|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
well, like I said, it was only a guess on my part, but it's an educated guess given that neither guy has even drafted a first round QB.
Prior to joining the Browns, Holmgren never drafted a CB in the first. Neither did Heckert.
By that logic, two years ago I could've said it was an educated guess that we wouldn't draft Joe Haden.
Looking at past drafts like this ... sure, you can see some faces in the fire ... but I wouldn't put too much stock into it, especially when ignoring variables as you have here.
For example ... Heckert. No, he never drafted a QB in the first. However, he had McNabb on the team. There was never any need to.
Basing the fact that he never took a QB in the first while acting as GM of a team that had an established first round QB doesn't really mean much.
That's the equivalent of someone saying that since H&H have been working together in Cleveland, they've never drafted a LT in the first round, which could lead to an educated guess that they won't in the future. That doesn't provide any evidence to make a guess, educated or otherwise, that they wouldn't draft a LT in the first round under different circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
when?
My recollection of Holmgren's time in Seattle is that they had Hasselbeck and were consistently in the playoffs.
Your recollection is just a little off.. his last year with Seattle wasn't all that good.. only won 4 games, Certainly no playoffs.
http://www.beckys-place.com/30seasons/seasonrecord.html[
After the 2000 season, with only 6 wins, he didn't go after a top QB then either.
last season we were in a position to offer a boat load to move up to get Bradford and we didn't. Yes, the Rams were asking too much, but if he thought Bradford was all that and a bag of chips, it's a price we could have paid. we didn't,
Besides, Bradford wasn't the only QB to go high in those two drafts so it didn't have to be Bradford... like Tebow or Claussen or this year it could have been Locker or Gabbart.
Quote:
I don't see why H&H wouldn't 'throw their weight' behind a top QB.
well, like I said, it was only a guess on my part, but it's an educated guess given that neither guy has even drafted a first round QB.
McNabb wasn't a Heckert pick.. in fact, Heckert didn't get to the Eagles until 2001 I think. In fact, the highest he's ever drafted a QB was Kolb in the 2nd.
And other than McCoy, I'm not sure Heckert ever has drafted a QB at all other than Kolb. (of course when you have McNabb, you don't need to take one in the first either)
So I was really just guessing based on thier history and it doesn't suggest they'd go that route. Especially with Holmgren.
I don't think Holmgren has ever been on a team that won a superbowl with a 1st round selection at QB by either SF or GB.. he worked with Young who I think was a 1st rounder with Tampa. I don't remember how he ended up in SF. (udfa or trade, don't remember)
Montana was a later rounder.. 3rd rounder I think.
Hassleback wasn't a top pick.. (GB 6th rounder in 1998)
It could be said that holmgren might have if he would have had the authority in GB or SF. But he did have the authority in Seattle for at least his first 4 or so years and still, he didn't.
SO, history says that that isn't either of thier style.. and it was ONLY A GUESS.
My recollection is spot on, and I even double checked to make sure  . I said Holmgren's Seahawks were consistently in the playoffs and they were, including 5 straight years from '03 to '07. I didn't say they were in the playoffs every year.
The '08 season I remember pretty well, where the Seahawks had some of the worst injury luck I can ever remember and I don't say that lightly. Regardless, he wasn't with the team the following year, so obviously he didn't have a chance to draft a QB.
He traded for Hasselbeck before the '01 draft. Vick was the only first round QB taken that year.
One confounding variable is knowing exactly who had personnel power and when. E.g. Reid had it in Philly, Holmgren only had it for a while in Seattle, etc. But again, Holmgren tried trading up for Bradford, he admitted as such, and if the pressers are still available you can probably dig it up for yourself. And really, none of us know what the potential parameters were. H&H may have been willing to give up that entire draft, and the Rams may have wanted the next one as well. Actually, as long as we're talking about the major picks at least, I bet it went down something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
After the 2000 season, with only 6 wins, he didn't go after a top QB then either.
