We need a NT and CB. I feel we'll need to spend our 2nd and 3rd rounders on those positions.
Hopefully, we can get a safety through free agency and target a WR with our 4th rounder. I'm still holding out hope that Garçon turns into something of a #1 WR (making a WR more of a hedge than a full-on bet), but I'm beginning to get worried that he may be one of those oft-acquired injury-prone FAs the Skins have a habit of signing.
I've been pretty consistent for several years of doing this in my philosophy and methodology. I don't blow smoke and I don't really have an agenda other than I root for this team to succeed. I base my evaluations on what I see with my own eyes and form my opinions accordingly. If anyone has an agenda, I think it's you. I think you're a homer and are trying to defend Shanny's record arguing against clear mistakes despite the fact I'm saying I actually support him keeping his job. I see no purpose in ignoring the truth.
On Gabbert and Ponder, we got lucky at QB plain and simple. We got lucky Shanny's prior incompetency actually put him in position to draft a transcendent talent and that St. Louis chose to inexplicably honor their commitment to our deal even after Cleveland beat our offer.
If Shanny hadn't drafted RGIII, he'd be fired today. Even still, he might not make it past this year. Not many coaches get a third or fourth chance at QB.
Also, saying Gabbert or Ponder would have been a horrible decision because we ended up getting RGIII is an actual example of a hindsight based conclusion.
You've frequently stated that Gabbert was terrible as a rookie but I don't think you saw many of his games or followed Jacksonville closely. I did.
Gabbert played like a rookie QB thrust into a horrible situation, which is exactly what he was. He got drafted to a team in the midst of an ownership change, lost his HC midway through his rookie season, and is currently on his third coach by his second season. His FO is arguably the worst in the league, their mistakes painstakingly detailed by Bill Barnwell. I believe no young QB could succeed in his situation. I believe he would have played a lot better and his perception would be a lot better had he been drafted here. Or pretty much anywhere else. Jacksonville is where good prospects have gone to die recently. Believe me or don't believe me, I don't really care. I'm not spinning, I'm less interested in convincing you than I am in discerning the truth.
Go back through these posts and read my position. I never said Watt would have been my pick at ten. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. I've always been clear that Gabbert was my top player that year and QB was our top need. I was clear that I had Fairley and Quinn ahead of Watt. I was also clear that I was very high on Watt, much higher than I was on Kerrigan. I've been clear about what EXACTLY my board was--I had the balls to record it and save it. And actually, I'm not ashamed of anything I posted on that class because I ended up getting a pretty good read on that class so far, both before and after draft day.
This was my board from April 2nd that year:
I deviated from the conventional wisdom at a bunch of those rankings, and ended up being right in those deviations more than I was wrong. For every Von Miller and Cam Newton I got wrong in ranking too low, I got a Watt, Aldon Smith, AJ Green, Stephen Paea right in ranking them higher than the norm. And if you read my evaluation of Miller from that time, I'm not sure I was actually wrong about him in the reasons why I ranked him low.1. Blaine Gabbert
2. Nick Fairley
3. A.J. Green
4. Robert Quinn
5. Marcell Dareus
6. Patrick Peterson
7. Julio Jones
8. Aldon Smith
9. Prince Amukamara
10. J.J. Watt
11. Von Miller
12. Tyron Smith
13. DaQuan Bowers
14. Cameron Jordan
15. Christian Ponder
16. Jake Locker
17. Adrian Clayborn
18. Justin Houston
19. Gabe Carimi
20. Derek Sherrod
21. Corey Liuget
22. Cameron Heyward
23. Muhammad Wilkerson
24. Stephen Paea
25. Akeem Ayers
26. Mike Pouncey
27. Ryan Williams
28. Mark Ingram
29. Martez Wilson
30. Danny Watkins
31. Aaron Williams
32. Brandon Harris
33. Rahim Moore
34. Jimmy Smith
35. Steve Wisniewski
36. Rodney Hudson
37. Ben Ijalana
38. Brooks Reed
39. Ryan Kerrigan
40. Cam Newton
41. Andy Dalton
42. Jabaal Sheard
43. Anthony Castonzo
44. Nate Solder
45. Jurrell Casey
46. Allen Bailey
47. Mikel Leshoure
48. Phil Taylor
49. Brandon Burton
50. Marvin Austin
If you don't think that's good, I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and make a draft board this year. I'll make one too. Save it and we'll compare them in a year or two.
"John Wall will never be as good as Kyrie Irving was in his first week in the NBA" - David Falk, published February 14, 2013.
And I quote...
Originally Posted by stevemcqueen1 last yearYa can think I'm a brainless homer if ya want to. It's no skin off my back.Originally Posted by stevemcqueen1 a couple paegs a go
But you're not being honest.
Also thought it was interesting that, while you expressed some disappointment with not getting Paea, you were quite pleased with the Jarvis Jenkins pick.
What a difference a year makes, huh?
Now, back to 2013.
Last edited by NLC1054; November-12th-2012 at 12:17 AM.
