Browns Interested In Peyton Manning?

[43M]

The Patriots also have the GOAT coach and GOAT QB.    Not exactly your average bear.

Its also easy to point out who shouldve been taken over other players in hindsight....unfortunately, you dont have that luxury going into a draft.

Just like RBs, Im not a fan of taking a WR in the first round unless a) its a special talent or b) you are a pretty complete team with very few holes.    However, Im also a big believer in taking BPA that fits a need....as opposed to taking a lesser player because they might fill another, possibly more crucial need.   

[SteelKing728]

@HorizontoZenith, first off, that's way too much to quote. Lol

Why then do you use past the top 20 as your cutoff for WRs? Is it based in hindsight? 

How can you blame Randy Moss though? Is Minnesota a better team if they take a lineman/different position (or kicker that doesn't crap the bed in one of the biggest games of the season..ugh)? 

I have no problem with the Fitz or A. Johnson pick. Rice goes back too far for my example.

I don't have an issue with WRs being taken early in some situations, like where a team has a great amount of depth at other positions but is lacking at that position. In general its not a good idea to take WRs early, but not everything is black and white/this and that. 

[MWil23]

It's easy to cherry-pick anything and make your thesis because of it.

For example, no one should draft a QB in the first round. After all, Joe Montana and Tom Brady combine for 10 Super Bowl wins. Throw in the Kurt Warners of this world and you've got yourself a lot of ammunition. Throw in random QB's who have won a Super Bowl or 2 like Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien, Joe Theismann, Bart Starr, and Roger Staubach, and you've got yourself a thesis.

[MacReady]

26 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

@HorizontoZenith, first off, that's way too much to quote. Lol

Why then do you use past the top 20 as your cutoff for WRs? Is it based in hindsight?

No, it's about value.  You're not getting top 20 value out of a WR.  Think of the WR position.  Name a single position in all of football that relies on other players so much.

A cornerback can still shut down a receiver without help from others.
A safety can take up half a field without help from his defense.
A DT/DE can still beat his man without anybody else.
A linebacker can still maneuver through a line to get a tackle.
A QB can still scramble or throw to one of 5 different players.
A RB can still make yards with bad blocking.

A WR literally relies on somebody else to do his job because he literally cannot do anything without another player throwing him the ball.  There's no other position in football that relies so much on another position.  It's why you can't build a team around a position that relies on a different position. 

Also think of it this way... The closer you are to the ball, the more important you are.  This is when considering the offensive line as one position.  Receivers play further from the ball than any other position.

It's why you don't see kickers drafted in the first three rounds.  It's why QB/Pass rusher/LT dominate the top 10 year after year after year.

WR is not an important position in football.  It's a luxury position.  You should be much more open to that being true considering how often the Vikings have whiffed on first round receivers.  Not trying to talk crap or get aggressive, just saying.  How much better off would the Vikings be right now if they hadn't taken Patterson or Treadwell? 

 

[MacReady]

36 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

It's easy to cherry-pick anything and make your thesis because of it.

For example, no one should draft a QB in the first round. After all, Joe Montana and Tom Brady combine for 10 Super Bowl wins. Throw in the Kurt Warners of this world and you've got yourself a lot of ammunition. Throw in random QB's who have won a Super Bowl or 2 like Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien, Joe Theismann, Bart Starr, and Roger Staubach, and you've got yourself a thesis.

Drew Brees and Brett Favre were 32nd and 33rd overall picks.  Steve Young wasn't considered a first round pick because he was a supplemental draft pick that took a 1st to get.  Even when you consider those quarterbacks non-first round picks, more Super Bowl winners have been first round picks than not.  There goes that thesis because you're more likely to win with a first round QB than without one. 

[SteelKing728]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

No, it's about value.  You're not getting top 20 value out of a WR.  Think of the WR position.  Name a single position in all of football that relies on other players so much.

A cornerback can still shut down a receiver without help from others.
A safety can take up half a field without help from his defense.
A DT/DE can still beat his man without anybody else.
A linebacker can still maneuver through a line to get a tackle.
A QB can still scramble or throw to one of 5 different players.
A RB can still make yards with bad blocking.

A WR literally relies on somebody else to do his job because he literally cannot do anything without another player throwing him the ball.  There's no other position in football that relies so much on another position.  It's why you can't build a team around a position that relies on a different position. 

Also think of it this way... The closer you are to the ball, the more important you are.  This is when considering the offensive line as one position.  Receivers play further from the ball than any other position.

It's why you don't see kickers drafted in the first three rounds.  It's why QB/Pass rusher/LT dominate the top 10 year after year after year.

WR is not an important position in football.  It's a luxury position.  You should be much more open to that being true considering how often the Vikings have whiffed on first round receivers.  Not trying to talk crap or get aggressive, just saying.  How much better off would the Vikings be right now if they hadn't taken Patterson or Treadwell? 

 

Those are all good points. Honestly I just thought you were using the SB angle for the argument.

I don't like receivers in that they generally develop slowly and that they seem to be the biggest gamble on a pick outside QB. Of course what you said plays a major factor in the argument against taking WRs early.

I liked Patterson as a returner/playmaker but he was an awful traditional WR. shouldn't have been a first round pick at all. Give me Frederick or Ogletree.

I liked Treadwell because 1) I didn't expect Thielen to be this good and 2) I thought we had enough depth elsewhere. Totally wrong here. Give me Garnett, Ifedi or trade back. I wanted Keanu Neal but he was snatched up early.