2017 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

[Skinsinparadise]

6 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

If we traded Kirk to get the second overall pick, you take a quarterback.  You only make that trade to replace Kirk with another QB.

 

If you don't have a QB, then you have nothing.  You're wasting a season of the careers of all your players and postponing the beginning of your rebuild.  And if we traded Kirk, we wouldn't have a QB.

You don't trade your quarterback to take a ****ing safety.  That is a terrible idea.

 

Most of the draft geeks types think all of these QBs are risky.  There are arguably no bonafide guys in the mix whether its Kizer, Watson, Trubisky   Kizer had under 60% completion rate and has a reputation for not being a gamer.  Watson is an interception machine. If I had to take one its Trubisky but he such a short sample size as a starter that at a minimum that dude is going to take some time to develop IMO.   

 

But agree with your point.  I don't see them taking a QB at #2 because I don't there there is one worthy at that spot.  So the Kirk Cousins talk likely turns into exactly what it looks like Kirk for Joanthan Allen.  And IMO trading a starting QB for a DT is crazy.

 

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2016/12/14/13959758/2017-nfl-mock-draft-todd-mcshay-dan-kadar-quarterbacks-mitch-trubisky

According to ESPN Insider’s Todd McShay and SB Nation’s Dan Kadar, teams at the top of the draft would have to make a major reach to select a passer next May. North Carolina’s Mitch Trubisky, the current front-runner among QB prospects, is no lock to be a first-round draft choice. Behind him, talented-but-flawed players like Deshaun Watson and DeShone Kizer will have to raise their stock significantly in workouts to continue a tradition of quarterbacks at the top overall spot.

[Koolblue13]

2 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It's not an either/or situation.  There is no guarantee we'll have a strong defense and running game by letting Kirk go and not replacing him.  The only guarantee is that we'll suck in the short term, Jay will get fired, and we'll kick off yet another full rebuild, and McCloughan's leash will be tightened considerably--if he survived the transition.

 

Nor is it a guarantee that we won't be able to field a good defense and running game with Kirk.  In fact, it's much easier to build those things when you already have a great offense because you have a good quarterback.

 

You've got to have a QB.  If you don't, you have a pointless team that can't actually compete and you are literally wasting the season.  The Cowboys, 49ers, and Seahawks all had quarterbacks when they good.  When they didn't, they were bad.

 

And if you don't like any of the first round QBs in this class, then there should be no way in Hell you want to trade Kirk.  Because trading him to replace him with a rookie is absolutely the only plan that wouldn't lead to nonsensical, self-inflicted disaster.  And yet it still might if your rookie doesn't pan out.

 

We've been looking for a QB like Kirk for 25 years.  It is bizarre to see this fan base's attitude about him, treating him as if he's expendable.  I can only imagine that's because the team has been without a good QB for so long that the fans don't understand what good quarterbacking looks like, nor the impact that it has.

I dont think hes a great QB and if you're going to pay him to be elite, he should be. Otherwise,  you're hurting the team.

 

I also dont think it's another rebuild. It's the same continued build of a team with almost no talent who wasted 4 high picks and a salary cap penalty just only starting to get right.

 

We've got to continue to add talent and stick to BPA and be in a more competitive situation, before anything matters anyway.

 

I'm not under valuing the worth of the position by any means. Also, when you've got a solid foundation and get a QB who can come in and manage it, while improving,  in the long run, I think you're going to end up better.

[seantaylor=god]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

 

And if you don't like any of the first round QBs in this class, then there should be no way in Hell you want to trade Kirk.  Because trading him to replace him with a rookie is absolutely the only plan that wouldn't lead to nonsensical, self-inflicted disaster.  And yet it still might if your rookie doesn't pan out.

 

We've been looking for a QB like Kirk for 25 years.  It is bizarre to see this fan base's attitude about him, treating him as if he's expendable.  I can only imagine that's because the team has been without a good QB for so long that the fans don't understand what good quarterbacking looks like, nor the impact that it has.

