|
GusFrerotte 02-29-2012, 10:51 PM I sure hope we are interested in Nate Potter OT/OG from Boise State. The dude could start at RT right away IMO.
We need RG3 simple as that. Quit trying to go after the lesser guys shanahan! Just give up the picks and get Griffin.
Why are you ready to give up the bank for one player? I wouldn't give up the bank for Luck either. This team has no depth and most of our starting O line would be backups for the better teams in the league. Yeah go ahead and break the bank for RG III and with no O line to block for him he will result to being Vick in ATL. No thanks. Build the team right for a change. We have broken the bank trying to get the "sexy" pick only to have it blow up in our face all the time. Not knocking RG III, but we have serious holes on our fav team, and giving up mulitple first rounders or even multiple second round picks would be detrimental. Go for Tannehill or Weeden, or even Moore if it means keeping picks or gaining them. We need fresh young talent. What happens to our D if Fletcher leaves, or other stalwarts decide to bolt? Then you are in a big hole without picks in the future. RG III is a very talented guy, but so is Cam Newton and I am not sure Cam is going to win a SB in the near future if at all. A QB can't win a game on his own.
SkinzWin 02-29-2012, 10:51 PM 2012 Kirk Cousins=2011 Colin Kaepernick
Kouz (Pronounced Cuzz) Krusader just doesn't have the same ring as Kaep Krusader... :(
GusFrerotte 02-29-2012, 10:55 PM Draft Breakdown — Search Results — Kirk Cousins (http://draftbreakdown.com/?s=Kirk+Cousins)
Some good footage of cousins for those of you with some spare time on their hands.
No to any MSU QB plain and simple. I am a Michigander and a Big Ten guy, and see MSU often. I like Cousins, but I don't see him any higher than the rest of the MSU Qbs in the NFL now, backups at best. MSU QBs do well because the program always seems to recruit TO type guys at WR.
30gut 02-29-2012, 11:04 PM I agree, and even RG3 combine results were overhyped. We already knew he was going to run a fast 40 time, have a good vertical, broad jump, and interview well. The kid is a smart with a good head on his shoulders, nothing new was learned at the combine, just the media needing something to talk about.Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.
Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.
end track specific rant back to football....
redskins5044 02-29-2012, 11:15 PM Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.
Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.
end track specific rant back to football....
I just don't get why it was big news and all the talk was about how he improved his stock. To sort of quote Dennis green " he is who we thought he was". I am just tired of all these rumors and arguing about who we should draft or sign as QB. I don't even know who i prefer they get anymore, I change my mind everyday. I am glad I don't have to make the decision.
GTripp0012 02-29-2012, 11:33 PM *sighs* Skill set is not the sum of a prospect.
2 QBs can have the same physical skill set yet grade out completely differently.
For some reason you struggle with the notion of physical skill set being part of a QBs profile yet not the sum of that propsect.
Kaepernik has a much bigger arm then Griffin, Luck and Tannehill and he's at least the athletic equal to Tannehill and superior to Luck.
He's on the same tier as Griffin although not his equal.
But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/46757-yet-another-qb-rumors-thread-volume-30.html#post889702Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.
It's an irrelevant argument since you're the only guy here who starts the quarterback discussion with athleticism, and then gets involved in this quarterback virtual reality where Andrew Luck is this unremarkable first round quarterback who anyone with a good build and a good arm gets compared to.
I thought comparing Tannehill and Kaepernick was a useful way to make your point about Kaepernick being undervalued last year, but your desire to make Luck seem like "one of the guys" undermined the argument you were actually trying to make.
I disagree that NFL Network is pushing a conspiracy to compare Luck and Newton as athletes. But Luck is in that kind of class as an athlete. Whether or not he'll be a better QB than Newton is up for debate and won't be answered for many years. But we already know that this is the kind of athlete we're talking about here.
30gut 02-29-2012, 11:36 PM I just don't get why it was big news and all the talk was about how he improved his stock. To sort of quote Dennis green " he is who we thought he was". I am just tired of all these rumors and arguing about who we should draft or sign as QB. I don't even know who i prefer they get anymore, I change my mind everyday. I am glad I don't have to make the decision.I hear yah.
But at the end of the day its the media's job to sell things.
Yelling about Griffin/Luck is an easy way to sell the combine to the casual fan.
Fact of the matter is that coaches/exec/scouts all a test to the fact that the 2 most important events at the combines don't occur on the field: medical and interviews.
The whole 'player X stock rose' is hot air.
And I'm sure real scouts hate it.
They literally work all year round tracking these players, talking to their coaches, friends, girlfriends, watching film, going to practices the idea that all their work is less important then a few ours in Indy is silly.
The only 'stock' that jumps at the combine is media 'scout' perceptions which are feed by the same coaches/execs/scouts and enter player agents lying throw their teeth to the media 'scouts' to get their message/agenda out there.
44Deezel 02-29-2012, 11:41 PM Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.
Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.
end track specific rant back to football....
How fast is Eli? I'll take some of that;)
Dirtbag59 02-29-2012, 11:45 PM Why are you ready to give up the bank for one player? I wouldn't give up the bank for Luck either. This team has no depth and most of our starting O line would be backups for the better teams in the league. Yeah go ahead and break the bank for RG III and with no O line to block for him he will result to being Vick in ATL. No thanks. Build the team right for a change. We have broken the bank trying to get the "sexy" pick only to have it blow up in our face all the time. Not knocking RG III, but we have serious holes on our fav team, and giving up mulitple first rounders or even multiple second round picks would be detrimental. Go for Tannehill or Weeden, or even Moore if it means keeping picks or gaining them. We need fresh young talent. What happens to our D if Fletcher leaves, or other stalwarts decide to bolt? Then you are in a big hole without picks in the future. RG III is a very talented guy, but so is Cam Newton and I am not sure Cam is going to win a SB in the near future if at all. A QB can't win a game on his own.
The result in Atlanta was the #1 rushing attack with a below average offensive line and a QB that wasn't much of a threat to throw due to his inability to put in the time and effort to learn the playbook. A QB who by his very presence alone opened running lanes for the Backs off the cutback lanes.
And keep in mind RG3 went 9-3 at Baylor. A school that typically got the in state leftovers from Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU while competing with SMU for those final scraps of the Texas High School football landscape.
I can't believe we would pass up the chance to pick a once in a decade QB because we weren't happy with our current situation at RT and LG. It is infinity easier to fill those positions then it is to fill the QB spot.
Heck if our offensive line is as bad as we think it is then we need RG3 as no QB extended and completed more plays last year after protection broke down then RG3. And believe me behind that Baylor O-Line protection broke down plenty.
Quantity does not equal quality.
GTripp0012 02-29-2012, 11:50 PM I can't believe we would pass up the chance to pick a once in a decade QB because we weren't happy with our current situation at RT and LG. It is infinity easier to fill those positions then it is to fill the QB spot.This easily falls in the category of nitpicking, but I have a tough time seeing how a once in a decade QB would be available with the second pick in his own draft. And how the team with the second pick would then trade the pick because "you know what, we're good!"
|