Week 4 NFL thread

[Cosmo]

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.

 

[Mark2010]

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.

 

[Mark2010]

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.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

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

 

[da man]

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.

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.

 

[Mark2010]

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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

 

[Michael_ Gee]

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.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

There are a few exceptions (Saints, Packers, Chiefs...) but the majority of the teams in the NFL have reached for a QB sometime recently, some more recent than others...

 

[Machine Head]

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.

There are a few exceptions (Saints, Packers, Chiefs...) but the majority of the teams in the NFL have reached for a QB sometime recently, some more recent than others...

 

[Mark2010]

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.

And this is what you get as a result.

I would do what Kansas City did this past off-season. They needed a QB badly, but didn't think any of the rookies were going to be a superstar. So they go out and trade for a serviceable veteran who can steady the ship during a rebuilding process. Depending on how long that process turns out to be, Alex Smith may or may not be around when they are ready to be a real contender, but they can address that when the time comes. For now, he's serviceable and they can concentrate on rebuilding other areas of the roster.

 

[Mark2010]

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.

There are a few exceptions (Saints, Packers, Chiefs...) but the majority of the teams in the NFL have reached for a QB sometime recently, some more recent than others...

As a Viking fan, I am not ready to give up on Ponder just yet. Yes, there are areas where he needs to improve, but I'm going to throw in the towel.

Besides, are there other options out there right now that are better? Even if you tank the season and get a top five draft pick next spring, is there anyone out there better? I'd be in favor of going the veteran journeyman (say, Matt Hasselbeck) option and waiting till the right young guy is available.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

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.

And this is what you get as a result.

I would do what Kansas City did this past off-season. They needed a QB badly, but didn't think any of the rookies were going to be a superstar. So they go out and trade for a serviceable veteran who can steady the ship during a rebuilding process. Depending on how long that process turns out to be, Alex Smith may or may not be around when they are ready to be a real contender, but they can address that when the time comes. For now, he's serviceable and they can concentrate on rebuilding other areas of the roster.

Yeah, almost everybody thought the Chiefs overpaid to get Alex Smith, and while it's early, it looks like a pretty good trade right now... I think part of the reason the Niners were able to get as much as they did for Smith was because very few teams were sold on the QBs in the draft.

Part of the problem is it's pretty difficult to get a "franchise QB" in free agency. That's why the bidding got so crazy for Manning a couple years ago. Brees' situation was a little different since he was coming off the injury.

If you're going to get a franchise QB, in most cases you're going to have to draft them.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Trading for veterans or signing veteran free agent QBs works about as well for losing teams as drafting rookies does -- sometimes it does, more often it doesn't. Finding good quarterbacks is hard. For every Alex Smith (so far), there's a, well, come to think of it, Matt Cassel.

 

[Mark2010]

I agree that getting franchise QBs in free agency is hard because supply is far less than demand.

But is anyone expecting the Christian Ponders, Blaine Gabberts or Tim Tebows of the world to become franchise quarterbacks? No, I suspect teams are expecting them to be serviceable journeymen and keep a team competitive until the next big thing comes along.

Before drafting Brett Favre and Ponder, the Vikings were playing Tarvaris Jackson and some other stiffs. Adrian Peterson was, is and always will be (health permitting) the focus of the offense. If we're throwing it 35 times a game, something is wrong. So I'm thinking "get a respectable quarterback who can make a few clutch throws on third down, not throw interceptions and manage the clock. Peterson will still be the focus of the offense." That's all I am hoping for from Ponder. He's not going to be John Elway or Joe Montana. I understand that. He doesn't have to win games himself. But, please, try not to lose them all by yourself.

 

[Steak Snabler]

But is anyone expecting the Christian Ponders, Blaine Gabberts or Tim Tebows of the world to become franchise quarterbacks? No, I suspect teams are expecting them to be serviceable journeymen and keep a team competitive until the next big thing comes along.

Then why use first-round picks on them?

 

[amraeder]

I agree that getting franchise QBs in free agency is hard because supply is far less than demand.

But is anyone expecting the Christian Ponders, Blaine Gabberts or Tim Tebows of the world to become franchise quarterbacks? No, I suspect teams are expecting them to be serviceable journeymen and keep a team competitive until the next big thing comes along.

I've never interviewed any NFL GMs, so maybe someone who has can answer, but my guess would be that this is wrong. My guess is the appeal of the rookie QB, compared to signing the vet, is you know what the vet's ceiling is, but you don't know what the rookie's ceiling is. So you look at the rookies and talk yourself into what they COULD be. You look at Jake Locker and say "He's got a cannon for an arm. He'll be one of the top athletes on any field he steps on. Sure he couldn't hit a barn if it was 20 yards down field, but we can change his motion a little bit. And if he starts hitting that throw consistently...wow...we could have one of the best QBs in the NFL."

 

[Mark2010]

But is anyone expecting the Christian Ponders, Blaine Gabberts or Tim Tebows of the world to become franchise quarterbacks? No, I suspect teams are expecting them to be serviceable journeymen and keep a team competitive until the next big thing comes along.

Then why use first-round picks on them?

Exactly. That's my point. The Jets got Geno Smith in the second round, the Eagles got Matt Barkley later on. The Bills could have gotten EJ Manuel much later.

Teams do tend to reach for players and turn a blind eye to their flaws.

I mean, seriously, did someone in Denver actually think Tim Tebow was going to become the next John Elway?

 

[Machine Head]

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/positions/_/year/2011/quarterbacks

Ponder, 12.

Journeyman?

 

[amraeder]

Man, the CBS early games kind of suck.