2017 NFL Off-Season Thread

[TCO]

That mock is just illustrating the domino effect of taking Trubisky rather than anyone thinking he's going there. Garrett is going #1.

[Meacon Keaton]

He's not the first person to suggest Cleveland is strongly considering Trubisky.

[livid]

I mostly hate that mock because he again does not have the 49ers drafting a QB. Not grabbing one in Rounds 1-3, sure I get that, but not a single one? I don't get that. Even if they like Hoyer as a stop gap and are planning on pursuing Cousins next year, they should probably hedge their bets on a guy to develop.

 

[gunnar hendershow]

The Browns are taking Garrett. Everything about Trubisky I think is smoke and mirrors to see if one of the QB-desperate teams in the top few spots in the draft will sell the farm for him.

[Maxx]

3 hours ago, livid said:

I mostly hate that mock because he again does not have the 49ers drafting a QB. Not grabbing one in Rounds 1-3, sure I get that, but not a single one? I don't get that. Even if they like Hoyer as a stop gap and are planning on pursuing Cousins next year, they should probably hedge their bets on a guy to develop.

 

Eh if they aren't going to take Trubisky or Watson, I don't think you're really missing out by not taking one.

[Lineker]

San Francisco are likely gonna be picking high in next year's draft which has a much stronger QB class. There is an argument for just taking BPA with every pick this year as they have so many needs...

[Lint]

12 hours ago, DMN said:

 

I've always liked Detroit's color scheme. It even looked good when they'd do the throwbacks with the blank helmets. It's a fairly unique color, definitely in the NFL, and they should emphasize it.

I actually almost like the script on the sleeve, but it might have been better to use the logo, maybe just in blue, instead.

Second best uniform change of the offseason, but I've always loved the blue and white Rams, even if it's just the helmets.

Oh shit, why did no one post that he'd signed with Tampa? He'll be a great backup to James.

Are we talking about Josh McCown again?

12 hours ago, DMN said:

 

I've always liked Detroit's color scheme. It even looked good when they'd do the throwbacks with the blank helmets. It's a fairly unique color, definitely in the NFL, and they should emphasize it.

I actually almost like the script on the sleeve, but it might have been better to use the logo, maybe just in blue, instead.

Second best uniform change of the offseason, but I've always loved the blue and white Rams, even if it's just the helmets.

Oh shit, why did no one post that he'd signed with Tampa? He'll be a great backup to James.

Are we talking about Josh McCown again?

[DMN in the House]

 

21 minutes ago, Lint said:

Are we talking about Josh McCown again?

Are we talking about Josh McCown again?

Heard he just signed with Tampa.

[livid]

12 hours ago, Lineker said:

San Francisco are likely gonna be picking high in next year's draft which has a much stronger QB class. There is an argument for just taking BPA with every pick this year as they have so many needs...

While I mostly agree, I don't think drafting one in the 5th negates them going after one in the next draft. It would just seem very strange to go into the season with just Hoyer and Barkley at QB. And personally I'd just like to have some hope, however small, about the position beyond this season. 

[MalaCloudy Black]

Ex Ravens player Todd Heap, who played with the team for 9 years and for the Cardinals for 2, accidentally killed his 3-year-old daughter. I can't imagine what that must be like.

[VerbalPuke]

I am absolutely gutted for him, that is just so awful. I can't even imagine, hard to even express my sadness for him.

[jrhodes]

On 15/04/2017 at 01:58, Lineker said:

San Francisco are likely gonna be picking high in next year's draft which has a much stronger QB class. There is an argument for just taking BPA with every pick this year as they have so many needs...

This is said almost every year. Just as some college QBs rise, others fall.

Look at Matt Barkley. He was considered to be a top first round pick the season before he entered the draft. He didn't get drafted until the fourth round and, outside a couple of decent games for the Bears, hasn't shown much to prove the final evaluation wrong.

