The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[88Comrade2000]

I actually saw a RC Cola somewhere recently.

[skinzplay]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

A bunch of cheap or reused knock offs that kinda work for a bit, but never well.

 

The discount bin.

 

Yep, Trent had to "prove himself" but Norwell and Turner didn't. 🤔

[El Mexican]

21 hours ago, profusion said:

 

Also, a team in rebuilding mode is going to want (1) as much draft capital as possible, and (2) a wise veteran QB to mentor their rookie. Howell doesn't satisfy the latter, and his trade value, while not overwhelming, would appeal to a new front office. Especially if the alternative is a potential 21st Century "Sonny vs. Billy" situation. Nobody wants that.

 

Yes, Sam has trade value.

I agree that if we draft a new QB he has to be unquestioned starter with a very low-key QB behind him as a sub.

 

Yet another QB controversy around here seems ill-advised.

[RWJ]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To add to that post I just made.

 

I like everything i've read about Harris.  And I 100% believe his goal is to win and do it the right way.

 

But I reject the premise that you can't both be interesting and win at the same time.  Just being aggressive alone makes you interesting.  And I get the vibe listening to Keim and Russini that Harris wants this off season to be interesting for a change.

 

And by that not be interesting for interesting sake.  But you can walk and chew gum at the same time.  He's running a business.  He's a smart guy, I doubt it escaped him that Ron was boring as Hell.  So was Bruce.  This is a boring irrelevant franchise.  That's Dan legacy.  And Bruce and Ron contributed to it.

 

For those who want them to eschew drafing a QB because its risky -- or lets fish in that next tier of QBs -- I doubt this FO engages in.  It's not just boring.  But it smacks of the previous risk averse regimes. 

 

And I've read enough about Harris to know he has balls.  And takes risks.  In the NBA he was obsessed with finding a game changing star.  In the NFL the closest thing to a game changing star in the NBA is a franchise QB.  

 

Granted Harris will leave it to the GM to make the call but he likely hires a dude who reflects his mindset.

 

I'd add to @method man's theme because this flows with it -- Harris has taken over a broken franchise, not just as far as winning but also its a brand that has been destroyed.  It's not like taking over Pepsi at a period where its falling down some and Coke it taking a big lead and you need to revive it some.  This is like RC Cola from the 1970s, down for the count, irrelevant, that needs total revival.  He doesn't have forever to do this.  He has to both IMO win quickly or if he needs to buy time before they win he needs to sell hope.   And this task isn't mutually exclusive.  Selling hope -- by that I don't mean artifical hope but real hope.

 

He's not selling hope drafting Joe Alt. 

 

 

If it's not Daniels, Maye has to be the man.  Best we see it now is Chicago either draft Williams or someone will trade up for him. Right now, he's the flavor of the month.  It could change in the coming ones.  If it doesn't, I think you take either Daniels or Maye.  

[El Mexican]

18 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

So that GM would better be right.  Othewise, it would be a no brainer move to fire that GM.  In that case, he's going to have to endure the arrows of taking another position over a QB from the local, national media and most fans -- that's cool if he's willing to go against the grain and take the heat at that time but he better be right in that case.  Otherwise its a high profile colossal missed opportunity.

 

Absolutely, the way this season has unfolded makes it almost compulsory for the regime to draft a QB.

 

It's the safest way to go. That way, if the new QB does not work, they can always ship him and blame the failure on him, not the FO.

 

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

To add to that post I just made.

Great post. 
 

You are banned from ever giving me a hard time for a long post.  
 

You not only wrote war and peace, then you went back and added to it in a second post.  
 

 

[kingdaddy]

21 hours ago, Curtisp5286 said:

Thanks for the info.  I still kind of doubt that the team will be run in the way you are characterizing though.  I don’t believe that he will interfere in operations in that way.

I agree, Harris won't interfere with whoever he picks as his GM at all. He will hire a GM and let him/her do their thing and he will support them with $$$$$. 

[KillBill26]

Just want to do an appreciation post for Sam Howell considering after tomorrow's game there will be a new QB1 in town.  Sam has carried himself well and kept getting back up after hit after hit.  He overcame a horrendous oline and questionable play calling / horrendous game management and still had his share of highlights in an otherwise ugly season.  I hope we keep him on board as the backup.  I think he can be a successful QB in this league, but as far as being given an opportunity to succeed, he got hosed by an incompetent staff.