I don't really understand it either. It seems like folks want to hold it against Kirk that he isn't Aaron Rodgers. He's the next Matt Ryan. Jut be happy with it for god sakes! There is no QB better than Kc in this draft.

 

[Going Commando]

24 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'm not under valuing the worth of the position by any means. Also, when you've got a solid foundation and get a QB who can come in and manage it, while improving,  in the long run, I think you're going to end up better.

I think you are doing exactly that when you talk about trading a good QB for draft picks to then spend on a safety or an interior defensive linemen.  They aren't even remotely comparable in importance and value.  The best safety in the league isn't close to as important as a Joe Flacco or an Eli Manning are to their team's success.  And Kirk is better than both of those guys.

 

I don't see how you can look at a team starting over with a new QB and soon to be new HC (because Gruden would absolutely get fired) and not consider that beginning a new rebuild.  Rebuilding is also meaningless without first establishing the HC-QB foundation.  You're building upon nothing--just shuffling talent endlessly until you finally commit to a HC and a QB.  Because if you don't have those two positions filled, then you have no foundation, leadership, or identity.

 

I think the complaint about the money it will take to sign Kirk comes from a place of fundamentally misunderstanding the nature and value of the position from the team building perspective.  It is a binary decision whether or not to pay a QB what the market dictates: is he the QB that you trust to lead your team and be the foundation of your roster or isn't he?  If the answer is yes, then you pay him.  You don't worry about if he's as good as Aaron Rodgers.  This is not like any other position.  You just pay him and commit to him.

 

Another thing that is absolutely imperative to understand: franchise QBs are made and not found.  We've spent five seasons developing Kirk, to let him walk just as he's getting good, with no real plan to replace him whatsoever, is crazy.  It's killing yourself.  For no good reason.  It's the most Redskins thing I've ever heard.  It's what a bad franchise would do.  Bad franchises can't commit to a HC and QB long term and produce the stability that leads to consistent winning.

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Most of the draft geeks types think all of these QBs are risky.  There are arguably no bonafide guys in the mix whether its Kizer, Watson, Trubisky   Kizer had under 60% completion rate and has a reputation for not being a gamer.  Watson is an interception machine. If I had to take one its Trubisky but he such a short sample size as a starter that at a minimum that dude is going to take some time to develop IMO.   

 

But agree with your point.  I don't see them taking a QB at #2 because I don't there there is one worthy at that spot.  So the Kirk Cousins talk likely turns into exactly what it looks like Kirk for Joanthan Allen.  And IMO trading a starting QB for a DT is crazy.

 

I disagree with the negative outlook on the QB class.  I don't care for Kizer, but I think Trubisky and Watson are studs.

 

And yes, I do think both of them have higher upside than Kirk does.  But I still wouldn't trade Kirk for the opportunity to draft one of them.  Kirk worked out.  He's out of the woods of the extremely fragile developmental stage of a young QB's career.  He's learned the passing game and how to handle the pressure and leadership responsibilities of being a starting QB.  And he's in his physical prime, with no major injuries in his past.  He is ready to lead a competitive team today.  And he can keep Jay Gruden from getting fired.  He's been propped up enough to be successful and grow into a good QB, and there is no guarantee that we'd be able to do that again with a more talented rookie QB.  Case in point, we failed miserably at doing so with RGIII, who was the best QB prospect I've ever seen.

 

And I don't think we will lose Kirk.  I don't think these are yesterday's Redskins, even though I think that mind set is still present in the fan base.  Everything we've done so far this offseason points to us wanting to build stability and maintain continuity.  I think our leadership has determined that we have a foundation worth sustaining and building upon.

 

I think we are competently managed now.

 

Back to Trubisky and Watson, I wouldn't have a problem taking them one and two if I were Cleveland and San Francisco.  I think both are worth committing to building around.  That doesn't mean I think both will be successful, because I question whether those franchises have the capability of properly developing a QB.  However, I had the same question about our own franchise until Kirk panned out.

