eraser 722 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8IK0GtVYAAnW17.jpg:large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 Very good points. I see the possibility of a Steve Smith in Hill but the jury is out. I think Maclin has (although not taking over a game) shown legit stud status at times getting separation and making the catch. This year was very un-Maclin. I hope it was an aboration and not the start of a sharp decline. He and Hill with Kelce could be a force. I reread this whole thread again (because it might be the best thread I have ever read on QBs) and looked at these guys. Pretty much after pick 18 only one first round QB has won a Supr Bowl. Rogers. Marino was a complete stud at pick 27, but I am thinking they have to really be in love with a guy to pick a QB here. I am thinking the guy left will not be the guy they love. We will just have to see, but I will not jump off a bridge if they don't take a guy until round 3 or 4. I feel like with nothing to back it up that they will go round 2 or 3 for a QB to develop. Splits can be arbitrary: Drew Brees was the 1st pick of the 2nd round in a year before the 32nd-overall pick would have been a first-round pick. Really, I don't think tiering limited to round number reflects the effect that demand has on driving the cost of a quarterback deemed to be 'anything close to approximately NFL-ready, maybe' to well above what actual projected value warrants. I'm glad you've enjoyed this discussion. It's actually one piece of a much larger project that explores the value of drafted quarterbacks, and whether there are better ways to build a Super Bowl-winning team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 According to the above link, Colin Kaepernick was pretty good against pressure. Alex Smith was average. Ryan Tannehill was really, really bad. Wouldn't it be special if Kaepernick signed with the Chiefs for a one year (prove it) deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 According to the above link, Colin Kaepernick was pretty good against pressure. Alex Smith was average. Ryan Tannehill was really, really bad. Wouldn't it be special if Kaepernick signed with the Chiefs for a one year (prove it) deal. I'm not a fan of a chart that pegs value to passer rating. Next Gen Stats show that Alex Smith had the ball out of his hand almost four-tenths of a second faster per play than Colin Kaepernick, and perhaps that was why Colin Kaepernick was "pressured" more frequently than Smith. Kaepernick is unemployed for good reasons. The NFL will be a better place when the throwing runningbacks are gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I'm not a fan of a chart that pegs value to passer rating. Next Gen Stats show that Alex Smith had the ball out of his hand almost four-tenths of a second faster per play than Colin Kaepernick, and perhaps that was why Colin Kaepernick was "pressured" more frequently than Smith. Kaepernick is unemployed for good reasons. The NFL will be a better place when the throwing runningbacks are gone. Kaep does have an elongated throwing motion. That could cause his release to be slower. I know an Chiefs' football analyst (of which there are a dime a dozen), and he has been banging the gong for Kaepernick. I don't want him, but I thought I would stir the pot. I can only imagine how Alex Smith would take it if the Chiefs decided to bring him in. Reid is a loyal guy. I don't think he would allow it to happen, but stranger things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted March 31, 2017 Author Share Posted March 31, 2017 I know an Chiefs' football analyst (of which there are a dime a dozen), and he has been banging the gong for Kaepernick. I don't want him, but I thought I would stir the pot. I can only imagine how Alex Smith would take it if the Chiefs decided to bring him in. Reid is a loyal guy. I don't think he would allow it to happen, but stranger things have happened. Only an Alex Smith hater could welcome Colin Kaepernick to the Chiefs. The thought is that if Colin Kaepernick beat out Smith once (which he didn't), he could beat out Smith a second time (which he wouldn't). Because Andy Reid is not an arrogant egotist, he won't be motivated to make the change from Smith to Kaepernick that Harbaugh dared to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West 6,714 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Phatal, You have really done a great job with this thread. I learned plenty based on both the data you provided as well as your analysis. Thanks. w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Only an Alex Smith hater could welcome Colin Kaepernick to the Chiefs. The thought is that if Colin Kaepernick beat out Smith once (which he didn't), he could beat out Smith a second time (which he wouldn't). Because Andy Reid is not an arrogant egotist, he won't be motivated to make the change from Smith to Kaepernick that Harbaugh dared to make. I agree. I didn't say it was my opinion. In fact, I think it would be a horrible idea. You are spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 Actually, you are not really correct here. You are the one setting the OR condition at "First Round". Therefore it's First Round OR Any Other Round, and then you have the statistical consideration to measure against. But I think if we're focusing on this, we're splitting hairs on a very irrelevant segment of the