grego Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 We MUST draft a QB (preferably 2). So as stated above we have a veteran (Grossman), a high pick QB who will start by game 4 or 6 (Noles or Cousins?) in 2012, and a low round project (Wilson or Keenum?). We MUST NOT trade away the next 2 or 3 years of drafts to move up to take Luck or RGIII. I am concerend about Noles' high TD/INT ratio, but Tannehill does not impress, and the foot injury may have him dropping low in the draft. We could pick him in rounds 4-6, but he would be the project QB.Look at the "Parcells" test for drafting a college QB. Noles and Cousins appear to be much better prospects. And I would rather follow Parcells' advice, than anyone here on this board. HTTR i hear what you are saying, but what about the numbers that indicate the risk of not drafting a QB in the first round? they are not good. my thing is, i cannot say we have had a 'franchise' QB in decades. i dont think we are going anywhere without one. if we have a chance to get one, even if we give up a couple of high picks, i think we have to pull the trigger, or accept mediocrity for the next however many years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Why would we draft 2 QBs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drexen Del'Sangre Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 And he still kicked extra points and FGs, and kicked off. His back will heal just fine. wasnt advocating replacing Gano. Just answering the question as to what is wrong with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Why would we draft 2 QBs? in case one doesn't pan out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 in case one doesn't pan out.But why do people think that will work?Drafting 2 QBs forces them to share reps/coaching/meeting time would only make it harder to develop either one. It doesn't help bring the team together because the most important position remains unsettled and your QB needs to be the leader from the start. How can he be the leader when he's not even sure if he's the guy? Then you have locker rooms and fans taking sides. Drafting 2 QBs creates a situation that most teams strive to avoid unless they already have an established starter. ---------- Post added January-15th-2012 at 10:37 PM ---------- Imo you draft a QB and the entire team and FO gets behind that QB and commits to grooming him into their QB of the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 in case one doesn't pan out. Why not take 8 then? The issue has always been, is, and will forever be talent. If we end up with Foles/Tannehill and then Lindley/Moore/Wilson, if Tannehill/Foles, the 2nd round talents, don't pan out, why would Lindley/Moore/Wilson, 5th round talents, end better? If the better prospect doesn't pan out, and the weaker one does (all character issues being equal), then something weird is going on, and someone probably messed up their evaluations. And it's already been mentioned that trying to develop two QBs guarantees that either one is shortchanged or both won't maximize their potential. It's a death knell for a team if we're trying to get one of them to be a starter. Now, if we're talking about drafting our starter and then a future backup, that makes more sense, but we still run into the coaching problem. The starter needs all the attention, at least for the 1st year or two until they've become set in the system. That's why its more effective to snag a future backup a couple drafts later, after the QB coach has pretty much finished teaching the starter, and is just doing light maintenance on his skill set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Foles is a system QB. We must draft RGIII or the 2012 season is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Why would we draft 2 QBs? Two reasons... 1 - to increase your chances of successfully solving the issue at QB, instead of all eggs being put into one basket. 2 - we need more than one. We need a starter and we need to also develop a viable back up. Rex Grossman may be here another year but anything past that wouldn't be a good thing. ---------- Post added January-16th-2012 at 06:15 AM ---------- Foles is a system QB. We must draft RGIII or the 2012 season is lost. That 2nd sentence is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Two reasons...1 - to increase your chances of successfully solving the issue at QB, instead of all eggs being put into one basket. 2 - we need more than one. We need a starter and we need to also develop a viable back up. Rex Grossman may be here another year but anything past that wouldn't be a good thing. ---------- Post added January-16th-2012 at 06:15 AM ---------- That 2nd sentence is ridiculous. Quantity can never replace quality when it comes to QB. Now, if we were drafting two prospects who were both fairly solid and had nearly equal ratings, I could perhaps see that logic working. The problem is, if we get a 2nd round talent like Foles/Tannehill, we're probably not going to dip our toes back into the pool until around the 5th round and get someone like Lindley/Moore/Wilson. Outside of mancrushes on players (there are some devout Wilson and Moore fans here), those two sets of QBs are on entirely different levels, and if the guy at the top fails, then what are the odds of the 2nd guy succeeding? If a 1st round talent is a coin flip, then a 2nd rounder is two or three coin flips. I don't even want to think how many coins you need to flip for a guy with an ESPN rating of 50 to pan out. Simply put, we shouldn't take a metaphorical shotgun to the problem, we need a metaphorical rifle. It especially doesn't help that the meta-shotgun is loaded with marshmallows. As for the "draft RGIII or 2012 is lost" line, that might have more legs than you think. If we end up with Foles or Tannehill it probably means we missed out on Flynn. If that's the case, we could be looking at either: a) another year of Grossman while the new guy learns another veteran castoff, possibly Orton or Henne or c) starting the rookie well before they should. Neither Foles, nor Tannehill, nor anyone after them should be starting their first year. None of those options look too great to me honestly. Maybe we could make something work, but I feel like the odds are stacked against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfbovey Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Dogofwar, That's what I was thinking. If they draft a QB in round 1 or 2 then they could also take one in round 6 or 7 to groom as a backup. I don't think it would make sense to take two QBs if they are both taken early. I was thinking more along the lines of what they did with Heath/Gus in terms of where they'd be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailB&G Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 You draft two QBs, because we don't have any QBs on the roster and you need more than one. Unless they are gonna get Flynn. But that is gonna cost a draft pick (at least) anyway, so it is the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever21 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't think there's anything wrong with him. He's just not a high first round guy which is what most of us were hoping to land this year. But with Barkley not declaring I think that RGIII and Luck will be too expensive for us to get near. And thus guys like Foles are the fallback more than anything. I didn't want fallback I