There was no top QB to go after in the 2001 draft.
Quote:
Besides, Bradford wasn't the only QB to go high in those two drafts so it didn't have to be Bradford... like Tebow or Claussen or this year it could have been Locker or Gabbart.
You'd have to be foolish to sell the farm to draft any of those quarterbacks.
I don't remember that far back as to who was in the draft and who wasn't., so your saying that there wasn't a QB that seattle could have taken that was decent or considered a prospect?
if you are talking about Locker or Gabbert, we would not have had to sell the farm for either... not sure if I read you right on that....
You said "top QB", not "decent" or "a prospect". One QB went in the first round of the 2001 draft...Michael Vick with the first overall selection. Atlanta traded up to get him, swapping first rounders with the Chargers in addition to sending them a mid-round pick in the following draft. It's clear from the meager return the Chargers got that teams weren't burning up the phone lines to draft Mike Vick.
Seattle did draft low-round "prospect" quarterbacks in 2001, 2002 and 2003, however.
Tebow, Claussen, Locker and Gabbert are not "top QBs" in the draft, which is what we're talking about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Holmgren talking about trying to trade up to #1 overall in the 2010 draft:
http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/media-cen...b5-c744f1d70747
I listened to the first half of the interveiw and sounded like if they were willing to give him up for undervalue the browns would have made the trade.
"we made an offer" "They were good with him"
So yeah we will stick some feelers out there you just never know but he didnt sound serious about actually making a play for the guy. Imho
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
GEEZ FELLAS,,, I SAID IT WAS A FREAKIN GUESS...  I swear, the "gotcha" mentality around here just SUCKS.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
There is no "gotcha" mentality. You weren't baited into saying anything. You made a series of statements which, while true, lacked examination of the surrounding circumstances for any sort of causal relationship.
For the record, you are correct in saying that Tom Heckert only drafted one QB during his four years as GM of the Eagles (though in fairness Andy Reid had final say on personnel), that being Kevin Kolb in the second round of the 2007 draft. Like you stated, they had a Pro Bowler in McNabb, lessening the need to draft a QB high. It also bears considering, though, that the Eagles have been a perennial playoff contender and in "win now" mode for the past decade. Since 2000, they've been in the post-season 9 times with a record of 10-9. Prior to the 2006 draft, Heckert's first as GM, they signed vet Jeff Garcia to be McNabb's quarterback. They drafted Kolb the following year, and had a serviceable tandem of experienced vet and young prospect which continued for the rest of Heckert's tenure there. Drafting another QB high in the draft simply wasn't a necessity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
Holmgren talking about trying to trade up to #1 overall in the 2010 draft:
http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/media-cen...b5-c744f1d70747
I listened to the first half of the interveiw and sounded like if they were willing to give him up for undervalue the browns would have made the trade.
"we made an offer" "They were good with him"
So yeah we will stick some feelers out there you just never know but he didnt sound serious about actually making a play for the guy. Imho
You're probably right. Even still, it shows that they are willing to go after an elite QB prospect in round 1.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
GEEZ FELLAS,,, I SAID IT WAS A FREAKIN GUESS...
I swear, the "gotcha" mentality around here just SUCKS.
If you think I care about trying to 'getcha' then 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,579
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,579 |
General Reply:
One thing I'm interested in is how many QB's Holmgren has drafted. I know he's gone and grabbed Hasselbeck, etc. etc. Has he drafted any other QBs, and whiffed?
I'm trying to figure out of Holmgren uses a shotgun approach to draft his late-round gems, or if he's just really good at finding QB value later in the draft.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Holmgren has definitely used the shotgun approach in the past. Most years the team he was with would draft a QB midround and see if they pan out.
