Darnold part of the draft day strategy

[mrcompletely11]

6 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

Better chance this year with the depth of this class. Every pick is a gamble. If they think Lance can become Mahomes, then you gotta take him at 8.

I've said all week that its brutally apparent that the staff doesnt want to invest the ungodly time in trying to develop Lance.  Its going to take years to get him up and running and seeing how Brady probably will be gone in the very near future, its just not worth it no matter the upside. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Pup McBarky said:

Again, as @ForJimmysaid, you can't judge Fitz/Rhule by mistakes of the past. It's a deep class at OT. We could get a solid starter in round 2. 

Personally, I'd prefer to trade 8 back and pick up an extra pick or two, draft Darrisaw later in the first and pick a stud OG or C along with a CB in the 2nd and 3rd. And yes, I'd pass on Lance. But that's me.

If they repeat those mistakes, then yes I absolutely can.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

You think.  But we definitely without any reasonable doubt select a LT at 8.  Why continue to kick the can down the road?

And we aint drafting Lance at 8

Lance over Sewell or Slater would be insane.

You could conceivably make an argument for Fields at least, but not Lance.

[ForJimmy]

Just now, mrcompletely11 said:

You think.  But we definitely without any reasonable doubt select a LT at 8.  Why continue to kick the can down the road?

 

And we aint drafting Lance at 8

I mean the guy we draft at 8 can bust too. It’s always an educated guess/ thinking. I’m not against taking a LT. I am if Fields is there at 8. I’m also very high on Fields and don’t justify Darnold as a reason for passing on him. Before we had Darnold people were fine with taking a QB in 1 and LT in 2. Darnold doesn’t change that in my eyes. He makes us more comfortable sitting at 8 and seeing what happens. Fitts just said drafting a QB is still an option and our staff hasn’t been good at hiding their intentions. Look if/when Fields is gone before 8, I’ll love getting Sewell/Slater and I will be glad we got Darnold.

[Pup McBarky]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

If they repeat those mistakes, then yes I absolutely can.

If they turn out to be mistakes, sure. But you're already operating on the assumption they will be. 

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Lance over Sewell or Slater would be insane.

You could conceivably make an argument for Fields at least, but not Lance.

I guess you can at least argue Fields but if he does drop then the value of pick 8 probably close to doubles what it normally would be.  I would make Denver throw in their 1rst and maybe 2nd to move up one spot.

[Pup McBarky]

4 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I've said all week that its brutally apparent that the staff doesnt want to invest the ungodly time in trying to develop Lance.  Its going to take years to get him up and running and seeing how Brady probably will be gone in the very near future, its just not worth it no matter the upside. 

Sean Ryan would be the one doing the developing. And you're just assuming it would take years. We really don't know. As I said, I wouldn't pick Lance, but if Fitz/Rhule think he's the guy, they have to pick him.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Pup McBarky said:

If they turn out to be mistakes, sure. But you're already operating on the assumption they will be. 

Not solidifying our line would absolutely be a mistake, and given that 1) it's something both Fitterer and Rhule have pledged to do this offseason and 2) it's an oft repeated one already, it would be a tough one to forgive.

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

I mean the guy we draft at 8 can bust too. It’s always an educated guess/ thinking. I’m not against taking a LT. I am if Fields is there at 8. I’m also very high on Fields and don’t justify Darnold as a reason for passing on him. Before we had Darnold people were fine with taking a QB in 1 and LT in 2. Darnold doesn’t change that in my eyes. He makes us more comfortable sitting at 8 and seeing what happens. Fitts just said drafting a QB is still an option and our staff hasn’t been good at hiding their intentions. Look if/when Fields is gone before 8, I’ll love getting Sewell/Slater and I will be glad we got Darnold.

I am way more comfortable in saying the likelihood that Sewell/Slater bust is exponentially smaller Lance busting.  Regarding Fields, I just dont know.

[ForJimmy]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Lance over Sewell or Slater would be insane.

You could conceivably make an argument for Fields at least, but not Lance.

I agree, but if they think in a year Lance can be the next big thing. We have Darnold for 2 years and if we salvage him can probably either trade him or get a nice comp once Lance is ready. I don’t think you draft an unfinished product at 8 though, but that could be their justification if they do.

[Pup McBarky]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Not solidifying our line would absolutely be a mistake, and given that 1) it's something both Fitterer and Rhule have pledged to do this offseason and 2) it's an oft repeated one already, it would be a tough one to forgive.

I'm simply saying, you don't pass on a potential franchise QB in round 1 if you are as certain as you can be. If that's the case, they can't pass on him.

Again, it's not what I would do. I'd trade the pick and pick up Darrisaw. I think he's a much better OT than Slater. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

I agree, but if they think in a year Lance can be the next big thing. We have Darnold for 2 years and if we salvage him can probably either trade him or get a nice comp once Lance is ready. I don’t think you draft an unfinished product at 8 though, but that could be their justification if they do.

If we drafted a project quarterback over an elite left tackle prospect, I would lose a lot of faith in our current braintrust.

[jfra78]

13 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

This draft is suppose to be deep at LT. We also had different people drafting players in the past. Can’t hold Fitts/Rhule accountable for Hurney’s mistakes. Your option is assuming Darnold is a capable starting QB in this league. He might be or he might not be. Darnold is our backup plan in case the draft goes QB crazy which is probably will. It also prevents us from having to compete in a bidding war to move up. Im just saying, only IF our guy falls to 8, we draft him. Let Darnold and him battle it out. Having two talented QBs wouldn’t be a bad thing. Darnold might even start until the rookie is ready. I think Fields is a blue chip QB that would be too good of a prospect to pass on compared to Darnold. Hopefully we will never draft this high again for a while...

This is how you end up with Little at LT

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, Pup McBarky said:

Sean Ryan would be the one doing the developing. And you're just assuming it would take years. We really don't know. As I said, I wouldn't pick Lance, but if Fitz/Rhule think he's the guy, they have to pick him.

I doubt the kid is that good where he can come from a run heavy offense in HS, only play 17 games at the FCS level (basically not playing in a year) and A) pick up an NFL style offense B)get enough reps to understand the speed of the game and C)learn how to read defenses at the NFL level.

 

Not saying he cannot learn that but you are not going to play him if you are smart his rookie year, then do you ease him in year 2 or make him the automatic starter and treat that as his rookie season.  So year 3 at best is when the proverbial light bulb goes off.  That my friend is an investment that Rhule and co dont want to make.

 

Now if you think he can start his rookie year then we are going have to agree to disagree because that would be a disaster.