2013 Comprehensive NFL Draft Database

[gorebd82]

It's easy to gameplan for because you know what the play is likely to be once Danard Robinson is on the field.

It's the same issue we have when we put Banks on the field; it's either going to be a gimmick, a screen, or a go. You catch teams off guard at first, but eventually they key in on your tendencies. And that's assuming teams buy that he's some sort of legitimate threat at all.

If you want a guy who you could line up anywhere and give the defense a headache, why in the blue hell would you pass up a guy like Tavon Austin? Tavon Ausin, you can line him up in the slot, you can line him up outside, you can line him up in the backfield, you can run your whole route tree with him. Or Ryan Swope; you might not be able to put him in the backfield, but again, you can line him up all over, run your whole route tree.

How many times does switching a guy from quarterback to receiver work? How many times has it ever works? What makes Denard such a special flower that despite the mountains of evidence against this sort of switch actually working that he'll be the different one?

A lot of people that are saying "this guy is only ever going to be the guy he was in college" will suddenly forget that axiom when it comes to a guy like Denard.

And this offense is only going to get less gimmicky, not more gimmicky, especially if Kyle leaves and we bring in a new OC.

I completely disagree with this perspective. First, the comparison to Banks is no where near accurate IMO. Brandon Banks does a lot of different things, but does most of them poorly. He's too small and weak to effectively catch the ball, run the ball or even produce on swing and screen passes. Denard is 6', 200 lbs. He's bigger than Banks, Moss, Aldrick, Tavon, or even Harvin. He is a better runner than Banks, point blank. While he has to show that he can develop into a WR, he still offers more than Banks because Brandon is a complete nonfactor since his size prevents him from getting open. And clearly he can throw better than Banks. The difference between them is that you can actually run regular plays with Robinson because he actually has the potential to run, block and catch on an NFL level. He can run more than just a screen, gimmick or go, but he can do those things as well.

As far as picking Tavon, I'd be excited about what he could do in this offense as well. But the major difference is that Denard can run better and can throw. That's it, plain and simple. Denard throwing 3 passes a game opens up the whole offense if your committed enough to keep him on the field for 66-75% of your snaps. He is already a better runner and more fit for regular carries than Austin. That's based on his physical build and actual production. This is really important because i believe that most who question his role look to Harvin/Welker/Cobb/slot WR comparisons, but i look at his role as more of a Sproles/Best/McCluster/scatback that can split wide role. With Alfred as a power back with some fullback ability cornerstone, Denard is more of a complement that can play on the field at the same time. Obviously the preference for Tavon is about receiving ability, but I'll touch on that in a second.

It's really the throwing that ball that opens things up. Because Denard can throw, teams have to hesitate just like when RGIII has his designed runs. If Denard lines up in the slot, what is he going to do? First off, what's going to happen if he motions to the backfield with Morris into the pistol? Is it a pitch to him, swing pass, dive to Morris, option pass from Robinson? But say he stays in the slot, will he just run block, run a drag, jet sweep, curl, or maybe just a bubble screen? When he catches that screen, does he turn upfield or was that actually a lateral that he can now throw? That's the versatility he brings just because he's big enough to run and block without even going into him possibly running the full route tree.

When it comes to most doubters, it's a question of what type of WR he can become. As I said, I don't even see him as a WR first. Even if he only runs the basic routes, the variations of things he can do exceeds the options of the full route tree. But my real question is why folks are so certain that he won't develop into a solid WR. Hines Ward did it, ARE did it, Michael Robinson developed into a versatile FB. Matt Jones was a drug addict. The others were stubborn about the position change. If Denard balks at RB/WR or shows a lack of hands/route running at the Senior Bowl/Combine/Pro Day/Individual Workouts, then move on. Do our homework, but I'm not going to assume he fails when others have done it. He's shown tremendous leadership, perseverance through Michigan's hard time, production, versatility, brilliance and success for me to rule him out.

