Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=DCtoAZ;778944]Newton is on a rocket ship and it's headed right for DC ... i change my opinion on this guy on a day to day basis[/quote]

I do also lol Actually I wouldn't mind drafting him SHIT why not?? This team needs a Young Star to come in and have high expectations

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=30gut;778734]Which was my point all along, there is a context to the stats and if you look only at the stats you miss the evaluation.


Again were back to a looking at the stats.
If the stats were the sum of his ability then according to your view it would be long odds for Locker to improve his comp%.

When you repeatedly avoid the question about how many Washington games you've watched leads me to believe that you haven't seen Locker play very often.
If stats were excluded from the discussion and we just look at Locker as a prospect i bet you would have a different opinion of him; especially his accuracy.

HTTR![/quote]I don't think we can just ignore what Locker's statistics say just because they don't always match up with the film. It's hard to make any completely conclusive statements based on only statistics, but I would argue that "Jake Locker is not worthy of the 10th overall selection" is one of those statements.

That's to say nothing of where his value might actually lie, I was just trying to point out that even though you might sometimes have to talk about stats, I can isolate a single statistic from the rest of the picture and show how rare it is for someone who can't complete passes to be successful. Rare does not equal impossible: Doug Williams had multiple valuable years where he was at the bottom of the league in comp %. That's not to avoid context, but I don't believe you can view that point as valueless and still remain intellectually honest.

If a GREAT team were to take a flyer on Jake Locker and then tear him down and try to rebuild his mechanics, maybe you get a different player entirely. But even in such a hypothetical, you're already given the benefit of a strong organizations, and with the exception of maybe the 2009 Packers, strong organizations don't pick in the top ten unless they pick up a pick from a lesser organization.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

Rather than draft Newton I'd rather wait and draft Tyrod Taylor in the 4th round. I watched enough of both this year. They're the same player. Newton is taller. Tyrod is more experienced. That's it.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=FRPLG;778959]Rather than draft Newton I'd rather wait and draft Tyrod Taylor in the 4th round. I watched enough of both this year. They're the same player. Newton is taller. Tyrod is more experienced. That's it.[/quote]

And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;778960]And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?[/quote]

Some folks really need to look before they ramble on :smashfrea

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=FRPLG;778959]Rather than draft Newton I'd rather wait and draft Tyrod Taylor in the 4th round. I watched enough of both this year. They're the same player. Newton is taller. Tyrod is more experienced. That's it.[/quote]


LMAO now thats funny... Good Joke man :lol:

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;778962]LMAO now thats funny... Good Joke man :lol:[/quote]

It's no joke. Cam Newton is no NFL QB. Put it down. I kept trying all season to see him as a better version of Vince Young. One with a better head. All I saw was an athletic kid on a crazy talented team who'll get eaten alive in the NFL where he isn't nearly the athlete nor the passer Vick was when he came out.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;778960]And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?[/quote]

Haha...it was less of an actual idea than a point.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

I've decided to go with Locker. He might be a bit risky for #10 overall, but he is one of the top five college passers I have ever seen throwing on the run and he isn't afraid to target covered receivers a la Drew Brees(the best I have ever seen in this regard).

No matter how well a cb covers in the NFL an elite qb can set up the receiver to win the battle a vast majority of the time.

Most NFL qb's don't target covered receivers a la Jason Campbell. The reason is that their brains don't function fast enough and or they are pussies and or they just don't have the elite qb gene. I think this guy might have it.

He also has size, ridiculous speed and a big arm.

He fits the system.

I say go for it Shanahan.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

As long as we're talking about players who vastly underacheived expectations in 2010, I like Texas A&M's Jerrod Johnson as a 6th or 7th round project. I think he has a lot of Tyrod Taylor's skill set, but with way less of the steep curve that's ahead of teams who look at Taylor as a future NFL starter.

Taylor is a lot like Troy Smith coming out of college. 4 years later, Smith really still plays like a successful college QB instead of a long-term pro prospect. There's nothing inherent to suggest that Taylor is doomed to the same fate: I could see him being a great pro player. But having the complete skill set isn't a guarantee of NFL success.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=wilsowilso;778968]I've decided to go with Locker. He might be a bit risky for #10 overall, but he is one of the top five college passers I have ever seen on the run and he isn't afraid to target covered receivers a la Drew Brees(the best I have ever seen in this regard).

