Week 4 NFL thread

Anyone like St. Louis +3.5 tonight, or do we figure SF will straighten itself out and get back to business?

Wait, we thought that last week, didn't we?

I might take the 3.5.

 

Understand that when Joe Montana came out, people said the same thing about him -- solid, but not going to set the world on fire. He was, what, a third-rounder? Tom Brady struggled to keep his starting job pretty much throughout his college career. He was a sixth-rounder, the kind of guy who just hopes to make a roster. You know the Kurt Warner story. Johnny Unitas was cut by the Steelers. Hell, if you want to get current, who thought Russell Wilson was going to be anything? Or Tony Romo?

Do teams often get desperate and reach for a quarterback? Absolutely. But they do it because they see something -- whether it's arm strength, athletic ability, leadership, brains, guts, an uncanny ability to make the right decision, whatever -- that tells them this player might develop into something special.

Usually, they're wrong, because "something special" is by definition special -- as in rare.

And that's the dilemma you bring up, Mark. As someone noted, you're almost never going to get a franchise QB via trade or free agency. So do you go out and get an Alex Smith -- a known quantity but with limited upside -- or take a chance on a draft choice who probably won't become a star but could?

It's the decision every franchise has to make now and then, and their answers show there is no one right or wrong answer. It all depends on the individual quarterbacks, coaches and teams involved.

 

I think San Francisco absolutely hammers them.

And further exposes another theme in this thread: the bust of a first-round QB. While he admittedly has had a wasteland of weapons to work with, it's tough to argue that Sam Bradford has come anywhere close to expectations as the No. 1 overall pick and $50 million in guaranteed money.

 

It seems like in most years, a few teams have QBs who are waiting in the wings to become a starter. Rodgers waited, Kaepernick waited, Schaub waited, Hasselbeck waited...

I don't think there is a guy out there like that now, unless it's someone like Cousins or Mallett. Most teams can't afford to, or are unwilling to develop a QB these days.

 

I'd lay good money on the Niners.

Jeff Fisher is the most overrated figure in the NFL, if not all of sports.

 

So then commit to your guy. If he was good enough to invest a first-round pick in three years ago, he's good enough to start this Sunday if healthy. He didn't go from Whiz Kid to Mr. Suck-It overnight. Either he needs better coaching or he's not the guy you thought he was and you need to get a better scouting department.

I think you need a minimum of three years to properly evaluate a player. Maybe more if there are injuries or coaching changes along the way. The Jaguars are giving Gabbert his chance. Ditto for the Vikings with Ponder, the Dolphins with Tannehill, the Browns with Weeden (or should be, if healthy). You can't just bench the guy every time he throws a couple of picks. You have to have the patience to stick with them and see them through... or they'll never improve.

Then, of course, there are the guys picked so high (Stafford, Bradford, Luck, Newton, Griffin, etc.) that the thought has to be "My God, this guy BETTER be a star or we're all toast."

 

I think the fact that so many people think the Rams will win or at least that it will be very close might bode well for the Niners. Not that the Niners should ever be cocky about a game against the Rams, but after the last two weeks, they've shown they shouldn't be cocky about any opponent.

 

You can only develop a QB if you've got a competent place holder in front of them. And most of the teams that take QBs early don't have that. What's the point of letting someone develop behind Curtis Painter? Or behind John Beck? (Or next year, behind Brandon Weeden)?

 

Fisher seems like he's one of those people who is despised by Titans fans, but pretty well-respected by everyone else. I always thought he was a pretty good coach, I know he never won a title, but it wasn't like he had crazy talent there.

 

That's why the best time to draft a QB is when you don't need one... Easier said than done, I know...

 

Packers did it and that turned out pretty well.

Hasselbeck wasn't exactly picked to be a starter-in-waiting-- he was a sixth-rounder. Schaub was a No. 3.

And yes, the Rodgers pick worked out very well for Green Bay (which didn't need a QB in 2005). But you do remember who went No. 1 overall in that draft, right?

Drafting is not and never will be an exact science.

 

True. The next time the browns don't need a QB will be the first time since Bernie