if dorsey trades down from 1, what will you do?

[Thomas5737]

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Sure. I don’t like his antics, his college offensive system, his subpar stature, and that he has a poor pocket presence, especially under duress. See Iowa State and Georgia. Statistics show he did well but he missed a lot of open shorter and intermediate crossing routes because he struggled to keep his eyes downfield.

Antics/height (probably, we'll see) I'll give you but to not like someone for the system they were in is silly. A successful QB can come from any system. We aren't talking about a wishbone offense than runs 90% of the time. The most important part of playing QB, by a wide margin, is the ability to accurately throw to your receiver no matter what system you are in. Sure if you never show any downfield accuracy that can be held against you even though the system gave you good stats but that isn't the case here.  There aren't many QBs in college that have good pocket presence when under duress. In fact, not many in the NFL either. I'm sure he has to work on that but every prospect has things to work on, not really a reason to hate them.

1 hour ago, MWil23 said:

Everyone on this board knows and knew how I felt about Watson. He was my #1 QB all the way. I have the online bruises from the old site to show for it.

You would clearly be in the minority. We all have had better mocks than actual drafts and maybe Watson is the real deal and you were right to want to take him #1 overall instead of Garrett.

[Kathouse Sticks]

4 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

Well most everyone says take the best QB at #1, the alternative to that is not taking the best QB in their opinion at #1 which most disagree with.

If they like Allen and you like Darnold, yeah, you can hate the pick but not the process.

There is no way to make everyone happy. Some want Rosen, some want Allen, some want Darnold, some want Mayfield and some probably event want Jackson. If they just want to appease the fans (is that what we want them to do, really?) then take Darnold and 80+% will be okay or happy. However, if they truly believe Mayfield is the best prospect they have to go with who they think is best not just play it safe and try to appease the media/fans/whoever.

Obviously if the choose wrong it will be their jobs, that's just the way it works so they better go with who they like and if it doesn't work they fall on their sword, it would suck but it is better than having to fall on a sword you didn't even really want.

I have said in an earlier post that l would hope they would do what is best for the team. Now what if that means trading for Smith with the plan to let Kizer develop, and then using those first two picks on, say Fitzpatrick and Chubb, or whatever outstanding twosome you can picture. 

And if that is the plan, they could trade out of #1, down to #6 with the Jets and still have the 4 and 6, plus whatever they get from the Jets.  Or trade the #4 to Buffalo for all they can get. There are a lot of possibilities where they still hold on to either #1 or #4 and still get a nice haul. 

Not sure if I like that because we need to utilize those picks now. 

[bruceb]

4 minutes ago, duke2056 said:

If we trade down for Mayfield, I will be pissed.  He doesn't look like an NFL Qb to me.

He might be but he will not get us or any other team a sausage.

I watched and loved Drew Brees in college.

That to me is his best comp but he is not and never will be Drew Brees, imho.

[Thomas5737]

4 minutes ago, Kathouse Sticks said:

I have said in an earlier post that l would hope they would do what is best for the team. Now what if that means trading for Smith with the plan to let Kizer develop, and then using those first two picks on, say Fitzpatrick and Chubb, or whatever outstanding twosome you can picture. 

And if that is the plan, they could trade out of #1, down to #6 with the Jets and still have the 4 and 6, plus whatever they get from the Jets.  Or trade the #4 to Buffalo for all they can get. There are a lot of possibilities where they still hold on to either #1 or #4 and still get a nice haul. 

Not sure if I like that because we need to utilize those picks now. 

Smith and Hue would be like water and oil. So the offense would probably still be shaky and the defense would still be good. It isn't my ideal scenario but we'd be better than 0-16.

[bruceb]

6 minutes ago, Kathouse Sticks said:

I have said in an earlier post that l would hope they would do what is best for the team. Now what if that means trading for Smith with the plan to let Kizer develop, and then using those first two picks on, say Fitzpatrick and Chubb, or whatever outstanding twosome you can picture. 