discussion. Step out of the numbers for a moment, and let's look at the reality of drafting in the NFL. I'm not advocating the approach of exclusively drafting quarterbacks late. It's hard to get a quality talent when it's been thoroughly picked through, and by the sixth and seventh rounds, there really isn't much talent left. That being said, drafting a quarterback very early comes at a tremendous cost. Drafting 27th overall as they are this year, the Chiefs have 1303.4 Draft Pick Value Points (an amount improved upon by the awarding of compensatory selections), the equivalent of one tenth-overall pick. One pick. What talent could the Chiefs see at tenth-overall at quarterback that would be worth giving up an entire draft class for? Of course, that also raises this question: How do you objectively value what a draft pick is actually worth. There are more than a few mathematical studies that suggest that Jimmy Johnson got it all wrong, and that the earliest draft picks are largely overvalued, but all such studies still require that you buy in to algorithms that are at best questionable in their validity. Really, because a player doesn't get any better just because you drafted them earlier, the bottom line is that best player available presents the best option for acquiring the talent needed to field a Super Bowl-contending team. As for when a team should actually draft a quarterback, that decision really comes back to determining what's most important out of a list of competing objectives: • Do you leverage the roster to win today, or do you leverage the roster to win tomorrow? • At a given pick, is quarterback the position that can be projected to be upgraded more so than any other position? • When a decision is made, what is the opportunity cost? These are not simple questions. In fact, they are so complex that at times, despite all of their advance preparation with mocks and boards and evaluations, teams actually pass on a draft selection because they couldn't manage their selection process. The Chiefs have enough issues remaining on their roster (including having far too much future cap money assigned to players under-performing due to injury), that it wouldn't surprise me to see at the end of April that the Chiefs still believe Alex Smith is better than anything they would get out of the draft, and failing that, that dedicating an inordinate share of draft capital to the quarterback position would leave gaps in the roster that would expose said successor to development in a situation inconducive to quarterback development. It's not what certain fans want to hear, but given the Chiefs' success during the past four years (and going from the league's 32nd-best team to a perennial playoff contender generally falls under a franchise's definition of "success"), it seems to be most pragmatic for the Chiefs to pursue using the draft to seal the very significant gaps in their roster: LG, ILB, NT, RB, and LE, not necessarily in that order. Let's make one thing VERY clear: There aren't very many people on this forum that have studied the draft more than me over the years. You're a blip in decades of discussions. If you want to know how much time I've dedicated to the draft over the years, ask the people here. I just don't post much here anymore, I pop in. It's mostly because many of the people involved in those discussions have moved on, but I still enjoy several of the remaining people here and a few still talk about the draft here and elsewhere. So don't come on here and insult me about the "reality" of the draft. Moving on... Why are we speaking about an entire draft lot of selections as if they are one pick? They aren't one pick. You may be able to use your arbitrary "trade value chart" to equate the draft to one pick, but the reality is that you have 10 picks. Why would I assign a value to any specific player that I might select? Why should I comment on a QB picked at 10? I'm not advocating for a QB to be picked at 10 and to give up an entire draft. I'm telling you that it's more likely that you will get an NFL caliber QB in round 1 and that its most likely that a QB from round 1 would win a Super Bowl. This doesn't mean that a QB has to come from round 1, of course they don't. I'm not telling you that the Chiefs MUST draft a QB in round 1 this year, they don't. I advocate drafting a specific QB at 27 in this draft because the team has a need both currently in a backup capacity and in the future in a starting capacity. I advocate a QB at 27 in this draft because value aligns well with that need. Most of the QB's in this draft are developmental, borderline 1st round talents. There isn't one you'd pound the table for at 1 or 2, but there are a few that all deserve to go round 1. Team's with established veterans with only a year or two left would be wise to take these types of QBs because they have high ceilings and they wouldn't need to be rushed out. And just what teams do you hear connected to these players throughout the draft process? Playoff teams and teams with solid veterans. Arizona, New Orleans, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, etc. QB's are rated on an entirely different scale in the NFL relative to other positions in terms of draft value. They are, whether it is right or not, overdrafted more often than not. It is the most important position in the sport. Getting a great QB means a foundation for making the playoffs