 

I'm actually surprised that people are so skeptical of Watson and Trubisky TBH.  Their quality is so obvious from watching them in action.  They aren't the kind of limited, game managing QBs that you usually find playing for good college teams.  These guys are studs with tremendous poise and playmaking ability who are almost always the best players on the field.  I watched the cut ups of the bowl game for Solomon Thomas and Trubisky was the one whose finger prints were all over that game.  UNC was absolutely outmatched by Stanford and he was so competitive and tough that he kept them alive with his arm until the very end.  This is a game where nothing was going right and the offensive linemen were getting their asses whipped.  He's a threat to make a play on any down and distance and college defenders are not good enough to stop him for four quarters.

 

That game was actually a good example of how much more valuable a QB is to team success than an interior DL.  Solomon Thomas basically had as good a game as it is possible for a DT to have.  And his defense as a whole played very well.  And Mitch Trubisky was up and down and his team struggled mightily.  And UNC was still a hair away from forcing OT because the kid was so good he could make plays on third and long.  

 

And DeShaun Watson is flat out special IMO.  About as good a prospect as you're going to find.  He shredded Alabama teams that were absolutely loaded on the biggest stage in CFB.  Those games featured a ton of great college players and good NFL prospects and he showed that he was head and shoulders better than everyone else.  They were trying to kill him and he took as bad a beating as they could give out.  And it didn't stop him at all.  He'd pop right back up and make the key conversion on a third and long.  He has rare poise and playmaking ability and he has been extremely consistent and productive the past two seasons.  I think he was the best player in CFB this season, and probably second best behind Christian McCaffrey last year.  And I think those two, plus Leonard Fournette and Myles Garrett, are the four best players in the draft.

[Skinsinparadise]

24 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

I disagree with the negative outlook on the QB class.  I don't care for Kizer, but I think Trubisky and Watson are studs.

 

 

 

I haven't watched Trubisky.  I've watched Watson some and with the sample I've seen I disagree.  But getting into a debate about college QBs would depress me.  And I am not going to watch film on these guys.    I would say your opinion is closer to the outlier than the common take from the NFL draft geeks -- but heck I respect anyone who is making their own assessment via their own eyes.  And I appreciate all the anaylsis.   

 

I'll just say this, there isn't the typical consensus that exist around these QBs than "some" of the previous drafts.    Nonetheless, I am not interested in engaging into a debate about it -- it would just get me down.   

[Koolblue13]

@stevemcqueen1, maybe we just have the same opinion about Kirk is all.

 

Also, it wouldn't be trading him for just a FS or DT. It would be trading him for a FS, a DT AND potentially a QB. I wouldn't trade him straight up for one pick.

 

Who got the better trade, Redskins or Rams?

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I haven't watched Trubisky.  I've watched Watson some and with the sample I've seen I disagree.  But getting into a debate about college QBs would depress me.  And I am not going to watch film on these guys.    I would say your opinion is closer to the outlier than the common take from the NFL draft geeks -- but heck I respect anyone who is making their own assessment via their own eyes.  And I appreciate all the anaylsis.   I'll just say this, there isn't the typical consensus that exist around these QBs than "some" of the previous drafts.    Nonetheless, I am not interested in engaging into a debate about it -- it would just get me down. 

TBH, I think draft geeks as a collective are bad at evaluating quarterbacks.  And I think they also put an NFL team's failures on a QB who had the requisite NFL traits to succeed but didn't, and thus undervalue college prospects who have similar styles.  For example, I think the perception of RGIII's failure could be negatively impacting the perception of DeShaun Watson's potential.

