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

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Is anyone else concerned we're looking at Ryan Leaf 2.0 in Jimmy Clausen?

You've got to be kidding....

Aren't you concerned about the possibility of Jason White 2.0 in Bradford?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Based on the maturity issues that I keep hearing about, primarily.

Such as?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Based on the maturity issues that I keep hearing about, primarily.

Any specific examples....other than random blogs citing "unnamed" sources.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Any specific examples....other than random blogs citing "unnamed" sources.

Nothing that I can personally vouch for of course, but a whole lot of little stuff that falls under "where there's smoke there's fire" category.

[GTripp0012]

I think, if Sam Bradford had gone to a much smaller school than Oklahoma, he would have been just as successful as a college, but I don't think he would be getting billed as a top pick. In fact, I don't think he'd be getting much scouting interest at all.

The two guys who his skill set most reminds me of both went undrafted: Jeff Garcia, and Tony Romo. Both of those guys were scouting "finds" by some of the best talent evaluating coaches ever (Walsh/Parcells respectively). I think a guy like Bradford having the career he did in the national spotlight puts him in uncharted waters.

So when trying to project Bradford, one of the questions I'm trying to answer (and probably failing) is whether or not this type of skill set can survive the environment of being the first overall pick. When you look at the other quarterbacks with the mobility/accuracy skill set with sack evasiveness and an underrated arm, none of them got on the field prior to age 26. Well, Bradford is going to be 22 next year and I'm guessing that if he gets picked in the top five, they're going to put him out there earlier in his career than Garcia or Romo.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Stafford/Sanchez >>>>> Bradford/Clausen

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Is anyone else concerned we're looking at Ryan Leaf 2.0 in Jimmy Clausen?

Ryan Leaf was not dedicated to the game and thus was eternally distracted. From all I've read, Clausen is the opposite: an enthusiastic student of the game.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

always a possibility but it would be tough to match Mandarich's bust level. He had to be juiced up to a dangerous degree.

The last o line pick that might be called a bust was Robert Gallery, but he at least earned a starting spot at guard for the raiders, till he was injured. O line prospects rarely are total busts (benched, out of the league, etc.), but some of course aren't as good as their billing. It's one of the safest top 10 picks IMO, if not the safest.

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Stafford/Sanchez >>>>> Bradford/Clausen

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).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

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.

[NYCskinfan82]

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

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[SBXVII]

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.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

Russell is not on the juice.