 

Hard for average Joe's like myself to imagine being in Sam's shoes for tomorrow: if he loses, he is almost certainly being replaced with our top 3 pick, and who knows when the next opportunity to be a starter will come.  If he wins, he increases his chances of coming back as QB1 as we miss out on the big 3 barring an enormous trade.  Huge game for him personally.  But the kicker is: a majority of the fans, including ones like myself that like Howell, are rooting for him to lose.  His own fans.  On the NFL stage, with millions of people following.  Crazy situation for a 23 year old to be in, but that's the NFL.

 

I hope we keep Howell in the fold, but I wish him the best of luck moving forward.  I wouldn't bet against him having success as a starter in this league somewhere at some point.

[Conn]

Correct. Coward’s move. Operate with conviction and actually attempt to acquire the singular foundational piece for a Super Bowl team when you have the chance. 

[Warhead36]

8 minutes ago, Conn said:

Correct. Coward’s move. Operate with conviction and actually attempt to acquire the singular foundational piece for a Super Bowl team when you have the chance. 

Agreed. When you have a shot out of poverty you take it.

[88Comrade2000]

17 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

I actually saw a RC Cola somewhere recently.

 

[FootballZombie]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

When you have a shot out of poverty you take it.

 

Hold my Sports Drink.

I got this.

 

 

 

[KDawg]

5 hours ago, Conn said:

Correct. Coward’s move. Operate with conviction and actually attempt to acquire the singular foundational piece for a Super Bowl team when you have the chance. 

If you trade down… you have to do something at quarterback. 
 

I don’t know what I’d do in the top 3 atm, but it’s not a cowards move to make a different move at QB. Whether that is taking someone you like better than the top 3 later or trading for a guy or signing a FA.

 

It’s too early.

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

If you trade down… you have to do something at quarterback. 
 

I don’t know what I’d do in the top 3 atm, but it’s not a cowards move to make a different move at QB. Whether that is taking someone you like better than the top 3 later or trading for a guy or signing a FA.

 

It’s too early.

 

It's an arrogant move IMO if the idea is you like a QB better further down the draft. 

 

Because you'd be both feeling that you know better than the rest of the league and that you are ahead of the curve by a mile because you are also confident to have no fear of trading down and losing the QB you covet because you are convinced no one else sees that QB like you do. 

 

But to some extent its not a cowards move from the context of job security because the move will be likely ridiculed and questioned plenty considering what i've heard-seen thus far from mock draft types-fan polls, local, national media etc.  So they'd be going against the grain and will get destroyed but that group if they get it wrong.

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's an arrogant move IMO if the idea is you like a QB better further down the draft. 

 

 

 

How do we know that there are more people around the League that don't feel the same? There is buzz that Daniels is QB1. There is buzz that Penix is a top 10 QB.

 

I don't know, man. I think it's too early to be saying anything is a coward move or arrogant at this point.

 

And yes, let the record show I am still in the "take a QB at 2/3" camp.

Edited January 7 by KDawg

[Skinsinparadise]

17 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Great post. 
 

You are banned from ever giving me a hard time for a long post.  
 

You not only wrote war and peace, then you went back and added to it in a second post.  
 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

How do we know that there are more people around the League that don't feel the same? There is buzz that Daniels is QB1. There is buzz that Penix is a top 10 QB.

 

I don't know, man. I think it's too early to be saying anything is a coward move at this point.

 

And yes, let the record show I am still in the "take a QB at 2/3" camp.

 

It's few different points here.

 

Point #1.  If you love a different QB.  Then take that QB early.  Don't trade down.

 

The point I was responding to is trading down to take a QB further down the draft.  So using an example, lets say they think the Drake Maye hype is BS and Bo Nix is the better QB so I am trading down to 16 and get Nix at that spot.

 

If they did that, they'd be presuming that no one else sees Nix the same way.  They feel that Nix is a great QB but no one else would take him earlier because they don't look at Nix the way this FO does.

 

If you think Nix for example is a top 5 QB, you take him early.  I am just using hypotheticals. 

