ESPN's Schefter channels his energy into NFL

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

Isn't this a weak year for first round qb's, that is good enough reason to not take what is already a very risky pick.

I'm not arguing for a QB but it seems that this is a weak year for first round tackles, too.

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I'm not arguing for a QB but it seems that this is a weak year for first round tackles, too.

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

Say what?

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

^^ Not sure what Zero ment by that.

SO if there is not 4th overall pick talent in the draft at T then how about trading out of the pick and using it to stock pile picks. It just seems to me that it is easier to find OL players in the first couple of rounds then risking a high pick on a player that has about a 45% chance of working out.

It is always a crap shoot drafting anyone, but I seem to be nervous about drafting a QB high in the draft especially guys I don't really like. BUT I don;t run the team now do I .

[SmootSmack]

Well yeah if we could trade down and add picks that'd be great. But suppose we couldn't and were "stuck" at 4

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

^^ Not sure what Zero ment by that.

SO if there is not 4th overall pick talent in the draft at T then how about trading out of the pick and using it to stock pile picks. It just seems to me that it is easier to find OL players in the first couple of rounds then risking a high pick on a player that has about a 45% chance of working out.

It is always a crap shoot drafting anyone, but I seem to be nervous about drafting a QB high in the draft especially guys I don't really like. BUT I don;t run the team now do I .

Maybe you should. :thumb:

[tootergray34]

I think campbell is nothing more than a service QB at best...he won't win you any games...but that's just me...No way we draft high enought to get LOCKER next year anyways...damn.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

[Redskin Warrior]

Originally Posted by celts32

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

I think it's a either or situation. If that is the case he feels that one of them are the franchise QB then you take the franchise QB. Or you draft a OT and keep Campbell.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by celts32

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

Well Okung could be a franchise tackle too. I honestly feel that it will all depend on who's available at #4.

If Okung is there, let's take him.

If Clausen or Bradford are there...we could take them but either one of them being there could also lead to a trade (i.e. Seattle).

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Say what?

Maybe i should have said more trade value. Not saying great but more than a bust qb would get. Or i could have never said that haha.

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by celts32

Suppose Mike Shanahan believes that JC is pretty good but Bradford or Clausen is a franchise QB. Do you want him to disregard what he believes and pick a LT anyway?

I trust Shannahan and he hope whatever he does works, just when a qb is picked high the pressure is to put him in quickly and we see how that works. While i dont want a qb picked first, i can live with it as long as we address the line with the rest of the draft.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

that is true but lets look at two scenarios

Draft a qb which is proven high risk, give him tons of money and know that he will prob not even play first year. If he is a bust it is a complete loss, almost no trade value.

Draft an OL that is lower risk, give him good money but less than a QB would have got. If he is a bust, move him to RT. If he a bust keep moving down the line. Complete bust he still has trade value.

You are right that a first round QB is a greater risk than a first round tackle. But sometimes the risk pays off. What if the Colts had never risked taking Manning? Or if the Chargers had never risked taking Rivers? Etc. etc. The first round qb is high risk but also very high reward.

Again, I'm not arguing for a qb. And I sure don't want us to squander a pick on a Ryan Leaf. But if we could find the next Rivers, wouldn't that be cool?

[Zerohero]

Originally Posted by Lotus

You are right that a first round QB is a greater risk than a first round tackle. But sometimes the risk pays off. What if the Colts had never risked taking Manning? Or if the Chargers had never risked taking Rivers? Etc. etc. The first round qb is high risk but also very high reward.

Again, I'm not arguing for a qb. And I sure don't want us to squander a pick on a Ryan Leaf. But if we could find the next Rivers, wouldn't that be cool?

Well i am just giving my opinion, i am not a gambling type. So most of my posts on different matters will reflect that. Of course some teams have taken the risk and won, but FAR more have suffered much from high QB picks. I dont think LT busts hurt a team as much. Thats what i was trying to point out earlier but i didn't make it clear.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Zerohero

Well i am just giving my opinion, i am not a gambling type. So most of my posts on different matters will reflect that. Of course some teams have taken the risk and won, but FAR more have suffered much from high QB picks. I dont think LT busts hurt a team as much. Thats what i was trying to point out earlier but i didn't make it clear.

It is hard to argue with that.

BTW I have not been arguing with you, just trying to think through the possible draft-the-QB scenarios. I'd be psyched if we took a franchise LT at #4.