Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Greg Cossell Talks NFL Draft

IDEXAN said:
A team has a #1 & #2 WR in it's starting lineup, just as the LT & RT are the #1 & #2 OTs respectively. You don't use the 1.1 on the #2 OT, the pick is just too valuable for a position that's not considered a premier position.
Click to expand...

Who else is worthy of it???
None of the draft sites I've checked have ANY of the QBs rated over Clowney, Matthews, or Robinson. Picking Robinson or Matthews would fill a need.

You're telling me you'd rather REACH for a QB that's barely rated in the top ten and let the 2nd or 3rd rated player in the whole draft because he won't be your #1 tackle??? He's still gonna start. He's still gonna be a massive upgrade over anyone currently on the roster not named Duane Brown.

I guess I'm a BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE guy. And the best players available are linemen not QBs; one defensive and two offensive.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.
:goodluck:
 
ObsiWan said:
You're telling me you'd rather REACH for a QB that's barely rated in the top ten and let the 2nd or 3rd rated player in the whole draft because he won't be your #1 tackle??? He's still gonna start. He's still gonna be a massive upgrade over anyone currently on the roster not named Duane Brown.
Click to expand...

How do we know he won't start at LT? Duane Brown is a great guy & all, but there are better tackles in the NFL & there will be better tackles in the NFL.

I think we need to stop trying to improve the worst spots on our team & add the best talent we can find... at a position of need of course. Like you said, why reach on a QB, gamble? Take the better prospect (still a gamble, but a better prospect) & fix the OL then the QBs you had last year will all of a sudden look better (objectively, Matt's cap number is the #1 reason he doesn't need to be in Houston). Your RBs will look better. Your TEs will look better, your WRs will look better.

QBs the most important position on the team, no doubt. But so is OT. So is DE. So is CB. Draft the best CB we can, maybe we upgrade our starting corners, move Kj to safety. He can't be worse than Ed Reed.
 
ObsiWan said:
Who else is worthy of it???
None of the draft sites I've checked have ANY of the QBs rated over Clowney, Matthews, or Robinson. Picking Robinson or Matthews would fill a need.

You're telling me you'd rather REACH for a QB that's barely rated in the top ten and let the 2nd or 3rd rated player in the whole draft because he won't be your #1 tackle??? He's still gonna start. He's still gonna be a massive upgrade over anyone currently on the roster not named Duane Brown.

I guess I'm a BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE guy. And the best players available are linemen not QBs; one defensive and two offensive.

I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.
:goodluck:
Click to expand...
OK how about this, as much as I would hope we'd take Clowney, I'd still rather take a non-QB even if he's not Clowney than I would take Manziel, Bortles, or Bridgewater with our 1.1, and then take a QB with our second choice in the Draft. In that scenario, we'd still have to argue about who we'd select
with our 1.1.
 
Playoffs said:
I agree, although I have not heard Cosell acknowledge Manziel's injury status in those games -- which some supporters bemoan.

And agree the book on Manziel will be to contain him in the pocket and have your big bodies get their hands up to disturb his sightlines. Counter will be moving pockets, varied rollouts, etc.

Manziel's learning curve, according to Cosell, will be about executing called plays. NFL OC's do not like it when their QBs freelance. I think he's going to have to stop running out of the back of the pocket and limit his scrambling in general as defenses are too fast for him to get away with that. He'll get RG3'd. Should make for great drama.
Click to expand...

Yep. And on another team.
 
I wouldn't mind taking someone other than a QB at 1-1.

I think QB should be our highest priority because it's the position we have the greatest need and getting a good QB would have the greatest impact. We've seen rookie QB's the past few years come in and perform at a high level very quickly and I think addressing that need later is going to result in a longer re-tooling.

But...

Of the "top" prospects:

1. Clowney -- I see him as having too many red flags and I wouldn't draft him. If we do draft him, I don't see him playing DE in a 3-4. So I don't think we'd be going with RACs preferred style of defense but at least he'd have lots of toys to play with.

2. Matthews -- I would be totally fine with this pick. I don't care if he's playing RT or LT. Brown-Quessenberry-Myers-Brooks-Matthews would be a great line. Great lines make everyone better.

3. Barr -- I would be fine with this pick, too. Granted, it means that we'd have to take a long hard look at our linebacking corps but we're going to have to fix some things there, anyway.

