K-9

DC and scheme familiarity? With whom, Philly? Because he never played a down in Schwartz's previously.

AJ's broad number is way off. She is a 10+!

50 attempts and 400 plus yards is a damned good YPA; one of the most telling components of passer rating.

This has always been true. It's almost surprising the amount of CBs over the years that were good at one and not the other. I can count on one hand the CBs that were/are just as adept at either. Another point regarding scheme fit for McD's zone schemes, is his preference for taller, longer players which was another factor in making Darby expendable. Zone is much more challenging to play than man; just a lot more moving parts.

He did have some great moments in Pettine’s 3-4 schemes in ‘13.

Fair points, all.

Housley makes me ill when listening to him. I miss Lindy in that regard. And for crissakes, will he PLEASE stop putting slow slugs like Okposo on Jack’s wing? I had hoped he would put BOTH Bailey AND Baptiste on his lines, but no. And what does he do when he DOES demote Okposo like he did last night? That’s right, he puts an even SLOWER player on his wing in the form of Pominville! Our lack of speed was really exposed last night against a far better skating team, AGAIN! Oh, and Bealieu has got to go, too. He is clueless.

Lol! Wait until 4merper4mer gets on his case for being a glove wearing Nancy. Or is it Mary?

He’s just not a good zone corner and was a poor scheme fit as a result. Especially in McD’s zone schemes, where so much is done post snap.

That’s all well and good, but building teams is not a linear process. Ever. Can’t say “gotta get this in place first, get that in place first” and then draft your QB like it’s a plug and play scenario. If you don’t have a QB and have a chance to get one, you do it and worry about the rest later.

If I’m the Giants, I draft my successor to Manning and not worry about the most important position in sports for the next 10 years after he retires.

Assessed value by local governments for tax purposes and appraised value are completely different animals.

Rising tide floats all ships.

I've considered both possibilities, especially the Browns, who would be crazy to risk their QB of the future. As to the Giants, while I personally think they're nuts on passing up the opportunity to draft their QB for 10 years after Manning retires, they don't have a ton of picks, their roster needs upgrades and in a deep draft, we are uniquely positioned for them to acquire of ton of picks in this draft. And the Giants wouldn't make a trade with the Jest if their lives depended on it, so that avenue was never available to them.

Athletically, he was like those guys coming out. But that's where the comparisons ended as he was a lazy, immature head case with a severe drinking problem. The entire scouting community was well aware of his reluctance to study as well as his personal issues. Cleveland's owner vetoed the advice of his scouting and coaching staffs when that selection was made.

I want my QB to be the smartest guy in the room. Doesn't mean he can't be a ball buster, though. But football isn't exactly quantum physics, so a QB doesn't need to be a genius to succeed, anyway. Kelly and Marino were hardly keen intellects, but they new how to read a safety.

Any time you have 70 rated potential starters at the top, it's a deep draft, at least on paper, which is all any of these prospects are. That said, there will be players in that 70 who bust, players on nobody's radar will become All Pros, and some will be exactly what's projected.

Fitz only got a 48. The player with a perfect score remains Pat McInally in '75.

People need to better understand that even if we pay the price quoted in this thread, we STILL have picks in every round which makes it look like a traditional draft, anyway. And in a purportedly deep draft, this is the BEST opportunity to spend the capital on a QB while STILL being able to add pieces in the draft. No brainer from where I sit. Imo, the ONLY thing hindering a move up to 2 would be if McBean have ONE prospect CLEARLY ranked above all others and the rest are so closely rated and he knows a good prospect would fall. It's a question of their commitment to the prospect they have targeted. I can't see this deal being a hindrance to trying to go up and get him.

Once again, an interesting list to read but none if it relevant to these QBs and these teams in this draft.

Speaking of McVay's system, I want Daboll to be talking to the QB at the LOS right up until the 15 second cutoff, too. I'm surprised not every team is doing that already.

I agree. For all the sack he ran into, he also made inhuman athletic plays to escape sacks as well. Lets hope our new QB can compensate for what he lacks in escapeability with getting the ball out on time.

I am looking at ONLY through the prism of draft capital invested which, as I've pointed out, represent several of their top selections in various drafts. I understand the point about evaluation of college prospects at the position, but I would posit that it was that precise evaluation that led them to go the veteran route vs. the prospect route at the time, especially in '98 when they had no chance at the top of the draft. 2003 was extremely bare as well. That said, I think '04 is an example of what you allude to here; Donahoe wanted Roethlisberger badly and should have pulled the trigger on the trade with the Texans to get him. If McBean are that convinced of somebody in this draft, they need to pull the trigger. Anything less than that and they are being hypocritical about their process.

Too many holes, too many holes, too many holes!!! DOOMED!!!

It is NO difference in the expenditure of their draft capital. No matter how you slice it, the Bills used their first pick in the '98 draft on Rob Johnson, the #9 pick overall, etc. Too me, what's quibbling over split hairs is the '83 draft where folks like to point out how we took Hunter instead of Kelly at 12 vs. 14, respectively. I get it, but there just isn't that much difference.