If yes, then they trade them for a higher pick than they invested. If not, then they dump them for the new guy they just drafted. ROI planning is pretty much what it was (and is) all about there.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
While with the Seahawks, Seattle drafted 5 QB's in 9 years.. of course, he was only the GM for the first 4 years and in that time he drafted 3 of them.. Brock Huard: 1999, 3rd Rd Josh Booty: 2001, 6th Rd Jeff Kelly, 2002, 7th Rd. Seneca Wallace:, 2003, 4th Rd David Greene: 2005, 3rd Rd, Mike Teel: 2009, 6th Rd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Seahawks_draft_history#2000_DraftThat appears to be the facts,, I guess you gotta make what you will out of it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
and let's not forget his time in GB. Yes, Ron Wolf was the GM, but both have said in interviews that they worked together on the draft (and Holmgren is the QB guy). 1992-1998 drafts (7 drafts) - 5 QBs (and a trade for Favre) 1998 Matt Hasselbeck 1997 0 QBs 1996 Kyle Wachholtz 1995 Jay Barker 1994 0 QBs 1993 Mark Brunell 1992 Ty Detmer (and traded for Favre) http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=1800&type=teamStrange, I thought for sure that he was the one that drafted Aaron Brooks. But, Brooks was in the 1999 draft and that was after Ray Rhodes took over in GB.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
While with the Seahawks, Seattle drafted 5 QB's in 9 years.. of course, he was only the GM for the first 4 years and in that time he drafted 3 of them..
Brock Huard: 1999, 3rd Rd
Josh Booty: 2001, 6th Rd
Jeff Kelly, 2002, 7th Rd.
Seneca Wallace:, 2003, 4th Rd
David Greene: 2005, 3rd Rd,
Mike Teel: 2009, 6th Rd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Seahawks_draft_history#2000_Draft
That appears to be the facts,, I guess you gotta make what you will out of it.
What I get out of it......especially in today's NFL......is if you want a good shot at getting a great starter, you get him in the 1st round.
Even a great QB guru like the Walrus can't score with any regularity otherwise....
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Quote:
While with the Seahawks, Seattle drafted 5 QB's in 9 years.. of course, he was only the GM for the first 4 years and in that time he drafted 3 of them..
Brock Huard: 1999, 3rd Rd
Josh Booty: 2001, 6th Rd
Jeff Kelly, 2002, 7th Rd.
Seneca Wallace:, 2003, 4th Rd
David Greene: 2005, 3rd Rd,
Mike Teel: 2009, 6th Rd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Seahawks_draft_history#2000_Draft
That appears to be the facts,, I guess you gotta make what you will out of it.
What I get out of it......especially in today's NFL......is if you want a good shot at getting a great starter, you get him in the 1st round.
Even a great QB guru like the Walrus can't score with any regularity otherwise....
Ahh see both of MG's QB's were traded for. Lets not forget that.He has as is documented in this thread not drafted any QB worth a dime of salt. Hopefully this is his first.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While with the Seahawks, Seattle drafted 5 QB's in 9 years.. of course, he was only the GM for the first 4 years and in that time he drafted 3 of them..
Brock Huard: 1999, 3rd Rd
Josh Booty: 2001, 6th Rd
Jeff Kelly, 2002, 7th Rd.
Seneca Wallace:, 2003, 4th Rd
David Greene: 2005, 3rd Rd,
Mike Teel: 2009, 6th Rd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_Seahawks_draft_history#2000_Draft
That appears to be the facts,, I guess you gotta make what you will out of it.
What I get out of it......especially in today's NFL......is if you want a good shot at getting a great starter, you get him in the 1st round.
Even a great QB guru like the Walrus can't score with any regularity otherwise....
Ahh see both of MG's QB's were traded for. Lets not forget that.He has as is documented in this thread not drafted any QB worth a dime of salt. Hopefully this is his first.
That's absoulutly true. Holmgren has NEVER drafted a QB anywhere that was a pro bowlers.
