1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

2012 Draft Class, which QB's to watch in CFB in 2011

Discussion in 'NFL Draft Forum' started by Paul 13, Aug 1, 2011.

  1. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    If they make the playoffs with Kolb, I think they trade away the opportunity to select Luck.

    The cheaper cost of top 10 picks is why I wanted to keep our top three picks. That would be a high price from say mid teens to the top ten or twelve but it might be what it takes to get a Barkley or Jones.
     
  2. Rhody Phins Fan

    Rhody Phins Fan Well-Known Member

    4,348
    1,436
    113
    Jan 14, 2009
    I've watched Luck play and think he's going to be a quarterback capable of leading a team to a Super Bowl and I don't believe Henne is that quarterback. Obviously if Henne develops into that quarterback I'll be perfectly happy. And if Miami ends up going 8-8 or 9-7 but missing the playoffs I'll definitely have enjoyed the ride but afterward we'll be in the same place we are now. Im sick of treading water.
     
    Anonymous likes this.
  3. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL
    If they make the playoffs...how are they going to even have the opportunity to select luck?
     
    BigDogsHunt and ckparrothead like this.
  4. Rhody Phins Fan

    Rhody Phins Fan Well-Known Member

    4,348
    1,436
    113
    Jan 14, 2009
    Lol excellent point
     
  5. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    The answer was in response to what teams will be looking for a draft QB. I wouldn't include Arizona on that list regardless. CK seems to believe that they will be among the teams looking for a QB next draft.
     
  6. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    No, what I said multiple times is that the Cardinals could be in the position of selecting Andrew Luck next year and that makes them a team that could potentially take a quarterback. Perhaps you'd care to re-read what I said, and that might clear a few things up?
     
  7. dolfan22

    dolfan22 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    AZ won't be in the mix for the top pick imo . They may have paid a lot or even far too much for Kolb , but they have almost no chance to finish last imo.
     
  8. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    Okay, I'm re-reading the post I responded to. You said:

    B- Possibly looking for QBs:
    IND (Peyton Manning...36 years old on draft day?)
    DAL (Tony Romo...32 years old on Draft Day?)
    NOR (Drew Brees...a 33 year old free agent?)
    SEA (Tarvaris Jackson)
    OAK (Jason Campbell)
    ARI (Kevin Kolb...a total bust?)
    CIN (Andy Dalton...only a 2nd rounder)
    DEN (Tim Tebow?...TIM TEBOW???)
    SF (Colin Kaepernick...only a 2nd rounder)
    BUF (Ryan Fitzpatrick)

    C- Should be desperate for QBs:
    CLE (Colt McCoy...only a 3rd rounder and may not finish the year as starter, IMO)
    MIA (Chad Henne...a free agent?)
    WAS (John Beck...nuff said)



    I guess maybe I shouldn't put Arizona in there, given the huge contract they gave Kolb, but I wonder if that contract wasn't structured funny, and if they totally bottom out this year then I could see them just moving on quickly on that, trying to pretend that trade didn't happen, and/or taking a young stud that grooms and competes with Kolb who could continue to play while the young stud develops.

    That still sounds to me like you're saying they could take a QB. I responded that I don't think they should be on the list of possibly looking for a QB. I don't believe that even if they're in a position to take a QB they would take Luck. IMO they would trade out of the pick. It could be the best thing for Miami b/c that could create a trade partner.
     
  9. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    If their in position to take Luck, that means Kolb was pretty damn bad. IMO they would pick him in those factors.
     
    ckparrothead likes this.
  10. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    BINGO.

    But hey, why take peoples' words on what they meant when you can completely fabricate in your own mind what that person meant and then insist you're right even when the person that had the thought explains what he was thinking better.

    The level of argumentativeness on this site has reached crisis proportions. It's gotten to the point where you can say something, a person can reply with their interpretation of what you said, you can reply and clarify what you meant and that person will then go on to offer argument as to why you're wrong in your clarification and how that's not really what you meant.