4. Watkins -- I would be shocked by this pick. I think it would be a huge mistake. But. AJ -- Hopkins -- Watkins in a three wide set would be scary. We could even draft Tajh Boyd later and re-unite him with Hopkins and Watkins.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I wouldn't mind taking someone other than a QB at 1-1.

I think QB should be our highest priority because it's the position we have the greatest need and getting a good QB would have the greatest impact. We've seen rookie QB's the past few years come in and perform at a high level very quickly and I think addressing that need later is going to result in a longer re-tooling.

But...

Of the "top" prospects:

1. Clowney -- I see him as having too many red flags and I wouldn't draft him. If we do draft him, I don't see him playing DE in a 3-4. So I don't think we'd be going with RACs preferred style of defense but at least he'd have lots of toys to play with.

2. Matthews -- I would be totally fine with this pick. I don't care if he's playing RT or LT. Brown-Quessenberry-Myers-Brooks-Matthews would be a great line. Great lines make everyone better.

3. Barr -- I would be fine with this pick, too. Granted, it means that we'd have to take a long hard look at our linebacking corps but we're going to have to fix some things there, anyway.

4. Watkins -- I would be shocked by this pick. I think it would be a huge mistake. But. AJ -- Hopkins -- Watkins in a three wide set would be scary. We could even draft Tajh Boyd later and re-unite him with Hopkins and Watkins.
Click to expand...
I rate Watkins as one of the two most talented players in his Draft, with less uncertainty than the other best prospect. But unless we intend to go Detroit Lions circa 2003-05, seriously doubt we use our 1.1 in another WR.
 
IDEXAN said:
I rate Watkins as one of the two most talented players in his Draft, with less uncertainty than the other best prospect. But unless we intend to go Detroit Lions circa 2003-05, seriously doubt we use our 1.1 in another WR.
Click to expand...

I agree.

I was just wanting to be thorough and explore all the non-QB options at 1-1 besides actually trading back (which is really my preference).
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I wouldn't mind taking someone other than a QB at 1-1.

I think QB should be our highest priority because it's the position we have the greatest need and getting a good QB would have the greatest impact. We've seen rookie QB's the past few years come in and perform at a high level very quickly and I think addressing that need later is going to result in a longer re-tooling.

But...

Of the "top" prospects:

1. Clowney -- I see him as having too many red flags and I wouldn't draft him. If we do draft him, I don't see him playing DE in a 3-4. So I don't think we'd be going with RACs preferred style of defense but at least he'd have lots of toys to play with.

2. Matthews -- I would be totally fine with this pick. I don't care if he's playing RT or LT. Brown-Quessenberry-Myers-Brooks-Matthews would be a great line. Great lines make everyone better.

3. Barr -- I would be fine with this pick, too. Granted, it means that we'd have to take a long hard look at our linebacking corps but we're going to have to fix some things there, anyway.

4. Watkins -- I would be shocked by this pick. I think it would be a huge mistake. But. AJ -- Hopkins -- Watkins in a three wide set would be scary. We could even draft Tajh Boyd later and re-unite him with Hopkins and Watkins.
Click to expand...


Watkins is very intriguing. Build from strength. Where do you think he would go? Top 5? Top 10? How far can we trade down and grab him? and what would we get? If its fairly sizeable offer this might not be so shocking as it is the way of the NFL now.
 
jradMIT said:
Watkins is very intriguing. Build from strength. Where do you think he would go? Top 5? Top 10? How far can we trade down and grab him? and what would we get? If its fairly sizeable offer this might not be so shocking as it is the way of the NFL now.
Click to expand...

Unless he has a lights-out combine, I'm expecting him to drop to the 6-10 range. I suppose he could go 5 to the Raiders but I don't see him going to the Falcons. If he drops that far, the Falcons might be able to trade back with someone who wants him.
 
On 610AM today, my notes...

In ideal world should you take QB 1-1?, probably not. But if OB thinks one of these guys is worthy of it, I have such respect for him that I can go with that.

If you can generate offense without your QB having to be the focal point -- great run game, great defense -- you can play a QB like TB. Bortles more talented for down the road success vs. TB who is more ready to play week 1.

The first thing on your checklist should not be he's great at extending plays for a pro QB. If you believe in his DNA he's a freelancer/gambler, he's going to have a hard time being a top NFL QB because you can't play that way as your basic modus operandi. You need to play in a structured efficient system.

Clowney concern is his compete level, and compete level is in your DNA... you don't have to ask why, it just is. Can he at times be absolutely special? No doubt.

Really likes Mack/Mosley/Watkins -- all plug in & play players.

