The Too Soon 2021 NFL Draft Thread

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

If he doesn't retire, the team saves $$ if they wait until after June 1st to release him.

They can designate 2 players as June 1st cuts and release them early. That is designed to let the players hit FA. I wonder if any team at all is willing to bring AS in.

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

If he doesn't retire, the team saves $$ if they wait until after June 1st to release him.

As my dead brain understands it.

Cut him now, 10.8m dead cap hit for 2021.

Cut him post june 1, 5.4M dead cap hit for '21, 5.4M cap hit for '22 (but we have to "carry" his 24M cap hit from now until june 1 thereby limiting the amount of cap money we have to make moves from now until june 1)

If he cant complete his contract due to injury, wed get 12M in cap relief bc of dan snyders cap insurance policy (which I have no idea how that works)

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

They can designate 2 players as June 1st cuts and release them early. That is designed to let the players hit FA. I wonder if any team at all is willing to bring AS in.

Hmm, didn't know that. Thanks for that.

[SunnySide]

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accu...ock-drafts.php

^^ list of the most accurate nfl mock draft predictors from last years draft.

I recognize Albert Breer from MMQB coming in at no. 4.

Can not find any 2021 mock draft from him yet

edit -- heres his 2020 mock, some teams wish they had his pick vs who they picked.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/04/21/nf...ert-ruggs-lamb

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accu...ock-drafts.php

^^ list of the most accurate nfl mock draft predictors from last years draft.

I recognize Albert Breer from MMQB coming in at no. 4.

Can not find any 2021 mock draft from him yet

edit -- heres his 2020 mock, some teams wish they had his pick vs who they picked.

https://www.si.com/nfl/2020/04/21/nf...ert-ruggs-lamb

Would have to be 5 year+ to be meaningful. Anyone can guess lucky one year.

[Scalper]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I think the only way we draft a QB in the first round is if everything else fails.

We could have someone graded early 2nd round. The evaluations of professional scouts often differ SUBSTANTIALLY from mock draft wankers and kool-aid drinking fans (just look at some of the ridiculous trade proposals on this board for Watson to see how much fan-speak differs from reality). Let's take a hypothetical. Your highest rated QB outside the top 2 is not one of the top 4 or 5 by common reckon. This actually happens many years. Most people rate this guy 3rd 4th round, you rate him 2nd. If only one other team sees him like you, and they draft higher 2nd round, they may snipe him and you missed oout. You think he could be a franchise QB with a bit of coaching. Do you hope he's there in 2nd or draft him in first? Or trade up late first round to then get him on 5 year deal versus 4 outside 1st round? People talk about throwing away 3 1st rounders plus more to trade for a QB, but a more realistic question, when Bill O'Brien or Vinny Cerrato or Bruce Allen or THE DAN are not your GMs, is if you see a guy you think could be a franchise QB, do you draft him one round above his ranking to make sure you get him? May depend on whether there is only 1 QB you like or several.

The classic question then becomes, there is a guy sitting there at #19 that is your highest ranked prospect. Say a few people reach on QBs, one or two head scratcher picks like Raiders or other teams often make, some players the mock draft wankers have high that scouts don't, etc., you have a guy rated #16 overall sitting there at #19. A guy you believe should be solid if not pro-bowl long term starter. This is BPA, not position dependent. Your goal is to hit on 1st round pick every year so that eventually you have enough home-grown talent that few FAs makes you a contender. Picture a well-run team that didn't make dumb trades (i.e. virtually every trade proposed by homer fans) and just kept drafting 4 more years. We have resigned Young, Sweat, Allen or Payne and lost one, and have a 1st round CB, WR, LT, QB, plus 2-3 2nd or third round picks also solid starters that were "gems." You now have a team with talent like we have on DL on all levels: OL, skill positions, LB, secondary. You are then talking about a potential contender. You never get there trading the farm for some a-hole like Watson. And, because we are building primarily through the draft, when our talent like Payne or whatever guys coming off rookie deals we can't sign goes somewhere else, we get comp picks, and then start having 10-11 picks every year like the teams that are perpetually good. You know you are working the system right when there are good players you can't afford to resign EVERY year.

