Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    9,806
    vCash
    1500
    jake long wont be available though. i mean, really, if he is a top 5 tackle, a tackle in which miami invested a number 1 overall pick on, why in the world would they let him walk? especially considering they have a new qb back there now.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Orlando
    Posts
    2,039
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by stlbest5in2013 View Post
    Major D1? His first 3 years were in the big least, the worst football conference in America by a long shot. He choose to go there, it is the equivilant of Hawaii. WVU is far from being a major D1 program. Beating a good OU team years ago with over a month to prepare does not make a program elite. Winning the Big East and getting an undeserved BCS bowl bid does not make your program elite.
    Now I never said elite. But thats neither here or there. The reason why WV loses isn't because of him it's because of there sorry defense. the man is throwing the ball with a 70% accuracy and has thrown for what 35td and only 5ints this year. Come on man his stats are right there in front of u all. How can people say that he is sorry when his production is on par if not better than some of the other elite qb's in the country. Its not like WV is playing garbage teams every week.
    [/CENTER]

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,695
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by king james View Post
    Now I never said elite. But thats neither here or there. The reason why WV loses isn't because of him it's because of there sorry defense. the man is throwing the ball with a 70% accuracy and has thrown for what 35td and only 5ints this year. Come on man his stats are right there in front of u all. How can people say that he is sorry when his production is on par if not better than some of the other elite qb's in the country. Its not like WV is playing garbage teams every week.

    Actually outside of KSU, uh yes they are playing garbage teams every week and losing to them as well. sorry the big 12 is as bad as the big 10.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NE Penna (God's Country)
    Posts
    26,497
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by thedon01 View Post
    okay let's ponder this for a moment.

    Now I am absolutely certain that I'm in the minority when I say trading Romo is a smart move,

    If Carson Palmer and Kevin Kolb could yield the return they did than Romo can at least match a combination of the two.

    Romo is 32, at some point he's out the door. Would you want to invest a long term contract on a 32 year old player or start with someone different?
    BTW I wouldn't trade Romo outright until I knew I was drafting a QB to replace him.
    I have removed my Cowboy homer glasses to review this thought process (and pulled out the quotes that are pertinent to me).

    1. Let's ponder it without being homers
    2. I agree that you are in the minority on this
    3. Those schlubs (Palmer and Kolb) aren't half the QB that Tony is
    4. Tony will eventually be out the door

    If I am being fair (and I am trying), then yes, I would think that we could get a good return for Tony. If I were not a homer, then I could see trading tony ONLY if they already have a plan for a QB (that you also mention). The draft would then HAVE to focus on a QB early with one of the two first round picks (ours, plus the one from whomever we trade Tony to, presumably). Without having a QB coming up, then getting rid of Romo just puts this team in the dark ages. If we did not package the two first rounders to move up and grab that QB, then we still have a new shiny QB and someone for the OL to grow with him

    Tony, IMO, would certainly get more in value than Palmer or Kolb, but who is out there that needs a QB and is almost there? Ironically, the Cardinals may be one team, Seattle is another. It is hard to say. You certainly want to get as high as pick as possible so if this were to happen, you have to maiximize that trade as much as possible. Last, not making a move essentially keeps our eggs in the same basket. We then have to rely on the FO getting an OL to protect tony (scary thought, relying on the FO to make a smart decision)


    Quote Originally Posted by thedon01 View Post

    3. Let's assume Jake Long is available in free agency and you have to decide between:

    Option A = Sign Jake Long, let Spencer walk, draft OLB
    Option B = Resign Specner, pass on Long, draft OT

    Which do you choose and why?
    Is that a serious question? See ya Spencer, and I like the guy!

    Long instantly takes this team to a new level on offense and cures much of what ails us. If Long is our LT, then Smitty goes back to RT, Free can go to guard where he is likely better suited. Costa, when he has played, has been pretty darned good...so, an OL of Long, Livings, Costa, Free, and Smith is really good IMO. Thus, one move, albeit a huge one, takes this offense in a different direction. Health, as always, could derail that. But, if you sign Long, and THEN draft the best G or C in the first round, then you have just improved a pathetic offensive line to the point where they could be very good to excellent.

    That would allow the team to draft for needs on the DL or just look at best player available


    So, to re-cap these two thoughts, how would we look if we traded Tony for a first rounder and change, signed Long (assuming he is available) and then got that rookie QB in the first along with the best interior OL?

    Technically, if we grabbed Long, I would want Tony here as he would have time to throw, but again, taking the homer glasses off, Long + a 1st round rookie QB makes this team better going into the future for the next 5 years+

    thoughts?