 

When people who are experts at coaching and evaluating QB watch a prospect's film, I think they're looking for totally different things than everyone else is.  They care more about the process than the results and thus don't really pay attention to a QB's stats.  They go play to play and look at the mechanics and arm talent on display.  They figure out the reads and the route concepts being run by the system and thus assess the quality of the QB's decision making, and through that, get a glimpse of the player's personality and playing style.  And they identify the context of each play--the situation and quality of the rest of the players--to determine the degree of difficulty in execution.  And then after they look at all of that, they get a sort of gestalt about the QB's talent, competitiveness, toughness, poise, and playmaking ability that answers the fundamental question about a QB prospect--does this guy have the traits to be developed into a starting NFL QB?  Then from there you get a continuum of "confidence" in the projection that answering that question necessitates, which ultimately determines how high the prospect goes.  Prospects for whom the answer is a confident yes will go at the top of the first.

 

I think both Watson and Trubisky project as starting caliber QBs with a high degree of confidence.  But that is not enough for them to pan out.  Again, RGIII was an incredibly good and special prospect--better than both Trubisky and Watson.  And he did not survive injury and terrible team building and coaching.  Every single QB prospect needs to be put into a situation with stability, good coaching, and good surrounding talent to succeed.  Every successful QB prospect needs to be propped up until they can master the passing game and grow into the job.

[Skinsinparadise]

36 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

TBH, I think draft geeks as a collective are bad at evaluating quarterbacks.  

 

My problem is history shows GMs are collectively bad at evaluating QBs.  So no offense but if I am not going to trust Scot or any GM's evaluation on a QB as fool proof -- its a crap shoot -- I am not going to trust someone on extremeskins instead.  Every now and then, you have a consensus guy at QB like Andrew Luck.   Heck I recall that same draft Bill Polian on the radio saying RG3 is can't miss too.   These 2017 guys don't seem to fit that category.  I am not reading any you can't miss with Watson.  I read more hey he might really belong in the 2nd round and would have likely been a 2nd rounder if not for the championship game.  Kiper echoed just that the other day on ESPN.

 

It's not that i don't enjoy reading about your take on the QBs in the draft.  But If I am not going to trust Scot to have a fool proof plan on finding a franchise QB -- I am not going to trust anyone's take here on these guys to the extent that I'd relax.  

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2014/story/_/page/hotread140319/nfl-draft-quarterbacks-difficult-project-teams-aware-high-stakes

 

But most of the teams that pick a quarterback early in this year's draft should know there's a probability their bet won't come through. Of the 137 quarterbacks taken in the first two rounds of the draft since the 1970 AFL-NFL merger, only 54 (39.4 percent) turned out to be five-year starters, according to Pro Football Reference.

 

The riches that await the one or two lucky winners this spring, though, are significant: Seven of the past nine Super Bowls have been won by teams starting a first-round pick at quarterback. The other two winning quarterbacks, Brees and Russell Wilson, went in the second and third rounds, respectively. One or two correct decisions can buy decades of success for a franchise: The Packers have as many championships as losing seasons (two) in their 22 years with Favre and Aaron Rodgers, and the Colts have been to the playoffs 13 times in the 15 years they've had a healthy Manning or Andrew Luck.

For each of those teams, though, there are others who have been snakebit: The Vikings, Cleveland Browns and Oakland Raiders have gone decades without a true franchise quarterback. Others, such as the Chicago Bears, Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions, are caught in the middle, with a quarterback good enough to put up big numbers but so far unable to deliver consistent success.

The necessity of the position will keep teams coming back to the table, hoping the homework they've done will make their next bet pay off.

"Teams that don't have a franchise guy are always going to be doing that," Vikings general manager Rick Spielman said. "You have to do everything you possibly can to try to get that right person."

Identifying subtle traits can be difficult

Those who say the quarterback position is more difficult to assess than any other, such as Atlanta Falcons GM Thomas Dimitroff and 49ers GM Trent Baalke, point to the myriad roles a quarterback must play: leader, tactician, manager, athlete, passer, liaison and counselor among them, none less critical than the other.

It's like trying to identify the traits of a great CEO -- is the pragmatism of Warren Buffett better than the innovation of Steve Jobs? -- and general managers are tasked with projecting all of it in 22-year-olds....