---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 05:08 PM ----------

I've come around on the Robinson suggestion myself. I think it makes our offense extremely unpredictable, though I honestly wouldn't mind just Kenjon Barner either and nix the trick pass plays. Has a lot more experience with running and receiving and may go much later than Robinson. The oregon offense is fairly similar to our own as well.

I think we need a Tavon Austin or Barner type in the offense, but I think this illustrates how overlooked Denard is. Barner has 503 career carries for 3216 yards, 6.4 avg., and 39 TDs. Denard has 677 carries for 4175 yards, 6.2 avg., and 41 TDs. You even add in Barner's receiving and Robinson has more yards. He's also an inch tallers and 2 lbs. heavier. At worst, Denard is a great scat back that can throw. Best case scenario, he's an effective receiver too.

[NLC1054]

Why in the bluest of blue hells would you want to take the ball out of Robert's hands and let Denard Robinson throw it?

People say "think of the offenses ability, look how much defenses will have to gameplan for!" I'd rather surround Robert with legitimate receivers who make plays and have them scared of facing Robert with no B.S gimmicks, like Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. If I'm playing defense, I can't wait for them to take the ball out of Robert's hands. I'd be happy I didn't have to worry about him and only had to play a select number of plays with Robinsn on the field.

If Kyle leaves this year (and there's a more than decent chance he does), we're going to have a new OC. Robert Griffin III has also indicated to coaches that he actually wants to run less option and pistol, so you have to take that into account. The option, the pistol, the zone-read is all stuff we incorporated to make RG3 comfortable, but it's also stuff he's indicated he wants to move away from.

So, if we're trying to move away from a gimmicky offense, why would we then add a purely gimmicky player. On the off chances defenses are so taken back by seeing two guys that can throw that they freak out and can't prepare for it? Because the Jets are trying to do that with Sanchez and Tebow and no one cares.

I want the ball in Robert's hands as much as possible, and I don't want some gimmicky offense where maybe---maybe---we get a couple big plays out of it over the course of a season.

[stevemcqueen1]

To Steve, you are absolutely right about one thing for certain. Clay is way better than Kerrigan. Ryan is probably the 3rd best LOLB in a 3-4, but we probably have the 2nd best tandem after Pittsburgh (also depending on if Harrison is facing drastic decline). I personally wanted Pierre Paul in 2010 and Aldon Smith (I think its unfair mentioning him in these convos since he was off the board) or Quinn in 2011 because they have Demarcus Ware type talent that would've pushed Orakpo to the left side. I'm on the same page about game changing talents, but I also can accept the FO getting plus players that are safer picks and more well rounded, better fits for their specific role in the defense. Kerrigan can't pass rush like the elite guys, but he's solid in coverage, good against the run, still a plus pass rusher, and has a nose for the football. Those are perfect fits for LOLB which involve more TE coverage, runs to the strong side, swing passes, etc. ROLB allows the guy to pin his ears back from the weak side. So we got an ideal position fit while trading back (which most fans clamor for, I personally prefer trading up for elite talent).

I think deciding beforehand that we were absolutely going to get us a second OLB was the fundamental mistake in our approach. First off, I don't understand how a defense must have an elite player at a particular position to be successful, much less great. I don't accept that premise. I think the best defenses are clearly the ones with the most elite player talent and the most talented coaches coaching them. It doesn't really matter what positions those show up at because the underlying value is having multiple guys on the field at all times that regularly wining their matchups and turning negatives into positives. Hell, the Giants have all of their elite talent concentrated at DE and have to get clever to get them all enough snaps.

We should keep our fingers crossed that Jammal Brown isn't cooked because then we'll be in a similar situation of needing a RT in the draft because FA presents solutions in the secondary, but not RT for us. I am certain that our top FA priority will be a top CB and there's multiple options available. For example, I could see us passing on Amerson for Fluker because we signed Talib and don't want to start Polumbus.

I'm hoping that Brown does show something's I we can go OT in the 4th or 5th to develop a guy rather than go OT in the 2nd for an immediate starter.