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Amarillo, Tx
    Posts
    2,521
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    I have removed my Cowboy homer glasses to review this thought process (and pulled out the quotes that are pertinent to me).

    1. Let's ponder it without being homers
    2. I agree that you are in the minority on this
    3. Those schlubs (Palmer and Kolb) aren't half the QB that Tony is
    4. Tony will eventually be out the door

    If I am being fair (and I am trying), then yes, I would think that we could get a good return for Tony. If I were not a homer, then I could see trading tony ONLY if they already have a plan for a QB (that you also mention). The draft would then HAVE to focus on a QB early with one of the two first round picks (ours, plus the one from whomever we trade Tony to, presumably). Without having a QB coming up, then getting rid of Romo just puts this team in the dark ages. If we did not package the two first rounders to move up and grab that QB, then we still have a new shiny QB and someone for the OL to grow with him

    Tony, IMO, would certainly get more in value than Palmer or Kolb, but who is out there that needs a QB and is almost there? Ironically, the Cardinals may be one team, Seattle is another. It is hard to say. You certainly want to get as high as pick as possible so if this were to happen, you have to maiximize that trade as much as possible. Last, not making a move essentially keeps our eggs in the same basket. We then have to rely on the FO getting an OL to protect tony (scary thought, relying on the FO to make a smart decision)




    Is that a serious question? See ya Spencer, and I like the guy!

    Long instantly takes this team to a new level on offense and cures much of what ails us. If Long is our LT, then Smitty goes back to RT, Free can go to guard where he is likely better suited. Costa, when he has played, has been pretty darned good...so, an OL of Long, Livings, Costa, Free, and Smith is really good IMO. Thus, one move, albeit a huge one, takes this offense in a different direction. Health, as always, could derail that. But, if you sign Long, and THEN draft the best G or C in the first round, then you have just improved a pathetic offensive line to the point where they could be very good to excellent.

    That would allow the team to draft for needs on the DL or just look at best player available


    So, to re-cap these two thoughts, how would we look if we traded Tony for a first rounder and change, signed Long (assuming he is available) and then got that rookie QB in the first along with the best interior OL?

    Technically, if we grabbed Long, I would want Tony here as he would have time to throw, but again, taking the homer glasses off, Long + a 1st round rookie QB makes this team better going into the future for the next 5 years+

    thoughts?
    Not necessarily. For the last decade, more often than not first round qbs have been busts. However, I could get on board with it as long as its not a reach.

    titties

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    NE Penna (God's Country)
    Posts
    26,497
    vCash
    1500
    I don't want tony to go, but don makes valid points...if we look at the team as a whole and not let homerism take charge, then a romo trade could concievably help the team, assuming that we got a legit QB back in the process...Orton cane be a stand-in until the rook gets his uni a little dirty...

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,851
    vCash
    1500
    @Fred
    Nice response and I'd agree about going after Long. An acquisition of Long actually yields us a guard in Free and could yield us a center in Berny, so it's actually 1 move solving 2-3 other areas of need. Spencer only solves 1 area if he continues to play like he's been playing.

    I don't have any confidence that Long becomes a free agent; if anything he's going to get tagged, but if by some chance he does I'd probably lay out a blank check.

    If you really believe the Cowboys can win now (1-2 seasons [2013-2014]) then you don't want to get rid of Romo, but drafting an heir apparent is a wise move. He'd have a chance to learn behind Romo and give us a future to build around.

    But,

    If you believe the Cowboys aren't in the right place to win then Romo donning the cowboys colors is not relevant and he can yield a return. It's wiser to trade him while his stock is high and yes if Palmer and Kolb yielded what they did then Romo has to at least bring back a combination of what they did (considering his age).

    For me, I wouldn't want to trade Romo until I had drafted a QB, but if push came to shove I wouldn't rule out trading him before I had a QB either. Now in terms of winning, like I've said for a few years, I don't believe Romo is that guy. I think the Cowboys can squeak a Super Bowl victory off, but it will be because of other parts of the team (ground game, defense, special teams, etc), not because of Romo's ability to lead a team (consider Dilfer's situation). I also don't believe the Cowboys will ever reach the mountain top while Jones always has his tentacles wrapped around the team; he must take a few steps back, so my reasoning of trading Romo is based on the current circumstances and feelings toward his inability imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Auseranami View Post
    Not necessarily. For the last decade, more often than not first round qbs have been busts. However, I could get on board with it as long as its not a reach.
    Romo wasn't drafted which is an anomaly, so I would have been far more concerned with promoting Romo to QB back in the day then I would be about drafting a QB in the first round.