I think it's safe to say that he knows how to coach up a QB,, but he hasn't shown he can pick one yet,.... (well, I guess Hassleback was his and/or Wolfs pick in GB so that isn't exactly correct I guess)
OH,, Toad, there are exceptions to every rule. A 1st round picked QB isn't a shoe in to be good.. I won't name the ones that failed, the list is much too long. But you know them as well as anyone does.
Then there is the mid to late round picks that were excellent QB's..
Talent is where you find it...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183 |
This simply isn't true. Of the current top ten rated QB's in the NFL only 4 were first round picks. Also, we must take into account that first round picks typically get a much greater opportunity to play (and thus prove if they are good or not) than late round picks, who may never see more than a few snaps in practice (ie what chance did any QB picked by Holmgren have during the Favre reign in GB?, Heck, if Favre had changed his mind and not left, we may very well have never heard of Aaron Rodgers). QB is as much about opportunity as it is anything (see Brady, Tom) and it is simply a fact that highly paid first round picks are going to get that opportunity more often than a 5th round pick.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
This simply isn't true. Of the current top ten rated QB's in the NFL only 4 were first round picks.
So you want to take a statement that blankets years of football and refute it with a sample of date that is derived from 1/4 of one football season?
There's a time to debate and a time to say "That's so ludicrous it's not worth wasting the time."
Quote:
Also, we must take into account that first round picks typically get a much greater opportunity to play (and thus prove if they are good or not) than late round picks, who may never see more than a few snaps in practice
Yeah, it's called advanced scouting. Higher picks get more playing time because they tend to be more talented.
What you're trying to say is that if all things were equal, lower round picks would have the same success as 1st round picks.
Goodluck with that. 
I've seen some of the finest spin ever on these boards.
That effort was not one of'em. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183 |
First, that data about the top ten QB's and only about half being first rounders goes back multiple years (I Just chose to cite this years as an example) and it responds directly to YOUR point that first round QB's matter more now than before (so addressing YOUR point with 20 year old data isn't right either, you just want to have it both ways).
Second, I am not saying that low round picks would have the same success rate as first rounders (obviously there are a lot more of them), but that without opportunity we never get to find out how many of those second and third rounders could actually play in the league. You seem to like to trust scouts way too much considering their success rate in the past isn't very good, while all I am saying is that opportunity matters a lot more than you are letting on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183 |
The last five years of passer rating leaders number of first rounders out of top ten:
2010 - 7
2009 - 4
2008 - 4
2007 - 3
2006 - 4
So, it looks like with the exception of last year, by your definition of it "matters more now", you would be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
First, that data about the top ten QB's and only about half being first rounders goes back multiple years (I Just chose to cite this years as an example)
And a poor example it was.
So where's the data? You want to debate a topic. Show me the data then we'll debate. Until then it's just your word against mine.
Remember that passer rating is only a tool by which an entire offense can be measured.
I don't measure Colt McCoy by his passer rating. Nobody should.
Quote:
and it responds directly to YOUR point that first round QB's matter more now than before (so addressing YOUR point with 20 year old data isn't right either, you just want to have it both ways).
Let's see......20 year old date IS "before," thus it would prove my point. 
Quote:
Second, I am not saying that low round picks would have the same success rate as first rounders (obviously there are a lot more of them), but that without opportunity we never get to find out how many of those second and third rounders could actually play in the league.
You're talking about what's possible. I'm talking about what's plausible.
On the fundamental point that lower round picks never get the opportunity that 1st rounders have, sure, that's obvious. But why is it obvious? Because lower round qb's over the course of history have less talent and ability than 1st rounders, and thus are less deserving of the opportunity.
That makes lower round QB's greater gambles.
Possibility versus plausibility.
Quote:
You seem to like to trust scouts way too much considering their success rate in the past isn't very good, while all I am saying is that opportunity matters a lot more than you are letting on.
All 32 NFL teams use those same scouts.  I think there's a reason for that. 
Opportunity matters, but opportunity isn't everything. The majority of non first round QB's aren't deserving of opportunity because they don't have the tools.
