Captain Caveman

I agree that it'd be nice if they had this experience, but I don't think it's as important as at the skill positions. See Wilfork, Vince.

Ok, obviously not everyone got the memo. So starting..... now!

Just realized I wrote "Me must still be on some pretty good painkillers." Wish it was true.

Me must still be on some pretty good painkillers.

Boom, there it is.

I'm cold.

Maybe you guys didn't hear the Major. He clearly gave orders for no more posts on the subject.

My guess is his dead, estranged mother comes back to haunt him. This will drive him to drink, and so the downward spiral begins.

So you decided to open a new thread to tell the rest of us we'd better not open up any more threads on the topic. On top of which, the old thread already contained the report you're referencing (a report whose flaws have already been discussed)? Bravo, sir.

I'm pretty sure it would lead to some kind of tragic accident for Trent, since his football career couldn't get any worse.

What I find so puzzling is that the OP's whole point is that surrounding talent doesn't matter if you have a franchise QB. To say then that Clausen is a franchise QB just doesn't make any sense, because if so (according to the OP's theory) he should have won a hell of a lot more games at ND.

You still give no explanation as to why your franchise QB couldn't win at Notre Dame, if surrounding talent is not important.

People on both sides of this debate like to pull out examples of why you need to have a line first, or why you need the qb first. The fact that there are examples on both sides make it fairly obvious to me that either method / order can work. It's about drafting the right guys, not just about drafting the right positions. Now play nice.

Fitz also slides in the pocket pretty well. The problem is that for much of this year, it was collapsing from multiple places at once. Also note in the article linked by the OP - Clausen is not a mobile quarterback. He was compared in the article to Drew "the Statue" Beldsoe. What I don't understand is how such a great "franchise" qb could lose so many games in College. Yet people are expecting him to turn around a Pro Team with equal (if not greater) talent deficiencies all on his own.

There are around 20 teams without a "franchise-type" qb, so my guess is we have a pick somewhere between 1 and 20. Which comes first: the O-line or the QB? It's a question that can't really be definitively answered, since they generally go hand in hand. But a lot of smart people think that a great quarterback would be wasted behind our current O-line, and that without an upgrade there, we would most likely still be stuck with a high draft pick next year.

He can do whatever he wants. So can his employer. What are you, some kind of socialist?

Statue of Liberty Offense? Or better yet, the Statue of Liberty DEfense.

I'll take the ones who win.

Surprised indeed. And then they shot up that coffin good.

The reason that everyone jumped on you is that this is not a new idea. It's been rehashed over, and over, and over again, and most people understand that it is unlikely to happen, mostly because of the $ involved.

Tim, I'm glad to hear you'll be sticking around. I enjoyed your piece on the labor negotiations and the possibility (or probability) of a lockout in 2011. Do you have any idea what this means for next year's draft? I would guess that the high number of juniors who came out for this year's draft is related in two ways: 1. Trying to get paid before a rookie cap is put in place. 2. Trying to get paid at all before 2012. If there is a lockout next year, would you still expect the draft to happen in April? It seems like their could be so many questions around rookie pay which could really complicate things. Just wondering if you have any insight (facts or opinions would be appreciated.)

The idea of someone trading into the top 10 because they don't want to pay two second round picks is a bit flawed, considering they'll pay millions more just for the # 9 pick than they would for the other three players combined. Last year's #9: Green Bay - DT, B.J. Raji, Boston College - Signed (5-years, $28.5M; $17.7M guaranteed) Last Year's #22: Minnesota - WR, Percy Harvin, Florida - Signed (5-years, $14.25M max; $8.425M guaranteed) Last Year's #47: Oakland (fr. NE/SD) - S, Mike Mitchell, Ohio - Signed (4-years, $3.778M; $2.028M guaranteed) Last Year's #53: Philadelphia - RB, LeSean McCoy, Pittsburgh - Signed (4-years, $3.497M; $1.727M guaranteed) The only way someone is trading up to that pick is if they feel a difference maker is still available at that position. This being the deepest draft in recent memory, I just don't see it happening.

you're either going to have to find a link, or we'll assume that you're talking out of your hindquarters. I was drunk from about 1998 - 2003, so I really don't remember what happened, but I'm certainly going to take jw's word over yours.

For a punter to get in, I think he'd have to be a freak of nature. Maybe a 50 yard average, or even a 50 yard net average for him to be considered. I always thought Tasker had a shot, especially since they did create a new pro bowl position for him, but I think if he does get in it won't be for a long time.

At least there aren't very many of them (Jaguars fans, I mean.)