I hear you, I hope you're right. But I just have 0 faith in Brown now.

Even still, Polumbus being awful and Brown being a cap casualty with no FA solutions available would not make me value OT over DB or WR or DL or ILB in the draft. That's drafting to fill short term needs, which I can't accept as ever being the right methodology.

And if one thinks we drafted Kerrigan because it filled our need at OLB because we had a bunch of DLs to target in FA, then that means we drafted for need.

And that being the case, ending up with Kerrigan and a bunch of "C" DLs in Cofield and Bowen instead of Watt is a clear example of need drafting producing worse teambuilding results than drafting BPA and going for some upside.

I don't think people are recognizing how replaceable our depth players are. I don't think people recognize how replaceable the average NFL starter is. The NFL is a weird league where you've got a fairly small handful of elite players that are markedly above and beyond the rest of the league at their position. They've got the ability to consistently win their matchups against nearly every opponent, turn bad negatives into wonderful positives, to make plays. That's the essence of being elite.

And a common attribute of these types of players (except the QBs) is they usually have elite athleticism and/or some rare physical tool that gives them a tremendous natural advantage--a rare calculus of coordination, strength, size, and/or speed.

That's kind of the essence of elite potential.

Another thing about need drafting that it's supporters don't acknowledge is that when you settle on a safe guy with average starter's upside to fill an immediate hole, you're not completely eliminating that need.

The C level player (average starter) that you acquire in FA or the draft to fill a hole is the player you think about upgrading every offseason for the rest of his career.

That's why I'm in agreement with you about trading up and going for quality over quantity. In general, I would probably just sit tight on my picks and let the draft come to me if I were a GM. Enough people reach and draft poorly that a small collection of elite talent reliably falls through the cracks in the early rounds. But I would rather trade up for elite talent than trade down if that elite talent was in a cost effective range.

[gorebd82]

Why in the bluest of blue hells would you want to take the ball out of Robert's hands and let Denard Robinson throw it?

Never said anything about taking the ball out of Robert's hands. A lot of folks get hung up on this and it's really just putting limitations on a player having to be a QB or a WR. I'm not talking about installing a wildcat package. It's simply running the plays in our play book that go to Royster, Banks, Helu, Young (carries and catches), and replacing some of Santana's production going forward by putting the ball in the hands of someone that can actually make big plays of those. Give him 8-10 carries and 5-7 receptions give him and outlet option on a handful of them. That doesn't impact what you do with RGIII at all, maybe gets one or two of Griff's designed runs that make people's heart stop.. It doesn't affect Morris either because he's eating into Royster and Helu's share. He gets his passing game targets by replacing some of Santana's role. He fits our offense and let's us put the ball in the hands of a legit, triple threat playmakers instead of back end roster depth.

[NLC1054]

Never said anything about taking the ball out of Robert's hands. A lot of folks get hung up on this and it's really just putting limitations on a player having to be a QB or a WR. I'm not talking about installing a wildcat package. It's simply running the plays in our play book that go to Royster, Banks, Helu, Young (carries and catches), and replacing some of Santana's production going forward by putting the ball in the hands of someone that can actually make big plays of those. Give him 8-10 carries and 5-7 receptions give him and outlet option on a handful of them. That doesn't impact what you do with RGIII at all, maybe gets one or two of Griff's designed runs that make people's heart stop.. It doesn't affect Morris either because he's eating into Royster and Helu's share. He gets his passing game targets by replacing some of Santana's role. He fits our offense and let's us put the ball in the hands of a legit, triple threat playmakers instead of back end roster depth.

But my point stands; you could essentially do the same thing with a guy like Tavon Austin.

Denard Robinson is not---at least right now---a triple threat playmaker. All we know is that he's a fast, shifty runner in space who is (and I'm being generous) an okay passer. We don't know how good his hands are, if he can run even the simplest of routes. Can he beat press coverage? Because if we're going to have him in the slot, he's going to be seeing a lot of press man coverage, and teams are going to key on and jump the the wide receivers screens, the middle screens, and that kind of thing. Can he run between the tackles, or is he only a guy you can pitch it to? Is he sturdy enough to take that kind of pounding?

