sugar's comment on no #4 pick Qb
by va$kinsfan on Jan 24, 2010 2:30 PM EST
Email
Print
I agree completely with these statements because any rookie Qb will spend more time on his back than standing up. Drafting a Qb at all instead of fixing the glaring problems up front would just be continuation of the old Cerrato regime. The last 10 years we have had a plethora of starting Qb's who have been thrown to the wolves. There is a reason this site is called "Hog's Haven" instead of William's Haven or any other name. It all start's with the men up front in the trenches. With a dominating O-line our current Rb's bowling ball style Ganther and slash and cut Mason would become more of a Wrecking ball and Blade master. Until we were ready to get a big name Rb. Not to mention this possible scenario: Brandon Marshall from Denver, Devin Thomas our 1 and 2 with Santana free to devastate the third string Cb from the slot. Let us not forget the potentially deadly duo of a Healthy Chris Cooley and Fred Davis. Hello dangerous West Coast Offense. But Campbell or Brennan ( depending on Your personal favorite) need time to tear defenses a new one. Without a dominating line even the best coaching/ play calling comes up short. Look at the dominant teams in the league and you will find teams that spent a lot of high draft picks on their o-line. All other issues can be addressed next year. Period. Just my point of view but I believe that it is one that Allen and Shanahan will probably consider a high priority.
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Va, I was with you up until the point were you said "personal favorite". I was waiting for you not to play it safe and tell us who you like at QB.
Hey, don’t be afraid nobody on here bites they only growl a little bit. My receiving corp would be B. Marshall, Devin Thomas and Joshua Cribbs. I think Santana does not want to play in the slot. He often times gets crocdile arms trying to catch passes in traffic.
It was a little out of focus
but I saw it, too. I think…
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Draft
He is saying we should beef up the O-line, and nobody disagrees (it’s just that I think we can do it without using the #4 pick). And most would probably like to have Marshall. I like that he sees that Colt ought to be given a chance to beat out Jason. Colt is an unknown – Zorn never liked him and never gave him a chance. But he flashed some real playmaking ability in the first year.
Brennan
Not really – a team drafted him. Zorn always bad mouthed (in the usual cool coach-speak) Colt, never gave him a chance, and put him on IR too quickly – I think because he didn’t want to have to decide between him and JC.
Agree on being able to still add quality O-linemen in the 2nd and later.
i’m starting to think that if we don’t go QB at #4 then we need to trade back(ideal), or just suck it up and draft Spiller. The OT’s are very deep in this draft, and Okung could be a reach at 4. I pray we can move back, get another 2nd, and draft an OT in the mid first, then go OT, RB in the 2nd.
For the record, I’m still not against drafting Bradford at #4 though.
I want to trade down as well
but I don’t like hearing people say a player is a “reach” at a certain pick. I think that if the front office thinks that a player is the guy we need, then we should get him regardless of where the talking heads say he should go (within reason of course, no kickers in the 1st, etc. Al Davis-style).
We can get a T who's nearly his calibur in the early 2nd this year.
Thats why I believe he is a reach at 4.
This is a peeve of mine in general
Cerrato was so scared of ‘reaching’ that he never drafted the players that would help our team the most.
A reach is only important if the owner has shallow pockets
or you are trying to manage a tight cap situation. Since it looks like the cap is out the window, if he is the right guy and in all likelihood won’t be there on your next pick – get him if we can’t trade down (and get more picks in doing so).
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Bradford starts throwing this week.
Surgery went well, and it was the identical surgery Andrews performed on Drew Brees.
Won’t know about him until private workout in April.
Problem is a decision has to be made on Campbell in the next month.
Shanahans would have to really dislike what they see on the tapes to risk losing Campbell without a solid backup plan.
Campbell will be highly sought after in FA.
At least 8 teams need a starting QB.
If JC indeed JC is highly sought
then this is a no brainer. Keep him. There are very few scenarios that result in losing JC and seeing an upgrade at QB next season. I think he has upside – don’t know how much – but I think he can be coached by the Shanny’s et al to run their offense and manage the game well.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Don, he did not say that Colt should be given a chance for anything. Where did you read this at ?? Damn JC haters are getting delusional. If my memory serves me correctly. Colt was not even better than Chase.
The only reason Colt made the team was because he was already signed to a real contract because of being drafted.
by LETJASONPASS on Jan 25, 2010 6:47 AM EST up reply actions
I agree...
Colt in his first preseason looked great… But Colt in this past season was out matched by Daniel…
"When the rich wage WAR its the POOR that die!!!"
