reach for them at all. Simply because there is a need does not require a reach. Nor does it require spending a high draft pick on a non essential position.

Drafting BPA is the right thing to do under normal circumstances. 2010 is not one of those circumstances. Lacking 4 starters on the OL, and restricted FA period due to a lack of a CBA will force the teams hand.

I personally am not happy about this, but 8 years of mismanagement has lead us to this point. Enjoy it.

[TankRizzo]

Another thing is, you don't WANT the opportunity to draft a top 5 QB again. If you think there's a QB worth taking in the top 5 and you have that pick, you go and do it. I'm pretty sure Bruce Allen doesn't plan on drafting this high every year.

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

12th in comp

10th in comp%

14th in yards

15th in average

16th in yards/game

29th ranked OL in overall stats.

27th in rushing yards/game'

So again, no OL and no Rushing and still he puts up numbers. :cool:

You do realize he had several hundred yards and about a half dozen TD passes in garbage time don't you? When you lose most of your games you're mostly passing because you're playing catchup and not running as much. Just like there's a reason why winning teams rush for a lot more yards and more rushes. Because when you're ahead you milk the clock.

[hieverybody]

Well luckily we have real football people to determine that now.

If Shanny decides that Bradford our Clausen is that guy, will you be pissed with the pick?

Yes because I think that indicates short term thinking. Often a new coach/GM combo will go out and get a new QB, believing that they will be able to develop him, rather than thinking about what is best for the team in the long run.

[McD5]

'97 Colts gave up 41 sacks (Drafted Manning, built a line in front of him.)

'98 Eagles gave up 56 sacks (Drafted McNabb, built a line in front of him.)

'02 Bengals gave up 37 sacks (Drafted Palmer, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Giants gave up 44 sacks (Traded for Eli, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Steelers gave up 42 sacks (Drafted Big Ben, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Ravens gave up 39 sacks (Drafted Flacco, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Falcons gave up 47 sakcs (Drafted Ryan, built a line in front of him.)

You can draft QBs high with a bad offensive line (see above) and still succeed in the coming years. The key is to get your QB and build around him. You do not need to have a great line first before getting that franchise QB.

/close thread.

[Gibbsisgod2006]

Name 5 franchise QBs taken in the past 5 years.

How many of those 5 did JC out perform this year?

Mat Ryan (Led his team to the playoffs)

Eli Manning (Won a superbowl)

Philip Rivers

Big Ben

Aaron Rodger

[Veretax]

Let me try it again. Sanchez was HORRID this year. NOBODY had to plan for him - he was their Sunday treat!!! Only 4 QBs in the league were worse! Sanchez was clearly not the reason for the running totals any more than Jake Delhomme was for Carolina's totals. If you had a point, it would have been based on decent QB play.

Sanchez was a rookie, he had several good games, he had as many bad games. That's not my point though, my point is with Clemmons or Pennington in there the teams can stack the box and take the run away, at least Sanchez has shown that he'll take shots even if he is not experiences enough to avoid bad decisions. Look at Peyton Manning, he was AWFUL his first year too, (and no I'm not saying sanchez is anywhere near as good)

No revision at all. You need to have a closer look at the roster of the Packers. When Rodgers took over for Favre, he had a young RB, talented WR's and an OL with depth.

They made a good choice on Rodgers because they had the luxury of being able to. That is my point. This team lacks such luxury because our hand is forced by 8 years of Vincenzo.

Yes they had a a lot of depth, and how did they get it? Over 4 years drafting OL in the middle rounds (not the first round) in fact only one 2nd and 1 rd Rd Pick since Rodgers was picked went to the OL for the packers. And yet look at how they did. They've struggled all year, and Rodgers looks good in SPITE of the line not because of it. I should know the other team I follow is the Packers, and every packer fan feels almost as bad as we do about our OL. BTW, Grant may be a young RB but he was a Practice squad player when Green Bay picked him up. The one area Green Bay has done VERY well is the WR position. (They also had another QB who went on to be a pretty good QB as a back up that they drafted as I recall, a guy named Brunnell.)

You are correct when you say lots of holes. But let's put things into perspective. What needs are there on this team that cannot go without fixing.

Right Offensive Tackle

Offensive Center

Right Offensive Guard

Left Offensive Tackle

I'd argue that we don't need a Starter at Guard or Center right now, that's what I'm saying. Though it would be nice if we could get a Guard or Center ready this year because Thomas is likely nearly done. If Rhino, and BMW are not the answers that is.

Yes Rabach has had trouble this year. He is not the LONG term solution, but for another year or two he is certainly serviceable. I do think we need a LT for sure, but I am not sold on the other three positions 100% needing replacing right now, and I'm not sold that even if you DO draft 4 OL that more than one would get the start.