Having said that, the 49ers roster is so weak they probably should focus on building a team before going for a first round QB. Maybe draft someone like Nathan Peterman if he's still there in the middle rounds.

[TCO]

On 4/15/2017 at 01:58, Lineker said:

San Francisco are likely gonna be picking high in next year's draft which has a much stronger QB class. There is an argument for just taking BPA with every pick this year as they have so many needs...

I can't stress enough how "next year's" is always the best QB Class. All the talents your hearing about now could drop off the map. A Luck or a Manning sure fire pick comes around once in a generation and the Colts will end up with them anyhow. If you love QB and you need one or will need one soon, then you have to take him given the chance. Its such an inexact science that you have to throw shit at the wall and make it stick. 

See below why banking on next year is a terrible strategy. QB Draft classes are only definitely strong or weak in hindsight.

https://www.si.com/nfl/audibles/2011/12/22/matt-barkleys-decision-huge-blow-to-2012-qb-draft-class

Edited April 16, 2017 by TCO

[Meacon Keaton]

Leinart, Sanchez, Barkley. I never got the hype for them. People, at the time, chalked it up to my hatred of USC. But those three guys had the best talent in the world on the offense, and defense which made things that much easier for them. I stick to my guns that if scouts and GMs stopped watching film and tapes, and actually watched the games they'd get a better idea of what quarterbacks are worthwhile. I know they don't have the time to sit and watch 13, 26, 39 college games for one quarterback, but assigning one person who knows what they're looking for could do wonders. 

And to prove my USC-hatred bias isn't a factor, I think Sam Darnold is better than any quarterback in the draft this year and should go #1 next year.

[gunnar hendershow]

Sam Darnold is a fucking gem, and I agree about him being the top guy next year.

I'm not a big fan of "waiting til next year" in terms of QBs, but I am a huge supporter of not burning a top 10 pick on a guy who you aren't certain of. You can get a player with comparable talent and potential in the 2nd or 3rd round most years. It's a lot easier to make the moves necessary in rounds 2 or 3 to move up as well if you do need a QB. And then if after a year you aren't seeing development in him  and a sure bet is in the draft you go and grab him. If you have good draft classes after good draft classes and then finally get the QB you become an instant contender. Of all the teams to win a Super Bowl in the last decade only the Giants got their QB first and built the rest of the team after that. And if you go before that only the Colts drafted the QB first and got the rest of the talent after. Too much emphasis is placed on building a team around your QB I think.

[DMN in the House]

3 hours ago, Meacon said:

Leinart, Sanchez, Barkley. I never got the hype for them. People, at the time, chalked it up to my hatred of USC. But those three guys had the best talent in the world on the offense, and defense which made things that much easier for them. I stick to my guns that if scouts and GMs stopped watching film and tapes, and actually watched the games they'd get a better idea of what quarterbacks are worthwhile. I know they don't have the time to sit and watch 13, 26, 39 college games for one quarterback, but assigning one person who knows what they're looking for could do wonders. 

And to prove my USC-hatred bias isn't a factor, I think Sam Darnold is better than any quarterback in the draft this year and should go #1 next year.

 

1 hour ago, damshow said:

Sam Darnold is a fucking gem, and I agree about him being the top guy next year.

I'm not a big fan of "waiting til next year" in terms of QBs, but I am a huge supporter of not burning a top 10 pick on a guy who you aren't certain of. You can get a player with comparable talent and potential in the 2nd or 3rd round most years. It's a lot easier to make the moves necessary in rounds 2 or 3 to move up as well if you do need a QB. And then if after a year you aren't seeing development in him  and a sure bet is in the draft you go and grab him. If you have good draft classes after good draft classes and then finally get the QB you become an instant contender. Of all the teams to win a Super Bowl in the last decade only the Giants got their QB first and built the rest of the team after that. And if you go before that only the Colts drafted the QB first and got the rest of the talent after. Too much emphasis is placed on building a team around your QB I think.