And if that is the plan, they could trade out of #1, down to #6 with the Jets and still have the 4 and 6, plus whatever they get from the Jets.  Or trade the #4 to Buffalo for all they can get. There are a lot of possibilities where they still hold on to either #1 or #4 and still get a nice haul. 

Not sure if I like that because we need to utilize those picks now. 

I know that this smacks of WFNY, and I haven't even looked at the talent next year holds, but I feel no compulsion to use the #4 this year because I do not see a player worth it, vs. picks for this and next year that we could get for it.

On balance, this strikes me as a pretty weak draft class except in a couple of position groups (e.g., RB and CB).

[MWil23]

40 minutes ago, Thomas5737 said:

We all have had better mocks than actual drafts and maybe Watson is the real deal and you were right to want to take him #1 overall instead of Garrett.

Last year I mocked Garrett at 1 and Watson at 12. Oh well. Hopefully they get both picks right this year and it’s not 2014 or 2012 all over again.

[bruceb]

26 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Last year I mocked Garrett at 1 and Watson at 12. Oh well. Hopefully they get both picks right this year and it’s not 2014 or 2012 all over again.

Hopefully they get the right QBOTF with #1 and trade out of #4 for value.

I know there will be but right now I do not see any PB talent after a couple of the QBs and Barkley.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 hour ago, bruceb said:

I know that this smacks of WFNY, and I haven't even looked at the talent next year holds, but I feel no compulsion to use the #4 this year because I do not see a player worth it, vs. picks for this and next year that we could get for it.

On balance, this strikes me as a pretty weak draft class except in a couple of position groups (e.g., RB and CB).

I honestly agree.

Good year to need a QB or RB, but I’m not in love with this class in general.

[Thomas5737]

51 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Last year I mocked Garrett at 1 and Watson at 12. Oh well. Hopefully they get both picks right this year and it’s not 2014 or 2012 all over again.

That's great for a mock but if you had Watson that high it would be careless to let someone else grab him if you were actually doing the drafting. If you are sure about a QB you have to pass on Garrett without blinking. What if KC would have went with Watson or the Bears even. Sure it turns out we could have gotten both but if you were certain Watson would transition well to the NFL and you rode it out hoping instead of grabbing him at #1 you either don't value the position as much as everyone else or weren't really confident in him as your #1 QB prospect, they don't usually last until #12 if any other team feels the same way picking ahead of you.

[MWil23]

Just now, Thomas5737 said:

That's great for a mock but if you had Watson that high it would be careless to let someone else grab him if you were actually doing the drafting. If you are sure about a QB you have to pass on Garrett without blinking. What if KC would have went with Watson or the Bears even. Sure it turns out we could have gotten both but if you were certain Watson would transition well to the NFL and you rode it out hoping instead of grabbing him at #1 you either don't value the position as much as everyone else or weren't really confident in him as your #1 QB prospect, they don't usually last until #12 if any other team feels the same way picking ahead of you.

Probably because I just did a mock to us on what I thought would be available based off of value and who I'd draft. Turns out, I'm right/was right. That said, I gladly would have given up pick #33 to trade up and grab him.

[Thomas5737]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

Probably because I just did a mock to us on what I thought would be available based off of value and who I'd draft. Turns out, I'm right/was right. That said, I gladly would have given up pick #33 to trade up and grab him.

You were right that he was there, we'll see if you were right about him transitioning well in the NFL. His first handful of games looked great but wayyyy too early to know what he will end up being.

You aren't trading #12 and #33 to get the Bears pick if they loved Watson. If you love Watson you use the only pick you have that guarantees you get him. If he is your Goff/Luck/Stafford/Bradford you should expect only one chance to land him. If he is your Aaron Rodgers/Russell Wilson/Brandon Weeden/Deshone Kizer then yeah you are hoping to get something out of a prospect without believing he is worthy of a top pick and maybe you get lucky.

It probably would have worked great for us if we would have taken that chance on an decent QB prospect and grabbed Watson. Sometimes they turn into greats. You don't expect that though if you are picking your QB there though, especially if you pass him over with a prior pick.