The kid has intriguing physical attributes, for sure. But at this point in Robert's development, shouldn't our priority be giving him every weapon that we possibly can who are going to be ready to play and contribute as soon as possible? Because with Robinson, he's going to take a lot of work and time to develop into the kind of guy we want him to be.

I'm not just trying to slag on the kid or anything, I'm just saying.

---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 05:44 PM ----------

And that being the case, ending up with Kerrigan and a bunch of "C" DLs in Cofield and Bowen instead of Watt is a clear example of need drafting producing worse teambuilding results than drafting BPA and going for some upside.

It's worth mentioning that just because J.J Watt appears to be the best player available now, nearly every mock draft had Watt and Kerrigan both being drafted in the same range., And according to you, the best player available at that point would've been Blaine Gabbert.

Hindsight blinds a lot of people.

[Kostaskins]

We need to draft bpa but also for need. If the bpa player is a safety ok. If its a corner ok. If its a tackle, ilb, olb ok. I'm fine with that as long as we draft bpa with our 2nd pick and in the 3rd or 4th we go either cb or safety. I'm sure one will slip for some odd reason.

[gorebd82]

I think deciding beforehand that we were absolutely going to get us a second OLB was the fundamental mistake in our approach. First off, I don't understand how a defense must have an elite player at a particular position to be successful, much less great. I don't accept that premise. I think the best defenses are clearly the ones with the most elite player talent and the most talented coaches coaching them. It doesn't really matter what positions those show up at because the underlying value is having multiple guys on the field at all times that regularly wining their matchups and turning negatives into positives. Hell, the Giants have all of their elite talent concentrated at DE and have to get clever to get them all enough snaps.

I agree with your position and think that is absolutely the way to build elite units. I think the issue is that you are skipping a step. Shanahan first has to build a competitive unit. He inherited a semi-competitive group with aging vets, few draft picks, and pieces that didn't fit.

His incumbent starters were Portis, JC, Cooley, Moss, Thomas, Kelly, Samuels, Randy Thomas, Cornelius Griffin, Daniels, Carter, Rocky, Landry, Los, Fat Al. And those were the good players. Moss is the only one of those guys had long term value. Even Los and Landry were situations he couldn't help. He really did start almost from scratch.

And while we certainly could have more elite players, we would've had more bargain bin, journeyman players and more big holes in our units. I'm not saying that our FO has been great, but I understand their process. We needed quantity to minimize the number of gaping holes and misses on draft picks expected to contribute. We couldn't have 1st round busts.

As someone who looks beyond the scouting and considers the state of the organization and roster composition, you have to recognize that certain schemes have key positions. The reason Shanahan can't pass on a guaranteed stud OLB for an elite DE is because the gaping hole is now at a key position that cripples the whole defense. And he might be out of a job before he finds that LOLB and the next coach benefits from JJ Watt's HOF career (San Fran had years of elite players, but no wins). Look at how replacement level players at safety are putting Shanny's job security, just imagine if that whole was at LT and RGIII was getting killed even more.

Would we have been better off drafting Eric Berry and Watt? I'm not so sure because Polumbus might be at LT and our OLBs would be Jackson and Zo ( with Orakpo hurt). Of course we might have drafted other positions with other picks, but it's just an example to show why getting impact players at certain positions were important to stabilize this regime and our offensive and defensive systems.

I hear you, I hope you're right. But I just have 0 faith in Brown now.

I understand that. If healthy, he's still tremendously talented. But this is why I think Aboushi or Fluker is likely. We can sign a DB, but not many RT options. Again, it's an opportunity to solidify a gaping hole that prevents us from running our offense to its full capacity.

[NLC1054]

The way you do it is, you identify what your needs are, and then you grade the prospects.