    I'd like you actually search and find the ratio of good QB's vs busts (only using 1st round selections) over the last decade. Not only do I think you have a better chance at finding a quality arm in the first round, but I think the facts will be interesting to note. I think the scare of wasting a pick and wasting time is what makes it look like a big risk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    I don't want tony to go, but don makes valid points...if we look at the team as a whole and not let homerism take charge, then a romo trade could concievably help the team, assuming that we got a legit QB back in the process...Orton cane be a stand-in until the rook gets his uni a little dirty...
    "Homerism"? I like it, I will be using it from now on!!

    And, very true.
    Last edited by thedon01; 11-24-2012 at 02:06 PM.

    "
    No Idea Why Ines Sainz Was Her assed"

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Manhattan College
    Posts
    6,732
    vCash
    1500
    This is an interesting discussion. What about Matt Flynn? If SEA gets into the playoffs, I can't see them not trusting Wilson with the team for the foreseeable future. No way they keep Flynn around with the deal they gave him. He'll be playing for another team next year I'd assume, wouldn't you?

    But I am a Romo guy. I think he could win with us. And I also believe that he is a young 32 since he only has been full time for 5-6 years. However, the hits he has been taking may cancel that out.

    No way MIA lets Long go but DAL making a move for a tackle and having a line such as player X-Livings-Bernie-Free-Smith is solid and it allows us to use the draft for a safety to play next to Church and be the successor to Sensi (assuming M. Johnson doesn't fit the bill), and Spencer's heir and D Line depth.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,851
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by notoriousbig21 View Post
    This is an interesting discussion. What about Matt Flynn? If SEA gets into the playoffs, I can't see them not trusting Wilson with the team for the foreseeable future. No way they keep Flynn around with the deal they gave him. He'll be playing for another team next year I'd assume, wouldn't you?

    But I am a Romo guy. I think he could win with us. And I also believe that he is a young 32 since he only has been full time for 5-6 years. However, the hits he has been taking may cancel that out.

    No way MIA lets Long go but DAL making a move for a tackle and having a line such as player X-Livings-Bernie-Free-Smith is solid and it allows us to use the draft for a safety to play next to Church and be the successor to Sensi (assuming M. Johnson doesn't fit the bill), and Spencer's heir and D Line depth.
    You do have a point about Flynn, and I'm sure some team will make a play for him, which would somewhat dilute the trade market for Romo, but on the other hand Romo is > Flynn.

    It's going to be extremely difficult to somehow have Jake Long enter free agency. I've also read that Miami is going to have a ton of cap space either this off season or next, so they've got all the chances in the world to resign their all pro left tackle. It's a stretch to think he'd fall in our laps and we shouldn't hold our breath. We might actually have a a better shot at getting Vollmer (RT) from the Pats in free agency. It also make it possible as the Pats are somewhat reluctant to spend big bucks and Cannon has filled in nicely for them.

    Either way I'm inching more towards landing a Tackle in FA because it can truly change this line. Any tackle who's > Free allows us to move Free inside to guard (thus fixes 1 guard situation) creates the luxury of moving Berny to Center if need be, and allows us to allocate our first 2 picks to other areas of need such as NT/DE/S/OLB/QB.

    "
    No Idea Why Ines Sainz Was Her assed"

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Amarillo, Tx
    Posts
    2,521
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by thedon01 View Post
    @Fred
    Nice response and I'd agree about going after Long. An acquisition of Long actually yields us a guard in Free and could yield us a center in Berny, so it's actually 1 move solving 2-3 other areas of need. Spencer only solves 1 area if he continues to play like he's been playing.

    I don't have any confidence that Long becomes a free agent; if anything he's going to get tagged, but if by some chance he does I'd probably lay out a blank check.

    If you really believe the Cowboys can win now (1-2 seasons [2013-2014]) then you don't want to get rid of Romo, but drafting an heir apparent is a wise move. He'd have a chance to learn behind Romo and give us a future to build around.

    But,

    If you believe the Cowboys aren't in the right place to win then Romo donning the cowboys colors is not relevant and he can yield a return. It's wiser to trade him while his stock is high and yes if Palmer and Kolb yielded what they did then Romo has to at least bring back a combination of what they did (considering his age).

    For me, I wouldn't want to trade Romo until I had drafted a QB, but if push came to shove I wouldn't rule out trading him before I had a QB either. Now in terms of winning, like I've said for a few years, I don't believe Romo is that guy. I think the Cowboys can squeak a Super Bowl victory off, but it will be because of other parts of the team (ground game, defense, special teams, etc), not because of Romo's ability to lead a team (consider Dilfer's situation). I also don't believe the Cowboys will ever reach the mountain top while Jones always has his tentacles wrapped around the team; he must take a few steps back, so my reasoning of trading Romo is based on the current circumstances and feelings toward his inability imo.