You hope one of players sitting there at #19 is a LT, CB, WR, a high-leverage position. If you draft a CB, WR, LT 1st round 3 years, versus signing in FA, $40M+ cap savings, money used to resign Payne, Allen, etc. This is how good teams have money to retain some but not all talent. Maybe a MLB is #16 on your board, that franchise LT or shutdown corner is #21 and still available. Might be discussion in draft room of do you take the MLB, the lower leverage position, or a slightly less talented but still starter-caliber player ranked lower. So the question becomes, do you reach a bit for a QB you think is franchise, knowing you're reaching a bit, or stick to your board? There is no simple answer because not psychic. Some teams reach for bust QBs year after year, and could have drafted quality long-term starters instead. Some teams pick the BPA and pass up franchise QBs. These are the types of questions that real GMs are asking. And good owners. The best GMs can get these decisions right. When they decide to take the QB higher, it make take 2 or 3 iterations, but they eventually find the franchise QB. Yet they mostly draft quality starters year after year after year with higher picks that become the foundation of their team. Meanwhile Homers talk about trading 27 1st round picks for some selfish a-hole QB who is very, very good but hardly great.


There ARE franchise QBs in the draft outside the top-10, and outside the 1st round, many of them starting for NFL teams right now. Our goal should be not to mortgage the future on retreads or aholes like Watson, but rather to find a QB in the draft. Hurley never got it right, Newton has never been accurate and doesn't have the heart of a champion, he blames others rather than taking ownership. Mayhew just came from a SF team that didn't get QB right. It is probably unrealistic to think either can successfully pick a franchise QB, and RR is of course going to want to trade for the instant impact starter, that's what coaches do, they have to think about the short term especially with a turd like THE DAN standing in the wings ready to meddle. The GM is supposed to have the long view in mind, the decade plus view. I honestly believe that Smith, had Dan not meddled, would have gotten QB right long ago. This should predominate in thinking about choosing a GM, but did not. Smith almost certainly advocated less glamorous QBs that had franchise potential, but they weren't sexy glamorous marketing machine picks like those THE DAN and Allen etc. favored.

Now just imagine we commit to the hard road, the long-term road that a real GM would advocate. We spend 4 picks on QB next 3 years in draft, only 1 a first rounder. We fail at a 50% rate, end up with our franchise QB and a solid backup on rookie deal. At the end of that time, we have found a true long-term franchise QB we can count on for say the next 12 years, and maybe as much as 20. We have him on rookie deal. Then you draft, draft, draft, build around him, add just a few key FAs. You have his longevity in mind at all times (see Andrew Luck), and don't have him run all the time and get killed, and you take the long view and draft STUD RT and LT and C, resign off rookie deals. You are then in position to contend for a decade or more. Even if we traded 3 1sts plus more for Watson, he is going to get hurt running, and we don't have the OL to protect him, and wouldn't have the picks to draft one.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Scalper

We could have someone graded early 2nd round. The evaluations of professional scouts often differ SUBSTANTIALLY from mock draft wankers and kool-aid drinking fans (just look at some of the ridiculous trade proposals on this board for Watson to see how much fan-speak differs from reality). Let's take a hypothetical. Your highest rated QB outside the top 2 is not one of the top 4 or 5 by common reckon. This actually happens many years. Most people rate this guy 3rd 4th round, you rate him 2nd. If only one other team sees him like you, and they draft higher 2nd round, they may snipe him and you missed oout. You think he could be a franchise QB with a bit of coaching. Do you hope he's there in 2nd or draft him in first? Or trade up late first round to then get him on 5 year deal versus 4 outside 1st round? People talk about throwing away 3 1st rounders plus more to trade for a QB, but a more realistic question, when Bill O'Brien or Vinny Cerrato or Bruce Allen or THE DAN are not your GMs, is if you see a guy you think could be a franchise QB, do you draft him one round above his ranking to make sure you get him? May depend on whether there is only 1 QB you like or several.