Teams administer numerous personality tests and learning assessments and get all the outside help they can on how to find what makes a player tick; the Vikings, for example, talk to psychologists and corporate headhunters to fine-tune their interview process. They, and other teams, keep a file of every data point they can find on a player, from height and weight to Myers-Briggs personality type. If there's a precedent for a player of similar attributes being successful in the NFL, all the better. For many, the trick is not to let the subtler traits of quarterbacking get obscured by a big arm or ideal stature.

"A lot of times, people overemphasize certain skills," Grigson said. "Sometimes you'll overemphasize arm strength, but if a guy can't read a defense, he can't use that arm. And then sometimes, you'll overemphasize athletic ability, but a guy might not have the top arm strength or the release quickness or the size. A lot of things have to line up."

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Who got the better trade, Redskins or Rams?

We did.  We actually won our division one season because we had a QB.  And we'd be so far ahead of them now if things hadn't fallen to **** with that QB and that front office and that coaching staff.

 

The Rams are actually a good example of the pointlessness of building a great defense and running game without getting a QB.  They have never been truly competitive since making the RGIII trade, and eventually they had to make a trade up for a QB prospect of lesser quality.  And even if they settle on him and McVay and those two pan out long term, will any of the players they got in that bounty of draft picks from the RGIII still be there?  Zac Stacy and Janoris Jenkins are gone.  Stedman Bailey's playing days are probably over.  Greg Robinson sucks.  Michael Brockers and Alec Ogletree are the only good players they've got left from the deal, and neither made the Rams competitive.  They needed a QB and they never got one.  And if you don't have a QB, then you're building a house without a foundation and just endlessly shuffling your talent until you finally go out and get one.

[Koolblue13]

But if it's known that this is what we're doing, with a solid coaching staff in place, a competent FO and hit on our drafts, we'd fair far better than the Rams.

 

Chiefs are a good example. They had the team, added a QB and now they're one of the better teams. If the Texans add a QB, they'll be a force. Maybe they just need to get theirs a TE who can hide deficiencies. 

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

If the Texans add a QB, they'll be a force. Maybe they just need to get theirs a TE who can hide deficiencies. 

 

I get the we load up the roster and then just find a QB.   It's the just find a QB that's the hard part.  Some teams get lucky most teams don't.

 

You mention the Texans -- what a fun ride they've been on at QB.  Case Keenum.  Ryan Fitzpatrick.  Tom Savage.  Ryan Mallett.   TJ Yates. Brain Hoyer.  Brandon Weeden.  Giving the moon to Brock. That doesn't work.  How about Tom Savage?  What's next?  They are likely going to have to go on this rodeo again for years with a new cast of characters and hope to finally get lucky. 

 

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

But if it's known that this is what we're doing, with a solid coaching staff in place, a competent FO and hit on our drafts, we'd fair far better than the Rams.

 

Chiefs are a good example. They had the team, added a QB and now they're one of the better teams. If the Texans add a QB, they'll be a force. Maybe they just need to get theirs a TE who can hide deficiencies. 

How are you going to add a QB if you don't take one with the pick you get for trading Kirk though?  You're going to gamble on a mid rounder or some other team's back up?  That is asking for Jay to get fired.  Hell even if we took Trubisky or Watson, whom I think highly of, I don't think Jay survives that transition.  We simply wouldn't be competitive enough early in their careers.  Meanwhile, if we keep Kirk, we are ready to compete immediately.

 

You are right that we disagree on Kirk's ability.  I see a very good passer who also has the toughness, poise, and competitiveness I need from the position.  I see reliability.  And I do see playmaking ability and arm talent.  I see him sticking throws in difficult windows and making something out of nothing when we fall behind the chains.  And I see a great deal of comfort and efficiency in our offensive system, such that the offense runs very smoothly with him at QB.  That is all you can realistically ask for from a QB.  It is so hard to get to the point where you get that from the position, you simply can't let that go when you finally have it.

[Alexa]

10 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the we load up the roster and then just find a QB.   It's the just find a QB that's the hard part.  Some teams get lucky most teams don't.

