JoeRedskin
05-27-2015, 02:53 PM
Then every draft every year is filled with mistakes.
I really don't get the point you are trying to convey. I think this is what your OP and basis for this thread is:
Given: the qb's we have on the roster before the draft aren't likely to be successful.
Belief: we should have used at least one pick on a qb in the draft.
Result: the fact that we didn't was a bad decision by those doing the drafting.
Is that right?
That has been my understanding based on 30gut's posts. So allow me to beat a dead horse further.
(1) The assumed premise of the query has been a subject of much debate and, at its core, this thread is just another way for 30gut to flog this particular dead horse. I for one don't accept the premise as absolute. I don't disagree that last year's performance at the QB position was beyond problematic. At the same time, and for reasons I (and others) have stated many times in many other threads, I don't believe the poor performance by RGIII and KC over the last two years is proof positive of their inability to succeed in the NFL. Thus, for me (and I assume many others), their is a certain pointlessness to debating the inevitably speculative question posed about draft values based off a premise with which I simply do not accept as a given.
(2) For the sake of argument, even if the assumed premise is true, the facts of the current QB situation and the options available in this draft did not make taking a QB in this year's draft a necessity. Bottom line, for this year, we have three guys who can play QB. Maybe not well, but they can play and do not automatically doom us to a loss - each has won games at this level. Further, outside of "mortgaging the future" for JW or MM, or an incredible stroke of Tom Brady lightning, no QB drafted was likely to perform as a starter this year at better level than one of the three already on the roster (If you disagree with this presumption, fine. However, I would suggest that this is a substantially less debatable premise than your "none of our current QB's will succeed" premise).
As such, the implied assertion in the OP that "we should have used at least one pick on a qb in the draft" is premised upon two assumptions that are incredibly speculative: (1) there was a developmental QB in the draft that could displace one of the existing QB's on the roster and (2) the QB was available at a place in the draft where his value exceeded the value of the player actually taken.
To me, any response to this assertion is speculation upon speculation and for the OP'er to condemn folks for speculating in response to a question that cannot be answered in any way but through speculation is somewhat hypocritical. Who knows? Inevitably there will be pro bowl players passed over for guys who end up out of the league in a couple years (DeJon Gomes twelve picks before Richard Sherman comes to mind).
(3) The implied conclusion of the OP - that the failure to take a QB was a mistake/missed opportunity/whatever - is reached only through rank speculation based on a much debated premise. I mean, if it's your opinion, fine. You're entitled. However, passing off the OP as an invitation to dialogue is really nothing more than rhetorical chicanery.
Let me some up the entire thread for you:
(1) 30gut (and others) think RGIII, KC and CM suck and need to be replaced ASAP.
(2) Many people disagree.
I really don't get the point you are trying to convey. I think this is what your OP and basis for this thread is:
Given: the qb's we have on the roster before the draft aren't likely to be successful.
Belief: we should have used at least one pick on a qb in the draft.
Result: the fact that we didn't was a bad decision by those doing the drafting.
Is that right?
That has been my understanding based on 30gut's posts. So allow me to beat a dead horse further.
(1) The assumed premise of the query has been a subject of much debate and, at its core, this thread is just another way for 30gut to flog this particular dead horse. I for one don't accept the premise as absolute. I don't disagree that last year's performance at the QB position was beyond problematic. At the same time, and for reasons I (and others) have stated many times in many other threads, I don't believe the poor performance by RGIII and KC over the last two years is proof positive of their inability to succeed in the NFL. Thus, for me (and I assume many others), their is a certain pointlessness to debating the inevitably speculative question posed about draft values based off a premise with which I simply do not accept as a given.
(2) For the sake of argument, even if the assumed premise is true, the facts of the current QB situation and the options available in this draft did not make taking a QB in this year's draft a necessity. Bottom line, for this year, we have three guys who can play QB. Maybe not well, but they can play and do not automatically doom us to a loss - each has won games at this level. Further, outside of "mortgaging the future" for JW or MM, or an incredible stroke of Tom Brady lightning, no QB drafted was likely to perform as a starter this year at better level than one of the three already on the roster (If you disagree with this presumption, fine. However, I would suggest that this is a substantially less debatable premise than your "none of our current QB's will succeed" premise).
As such, the implied assertion in the OP that "we should have used at least one pick on a qb in the draft" is premised upon two assumptions that are incredibly speculative: (1) there was a developmental QB in the draft that could displace one of the existing QB's on the roster and (2) the QB was available at a place in the draft where his value exceeded the value of the player actually taken.
To me, any response to this assertion is speculation upon speculation and for the OP'er to condemn folks for speculating in response to a question that cannot be answered in any way but through speculation is somewhat hypocritical. Who knows? Inevitably there will be pro bowl players passed over for guys who end up out of the league in a couple years (DeJon Gomes twelve picks before Richard Sherman comes to mind).
(3) The implied conclusion of the OP - that the failure to take a QB was a mistake/missed opportunity/whatever - is reached only through rank speculation based on a much debated premise. I mean, if it's your opinion, fine. You're entitled. However, passing off the OP as an invitation to dialogue is really nothing more than rhetorical chicanery.
Let me some up the entire thread for you:
(1) 30gut (and others) think RGIII, KC and CM suck and need to be replaced ASAP.
(2) Many people disagree.