No matter how well a cb covers in the NFL an elite qb can set up the receiver to win the battle a vast majority of the time.

Most NFL qb's don't target covered receivers a la Jason Campbell. The reason is the are pussies and don't have the elite qb gene. I think this guy might have it.

He also has size, ridiculous speed and a big arm.

I say go for it Shanahan.[/quote]Locker does throw really well on the run and across his body. It's just that I loathe his pocket ability, or lack thereof.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;778969]As long as we're talking about players who vastly underacheived expectations in 2010, I like Texas A&M's Jerrod Johnson as a 6th or 7th round project. I think he has a lot of Tyrod Taylor's skill set, but with way less of the steep curve that's ahead of teams who look at Taylor as a future NFL starter.

Taylor is a lot like Troy Smith coming out of college. 4 years later, Smith really still plays like a successful college QB instead of a long-term pro prospect. There's nothing inherent to suggest that Taylor is doomed to the same fate: I could see him being a great pro player. But having the complete skill set isn't a guarantee of NFL success.[/quote]I don't think much of Taylor's success as a QB in the NFL. I've watched enough of both he and Newton to realize the two are quite indistinguishable from each on the field other than their height.

But taking a flyer on Taylor in the 4th (I knew and know we don't have one) seems like a helluva better deal than drafting Cam Newton at 10. We don't have the luxury of drafting players with gigantic potential downsides like he does.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SkinzWin;778921]I was just hypothesizing this based on the possibility of trading for what people are assuming we would get those players for. I know we obviously can not do that if we don't have the picks to do it with. Positive thoughts. If you think it, it will happen....[/quote]

Yeah, I agree and I was not picking on you. I hope that positive thinking works.

But the reality right now is that we are not trading players for picks until a CBA gets done and no one knows when that will be.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;778970]Locker does throw really well on the run and across his body. It's just that I loathe his pocket ability, or lack thereof.[/quote]

I didn't get to see a lot of Locker. What I did see didn't give me the warm fuzzies. He didn't appear to be much of a play maker in the pocket and their offense was rather stagnant because it seemed pretty basic. I didn't notice that he had great command and/or good recognition. All-in-all he looked like a tools guy rather than a heady-tools guy. You can coach up tools...coaching up heady is pretty damn hard.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=Buster;778931]Ponder would be the QB I'd like to get, but not at #10.[/quote]

I agree. I was playing along with the premise of the thread.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=FRPLG;778967]Haha...it was less of an actual idea than a point.[/quote]

Damnit. I was hoping we'd engage in a Gut-Tripp battle. But you can't even humor me there

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

The toughest obsticle for a late-round prospect to overcome is a lack of height. I don't think being short is a deal breaker if you go high and you find a coaching staff and organization that believes in you: Brees' 67% completion mark with NO proves that you can create a system that shorter players who are accurate can excel in. But you don't have that advantage if you are short and have to come in and take your lumps backing up in a pro-style offense behind a more traditional quarterback.

So in the later rounds, I look for taller players who have quick releases and can project well. In the earlier rounds, I want the entire package with very few flaws.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;778978]Damnit. I was hoping we'd engage in a Gut-Tripp battle. But you can't even humor me there[/quote]I'd like to go 6,000 words on the existence and role of the draft fairy, but only if you'll oblige.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

Newton with the 10th this year and Pryor with the 13th next year, slap #2 on both. I feel like Matt Millen now!

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;778979]In the earlier rounds, I want the entire package with very few flaws.[/quote]

The bust rate for top tier NFL prospect QB's has always been and will always be high.

Why is that?

Professional evaluators f this transition up at an astronomical rate.

Me thinks the evaluation PACKAGE for half of these talent projecting clowns is terribly flawed.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;778981]I'd like to go 6,000 words on the existence and role of the draft fairy, but only if you'll oblige.[/quote]

I'm afraid you actually would

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=FRPLG;778973]I don't think much of Taylor's success as a QB in the NFL. I've watched enough of both he and Newton to realize the two are quite indistinguishable from each on the field other than their height.