The classic question then becomes, there is a guy sitting there at #19 that is your highest ranked prospect. Say a few people reach on QBs, one or two head scratcher picks like Raiders or other teams often make, some players the mock draft wankers have high that scouts don't, etc., you have a guy rated #16 overall sitting there at #19. A guy you believe should be solid if not pro-bowl long term starter. This is BPA, not position dependent. Your goal is to hit on 1st round pick every year so that eventually you have enough home-grown talent that few FAs makes you a contender. Picture a well-run team that didn't make dumb trades (i.e. virtually every trade proposed by homer fans) and just kept drafting 4 more years. We have resigned Young, Sweat, Allen or Payne and lost one, and have a 1st round CB, WR, LT, QB, plus 2-3 2nd or third round picks also solid starters that were "gems." You now have a team with talent like we have on DL on all levels: OL, skill positions, LB, secondary. You are then talking about a potential contender. You never get there trading the farm for some a-hole like Watson. And, because we are building primarily through the draft, when our talent like Payne or whatever guys coming off rookie deals we can't sign goes somewhere else, we get comp picks, and then start having 10-11 picks every year like the teams that are perpetually good. You know you are working the system right when there are good players you can't afford to resign EVERY year.

You hope one of players sitting there at #19 is a LT, CB, WR, a high-leverage position. If you draft a CB, WR, LT 1st round 3 years, versus signing in FA, $40M+ cap savings, money used to resign Payne, Allen, etc. This is how good teams have money to retain some but not all talent. Maybe a MLB is #16 on your board, that franchise LT or shutdown corner is #21 and still available. Might be discussion in draft room of do you take the MLB, the lower leverage position, or a slightly less talented but still starter-caliber player ranked lower. So the question becomes, do you reach a bit for a QB you think is franchise, knowing you're reaching a bit, or stick to your board? There is no simple answer because not psychic. Some teams reach for bust QBs year after year, and could have drafted quality long-term starters instead. Some teams pick the BPA and pass up franchise QBs. These are the types of questions that real GMs are asking. And good owners. The best GMs can get these decisions right. When they decide to take the QB higher, it make take 2 or 3 iterations, but they eventually find the franchise QB. Yet they mostly draft quality starters year after year after year with higher picks that become the foundation of their team. Meanwhile Homers talk about trading 27 1st round picks for some selfish a-hole QB who is very, very good but hardly great.


There ARE franchise QBs in the draft outside the top-10, and outside the 1st round, many of them starting for NFL teams right now. Our goal should be not to mortgage the future on retreads or aholes like Watson, but rather to find a QB in the draft. Hurley never got it right, Newton has never been accurate and doesn't have the heart of a champion, he blames others rather than taking ownership. Mayhew just came from a SF team that didn't get QB right. It is probably unrealistic to think either can successfully pick a franchise QB, and RR is of course going to want to trade for the instant impact starter, that's what coaches do, they have to think about the short term especially with a turd like THE DAN standing in the wings ready to meddle. The GM is supposed to have the long view in mind, the decade plus view. I honestly believe that Smith, had Dan not meddled, would have gotten QB right long ago. This should predominate in thinking about choosing a GM, but did not. Smith almost certainly advocated less glamorous QBs that had franchise potential, but they weren't sexy glamorous marketing machine picks like those THE DAN and Allen etc. favored.

