Dibs

In keeping with the oh so highbrow premise of this thread.......imagine if in the 1989 draft the Packers had selected Barry Sanders at #2(picked at #3) instead of Tony Mandarich. Good grief

Do you realize that last years bottom 10 finished with 3 winning records(10,9,9wins).....3 8-8 records & a 7-9? 2006s bottom 10 finished with 2 winning records(10,10wins).....2 8-8 records & 2 7-9 2005s bottom 10 finished with 5 winning records(11,11,10,9,9 wins) Facing teams that didn't perform well the year before is certainly no guarantee for easy games.

Chicken & egg.

Actually it's 83-135, or 0.381.......6 of the losses for the other teams were to the Pats.

There are only so many risks one can take before it overloads. I say we are one risk away from potential disaster.

Risky if you ask me.

Some 1st rounders in the probowl for comparison...... WR Starters 3/4....WR Backups 2/5....WR Total 5/9 (56%) QB Starters 0/2....QB Backups 2/6....QB Total 2/8 (25%) RB Starters 2/2....RB backups 3/6....RB Total 5/8 (63%) OT Starters 1/4....OT backups 3/5....OT Total 4/9 (44%) OG Starters 4/4....OG backups 1/2....OG Total 5/6 (83%) DE Starters 2/4....DE backups 0/4....2/8 (25%) DT Starters 3/4....DT backups 2/4....5/8 (63%) LB Starters 2/6....LB backups 4/5....6/11 (55%) CB Starters 2/4....CB backups 2/2....4/6 (67%) S Starters 2/5....S backups 2/4....4/9 (44%) Total Starters(for positions selected)..... Total 21/39....Total Backups 21/43.....Total 42/82 (51%) Removing QBs.....Total 40/74 (54%) The more I look at 1st round selections(historically)......the more I like OG Albert as our #11 pick.

You are implying that those teams drafted those players when all 'the good' teams would not have done so......and let them drop out of the 1st round. Far more likely that those teams have underperformed due to those players busting out.

Does solidified = committed to a player due to circumstance/potential? or does solidified = have obtained a quality solid player at the position? IMO it is the second one.

Strange response to what I wrote but.....no....we shouldn't(for many reasons) though if the right guy was there in the 3rd I wouldn't object. This has nothing to do with what my hopes are for TE and everything to do with the importance of finding at least a solid starter at the QB position.

He may well be an anti Trent crusader but that does not diminish what he says.....if what he says has merit. The QB position is no where near solidified. I(like most) am hopeful that TE will become a great QB but at this point he is just another 2nd year player who has shown promise in his rookie season. Until he becomes a solid NFL performer I can't see how we can count the QB position as solidified.

Robert Gallery #2 overall Mike Williams #4 Leonard Davis #2 Gerard Warren #3 Andre Carter #7 Courtney Brown #1 etc, etc, etc One could just as easily say....."How exactly did the Cardinals fare with their drafting for the lines?" In 9 years(1996-2003) they drafted 6 linemen in the 1st round(3, 3, 21, 2, 12, 18). Again I find myself saying that the most important part of drafting is picking a player(regardless of position) who actually ends up a quality NFL player for the team that drafts him. One argument it to say that drafting the lines is the better tactic to build a good team(which I subscribe to myself). It is a totally different argument to say one should draft the lines because the bust rate is better than WR......which it isn't.....or at least not dramatically.