 

Point #2.  Usually the buzz about what teams think about the QBs is correct more or less especially as the draft gets closer post interviews-medicals.

 

I am not talking about mock drafters.  I am talking about guys that are reliable likle Albert Breer and people who are plugged in around the league.  What other teams feel around the league as to who are the top QBs according to most isn't typically a big mystery.  For example least year, it was said teams aren't as high on Levis than most mock drafters were.  Bryce Young, Stroud were top 2.  Some teams though really dug Richardson.  Especially as the draft gets closer the intel on which QBs are perceived as the top ones is fairly on the money and on very rare occasion there is a surprise.

 

Point #3.  I do think its a cowards move to trade down and very Dan Snyder regime style (post Cerrato) but granted that's opinion...

 

Bruce and Ron had no balls.  We've tried the build a roster and plug in a less heralded QB approach.  It feels to some like we haven't because Ron did such a lousy job here.  But Jay for a span had a good O line and Wrs.   We've had some good defenses on and off.    Ron explaining to Sheehan why he didn't want to draft Tua or Herbert because he found them too risky fit his regime here to a tee. 

Edited January 7 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's few different points here.

 

Point #1.  If you love a different QB.  Then take that QB early.  Don't trade down.

 

The point I was responding to is trading down to take a QB further down the draft.  So using an example, lets say they think the Drake Maye hype is BS and Bo Nix is the better QB so I am trading down to 16 and get Nix at that spot.

 

If they did that, they'd be presuming that no one else sees Nix the same way.  They feel that Nix is a great QB but no one else would take him earlier because they don't look at Nix the way this FO does.

 

If you think Nix for example is a top 5 QB, you take him early.  I am just using hypotheticals. 

 

 

I don't know. Isn't this why the draft season is considered lying season? To maximize draft assets and draft value? If you have Nix rated ahead of Maye and you believe other teams aren't going to make a move up to get Nix and you can trade back and get him at 12, why wouldn't you try it? Of course, you need a backup plan if that happens. Whether its a free agent veteran, trading for a veteran, whatever. 

 

I see your point... If you think he's that good, don't risk it. But, there is risk in every move a GM/FO makes. Significant risk. Any move can doom them. Take Sam Rosen #1 overall... You won't have a job long even if people thought he was going to be great. Maximizing assets is extremely important.

 

I don't think I have enough information until that stuff happens to call anything arrogant or cowardice.

 

Now, with that said... If we trade back thinking Nix is on the board at say 16... And Nix gets taken at 11.... And we haven't signed any QBs that can start and we go the entire draft without drafting another QB and we go into the season with Howell as QB1...

 

That won't be a great scenario. And of course, we're going to hear, "Well, we believe in Howell" in that instance. That's when I'll be on board with the coward/arrogant point. We just don't have enough info yet to make any of these claims. We don't know where we pick. We don't know who our FO/GM/HC/OC/DC are. We don't know what we do in FA. There is a lot that has to happen still. 

 

To your point: If Nix (again, we're using Nix as a hypothetical here) is seen as valued as a top 10 QB pre-draft and we trade down to 16 thinking he'll be there, that is just stupid and I'd agree with you in that scenario.

 

 

Quote

Point #2.  Usually the buzz about what teams think about the QBs is correct more or less especially as the draft gets closer post interviews-medicals.

 

I am not talking about mock drafters.  I am talking about guys that are reliable likle Albert Breer and people who are plugged in around the league.  What other teams feel around the league as to who are the top QBs according to most isn't typically a big mystery.  For example least year, it was said teams aren't as high on Levis than most mock drafters were.  Bryce Young, Stroud were top 2.  Some teams though really dug Richardson.  Especially as the draft gets closer the intel on which QBs are perceived as the top ones is fairly on the money and on very rare occasion there is a surprise.

 

Agreed. We don't have enough info at this point to label anything arrogant or cowardice. 

 

Quote

Point #3.  I do think its a cowards move to trade down and very Dan Snyder regime style (post Cerrato) but granted that's opinion...

 

Bruce and Ron had no balls.  We've tried the build a roster and plug in a less heralded QB approach.  It feels to some like we haven't because Ron did such a lousy job here.  But Jay for a span had a good O line and Wrs.   We've had some good defenses on and off.    Ron explaining to Sheehan why he didn't want to draft Tua or Herbert because he found them too risky fit his regime here to a tee. 

