Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Redskins Locker Room


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-18-2010, 05:40 PM   #61
The Starter
 
RMSkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Age: 25
Posts: 1,066
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster View Post
Clausen AND Bradford. I think we should avoid them both at #4.
I agree. I don't like any of the QBs in this draft at all.
RMSkins is offline  

Advertisements
Old 03-18-2010, 05:46 PM   #62
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tryfuhl View Post
there IS an inflation of ranking though due to being a QB, teams need QBs.. there's only 1 of them on the field at any given time typically... so even if a guy is 2nd round talent someone WILL take him in the 1st regardless
tryfuhl is correct. There is an inflation of QB talent in the draft that is specifically not counted for in my analysis. Campbell is probably a second round talent who went in the late first. We took him above value. Was it smart with Ramsey on the roster? Probably not, but I only reference the past for perspective, not to dwell on what should or should not have happened.

It's specifically because of this inflation that you need to make large jumps in position value to justify the cost of the pick. So if we're picking at four, and there's a legitimate number one overall type available (Manning, Rivers, and maybe Matt Ryan), then we're making a big enough jump as to where you could release or trade Campbell and not really kill your prospectus in the short term.

On average, there's a player of this caliber in the draft once every four to five years. The kind of guy you should take at the position without question, the kind of player who tops a draft board. This is no more or less frequent than any other position, so the opportunity cost is the same.

It's very safe to say that this is not the year that this player is available. I have a great projection for McCoy, but not the kind of projection that would make his choice at No. 4 justifiable. Only that I expect him to be better than Campbell.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 05:49 PM   #63
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
Also, if Clausen doesn't have a high probability of being better than Jason Campbell, a QB who is already on the team, then why a QB at all?
Essentially, this is the crux of all my first round arguments. We're not really concerned with whether or not he'll be better or worse than Campbell. We're concerned with will he be a TOP 5 NFL quarterback by 2012. Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady, Clausen?

If the shoe fits, draft him. But three teams are already passing on that, if he's there.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 05:53 PM   #64
Registered User
 
Pocket$ $traight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fairfax, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 4,261
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
You've got to be kidding....

Aren't you concerned about the possibility of Jason White 2.0 in Bradford?
Sammy, maybe you have explained this but why are you 1000% sure about Clausen? You don't waver at all, I just want to know why you think he is an absolute no brainer at 4 when historically the draft is a glorified crapshoot.

Given the fact that if we pick him and he is a failure, like many of the ND QBs, we are screwed for years.
Pocket$ $traight is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:14 PM   #65
Impact Rookie
 
skinster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 754
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Who is on the Block around the league? Instead of trading Carter for some bottom half draft pick, it might be more beneficial to straight up trade him for another player. Maybe someone that can play DE in the 3-4? (I dont trust daniels because hes too old/broken down and I dont trust golston because it seems too out of position)
skinster is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:18 PM   #66
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 28
Posts: 14,444
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
If the shoe fits, draft him. But three teams are already passing on that, if he's there.
27 Teams Passed on Marino. 32 on Brady. I'm not saying that message board types know more then scouts and GM's (God knows the wonderful trade scenarios we come out with provide undeniable proof that we are in fact inferior) but at the same time GM's and scouts constantly make mistakes. So just because Bradford is there at 4 doesn't mean that 3 teams were correct in passing him up. In fact could very well mean 3 teams were stupid in passing him up. Though in this case it's really more like 1 team since the Buc's and Lions already have made commitments to first round QB's.
__________________
"Hey baby, wake up from your a sleep." -Zlad

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:22 PM   #67
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinster View Post
Who is on the Block around the league? Instead of trading Carter for some bottom half draft pick, it might be more beneficial to straight up trade him for another player. Maybe someone that can play DE in the 3-4? (I dont trust daniels because hes too old/broken down and I dont trust golston because it seems too out of position)
While they haven't exactly come out and said it, the Adam Carriker deal was/is that deal.

It's common wisdom around the league that both Carriker and Carter are better suited for the other team's defensive style. Unless you land an absolute stud in a trade, you're more than likely going to get a guy that's a project more than a proven commodity.
12thMan is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:22 PM   #68
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by over the mountain View Post
in another thread you said its stupid to pick a QB at value. so if you need a qb, theres a qb with a top 5 grade and your picking 4th, you dont pick the qb? b/c that would be picking him at his value?

i get wanting to draft a qb with a pick later than his value but good luck finding that buggy with a porsche engine under the hood. i think every team would love to draft guys later than what they have them graded as is, but while players might slip here or there, its just not realistic.
Okay, I think I get what you're saying here. Let me explain.

Top five pick in the draft and top five player at his position are completely different concepts that I've erroneously referred to simply as "top five". If I were to give a quarterback a top five grade in the draft, it would imply that there are fewer that five players who have as much draft value as this player in the entire draft. On this principle alone, i.e. there's no one better available, the pick could make sense. If there's no one out there that fills a need, picking a quarterback isn't an inherently bad thing.

When I go to the numbers from 2009, I get about 11 players who, this season, provided more value to their teams than the expectation for Campbell. I get: Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, Romo, Schaub, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, Warner, and Favre. Going back one year adds Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, and Chad Pennington (with McNabb on the very fringe), and drops Roethlisberger and Favre. I think that's a pretty exhaustive list of active players I'd take over Campbell. It's also about half the league.

I don't doubt that either Bradford or Clausen will someday be on this list of "top half" QBs. I doubt they will both be on it, just playing the probabilities. Unlikely, but certainly not impossible. The premise I'm going on is that not all of the above players were worth a top five pick.

Brady, definately. Peyton, sure, Rivers, Brees, Favre, Warner, and then maybe Pennington and Ryan are the cream of that crop. 8 active quarterbacks drafted between 1991 and 2008 might have deserved top five pick status. I'd be willing to throw Steve McNair and Trent Green onto that list as well if you want to expand it to 10 quarterbacks.

How many of the 10 were actually drafted in the first round? I count 5, including McNair. How many were actually drafted in the top five? Four of the five.

I think this shows if you're after GREAT, you're not really more likely to get GREAT performance in the first five picks than in the rest of the draft. You're very likely to get great if you pick up a Brady, Warner, or a Brees and also have great structure and talent around them. Now, performance on the whole is quite relative to draft position, so top ten quarterbacks outpeform quarterbacks from the lower half of the round, and while the second round has produced some great steals, the vast majority of second round quarterbacks are backup types.

I do not know how good Matt Ryan will be, but I think the Dolphins would have been justified taking him at No. 1 in 2008. Still, the Dolphins ended up better off not taking him, because Henne was a first round value that they took in the back end of the second round. And they got Jake Long. So given what they knew, it made sense to pass on Ryan. The Rams, on the other hand flat out made a mistake. It's fine that they wanted to work on their defense, and Chris Long is a great prospect still, but they banked heavily on Marc Bulger to bounce back and lost. He was even worse in 2008 than in 2007.

The Rams, of course, should have added offensive help via the draft if they were going to commit to Bulger. By drafting defense, even a great talent like Long, they sort of sealed Bulger's fate. 2008 was the terrible receiver year, and the Rams ended up being the first to take one, but tackles were plentiful (they would address this in 2009, but too late).

Most teams do draft most of their picks later than where they have them rated on their board. In the event that a QB comes out with tools and production (a rare combination in the age where coming out early means $), then teams shouldn't hesitate on pulling the trigger. It's key though to know that when players like this aren't around, that you have to make due with what you have.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:26 PM   #69
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat View Post
so, basically youre saying that we should reach for clausen to save us from having to do our homework to identify a good QB in the later rounds?

Also, if Clausen doesn't have a high probability of being better than Jason Campbell, a QB who is already on the team, then why a QB at all?
if you can get the better QB, take him

I'm not saying Clausen's the guy but do you want a great QB or a great QB for being picked in the 4th round?
tryfuhl is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:31 PM   #70
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359 View Post
27 Teams Passed on Marino. 32 on Brady. I'm not saying that message board types know more then scouts and GM's (God knows the wonderful trade scenarios we come out with provide undeniable proof that we are in fact inferior) but at the same time GM's and scouts constantly make mistakes. So just because Bradford is there at 4 doesn't mean that 3 teams were correct in passing him up. In fact could very well mean 3 teams were stupid in passing him up. Though in this case it's really more like 1 team since the Buc's and Lions already have made commitments to first round QB's.
Right, I agree with you, first overall types have made it as far as pick 4 in the past (specifically, Rivers). Usually after that point, there's some development to be done.

In Bradford's case, his injury kind of makes it obvious that he doesn't hold the elitist "first overall" status that I've referred to in my recent posts (frame, in this case, is a tool). While that's not the end of the argument for, or against, drafting him highly, I think it's inevitable that the time he missed forces him into the Brees/Brady/Marino developmental category, and out of the Manning/Rivers/Ryan "all-american" category (I continue to feel uncomfortable putting Ryan here after a sub-par year, but the luster of his 08 season is still pretty shiny).

And if you're going to have to wait for elite status, in a best case scenario, what are the pros of taking that investment now? We don't know that Terrell Pryor isn't going to light up the NCAA for the next two seasons, or Jacory Harris, or Ryan Mallett. The only argument I can think of for taking Bradford this high when he's not an elite prospect is that you're afraid of losing that chance to develop him to someone else. But isn't the 4th overall pick + $30 million a ridiculous price to pay for the opportunity?

It's like the Daisuke deal with Boston. I'd imagine the market value of the 4th overall pick (if you could sell draft picks on the open market) is $25-$30 million.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:32 PM   #71
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tryfuhl View Post
I'm not saying Clausen's the guy but do you want a great QB or a great QB for being picked in the 4th round?
I believe the correct answer is yes.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:35 PM   #72
Special Teams
 
ChickenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ontario,Ca
Age: 40
Posts: 274
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
Essentially, this is the crux of all my first round arguments. We're not really concerned with whether or not he'll be better or worse than Campbell. We're concerned with will he be a TOP 5 NFL quarterback by 2012. Manning, Rivers, Brees, Brady, Clausen?

If the shoe fits, draft him. But three teams are already passing on that, if he's there.
It hard to make a case that Clausen isnt going to be a very good QB, hes got all the intagables, but his attitude and skills remind me of Jay Cutler.
Out of the top 5 teams in the draft only 2 need a QB, so if hes as good as some people think hes gotta go between 1 & 5.....The skins are a 4-12 team so why not pull the trigger...roll the dice...
ChickenMonkey is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 06:40 PM   #73
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenMonkey View Post
It hard to make a case that Clausen isnt going to be a very good QB, hes got all the intagables, but his attitude and skills remind me of Jay Cutler.
Out of the top 5 teams in the draft only 2 need a QB, so if hes as good as some people think hes gotta go between 1 & 5.....The skins are a 4-12 team so why not pull the trigger...roll the dice...
If you're asking me why a 4-12 team shouldn't roll the dice high in the draft on some guy, it's because I prefer playing darts--while intoxicated--with the lights out. Personal preference, really.

If your projection for him is Cutler level, I think the reasons why he'd be a reach at no. 4 would be self-evident, but that's me.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 07:04 PM   #74
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
I just wonder where and when we will pick up the franchise QB this team has needed since the early 70's?

People suggest we take a QB in the second round, ok, we already have a QB with the talent a 2nd rounder would offer. Plus he's been in the NFL for 6yrs already. If your suggesting taking a QB next year we'll end up with the same talent we have now cause no way we do as poorly as last year and get top 10 in the draft.
There's no bonus for collecting this type of player.

Ideally, we won't be picking in the top ten next year. And it's way too early to call the quality of the class with any certainty. There's one prospect I really like (Ponder), another that really needs to have an awesome year to hold his draft position (Locker), and one guy who could go all over the map, kind of like Snead this year (Mallett), and one more name that could go anywhere from the first to the fifth (Jerrod Johnson of Texas A&M). More guys could throw their names in, but the quality of the depth of the class won't be as good as it is this year.

Which is irrelevant when it comes to projecting top ten quarterbacks. If Locker has his best year in 2010, he'll be a top prospect. Maybe a first overall type. But it has to be a great year. Ponder might get downgraded as we get closer to the draft, but he's a rare talent, I believe.

Quote:
In either situation your either wanting to stick with JC who is not bad but has not taken it to the next level over 6yrs. If we were talking about the RB spot most of you would have moved on long before now. Example: Mason. Ganther. Alridge. If this was the WR spot you would have moved on by now; example: Too many to list over the past 10 yrs, but ARE rings a bell. Name any position on this team and you can find many of players who were drafted, didn't live up or take it to their full potential, or failed to live up to their contract. Yet when it comes to JC, for whatever reason, people want to see what one more year has in store. Wait he didn't do well can we get another gimmie.

Then you scream that we need an outstanding first round offensive line. Officially no you don't. Many of teams have won SB's with less then all first round talent. But I'll give you one thing though if we did have that talent it would matter who we stuck back there caues his butt should have all day to throw the ball. I will add that JC's issues are not all centered around his not having time to throw the ball. Some of it is knowing what the defense is giving you, some of it is knowing what play would work best for what the defense is giving you and being able to adjust the protection to give yourself the best blocking in order to get the ball where it needs to be. Lastly you need an accurate QB which JC is not. Yes I know about his QB rating, his interception rating and so forth but his issue is getting the ball to the receiver. Too many times he threw dirt balls, over the receivers heads, or behind them. Not to mention he's not that great at clock management. Maybe someone can train him to be like Payton when it comes to clock management but after six years I just don't see it happening.
It's insanity to compare Campbell to Ganther/Mason/Alridge, but whatever.

You do have this rare ability to talk yourself into believing what you know to be false at the beginning of your post

Quote:
n either situation your either wanting to stick with JC who is not bad but has not taken it to the next level over 6yrs.
versus:

Quote:
Yet when it comes to JC, for whatever reason, people want to see what one more year has in store. Wait he didn't do well can we get another gimmie.
I don't think anyone is waiting to see if he can become an elite downfield passer. I just think people are averse to taking minor successes on an offense that is generally lacking of a greater purpose, and replacing it with, you know, whatever the heck that fourth overall pick can get you likeitreallymatters.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline  
Old 03-18-2010, 07:08 PM   #75
The Starter
 
budw38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern,Va.
Posts: 2,381
Re: 2010 NFL Off-Season Rumors and Reports (Week 3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359 View Post
27 Teams Passed on Marino. 32 on Brady. I'm not saying that message board types know more then scouts and GM's (God knows the wonderful trade scenarios we come out with provide undeniable proof that we are in fact inferior) but at the same time GM's and scouts constantly make mistakes. So just because Bradford is there at 4 doesn't mean that 3 teams were correct in passing him up. In fact could very well mean 3 teams were stupid in passing him up. Though in this case it's really more like 1 team since the Buc's and Lions already have made commitments to first round QB's.
Hard to imagine that Marino and D. Green were the last two players picked in rd 1 ..... 2 HOF's !
budw38 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.95769 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25