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

We need to set up two Threads one Rumors & Reports & the other Opinions & change them weekly.

Playing it safe is one way to look at it, but a clear, decisive plan for improvement at our weakest position would be another.

What frustrates me is when people say: let's take a chance on a quarterback. There are a lot of people who have an irrational man crush on Sam Bradford, but at the very least, those people are convinced that if you do get him, the rest will fall into place. And as wrongheaded as I think the logic is, I can respect the sentiment.

If you're "taking a chance" on a guy that high, you're setting your team up for failure, I think. Some people believe the draft is a crapshoot. If the draft is a crapshoot, I don't think a QB at No. 4 can be defensed. You really do have to know what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, taking a chance on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as finding a way to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.

I have no problem with an intelligent, disciplined approach to building the team. And I utterly agree with you on the difference between "knowing" a player will help and "taking a chance" that a player will help.

But several people here argue, essentially, that when it comes to our first pick we should "play it safe," aka "play not to lose." I don't think that playing not to lose is helpful either on a Sunday or on draft Thursday. In both cases, you play to win. Playing not to lose just leaves you at 8-8 or 4-12.

Ehhhhhh.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I just don't think there's a guy in that bunch I'd support taking in the top five.

If there was one, it'd be Stafford most likely, but dude has some serious accuracy issues with the football that might prevent him from being anything more than passable.

I had a second round grade on Stafford compared to mid-to-late firsts on both Clausen and Bradford, and a fourth on Sanchez. But if there was one guy I would knowingly overdraft based on intangibles, it'd be Stafford (Detroit might have done just this).

i think your grades may on stafford and sanchez may be a bit harsh, but the part i bolded is my main point - when a team has a pick this high, they can't afford to screw it up. sure, any player at any position can pose a risk, but clausen and bradford are simply too great of a risk.

I agree that taking a tackle high is generally safer than taking a QB high. That said, it is not perfectly safe.

But that is not my real argument here. My real argument is that we have sucked for some time, were especially bad last year, and have a new regime. Because of this, perhaps now is the time when we should be least worried about playing things safe. Maybe some draft daring is just what we need. Not stupid picks, of course, but not playing it safe, either.

In other words, why worry too much about what is "safe"? Because otherwise we might finish 3-13 instead of 4-12?

So far, the team has played it safe in free agency, and youre suggesting taking chances in the draft? if anything, a team should take chances in free agency (where the risk is always smaller) and play it safe in the draft. you obviously recognize the difference between taking chances and being stupid. Drafting Bradford or Clausen at 4 falls into the later category. Both are reaches in the top 5, and Clausen is a reach in the top 15. I acknowledge that Bradford and Clausen could end up being the next Brady and Manning, but theres a far greater chance they'll end up as busts... especially behind our line. If our team had a solid, established line, playmakers at WR and RB positions, and a proven defense good at generating turnovers, then, the story might be different. But taking a chance on a QB now would be like trying to install a pimp home theater system in a house that didnt have a its foundation, roof, or walls completed yet. we need to build a solid foundation by making smart, calculated, lower risk moves. Once we've done that, then, lets start taking some risks.

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.

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.

Is anyone concerned we're looking at Tony Mandarich 2.0 in Russell Okung?

Russell is not on the juice.

Stafford/Sanchez >>>>> Bradford/Clausen

WOW...You're saying they're both worse than Sanchez? Major insult!

Playing it safe is one way to look at it, but a clear, decisive plan for improvement at our weakest position would be another.

What frustrates me is when people say: let's take a chance on a quarterback. There are a lot of people who have an irrational man crush on Sam Bradford, but at the very least, those people are convinced that if you do get him, the rest will fall into place. And as wrongheaded as I think the logic is, I can respect the sentiment.

If you're "taking a chance" on a guy that high, you're setting your team up for failure, I think. Some people believe the draft is a crapshoot. If the draft is a crapshoot, I don't think a QB at No. 4 can be defensed. You really do have to know what you are getting this high. Which is why, in my mind, taking a chance on Okung is not verbage I'd ever use. I prefer to look at it as finding a way to land the guy who will make us better the fastest.

Umm, I think any and all positions are a crapshoot. No different then Okung having an upside so does Bradford and Clausen. But all the drafties have a down side... no one actually knows how well they will perform in the NFL or with the scheme their team will be running.

I'm starting to think there's less downside for the Skins to go ahead and draft Clausen, package Campbell et al to move up in the second to draft another tackle, rather than take a Okung or Williams with the first pick and mine for a quality prospect at QB in the later rounds.

I think there might be less room between the top 5-8 tackles than there is between, say, the top 5 quarterback prospects. After Clausen and Bradford are off the boards, a team would have to have done their homework to pin point who's the third best quarterback in the draft, if there is one.

i think your grades may on stafford and sanchez may be a bit harsh, but the part i bolded is my main point - when a team has a pick this high, they can't afford to screw it up. sure, any player at any position can pose a risk, but clausen and bradford are simply too great of a risk.

So far, the team has played it safe in free agency, and youre suggesting taking chances in the draft? if anything, a team should take chances in free agency (where the risk is always smaller) and play it safe in the draft. you obviously recognize the difference between taking chances and being stupid. Drafting Bradford or Clausen at 4 falls into the later category. Both are reaches in the top 5, and Clausen is a reach in the top 15. I acknowledge that Bradford and Clausen could end up being the next Brady and Manning, but theres a far greater chance they'll end up as busts... especially behind our line. If our team had a solid, established line, playmakers at WR and RB positions, and a proven defense good at generating turnovers, then, the story might be different. But taking a chance on a QB now would be like trying to install a pimp home theater system in a house that didnt have a its foundation, roof, or walls completed yet. we need to build a solid foundation by making smart, calculated, lower risk moves. Once we've done that, then, lets start taking some risks.

I mean no offense but that is precisely the kind of thinking that I don't get. It amounts to:
"We're 4-12. Now is not the time to step up and grab a player who could be a fine franchise QB for years to come."

It seems to me that 4-12 is the perfect time to step up and make bold moves. I just don't get that "we have to play it safe" thinking.

Again, I am not counseling foolhardy stupidity, but calculated, educated risks seem like exactly what we need.

WOW...You're saying they're both worse than Sanchez? Major insult!

not really. Sanchez got better and better as the seaosn progressed. he'll be a pro-bowlder by his third year... i don't think its smart to make QBs start right away, although it seems thats what alot of teams are doing now.