Tremendous respect for OB as an OC. Great feel for QB position, putting offense together, NFL pass game -- 3/5/7 drops play action -- route concepts to get people open, and what he'll want in a QB is someone to run that efficiently.

Watching minimum 450 dropbacks/plays per player. Based on watching entire games, every play.
Click to expand...
 
If you can generate offense without your QB having to be the focal point -- great run game, great defense -- you can play a QB like TB. Bortles more talented for down the road success vs. TB who is more ready to play week 1.
Click to expand...

Don't agree with this at all and I think it is something a lot of scouts overlook. Too many people are obsessed with "upside" and "potential" and talk about what a player could possibly be a few years down the road. Project QBs, no matter how high the potential upside, should never be brought to a team like the Texans.

Why do most young QBs fail, even the highly touted and highly talented ones? Because they weren't ready to play in the NFL. So many talented young QBs come in and aren't able to execute the teams offense, do what is asked of them pre-snap, make the throws and reads, and lead an offense of grown men. They then suffer a lot of growing pains early and their confidence gets shot as well as their fan support, confidence from coaches and front office.

Nearly every scout believes Teddy is the most NFL ready QB, so I don't see why he isn't more of a favorite to come to Houston where we need an immediate starter. We don't have the luxury of a project QB, we need a guy to start from day 1 and by all accounts Teddy will be the most capable of doing this...

How many good QBs had bad rookie seasons? I am not talking your typical rookie season, I mean an actual bad season; Geno Smith, Blaine Gabbert type bad. I can't think of any personally. Sure there is QBs that struggled in their rookie season and got better to be where they are today, but I am talking about how many QBs can you name that were first year starters, played poorly for the whole season, faced questions about their merit and worth, and then went on to be good-great QBs in the NFL?
 
matts290 said:
Don't agree with this at all and I think it is something a lot of scouts overlook. Too many people are obsessed with "upside" and "potential" and talk about what a player could possibly be a few years down the road. Project QBs, no matter how high the potential upside, should never be brought to a team like the Texans.

Why do most young QBs fail, even the highly touted and highly talented ones? Because they weren't ready to play in the NFL. So many talented young QBs come in and aren't able to execute the teams offense, do what is asked of them pre-snap, make the throws and reads, and lead an offense of grown men. They then suffer a lot of growing pains early and their confidence gets shot as well as their fan support, confidence from coaches and front office.

Nearly every scout believes Teddy is the most NFL ready QB, so I don't see why he isn't more of a favorite to come to Houston where we need an immediate starter. We don't have the luxury of a project QB, we need a guy to start from day 1 and by all accounts Teddy will be the most capable of doing this...

How many good QBs had bad rookie seasons? I am not talking your typical rookie season, I mean an actual bad season; Geno Smith, Blaine Gabbert type bad. I can't think of any personally. Sure there is QBs that struggled in their rookie season and got better to be where they are today, but I am talking about how many QBs can you name that were first year starters, played poorly for the whole season, faced questions about their merit and worth, and then went on to be good-great QBs in the NFL?
Click to expand...

whoever we draft wont be starting.
 
mussop said:
whoever we draft wont be starting.
Click to expand...

Wait what? If we draft Teddy, Johnny or Blake at first overall you don't think they will be starting day 1? Even if we take someone at #33 they have a good chance to be starting out of the gate. For better or worse, QBs don't get taken that high to not be day 1 starters.
 
matts290 said:
How many good QBs had bad rookie seasons? I am not talking your typical rookie season, I mean an actual bad season; Geno Smith, Blaine Gabbert type bad. I can't think of any personally. Sure there is QBs that struggled in their rookie season and got better to be where they are today, but I am talking about how many QBs can you name that were first year starters, played poorly for the whole season, faced questions about their merit and worth, and then went on to be good-great QBs in the NFL?
Click to expand...
ummm... how about Peyton.
326 of 575 for a 56% completion rate
26 TDs vs. 28 INTs
71 QB rating
3-13 record.
and that's with two pro bowl quality weapons (Faulk and M. Harrison) at his disposal.

...it can happen.
 
matts290 said:
How many good QBs had bad rookie seasons? I am not talking your typical rookie season, I mean an actual bad season; Geno Smith, Blaine Gabbert type bad. I can't think of any personally. Sure there is QBs that struggled in their rookie season and got better to be where they are today, but I am talking about how many QBs can you name that were first year starters, played poorly for the whole season, faced questions about their merit and worth, and then went on to be good-great QBs in the NFL?
Click to expand...