You need starters at those positions.

You also could use the following as depth/replacement for players:

Running Back

Middle Linebacker

Free Safety

Weak Side Linebacker

All 5 offensive line positions

Left Defensive Tackle

Left Defensive Tackle? We have AH, Griffin, Alexander, Golston, and MOntgomery could be an option there, getting a DT for depth is not quite as much of a problem to be honest. I think our depth is better than it has been, but we won't keep everyone either. I think strong Side line backer is more important than Weak Side at this point, and I don't buy the need of a safety that high, you can probably get one in FA easily enough. Running back is definitely a concern, and MLB if HB is not the answer when Fletch retires.

That's at least 14 roster spot upgrades.

All of these are above are as important if not moreso than a rookie QB.

6 draft choices and a limited free agency period due to the lack of a Collective Bargaining Agreement make any talk of taking a QB worthless.

I admit the CBA complicates things, but I am under NO allusions that this team will be fixed in 2010 no matter what we could do, because of that I think we need to be patient and methodical with our picks and signings. we are at elast 2 if not 3 years away, and that's why I think keeping JC beyond 2010 is probably a very bad idea. I think he is about to peak, and if he does he will do so with an Oline that needs time to gain chemistry.

And this versus taking a 1st rounder means what?

You have 4 holes on the OL, and at least 3 top 10 worthy OT that fit in a ZBS this year.

Vinny would take Eric Berry or a QB. A savvy GM knows you have 3 QB's under contract and an OL made up of scrubs, and never will be's.

I don't know enough about the OT or OL that area able to ZBS, and I think taking Berry is a mistake. Campbell is a Restricted Free Agent unless we tender him and if he's not the answer even for 2010 then you have to figure out what we are going to do. I'm not saying where we need to take an OL, we certainly need at least 2 if not 3 picks on that, but I also think when you force to fill needs you end up with the DT/MK situation where they can't even beat out the starters from this year... That to me would be a disaster we need to pick OL that can work into the line up early otherwise they are wasted picks.

[mnb123]

The fact that you can't take a rookie while building the OL as the two are usually mutually exclusive is quite a bit over your football IQ. .

Does ANYONE else on this site think that you can't take a QB while building the O-line.

ANYONE?

[MrJL]

half the hits Campbell takes are his own fault in some people's eyes.

I question those people's intelligence then. He's thrown plenty away, he's taken plenty of hits after throwing balls away. There's only so much you can blame on not throwing the ball quickly enough.

[mnb123]

Where are these magical OL going to come from?

We have 6 picks this year, something you cannot grasp.

You obviously have no understanding of how Free Agency works with no cap. Trying to teach you is a waste of my time.

You need to realize that you can't find a whole new o-line in one year. There will be o-line picks in this draft, the next, and the next.

If you think we are capable of hitting on every o-lineman we pick every single year, prepare to be disappointed.

[GregBroChill]

'97 Colts gave up 41 sacks (Drafted Manning, built a line in front of him.)

'98 Eagles gave up 56 sacks (Drafted McNabb, built a line in front of him.)

'02 Bengals gave up 37 sacks (Drafted Palmer, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Giants gave up 44 sacks (Traded for Eli, built a line in front of him.)

'03 Steelers gave up 42 sacks (Drafted Big Ben, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Ravens gave up 39 sacks (Drafted Flacco, built a line in front of him.)

'07 Falcons gave up 47 sakcs (Drafted Ryan, built a line in front of him.)

You can draft QBs high with a bad offensive line (see above) and still succeed in the coming years. The key is to get your QB and build around him. You do not need to have a great line first before getting that franchise QB.

If you're going to call Ryan, Flacco, and Palmer franchise QBs, then you might as well throw JC in there too. They all had very similar stats this year. Of those 4 JC had the second best QB rating. Why are those 3 franchise QBs but not JC?

[SlinginSammy HOF '63]

Well luckily we have real football people to determine that now.

If Shanny decides that Bradford our Clausen is that guy, will you be pissed with the pick?

exactly. If we take an O-lineman instead I won't be happy, but I'm not the football mind these guys are. I'll go with it and see what happens. Right now we need a franchise QB. If you want to get a new franchise QB you don't wait a year or two to do it. Otherwise your line starts aging before your QB is ready. Linemen can play immediately. The QB needs time to sit and learn and this point has been mentioned 500 times in this thread, but people still say that QB will get killed.

[#98QBKiller]

Does ANYONE else on this site think that you can't take a QB while building the O-line.

ANYONE?

Drafting a QB in the first and rebuilding the OL are definitely not mutually exclusive.