Now just imagine we commit to the hard road, the long-term road that a real GM would advocate. We spend 4 picks on QB next 3 years in draft, only 1 a first rounder. We fail at a 50% rate, end up with our franchise QB and a solid backup on rookie deal. At the end of that time, we have found a true long-term franchise QB we can count on for say the next 12 years, and maybe as much as 20. We have him on rookie deal. Then you draft, draft, draft, build around him, add just a few key FAs. You have his longevity in mind at all times (see Andrew Luck), and don't have him run all the time and get killed, and you take the long view and draft STUD RT and LT and C, resign off rookie deals. You are then in position to contend for a decade or more. Even if we traded 3 1sts plus more for Watson, he is going to get hurt running, and we don't have the OL to protect him, and wouldn't have the picks to draft one.

Chapter 11

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by Scalper

There ARE franchise QBs in the draft outside the top-10, and outside the 1st round, many of them starting for NFL teams right now. Our goal should be not to mortgage the future on retreads or aholes like Watson, but rather to find a QB in the draft. Hurley never got it right, Newton has never been accurate and doesn't have the heart of a champion, he blames others rather than taking ownership. Mayhew just came from a SF team that didn't get QB right. It is probably unrealistic to think either can successfully pick a franchise QB, and RR is of course going to want to trade for the instant impact starter, that's what coaches do, they have to think about the short term especially with a turd like THE DAN standing in the wings ready to meddle. The GM is supposed to have the long view in mind, the decade plus view. I honestly believe that Smith, had Dan not meddled, would have gotten QB right long ago. This should predominate in thinking about choosing a GM, but did not. Smith almost certainly advocated less glamorous QBs that had franchise potential, but they weren't sexy glamorous marketing machine picks like those THE DAN and Allen etc. favored.

Now just imagine we commit to the hard road, the long-term road that a real GM would advocate. We spend 4 picks on QB next 3 years in draft, only 1 a first rounder. We fail at a 50% rate, end up with our franchise QB and a solid backup on rookie deal. At the end of that time, we have found a true long-term franchise QB we can count on for say the next 12 years, and maybe as much as 20. We have him on rookie deal. Then you draft, draft, draft, build around him, add just a few key FAs. You have his longevity in mind at all times (see Andrew Luck), and don't have him run all the time and get killed, and you take the long view and draft STUD RT and LT and C, resign off rookie deals. You are then in position to contend for a decade or more. Even if we traded 3 1sts plus more for Watson, he is going to get hurt running, and we don't have the OL to protect him, and wouldn't have the picks to draft one.

Well, to be fair Kyle shanahan just admitted that he did not even evaluate the quarterbacks coming out of the draft in 2017, because he was all in on Kirk Cousins. I'm not sure how you put that QB situation on Mayhew. Didn't mayhew draft Stafford?

[sdskinsfan2001]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Chapter 11

I sprained my thumb trying to scroll to the bottom of his post.

I hope Warpath has user insurance, because I'm suing.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

i sprained my thumb trying to scroll to the bottom of his post.

I hope warpath has user insurance, because i'm suing.

r o f l m a o ! !

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Chief X_Phackter

Chapter 11

[AnonEmouse]

I sprained my eyeballs having to re-read it a couple of times. The font isn't ideal for big blocks of text.

I actually find it hard to disagree with some of this. I think the problem is that if we don't turn this season into a repeat at least once in the next 2 years, DS will get antsy and step in or sack RR (and probably the FO) and want to start meddling again. I think RR knows this, hence the interest in players that offer win now potential (Cooper, Stafford). I think they all want to build with the draft, but if they say they have a 3 year plan, DS will say, "but you just won the division?". I think they have to show themselves as trying to win now, while behind that starting to build a 3-5 year draft strategy that sets the stage for the future. That's what I think Shanny wanted when he drafted RG3 and Cousins, but RG3's injury screwed him.