    Author: "There was a red bird in the tree."
    Critic: "Obviously this red bird is symbol for the female's struggle with entering womanhood."
    Author: "No actually I didn't mean it like that, it's just a red bird."
    Critic: "No it's not, you meant it as a symbol for the female's struggle with menstruation. Red is often used to symbolize these things. Didn't you know that?"
    Author: "No, I didn't know that."
    Critic: "Well, now you do."
    Author: "So I meant it as a symbol for PMS?"
    Critic: "Yes."
    Author: "Wow, I'm clever."
     
  11. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    I specifically stated that if someone believes in Luck enough to trade multiple drafts for him, they might as well just lose the games. If you don't believe in his ability then you wouldn't trade multiple drafts and therefore the point is moot.

    Personally I think successful football scouting is less about predictions and more about probabilities. Luck is the highest rated passer since Peyton and currently has the highest probability among the Phins options to become a franchise QB. Our other options are free agency or Henne. I don;t think you'll find many professional talent evaluators that would choose Henne. As for free agency, the only times that works is with extremely low probability QB's. I don't recall the last time a highly prized young free agent QB became a franchise QB for the acquiring team. The guys that became franchise QB's -

    Warner in St. Louis was previously bagging groceries and playing arena league. He was brought in as camp fodder not a potential starter.
    Brees had a messed up shoulder, didn't get medical clearance from the Phins and had little interest from anyone outside New Orleans
    Vick was coming out of jail and no one was sure if he could even play football, was brought in as a back-up

    In other words, good young QB's that can be predictably expected to lead a team are not found in free agency. The guys that become good usually come from situations that are highly unpredictable with extremely low chance of success (low chance means someone will make it). If you want to bring in 100 Matt Moore's over the next 30 seasons hoping to land Kurt Warner, go ahead but I won't be watching. Vince Young actually fits the profile this year far better than Orton of potentially successful (with VERY low hit rate) QB.
     
  12. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I think they're all in on Kolb and will give him a couple of years at least. Also I'm not a fan of his, but he's not bad enough to take them to the bottom of the league. If they're at the bottom then he's probably injured and missed most of the season. As long as it wasn't a career ender, they still wouldn't take Luck over getting a bunch of picks.
     
  13. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I just don't see how that makes sense. Believing in Luck and believing in losing are unrelated. I see losing on purpose as something that destroys your team. It's just something you don't do. I also see this coming draft as having more in it than just Luck. I expect that there will end up being about four first round worthy QBs in it (more may go, but I'm talking about being worth it).
     
  14. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    Every successful team has done it at some point, just not for these reasons. When Indy pulls their starters in game 16 or doesn't play starters for the last couple games; are they playing to win?
     
  15. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    And IMO it destroyed the roll they were on helped end their season. In my experience it does more harm than good and it's not something every successful team does or anything I would endorse.
     
  16. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    I agree that the strategy has backfired for some in the past (specifically Indy) by slowing down their momentum. However, here we have no momentum. If you think we can build from where we are through free agency and drafts to become a Super Bowl contending team than the concept of losing on purpose really is not worthwhile. However, I'm of the opinion that we can't get to the point of being perennial super bowl contenders from where we are in the near future without going all in. I think we have the perfect team to surround a young QB - young solid defense, pro bowl left tackle, highly drafted (hopefully he'll play like it) Center, #1 receiver. We only have to fill in a few spots and the spots we have to fill in (TE, G, #2 speed WR, RB, S) may already be on this team and if not those are exactly the positions that are easiest to fill in draft / free agency.

    To give you my analogy ... it's like playing poker and your chip count is running low. If you don't do something soon, you won't have enough chips to make ANY play (if we waste 3-4 more seasons without a QB, we'll lose the value of our young Defense because it would then still take another 2-3 seasons for a new QB to mature). Meanwhile on the exact hand where you still have enough chips to make a run, you get pocket Aces and then an A Q K falls on the flop and 3 other guys go all in ... that's your shot (as eminem said .. u only get one shot). Just when all the pieces we need are in place except QB, the best and surest QB prospect in a decade is coming out. It doesn't mean it will pan out. On that poker hand, u may still lose but the odds are in your favor and if you don't go all in, you know for sure your out. If we don't do this, the odds of us becoming perennial Super Bowl contenders is probably pretty low.
     
