kungfoodude

Johnny Manziel didn't save Mike Pettine's job.

Yeah, the Rhule thing has soured me pretty badly.

No, I do understand that. The mobile QB's are much a spectrum than just "running QB" and "statue." Hence why I kept saying athletic or athlete. A guy like Mahomes or Russell Wilson are very good, very mobile QB's but their biggest weapons are their arms. And that is basically what I mean. In the NFL, it is way more difficult to find a home in the league if you aren't an athletic QB. The college game figures this out first and now the NFL is following suit. Doesn't mean you HAVE to be a great or good athlete to succeed but more often than not, the guys that stick around the league now are or were good athletes(with some decline due to age for some of them). Lamar is also a bad example of a guy who can throw because he not only has a good career completion percentage but a low Int Rate, as well. He's a very good thrower, but it gets overshadowed by what he does with his legs.

Brett Favre is a pretty bad example by accuracy standards. He's basically a backup by today's @ standard

Fine but you are quite literally ignoring that the NFL examples referenced don't have major accuracy issues. Running QB's that can't hit the broadside of a barn(The Golden Calf of Bristol for example) don't survive long in the NFL.

The difference is that being an athlete is almost a requirement now, because of the factors you and I have mentioned. The idea that running QB's don't have value or aren't successful is as ridiculous as saying the QB position hasn't changed dramatically because of the increased athletic ability of the average NFL QB. The game changed and being athletic was a part of that.

People just aren't accepting of the fact that the expectations of QB's changing. Being an athlete and being able to be a threat with your legs adds to the effectiveness of your throwing. It's an extra element that stresses a defense. Hence why it is valued even beyond a "running QB."

He didn't seem to have a problem explaining to his players that he could go back to college and make money.

The game has dramatically changed. Especially QB play. Look at how all the statues are basically all but gone from the starting QB ranks. Being athletic(albeit not necessarily a running QB) is almost a necessity at this point. While the rules have favored passing offenses, they have also made life very hard for the OL in pass protection. QB mobility has never been able to make up for poor passing. That has not been a thing that has ever existed in the NFL for a significant length of time.

There are a bunch of different ways to skin that cat but they are all costly. The NFL isn't going to spend a bunch of money on that unless it helps their bottom line.

Oh wow. Less than half capacity. Amazing.

I just don't want to see us trade out if a top DE or LT is available. That will be a problem. Also don't want to see us take a QB in the first round. I think he could play RT or OG, as well.

Horn should be a quality starter but I am not at all a believer in BC's ability to be anything but depth. I don't generally see more than Horn or MAYBE Tremble as starting quality. That's sort of my ultimate problem with the draft. We will see. It would be nice to just simply be wrong because it doesn't set us back as a franchise and we don't have to wonder when we will get a new GM.

Well we were one dumb coach away from having a "running QB" with a Super Bowl ring. It's the classic nonsense argument of *insert thing that can't be done* has never *insert thing to do* that always gets made. Until it does happen. Then that just disappears

They don't count because they don't support the argument of the people arguing against him. All the "RuNnInG qBs CaNt WiN" people are just butthurt that the game has changed.

Doesn't really sound like it would make much difference, unfortunately. There are solutions to solving the problem in the NFL but they would likely be very expensive, so I doubt you will see them anytime soon.

I simply don't agree. We largely opted for backup caliber players and to accumulate JAGS. It would be nice to be wrong but aside from Horn, I believe the 2021 draft class will be considered a dramatic failure. My takeaway at the time is that we passed on starters for improved depth. I just don't see that as being much of a decision long term.

Mid-to-late round picks are fine to accumulate but not when you fail to draft well in the 1st-3rd round. That's just basically gambling on low probability chances in the hopes to hit on longshots. I suppose if you can predict success at a savant level, that would make sense. Otherwise, you are just doing it for nothing. The draft last year definitely indicated the latter and not the former. Hence why I don't just give Fitt a pass on being good yet.

Well it might be overrated but when a lot of excellent IOL are taken in the second or third round, it does make the value of using a high first round draft pick less. But, you also might get a Quentin Nelson type, as well. Additionally, you are locking a player in at a relatively high price for an IOL even as a rookie(which is one of the big arguments against taking RB's in the top 5). Deservedly or not, former first round draft picks also tend to command higher prices in their subsequent contracts. Although you may end up with an All Pro caliber IOL from Neal/Ekwonu/Penning not panning out at LT, it would definitely be a missed pick. Even if they are successful players.

I am not sure that what he did last draft and season wouldn't be considered "willy-nilly." I know the board likes Fitt because of his aggressive trading but we have really yet to see that produce any meaningful results. So, I would be rather skeptical of his trade prowess until we see those results.

That is kind of the nightmare scenario. Watching us mortgage future draft capital in another "win now" attempt.

The only thing that should give us some level of pause for Neal(which if he is there I would take him in a heartbeat) is that it is a little bit wild he isn't universally viewed as a HR #1 OT pick. Especially given his athleticism and size. Everything about him screams #1 overall pick material but he didn't always play at that level. Nor do teams universally view him as a top 10 pick. That is actually a little concerning.

Yeah and I do understand that. Especially when you pick at 6. If the guy ends up being a long term Pro Bowl guard, you could have technically gotten that much later. Not great positional value at all.

The concern is the level of involvement, which we don't truly know.