Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Is this a joke? Like is this actually a serious question?

 

You take a HOF QB over a HOF LB any day. No questions asked.

Yall are acting like Ray didn't win 2 Super Bowls with sub par QB's. I'm probably biased as I enjoy watching dominant defenses, but this is more of a good debate than you guys are making it. Defenses still win championships.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CurseReversed said:

I think an interesting way to put this hypothetical would be comparing what these picks could be.  I believe that an elite MLB prospect is the only first round pick that could have the close to the team elevating impact that a qb could have. 

Lets take mahommes off the table for the hypothetical  because he is probably the best qb prospect to ever play and it will skew the thought experiment.

But lets say Parsons could be a ray lewis type player for us and lance could be a Russel Wilson type player.

Is it possible that a Ray lewis in this defense could be more valuable in the long term then a Wilson? 

 

I think there is definitely an argument for both.  Personally I would take ray lewis, and bpa qb in the 2nd or later over a Wilson in the first and bpa in the second,  given our situation.  

 

Fans will generally always say QB. It's easier to see the impact of a dominant QB. Russ is absolutely the x factor on that team, but take away Bobby Wagner and the Seahawks aren't nearly as successful. The same way Russ carries that offense, he has been carrying that defense since LOB dismantled. When you raise the bar from Wagner to Ray Lewis, a guy who won championships with no name QBs on an era with Brady, Manning, and other all time great QBs in his way, you have an interesting debate. In my opinion anyway.

 

Ray Lewis' team defeated Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady in the playoffs on their way to their last championship. With Joe Flacco at QB.... 

Edited by IrepDC
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Darth Tater said:

Thing is, beyond Lawrence, I don't see any top 15 worthy QBs.  What I mean is that a top QB should be a guy you KNOW is going to make it sans injury.

 

to me its the opposite, I can't recall in all my years following the draft that we'd see three QBs like this who in most years would all go #1.  If all three come out, wow.    This is potentially a historic draft IMO at that spot because arguably you got both top end talent and depth.  Some hyped the 2018 draft like that but it was missing A list studs -- it was perceived by some deep like this one is.  But it was missing the headliners.  This draft will arguably have three headliners.  

 

But bottom line obviously is how does Kyle Smith see it?  Will see. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IrepDC said:

Fans will generally always say QB. It's easier to see the impact of a dominant QB. Russ is absolutely the x factor on that team, but take away Bobby Wagner and the Seahawks aren't nearly as successful. The same way Russ carries that offense, he has been carrying that defense since LOB dismantled. When you raise the bar from Wagner to Ray Lewis, a guy who won championships with no name QBs on an era with Brady, Manning, and other all time great QBs in his way, you have an interesting debate. In my opinion anyway.

 

Ray Lewis' team defeated Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady in the playoffs on their way to their last championship. With Joe Flacco at QB.... 

 

Wagner is a stud but plenty of teams have a stud or two on a bad unit.  We've had it too. To me a pass rusher > MLB.  But for argument's sake I'll use a MLB, London Fletcher manned plenty of bad defenses and bad teams.  Fletcher was no Wagner but he was pretty darn good.  Ray Lewis' teams were stacked on defense. 

 

You take away Russell Wilson and replace him with Kyle Allen with that defense I'd guess they are then a 5-11 team. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JoggingGod said:

No it doesn’t. Offense wins championships now and has ever since Aaron Rodgers entered the league.

The same Rodgers who has only won one chip, and has repeatedly been eliminated from the playoffs by top defenses such as the 49ers last year? 

18 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Wagner is a stud but plenty of teams have a stud or two on a bad unit.  We've had it too. To me a pass rusher > MLB.  But for argument's sake I'll use a MLB, London Fletcher manned plenty of bad defenses and bad teams.  Fletcher was no Wagner but he was pretty darn good.  Ray Lewis' teams were stacked on defense. 

 

You take away Russell Wilson and replace him with Kyle Allen with that defense I'd guess they are then a 5-11 team. 

I can the argument about teams with franchise QBs who haven't won anything. Ray Lewis elevated the talent around him the same way Russ does. When Seattle won chips, you could argue they depended more on defense and the run game. They haven't actually won anything since Russell has been carrying the team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but if we're going to omit Pat Mahomes, you have to omit Ray Lewis too...  If the comp is going to be Russell Wilson, than the comp opposite him would be closer to Brian Urlacher or Junior Seau if we are looking historically.  In those comps, I take Russell Wilson if I am confident I'm actually getting Russell Wilson. 