frequently. Yes, you need other things. You need good protection. You need solid receivers. You need a good defense. However, those things are much, much easier to find and draft. You can argue all day that an OLB is the position to pick in terms of "value" because in terms of talent versus draft position it just might be. However, you can't state that value relative to the QBs in this draft. If you have a round 1 grade on a QB and that player is one you think fits your scheme and your lockerroom, then that QB trumps every other player on your draft board. It really is that simple, because a QB is so hard to find. The team that does hit on a QB is going to get the most value. There is one thing that may be right in all of this, there will be teams that miss on the QBs. Not every QB is going to go to the best situation to learn and develop. Some are going tocompletely bust. There may only be one good QB to come from this entire draft. You can't fault the teams that miss for trying to fill this position. The hit rate is low. The Chiefs are in a position to take a bigger risk than many teams are. The Steelers are that type of team, and so on. These are very good playoff teams that will likely be playoff caliber teams again next year if they don't add a single player. The Chiefs have the opportunity, with so many selections, to take a risk on a QB that they think fits their scheme while also being able to move up and snag another player earlier in round 2. The Chiefs could easily get up in the mid 40's and take another very good player, such as an OLB, that drops out of round 1. They could just as well take an OLB at 27 and move up into the 40's' to get a QB that drops, if they think one they like will drop that far. They aren't locked in to doing any one thing, but they have the ability to take a bigger risk. That's usually a good time to invest in a risky position to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I respect Crow's opinions. We all have our thoughts. As long as they are supportable, they are valid. I don't know what the Chiefs will do in this draft. An argument can be made for just about anything. The 2017 draft is less than 4 weeks ahead. Next to a KC Chiefs' winning streak in regular season, these are my favorite times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I didn't say anything about Super Bowls. Liquid said the rule changes changed offenses. I assumed he meant, turned it into a passing league. I suggest it was already a passing league and the rule changes were to preserve it since the defensive players have gotten so devastating to the offensive talent. Just my opinion. Disagree. Offenses were more balances before Bill Polian cried and cried until they changed the rules dramatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted April 1, 2017 Author Share Posted April 1, 2017 Let's make one thing VERY clear: There aren't very many people on this forum that have studied the draft more than me over the years. You're a blip in decades of discussions. If you want to know how much time I've dedicated to the draft over the years, ask the people here. I just don't post much here anymore, I pop in. It's mostly because many of the people involved in those discussions have moved on, but I still enjoy several of the remaining people here and a few still talk about the draft here and elsewhere. So don't come on here and insult me about the "reality" of the draft. First off, it was never my intention to insult. I don't watch NCAA football, and am unqualified to do anything more than go off of a summary of various scouting reports. I do literally no research on the prospects beyond their scouting reports. I don't watch their film, and I don't care about their stats. I have to pick and choose where I spend my time concerning my football hobby, and it's not going to be spent in connection with dozens of big name players who will never contribute significantly in the NFL. I agreed with almost everything you wrote after this, especially in regard to having to overpay for quarterback prospects relative to those from other positions. Concerning the Chiefs' accumulated draft pick value for 2017 and selecting a quarterback, I believe that your contentions concerning First-Round Quarterbacks are invalid, as the splits within quarterbacks historically selected in the first round signal that most of the best quarterbacks and most of the Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks that were first-round selections were selected early in the first round. To date, no quarterback selected in the last quarter of the first round of the NFL Draft has been part of a Super Bowl-winning team. If you're going to make the argument that drafting in the first round is essential, you need to at least acknowledge that those admittedly overdrafted quarterbacks are well picked-through by the time the Chiefs will be drafting at 2017, unless they trade up. A closer view of the data exposes your dogmatically expressed viewpoint as unjustifiable. There's one other key disagreement: The Chiefs are in a position to take a bigger risk than many teams are. Let me ask you: What if the Chiefs had managed to get Paxton Lynch last year? In doing so, they certainly would not have gotten Chris Jones. Do you think that the Chiefs would have sacrificed 2016 for the sake of 2017 or 2018? Based on the run that Lynch got last year as well as how you evaluated