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Chase Young was the consensus best player on the board... According to basically everyone when we selected him. So, the Commanders went with the general consensus in this instance and they got clowned for it and eventually fired because they didn't go against the grain and pick the QB who had a broken hip or the other QB who fell out of the top 5. 

 

Wouldn't it have been arrogant to not take Young in that instance?

 

I remember that class well. I was on the "I don't know, I think I might take Tua, but that's so hard to commit to because of the injury" camp. I was also on the "Young is good, but he has things that make me pause" camp. I ultimately said we need to go with Young. I was wrong.

 

I based that on overall consensus. And I bet the FO did, too.

 

I don't care about consensus. 

 

Make a great move. That's what I want. I don't have to agree with it in real time. I can question it in real time. But make a move that helps you execute a plan to move the franchise forward. The one that the GM believes is the right move for the franchise. I don't care what other people that aren't in the Commanders' org. would do.

 

Again, that doesn't mean I won't have an opinion or won't criticize or won't praise. But ultimately my stance is simple:

 

Whatever move we make needs to work. Consensus, against the grain, trade back, draft a QB... It has to work. The first pick and the draft/FA period will be a defining characteristic for the GM's entire tenure... long or short. 

[88Comrade2000]

There’s some talk that 5 qbs could go in the Top 10/15. Sone qbs might be drafted to high but considering how many teams need a qb; there’s bound to be qbs drafted higher than they should.

 

For us if there’s a guy we like, we go after him. If we trade down, we better make sure we are still in position to draft who we want.

[Skinsinparadise]

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

 

I don't know. Isn't this why the draft season is considered lying season? To maximize draft assets and draft value? I

 

Do people lie about their draft intentions?  Sure.  But that has nothing to do with my point.  I am not saying we knew that Carolina will pick Stroud and not Bryce Young or vice versa.  I am saying and I am not breaking any ground on this its common sense -- we tend have an idea of who are regarded as the best QBs in the draft.  Not the specific permutations of who likes who but who are the more highly regarded QBs.

 

My point is as the draft gets closer you don't tend to get a shocking surprise on that front as to which QBs are the most loved.  On one hand you say teams lie and on the other hand you say why not risk thinking you know what other teams will do.  So if teams lie then how the heck are you going to guess what they do?  Especially in this draft where so many teams need a QB. 

 

For example the leaks about the league last year were Stroud and Young and Richardson go high, Hooker likely in the 2nd or 3rd round -- did something like that happen?  Yeah close enough.  It wasn't some wild surprise curve ball where Clayton Tune was the third pick in the draft.  

 

Or the hype is Lawrence goes first then some permutation of Lance, Fields and Mac Jones but shockingly instead Kyle Trask ends up as the 2nd pick in the draft.

 

My point you tend to have a ball park idea about who the FOs think are the top QBs.  Once in a blue moon there is a big surprise like for example Christian Ponder going in the top half of the draft but those instances are rare.

 

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

If you have Nix rated ahead of Maye and you believe other teams aren't going to make a move up to get Nix and you can trade back and get him at 12, why wouldn't you try it?

 

My point is to you'd have to be incredibly arrogant to do it, if its a dude that is still talked about in the top 15 by some.  Nix for example is all over the place right now as to buzz.  As the draft gets closer that will likely settle down.  So lets say the general buzz is Nix could go anywhere in the first round.  And you feel Nix is the best QB in the draft. 

 

It's arrogant to believe that only you see the Matrix on this.  If you love him that much take him early otherwise you risk losing him.  And i am in the camp that finding a QB is a VERY big deal.  Both in terms of winning and hoping this franchise doesn't sink even deeper into the hole of NFL irrelevance.  It's not something I'd mess around with.  If I messed around with it, it would mean I don't think its a big deal and are perfectly willing to ride the status quo. 

 

As coaches tend to say years later post drafts when they get applauded for stealing this or that player in a previous draft -- if they thought that player was that level good they wouldn't have risked it like they did and taken that player earlier.  

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20. Chase Young was the consensus best player on the board... According to basically everyone when we selected him. So, the Commanders went with the general consensus in this instance and they got clowned for it and eventually fired because they didn't go against the grain and pick the QB who had a broken hip or the other QB who fell out of the top 5. 