But taking a flyer on Taylor in the 4th (I knew and know we don't have one) seems like a helluva better deal than drafting Cam Newton at 10. [B]We don't have the luxury of drafting players with gigantic potential downsides like he does.[/B][/quote]Your bottom line is why Newton probably isn't a good investment at number ten. We have one other example of a Gus Malzahn QB going to the next level, with Mitch Mustain going from high school to division I college. Mustain couldn't get to the top of the depth chart at two different schools.

Newton, from the pocket, is probably the strongest player in the draft. He's got a quick release, and is accurate. He does not make particularly great decisions, and for a guy who played in a one-two read system in college, he's not as good before the snap as I would like. I think he's good enough, but if I'm using the 10th overall pick, I'd like more than "good enough" to possibly make it at the pros.

Gabbert, to me, gives me everything I'm looking for in a top ten quarterback. If he's gone, I think we need to look elsewhere. Ryan Mallett would be a small reach at no. 10 and I see no reason to think Shanahan interested, but Mallett would be defensible if Gabbert is gone. I'd find it hard to get too excited if we drafted Mallett. I'd rather have Ponder.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=wilsowilso;778985]The bust rate for top tier NFL prospect QB's has always been and will always be high.

Why is that?

Professional evaluators f this transition up at an astronomical rate.

Me thinks the evaluation PACKAGE for half of these talent projecting clowns is terribly flawed.[/quote]Methinks you're right.

Some guys who are drafted high were just poor college players (Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Matt Stafford). QB Demand usually exceeds the number of quality prospects. That's the other reason.

There are good prospects in this draft. I just feel like of the 3 or 4 first rounders, you're really going to take 1 or 2 who deserve to go that high, and 2 others who just don't measure up because teams NEED someone who can be the face of their organization and can't wait.

Which is to say, there are better players later on in the draft, but those players aren't always distinguishable from each other (and I think teams know this), and so teams with needs shrink the supply to just 3 or 4 guys, and don't give anyone else a chance. I could say "Cam Newton's body of work says third-fourth round pick", and I'd probably be right. But you take one look at Cam Newton, and you KNOW he's going in the first round. Some team will fall in love with him. He brings tangible skills that you can't get later.

That's why a draft is usually only going to produce 1, maybe 2 guys who get second contracts with their teams.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=Lotus;778880]I wonder if we should be thinking about the 3rd or 4th rounds, where we have no picks. Certainly we might get more picks in trades. But with the CBA uncertainty, there is a chance that there will be no trading of players until after the draft. What this means is that we might get only 2012 draft picks in trades.[/quote]

All I was really responding to was the fan upset that we could not simply answer the question as posted with out all the extra diatribe. Unfortunately the QB I like and would like to see the Skins pick up was not on the list. Which is why I originally gave a diatribe about what I'd do with the #10 pick. So I gave him the simple answer .... I'd take Andy Dalton.

On another note I mention taking a OL cause we have need there and people say that's too high. I mention taking a NT and other people say that's too high. I mention LB/DE and people say that's too high.

So can anyone please tell me what's appropriate to take in the first round without saying WR, CB, and RB? Is FS a safe answer cause we have need there also.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

Jake Locker

I think this guy will be our franchise QB and the undisputed leader on offense within a couple of years!!!

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

also for those who just don't get it, if you selected "other" we were to explain who and why. My other choice was Dalton, I explained why. He's clearly a 3rd or 4th round pick unless something changes. So I explained that I'd take a different position so I wouldn't get blasted with "that's too high to take him."

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=cdskins26;778794]Locker or newton will be successful on the redskins if they are properly coached by shannahans. If either are subject to what campbell went through, they probably will do the same thing, and be a mediocre starter. Start them when they are ready, and build the team around them.[/quote]

hear hear...well...maybe not Locker...because he didnt perform well against top competition...while Cam Newton did.....See the Alabama game....on the road!