him before the draft, do you believe that the Chiefs would be better off in 2017 than they are now? There was almost nothing left of the Chiefs' defense by the time Pittsburgh came to Arrowhead, and things certainly would have been even worse without Chris Jones. Would the Chiefs' Super Bowl window be worth putting at risk for Paxton Lynch? Are you so jaded on Smith and so cynical about the Chiefs' method of acquiring quarterbacks that you really wish that the Chiefs' future prospects were in Lynch's/Mahomes'/________'s hands in 2017 or 2018? I think your dissatisfaction with the Chiefs' present quarterback situation blinds you to what the Chiefs have been able to acquire in talent because of having the quarterback position settled, unlike almost half of the NFL, because there are legitimate questions floating around not just quarterback positions open for competition, but quarterback positions with a presumed starter. For instance: Arizona: This is certainly Carson Palmer's last season Bengals: Andy Dalton is losing support after six seasons without a playoff win Buffalo: Tyrod Taylor was forced to take a paycut Chicago: We know who won't be starting Cleveland: Osweiler, Kessler, or Other? Houston: Whoston? Jacksonville: Bortles' fifth-year option has not yet been exercised Los Angeles Chargers: How long can Philip Rivers manage to keep a heart for the game? Miami: Is Tannehill's progress stalling? New Orleans: Drew Brees doesn't have much left New York Giants: Eli Manning hasn't looked like the leader of a future Super Bowl-winning team for quite some time New York Jets: Petty, Hackenberg, or...? Pittsburgh: Roethlisberger's hinted at an inclination toward retirement San Francisco: No one knows who will start here Washington: Kirk Cousins until when, and what has he really done? After you get past these teams, then you have teams like the Broncos, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Eagles, Rams, and Titans, who have young quarterbacks that have proven nothing in the post-season. There are actually very few teams in the NFL that have a quarterback situation that is as settled as that of the Chiefs. You could count the Colts, Falcons, Lions, Packers, Raiders, and Seahawks, maybe the Panthers, Ravens and Vikings, and certainly the Patriots until Brady succumbs to time or abruptly retires. So in consideration of the foregoing, it just seems like the Chiefs take a step back by drafting a quarterback prospect early. It is in the face of extremely long odds that I will give you the possibility that a high-ceiling talent in the midst of such a competitive market with such small supply could drop to 27th. I wouldn't stake anything of value on such a bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 When you learn to not count on rookies to change your fortunes in year one, write to me. Rookies rarely make a significant impact in their first season. I'll let you research what positions usually do. So that said, there is no sacrifice in my mind. While Jones did play uncharacteristically well for a rookie, he wasn't a savior either. If I felt a QB fit my scheme and the way I do things as a coach, I'd draft him 10/10 times with zero regrets. I firmly believe that most rookie QBs can put up a pitiful 15 TDs and 3000 yards, so I don't believe the Chiefs fortunes would have changed any last season with a rookie QB. Alex Smith hindered the Chiefs Super Bowl aspirations. Everything else is negligible. And yes, the Chiefs will likely have to trade up to get one of the top 3 QBs (Mahomes/Trubisky/Watson), but very doubtful it would need to be into the top 10. And maybe you're correct about one thing, stop looking at round. How about we look at selection number? Brett Favre = #33 Drew Brees = #32 Derek Carr = #36 We could keep going. All good QB's. Favre and Brees, SB Champions. #27 isn't far from 33 or 32 is it? Or must we require round number? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted April 1, 2017 Author Share Posted April 1, 2017 Alex Smith hindered the Chiefs Super Bowl aspirations. Everything else is negligible. When you find evidence that Smith whiffs on blocks for himself and drops passes he threw and holds defensive ends on successful two-point conversions, get back to me. You didn't address any of what I actually said, except to cite the examples of two quarterbacks that won Super Bowls for teams that didn't even draft them. Derek Carr has done very little warranting his consideration among names like Brees and Favre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eraser 722 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Alex Smith isn't Tom Brady, but he isn't Matt Cassel either. We can do better, but we sure as heck can do a whole lot worse. I seem to recall some people in this very forum who wanted the Chiefs...begged the Chiefs to trade up as high as they could to draft Geno Smith. How would that have worked out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 How can you trade up higher than the #1 overall pick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calichief 3,016 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Let's make one thing VERY clear: There aren't very many people on this forum that have studied the draft more than me over the years. You're a blip in decades of discussions. If you want to know how much time I've dedicated to the draft over the years, ask the people here. I