Would you be ok with...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

I believe research would also show any QB with a horrible O-line is at a nearly insurmountable disadvantage.

Use that 1st-round pick on another O-lineman and a 2nd-round QB will have a better chance at success than a 1st-round QB without the line upgrade.

It depends on how you define horrible O-line. You could make the argument that the Colts and Chargers have awful lines, but those teams succeed because they don't exactly torpedo their offenses by sucking. Some would argue that, because they don't limit their offenses and can be schemed around, they can't be a horrible o-line, they are merely unremarkable.

But I'll also say that Peyton Manning and Philip Rivers didn't develop behind bad OLs. They benefitted from good line play in their developmental years. And the tried and true way to develop a QB is go allow him good line play in his developmental years.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

If we keep that second round pick I would much rather use it on a front 7 defender.

And whats to say that our O-Line will be horrible this year? Just because of what happened last year? I saw the Falcons and Chief O-Lines change over the course of one offseason with little if any additions, and even though the Falcons drafted Sam Baker in 08 he still only played 5 games.

We have Trent Williams not to mention a chance to choose between a healthy Jammal Brown and Ryan Harris. Davin Joesph is also a huge favorite to come here. Kory L got a year of starting experience, Will Montgomery is improving, and I'm sure that between Cook and Capers one will develop into a solid starter. Heck even Heyer improved last year into a respectable swing man.

Bottom line we could easily be going into next year with 3 pro bowl level starters (Williams, Brown, Joesph) or at worst 2 pro bowlers and one very good young Right Tackle.

Also don't forget we have plenty of late round picks and Shanahan has made a living out of getting quality lineman in rounds 5-7.

Finally in light of the improved O-Lines I mentioned in KC and ATL we will easily have more raw talent then both of them. Only thing left to do is continue feeding the late round pipeline and getting two top notch guys signed out of Joesph, Brown, and Harris.

No disrespect intended but you sound like Vinny Ceratto. I looked at last years team stats for another thread and I was shocked at how bad our offensive line played both visually and statically. We were 28th in giving up sacks with 46 sacks. We were 31st (next to last) in our QB taking hits with 110 Qb hits. Keep in the mind the worst team had 111, we were one hit away from being last. We were 30th in the league in rushing yards.
I think it is great that you are optimistic, but our O-line sucks.
That you mentioned Heyer is scary. You can not polish a turd. :cheeky-sm
Seriously though, we need new young linemen.

[GTripp0012]

We also threw more times, I believe, than any other team in football.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

You also need a good all around team. We have many needs beyond QB.

I agree, but in todays watered down NFL QB play is magnified cause it's the most important position on the field. Green Bay overcame all those injuries but the one they could never overcome if Rogers got hurt. Same with Indy. Take Manning off that team and they might be 5-11 or 6-10 every year.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We also threw more times, I believe, than any other team in football.

No, but we were fourth with 605 pass attempts compared to the #1 team the Colts with 679 pass attempts.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I agree, but in todays watered down NFL QB play is magnified cause it's the most important position on the field. Green Bay overcame all those injuries but the one they could never overcome if Rogers got hurt. Same with Indy. Take Manning off that team and they might be 5-11 or 6-10 every year.

Yes Rogers and Peyton Manning are exceptioanl and hard to over come their injury. But Rogers was the starter for two years prior to 2010, it was not until they finished building their 3-4 defense did the make the promise land.
With Peyton Manning it wasn't until he got a running game and a defense to compliment his incredible passing that they made it. Don't believe all the hype. You still have to have a great all around team. Balanced. A franchise Qb is not a cure all. I would rather have the #1 defense then the #1 qb. Just my opinion. In fact I would rather have the best offensive and defensive lines then the best qb. Peyton Manning ONE Superbowl.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Yes Rogers and Peyton Manning are exceptioanl and hard to over come their injury. But Rogers was the starter for two years prior to 2010, it was not until they finished building their 3-4 defense did the make the promise land.
With Peyton Manning it wasn't until he got a running game and a defense to compliment his incredible passing that they made it. Don't believe all the hype. You still have to have a great all around team. Balanced. A franchise Qb is not a cure all. I would rather have the #1 defense then the #1 qb. Just my opinion. In fact I would rather have the best offensive and defensive lines then the best qb. Peyton Manning ONE Superbowl.