Don't forget that the pre-season
foretold the upcoming season accurately in that our line did not perform well even before the injuries. Point being, not sure if we saw the real Colt or real Chase in pre-season.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
So true.
Any excuses LJP is gonna make for Campbell’s piss poor year are also excuses for Colt or Chase’s preseason play also.
by williamhudsonlink on Jan 25, 2010 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
colt and chase
weren’t going against 1st string defenses when they played, so no the same things don’t apply.
SpottieOttieDopaliscious
We'll need to trade a player, or draft picks for Marshall.
I’ll take him anyday, but not for a 1st or 2nd rd pick, and I’m sure thats what would be required.
Tiller , you claim to be a football genius. What fool would not take Brandon Marshall for a 2nd round pick?
This is one of the dumbiest statements ever. He is only one of the top receivers in the NFL. What is the chance that you would even draft a player half as good as B. Marshall in the 2nd ? (slim) The draft is a crap shoot B Marshall is a known commodity. (2 headbutts and a Brett Farve smack on the AZZ to you)
by LETJASONPASS on Jan 25, 2010 6:53 AM EST up reply actions
I don't know when I ever claimed to be a football genius;
however on marshall, I would be fine with packaging a player and a late rd pick, such as Rodgers and our 5th for marshall. We reallly need those first 2 picks this year. There is so much depth in the draft this year. We can really improve our team with these picks. I only wish we had more between the 1st and 4th rounds.
I wouldn't take Marshall
for a second round pick. I guess I’m a Special Fool. He is too risky for our locker room and we have too much to do besides adding another WR, of which we have a surplus already and dang few draft picks to fill our other needs.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Guess I'm special too
I wouldn’t use a 2nd rounder in this years draft on a stud WR. Why would I when JC has 1.5 seconds to throw? We have enough weapons in the passing game, we need to revamp the Oline and the RB positions before we add another play maker in the passing game.
by Nobetterthenbob on Jan 26, 2010 3:25 PM EST up reply actions
Having Marshall would be nice and all but.....
1, I think it would take too much to get him
2. When Shanahan was still in Denver wasn’t he planning on cutting Marshall?
As far as the QB situation, I don’t even think they should draft one this year. If they want a QB that bad, I’m sure Shanahan could probably pick out an undrafted gem to develop (even though I highly doubt that will happen). JC should definitely be that man coming into the new season and as someone else mentioned, Brennan wasn’t really given a chance even though he completely sucked in pre-season.
Brandon he was lucky to be on the team. Chase was better than Colt
by LETJASONPASS on Jan 25, 2010 6:55 AM EST up reply actions
Trust me I definitely agree. I didn't understand why they cut him.
Now he is sitting behind Drew Brees just absorbing all of his knowledge. And then we get that Richard Bartell guy who I have never heard of. I was just saying that Colt was never given a fair chance even though he messed his chances up with his pre-season performance. I would much rather have had Chase then Colt.
Even discussing B. Marshall is a waste of time
He was in Shanny’s doghouse and appears to be a TO Jr. We need more London Fletchers on this team, not CPs and their ilk. Did I mention that we need to fill far more gaps on this team than waste a trade/draft pick on Marshall – unless Denver wants CP back. That I would consider.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Scott, I just feel like we are overthinking this O-line issue now that we have Shanny. I believe it will be much easier to find his style of O-lineman. We do not need the super stud that can pancake block you by himself.
I say lets get a game changer or two through draft or trade. We must increase our speed or big play ability.
by LETJASONPASS on Jan 25, 2010 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
We must also address
2-4 holes in the defense:
FS, CB, LB and an NT if we go 4-3
on O we need:
an RB before we address any more WRs
and 2-4 linemen, 5 better yet.
So potentially, we need 9 players on the outside to fill with 4 draft picks. Makes a QB and a WR a luxury we cannot afford, especially if we need to trade draft picks to get them.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Scott, you're better than this
Did you forget that once we get Cribbs all of our problems will be solved thru his versitality?
Wow is he really that good?
We should definitely give whatever it takes to get him!
I here we do get a free video with any serious trade offer.
Maybe we can do a deal where Denver gives us B. Marshall and Cleveland gives us Cribbs and they can fight it out as to who gets Clinton or Vinny. Loser wins a playoff team on a platter.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Thats a great idea.
Its just crazy enough to work. Where would they hold the battle though? It should be somewhere where neither team would even be close to having home field advantage and far enough from here to avoid drama coming back to Washington.