*AHEM* The Chosen One will have something to say about that.

(Unless he gets injured again, which he will, because this is UCLA football and we can't have nice things.)

[The Buscher]

19 hours ago, damshow said:

I'm not a big fan of "waiting til next year" in terms of QBs, but I am a huge supporter of not burning a top 10 pick on a guy who you aren't certain of. You can get a player with comparable talent and potential in the 2nd or 3rd round most years. It's a lot easier to make the moves necessary in rounds 2 or 3 to move up as well if you do need a QB. And then if after a year you aren't seeing development in him and a sure bet is in the draft you go and grab him.

I'm in agreement with that.  I'd go beyond just saying not burning a top 10 pick on someone you're not certain of - to me, wasting a first round pick at all on a QB is a bad move unless you're totally sold on the guy.  When you take a QB in the first, you're branding them as your QB of the future.  And if it doesn't work out it can set your franchise back several years.  It makes a lot more sense to wait it out and give a different QB a whirl later in the draft.

I'll be upset if the Giants use a first round pick on a QB, because I'm not sold on any of the ones projected to go that early.  I'd prefer they not even use a second rounder on one of them for this particular class as they have other pressing needs - but they did visit Mahomes so I'm sure there's interest and I doubt he'd be around in the third.

I've heard Chad Kelly's name bandied about as a late round QB they might be interested in.  From a pure talent standpoint I'd be fine to develop him as a QB3 and reassess the position next year.  But there are red flags with him and the Giants are generally risk averse when it comes to avoiding drafting guys with off-field issues.

[Lineker]

The Panthers have resigned Kawann Short to a new five-year, $80.5m deal.

[GhostMachine]

On 4/16/2017 at 11:55, Meacon said:

Leinart, Sanchez, Barkley. I never got the hype for them. People, at the time, chalked it up to my hatred of USC. But those three guys had the best talent in the world on the offense, and defense which made things that much easier for them. I stick to my guns that if scouts and GMs stopped watching film and tapes, and actually watched the games they'd get a better idea of what quarterbacks are worthwhile. I know they don't have the time to sit and watch 13, 26, 39 college games for one quarterback, but assigning one person who knows what they're looking for could do wonders. 

And to prove my USC-hatred bias isn't a factor, I think Sam Darnold is better than any quarterback in the draft this year and should go #1 next year.

I expected Leinart to be good and had no expectations one way or the other regarding Barkley. But....I predicted Sanchez would be garbage, and was right.

Darnold will be the first QB chosen next year, unless things go horribly wrong. Whether he'll be the #1 pick depends on which team has it, though. 

[gunnar hendershow]

8 hours ago, Busch Hernandez said:

I'm in agreement with that.  I'd go beyond just saying not burning a top 10 pick on someone you're not certain of - to me, wasting a first round pick at all on a QB is a bad move unless you're totally sold on the guy.  When you take a QB in the first, you're branding them as your QB of the future.  And if it doesn't work out it can set your franchise back several years.  It makes a lot more sense to wait it out and give a different QB a whirl later in the draft.

I'll be upset if the Giants use a first round pick on a QB, because I'm not sold on any of the ones projected to go that early.  I'd prefer they not even use a second rounder on one of them for this particular class as they have other pressing needs - but they did visit Mahomes so I'm sure there's interest and I doubt he'd be around in the third.

I've heard Chad Kelly's name bandied about as a late round QB they might be interested in.  From a pure talent standpoint I'd be fine to develop him as a QB3 and reassess the position next year.  But there are red flags with him and the Giants are generally risk averse when it comes to avoiding drafting guys with off-field issues.

Yeah when you pick in the top 10 I think the best choice is to either trade down or pick best player available. I fully support a QB desperate team taking a 4th round QB in the 3rd or something because of the importance of the position, but passing on a potential HOFer for a guy with upside in round 1 is insane.