 

Wouldn't it have been arrogant to not take Young in that instance?

 

I remember that class well. I was on the "I don't know, I think I might take Tua, but that's so hard to commit to because of the injury" camp. I was also on the "Young is good, but he has things that make me pause" camp. I ultimately said we need to go with Young. I was wrong.

 

I based that on overall consensus. And I bet the FO did, too.

 

I don't care about consensus. 

 

Make a great move. That's what I want. I don't have to agree with it in real time. I can question it in real time. But make a move that helps you execute a plan to move the franchise forward. The one that the GM believes is the right move for the franchise. I don't care what other people that aren't in the Commanders' org. would do.

 

Again, that doesn't mean I won't have an opinion or won't criticize or won't praise. But ultimately my stance is simple:

 

Whatever move we make needs to work. Consensus, against the grain, trade back, draft a QB... It has to work. The first pick and the draft/FA period will be a defining characteristic for the GM's entire tenure... long or short. 

 

The point has nothing to do with what am saying.  But to play along.  It's not exactly true.  I recall Kiper nonstop clowned Washington among some of his guests for not taking a QB in that draft and said so before and after.  I recall some in PFF criticizing it too in real time.

 

You are twisting the consensus point.  My point isn't take whomever the consensus thinks.  It's about consensus philosophy not about a specific player.  You read my posts on the draft thread, when have I ever said the consensus says take this guy so that's what we should do.   I got the players I like and I rip or applaud the FO as they make their moves based on my opinion.  But after the draft is over, I'll let the movie play out.

 

As to the consensus point here.  The consensus is take a QB.  Not which QB.  But a QB.  It's about a philosophy not a player.   If you are picking top 3 in a ballyhooed QB draft you take a QB, you don't trade down and pick in that next group of QBs.  I agree you don't have to go with any specific philsopphy but if you are going against the grain, you better be right because your move is under scrutiny from the jump when you do something that most others wouldn't do.

 

Ron for example believed in drafting defense over offense.  That was a philosophy.    That goes against the philosophy of most who believe its an offense driven league and if anything favor offense.  Ron is perfectly in bounds to do the opposite.  But it also makes it much easier to clown Ron for getting in wrong.

 

In the same token, if the GM wants to go against the grain and trade down and shop in that next tier of QBs -- I'll have his back even though it doesn't fit the philosophy I believe in.  But if gets it wrong, I'll be blasting this dude nonstop.  As I'd presume 87% or so of the fans, judging by the polls I've read, and the national and local media. 

Edited January 7 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Do people lie about their draft intentions?  Sure.  But that has nothing to do with my point.  I am not saying we knew that Carolina will pick Stroud and not Bryce Young or vice versa.  I am saying and I am not breaking any ground on this its common sense -- we tend have an idea of who are regarded as the best QBs in the draft.  Not the specific permutations of who likes who but who are the more highly regarded QBs.

 

My point is as the draft gets closer you don't tend to get a shocking surprise on that front.  On one hand you say teams lie and on the other hand you say why not risk thinking you know what other teams will do.  So if teams lie how the heck are you going to guess what they do?  Especially in this draft where so many teams need a QB. 

 

For example the leaks about the league is Stroud and Young and Richardson go high, Hooker likely in the 2nd or 3rd round but in some wild surprise some curve ball happens where Clayton Tune is the third pick in the draft.  

 

Or the hype is Lawrence goes first then some permutation of Lance, Fields and Mac Jones but shockingly instead Kyle Trask ends up as the 2nd pick in the draft.

 

My point you tend to have a ball park idea about who the FOs think are the top QBs.  Once in a blue moon there is a big surprise like for example Christian Ponder going in the top half of the draft but those instances are rare.

 

 

My point is to you'd have to be incredibly arrogant to do it, if its a dude that is still talked about in the top 15 by some.  Nix for example is all over the place right now as to buzz.  As the draft gets closer that will likely settle down.  So lets say the general buzz is Nix could go anywhere in the first round.  And you feel Nix is the best QB in the draft. 