    Romo wasn't drafted which is an anomaly, so I would have been far more concerned with promoting Romo to QB back in the day then I would be about drafting a QB in the first round.

    I'd like you actually search and find the ratio of good QB's vs busts (only using 1st round selections) over the last decade. Not only do I think you have a better chance at finding a quality arm in the first round, but I think the facts will be interesting to note. I think the scare of wasting a pick and wasting time is what makes it look like a big risk.



    "Homerism"? I like it, I will be using it from now on!!

    And, very true.
    I actually did research that before I posted that comment. I'm excluding luck, rg3, tanehill, and weeden just because they're rookies and we only have this year to judge them. You and I may differ when referring to a player as good, but here's my qualifications per season: 3,500 passing yards minimum, over 20 passing tds, at least 60 completion %, 15 or less ints. Out of 30 qbs drafted in the first round since 2000, only 14 have gone on to have decent-successful careers, while 8 have passed my qualifications as good qbs (they're in bold)
    Chad Pennington
    Michael Vick
    Carson Palmer
    Eli manning
    Phillip rivers
    Ben Roethlisberger
    Alex smith
    Aaron Rogers
    Jason Campbell
    jay cutler
    Matt Ryan
    Mathew stafford
    Cam newton
    Josh freeman
    So out of the 30, 16 of them have been busts or not that good. That's less than 50%

    titties

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,851
    vCash
    1500
    Well to begin you've actually interested me to dig into history so I'll eventually look into this topic a bit further. Good one!

    I agree about excluding the players from the 2012 draft; too early to tell.

    Now onto the qualifications:

    1. We're probably going to disagree on the definition of "good" and "bust".

    2. When you're defining your parameters it seems like you're evaluating by a single season.

    3. If you want to qualify "good or bust" you have to decide based on overall performance (over a career) i would think.

    4. Your original reply was
    Not necessarily. For the last decade, more often than not first round qbs have been busts.
    - referring to "busts" not "decent careers". I think it's unjust to call players who aren't number 1 overall picks or haven't lived up to "elite caliber" careers a bust or decent.

    5. You used 5 number 1 overall draft selections to define as "your standards", which again isn't a fair assessment. You can't use top tier qualifications to make the point that there's been more busts because it's obviously true, yet not a fair assessment, again sort of cherry picking. You've got to remain unbiased when trying to prove this point, which by the way is a great topic to research imo.

    6. BTW I want you to know that even though we may disagree on certain subjects I value your opinions and nothing is personal. I hope you understand that.

    "
    No Idea Why Ines Sainz Was Her assed"

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Amarillo, Tx
    Posts
    2,521
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by thedon01 View Post
    Well to begin you've actually interested me to dig into history so I'll eventually look into this topic a bit further. Good one!

    I agree about excluding the players from the 2012 draft; too early to tell.

    Now onto the qualifications:

    1. We're probably going to disagree on the definition of "good" and "bust".

    2. When you're defining your parameters it seems like you're evaluating by a single season.

    3. If you want to qualify "good or bust" you have to decide based on overall performance (over a career) i would think.

    4. Your original reply was

    - referring to "busts" not "decent careers". I think it's unjust to call players who aren't number 1 overall picks or haven't lived up to "elite caliber" careers a bust or decent.

    5. You used 5 number 1 overall draft selections to define as "your standards", which again isn't a fair assessment. You can't use top tier qualifications to make the point that there's been more busts because it's obviously true, yet not a fair assessment, again sort of cherry picking. You've got to remain unbiased when trying to prove this point, which by the way is a great topic to research imo.

    6. BTW I want you to know that even though we may disagree on certain subjects I value your opinions and nothing is personal. I hope you understand that.
    Those are numbers I expect a first round qb to get every year. I'm ok with a down year or two because it happens to everyone (ware, romo are having down years). Those that I bolded are the qbs that have met my standards nearly every year. The other qbs on that list have had good careers but have only met my standards a few times. Let me change what I said about the good-decent thing as I now see the fault in my original comment. Those numbers are just what I expect from a first rounder, but just because a first rounder doesn't get those numbers, doesn't mean they aren't good qbs. Chad Pennington wasn't an eye popping stat stuffing MVP candidate, but he was a good qb as evidence by his nfl record for career completion %. These are all the other qbs that I didn't post, bold names are the qbs I consider busts.
    David Carr
    Joey Harrington
    Patrick Ramsey
    Byron leftwich
    Kyle boller
    Rex grossman
    Jp Losman
    Vince young
    Jamarcus Russell
    Brady Quinn
    Mark Sanchez
    Tm tebow