Look, I'm all for us drafting more SMU players (obviously), but if we're going to target a Mustang, it needs to be RB Zach Line in the later rounds. Guy is big, insanely productive, great at finding holes and carrying tacklers for extra yardage. Reminds me a lot of Morris in that regard.
---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 08:45 AM ----------
---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 08:50 AM ----------
---------- Post added November-12th-2012 at 08:56 AM ----------
The problem with Tebow for the Jets is the tried to use him as a situational novelty player like you want to do with Dennard. They're faced with the harsh reality that an offensive staff already has enough on their plate to get their gameplan installed. Then they have to gameplan and install plays for 1 non-positional player? And using a mid round pick on Tebow made sense because he can he's also the back-up QB. Dennard would merely be a situational player with no true position.
Now I can respect your specific position about limited resources. That is a totally different conversation. My position on that is that our cupboard isn't quite so bare. From my perspective we have two holes on this team, RT and a top CB. I do not consider safety a hole because neither off our starters has seen the field. If Meriweather struggles with his injury or the NFL makes Tanard's suspension permanent, then I'll reconsider. But as of now, my perspective is that we need to invest in backup plans. Part of that plan involves keeping DHall on a reduced salary in a different role. We are currently putting him in a position to fail by overpaying him and asking him to cover top WRs. He should be covering 3rd and 4th WRs and playing some free safety, he should be a role player. Because we can't afford to gamble on getting a top CB in the 2nd round, it needs to be addressed in FA with this strong class.
While a pass rushing DE or heir to Fletch would be nice, I don't see a rookie cracking the starting front 7. So while spending a higher pick on one of those positions would be a nice long term investment, but only add a rotational player in the present. That would fall under the category of not maximizing the impact of our limited resources. On offense we're set at QB, RB, LT, have decent interior OLs with a pipeline of prospects, and a very good WR. The issues are at RT, WR, and TE. TE is a wait and see situation that needs some short term insulation. WR will be determined by how strong Hank finishes up. Opinions are split on him, but as someone in the pro-Hank camp, I think he'll settle in and look better across from Garçon. That leaves RT. That is my priority position and where I would spend our top pick.
So IMO our starting lineup will pretty much be set by the close of the 2nd round and all other picks are depth/competition. At that point, a hybrid role like Denard is more likely to see the field than drafting a backup at other positions. Adding speed and that element of unpredictability is an investment in all other offensive positions because his threat keeps the defense with one eye on him at all times. If you're a safety and they pitch it out to him, are you going to come crashing down to the box? Go ahead and he'll lob it right over top of you. The Pats have Woodhead, the Saints have Sproles, the Packers have Cobb and all of those teams have way more proven weapons than us, but find major value in this type of element in their offense. I'm advocating having that same threat, but with the added dimension of throwing on occasion.
o I think you drastically overestimate the threat of Dennard as a passer.
o A key flaw that you don't acknowledge is that everything for Dennard is a projection whether its at WR or RB
o Disagree that they're only 2 holes on this team
o Just as you repeatedly supported and held out faith in Jammal Brown its equally if not more pie in the sky to project Tanard Jackson and Meriweather as solutions to our SS/FS
Not sure what this means? Any pick might be a rotational player or might be a pro-bowl starter.While a pass rushing DE or heir to Fletch would be nice, I don't see a rookie cracking the starting front 7. So while spending a higher pick on one of those positions would be a nice long term investment, but only add a rotational player in the present.
Even going by your scenario Dennard is a back-up player himself. In fact he's less then a back-up he's a positionless situational player. And most spots on a football team involve some rotation where the back-up player see some snaps almost every game.At that point, a hybrid role like Denard is more likely to see the field than drafting a backup at other positions.
Are we building the best team for us or trying to build some other franchises team?The Pats have Woodhead, the Saints have Sproles, the Packers have Cobb and all of those teams have way more proven weapons than us, but find major value in this type of element in their offense. I'm advocating having that same threat, but with the added dimension of throwing on occasion
And again I think you're drastically overrating the impact Dennards passing threat will make.Adding speed and that element of unpredictability is an investment in all other offensive positions because his threat keeps the defense with one eye on him at all times. If you're a safety and they pitch it out to him, are you going to come crashing down to the box? Go ahead and he'll lob it right over top of you.
If I'm a safety it depends on my assignment, but I'm not going to come crashing into the box because (a) as a Safety it usually isn't my role to come crashing into the box (b) I'll notice they have their gadget player in backfield and I'll play the pass then react to the run
He also reminds me of Alston Jeffries in a sense. Due to there bein so many question marks on him and having so much potential.
- I acknowledge that he has to project at either position, but RB is a more fair and reasonable projection because Denard has the size of a pro RB and over 4000 rushing yards. Right now, he's projected as a 4th rounder at WR which means that there's risk he can't make the transition, but enough upside that he is expected to be drafted ahead of other guys that played WR their entire college career. RB is not as big of a jump to make.