If you have a need at corner, but you see a wide receiver who's slipped into the later rounds that you expected, who has a higher grade than the corner you need, you take the wide receiver. If you have a need at both positions, you take the player with the better grade. If they're both essentially graded the same, you take the player that's the bigger need.

(Can't be ignored that we went BPA in the case of Kirk Cousins and people swear up and down we should've drafted for need in that particular case...)

[GWinSkins83]

Who fits into both Oregon systems is the question?

[gorebd82]

But my point stands; you could essentially do the same thing with a guy like Tavon Austin.

Denard Robinson is not---at least right now---a triple threat playmaker. All we know is that he's a fast, shifty runner in space who is (and I'm being generous) an okay passer. We don't know how good his hands are, if he can run even the simplest of routes. Can he beat press coverage? Because if we're going to have him in the slot, he's going to be seeing a lot of press man coverage, and teams are going to key on and jump the the wide receivers screens, the middle screens, and that kind of thing. Can he run between the tackles, or is he only a guy you can pitch it to? Is he sturdy enough to take that kind of pounding?

The kid has intriguing physical attributes, for sure. But at this point in Robert's development, shouldn't our priority be giving him every weapon that we possibly can who are going to be ready to play and contribute as soon as possible? Because with Robinson, he's going to take a lot of work and time to develop into the kind of guy we want him to be.

I'm not just trying to slag on the kid or anything, I'm just saying.

But your point is inaccurate. Tavon and Denard do not do the same thing. Tavon is a better WR. Denard is a better runner. Denard is better as a passer than Tavon is as a runner. Denard has the possibility of developing as a receiver, Tavon has zero chance of developing as a passer. Tavon and Denard are both dual threat, but Denard might develop into triple threat. Tavon is a slot receiver that can run, Denard is a running back that can throw and maybe catch/split wide.

While Austin can add improvement in underneath routes, screens, and reverses, his ability to go deep and run other routes are production already produced by our current WRs. Robinson's areas where he can contribute are similar in the short passing game, we don't know if he can do the whole route tree (but other WRs on the roster can), but he can bring an explosive element out of our backfield for runs meant to beat your man to the corner, screens and swings, draws, and even the gimmick plays. Tavon improves some areas we have, but duplicates others. Denard improves all of the areas where our offense struggles and might develop the skills already duplicated by others.

Point is that they are two different players that I would expect to have completely different roles. A few things they would be asked to do overlaps, but at least half of their roles are different. Thing is that Denard actually has the chance to develop and do those other things that Tavon brings to the table. And if he doesn't, then it's ok because other players on our roster can do those things. IMO, Denard brings more to our offense because Royster, Banks, etc. suck at the things they are asked to do. He will turn those plays into production and we won't have to do anything different in our offense, just do them with a different player. Denard is simply a better fit (with or without getting the whole route tree).

[NLC1054]

Point is that they are two different players that I would expect to have completely different roles. A few things they would be asked to do overlaps, but at least half of their roles are different. Thing is that Denard actually has the chance to develop and do those other things that Tavon brings to the table. And if he doesn't, then it's ok because other players on our roster can do those things. IMO, Denard brings more to our offense because Royster, Banks, etc. suck at the things they are asked to do. He will turn those plays into production and we won't have to do anything different in our offense, just do them with a different player. Denard is simply a better fit (with or without getting the whole route tree).

1.) If we're going to include "he can throw" in the reasons why we should draft him, then my "why would you take the ball out of Robert's hands and have Denard Robinson throw" comment comes back into the picture.

2.) "Denard Robinson is a running back that can throw and maybe catch/split wide" is a pretty big assumption seeing as though we have little to know evidence he could play either position.

3.) So is "Denard improves all of the areas where our offense struggles". Our offense struggles getting deep and creating explosive plays, but we have guys who can catch the underneath stuff, and there's better, more experienced, equally explosive players who can catch the short stuff and break it for a big gain.

[Samuels]

Who fits into both Oregon systems is the question?

