AU-panther

all it takes is one team to believe any of these QBs to be a franchise guy and that QB all of sudden becomes more important than any player in the draft. QBs aren't even money bets like other positions, teams view them with a different set of rules when it comes draft time. If we don't want a QB we should be hoping other teams fall in love with some of them.

Left tackles don't change franchises, ask the Browns with Joe Thomas. They help, and they are important, and I'm a huge fan of drafting them in the first but this idea that they are exponentially better than any other non-QB relative in regard to WAR is just wrong. QBs are in a league of their own when it comes to changing franchises.

Yep, Imagine in 2021 if we would have traded back from 7 to 13. We would have been stuck with Wirfs instead of Brown. Oh wait.... Every year fans convince themselves that where they are picking there is an imaginary drop of talent that is one spot later so there is absolutely no reason to trade down. Grade your players and see how the board falls.

So QBs are the hardest position on the field so evaluators come up with some subjective qualifiers to try and help them decide. So QBs need "thick skin", you don't say, or leadership. How many college QBs who were good leaders in college went on to fail in the NFL. Speaking of Parcell's formula of wanting a guy with a lot of college experience. That has changed somewhat in todays college landscape. Players leave school earlier.

that is no where close to being the approriate future picks to get this year's pick 26. 2022 NFL Trade Value Chart (drafttek.com) rough numbers here but next years pick are generally valued as this years pick's but one round later. 2nd and 3rd next year would be around a 3rd and 4th this year. So, pick 26 this year = 700 For Round 2 next year would be like Round 3 this year = 190 Round 3 next year would be like round 4 this year =70 700 vs 260? not happening More realistic pick 26 this year = 700 For Round 1 next year would be like round 2 this year = 420 Round 2 next year would be like round 3 this year = 190 Round 4 this year = 104 700 vs 714 So a more realistic trade would be pick 26 this year for our 2022 4th, 2023 1st, and 2023 2nd. Also I usually take pick 16 of each round in future years because it is a midpoint pick. I fully realize that a future 1st rounder from us is worth more than say the KC Chiefs but the midpoint is a good starting point. Teams might adjust slightly depending on hwo bad or good they think you are. A team is never going to give you full value expecting you to have a top 3 pick. What if you get lucky and win 7 to 9 games, all of sudden you might be picking around 12.

Doesn't happen to be a team he played for, he never said it was.

Wilson or Rodgers would be nice but they are going to be really expensive in a trade, not to mention I think both want to go to teams that want to win now. Watson also would be very expensive, but who knows with all of the off-field issues. Unless we go super cheap with a FA like Mariotta I think our best chances would be Jimmy G, Cousins, or even Carr. If Raiders get in the Rodgers sweepstakes I could see them looking to move Carr. Honestly the safest move long term is probably just to take our lumps with who we have and preserve our draft capitol and cap space for the future.

I'm not crazy about the NFL or college overtime. What I would propose would be a soccer style shootout at the end. Best out of 5 two-point conversations. If both teams are still tied after 5 attempts, it goes to sudden death. Takes the coin toss out of the equation. Doesn't really matter who goes first. Takes the kickers out of the equation. No guessing what the next team will do, you don't have to decide between kicking FGs or giong for TDs. It would be great drama, awesome tv. It would be quicker. It would limit the extra plays for the players and therefore reduce injury.

Actually, there is a very good chance the long snapper did have a relatively high-grade relative to his own position. That doesn't take into positional value or anything but that is a different discussion. Here is the deal. No team is absolute BPA or absolute need on every pick. My only point originally is there is small chance they could go into the draft with OT as their #1 need. There is also a chance that they might have a really high grade on OT1 and OT2 but maybe not so much on OT3. If OT1 and OT2 are off the board when we pick they might go a different direction, especially if one of the non-OTs that are available are extremely highly rated on their board, such as the safety or CB or one of the top 2 DEs.

Rhules version of need still doesn't change it. If his version of need was a OT with Sewell and he drafted by his need he would have drafted the next OT on his list. What you should have said is he draft one of the highest rated players on his board which also fills a need. Which is pretty much what all teams do. Nobody is absolute BPA and nobody is absolute need.

You are the one that made an absolute statement in regard to a general statement I made about NFL teams and drafting. An absolute statement that isn't true based on even your subsequent logic concerning the fact you said we would have drafted Sewell if available seeing how we didn't go to the next OT on our draft board. Instead we went with a player that was probably rated higher. So it wasn't absolute need, value factored in.

that's not the point. someone tried to say we draft on need and don't consider value. If Sewell would have been picked over Horn, as many claim then that would suggest OT was our biggest need. If we truly did draft just based on need then we would have picked the next OT on our board, if that wasn't Slater it would have been a different OT.