just don't post much here anymore, I pop in. It's mostly because many of the people involved in those discussions have moved on, but I still enjoy several of the remaining people here and a few still talk about the draft here and elsewhere. So don't come on here and insult me about the "reality" of the draft. Moving on... Why are we speaking about an entire draft lot of selections as if they are one pick? They aren't one pick. You may be able to use your arbitrary "trade value chart" to equate the draft to one pick, but the reality is that you have 10 picks. Why would I assign a value to any specific player that I might select? Why should I comment on a QB picked at 10? I'm not advocating for a QB to be picked at 10 and to give up an entire draft. I'm telling you that it's more likely that you will get an NFL caliber QB in round 1 and that its most likely that a QB from round 1 would win a Super Bowl. This doesn't mean that a QB has to come from round 1, of course they don't. I'm not telling you that the Chiefs MUST draft a QB in round 1 this year, they don't. I advocate drafting a specific QB at 27 in this draft because the team has a need both currently in a backup capacity and in the future in a starting capacity. I advocate a QB at 27 in this draft because value aligns well with that need. Most of the QB's in this draft are developmental, borderline 1st round talents. There isn't one you'd pound the table for at 1 or 2, but there are a few that all deserve to go round 1. Team's with established veterans with only a year or two left would be wise to take these types of QBs because they have high ceilings and they wouldn't need to be rushed out. And just what teams do you hear connected to these players throughout the draft process? Playoff teams and teams with solid veterans. Arizona, New Orleans, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, etc. QB's are rated on an entirely different scale in the NFL relative to other positions in terms of draft value. They are, whether it is right or not, overdrafted more often than not. It is the most important position in the sport. Getting a great QB means a foundation for making the playoffs frequently. Yes, you need other things. You need good protection. You need solid receivers. You need a good defense. However, those things are much, much easier to find and draft. You can argue all day that an OLB is the position to pick in terms of "value" because in terms of talent versus draft position it just might be. However, you can't state that value relative to the QBs in this draft. If you have a round 1 grade on a QB and that player is one you think fits your scheme and your lockerroom, then that QB trumps every other player on your draft board. It really is that simple, because a QB is so hard to find. The team that does hit on a QB is going to get the most value. There is one thing that may be right in all of this, there will be teams that miss on the QBs. Not every QB is going to go to the best situation to learn and develop. Some are going tocompletely bust. There may only be one good QB to come from this entire draft. You can't fault the teams that miss for trying to fill this position. The hit rate is low. The Chiefs are in a position to take a bigger risk than many teams are. The Steelers are that type of team, and so on. These are very good playoff teams that will likely be playoff caliber teams again next year if they don't add a single player. The Chiefs have the opportunity, with so many selections, to take a risk on a QB that they think fits their scheme while also being able to move up and snag another player earlier in round 2. The Chiefs could easily get up in the mid 40's and take another very good player, such as an OLB, that drops out of round 1. They could just as well take an OLB at 27 and move up into the 40's' to get a QB that drops, if they think one they like will drop that far. They aren't locked in to doing any one thing, but they have the ability to take a bigger risk. That's usually a good time to invest in a risky position to begin with. I for one have thourougly enjoyed and absorbed your knowledge over the years. This forum could use more KCCrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefensiveMan 758 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 I respect Crow's opinions. We all have our thoughts. As long as they are supportable, they are valid. I don't know what the Chiefs will do in this draft. An argument can be made for just about anything. The 2017 draft is less than 4 weeks ahead. Next to a KC Chiefs' winning streak in regular season, these are my favorite times. It definitey is exciting. I haven't been this exciting for the draft since 05 when we drafted DJ. Whether we take a QB or not it will all be frosting on the cake. We are stacked, and have will have a great opportunity to polish our roster into one of the league's finest. Thank Dorsey & Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liquidfriend 1,151 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 Alex Smith isn't Tom Brady, but he isn't Matt Cassel either. We can do better, but we sure as heck can do a whole lot worse. I seem to recall some people in this very forum who wanted the Chiefs...begged the Chiefs to trade up as high as they could to draft Geno Smith. How would that have worked out. You're right though Cassel had 27 passing TDs in a season. Alex never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 You're right though Cassel had 27 passing TDs in a season. Alex never will. Why is Alex Smith a regular starter for his team, while Matt Cassel has started 80 games for five different teams during his career? They cannot be compared to each other. End of argument. Thank you for playing. Moving on. (This is about franchise practices, not Alex Smith.