    Christian ponder
    Sam Bradford
    Jake locker
    Blaine gabbert
    I don't necessarily believe ponder is a bust, but rather an enourmous reach because of their extreme need for a qb, however he hasn't been playing that great after starting off looking pretty good the first couple games this year. Bradford, locker, and gabbert are interesting cases. On one hand they show that they can play, but on the other hand they are extremely injury prone.

    titties

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Amarillo, Tx
    Posts
    2,521
    vCash
    1500
    Oh and about number 6, I understand completely. I respect your differing opinions as well, and I very much enjoy debating you!

    titties

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,851
    vCash
    1500
    Gabbert, Locker, and Ponder are still too early to tell in my opinion. Not only are their teams somewhat lackluster, but they haven't been given ample time to prove their worth. IMO the verdict is still out on those three.

    Bradford has had a horrible team and horrible line through his couple seasons. I'd like to give him at least 2 more seasons before we make a decision on his effectiveness. This leads me to another criteria. Time. If we're going to evaluate bust vs good we have to give a parameter to judge by. Some of those players like the 3 i mentioned haven't been in the league or haven't started nearly as much as some of the others you mentioned.

    Now "elite" = super bowl-esque don't come around that often so we can't use that as a criteria to measure by either. If we're looking for those types of QB's then it's a long shot that every team that drafts a QB in the first round is going to yield a Tom Brady/Peyton Manning type return, but even more so outside of the 1st round. By that standard you're correct. There will be far more disappointments than success stories if we're only searching for "elites" because they are just as few and far between as finding a Tom Brady in the 6th round.

    I'm a firm believer that from the range of quality qb's (depending on the expectation and definition) - Elite Super Bowl-esque style QB's come from the first round. Now that may be a biased myth on my part which is why I'd like to dig deeper for the facts. However the chances you're going to find one of those nuggets outside of the first round have to be an anomaly. So in our original debate I don't think it's fair to shy away from drafting a QB in the first round because of some of the failures as it's a post hoc to assume we'd automatically get a failure because others have failed.

    Let's formulate a standard of what we judge a good QB by. I'd like to dig deeper into your list of criteria before i agree.

    I'm assuming your 3500 yrds, 60% etc is the career average you're looking for, am I right? If so, can I ask why you came up with those specific numbers?

    "
    No Idea Why Ines Sainz Was Her assed"

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Amarillo, Tx
    Posts
    2,521
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by thedon01 View Post
    Gabbert, Locker, and Ponder are still too early to tell in my opinion. Not only are their teams somewhat lackluster, but they haven't been given ample time to prove their worth. IMO the verdict is still out on those three.

    Bradford has had a horrible team and horrible line through his couple seasons. I'd like to give him at least 2 more seasons before we make a decision on his effectiveness. This leads me to another criteria. Time. If we're going to evaluate bust vs good we have to give a parameter to judge by. Some of those players like the 3 i mentioned haven't been in the league or haven't started nearly as much as some of the others you mentioned.

    Now "elite" = super bowl-esque don't come around that often so we can't use that as a criteria to measure by either. If we're looking for those types of QB's then it's a long shot that every team that drafts a QB in the first round is going to yield a Tom Brady/Peyton Manning type return, but even more so outside of the 1st round. By that standard you're correct. There will be far more disappointments than success stories if we're only searching for "elites" because they are just as few and far between as finding a Tom Brady in the 6th round.

    I'm a firm believer that from the range of quality qb's (depending on the expectation and definition) - Elite Super Bowl-esque style QB's come from the first round. Now that may be a biased myth on my part which is why I'd like to dig deeper for the facts. However the chances you're going to find one of those nuggets outside of the first round have to be an anomaly. So in our original debate I don't think it's fair to shy away from drafting a QB in the first round because of some of the failures as it's a post hoc to assume we'd automatically get a failure because others have failed.

    Let's formulate a standard of what we judge a good QB by. I'd like to dig deeper into your list of criteria before i agree.

    I'm assuming your 3500 yrds, 60% etc is the career average you're looking for, am I right? If so, can I ask why you came up with those specific numbers?
    Before the league became pass happy and 4000 yards was the new normal, 3500-4000 was considered great for a qb from the 80's up until around the mid 2000's. Since the league has become so enamoured with the passing game and has tooled it so people can get 4500-5000 yards relatively easily, I feel like if you can't at least put up the numbers I mentioned, then you aren't worth a first round investment.

    titties

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •