Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:28 pm  

El Pac Carnegie wrote:

Team's can win without a franchise QB. We have a top notch RB and pretty much nothing else. Putting a shed load of money into a rookie QB who will get hit from pillar to post in his 1st season with to little to no talent around him just seems like a bad idea to me. Strengthen the rest of the team and maybe look at QB's next season when we will be picking in the 1st 5 or 10 again. From the stuff I've read i really want us to take Suh and maybe, if he drops to the 2nd, Clausen. Though i still think we should be looking to strengthen elsewhere.

It's your opinion but i just think it is ridiculous on so many levels.

Teams can win without a franchise/elite player at any position but QB is more important and the correlation is there between succesful teams and first round/early picks at QB.

Your putting a shed load of money in to a QB but didn't you give a shed load of money last year in a LT. Why not give the guy a job to do. You could make the case by your logic that he was the wrong pick as he had nobody worthwhile to protect so get other positions and then a LT when the rest of your team is built.

You passed on QB's to get "safe" defensive picks in the past and investing YET ANOTHER first round pick on the D-line is not worthwhile from a financial standpoint.

You go the way your suggesting and you get just decent enough to be good enough to just move out of range for the top QB's and your mediocre forever. No QB this year because you could get Locker next year? What if you don't? There is going to come a point when you need a QB and if you think Bradford/Clausen have "it" then you have to take one of them this year and even potentially sit them for a year and learn the ropes.

Even if it is not the most pressing need (although i think QB is for you) you have to take one if you think they are going to be great. Take us and Rodgers for example. We didn't need a QB but we thought he had it so we pulled the trigger and it's paid dividends down the road.

El Pac Carnegie wrote:

BTW whats the deal with Clausen in mock drafts. I've seen him go in the top 5 in some and not even go in the 1st in others!

He's just divisive. He played for Notre Damme who are vastly hated by everybody. If he played for USC (for example) he'd be without doubt rated the best. He is far better than Bradford and has no injury concerns so i don't know really. I think he should be who you guys select.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:28 pm  

Rapoport at 4:22 PM:
I am being cautioned on the potential Patriots-Anquan Boldin trade. If anything is imminent, the people aren't ready to say it. Nothing yet
great news, now if the Olsen trade happens the draft will be Defence only (re-sign Bodden too please Bill )

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:45 pm  

ST_CONROY wrote:

It's your opinion but i just think it is ridiculous on so many levels.

Teams can win without a franchise/elite player at any position but QB is more important and the correlation is there between succesful teams and first round/early picks at QB.

Your putting a shed load of money in to a QB but didn't you give a shed load of money last year in a LT. Why not give the guy a job to do. You could make the case by your logic that he was the wrong pick as he had nobody worthwhile to protect so get other positions and then a LT when the rest of your team is built.

You passed on QB's to get "safe" defensive picks in the past and investing YET ANOTHER first round pick on the D-line is not worthwhile from a financial standpoint.

You go the way your suggesting and you get just decent enough to be good enough to just move out of range for the top QB's and your mediocre forever. No QB this year because you could get Locker next year? What if you don't? There is going to come a point when you need a QB and if you think Bradford/Clausen have "it" then you have to take one of them this year and even potentially sit them for a year and learn the ropes.

Even if it is not the most pressing need (although i think QB is for you) you have to take one if you think they are going to be great. Take us and Rodgers for example. We didn't need a QB but we thought he had it so we pulled the trigger and it's paid dividends down the road.
He's just divisive. He played for Notre Damme who are vastly hated by everybody. If he played for USC (for example) he'd be without doubt rated the best. He is far better than Bradford and has no injury concerns so i don't know really. I think he should be who you guys select.

I get where your coming from. I just think we have a better chance of doing something if we focus on our D and play possession football with Jackson carrying the load. Wherever you look on our team we have holes, i honestly don't think we have a "most pressing need" as all areas, bar RB, are weak. I look at someone like Suh and the reports I've read and i think he gives us a chance to build something special on defence. A rookie QB is going to need a seriously improved line and some talent at WR. We ain't going to be able to get all that in one go this off season.
I also don't think you can really compare taking Rodgers to us taking a QB. Yes Rodgers was taken in round 1 but there is a hell of a difference in pressure between pick 1 and pick 24. Realistically whatever we do this offseason we are going to win 4-5 games at the most next season. It's all up to Spag's anyways, though if we do take Clausen or Bradford i think we trade the number 1 pick

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:48 pm  

Schefter has just posted that we have signed AJ Feeley, the ex-Philly backup QB. Not that that will make any difference to our starting QB plans for next season i would hope

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:52 pm  

Not sure if it's been posted but Marshall looks to be on his way to the Seahawks.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:53 pm  

Patriots pull out of the race to sign Boldin after becoming favourites to get him what the hell is Belichik doing

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:01 pm  

El Pac Carnegie wrote:

I also don't think you can really compare taking Rodgers to us taking a QB. Yes Rodgers was taken in round 1 but there is a hell of a difference in pressure between pick 1 and pick 24. Realistically whatever we do this offseason we are going to win 4-5 games at the most next season. It's all up to Spag's anyways, though if we do take Clausen or Bradford i think we trade the number 1 pick

I'm only comparing in the sense that if you think they are going to be a franchise QB now or in the future then you need to take them no matter what your need is. Comparing you to anything should be the Lions when they took Stafford. They have multiple needs but they took the QB and it's worked. They have a belief about them now and are building around him.

I can see what your saying and you may be potentially right in that you take Suh, but again. If Suh pans out and you get to slightly OK then your going to get to a level where your still poor but out of the range of the top QB. Also i think there is a greater drop off from the top QB's to the second tier of QBs than from top DT's to the second tier of DT's.

If you have that many needs why not take the best player at the most important position?

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:15 pm  

ST_CONROY wrote:

I'm only comparing in the sense that if you think they are going to be a franchise QB now or in the future then you need to take them no matter what your need is. Comparing you to anything should be the Lions when they took Stafford. They have multiple needs but they took the QB and it's worked. They have a belief about them now and are building around him.

I can see what your saying and you may be potentially right in that you take Suh, but again. If Suh pans out and you get to slightly OK then your going to get to a level where your still poor but out of the range of the top QB. Also i think there is a greater drop off from the top QB's to the second tier of QBs than from top DT's to the second tier of DT's.

If you have that many needs why not take the best player at the most important position?

My understanding was that Detroit took the best player, on their boards, in the draft in Stafford. They have said that they will again take the best player on their board regardless of position this year. We are crap for the long haul. Even if Suh has an all-pro year chances are we still pick in the 1st 10 next season. We are 2 years away from been competitive. I just want us to take the best players available to us regardless of position at the moment. I trust Spags to turn us around if he is given the time and will stand by whatever decision he takes.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Fri Mar 05, 2010 11:25 pm  

Done deal: Arizona trades WR Anquan Boldin and a 2010 fifth-round pick to Baltimore for Ravens 2010 third- and fourth-round picks.

From Adam Schefter's Twitter. On a smaller note Jim Sorgi, Peyton Mannings backup, has been released by the Colts.

Re: NFL Chat 3 : Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:02 am  

El Pac Carnegie wrote:

Done deal: Arizona trades WR Anquan Boldin and a 2010 fifth-round pick to Baltimore for Ravens 2010 third- and fourth-round picks.

He's got a new 4 year deal with it too.

EDIT:

Pats have re-signed Vince Wilfork - 5 years, $40M ($25 GTD) Best news of the day fairly cheap too 5m a year guaranteed.