Week 4 NFL thread

"Bucs named Glennon starting QB" is just another way of saying "Schiano's job in jeopardy."

I had thought Rex Ryan would be the first coach to lose his job during the season but now it looks like Schiano will be the one. Especially when reports suggest that Schiano made the switch only after a conversation with GM Mark Dominik, which would indicate Dominik told him, "Start Glennon or else."

So if the Bucs miss the playoffs again, does Dominik try to trade up in the NFL draft or does he throw money in Jay Cutler's direction?

 

Tight race between Ryan and Schiano as to who gets fired first. Those two might not be the only candidates, either.

As for Freeman, the club took a shot on him in 2009. So he's had four years --- including 19 games plus two preseasons under Schiano --- to show what he can do. Is that an ample audition period? Doesn't seem like a quick hook to me.

Who are some other starting QBs facing make or break years? Mark Sanchez? Blaine Gabbert? Christian Ponder? Michael Vick? The Lions and Rams threw so much money at Stafford and Bradford, respectively, that they are stuck with them for the foreseeable future, come what may.

As for Cutler, he's not bad, but I wouldn't break the bank to acquire him. Very much middle of the pack QB, IMO.

 

Gabbert's opportunity is gone. He's circling the drain right now. I said when he was going into the draft, guy throws out of the spread and only gets 16 TDs in college? Way overrated.

BTW, heard Greg Cosell on the radio say that no one in the NFL would take Smith over Kaep.

 

I thought Schiano was trying to distance himself from Freeman earlier this year, basically saying "Hey, I'm not the one who drafted him" while putting the focus on the GM for that failure?

I don't know if it's accurate, but I found the reports on Profootballtalk.com after Sunday's game pretty interesting, saying that Schiano didn't accompany the team back to Florida on Sunday night, staying in Boston because of a family emergency, but he was back for his Monday afternoon press conference in Tampa. One could surmise that a change was expected to be made then, by one side or the other, but everyone held off (for now, at least).

 

Gabbert had bust written all over him. Reach pick by a desperate franchise. Ponder can't throw a deep ball, which is a pretty crucial skill in the NFL.

 

Given the time and money teams spend on scouting, it is mind-blowing to me how many major mistakes are being made, especially at the quarterback position. Is this really that hard for these geniuses to figure out after attending dozens of games and watching thousands of hours of tape on players?

Has something happened between draft day and now that radically changed the player's ability? Or did you know this all along and just turn a blind eye, saying "we need a quarterback and we hope he'll work out"?

Given the amount of money quarterbacks take in the salary cap era, I'd rather bring in a serviceable journeyman than commit major dollars to a rookie unless the rookie looks like a can't miss superstar.

 

I'm probably in the minority, but I really wish the Rams were still in Los Angeles. I lived on the west coast when I first discovered football as a pre-teen boy and Seattle didn't have a team yet. So the 49ers and Raiders got all the love.

The 49ers-Rams games were games I always tried to get to see (no VCRs in those days). It was just a really good rivalry. Of course, players didn't change teams so frequently in those days, so you get a lot of the same faces year after year. And that made it fun.

The 49ers started to really dominate in the late 1980s and 90s, but the air went out of the balloon when the Rams moved to St. Louis in 1995. It's still an important division matchup, but no way does it have the pizzazz that it did in the 70s and 80s.

 

Niners/Rams were one of the two best rivalries of the 70s--Chiefs/Raiders being the other.

 

Yes, it really is that hard. Guys you would think would be that "can't miss superstar" coming out of college have missed. Guys drafted in the final rounds or undrafted, often because they lack the physical tools considered necessary to succeed, have become some of the greatest players in history.

You can measure speed and strength and can see skills at lower levels, but there is no way you can know for sure if they will translate to the pro game. Or if a player will suffer an injury that changes his game or even ends his career. Or if he'll have legal trouble or addiction issues that will alter his career. Or if a player simply isn't mentally tough enough, or a strong enough leader, or resourceful enough to succeed using the talent and skills he has.

What has happened between draft day and now is that the organization has seen that player on an NFL field in a professional environment facing professional competition (which also includes OTAs, camp and practice). It is entirely conceivable that what they've seen in that context completely overrides what they saw on college film and in workouts.

Drafting is always a risk, and I submit, given the mental and intangible aspects of the position, that risk is greater with a quarterback than any other position.

 

Well, Cosmo was saying Gabbert had "bust" written all over him coming out of college. Heck, even I wouldn't have spent a first-round pick on Gabbert or Tim Tebow, among others. So I wonder why all of this is so hard for scouts and personnel people to see?

Given the amount of money at stake in these things, the error percentage is quite staggering.

For example, I'm sure there are a few QBs coming out next year who will make NFL rosters. Is there anyone I'd spend a top 10 pick on? Not right now. Maybe Aaron Murray from Georgia, not sure. But I wouldn't put him in the John Elway/Troy Aikman/Andrew Luck franchise QB category.

 

The Rams would be easier to hate if they were still in LA.

 

The need for a quarterback causes teams to reach in the draft. Happens every year. Always will. The need is so great cold logic stops functioning.