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[url=http://www.csnwashington.com/01/18/11/Both-studs-and-duds-picked-at-No-10/landing.html?blockID=393139&feedID=6355]Studs and duds picked at No. 10[/url]

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;778956]I don't think we can just ignore what Locker's statistics say just [U][I][B]because they don't always match up with the film[/B][/I][/U]. It's hard to make any completely conclusive statements based on only statistics, but I would argue that "Jake Locker is not worthy of the 10th overall selection" is one of those statements.[/quote]
The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade.
The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?
[quote]I can isolate a single statistic from the rest of the picture and show how rare it is for someone who can't complete passes to be successful.[/quote]
You [I][B]think[/B][/I] you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.

[quote]If a GREAT team were to take a flyer on Jake Locker and then tear him down and try to rebuild his mechanics, maybe you get a different player entirely.[/quote]
This is another empty statement that could be used for any QB w/o support.
One could insert Gabbert's name in place of Locker above and the statement would still be valid.

BTW-You seem to value stats correct? Well look at the efficiency.
Gabbert and Locker despite the void in their team's talent levels have about the same efficieny rating.

I'm gonna let this discussion go b/c its pointless.
But, you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.

[quote=GTripp0012;778987] He does not make particularly great decisions, and for a guy who played in a [B][I]one-two read system[/I][/B] in college, [I][B]he's not as good before the snap[/B][/I] as I would like. I think he's good enough, but if I'm using the 10th overall pick, I'd like more than "good enough" to possibly make it at the pros.

Gabbert, to me, gives me everything I'm looking for in a top ten quarterback. If he's gone, I think we need to look elsewhere. Ryan Mallett would be a small reach at no. 10 and I see no reason to think Shanahan interested, but Mallett would be defensible if Gabbert is gone. I'd find it hard to get too excited if we drafted Mallett. I'd rather have Ponder.[/quote]

Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SBXVII;778994]All I was really responding to was the fan upset that we could not simply answer the question as posted with out all the extra diatribe. Unfortunately the QB I like and would like to see the Skins pick up was not on the list. Which is why I originally gave a diatribe about what I'd do with the #10 pick. So I gave him the simple answer .... I'd take Andy Dalton.

On another note I mention taking a OL cause we have need there and people say that's too high. I mention taking a NT and other people say that's too high. I mention LB/DE and people say that's too high.

So can anyone please tell me what's appropriate to take in the first round without saying WR, CB, and RB? Is FS a safe answer cause we have need there also.[/quote]This isn't rocket science. Players 5-15 on Mel Kiper's Big Board are:

5. Marcell Dareus, DE, Alabama
6. Prince Amukamara, CB, Nebraska
7. Robert Quinn, DE/OLB, North Carolina
8. Blaine Gabbert, QB, Missouri
9. Von Miller, OLB, Texas A&M
10. Julio Jones, WR, Alabama
11. Nate Solder, OT, Colorado
12. Akeem Ayers, OLB, UCLA
13. Ryan Kerrigan, DE, Purdue
14. Aldon Smith, OLB, Missouri
15. Cam Newton, QB, Auburn

And there you have it. 11 players will can realistically be available at no. 10, but wouldn't be a reach at the same spot. The internet can do this!

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

Trade down and focus on our offensive line.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

I have not said that you are wrong or I am (unconditionally) right, just that I feel I have no reason to change my opinion of Locker based on anything you've argued.[quote=30gut;779006]The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade. The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?[/quote]Ugh. This is a particularly shameless post because it came after you criticized me for being more concerned with being right on the bottom line grade than being thorough. I told you that criticism was fair, but you might as well not bother being surprised when a struggling college player becomes a bad pro.[quote]You [I][B]think[/B][/I] you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.[/quote]You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.

It's simply not a convincing methodology. I've been adamant that people need to realize that you've interpreted the evidence one way, but that I still feel it points strongly in another direction. I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.[quote]you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.[/quote]Look, I know you asked me point-blank how many Washington games I watched and didn't give an answer, but I've also given you no reason to believe this which you have stated above. I could have answered your loaded question, but decided that the debate would be better if I was treated as neither an expert nor an amateur on the subject. I didn't want to say "I've seen 11 complete Washington games," or "I've just watched watched the bowl game and jumped to conclusions". Neither statement is true, nor particularly relevant.

The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture.