Over the past few years, we've had a whole bunch of rookie QBs come in and do surprisingly well. But prior to Ben Roethlisberger, a rookie QB having a good year was pretty much unheard of.

John Elway's first season was bad: <48% completion percentage, 7 TDs to 14 INTs, and a QB Rating in the 50's.

Joe Montana had a 2-6 record as a starter his first two years in the NFL.

Tom Brady didn't play at all his first year and wasn't even in contention to beat out Bledsoe until his second year.

Troy Aikman was 0-11 as a starter his first year; he had 9 TDs to 18 INTs, completed 53% of his passes, and had a QB rating of 55.7. He actually wasn't that good until his 4th year. And during those first three seasons, there was a lot of talk about him being a bust and about starting one of the other young QBs, instead.

Steve Young was 1-4 his first year and 2-12 his second and he was so bad, the Buccs traded him to the Niners.

Terry Bradshaw completed 38% of his passes his first year; he threw 6 TDs to 24 (!!!) INTs and had a QB rating of 30. The fans BOOED him for the first couple of years.

Although things have been different the past few years, it used to be that QBs took time to develop and took time to grow into the NFL. If you drafted a QB in the first round, you were probably accepting the fact that you were going to be losing a lot of games and drafting high again the next season.
 
infantrycak said:
Missed the point which was HouTex and I are old enough to have seen Cossall.
Click to expand...

The point was that HouTex questioned my research. I had no need to research what I saw for myself. We can disagree with what we saw, but research wasn't needed.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
Over the past few years, we've had a whole bunch of rookie QBs come in and do surprisingly well. But prior to Ben Roethlisberger, a rookie QB having a good year was pretty much unheard of.

John Elway's first season was bad: <48% completion percentage, 7 TDs to 14 INTs, and a QB Rating in the 50's.

Joe Montana had a 2-6 record as a starter his first two years in the NFL.

Tom Brady didn't play at all his first year and wasn't even in contention to beat out Bledsoe until his second year.

Troy Aikman was 0-11 as a starter his first year; he had 9 TDs to 18 INTs, completed 53% of his passes, and had a QB rating of 55.7. He actually wasn't that good until his 4th year. And during those first three seasons, there was a lot of talk about him being a bust and about starting one of the other young QBs, instead.

Steve Young was 1-4 his first year and 2-12 his second and he was so bad, the Buccs traded him to the Niners.

Terry Bradshaw completed 38% of his passes his first year; he threw 6 TDs to 24 (!!!) INTs and had a QB rating of 30. The fans BOOED him for the first couple of years.

Although things have been different the past few years, it used to be that QBs took time to develop and took time to grow into the NFL. If you drafted a QB in the first round, you were probably accepting the fact that you were going to be losing a lot of games and drafting high again the next season.
Click to expand...
So what is it about the GAME which makes it easier for QB's to succeed now and not before? It has to be rule changes.
 
Number19 said:
So what is it about the GAME which makes it easier for QB's to succeed now and not before? It has to be rule changes.
Click to expand...
I don't know of a rule change that would have made that impact. These QBs coming in are from predominantly pass oriented offenses. Even the high school offenses are more pass sophisticated than they were 20 or 30 years ago. These guys are more plug and play than in years past. Also, I think the pro coaches are doing a better job of tailoring the offenses to the young QB.
 
Lucky said:
I don't know of a rule change that would have made that impact. These QBs coming in are from predominantly pass oriented offenses. Even the high school offenses are more pass sophisticated than they were 20 or 30 years ago. These guys are more plug and play than in years past. Also, I think the pro coaches are doing a better job of tailoring the offenses to the young QB.
Click to expand...

Technically not a rules change, but considering this happened after the Pats beat the Colts in the 2004 (2003 season) AFC Championship game, I'm guessing this is what's being referred to.
“I give the Patriots great credit for what they did,” Polian said in an interview this week. “I won’t go beyond that.”

The National Football League eventually did, with Polian’s prodding. The following off-season, the league issued a point of emphasis edict from the competition committee about how defensive holding and illegal contact would be officiated. Since then, defenders have had to be more careful about touching receivers beyond the first 5 yards of a play.
Click to expand...
LINK

Roethlisberger was taken in the draft following this season.
 
Number19 said:
So what is it about the GAME which makes it easier for QB's to succeed now and not before? It has to be rule changes.
Click to expand...

As others have stated, I think the rules changes to protect the offense have helped the QB position quite a bit.