Not gonna happen

[gorebd82]

1.) If we're going to include "he can throw" in the reasons why we should draft him, then my "why would you take the ball out of Robert's hands and have Denard Robinson throw" comment comes back into the picture.

2.) "Denard Robinson is a running back that can throw and maybe catch/split wide" is a pretty big assumption seeing as though we have little to know evidence he could play either position.

3.) So is "Denard improves all of the areas where our offense struggles". Our offense struggles getting deep and creating explosive plays, but we have guys who can catch the underneath stuff, and there's better, more experienced, equally explosive players who can catch the short stuff and break it for a big gain.

1. Denard would not be lining up at QB. On the plays he throws, they would be an extension of a designed backwards pass or hand off. It is putting the ball in his hand instead of Royster, Banks, Young, Moss, and our other complementary players.

2. Splitting out wide is an assumption and that was the reason for the "maybe". Running is not an assumption for a guy with 677 carries, 4175 yards, 6.2 avg, and 41 TDs. He's also bigger than many NFL RBs.

3. Our plays that are essentially long hand offs have been nonexistent since the 1st quarter of the Saints game. Most offenses have very short pass plays that can create 5-10 yards and sometimes, very long gains. We don't have that ability and have had much more success going deep, especially off PA. Defenses can sit back on pass plays because they have no fear of our screens, swings passes, pops or drags. These are not complicated routes. They are about creating space at the LOS and letting the ball carrier make a play.

I understand you're not a fan of Denard, but it's because you don't think he can do the things you would like to see out of a certain type of role that you would like as a part of our offense. There's also no evidence that he can't do those things. I want Denard because his career shows that he is good at things that we already do in our offense, but aren't successful at because of the personnel. I am assuming that he can also run the basic pass plays of a RB like screens and swing passes. I'm waiting to see if he can run more complicated WR routes, but I'm not assuming he can't learn them. And as said previously, if he shows in the draft evaluation process that he can't do those things or doesn't want to do them, then move on.

[stevemcqueen1]

It's worth mentioning that just because J.J Watt appears to be the best player available now, nearly every mock draft had Watt and Kerrigan both being drafted in the same range., And according to you, the best player available at that point would've been Blaine Gabbert.

Hindsight blinds a lot of people.

Apparently homerism is blinding you because you're not seeming to get me and my position.

Your sampling of mock drafts to determine the relative draft of Watt and Kerrigan is just not at all an accurate picture of who each of these guys were as prospects.

Kerrigan was not an equivalent talent to Watt. I watched both of those guys play with my own eyes, broke them both down, and came to the conclusion myself that Watt was a much better prospect. I remember them very clearly. And the boards that I made at the time demonstrated this.

Saying that Watt was clearly a better prospect than Kerrigan does not rely on hindsight. I had him ranked much higher at the time of that draft.

I don't even know why we're still arguing this point. I've repeatedly said Kerrigan was one of Mike's draft picks that was actually good. Drafting Kerrigan isn't what might get Shanny fired. The larger problem is the multitude of "safe" picks and reaches he's made aside from Kerrigan that have netted us only replacement level talent when he's had opportunities to get players with better upside. The problem is he's brought in too much bad personnel, both coaches and players.

[NLC1054]

Apparently homerism is blinding you because you're not seeming to get me and my position.

Your sampling of mock drafts to determine the relative draft of Watt and Kerrigan is just not at all an accurate picture of who each of these guys were as prospects.

It's not homerism; it's logic.

Someone suggested J.J Watt was consistently mocked higher than Kerrigan. He was not. People have suggested he was an obvious top 5 talent. Well just about every reputatable scout didn't have him going in the top 5, and while that may not be the best indicator of overall talent, it does give people a decent snapshot of what people though his value was. And several people in this very thread had insisted that we drafted other players other than Watt.

It's easy to say Watt was the best player available now, because you can't look back at that draft objectively. Right now, Watt is flat out dominating. And he did have some really, really good tape. But he was also a former tight end that only had two years of production. Incredible production, but two years none the less. And Ryan Kerrigan is struggling, as is the rest of the defense. So it's easy to look at what Watt is doing now and bemoan the fact that we should've stayed at 10 and taken him.