Edited by OVCChairman
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

First off, if we're going to omit Pat Mahomes, you have to omit Ray Lewis too...  If the comp is going to be Russell Wilson, than the comp opposite him would be closer to Brian Urlacher or Junior Seau if we are looking historically.  In those comps, I take Russell Wilson if I am confident I'm actually getting Russell Wilson. 

If you're going to omit Rey to make it Urlacher/Seau, you have to comp with Matt Ryan and Matthew Stafford. Haha we can keep moving the bar all day. I think the Rey and Russell comp was good though.

 

I'm not trying to say the QB isn't important. It's still the most important position. I'm just saying the Rey Lewis type LB vs MVP type QB debate is worth having. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

If you're going to omit Rey to make it Urlacher/Seau, you have to comp with Matt Ryan and Matthew Stafford. Haha we can keep moving the bar all day. I think the Rey and Russell comp was good though.

 

I'm not trying to say the QB isn't important. It's still the most important position. I'm just saying the Rey Lewis type LB vs MVP type QB debate is worth having. 

 

 

lol fair enough, but I still think I have to lean toward Wilson, even if it's Wilson vs Lewis... Wilson has also had some pretty big questions at playmakers around him.  You could argue the closest thing he's had to Terry McLaurin to this point is DK Metcalf.  Seattle won the SB with Golden Tate as their leading receiver with 64 receptions.  They rode Lynch because that was all they had.  Russell Wilson ran for over 500 yards that season.  Wilson has lived and died with guys like Paul Richardson and Jermaine Kearse at WR....  Doug Baldwin is good, but he's never been an All Pro, has only broken 1K in 2 seasons, and has never had 100 receptions in a year.... Wilson is doing a lot more to be effective than it appears, because he has never really had anything outside to work with.  Jimmy Graham had some good seasons but nothing to really threaten down the field.... or even be consistent. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

lol fair enough, but I still think I have to lean toward Wilson, even if it's Wilson vs Lewis... Wilson has also had some pretty big questions at playmakers around him.  You could argue the closest thing he's had to Terry McLaurin to this point is DK Metcalf.  Seattle won the SB with Golden Tate as their leading receiver with 64 receptions.  They rode Lynch because that was all they had.  Russell Wilson ran for over 500 yards that season.  Wilson has lived and died with guys like Paul Richardson and Jermaine Kearse at WR....  Doug Baldwin is good, but he's never been an All Pro, has only broken 1K in 2 seasons, and has never had 100 receptions in a year.... Wilson is doing a lot more to be effective than it appears, because he has never really had anything outside to work with.  Jimmy Graham had some good seasons but nothing to really threaten down the field.... or even be consistent. 

All excellent points I can't deny.. I call your Doug Baldwin and raise you a Trent Dilfer.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do need good defense to win championships yes, but we're talking about teams that sustain success. The teams that are good every year for 5+ years if not more. Those teams by and large have the best QBs or at the very least get solid, stable QB play every year. Of course there are off years here and there you can point to, and there are always exceptions to the rule(Dilfer and the 2000 Ravens) but the goal is to build a sustainable winner. And you CANNOT do that without a long term quality QB.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

All excellent points I can't deny.. I call your Doug Baldwin and raise you a Trent Dilfer.

 

 

The bigger point here is that there are 11 guys on either side of the ball, so franchise changing talent is, and always will be, a factor.... not a solution.  I don't think we can overlook the fact that the best 11 will always beat the best 1.  X factors can have additional effects and influence, but Ray Lewis had guys around him that allowed him to be great.  You could argue that Parsons vs Zach Wilson is a conversation that could be had.... I take Wilson.  Parsons vs Trask?  I take Parsons.  Parsons vs Lawrence isn't even a conversation... 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That Ravens defense in 2000 was stacked.  

 

1.  Sam Adams 

2.  Tony Siragusa

3.  Michael McCray

4.  Ray Lewis

5.  Peter Boulware

6.  Jamie Sharper

7.  Duane Starks

8.  Chris McAlister

9.   Rod Woodson

 

Those were 9 out of 11 of the defensive starters and they were all good players, some very good, others above average, but all above average at minimum.

 

The offense had a lot less talent, but had some good players like Jonathan Ogden, Jamal Lewis, and Shannon Sharpe.  