But also, I think in the old days, OCs were kinda dumb with their young QBs. They didn't tailor the offense to them but rather threw the whole playbook at them and expected them to know it. I think OCs now generally do a better job of tailoring the playbook and the play-calling to what the QB can do well.

When Roethlisberger came in, they (Whisenhunt?) made it a point to get him in motion and to restrict his reads to half the field. I think other OCs learned from that and have built on it to some degree.

I think this is something Kubiak failed at.
 
The Pencil Neck said:
I think this is something Kubiak failed at.
Click to expand...

I think Kubiak felt like he was being forced to do something & tried to push back. I thought he loved Keenum for a little while there. Then all of a sudden he starts trying to force Keenum into a box... as if to say, "See, he's not ready yet."

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
Scott Hanson: If the draft were tonight, the Houston Texans would select...

Blake Bortles has really been growing on me. I've been watching him more and more, I still want to do more work on him, but right now... Particularly as I learn from people I really respect and know about the kid...(interrupted by Millen)

What are the traits he's showing? To me he's a kid that, the more I'm exposed to him the more I like him.
Click to expand...

Cosell almost never answers these questions, especially this far from the draft. Big, imo.
 
Number19 said:
So what is it about the GAME which makes it easier for QB's to succeed now and not before? It has to be rule changes.
Click to expand...

College Football. What do I mean? When those guys were in college,teams were throwing the ball 10-15 times a game. Now, everyone is throwing it 40 plus. So despite the vanilla and the athletic gaps,qbs are still seeing coverage. In addition,think about high school. There was a time 0 qbs came frm texas. Why? Every high school team was running wishbon or veer. Now,they do 7 on 7,passsing camps and such. I think 7 starters last yr played highschool ball in texas. Kids are throwing the ball over a 1000 times before they get to college. That matters.
 
Allstar said:
Mighty presumptive for an opinion that goes against common sense and history of the league. You're not necessarily wrong, but to say that so matter-of-factly seems strange.
Click to expand...

"One of the things, if we wind up with a young quarterback, we'd probably bring in a veteran so we don't have to depend on that rookie," McNair said.

A veteran who doesn't count much against the salary cap, a veteran who doesn't mind keeping the starter's seat warm for The Franchise.

"That's tough, putting a rookie in there and expecting him to be able to play right off the bat," McNair said. "There have been a couple of them that have done it, but a number of them didn't do so well.

"I think having that veteran presence in there is real important."

In other words, O'Brien has told McNair and general manager Rick Smith that he would like to sign a veteran quarterback to mentor The Franchise until he's ready to be unleashed.
 
bah007 said:
We agree. Beckham and Moncrief are my two favorite WRs in this draft. Unfortunately, I don't think we will be in positon to draft either.
Click to expand...

You really like them two over Watkins and Evans? Those two guys are the best WR prospects I have seen since Julio and AJ came out a few years ago.
 
bah007 said:
We agree. Beckham and Moncrief are my two favorite WRs in this draft. Unfortunately, I don't think we will be in positon to draft either.
Click to expand...

matts290 said:
You really like them two over Watkins and Evans? Those two guys are the best WR prospects I have seen since Julio and AJ came out a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I think he meant that they are his favorite WRs that we will actually have a chance to draft outside of the 1-1 pick, but I don't want to speak for him.
 
matts290 said:
You really like them two over Watkins and Evans? Those two guys are the best WR prospects I have seen since Julio and AJ came out a few years ago.
Click to expand...

I have Beckham as my #2 WR so yes I like him better than Evans.

TexansSeminole said:
I think he meant that they are his favorite WRs that we will actually have a chance to draft outside of the 1-1 pick, but I don't want to speak for him.
Click to expand...

Correct. Love Watkins but I can't get behind a WR at #1 with all our needs.
 
bah007 said:
Correct. Love Watkins but I can't get behind a WR at #1 with all our needs.
Click to expand...

So if we select a WR at #1 we need to abandon all our other needs. But if we take a QB, or a DE at #1 we can address our other needs?
 
bah007 said:
I have Beckham as my #2 WR so yes I like him better than Evans.
Click to expand...

Please don't make me make a choice.

WRs in this draft is like going to the cafeteria... my eyes are bigger than my stomach.
t2801.gif
 
Playoffs said:
Please don't make me make a choice.

WRs in this draft is like going to the cafeteria... my eyes are bigger than my stomach.
t2801.gif
Click to expand...