However also keep in mind that when they saw in 2008 that they made the right decision with Rodgers over Favre they were able to focus on building the rest of the team. When you don't have a QB it hangs over your head like a dark cloud. The success of Rodgers allowed management to remain patient and took away the pressure to make drastic decisions like changing over the entire coaching staff.

The point is the right QB allows everything else to slow down. Suddenly you're not worried about trading up beyond reason, or drafting the perfect pass catcher that can succeed with any QB, or getting Lawrence Taylor on defense to compensate for your lack of offense.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

However also keep in mind that when they saw in 2008 that they made the right decision with Rodgers over Favre they were able to focus on building the rest of the team. When you don't have a QB it hangs over your head like a dark cloud. The success of Rodgers allowed management to remain patient and took away the pressure to make drastic decisions like changing over the entire coaching staff.

The point is the right QB allows everything else to slow down. Suddenly you're not worried about trading up beyond reason, or drafting the perfect pass catcher that can succeed with any QB, or getting Lawrence Taylor on defense to compensate for your lack of offense.

I see your point, but you are talking about the Green Bay Packers. They know how to run a NFL Franchise correctly. The Packers drafted Rodgers when they still had Farve playing at a decent level and they were not too far from being a SB champ. It was not a need pick, but a luxury pick. They were able to draft and sit Rogers on the bench for years and let him learn from a future HOF QB. That is the way you are supposed to do it.
When we lost Bethard and Casserly we somehow lost the right way to run a franchise and started draft crap. We are now full of crap.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

However also keep in mind that when they saw in 2008 that they made the right decision with Rodgers over Favre they were able to focus on building the rest of the team. When you don't have a QB it hangs over your head like a dark cloud. The success of Rodgers allowed management to remain patient and took away the pressure to make drastic decisions like changing over the entire coaching staff.

The point is the right QB allows everything else to slow down. Suddenly you're not worried about trading up beyond reason, or drafting the perfect pass catcher that can succeed with any QB, or getting Lawrence Taylor on defense to compensate for your lack of offense.

Well stated. I agree, get a QB that you can have confidence in developing, then the OL & many other positions can be addressed gradually while he develops.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not taking a QB at all in this draft?

Research shows that 2nd round QBs have been mostly disappointments, so unless you get a top flight guy in the 1st round it's basically a waste to take a QB in later rounds.

Do you trust the likes of Grossman or Beck? Or picking up a stop gap veteran such as Hasselbeck?

Personally I'd be ok with it because "if" a QB is taken it will take time for him to get learn the speed, terminology, and build a connection with Receivers. Grossman already has that for part of last season. I'd almost rather they took OL, DL, LB, and WR... not all in that order. Work on getting the OL better aquanted with the zone blocking scheme and better protection for the QB and a bonified #1 WR, build up the defense with NT and a rushing LB and in next yrs draft pick up a QB or try to jump up and take a QB when we have more picks to and can afford to trade up and offer a 2nd rounder also.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

We also threw more times, I believe, than any other team in football.

You maybe pointing it out but the reason is because the OL was not able to create holes for the RB's possibly due to using the zone blocking for the 1st time..... ever. Although I'll say I think it's KS's scheme also... Houston threw a lot also while he was there.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

No, but we were fourth with 605 pass attempts compared to the #1 team the Colts with 679 pass attempts.

I stand corrected on this.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I agree, but in todays watered down NFL QB play is magnified cause it's the most important position on the field. Green Bay overcame all those injuries but the one they could never overcome if Rogers got hurt. Same with Indy. Take Manning off that team and they might be 5-11 or 6-10 every year.

Green Bay did nearly go on the road and beat the best team in football with Matt Flynn at quarterback.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Green Bay did nearly go on the road and beat the best team in football with Matt Flynn at quarterback.

Green Bay was the best team in football.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

Green Bay was the best team in football.

At the time? I thought that was their sixth loss of the year.