The fact is that it ignores the multitude of factors why trading down was a good idea. You have taken the approach that trading down was a godawful idea and you are rooted in that idea and there's no convincing you otherwise because you personally think the Redskins played it safe until of going after a guy who, according to all the given information we have that's not colored by personal biases, was the best player available. And you say this even though at the time, you wanted us to draft a completely different player, at a different position, on a different side of the ball. So what was it?

Did you not feel like Blaine Gabbert was actually the best player available then? If he wasn't, why did you want the Redskins to draft him at number 10 then, if it was that clear that J.J Watt was the best player available?

Regardless of if you had Watt ranked higher than Kerrigan, at the time you seemed to want them to draft Gabbert over both of them.

---------- Post added November-11th-2012 at 09:10 PM ----------

For the record, here's what stevemcqueen said in his first post in the 2011 Draft Database after drafting Kerrigan.

What are the ****ing odds that Gabbert, Watt, Ponder, Fairley, Pouncey, and Quinn would ALL go before 16? I was ok with using Gabbert for the tradedown until that happened.
.
We are ****ing snakebit. We shouldn't have gotten cute and gambled our man would be there at 16. We should have taken Gabbert at 10. Now we have no plan at QB and were forced to settle for a stiff at OLB for consolation.

All of us had better hope Gabbert and Ponder ****ing suck or that we get Andy Dalton at 41...

All of us had better hope that Shanahan knocks #49 out of the ****ing park.

I'm not ****ing drinking the kool-aid on Rex Grossman.

Oh and I'm not at all thrilled about Kerrigan. I think he's a stiff and I'm wondering why in the **** we didn't draft Cam Jordan.

And the second...

I don't get that feeling from the Redskins. They will not be good until they have a plan at QB. They cannot wait any later than 2012 to implement it.

And the third...

Does he? Year 2 and I'm finding this harder and harder to believe. Last year was one missed opportunity and bungle after another. This year already feels the same and we haven't gotten out of the first round. I guess we'll know better in about three years when Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder are either good or suck.

So this is my read on what happened: we had access to not one, but two excellent QB prospects and three impact defenders but traded down for a slight increase in value according to the TVC (When Cleveland made off with a total heist in TVC value), had all of the best targets immediately get taken, and then settled on a defender whose widely considered a fit only for the 43 defense we're transitioning away from.

Our QB has to be better than both Gabbert and Ponder.

Or Kerrigan and #49 have to be better than Fairley, Watt, and Quinn.

Kerrigan also has to be better than Amukamara and Jordan IMO.

Can he be a Lamarr Woodley? Or is he going to be an Aaron Kampman? Kerrigan was a huge gamble IMO and I'm praying he ends up alright and that Gabbert/Ponder/Fairley/Quinn all suck.

I would have been ok getting a bunch of FA OL if we were trying to develop a QB like Ponder or Gabbert. They'd have been necessary to keeping him from getting killed. Now I don't really see the point because we're probably punting the season anyway. Signing a bunch of FAs to 5-8 million a year deals isn't ideal and there's no point in sacrificing your long term flexibility for a season we're not in contention nor developing a QB who can get us there in a couple of years.

Also Jacksonville paid a pittance if they got their franchise QB.

The thing about RW is that he's going to make an immediate impact. I'm afraid we're going to get to 8-8/9-7 and hit a wall. We don't have a QB...

See how much simpler everything would be if we had a QB?

If Gabbert or Ponder, two players a lot of people on here really liked, become franchise QBs, then it won't matter how good Kerrigan and pick 49 become--it'll still have been a mistake.

See, I can buy that you liked Watt more than Kerrigan. You liked a lot of guys more than you liked Kerrigan, so I can see why you were salty when we drafted him him.

My problem is that you're screaming that Watt was the best player available at 10, when clearly you wanted Gabbert or another quarterback.

Consistency is all I ask for.