I claim not to be an expert, just very good at what I do. You're desire to try to get information solely for the desire of labeling me (as you did above when I didn't answer) was probably more shameless than I think you intended. It is my only personal criticism in this exchange.[quote]Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.[/quote]Fine. Well argued.

There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;778960]And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?[/quote]

I'll tell you where. Via ___________________ in a draft day trade of either McNabb or Haynesworth for a 4th round pick. Tyrod Taylor in B & G?

I have also been saying I DO NOT want Cam Newton. I still think I don't but I feel like I may be on the verge of starting to talk myself into it. As far as raw skill and upside, Newton is most likely at the top of the list. However, as we have seen, that doesn't always translate into a winning QB, and that is what scares me about drafting him. It is one of those big risk/big reward type of picks. You could win big or bust big with this pick.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;778960]And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?[/quote]

Ummmmmm, yeaaaaa [IMG]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYVp5BQrLUYgR_y_FSFpYQJyhsVXIrKM5D0NskQo_4webzleT3[/IMG] Where else???

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

This has probably been mentioned but Mel Kiper has Newton going to skins. Charles Davis of the NFL Network has Newton going to the skins too. I believe Shannahan see's Cam as a challenge, something that will reap great benefits if he reaches his full potential.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;779030]You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.[/quote]
One would think that this late in the argument you wouldn't attempt a strawman i.e claiming that i think your methodology is stupid.
If i thought it was stupid i would say so.
My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats.
And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field.
No.
I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities.
My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'.

[quote]I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.[/quote]
Nice.
First strawman then profanity.
Wrong again, unless pointing out some obvious flaws in your theory is 'bitching'.

[quote]I could have answered your loaded question[/quote]
No.
A loaded question would be: does your insecurity cause you to view normal questions as loaded?
But, i digress.
I was asking you about which games you've watched to hopefully spur a discussion based on what we actually see from the game.
To see if Locker's wild throwing or accuracy was evident from watching some commonly available games on the internet like the USC game i posted in my OP.

[quote]The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture.[/quote]
The difference is that i wanted to discuss actual plays from actual games, but you didn't want to budge from your scouting via stats.

[quote]There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.[/quote]
I don't see what the point would be.
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious.
Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'.
And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert.
Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating.

HTTR!

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

30gut and GTripp .... Just exchange numbers and call each other already !!!! You two sound like an old married couple.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SBXVII;778994]All I was really responding to was the fan upset that we could not simply answer the question as posted with out all the extra diatribe. Unfortunately the QB I like and would like to see the Skins pick up was not on the list. Which is why I originally gave a diatribe about what I'd do with the #10 pick. So I gave him the simple answer .... I'd take Andy Dalton.

On another note I mention taking a OL cause we have need there and people say that's too high. I mention taking a NT and other people say that's too high. I mention LB/DE and people say that's too high.

So can anyone please tell me what's appropriate to take in the first round without saying WR, CB, and RB? Is FS a safe answer cause we have need there also.[/quote]

Hey, I meant no opposition with my comment about 3rd and 4th round picks. I've been thinking myself in terms of trading AH and/or DMac5 for more picks like those. And we still could get such choices as part of a draft day trade-down.

But it occurred to me that trading any players for picks may not be possible until well past the draft. This means that we can't really count on getting choices for current players unless the now-famous draft fairy intervenes. So I shared.

As for your question, unlike others with whom you have spoken IMHO I think a #10 pick is an excellent time to pick up a NT especially (see Raji at Green Bay), a DE (see Shaun Ellis, Jets), or a LB (see DeMarcus Ware). All of those players were taken in the neighborhood of the 10th pick. A high quality safety also makes for a good choice, as we saw with #5 pick Eric Berry at KC or our own Sean Taylor.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;779044]30gut and GTripp .... Just exchange numbers and call each other already !!!! You two sound like an old married couple.[/quote]
30gut seems to have a sense of what constitutes empirical observation in football.

Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
 

[quote=SirClintonPortis;779065]30gut seems to have a sense of what constitutes empirical observation in football.[/quote]Sometimes, empirical observation results in someone saying that Mark Sanchez is the only good first round pick in the last five years...or that Bruce Gradkowski has good pocket presence.

People say dumb stuff sometimes, empirical or not.