Personally I'm not convinced there's a solid franchise QB potential in this years draft after Lawrence. Maybe it's being burned by RG3 and Haskins, but I wouldn't be trading up if we don't land someone in FA. Too much risk vs tenuous potential reward. If Jones or Lance get slated as bottom 1st/top 2nd round talent, I'd be more inclined to trade back when #19 comes up, but then you risk being pipped to the post by a team like the Bears or Colts who both need a QB, or even the Buccs planning for Brady's retirement (in 10 years ). As it stands, I think if any well rated QB is still there at 19 and its not a massive reach, you take him.

[OnceWeWereKings]

Originally Posted by Scalper

We could have someone graded early 2nd round. The evaluations of professional scouts often differ SUBSTANTIALLY from mock draft wankers and kool-aid drinking fans (just look at some of the ridiculous trade proposals on this board for Watson to see how much fan-speak differs from reality). Let's take a hypothetical. Your highest rated QB outside the top 2 is not one of the top 4 or 5 by common reckon. This actually happens many years. Most people rate this guy 3rd 4th round, you rate him 2nd. If only one other team sees him like you, and they draft higher 2nd round, they may snipe him and you missed oout. You think he could be a franchise QB with a bit of coaching. Do you hope he's there in 2nd or draft him in first? Or trade up late first round to then get him on 5 year deal versus 4 outside 1st round? People talk about throwing away 3 1st rounders plus more to trade for a QB, but a more realistic question, when Bill O'Brien or Vinny Cerrato or Bruce Allen or THE DAN are not your GMs, is if you see a guy you think could be a franchise QB, do you draft him one round above his ranking to make sure you get him? May depend on whether there is only 1 QB you like or several.

The classic question then becomes, there is a guy sitting there at #19 that is your highest ranked prospect. Say a few people reach on QBs, one or two head scratcher picks like Raiders or other teams often make, some players the mock draft wankers have high that scouts don't, etc., you have a guy rated #16 overall sitting there at #19. A guy you believe should be solid if not pro-bowl long term starter. This is BPA, not position dependent. Your goal is to hit on 1st round pick every year so that eventually you have enough home-grown talent that few FAs makes you a contender. Picture a well-run team that didn't make dumb trades (i.e. virtually every trade proposed by homer fans) and just kept drafting 4 more years. We have resigned Young, Sweat, Allen or Payne and lost one, and have a 1st round CB, WR, LT, QB, plus 2-3 2nd or third round picks also solid starters that were "gems." You now have a team with talent like we have on DL on all levels: OL, skill positions, LB, secondary. You are then talking about a potential contender. You never get there trading the farm for some a-hole like Watson. And, because we are building primarily through the draft, when our talent like Payne or whatever guys coming off rookie deals we can't sign goes somewhere else, we get comp picks, and then start having 10-11 picks every year like the teams that are perpetually good. You know you are working the system right when there are good players you can't afford to resign EVERY year.

You hope one of players sitting there at #19 is a LT, CB, WR, a high-leverage position. If you draft a CB, WR, LT 1st round 3 years, versus signing in FA, $40M+ cap savings, money used to resign Payne, Allen, etc. This is how good teams have money to retain some but not all talent. Maybe a MLB is #16 on your board, that franchise LT or shutdown corner is #21 and still available. Might be discussion in draft room of do you take the MLB, the lower leverage position, or a slightly less talented but still starter-caliber player ranked lower. So the question becomes, do you reach a bit for a QB you think is franchise, knowing you're reaching a bit, or stick to your board? There is no simple answer because not psychic. Some teams reach for bust QBs year after year, and could have drafted quality long-term starters instead. Some teams pick the BPA and pass up franchise QBs. These are the types of questions that real GMs are asking. And good owners. The best GMs can get these decisions right. When they decide to take the QB higher, it make take 2 or 3 iterations, but they eventually find the franchise QB. Yet they mostly draft quality starters year after year after year with higher picks that become the foundation of their team. Meanwhile Homers talk about trading 27 1st round picks for some selfish a-hole QB who is very, very good but hardly great.


