#34fan Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 If Jameis Winston is still there @ 50, we should take him ... I'm wary of his character, but the risk would be worth it at that point. Other than that, we should go TE@ 50.... Bryce Petty at 81...
major Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Ignore kiper and mcshay. They have no more qualifications than any of you on this board
Thurman#1 Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 wouldn't any QB you take at that pick need a year or two. or more ??? I would rather see a good (the best available) o-lineman. Five or ten years from now, when you look back at this draft, you won't care whether a guy had to sit a year or two. You'll care if he was a good player or not. That should always be the perspective taken. The short term doesn't matter nearly as much as the long term. And we'll really really care five or ten years from now if we're still saying, "Jeez we still haven't had a good QB since Kelly." My guess is we go OL because there seem to be a number of good value guards who will likely be available at #50. But if they see a QB they really like, they should grab him. Ignore kiper and mcshay. They have no more qualifications than any of you on this board Really? So we all spend eight or ten hours a day looking at film? We all have team insiders on our rolodexes? Come on, this isn't even close to being true. These guys are paid to grind though this process. We aren't. They talk to team officials. We don't. And more, year in and year out, Kiper is one of the best in terms of mock draft accuracy. Over the last five years he's the sixth most accurate. http://www.thehuddlereport.com/scoring/mockdrafts.shtml There is a 99% chance that any qb draft past the 1st round won't ever develop into a franchise qb. They are so rare to begin with and this isn't a great class. It would be a wasted pick this year. That stat is nonsense. There's a hit every year or two, and if 99% were failures that would mean that 50 - 100 QBs would have to be drafted every year. What's closer to reality is that second rounders prove out at roughly 20%, thirds at 10% and it goes down from there, but that every once in a while you hit. And the same, with slightly altered stats but the same overall big picture, is true of all the other positions. People making this argument act like if you get an OL in the second he's a sure thing. They're not.
Chuck Wagon Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 We could have had Bernardrick McKinney in the 2nd and Brett Hundley in the 3rd in their mock. Instead they gave us a DE/OLB and said that's a big need. Marpet looks like a good prospect, but I'm curious how much of the board's interest is driven from his school. If he went to New Mexico St would he still be at the top of so many people's wish list?
Formerly Allan in MD Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Shouldn't Ali Marpet be the prediction for the Bills at #50? I see people here talking about the Bills taking him in the 3rd round but he isn't lasting till their pick there. The guy can play all the positions on the line. Our Guard position needs shoring up. What happens if Woods goes down or his level of his play starts getting worse than the average level he is now? Having a guy who can play OT if a starter gets injured is very crucial. He won't last until the third round. If he hadn't played in the Senior Bowl, perhaps he would have. Too much exposure.
T master Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 I'm not a Hundley fan but I have a feeling Whaley is Who ever Whaley & crew decide on from their past performance i believe they will get a good player !! This crew could be as good as the Polian crew of the glory days . Time will tell ...
stevestojan Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 How many !@#$ing QBs do we need? None will be successful as possible without solid Guards. Go guard. Then Go guard again.
John from Riverside Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 I would not be against going OG then OT....or vice versa...in this draft We need both
stevestojan Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 (edited) I would not be against going OG then OT....or vice versa...in this draft We need both Or that. But having 6 QBs isn't the answer. One of the guys on this current roster (spoiler: Matt Cassel) just needs to be average. And needs time behind a line to be able to be average. Edited April 27, 2015 by stevestojan
Lurker Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 I would not be against going OG then OT....or vice versa...in this draft We need both I think an OT who could also slide inside would be ideal. Guys like Jake Fisher, Donovan Smith or Daryl Williams (the name alone makes him a natural fit). Pure OT's like Clemmings or Ogbuehi would have less positional flexibility and more bust factor...
John from Riverside Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 Or that. But having 6 QBs isn't the answer. One of the guys on this current roster (spoiler: Matt Cassel) just needs to be average. And needs time behind a line to be able to be average. I just think that overall we need to recognize what we have in an OC....what Roman is gonna want to do on offense.....and stock accordingly This guy runs like a zillion different running plays out of the same offensive sets......word is he is pretty much a genious in this area but He also had a O line that is better then what our is as present......Glenn, Cog, Woods, and MAYBE Henderson might be able to produce in it.....but we need starters and depth inside to compete and back up...... We made NO free agent moves in the offseason besides Cog.....Kujo is a complete unknown.....Chris WIllaims has back injuries.....Urbik is average To me this this is the single biggest area that scares me....even more then QB....because a. This is an area that we can actually address....unlike QB\ and b. O Line is the key cog in all of this.....cant throw to Watkins with no time.....cant run the ball between the tackles with Shady with sub par blocking We MUST address this Then......if we are still not happy with our QBs next year.....we once again have our 1st round pick
H2o Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 50. Stephone Anthony / LB / Clemson 81. Tre Jackson / G / Forida St.
ctk232 Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 (edited) Five or ten years from now, when you look back at this draft, you won't care whether a guy had to sit a year or two. You'll care if he was a good player or not. That should always be the perspective taken. The short term doesn't matter nearly as much as the long term. And we'll really really care five or ten years from now if we're still saying, "Jeez we still haven't had a good QB since Kelly." My guess is we go OL because there seem to be a number of good value guards who will likely be available at #50. But if they see a QB they really like, they should grab him. Really? So we all spend eight or ten hours a day looking at film? We all have team insiders on our rolodexes? Come on, this isn't even close to being true. These guys are paid to grind though this process. We aren't. They talk to team officials. We don't. And more, year in and year out, Kiper is one of the best in terms of mock draft accuracy. Over the last five years he's the sixth most accurate. http://www.thehuddlereport.com/scoring/mockdrafts.shtml That stat is nonsense. There's a hit every year or two, and if 99% were failures that would mean that 50 - 100 QBs would have to be drafted every year. What's closer to reality is that second rounders prove out at roughly 20%, thirds at 10% and it goes down from there, but that every once in a while you hit. And the same, with slightly altered stats but the same overall big picture, is true of all the other positions. People making this argument act like if you get an OL in the second he's a sure thing. They're not. Fantastic points here to keep things in perspective - my only added commentary to this would be considering the current QB roster, a potential drafted QB might not be coming into the best learning environment. 5 QBs on the roster going into camp means very limited snaps for everyone, not just some. It will already be difficult if we retain all four QBs currently to discern who is our best suited starter for week 1. We all have suspicions and hunches here, but add more competition to the mix and they may just sink to the bottom. I'd rather see them go for value OL in the 2nd round (and potentially 3rd as well) as there will certainly be depth when our pick comes up and focus on finding a QB next year that we can develop. That being said, if we address OL with our second, I'm not opposed to a QB in the 3rd if a solid option is still available. Edited April 27, 2015 by ctk232
Lurker Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 50. Stephone Anthony / LB / Clemson 81. Tre Jackson / G / Forida St. +1 That would be an excellent outcome...
QuoteTheRaven83 Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 I'd be disappointed with that pick at 50. I've seen him a bunch, he's got to sit for at least a year. EVERY QB in this year's class is in the same boat. I don't even think Winston is ready to start from day one.
YoloinOhio Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 @JoeBuscaglia: Todd McShay seems to agree with Doug Whaley. He just said UCLA's Brett Hundley is the 6th best QB, and has a 5th round grade on him.
Chuck Wagon Posted April 27, 2015 Posted April 27, 2015 @JoeBuscaglia: Todd McShay seems to agree with Doug Whaley. He just said UCLA's Brett Hundley is the 6th best QB, and has a 5th round grade on him. Looks like Tarzan....
Recommended Posts