- I see hole as different from need. A hole means you have nothing and need an immediate solution. Needs are areas where you can stand to improve. We have solid players with a track record of quality NFL production at every spot in our starting lineup except RT and top CB. You can't name a position with a hole. You may want to upgrade over the starter, but that doesn't mean that it's a hole.
- I'm holding out hope for Jammal, but I acknowledge that he is an unlikely long term solution because he has a chronic hip injury and is well past 30. Meriweather has a knee sprain which is a short term injury and is under 30. Tanard was suspended for substance abuse and is under 30. The league has no reason to extend his suspension beyond a year, if they do I'm sure the NFLPA will have something to say. Our only risk is future suspension, but his violation happened prior to joining our organization and he's no more of a risk than Fred or Trent. So IMO, LT is just as much a need as FS if drug suspension is the basis.
- I agree that the draft is one big gamble, but earlier picks tend to target guys who will actually play. Denard has a chance to play lots of snaps if he shows he can play multiple positions as other guys like Cobb, Sproles, etc. have done.
But they don't get chance to show they're a Pro Bowl player if they don't get many snaps due to sitting on the bench behind an entrenched vet. I acknowledge that Denard might become a situational gimmick player, but others don't acknowledge that he can be an explosive game changer like other teams had with an added throwing element. I just think the things he brings to the table are things that others in our offense don't have and that will give him more opportunity to contribute than rookies at other positions.Not sure what this means? Any pick might be a rotational player or might be a pro-bowl starter.
Yes, he is a backup. Some view him as positionless. I see him as a backup at 3-4 positions. And some reserves are semi-starters like slot WRs, 3rd down RBs, and nickel CBs. A player that can fill two of those roles can essentially get starters reps. So he can be a backup that plays as much as a starter. Rather than have multiple players filling numerous roles, target one guy that can fill multiple roles.Even going by your scenario Dennard is a back-up player himself. In fact he's less then a back-up he's a positionless situational player. And most spots on a football team involve some rotation where the back-up player see some snaps almost every game.
This is funny because others have argued against Denard because they want an offense more like the Packers and Saints. I'm not trying to build their offenses, but it's not bad to incorporate successful elements of their attack that make it more difficult for defenses to gameplan. The throwing element is our specific wrinkle to that role. But the kicker is that I'm not talking about adding something so our offense is like other teams, these plays are already in our gameplan. I'm advocating investing in a superior talent to run the plays as the Packers and Saints have done.Are we building the best team for us or trying to build some other franchises team?
Just like teams have to spend time preparing for Tebow, they'll have to do the same for Denard. That's less time for them to prep for RGIII or Morris. Teams have to be aware of his presence because his speed/throwing combination means that anytime he touches the ball, the offense can score from anywhere on the field. The best way to make that work is by giving him the ball frequently and occasionally having him throw.And again I think you're drastically overrating the impact Dennards passing threat will make.
If you don't crash down when Denard is running a sweep, he can beat your front 7 to the corner and streak down the sideline. He runs a low 4.3 and is 200 lbs. You have to respect his ability to create in open space. If you decide to attack him, he is a quality enough passer to torch you. He is better at it than Sanu and we got burnt.If I'm a safety it depends on my assignment, but I'm not going to come crashing into the box because (a) as a Safety it usually isn't my role to come crashing into the box (b) I'll notice they have their gadget player in backfield and I'll play the pass then react to the run
Tebow was successful in Denver because when they ran the spread option, he could read the defense and make a decision based on their reaction. Our offense is designed to do the same in our running game with tosses and stretch plays and passes that only require reading half the feld because the pocket has shifted such as bootlegs. If you pitch it out to Denard, he can hit the corner, cut back against the grain, or throw it to designed outlets. The Chargers did it with LT and we did it with BMitch, but Denard is faster than them and an throw better. We want defenses reacting rather than attacking and Denard gives us options no matter what the reaction may be.
This is really simply a matter of some people thinking he can ate the transition and others thinking he can't. Some have succeeded in a similar transition in the past and others failed. Either way, it's projecting his adjustment to the NFL like any other prospect. I simply lean towards his success because our playbook elements that we use frequently that are I like the things he was already successful at during college. The things he needs to develop are WR skills and that is a complete unknown. But if he can run the route tree or beat press coverage, then he still can do those other things. If Tavon can't beat NFL press coverage, then he'll ride the bench behind Hank, Garçon, Morgan, and Aldrick because his only other contribution is KR/PR. That's how Anthony Armstrong lost his spot.
So I think there's lots of reason he can be successful and others don't think he can e successful. So lets just leave it as that difference of opinion.
Just living the dream of a college kid wanting to be something
NFLDraftMonsters.com--- check it
I am SO thankful that we aren't in contention for taking a QB in this years draft. More specifically, I'm happy we won't have to debate the pros/cons of Matt Barkley. IMO, a guy like Ryan Nassib will be the better pro.
As far as Robinson - who is overestimating his ability as a passer? Dude is AWFUL throwing the ball. There's a reason why he's going to have to change positions on the next level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)