  17. rafael

    rafael Well-Known Member

    27,364
    31,261
    113
    Apr 6, 2008
    I just don't agree that Luck is the only QB prospect that can make us a perennial contender. This coming draft could have 3 or 4 QB prospects capable of that. I actually wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being one of those drafts where 5 or 6 QBs go in the first, but IMO no more than 3 or 4 will be worthy of it. In past QB heavy drafts that usually means that some will go late in the first. Think of when Marino went at #27. In the 2004 draft you had 4 QBs in the first, 3 of which were worth it. The latest one was Big Ben at #11. I think that if there are 3 or 4 top QB prospects in this next draft, that the last ones will go no earlier than the 12 - 15 range. We may be right there without needing to trade up or maybe we just need to trade up a few spots. Either way, I don't see us in a position where our chips are low and there's only one option. I see trading the whole draft for Luck as one potential option of many that I would consider. Losing on purpose is not one I would consider.
     
  18. HardLuckChampion

    HardLuckChampion New Member

    1
    0
    0
    Aug 21, 2011
    you have a pretty good list but imho you missed the one most important qb in college...kellen moore of boise state. He is incredibly accurate has a hell of an arm and his decision making is unprecedented. I think he is the guy for Miami next year....he will be the next Marino.
     
  19. KB21

    KB21 Almost Never Wrong Club Member

    24,029
    40,478
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    Right now, I think Andrew Luck is alone at the top. To me, he is by far the best quarterback prospect that will be eligible for the draft. I've got to see more of Matt Barkley to convince me that he will be able to overcome his lack if ideal size to be a legitimate star quarterback in the NFL. Right now, Landry Jones is second on my list. I like his size and arm strength. Much like Sam Bradford, Landry comes from one of the few spread offenses that actually asks the quarterback to make multiple reads and NFL type throws. Those are really the only two that I'm convinced of at this point.

    I like Brandon Weeden's talent, but I'm not going to invest a first round pick in a quarterback who is already in his prime years relative to his age.

    I'm not that high on Nick Foles. He's pretty much the opposite of Landry Jones to me. He's got size, but Nick Foles is a dink and dunk quarterback that isn't asked to make many reads. Think Blaine Gabbert, only less of an athlete. Yes, Blaine was a first round pick, but he may have been the second most overrated quarterback in this past draft to Cam Newton.

    Two guys I want to keep my eyes on are Ryan Lindley from San Diego State and Kirk Cousins from Michigan State. I'm not a Ryan Tannehill fan.

    Alex Smith has one year to show he can be the guy. If he tanks, I think SF is up a creek without a paddle. Colin Kapernick is years away from being a competitive NFL quarterback, if he ever gets there.
     
  20. Boomer

    Boomer Premium Member Luxury Box

    22,623
    50,064
    113
    Nov 30, 2007
    You could coach Andrew Luck and he'd still look legit.
     
  21. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    Did a nice comparison view of Ryan Lindley and Ryan Tannehill this weekend. Even though most would think not to look at Lindley versus a Cal Poly or Tannehill versus a SMU, looking at how the two play against teams they should overmatch does show you some things.

    For instance, against SMU, Texas A&M so overmatched their opponent that Tannehill didn't have to do hardly anything difficult. He was allowed to look very robotic, taking the screen pass to the slot receiver versus a certain look what seemed like half a dozen times, or taking the short out route underneath the umbrella coverage. He made one seam throw to the Tight End in man when he read the safeties splitting wide in tampa two, and he had another improvised broken pocket throw that actually was more risk than it was worth, though it worked out for him to the tune of a touchdown, but otherwise everything was just very robotic, very easy, nothing really ventured.

    Lindley on the other hand, there were elements of his offense that were not necessarily overmatching even the Cal Poly defense. You get an appreciation for how much Ryan is going to have to deal with this year. His most experienced receiver was a white walk-on that has all of 4 catches in his career. The other starter converted from cornerback to wide receiver this season. There was another guy who ran routes who was just a cornerback, not even really a convert, they just threw him out there and told him to run the post route as fast as he could. The timing and chemistry particularly with the guy who converted from corner this year (Lockett)...just wasn't there. When people talk about accuracy issues with Lindley, that's something you have to keep in mind. He's definitely capable of missing throws, but some of them aren't really missed, they're just a guy not adjusting his route to the coverage the way Ryan expects. On the other hand, the throws and the concepts that Lindley threw in the game were more high level NFL stuff, IMO. He worked almost exclusively out of play-action, which right away has to tickle your fancy if you're an NFL team because you know there are so many aspects of executing play-action and a dropback offense that he's already going to be good at. He made a bigger variety of throws that caught my eye and had less help from the people surrounding him.

    When you see a guy throw the out to the perimeter against quarters, everyone fawns over it and says that's an NFL throw. It is, but it's not really a high level NFL throw, IMO...it's more of a de minimis NFL throw. If you can't throw that, forget it. But throwing the corner route on a smash concept, or hitting the seam, the back shoulder fade, the deep post, crossing routes, to me those are more interesting than hitting the out route or a curl...those require more accuracy.

    Just based on this weekend's action, without seeing Tannehill and Lindley go up against more fierce competition, I'm going to have to grade Lindley ahead of Tannehill. But we'll see how the season goes on.
     
    ssmiami likes this.
  22. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    you're better than that Chris
     
  23. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I don't know what you're trying to insinuate but I stand by what I wrote.
     
  24. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    i was referring to your insinuation that the quality of his most experienced receiver should be discounted because of the color of his skin. Maybe I was misunderstanding and you used the term white to indicate inexperience (I've never heard it used that way), if so I was wrong.
     
  25. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    You didn't misunderstand me. The fact that his most experienced and reliable receiver is a white walk-on shows what kind of situation he has to deal with at receiver.
     
  26. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    OK, fair enough. To me the walk-on part of the description paints a picture of the investment the school has made in and therefore probability of quality of his receiving core. I don't think race adds anything to the description in terms of showing that he has poor receivers.

    Obviously by sticking to your initial comment, you do think it informs the picture. This point is tangential to the thread so we can move on.
     
  27. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I think race does add something to the picture, and there's nothing wrong with that. I consider racism to be making more out of race than is necessary or accurate. But it IS accurate that white guys are generally slower and less explosive, hence you don't often see them playing wide receiver or running back in the NFL. No, it's not always true. Just like it's not always true that a 6'0" quarterback can't make it in the NFL. But it's usually true, and that makes it informative. If I'm going to sit here and avoid at all costs talking about race even when it is informative, then I'd have to consider myself a racist.
     
  28. caneaddict

    caneaddict Season Ticket Holder

    390
    521
    0
    Dec 4, 2007
    I'm well aware of the statistical discrepancy between black/white skill position players. My objection to the comment was not out of some politically correct theory of staying quiet about obvious facts. Rather, it was because I think you are making a logical error; let me explain.

    We all know that given complete equality in hiring practices, black athletes will represent the majority of chosen players at skill positions. Hence we can assume they have a natural physical advantage on average. Of course there will always be other non-black athletes that measure even more deviations from the mean of their own population and therefore on an absolute sense can compete with the best skill position athletes. By definition because say a white athlete may need to be a couple more standard deviations from the mean of his own population than a black athlete to compete at the highest level, the total number of white athletes will be fewer than black athletes (assuming they are not chosen from a larger population pool with enough discrepancy in population sizes to counter this trend, ie choosing from a population composed of 95% white, 5% black). Given the above, if we were to see a professional or college level football LEAGUE (unlike a high school they are not bound by choosing players from one geographic region so the end choices shouldn't be skewed by local population metrics) with 90% white skill position players, we can safely assume there was some bias in either hiring practices or restriction on the eligible pool of available athletes. To this end, your comment above would be valid and we know that the overall quality of the receivers in that LEAGUE is lower than a competitive LEAGUE. This is due to the law of large numbers. It would be an extremely low probability that an entire LEAGUE would be white given equal opportunity.