So why are we having this discussion? Because of Colt McCoy. He wasn't a first round QB. Why? When compared to what teams seek in their starting QB's, McCoy is lacking. His arm is marginal at best. His frame is small and frail. His experience in the NFL passing game was non-existent. Those are the reasons why Colt wasn't a first rounder, and those are the reasons why his performance has been iffy. Sure, the fact that the offensive line isn't very good plays a role. The fact that it's a new offense plays a role. Yet those things can't dismiss the things Colt can be judged on.
I've said it over the years and NFL people will say the same thing: It's fair to excuse issues as to why an offense isn't moving the ball, and thus some things can be excused for a QB, but a QB MUST also be judged on the things he can control, such things as arm strength, accuracy, smarts, decision making, and size. I can excuse some of the problems Colt is having because of external factors, but he MUST be judged on the things that are all on him.
The bottom line is that Colt, being a 3rd round QB and groomed to be the starter here, was a long shot. The odds are against him. In his second year, he has failed to answer the critics in terms of the questions that surrounded him coming out of college. The Walrus took a big gamble on him. So far, the gamble isn't paying off.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
The bottom line is that Colt, being a 3rd round QB and groomed to be the starter here, was a long shot. The odds are against him. In his second year, he has failed to answer the critics in terms of the questions that surrounded him coming out of college. The Walrus took a big gamble on him. So far, the gamble isn't paying off.
I agree with 95% of what you have written about Colt, but I'm taking a different final angle on it.
So far, the gamble is paying off. He was and is a long shot to be the answer at QB. But, throwing a 3rd round QB into the impossible situation last year was a good learning experience. He is playing better this season than the totality of last year probably as a result of that experience.
Now, we were hoping that he would have taken a bigger step forward. No doubt. It is a baby step forward so far. But, a step nonetheless. Now, the real question is if he can continue to make forward progress and make it quick enough so that he will have endeared himself to the coaching staff and FO before they have to think about possible replacements.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
You're talking about what's possible. I'm talking about what's plausible.
Funniest thing you've written in all the years I've known you on here
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
The last five years of passer rating leaders number of first rounders out of top ten:
2010 - 7
2009 - 4
2008 - 4
2007 - 3
2006 - 4
So, it looks like with the exception of last year, by your definition of it "matters more now", you would be wrong.
QB rating doesn't begin to tell the story.
In the last 8 seasons, how many teams that won the Super Bowl had QB's drafted in the first round? 5.
Sounds like I made a point, right? But I didn't, not really. That doesn't tell the entire story.
The question is how important is having a first round QB versus not having one? Since I'm arguing it's a QB driven league, and thus it's more important to get a 1st round QB in order for a team to succeed, the REAL question would become how many teams are starting 1st round QB's versus starting lower round QB's?
There are 32 teams. 19 of those starters are first round picks. That leaves 13 which are "everything else."
Possible versus plausible.
But we can take it a step further.
How many non first round QB's who were drafted in the past decade are now successfully starting for the team that originally drafted them? Here's the list:
Tom Brady and Tony Romo.
Ouch.
Those odds are heavily stacked against McCoy.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
You're talking about what's possible. I'm talking about what's plausible.
Funniest thing you've written in all the years I've known you on here
I dunno why. I've written that same argument for years to refute the "I sure hope *player x* who is a longshot works out this time!" theory.....
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Now, we were hoping that he would have taken a bigger step forward. No doubt. It is a baby step forward so far. But, a step nonetheless. Now, the real question is if he can continue to make forward progress and make it quick enough so that he will have endeared himself to the coaching staff and FO before they have to think about possible replacements.
I couldn't agree more, NoGo (not sure how to turn your name into the proper acronym man, even after all these years, hehehe).
It's always been about the physical ceiling with McCoy. He always had the intangibles and the ability to make plays with his legs, and he's shown those things to this point in his career. If he never became more than a serviceable backup, he'd be worth the 3rd round pick.