You said we don't draft BPA, we draft need. But then you said we would have took Sewell if he had been available, so based on that we should have drafted the next LT on our board, but we didn't so in fact we don't draft purely on need and we do factor in value.

To take it one step further, even if you can recognize what a good QB is there is not guarantee there will be one attainable this year. Unfortunately, that is just the reality of the scarcity of good QBs. Hopefully at the very least we don't waste more resources on a guy that has slim chances of actually helping us.

Being able to recognize what a good QB looks like might ultimately be more valuable to this franchise than his actual play calling.

but you said we draft based on need. If we would have took Sewell that means OT was our biggest need, then why didn't we take Slater? Maybe they do look at BPA some.

Would we have drafted Sewell instead of Horn because he was available? Most reports say we would have. If that was because LT was bigger need, then under your logic and we draft for need, we would have took Slater, but we didn't. We must have factored in grade.

I'm not a fan of Rhule or how things have happened either, but I don't know what people expected. When you lose an OC this is what you get. Other "rockstar" OC's don't take lateral moves, thats true for dumpster fire teams or good teams. You either sign a position coach (such as a RB or QB coach), who often is young and doesn't have actual OC experience, which has been the biggest complaint about Rhules staff, or you sign a former OC who is available because he probably failed as a HC. Alot of people around would have been happier with Bill O'Brian but he fits that same profile. Failed HC, and honestly a lot of his OC years don't look good on paper at all. Sure he looks good at Alabama but look at his Housten Teams or his old days as OC at Duke. The other option is to promote somebody already on staff but I'm not sure any of us want that. If we weren't a "dumpster fire" what pool of coaches did you think we were really going to be looking at?

Also you are trying to totally discount McAdoo by compaing that team to the previous year Giants. The offensive ranking is realtive to the other teams in the league. Alot of teams have quality #1 WRs. Also their PPG in 2014 was actually higher the games OBJ didn't play.

That is why I used YPT not YPC, that factors in Cruz's lower catch %. Their actually YPC is actually alot closer. I'm not failing at all, a player's stats don't happen in a vacuum. You can't say a RB adds an extra 1000 yards to a team on 200 carries. Another RB would have also rushing yards on those carries, you have to look at the difference between the two to decide the value the player is adding.

He averaged about 1.5 yards more a target than the #1 a year before and he got about 11 targets a game.

People need to quit taking everything said by a coach so literal. No team is pure BPA and no team is pure need. If the top 3 OTs are off the board do you still think we pick OT? I don't, and neither do you so they do look at value also. More times than not there is a player close enough in grade to justify need. My point was teams often view a small group of players in each draft as elite. Teams will sometimes ignore need somewhat to take one of those. I'm not saying we will, just that is how it happens sometimes. Also, fans think in terms of biggest need lining up with the 1st round pick. Teams go into a draft looking to fill several needs and sometimes do so in a order depending on how the draft falls.

OBJ didn't add an extra 1305 yards in a vacumm. If he wasn't there a different receiver would have received targets. You have to decide how many extra yards he produced over what his replacement would have had. OBJ defientaly helped but I think it is a bit of a stretch to attribute all of the improvement to OBJ and none to McAdoo. .

A CB sounds crazy but here is how it could happen. Fans tend to think in terms of need and rank. Basically, OT is our biggest need (non-QB) so we should take whatever OT is next on the list and available, in this case it would be OT3 on Daniel's list. Teams tend to think in terms of grade. Maybe we have a really high grade on OT1 and OT2 but a decent gap to OT3. If OT1 and OT 2 go before us they might decide CB1 is a way better value. In a perfect world you would trade down and line up value with need, but trading down isn't always easy. I'm not saying its the right move, but i could see it happening. Same thing with the safety. Any given year there is just really small group of players that teams consider elite prospects, its hard to pass on them. Do you pass on a guy that you think can become the next Sean Taylor for an OT that think has a decent chance to be above average? Here again, I'm not saying this is the correct way to draft, but its what happens.

He should be healthy by then. If you trade him after June 1st you would actually save $8.6m. Even you trade him before June 1st it would only add $4.2m to this year's cap, not ideal but not impossible to absorb. For a team trading for him his contract is actually decent, we have already paid his signing bonus. Christian McCaffrey Contract Breakdowns, Salary Cap Figures, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac Next team would basically get him for 4yrs/44m. With only $8.1m guaranteed. Would a team trade for CMC for 1yr for $8.6m? 2 yrs for $20.4m. Since the little guaranteed money there is all in the first year it is a basically a pay as you go contract for the next team. Is $8-11m a year really outlandish for one of the best dual threat players in the league, especially for a team that thinks they are close to winning it all? To put that in perspective Robby's cap hit next year is $16.8m. Robby Anderson Contract Breakdowns, Salary Cap Figures, Salaries, Bonuses | Spotrac You could almost say CMC is a bargain for someone.