    Back to your point about a single player on a single team. Any white player currently playing in a non-biased college or professional team should be considered as good as a black player in the same position. The reason is simple. We know that there are white players that can play at a high level; they exist. They make up a small portion of the skill position population. However, if the team is not biased in their hiring, a white player starting at a position means he beat equally good black players. The walk-on referenced above, I'm sure there were black athletes at his college that wanted to walk-on and start. They didn't because they could not beat him out. If he beat out the black players than that means he was better than them and therefore his skills shouldn't be discounted due to race. Your comment would indicate the team would be better off playing the black player that lost out to the white player in practice or that the team simply couldn't find good enough black players. The first possibility is clearly silly and the second which I think is where you were headed would only hold true if NO white payers EVER represented the highest caliber player in college or NFL at that position, again false.

    Imagine saying that Tom Brady is really amazing because his best receiver is a white guy! Clearly the Pats don't discriminate in hiring and yet Wes Welker has beat out other receivers to start. By definition that means he is better than them. The only time you can discount the probability of a single player being good because of the color of his skin is if there is some larger scale hiring issue that would influence his competition. Otherwise the small percentage of starting white skill athletes in non-biased programs have all beat out black athletes and therefore should be regarded for what they are.
     
    Mainge likes this.
  29. Mainge

    Mainge Season Ticket Holder

    6,829
    1,449
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    West Palm Beach
    I'm really late on this but fwiw, the entire baseball industry disagrees with you.

    Prospects whom are older for their level always have their seasons work taken with a grain of salt, whereas young guys who hold their own are given the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying that should be directly translated but it makes sense that a guy would be better at 27 than he would be at 20. You're entering your physical prime around then for starters.
     
  30. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    I think you've mis-characterized what baseball thinks on this matter.

    How many instances does baseball have where a 27 year old is playing the game after not having played it at all for the last 7 or 8 years?

    What you're talking about is a guy that's 27 years old and was playing baseball when he was 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Therefore, the age of the player is inseparable from the experience level of the player, because he's been playing baseball the whole time.

    So no, the entire industry of baseball does not necessarily disagree with me.

    Call me when baseball teams find a baseball prospect that is now playing baseball at 27 years old after not having played baseball at all since he was 17 years old, and those teams decide to throw out the success he's having at 27 because the age itself, wholly separate from the experience level, means the guy is at an unfair advantage.
     
    Mainge likes this.
  31. Mainge

    Mainge Season Ticket Holder

    6,829
    1,449
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    West Palm Beach
    Certainly that's a different argument but that's not what my original quote portrays. If you made that distinction in a different post and I missed it, I apologize.
     
  32. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    That was the exact distinction I was trying to make earlier and if I didn't really explain it well enough then that's on me, but that is what I was trying to say.

    The person I initially quoted was trying to say that simply due to the maturity, not the experience factor, a 27 year old playing quarterback in college football should be held to a different standard than other players. I personally don't agree with that because we're talking about a guy that is basically no more or less experienced at football than everyone else on the college landscape, and that some would in fact say is actually at a heavy disadvantage since he went so long without having played football at all. Guys that take long time periods off and then come back to it are often viewed to be at a disadvantage.

    Overall, the age isn't an advantage. Any advantages the age should give him in terms of attitude and maturity should generally be nullified by the simple fact that guys that end up NFL QBs are generally very mature for their age already, so he doesn't even really have a great advantage that way over for instance a Matt Barkley or Andrew Luck. In fact I think they might have better maturity.
     