The comment you made is perfect, as we need to see exceptional decision making and accuracy in order for him to be a viable starter. Those are the two things he hasn't answered yet.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
Romo was undrafted ...... but when you look at it ...... if QB is the most important position on the field, (which it is if you want to win a championship) then it makes sense that higher draft pick investment would be made at this position than any other.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 183 |
But for bust potential (ie risk/reward). First round QB's are huge risks, much more so than any other position I would argue. For every Aaron Rodgers (who let's not forget sat for 3 years after slipping in the draft) there are two Jamarcus Russell's. And while you may have a high round pick at another position not turn out to be a pro-bowler, rarely are they complete and utter busts like you get at QB. Thus, my argument (and many others here) that when you have a team so riddled with holes as the Browns are, you simply cannot afford to take that risk on a first round QB when the jury is still out on your current bargain QB and you can get to the playoffs without a franchise QB quite readily.
As to Toad's point about ALL teams use the same scouts, so did baseball until they figured out sabermetrics and realized that the old eyeball isn't nearly as useful as scouts (and nfl talking heads) would like us to believe (for their job security of course).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Just a short word on the risk of taking a QB high in the first round. Now that they don't have to be paid $500 million with $300 million guaranteed the risk is more forgiving.
Those numbers are exaggerated but my point is that teams are better able to absorb a high 1st round QB bust than before.
No argument. Just a comment.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're talking about what's possible. I'm talking about what's plausible.
Funniest thing you've written in all the years I've known you on here
I dunno why. I've written that same argument for years to refute the "I sure hope *player x* who is a longshot works out this time!" theory.....
LOL,, and I guess to you that makes your argument ...hmm what's the word... Oh yeah,, Plausable
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,098
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,098 |
Quote:
Just a short word on the risk of taking a QB high in the first round. Now that they don't have to be paid $500 million with $300 million guaranteed the risk is more forgiving.
Those numbers are exaggerated but my point is that teams are better able to absorb a high 1st round QB bust than before.
No argument. Just a comment.
Now, that makes sense.... wish I'd been the one to connect those dots-
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
No, that doesn't make my argument. What makes my argument is that all the "Player X" guys have all failed......
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
No, that doesn't make my argument. What makes my argument is that all the "Player X" guys have all failed......
Oh Come on Toad.. enough is enough with this hate fest you got going on with McCoy.. The truth is, you can't predict what's going to happen any better than anyone else can. So while your opinion may lean towards him not being able to be "the one"... that don't make it so.
It's an opinion,, yours.. and you are entitled to it.. just don't push it on the rest of us.
I for one, don't know if he'll succeed or not, But I don't spend my days worrying about it. it is what it is..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
It's an opinion,, yours.. and you are entitled to it.. just don't push it on the rest of us.
The very premise of this message forum is information, discussion, and debate.
The only time a person feels that an opinion is "pushed" on them is when they don't agree with it.
Quote:
I for one, don't know if he'll succeed or not, But I don't spend my days worrying about it.
Don't push your opinion on how to think onto me.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,151 |
Does anyone else think that the whole you have to have a 1st rounder to win is overblown?
Winners win and the cream rises to the top. Some players take time to succeed. What i think you'll find is that if the QB is worth his salt...after his 2nd or 3rd year in a system with a team he will be successful. Its less about where youre drafted and more about the amount of time youre given in a system.
Players reach their ceiling with time. Kyle Boller found his ceiling was painfully low. Tom Brady's is high, prolly higher than weve even seen, same with Aaron Rodgers...but the point is that players that are successful are generally successful after several years in their system. At least 2.