 

You mention the Texans -- what a fun ride they've been on at QB.  Case Keenum.  Ryan Fitzpatrick.  Tom Savage.  Ryan Mallett.   TJ Yates. Brain Hoyer.  Brandon Weeden.  Giving the moon to Brock. That doesn't work.  How about Tom Savage?  What's next?  They are likely going to have to go on this rodeo again for years with a new cast of characters and hope to finally get lucky. 

 

Well to be fair the Texans have been to the playoffs the last few years. But I think it's cause they get to play the Titans, Jags and Colts.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 minutes ago, Alexa said:

Well to be fair the Texans have been to the playoffs the last few years. But I think it's cause they get to play the Titans, Jags and Colts.

 

We are better IMO that the Texans.  Yeah if we played the Titans, Jags and Colts football life would be much different.   Texans IMO are one of the most boring teams to watch in the NFL and IMO are no threat to win a Superbowl until they find a franchise QB.    And if they stay on this path, they won't be finding their franchise QB any time soon.

[Darth Tater]

Texans also probably embody Joe Gibbs' belief that a great defense is likely to put you into position to steal a few games.  Pretty much all but a handful of teams are mediocre teams that stole a game here or there or got a game stolen from them.

[Hail2theSkins24]

Caleb Brantley and Demarcus Walker are very talented but are tweeners. Could see both thriving in 5-tech in a 1 gap. Hearing Manusky will use 2-gap. That requires bigger ends for 3-4 and a BIG body at NT. Anybody seen a NT in this draft that could be very good? I'll be looking at UCLA DL I've heard solid things

[RedBeast]

Kills me that people want another re-build with trading KC. 

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, RedBeast said:

Kills me that people want another re-build with trading KC. 

Theres a thread for that. Let's keep it there.

1 hour ago, Hail2theSkins24 said:

Caleb Brantley and Demarcus Walker are very talented but are tweeners. Could see both thriving in 5-tech in a 1 gap. Hearing Manusky will use 2-gap. That requires bigger ends for 3-4 and a BIG body at NT. Anybody seen a NT in this draft that could be very good? I'll be looking at UCLA DL I've heard solid things

Allen 

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, Hail2theSkins24 said:

Caleb Brantley and Demarcus Walker are very talented but are tweeners. Could see both thriving in 5-tech in a 1 gap. Hearing Manusky will use 2-gap. That requires bigger ends for 3-4 and a BIG body at NT. Anybody seen a NT in this draft that could be very good? I'll be looking at UCLA DL I've heard solid things

 

the 2 gap stuff comes I assume from Mark Bullock's film study of the Colts where he saw them play a bunch of 2 gap.  But Manusky ran Chuck Pagano's system in Indy at least from what I read.  I read an article about Manusky which describes him as from Wade Phillip's system -- actually John Pagano described himself and Manusky as Wade system guys.  Wade is mostly 1 gap.  

 

  Still I like to have a big bodied NT.    UCLA?  Vanderdoes.  I like Elijah Qualls -- big bodied run stuffer.

[XxSpearheadxX]

If it comes down to Zach cunningham or an iffy DT prospect like Mcdowell, I think I'll bank on cunningham becoming a better fundamental tackler in the NFL. He seems to be bulking up and I think his "lazy" tackle form comes from just using strength and athleticism to win - the more I'm looking at him the more I think he can work on that weakness.

 

No doubt cunningham will NOT be able to tackle NFL rbs the way he wraps up high... 

[Darth Tater]

A mid to late round DT is almost as likely to be good as a first rounder.  Linebackers, although some have come late or even from the street, don't seem to have the bust potential a DT has and most of the great ones have been drafted pretty high.

[BobGriffin]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get the we load up the roster and then just find a QB.   It's the just find a QB that's the hard part.  Some teams get lucky most teams don't.