  33. Mainge

    Mainge Season Ticket Holder

    6,829
    1,449
    113
    Mar 23, 2008
    West Palm Beach
    Got it.
     
  34. Nappy Roots

    Nappy Roots Well-Known Member

    10,191
    4,187
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Bradenton,FL

    Come on Ck, that's not what I said, and I am assuming you quoted me as me and you were the ones having this discussion on age. I was saying all things equal age has got to be a factor, as mentally and physically you are more matured at 27 then a 20 year old. I don't want to rehash over the argument as it played its course.
     
  35. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    85,620
    51,681
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    I've watched the majority of Luck's snaps this season. Not every snap, but again the vast majority. He does a lot of things well. His footwork. His tempo. His arm placement. His decision making. His short to intermediate accuracy. His leadership. His pre snap reads. All very very good. There is a weakness though. Downfield accuracy. It's the reason he's best in a WCO. And IF he ends up here, we'd better have a WCO or WCO/hybrid ready for him to excel in.
     
    ckparrothead likes this.
  36. ckparrothead

    ckparrothead Draft Forum Moderator Luxury Box

    79,599
    159,162
    113
    Dec 1, 2007
    On the bright side, if Chad Henne's deep ball can improve, anyone's can. Also good to note that both Aaron Rodgers' and Matt Schaub's deep balls improved in the pros. And for all the stink everyone raised about Blaine Gabbert's inability to complete deep passes (I'm including myself), his completion rate on the deep passes is kind of low but not ridiculously low (like 29-30%). Chad Henne's was consistently lower (25%) until this year, and Henne never had criticisms coming out about throwing a bad deep ball.
     
    Paul 13 likes this.
  37. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    85,620
    51,681
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Started watching Landry Jones for the first time last night.. I'm only about one half of the Missouri game in. I'm sure Oklahoma won that game (as they are undefeated) but I have no idea how well Jones played coming in. It's so much more efficient watching games on the DVR and only, in this case, from the Sooners' offense perspective. But in my limited time watching him, big differences between him and Luck. Footwork is not even close to comparable. No question he has the arm strength necessary to make all the throws. Showed some nice touch on some deep balls. Certainly a different offense to what Luck is running in Stanford. With the likelihood that we'll have a new coaching staff next year, given that we'll know if we're drafting first or not, it'll be interesting to see which direction we go with the offensive coordinator. One would think Jones doesn't fit the same as Luck would with a WCO/WCO hybrid. Not to say that Luck couldn't fit into a spread. It's easer for him to fit than for Jones to fit into WCO. Have to think that you're picking your OC with the knowledge of who you're drafting as quickly as January, before you've done the bulk of your draft grades. Certainly if we're drafting first overall.
     
  38. sws84

    sws84 Season Ticket Holder

    1,870
    115
    0
    Nov 25, 2007
    Hey guys, I hope this isn't a stupid question, but what do you think about drafting 2 QB's this year if we are not able to draft Luck? I know some may argue it is over-kill, but drafting 2 players at a position of need (Surtain and Madison) has worked for us before. We need to stop this carousel we have a QB. Plus it's no guarantee that any player drafted will work out (Ryan Leaf), so drafting 2 guys gives us a better chance of filling that need. Also, by chance both guys turn out to be legitimate NFL QB's then we could probably recoup the draft pick -if not more- we used on 1 of them. Thoughts?

    Steve :-)
     
  39. Anonymous

    Anonymous Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    13,969
    3,367
    113
    Jul 5, 2009
    That would be an excellent idea if say Brandon Weeden fell to the middle rounds. Draft Barkley/Jones, then draft Weeden.
     
    sws84 likes this.
  40. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    85,620
    51,681
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Anybody got any opinions on Case Keenum from Houston? Throwing nine touchdowns in one game has my interest. A product of that Houston system (a la Colt Brennan) or does he really have a shot in the NFL? He's got amazing downfield touch. But that's only from watching the highlights from Thursday :lol:
     

Share This Page