I dont necessarily mean on the same team, i mean in the same system. Look at Jason Campbell as a perfect example...widely considered a bust/washout/bum by many...now in his 2nd system playing in Hue Jackson's offense, he is playing some darn good football (save for a confusing INT to Pat Chung). Aaron looked eh at first, but year 2 he took off. Brady was in his 3rd year (or 2nd) when he took off. Romo had been in the system for almost 4 years when he took over and took off. Matt Stafford, Matt Ryan, Peyton Manning and so on and so forth...Orton/Cutler...the examples are endless
This whole concept of needing to be a first rounder to win. no, not necessarily. Of course the overall records of QBs prolly looks something like.
1st rounders: 50% wins
2nd rounder: 45% wins
3rd rounder: 40% wins
4th rounders: 35%
5th rounders: 30%
6th and later: 25%
It's prolly something around there. I think there are less winning QBs with career winning records as you fall back sure
But the whole concept of only 1st rounders succeed in the NFL is silly because otherwise, no one would ever care to draft a QB after the 1st round ever cept to never play an NFL down.
You need to prove the game isnt too big or fast for you...then, if you show that you have the capabilities to do it...you stay and with more time in the system, you succeed.
QBs that get a 2nd and 3rd year in the system show 2 things...Improvement in the system, and competence. DA didnt show competence and was removed, Trent Edwards didnt show competence, but guys like Manning (both of them), Brady, Romo all showed competence when they played, then as time went on...they won and played well because they had time in a system. Success is more predicated on continuity in a system than it is draft round.
"It has to start somewhere
It has to start somehow
What better place than here?
What better time than now?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's an opinion,, yours.. and you are entitled to it.. just don't push it on the rest of us.
The very premise of this message forum is information, discussion, and debate.
The only time a person feels that an opinion is "pushed" on them is when they don't agree with it.
Quote:
I for one, don't know if he'll succeed or not, But I don't spend my days worrying about it.
Don't push your opinion on how to think onto me.
You are a good guy Toad.. Did I mention I missed ya...LOL
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,960 |
When I think of winning, I think of Superbowls, but truth be told, if all it took was a 1st round QB.. Marino would have a ring and Brady wouldn't have 3.
if you don't have all the pieces and parts,, you can have the best QB ever and still not get a ring..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,098
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,098 |
j/c
Much of what (I think) I see in Colt's play to date, is that the game hasn't yet slowed down for him. Not truly s-l-o-w-e-d d-o-w-n.
1. timing throws rarely lead the WR or TE. They're constantly being forced to either reach back, turn around, or slow their routes to make the catch
2. He's too quick to break the pocket (which tells me that he's feeling the rush when a rush might not be there)
3. waiting for WR's to get "college open" before launching the ball
all 3 of these traits could be the symptoms of a QB who's just not yet up to NFL speed. I mean, it really has been less than a full seaon of "seasoning" for the kid.
If my instincts are right- and that really is the root of what we're seeing, we could (I'd love to say, "should" here) have every confidence that these things will get corrected over the next half-dozen games. If they are, I'm sure he'd look much more like (with a tip-o-the hat to Django) a "true NFL QB." Imagine what he might look like if those 3 things get ironed out (which seems doable, to me)
Maybe that's why I'm not so down on him as others at this point in his young career. Looking for signs that he's improving is what this season is about- for me, at least. One thing's certain, however- I'll have a much better feel for his (theoretical) ceiling after this 16-game stretch is played out.
jmho
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Quote:
Just a short word on the risk of taking a QB high in the first round. Now that they don't have to be paid $500 million with $300 million guaranteed the risk is more forgiving.
Those numbers are exaggerated but my point is that teams are better able to absorb a high 1st round QB bust than before.
No argument. Just a comment.
I think what it actually makes is more opportunity to trade out of a high 1st for more picks. Where darn few teams wanted to trade into the top 10 before because of the cost of the player plus the picks, now, it's more of a viable option.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 560 |
Quote:
But the indisputable fact right now is that Frye isn't showing us the tools needed to be a winning QB in the NFL. Can he change that? Yes, there's time. But not much because he isn't that special.
Did you mean Colt?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Colt McCoy is here to prove you
wrong
|
|
