What the Duck?

[WarHeel]

53 minutes ago, AU-panther said:

So we would have been better with a great LT and no Qb?

True, Sewell is probably the best prospect in the draft but that argument only makes sense if all the positions are equally important.

Think in terms of WAR:

A great OT adds how many wins relative to an average OT?

A great QB adds how many wins relative to an average QB?

Its not even close.  Look at the Browns all of those years with Thomas.

Nobody is saying reach for a 2nd round QB over Sewell, that would be stupid, but if you have a top 10 type of grade on any QB that is available when we pick you have to go with the QB if you don't feel your current QB is good enough.

Long term you are better on missing on some picks if you find your QB then if you are right on a bunch of a non QBs.

I'll take going 1/3 the next 3 first rounds picking all QBs and you go 3/3 picking other positions.  Which team will be better long term?  I'll take the QB.

 

 

6 one way, half a dozen another. 
But I would take a quality QB with a superior LT over a franchise guy with no protection. We saw how the latter worked out.

[WarHeel]

24 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

I agree, got us to 15-1 and the best chance we ever had to win it all.  

And we still fell short because we couldn’t protect Cam. Still proves my point.

[MHS831]

3 minutes ago, Growl said:

And this is the core of the issue we've all been waiting for you to inevitably fall into

 

Despite being presented with a series of logical counters in this thread and others, this is, at its root, about your cliche ridden belief system rooted in pappy's advice for team building, and thus you rationalize any presented counter as just a dog whistle from low info Madden players who don't know any better

 

It's frankly pretty insulting, and insults aren't allowed here, maybe you should be banned?

What?  Are you doing some morning drinking today, or just trolling?  I can't tell. 

[WarHeel]

4 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Think you guys are completely missing the point. Just because you need a qb doesn’t mean you reach for one and take whatever as if we’re playing madden.

I’d rather have Sewell than Wilson or Lance too.

And for Luck’s and look how he’s doing. Er, was doing.

Also how about Burrow over there in Cinci who the Bengals completely forgot about his entire line. Hoping he recovers,

Precisely 

[WarHeel]

5 minutes ago, onmyown said:

Think you guys are completely missing the point. Just because you need a qb doesn’t mean you reach for one and take whatever as if we’re playing madden.

I’d rather have Sewell than Wilson or Lance too.

And for Luck’s and look how he’s doing. Er, was doing.

Also how about Burrow over there in Cinci who the Bengals completely forgot about his entire line. Hoping he recovers,

Precisely

[Ricky Spanish]

Statistically speaking, you are more likely to find a good-great tackle in rounds 2-7 than a good-great QB in those same rounds.

If a QB is available that you think is a franchise caliber QB in round 1, you take him. 

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

6 one way, half a dozen another. 
But I would take a quality QB with a superior LT over a franchise guy with no protection. We saw how the latter worked out.

And the argument "with no QB?" is silly.

2 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

And we still fell short because we couldn’t protect Cam. Still proves my point.

They must have forgotten about Remmers.  Is Cam better with Tackles that can block Von Miller?  Ummmm.  Yes.  I think so.

[Growl]

1 minute ago, MHS831 said:

What?  Are you doing some morning drinking today, or just trolling?  I can't tell. 

Hey I've got an idea

 

Why don't you do an in depth deconstruction of the QB prospects for us, use gifs and all that

Highlight some of the pervasive flaws in their game that you feel will prevent them from succeeding at the next level, really break down their field vision and general football IQ

[MHS831]

Ok boys, the belligerent Huddlers who are not yet ready for mature discussion / debate are out in full force, so I thought this topic needed to be discussed--but I am out--when people have to tell you what they think you said (incorrectly) so they can make isolated points beyond the context of the original argument, then it makes me think someone let the middle schoolers have some free time in the computer lab.  My only point---Sewell is the pick if he is there at #4--and it is not even close.   

[MHS831]

2 minutes ago, Growl said:

Hey I've got an idea

 

Why don't you do an in depth deconstruction of the QB prospects for us, use gifs and all that

Highlight some of the pervasive flaws in their game that you feel will prevent them from succeeding at the next level, really break down their field vision and general football IQ

You have an idea?

Let's celebrate this moment. 

[Growl]

4 minutes ago, Ricky Spanish said:

Statistically speaking, you are more likely to find a good-great tackle in rounds 2-7 than a good-great QB in those same rounds.

If a QB is available that you think is a franchise caliber QB in round 1, you take him. 

The only viable argument against taking a QB is the belief that you don't believe a single one will turn into a good NFL player and from there the burden of proof falls to the person claiming to inform us why

[Growl]

2 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

You have an idea?

Let's celebrate this moment. 

oh look another personal insult from our village paragon of maturity and rational discussion

Not willing to do the breakdown huh

[top dawg]

4 hours ago, MHS831 said:

The best player in this draft not named Trevor Lawrence--and I would take him before Lance and Wilson.

 

I'd take him before a glorified noodle-arm for sure, but a franchise QB? I'd have to at least wait for individual workouts & evaluations!

[WarHeel]

15 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

And the argument "with no QB?" is silly.

They must have forgotten about Remmers.  Is Cam better with Tackles that can block Von Miller?  Ummmm.  Yes.  I think so.

People around here have short term memory.