There ARE franchise QBs in the draft outside the top-10, and outside the 1st round, many of them starting for NFL teams right now. Our goal should be not to mortgage the future on retreads or aholes like Watson, but rather to find a QB in the draft. Hurley never got it right, Newton has never been accurate and doesn't have the heart of a champion, he blames others rather than taking ownership. Mayhew just came from a SF team that didn't get QB right. It is probably unrealistic to think either can successfully pick a franchise QB, and RR is of course going to want to trade for the instant impact starter, that's what coaches do, they have to think about the short term especially with a turd like THE DAN standing in the wings ready to meddle. The GM is supposed to have the long view in mind, the decade plus view. I honestly believe that Smith, had Dan not meddled, would have gotten QB right long ago. This should predominate in thinking about choosing a GM, but did not. Smith almost certainly advocated less glamorous QBs that had franchise potential, but they weren't sexy glamorous marketing machine picks like those THE DAN and Allen etc. favored.

Now just imagine we commit to the hard road, the long-term road that a real GM would advocate. We spend 4 picks on QB next 3 years in draft, only 1 a first rounder. We fail at a 50% rate, end up with our franchise QB and a solid backup on rookie deal. At the end of that time, we have found a true long-term franchise QB we can count on for say the next 12 years, and maybe as much as 20. We have him on rookie deal. Then you draft, draft, draft, build around him, add just a few key FAs. You have his longevity in mind at all times (see Andrew Luck), and don't have him run all the time and get killed, and you take the long view and draft STUD RT and LT and C, resign off rookie deals. You are then in position to contend for a decade or more. Even if we traded 3 1sts plus more for Watson, he is going to get hurt running, and we don't have the OL to protect him, and wouldn't have the picks to draft one.

big fan of how this character, basically, calls anyone with an opposing view to his stupid. Then refuses to reply to anyone that asks him about his posts. classy moves.
and while i agree with some of their points...im just over reading their diatribes.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Scalper

We could have someone graded early 2nd round. The evaluations of professional scouts often differ SUBSTANTIALLY from mock draft wankers and kool-aid drinking fans (just look at some of the ridiculous trade proposals on this board for Watson to see how much fan-speak differs from reality). Let's take a hypothetical. Your highest rated QB outside the top 2 is not one of the top 4 or 5 by common reckon. This actually happens many years. Most people rate this guy 3rd 4th round, you rate him 2nd. If only one other team sees him like you, and they draft higher 2nd round, they may snipe him and you missed oout. You think he could be a franchise QB with a bit of coaching. Do you hope he's there in 2nd or draft him in first? Or trade up late first round to then get him on 5 year deal versus 4 outside 1st round? People talk about throwing away 3 1st rounders plus more to trade for a QB, but a more realistic question, when Bill O'Brien or Vinny Cerrato or Bruce Allen or THE DAN are not your GMs, is if you see a guy you think could be a franchise QB, do you draft him one round above his ranking to make sure you get him? May depend on whether there is only 1 QB you like or several.

The classic question then becomes, there is a guy sitting there at #19 that is your highest ranked prospect. Say a few people reach on QBs, one or two head scratcher picks like Raiders or other teams often make, some players the mock draft wankers have high that scouts don't, etc., you have a guy rated #16 overall sitting there at #19. A guy you believe should be solid if not pro-bowl long term starter. This is BPA, not position dependent. Your goal is to hit on 1st round pick every year so that eventually you have enough home-grown talent that few FAs makes you a contender. Picture a well-run team that didn't make dumb trades (i.e. virtually every trade proposed by homer fans) and just kept drafting 4 more years. We have resigned Young, Sweat, Allen or Payne and lost one, and have a 1st round CB, WR, LT, QB, plus 2-3 2nd or third round picks also solid starters that were "gems." You now have a team with talent like we have on DL on all levels: OL, skill positions, LB, secondary. You are then talking about a potential contender. You never get there trading the farm for some a-hole like Watson. And, because we are building primarily through the draft, when our talent like Payne or whatever guys coming off rookie deals we can't sign goes somewhere else, we get comp picks, and then start having 10-11 picks every year like the teams that are perpetually good. You know you are working the system right when there are good players you can't afford to resign EVERY year.