 

You mention the Texans -- what a fun ride they've been on at QB.  Case Keenum.  Ryan Fitzpatrick.  Tom Savage.  Ryan Mallett.   TJ Yates. Brain Hoyer.  Brandon Weeden.  Giving the moon to Brock. That doesn't work.  How about Tom Savage?  What's next?  They are likely going to have to go on this rodeo again for years with a new cast of characters and hope to finally get lucky. 

 

 

 

Another problem with this philosophy is that by the time you find a QB a lot of those pieces will be old/up for contracts. It is hard to find good production over a rookie contract QB and have a stacked team where the majority are under contract/in prime. It's happened twice this decade with the 49ers(didn't sustain) and Seahawks. 

[The Consigliere]

11 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

If we traded Kirk to get the second overall pick, you take a quarterback.  You only make that trade to replace Kirk with another QB.

 

If you don't have a QB, then you have nothing.  You're wasting a season of the careers of all your players and postponing the beginning of your rebuild.  And if we traded Kirk, we wouldn't have a QB.

You don't trade your quarterback to take a ****ing safety.  That is a terrible idea.

 

It's the '18 class that's loaded at QB, not the '17. No way do you take the QB at 2. There isn't a QB worth a top 15 pick in this draft let alone a top 2 pick. Trade down, pick up ammo for trading up in '18 for that Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen, Falk class. You don't force QB picks. That's how you end up with Blake Bortles and Ryan Tannehill, at best.  

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Most of the draft geeks types think all of these QBs are risky.  There are arguably no bonafide guys in the mix whether its Kizer, Watson, Trubisky....

 

Cleveland is not going QB at #1, they're using their Philly pick for a QB, and the #1 for Garrett unless the combine/workouts/interviews dramatically rejigger things. Supposedly they're really, really, really high on Garrett. 

 

[squatch66]

I'm on record as saying we need to pay Kirk and build around him. He is the best qb for this team. Sure he's prone to throwing the back breaking pick, but he's also prone to those magical runs where he can carve up any defense in front of him. You telling me that Kirk with a strong running game and defense can't make a run? You're outta your mind!

 

I don't think that money is an issue since the cap is projected to jump next year and the year after next. See what Jameis, Carr, and Mariota sign for when they come up for their deals.

 

However, since this is the draft thread and I dont want it to turn into another runaway freght train Kirk thread, this is all theoretical and what I imagine some kind of contingency plan that the Skins have to at least be thinking about would go:

 

Say Kirk knows that Kyle wants him and is determined see what San Francisco will offer him and basically tells the Skins they will have to overpay to keep him. He tells them he wants 27 mil per and 70 guaranteed or he walks, and not only that but he makes it clear that if he is not signed to a long term deal then he will play out the franchise tag and then walk. If that happens I think you have to explore all options.

 

If the trade offered was the #2 pick, a second next year, and this and next year's 3s as was previously mentioned in this thread, that is a pretty ridiculous haul and gives us 3 1s, 3 2s, and 4 3s over the next two years(personally I don't think we get that much for him. Maybe a 2 this year and a 1 and 3 next year).

 

I'd do one of two things:

 

1. Move up to #1 and draft Rosen. With the extra picks from the Cousins trade, we could afford to move up and still have enough picks to build around him.

 

2. Draft a Patrick Mahomes/Davis Webb in the 2nd-3rd round range this year and then draft another qb in the same range next year. Let those guys sit and learn while McC builds a team around them and then let them compete for the starting job.

 

I am intrigued by Webb. He has a better arm than Cousins. He also seems to excel at throwing the short stuff and setting his playmakers up for yac. I think he could be decent given a year or two to learn. In that time McC would have a better team around him so that the team can carry the qb, rather than the other way around.

 

Those are just my opinions on him. I watched the Stanford cut up on draft breakdown to form my opinions. I am not a scout so maybe I'm wrong.

 

Anyways, that post ran really long, so thanks if you stayed til the end. My point is that Cousins should be plan a, but we have to be ready for plan b and beyond. I can't speak for others, but that doesn't mean I want him gone.