[OttoGrahamsGhost]

If Dorsey decides he doesn't want to get a QB #1 overall, I will drive from Utah to Cleveland with a brown bag full of dog ****.  Place it on his door step and light it on fire.

 

 

[MWil23]

11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

You were right that he was there, we'll see if you were right about him transitioning well in the NFL. His first handful of games looked great but wayyyy too early to know what he will end up being.

Fair point. If we end up getting a LEGIT Franchise QB, then it won't look as bad either. Throw in the 4th pick this year and that's a NICE move. I personally hated Peppers as a pro prospect, but the way that he was utilized this year was CRIMINAL. He looked like a solid box defender/true strong safety and we totally took away all of his strengths this year. I'm giving him a 100% total pass, but I truly hope that he turns legit soon.

11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

You aren't trading #12 and #33 to get the Bears pick if they loved Watson. If you love Watson you use the only pick you have that guarantees you get him. If he is your Goff/Luck/Stafford/Bradford you should expect only one chance to land him. If he is your Aaron Rodgers/Russell Wilson/Brandon Weeden/Deshone Kizer then yeah you are hoping to get something out of a prospect without believing he is worthy of a top pick and maybe you get lucky.

Or, you use all of that "draft ammunition" we stockpiled and get BOTH. That's the point. We don't need to keep drafting 13-15 guys a year. We need to use that ammunition, which we did and will continue to do.

11 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

It probably would have worked great for us if we would have taken that chance on an decent QB prospect and grabbed Watson. Sometimes they turn into greats. You don't expect that though if you are picking your QB there though, especially if you pass him over with a prior pick.

I guess I'd look at teams like the Chargers with LT and Brees and Raiders with Mack and Carr and 100% agree to disagree with you here. A lot of times, you can get both. There is a such thing as draft value, even if you are 100% sold on a guy. If you KNOW that you can get a guy with pick #12, you don't draft him at #1.

[FGK]

On 1/18/2018 at 1:19 PM, MWil23 said:

That’s fine Freaky I get what you’re saying. I despise Mayfield and honestly don’t see it. The fact that you yourself admit most experts don’t have him #1 and that he is 2 or 3 tells me we shouldn’t draft him.

Give me the consensus #1 QB prospect just one freaking time. That’s all I want.

Analytics shouldn’t factor into the QB position when you ha e the first pick, and this is coming from a very pro analytics person.

... What the poop? So we should only use the best resources we have when we make the less important decisions? I'm confused.

There is no consensus #1 QB. ESPN is NOT real scouting. McShay and Kiper are ENTERTAINMENT, not professional scouts. There is no Andrew Luck in this class, so we need to use every resource in the world to make the best decision possible.  This isn't the Luck draft, it's the Bortles/Trubisky drafts (in that there is no consensus top QB, I think it blows both of those years out of the water on quantity of good QB prospects.)

Truth is that it should likely come down to things we can only guess about (medicals, personalities, drive, mental processing, etc.)

 

[FGK]

21 hours ago, Thomas5737 said:

Antics/height (probably, we'll see) I'll give you but to not like someone for the system they were in is silly. A successful QB can come from any system. We aren't talking about a wishbone offense than runs 90% of the time. The most important part of playing QB, by a wide margin, is the ability to accurately throw to your receiver no matter what system you are in. Sure if you never show any downfield accuracy that can be held against you even though the system gave you good stats but that isn't the case here.  There aren't many QBs in college that have good pocket presence when under duress. In fact, not many in the NFL either. I'm sure he has to work on that but every prospect has things to work on, not really a reason to hate them.

I'd add that Jared Goff came from an equally (if not more so) "non-pro style" offense at CAL. And besides, the NFL is changing. The Rams went from worst offense in the NFL to one of the best in one year moving from Fischer's 90's style offense to McVay's college style offense (they literally took plays out of the CAL playbook to help Goff adjust). I want a QB who can make an accurate pass, move in the pocket when needed, read a defense, and lead the team. I don't care if I need to add some "college" plays to my playbook, because honestly I should be doing that anyway. Innovation breeds improvement, refusal to change brings stagnation.