 

It's arrogant to believe that only you see the Matrix on this.  If you love him that much take him early otherwise you risk losing him.  And i am in the camp that finding a QB is a VERY big deal.  Both in terms of winning and hoping this franchise doesn't sink even deeper into the hole of NFL irrelevance.  It's not something I'd mess around with.  If I messed around with it, it would mean I don't think its a big deal and are perfectly willing to ride the status quo. 

 

As coaches tend to say years later post drafts when they get applauded for stealing this or that player in a previous draft -- if they thought that player was that level good they wouldn't have risked it like they did and taken that player earlier.  

 

The point has nothing to do with what am saying.  But to play along.  It's not exactly true.  I recall Kiper nonstop clowned Washington among some of his guests for not taking a QB in that draft and said so before and after.  I recall some in PFF criticizing it too in real time.

 

You are twisting the consensus point.  My point isn't take whomever the consensus thinks.  It's about consensus philosophy not about a specific player.  You read my posts on the draft thread, when have I ever said the consensus says take this guy so that's what we should do.   I got the players I like and I rip or applaud the FO as they make their moves based on my opinion.  But after the draft is over, I'll let the movie play out.

 

As to the consensus point here.  The consensus is take a QB.  Not which QB.  But a QB.  It's about a philosophy not a player.   If you are picking top 3 in a ballyhooed QB draft you take a QB, you don't trade down and pick in that next group of QBs.  I agree you don't have to go with any specific philsopphy but if you are going against the grain, you better be right because your move is under scrutiny from the jump when you do something that most others wouldn't do.

 

Ron for example believed in drafting defense over offense.  That was a philosophy.    That goes against the philosophy of most who believe its an offense driven league and if anything favor offense.  Ron is perfectly in bounds to do the opposite.  But it also makes it much easier to clown Ron for getting in wrong.

 

In the same token, if the GM wants to go against the grain and trade down and shop in that next tier of QBs -- I'll have his back even though it doesn't fit the philosophy I believe in.  But if gets it wrong, I'll be blasting this dude nonstop.  As I'd presume 87% or so of the fans, judging by the polls I've read, and the national and local media. 

I’m not twisting anything. 
 

I think I’m not understanding your stances, just as you are not understanding mine. That is what it is. 
 

We’re going to be far off each other this cycle I think. We should get used to disagreeing

Edited January 7 by KDawg

[BraveWarrior]

4 hours ago, KDawg said:

 

 

Agreed. We don't have enough info at this point to label anything arrogant or cowardice. 

 

 

Waiting to label anything arrogant or cowardice is a coward's move...

 

 

Nah, just kidding. But this just seems to be the way the discussion is going. 

[KDawg]

Just now, BraveWarrior said:

 

Waiting to label anything arrogant or cowardice is a coward's move...

 

 

Nah, just kidding. But this just seems to be the way the discussion is going. 

It’s been by mantra for months now. We don’t know where we’re picking, who our GM/HC are, or what we have done in FA.

 

What IF we traded for Cousins? We still going QB first? Maybe. 
 

What IF Harbaugh is the coach and McCarthy declares?

 

There are so many unknowns. One of them, a big chip, will fall today.

[BraveWarrior]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

It’s been by mantra for months now. We don’t know where we’re picking, who our GM/HC are, or what we have done in FA.

 

What IF we traded for Cousins? We still going QB first? Maybe. 
 

What IF Harbaugh is the coach and McCarthy declares?

 

There are so many unknowns. One of them, a big chip, will fall today.

I totally agree with you. Too many things are going to happen between now and April that will affect the way the team conducts their draft.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I’m not twisting anything. 
 

I think I’m not understanding your stances, just as you are not understanding mine. That is what it is. 
 

We’re going to be far off each other this cycle I think. We should get used to disagreeing

 

That's OK. 

 

By twisting I am referring to the going with consensus point.  The consensus point isn't about a player.  They can take Michael Pratt at #3 and while I'd disagree with the pick, I'd be good with the philosophy.  It's about the philosophy. 

 

Having a rare lottery ticket at QB and going nah lets do something else -- that's a going against the grain philosophy.  And i heck I won't hit them for that either in real time.  But they better be right if their move is to go against the grain at QB.

 

Unless you have the QB in house, you typically when you have a high draft pick don't pass on that opportunity to take a QB high.  Simple as that.