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhataLerror 370 Posted April 2, 2017 Author Share Posted April 2, 2017 Here's a twist on what you've already seen, but this time the focus is on draft class rather than franchise: In the 1988 NFL Draft, league-wide less than 0.6% of draft pick capital was invested in the quarterback position. Just 11 years later, teams around the league invested almost 18.4% of their collective draft pick capital in signal callers. The graph clearly shows that there were years in which teams were willing to spend much to acquire a quarterback, and years in which teams weren't excited about the market. This in itself didn't surprise, as it's long been known that there were years in which collegiate football simply didn't produce high quality quarterback prospects that projected well for the professional league. When you graph it, however, the sharp contrast between classes is obvious. Further, since the 1980's, there is a pattern of a cyclical rise year-over-year in the percentage of draft capital spent on quarterbacks, eventually followed by a deep trough (usually for a single year), and then the cycle begins anew. There's also an increased demand for quarterbacks in recent years that is not adequately explained by acknowledging that between 1975 and 2002, the league grew from 26 teams to 32 teams. Later on, I'd like to run a comparison between these figures and the accomplishments of quarterbacks from these classes. One class that stands out to me just eyeballing the chart is 2000's, the year in which Chad Pennington was the first quarterback off the board at 18th overall. Besides him, not a single quarterback drafted before the fifth round started a season's worth of games throughout their career, and Tom Brady has started more games than the rest of the entire class put together. A year before, three quarterbacks were taken with the first three picks of the draft, and five were taken in the first 15 selections. None of them won a Super Bowl, although Donovan McNabb at least played in a Super Bowl, only to lose to Tom Brady's Patriots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 It definitey is exciting. I haven't been this exciting for the draft since 05 when we drafted DJ. Whether we take a QB or not it will all be frosting on the cake. We are stacked, and have will have a great opportunity to polish our roster into one of the league's finest. Thank Dorsey & Co. I am really excited about it as well. We are so close to being a championship team. We have gotten better every year under Andy and Dorse. They went through a complete rebuild of a 2-14 team where you are scrambling for starters. Now they can be more long term in there thinking like last year. They got some future stars outside the first round. I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kccrow 529 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 When you find evidence that Smith whiffs on blocks for himself and drops passes he threw and holds defensive ends on successful two-point conversions, get back to me. You didn't address any of what I actually said, except to cite the examples of two quarterbacks that won Super Bowls for teams that didn't even draft them. Derek Carr has done very little warranting his consideration among names like Brees and Favre. If your hero hits a couple of the ten wide-open receivers he missed seeing on the first progression that game, you aren't worrying about that two-point conversion for the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHard 2,061 Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 I don't know between you guys who is to blame for the play off loss. But I would sugest that It came down to not being able to run the ball combined with not being able to stop the run. We can pick out Houston playing against the best WR in the league or Smith not standing in and delivering the ball to Hill when he could have. But it is really about not being able to run and not being able to stop the run. I am not a Smith lover and would upgrade in a heart beat. I just don't know who that guy is right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DefensiveMan 758 Posted April 3, 2017 Share Posted April 3, 2017 I don't know between you guys who is to blame for the play off loss. But I would sugest that It came down to not being able to run the ball combined with not being able to stop the run. We can pick out Houston playing against the best WR in the league or Smith not standing in and delivering the ball to Hill when he could have. But it is really about not being able to run and not being able to stop the run. I am not a Smith lover and would upgrade in a heart beat. I just don't know who that guy is right now. We definitely need to upgrade the running game. We need large runs to take the pressure off of Alex Smith. Maybe a Dalvin Cook wouldn't be so bad in the late first. Ware, is a nice change of pace power back. Other than that, he's not a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.