I agree with the getting a game changer thing
But do we honestly need more WR’s? If they were to cut or trade ARE and Moss then I would understand your point about Marshall even more, but as long as they are on the roster I believe we have enough WR’s. We didn’t even get to see what Marko Mitchell could really do. I was hoping to see him get some gameday action the whole season but he only got time in two games if I remember correctly.
I could see putting Moss out as trade bait
so that we could run a 2TE set with DT, MK, and MM in the slot. With his size and two pass receiving TE’s it would be a nightmare to defend. MM would be a sure mis-match (do I hear “Marko – Mis-Match – Mitchell” in our future?) for us and put a lot of pressure on the D.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
If you scared....go to Church
The reason no one wants to pick a qb first round is because you’re all scared and want tp play it safe. I can’t say that I’m for a QB first round because I dont know the prospects too well but i do know if either of these guys are potential superstar QB’s then it’ll be foolish not to pick him up.
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 26, 2010 2:50 PM EST reply actions
It's not about playing it safe
At least personally for me it’s not. I just see our biggest problem right now all around is the Oline. Rookie QBs succeed when protected in the pocket and with a strong running game. They do better when they are part of the offense and not the offense. Look at Flaco, his numbers aren’t great but he gets the job done with a strong running game and strong defense. Now look at Stafford. His team won 2 more games then last season. Might be a good pick for the future, but it certainly didn’t help them that much this season.
On top of that JC was sacked 42 times. Some might say a few of his sacks were his fault and I might believe a few of those, but there is no reason to believe that a rookie QB would have less sacks behind the same Oline. On top of that, the last thing this teams needs is a Ryan Leaf because we have the talent right now to make the playoffs next year with the right pieces. A bust at QB sets us back 5 years.
However, I will say that if JC were to be traded for a 1st and a 3rd, QB becomes very important. Under these circumstances, we could draft a QB, but not unless we pick up another pick in the first round.
by Nobetterthenbob on Jan 26, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
Moss is our only game changer
As of right now on our offense, Moss is the most proven game changer….why should we trade him? If anything, trade cooley, we still have Davis, we’ll be going 3 and 4 wide more often, and a 2nd or 3rd round is more valuable than Cooley
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 26, 2010 2:53 PM EST reply actions
Agree with you here
There is really nothing that can go wrong with what we do with the TE position. We could keep both TEs and play in some 2 TE sets, or we could trade one and address a position of more need. Moss is still the #1 target and should stay with the team unless the deal we get is beyond his worth.
by Nobetterthenbob on Jan 26, 2010 3:39 PM EST up reply actions
Moss is no longer a game changer
He has lost more than a step and he cannot get off the line 90% of the time. Trade him while there is still some mystique about him. Did you not see him get run down by a Linebacker last part of the season?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
A rookie QB could suceed
Look at the vikings: last year same o-line same stud defense and they went nowhere…the difference this year Favre. A smart qb will take less sacks….maybe more picks but that’s an unusual sign of confidence and greatness
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 26, 2010 4:25 PM EST reply actions
Silly
the Viking’s Oline was clearly not the problem. Tavaris Jackson is just a horrible QB any way you look at it. They also have Probowl linemen, something we don’t.
by Nobetterthenbob on Jan 26, 2010 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Regardless
If you guys think an o-line can fix the inabilities of a QB you are mistaken.
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 26, 2010 8:43 PM EST reply actions
What I don't understand is
How you expect any QB to come onto a team that has a poor running game and an Oline that gives a QB 2 seconds to throw to have any more success then what JC had this season.
by Nobetterthenbob on Jan 26, 2010 9:43 PM EST up reply actions
what you dont understand is
its partly the qb fault to have a poor running game
by mr.snyderhireme on Jan 26, 2010 10:06 PM EST reply actions
Thoughts like this
are the reason vinny doesn’t have a job anymore. We’ve failed to support our star RB and our young QB and we are in this position right. JC might be to blame for some of the plays, but every QB has his flaws
Plus you are missing my point completely. No rookie QB under the same circumstances as JC would have outperformed him. The same goes for next year. Brady, Manning, Brees, Rivers, I’ll throw in Rothlesburger, they all had great Olinemen and great running games to support them in their young years and when they went to the superbowl/playoffs. They are now able to overcome those obstacles because they have developed with that support. There is no reason to suggest that any rookie QB we put into our offense next season will play significantly better than JC and no rookie QB will help our run game, which btw is a preposterous statement.
by Nobetterthenbob on Jan 26, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