 

I feel like Ray Lewis was the heart of the defense, but the Ravens defense was similar to Seattle's legion of boom in the sense they just had more talent than any other defense in the NFL that year.  You take out Ray Lewis from that defense and its still one of the best defenses in the NFL that year though not near as elite.  In the mid 1990's I feel like Charles Haley turned a good Cowboys defense into an elite one.   So I do agree a great defensive player can take a defensive to the next level, but they need talent around them.

 

I do think a QB has more ability to elevate a mediocre surrounding staff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You do need good defense to win championships yes, but we're talking about teams that sustain success. The teams that are good every year for 5+ years if not more. Those teams by and large have the best QBs or at the very least get solid, stable QB play every year. Of course there are off years here and there you can point to, and there are always exceptions to the rule(Dilfer and the 2000 Ravens) but the goal is to build a sustainable winner. And you CANNOT do that without a long term quality QB.

The 49ers have been doing it with a defense most recently. The sustained success part. Patrick Willis and Navarro Bowman carried that team for years. Now it's the DL they've built. Lots of winning seasons and getting to the bowl with Kaep and Garrapolo. I'd say our team is a lot more closely built like them than say the Saints or Packers. Still no long term QB there but no one wants to see that defense in the playoffs, I promise you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IrepDC said:

 

I can the argument about teams with franchise QBs who haven't won anything. Ray Lewis elevated the talent around him the same way Russ does. When Seattle won chips, you could argue they depended more on defense and the run game. They haven't actually won anything since Russell has been carrying the team.

 

What are the teams with franchise QBs, the really good ones, not the marginal ones, that typically stink or just routinely mediocre?  i can think of my share of teams with stud MLBs over the years who have been both. 

 

And I consider myself one of the more hopped up people as to upgrading MLB.  There are plenty of anaylitics types who play down the value of the MLB in today's NFL versus pass rushers and corners.  i am not in that group.   

 

But IMO to compare what a MLB can do to make a team great versus a franchise QB to me to say its not even close would be a wild understatement.  I don't think its even remotely a debateble point.  if you can find any NFL observor who agrees that its a tough call between the value of a  MLB versuus QB my hats off to you because i would be stunned.   

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

The bigger point here is that there are 11 guys on either side of the ball, so franchise changing talent is, and always will be, a factor.... not a solution.  I don't think we can overlook the fact that the best 11 will always beat the best 1.  X factors can have additional effects and influence, but Ray Lewis had guys around him that allowed him to be great.  You could argue that Parsons vs Zach Wilson is a conversation that could be had.... I take Wilson.  Parsons vs Trask?  I take Parsons.  Parsons vs Lawrence isn't even a conversation... 

 

It all depends on how you see the players.  To me Zach Wilson versus Parsons is a comical no brianer.  Wilson by a million miles.  I think Wilson is likely a franchise QB.  I don't think Parsons is an elite MLB but very good.    Since Trask to me is likely just a high end back up or Keenum type of starter then yes Parsons over him.  

 

Unless I am wrong the debate is franchise QB versus stud MLB?  If so no brainer.  That's my opinion but I can't think of any NFL observor types who have pushed a narrative that the two positions are even close in value.    If the idea is a stud MLB or for that matter any stud player is better than a marginal QB prospect -- I agree with that.  Yeah I would rather have Ray Lewis over Case Keenum.  but no I wouldn't rather have Ray Lewis over Aaron Rodgers.   And IMO isn't not even remotely close. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It all depends on how you see the players.  To me Zach Wilson versus Parsons is a comical no brianer.  Wilson by a million miles.  I think Wilson is likely a franchise QB.  I don't think Parsons is an elite MLB but very good.    Since Trask to me is likely just a high end back up or Keenum type of starter then yes Parsons over him.  

 

Unless I am wrong the debate is franchise QB versus stud MLB?  If so no brainer.  That's my opinion but I can't think of any NFL observor types who have pushed a narrative that the two positions are even close in value.    If the idea is a stud MLB or for that matter any stud player is better than a marginal QB prospect -- I agree with that.  Yeah I would rather have Ray Lewis over Case Keenum.  but no I wouldn't rather have Ray Lewis over Aaron Rodgers.   And IMO isn't not even remotely close. 