That is really not the case inkman. There have been a huge number of busts with the big bodies drafted early.....particularly at OT & DE. I've done a quick check & found however that OG looks to be the safest pick in the first round out of all positions. In the last 14 drafts there have been 13 OGs selected in the first round & none......I repeat none of them have been what most would call 'busts'. This is an amazing figure! It seems to be that evaluating talent at the OG position is much easier to do than with every other position. The only negative with the Albert situation is that of the 13 OGs drafted, only 4 were selected above 20(19,17,14,10). IMO this is perhaps more an indication of the positions perceived importance rather than any real 'talent' factor. I would be very happy if we drafted Albert......however there are two questions in my mind which I would want answered before I was totally sold on the choice. 1: How good/bad is Butler? 2: Can any of our OLs(including Albert) play C? These Qs to me are important because as I see it we are locked at LT, LG & RT for the near future & if Butler is going to blossom into a solid+ OG......and with C being our major area of need on the OL.....if we can't replace C then even though it would probably be a good pick & a safe pick it would be a wasted pick.

I like it a lot.....I'd think that if we did grab Albert at #11 we would trade up into the late 1st(ala McCargo) to grab one of the WRs.

Find a top caliber QB(hopefully already found).......while doing that, keep strengthening the lines. Fill in the gaps at other positions as needed.

For Christ's sake hit the caps key!!!

shhhhhh

From memory it is probably correct. The Pets* were massive 100:1 longshots that season.....I recall that at one point early in the season some Vegas bookies had them in the realms of 400:1.

That's a bit sad really.

Hi

You do realize that if you go through a bunch of teams & compare DJs 13-3 team to other 13-3 teams, 7-9 teams to other 7-9 teams etc & you find that he does in fact win less percent against "better than .500" teams than the directly correlated ones chosen......ignoring the myriad of factors which actually make this a futile exercise.....it would correspondingly show that he has a better win percentage than the directly correlated ones chosen over teams with a "<=.500" record. What would that say about a coach? It potentially says that his teams play above themselves. That his 7-9 teams should be perhaps comparable to a 5-11 team in regards to beating good teams.....but come up with the goods more often against teams of similar caliber. It can actually be interpreted that he is a better coach than the records would imply. I personally don't think so......but then again, I don't think you can use a stat like that to do anything more than be a curio.

Firstly......when making ones opinions one should endeavour to have them be as researched & logical as one can get. Secondly.....What good is it to have an opinion if you are not willing to adjust, vary or change it when presented with information or new views that you had not previously considered? By not doing that all one is doing is dogmatically sticking to a viewpoint that has potentially been shown to be suspect. Where is the benefit in not changing ones mind? To form an opinion & then be able to adapt it to a superior opinion is surely greater than forming an opinion & rigidly adhering to it......not being able to defend or justify it.....and create an atmosphere where discussion is futile. Personally I prefer to learn rather than try & prove that every thought/opinion I come up with is correct. You may view the board as a point scoring exercise......I'll stick to using it as a great source for obtaining knowledge, opinions & viewpoints which generally make the 'experts' look amateurish(e.g. the two posts ahead of this one).

Ug....again with the bits added after I respond.... I had(& have) no problems at all with you thinking that ML won't make the probowl this season..... I only responded when you came out with.....

Says the guy avoiding the question. The difference between my view & yours is..... I say that Lynch has shown that he has a reasonable chance to make the probowl in 2008.....backed not only by his actual stats in comparison to his AFC counterparts but by all the negative factors he had in his 2007 season. You say that unless either he or the run-blocking greatly improve, he has no chance to make the probowl in 2008.....backed by.....um....because he had a 4.0 YPC & is no Thurman Thomas Perhaps you should check back with me when you learn to become less dogmatic & more able to adjust your view by accepting extra information when it is presented.

Good avoidance of the point. The point is that Lynch's numbers were just off probowl numbers for 2007. Had he played a full season his numbers would have landed him a probowl spot. He was a rookie & theoretically will show some improvement over last season. He was being used in the most predictable offense in the league with terrible playcalling. His offense had the 3rd worst passing game in the league using rookie(bad) QB. All this & you think that.... A) He needs to improve greatly to achieve probowl numbers(which he nearly had last season). or B) The runblocking must improve for him to make a probowl. Take a breather.....look at the numbers.....look at the overall situation......and tell me why apart from LT any RB has a better case for expecting to make the probowl in 2008.