wanted franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Quantity can never replace quality when it comes to QB. Now, if we were drafting two prospects who were both fairly solid and had nearly equal ratings, I could perhaps see that logic working. The problem is, if we get a 2nd round talent like Foles/Tannehill, we're probably not going to dip our toes back into the pool until around the 5th round and get someone like Lindley/Moore/Wilson.Outside of mancrushes on players (there are some devout Wilson and Moore fans here), those two sets of QBs are on entirely different levels, and if the guy at the top fails, then what are the odds of the 2nd guy succeeding? If a 1st round talent is a coin flip, then a 2nd rounder is two or three coin flips. I don't even want to think how many coins you need to flip for a guy with an ESPN rating of 50 to pan out. . you are aware that occasionally undrafted free agents become starters, that seventh rounders beat out second rounders, things like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cen Tex Skins Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I love Foles but nothing more of a 2nd.rd. backup plan.Go RG3 then maybe take a QB late.Maybe rds 5-7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 you are aware that occasionally undrafted free agents become starters, that seventh rounders beat out second rounders, things like that The key word there is occasionally. Occasionally getting a diamond in the rough also means that you will occasionally enjoy some success, but not that often. Romo sits to pee, Brady, and Schaub are the exceptions. Look at the teams that are happy and stable with their starters. The majority of them come from the 1st round, and were rated as being 1st round talent. This does not mean that we couldn't find talent outside of 1st round rated players, but we should expect average play, if not failure, from non-1st round talent, and be pleasantly surprised when they pan out. Romo sits to pee, Brady, and Schaub were not Plan A for the teams that drafted and signed them. They were plan Bs, backups, and longshots that just happened to work out. Making Foles/Tannehill/Cousins/Weedon/anyone else our Plan A would be a mistake, because we would be handing the reigns of the team over to someone with most likely less than a 50% chance of succeeding. Those guys are better served as a Plan B, but that requires us to have a plan A. As for how this relates to Foles, and thus the thread, Foles has potential, pretty much all 2nd round talent has that, but translating potential into reality is no simple thing. Filling the holes in his game will not be easy or a sure thing. Same thing with Tannehill. Similar thing with Cousins, though Cousins is less far along than the other two. And again, there are questions concerning his mobility and decision making. If he has a great senior bowl, he'll allay a lot of my fears, but right now, I'm treating him as he is, a 2nd round talent with a few pieces missing in his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Why would we draft 2 QBs? Because as scared as people are of having to start Rex again, they're even more terrified that John Beck might have to play again. That's pretty much the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman21ST Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Because as scared as people are of having to start Rex again, they're even more terrified that John Beck might have to play again.That's pretty much the bottom line. Because I want the second drafted guy to be the backup next year instead of Rex or Beck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Because as scared as people are of having to start Rex again, they're even more terrified that John Beck might have to play again.That's pretty much the bottom line. That's fairly accurate. John Beck was given a chance and he didn't make the most of it. It was anything short of impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryGreenMonk Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 John Beck was given a chance and he didn't make the most of it. It was anything short of impressive. that is the extemely nice way way to say it. way to live up to the extremeskins name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I GMU PATRIOT I Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Nice vid and the fact that he's 6'5" 240, +1. Not a bad option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Because as scared as people are of having to start Rex again, they're even more terrified that John Beck might have to play again.That's pretty much the bottom line. People's dislike for Beck is irrational.But even considering the hate for John Beck how does drafting 2 QBs solve that problem? Sure draft a QB, no, thee QB then sign a cheap FA QB. Drafting 2 QBs without an established QB seems like a bad, bad idea. ---------- Post added January-16th-2012 at 09:48 PM ---------- Two reasons...1 - to increase your chances of successfully solving the issue at QB, instead of all eggs being put into one basket. 2 - we need more than one. We need a starter and we need to also develop a viable back up. Rex Grossman may be here another year but anything past that wouldn't be a good thing But drafting 2 QB doesn't increase your chances it just reduces the opportunities.Again: Drafting 2 QBs forces them to share reps/coaching/meeting time would only make it harder to develop either one. It doesn't help bring the team together because the most important position remains unsettled and your QB needs to be the leader from the start. How can he be the leader when he's not even sure if he's the guy? Then you have locker rooms and fans taking sides. Drafting 2 QBs creates a situation that most teams strive to avoid unless they already have an established starter. ---------- Post added January-15th-2012 at 10:37 PM ---------- Imo you draft a QB and the entire team and FO gets behind that QB and commits to grooming him into their QB of the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cen Tex Skins Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Shanny likes competition at every postition.RGIII & Rex battle for #1 Then draft Brock Osweiler or Case Keenum to battle for 3# spot with J.Crompton and Beck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samuels Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Nice vid and the fact that he's 6'5" 240, +1. Not a bad option. Thats his junior season video. But there are single games you can watch of his from this year. He is very underrated Qb especially by alot of people on this board. He is a better QB then Tannehill by a mile but thats just my opinion. It seems like if a Qb can't run like crazy that they are automatically dismissed by most on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrJL Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 the idea that a professional football coaching staff can't train up 2 QBs is insulting to them IMO As for Beck, it is irrational to dislike him... but not to admit he isn't an NFL caliber player and shouldn't be on the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 that is the extemely nice way way to say it.way to live up to the extremeskins name. I think we all had hopes. I know I did. I liked him and was positive after each game, but then I took off the homer glasses and reality set in... he's a back-up... at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.