 

 

100%.  Thats why I would take Wilson over Parsons and Parsons over Trask.  I only comp'd Wilson because he's not Trevor Lawrence who is locked in as no. 1 overall.  He's in that next tier of player so the decision is not as 'easy' to make... or at least a conversation can be had.  The conversation could end up being Wilson over Parsons 10 times out of 10, but you wouldn't even have that much conversation regarding Parsons vs Lawrence. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

100%.  Thats why I would take Wilson over Parsons and Parsons over Trask.  I only comp'd Wilson because he's not Trevor Lawrence who is locked in as no. 1 overall.  He's in that next tier of player so the decision is not as 'easy' to make... or at least a conversation can be had.  The conversation could end up being Wilson over Parsons 10 times out of 10, but you wouldn't even have that much conversation regarding Parsons vs Lawrence. 

 

I agree.  For me personally its beyond a super easy decision to make as to Wilson over Parsons.   But yeah i am not into drafting a marginal QB prospect period let alone comparing them to a potentially great player at another spot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IrepDC said:

Fans will generally always say QB. It's easier to see the impact of a dominant QB. Russ is absolutely the x factor on that team, but take away Bobby Wagner and the Seahawks aren't nearly as successful. The same way Russ carries that offense, he has been carrying that defense since LOB dismantled. When you raise the bar from Wagner to Ray Lewis, a guy who won championships with no name QBs on an era with Brady, Manning, and other all time great QBs in his way, you have an interesting debate. In my opinion anyway.

 

Ray Lewis' team defeated Andrew Luck, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady in the playoffs on their way to their last championship. With Joe Flacco at QB.... 

This is an anomaly.  Baltimore (like Tampa Bay) had an all-world defense that defied the odds.  Baltimore had dominant players at all three levels of their defense.  Give me Russell Wilson every time.  Take away Wilson, and Seattle would be vying for a top 5 draft pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ray Lewis's team also didn't win him his 2nd Super Bowl(when he was completely washed up by the way)until Joe Flacco went on one of the most insane playoff runs in sports history.

 

Sustaining success over the long run can be done without a franchise QB but its a LOT harder. Let me make a Blackjack analogy. Imagine if every time you played a hand of Blackjack, you were dealt an Ace as your first card. You're not guaranteed to win of course, but you'd love your chances every hand. That's what having a franchise QB does.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

What are the teams with franchise QBs, the really good ones, not the marginal ones, that typically stink or just routinely mediocre?  i can think of my share of teams with stud MLBs over the years who have been both. 

 

And I consider myself one of the more hopped up people as to upgrading MLB.  There are plenty of anaylitics types who play down the value of the MLB in today's NFL versus pass rushers and corners.  i am not in that group.   

 

But IMO to compare what a MLB can do to make a team great versus a franchise QB to me to say its not even close would be a wild understatement.  I don't think its even remotely a debateble point.  if you can find any NFL observor who agrees that its a tough call between the value of a  MLB versuus QB my hats off to you because i would be stunned.   

To be fair, this debate is about what a MLB vs QB would do on THIS team. So we are debating the upgrade in impact over Alex Smith vs our no name LB core. I think that closes the gap in the discussion since we do have serviceable QB play right now, but our LB play is holding our defense back from it's full potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cakmoney61 said:

This is an anomaly.  Baltimore (like Tampa Bay) had an all-world defense that defied the odds.  Baltimore had dominant players at all three levels of their defense.  Give me Russell Wilson every time.  Take away Wilson, and Seattle would be vying for a top 5 draft pick.

I don't think it's an anomaly. Even many top tier QBs get their actual championships not when they are at their best, but when their defenses are at their best. Wilson is an example of that. Big Ben is an example of that. Rodgers is an example of that. Both Mannings are an example of that. When QBs are at the top of their game carrying their team, there isn't always a correlation to winning it all. I don't think fans appreciate how big of a role defense plays in winning it all. Take away the best years of defense from those great QBs and you just have nice stat seasons with no rings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Ray Lewis's team also didn't win him his 2nd Super Bowl(when he was completely washed up by the way)until Joe Flacco went on one of the most insane playoff runs in sports history.

 

Sustaining success over the long run can be done without a franchise QB but its a LOT harder. Let me make a Blackjack analogy. Imagine if every time you played a hand of Blackjack, you were dealt an Ace as your first card. You're not guaranteed to win of course, but you'd love your chances every hand. That's what having a franchise QB does.

This works both ways. How many years was Peyton Manning smashing records to only get 1 Super Bowl? It wasn't until he had that great Broncos defense that he won his 2nd ring. Elway's story was similar with his last ring. You will find both of those all time great QBs on the list of worst Super Bowl performances in their 2nd championships, but they both had championship defenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • zskins changed the title to 2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...