You hope one of players sitting there at #19 is a LT, CB, WR, a high-leverage position. If you draft a CB, WR, LT 1st round 3 years, versus signing in FA, $40M+ cap savings, money used to resign Payne, Allen, etc. This is how good teams have money to retain some but not all talent. Maybe a MLB is #16 on your board, that franchise LT or shutdown corner is #21 and still available. Might be discussion in draft room of do you take the MLB, the lower leverage position, or a slightly less talented but still starter-caliber player ranked lower. So the question becomes, do you reach a bit for a QB you think is franchise, knowing you're reaching a bit, or stick to your board? There is no simple answer because not psychic. Some teams reach for bust QBs year after year, and could have drafted quality long-term starters instead. Some teams pick the BPA and pass up franchise QBs. These are the types of questions that real GMs are asking. And good owners. The best GMs can get these decisions right. When they decide to take the QB higher, it make take 2 or 3 iterations, but they eventually find the franchise QB. Yet they mostly draft quality starters year after year after year with higher picks that become the foundation of their team. Meanwhile Homers talk about trading 27 1st round picks for some selfish a-hole QB who is very, very good but hardly great.


There ARE franchise QBs in the draft outside the top-10, and outside the 1st round, many of them starting for NFL teams right now. Our goal should be not to mortgage the future on retreads or aholes like Watson, but rather to find a QB in the draft. Hurley never got it right, Newton has never been accurate and doesn't have the heart of a champion, he blames others rather than taking ownership. Mayhew just came from a SF team that didn't get QB right. It is probably unrealistic to think either can successfully pick a franchise QB, and RR is of course going to want to trade for the instant impact starter, that's what coaches do, they have to think about the short term especially with a turd like THE DAN standing in the wings ready to meddle. The GM is supposed to have the long view in mind, the decade plus view. I honestly believe that Smith, had Dan not meddled, would have gotten QB right long ago. This should predominate in thinking about choosing a GM, but did not. Smith almost certainly advocated less glamorous QBs that had franchise potential, but they weren't sexy glamorous marketing machine picks like those THE DAN and Allen etc. favored.

Now just imagine we commit to the hard road, the long-term road that a real GM would advocate. We spend 4 picks on QB next 3 years in draft, only 1 a first rounder. We fail at a 50% rate, end up with our franchise QB and a solid backup on rookie deal. At the end of that time, we have found a true long-term franchise QB we can count on for say the next 12 years, and maybe as much as 20. We have him on rookie deal. Then you draft, draft, draft, build around him, add just a few key FAs. You have his longevity in mind at all times (see Andrew Luck), and don't have him run all the time and get killed, and you take the long view and draft STUD RT and LT and C, resign off rookie deals. You are then in position to contend for a decade or more. Even if we traded 3 1sts plus more for Watson, he is going to get hurt running, and we don't have the OL to protect him, and wouldn't have the picks to draft one.

Haha poor guy, you write this dissertation on why spending beaucoup draft picks on a single player is a bad idea (which I generally don't oppose) and nobody takes it seriously.

Really though, my only question is do you pronounce "mock draft wanker" old English style like "mahk draft wankuh" or is it more of the hard R style? I like to envision it's the former personally.

[OnceWeWereKings]

Originally Posted by mooby

Haha poor guy, you write this dissertation on why spending beaucoup draft picks on a single player is a bad idea (which I generally don't oppose) and nobody takes it seriously.

Really though, my only question is do you pronounce "mock draft wanker" old English style like "mahk draft wankuh" or is it more of the hard R style? I like to envision it's the former personally.

Yea....they have some good points. I hate when people talk down to everyone though.
Whaaaaaccccckkkkkkkkk