There is a lot of quality. I would love Cooks as our slot but if he's gone or someone else higher rated is available there are some late round WR's with similar skill sets that I would love to see us go after. A shifty slot WR like Wes Welker is one of the things I look forward to the most out of our new offense.

Hell Eldeman may be a free agent. Maybe we will go that route.
 
thunderkyss said:
So if we select a WR at #1 we need to abandon all our other needs. But if we take a QB, or a DE at #1 we can address our other needs?
Click to expand...

It's not about the position, it's about the impact the player makes. Watkins is incredibly talented. But does he upgrade our team more than a franchise QB (if there is one) or an All Pro pass rusher (if there is one)?
 
bah007 said:
It's not about the position, it's about the impact the player makes. Watkins is incredibly talented. But does he upgrade our team more than a franchise QB (if there is one) or an All Pro pass rusher (if there is one)?
Click to expand...

So it's not about "all our needs" it's about finding a franchise QB or an All Pro pass rusher? I don't have a problem with that, but the way you phrased it before, because of our needs you don't see taking the best WR in this draft.

We've got a good WR in Andre. & DeAndre looks like everything we thought he'd be. But, personally, I don't think we're so good at any position where we can't get better.

Watkins will make this team better. There's no way around it (unless he's a bust). He won't make us better than drafting a franchise QB... but he may make us better than drafting Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles. He won't make us better than drafting an All-Pro pass rusher... but he may make us better than drafting Clowney.

I'm not advocating we take Watkins, just arguing the "need" argument. If we hit on our first round pick, regardless of the position, he'll help this team.
 
thunderkyss said:
So it's not about "all our needs" it's about finding a franchise QB or an All Pro pass rusher? I don't have a problem with that, but the way you phrased it before, because of our needs you don't see taking the best WR in this draft.
Click to expand...

I worded it wrong. It's about the biggest net positive improvement to the team you can make with each pick.

We've got a good WR in Andre. & DeAndre looks like everything we thought he'd be. But, personally, I don't think we're so good at any position where we can't get better.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I'm not against improving the position. But I don't think Watkins improves the team more than other players would, despite Watkins maybe being a better overall player.

Watkins will make this team better. There's no way around it (unless he's a bust). He won't make us better than drafting a franchise QB... but he may make us better than drafting Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles. He won't make us better than drafting an All-Pro pass rusher... but he may make us better than drafting Clowney.
Click to expand...

Agree. If O'Brien doesn't like the QBs and doesn't trust Clowney then Watkins enters the argument. I would prefer Mack or Robinson, but Watkins would be an option.

I'm not advocating we take Watkins, just arguing the "need" argument. If we hit on our first round pick, regardless of the position, he'll help this team.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. My wording was poor.
 
thunderkyss said:
So it's not about "all our needs" it's about finding a franchise QB or an All Pro pass rusher? I don't have a problem with that, but the way you phrased it before, because of our needs you don't see taking the best WR in this draft.

We've got a good WR in Andre. & DeAndre looks like everything we thought he'd be. But, personally, I don't think we're so good at any position where we can't get better.

Watkins will make this team better. There's no way around it (unless he's a bust). He won't make us better than drafting a franchise QB... but he may make us better than drafting Bridgewater, Manziel, or Bortles. He won't make us better than drafting an All-Pro pass rusher... but he may make us better than drafting Clowney.

I'm not advocating we take Watkins, just arguing the "need" argument. If we hit on our first round pick, regardless of the position, he'll help this team.
Click to expand...

I would be hyped if we take Watkins. He might be the best offensive player in the league, he is exciting, he would wreak havoc next to AJ and DeAndre and he probably would be AJs heir.

But he would be a luxury pick. WR is not a weakness of us. We have 1 elite player, one very good one and several talented ones. And: WR might be the single least important position to winning a superbowl. Great QBs win without elite WRs. And if you look at the best WRs of the last seasons (Calvin Johnson, AJ, Fitz), none of them even got close to the superbowl (yes, Fitz made it their once). But the Seahawks, the Broncos (ok, Thomas is pretty good), the 49ers, the Ravens, the Giants, the Packers, the Steelers - all these past superbowl teams didn`t have elite WRs.

To win in this league you basically need a great QB, a line that can protect him and open lanes for the HB, and a defense that makes it hard for other QBs. So, if we believe a QB is worth taking, then don`t blink even if you believe, Watkins might be the better prospect. And if a passrusher is there you think is worth taking, you probably wanna take him infront of Watkins as well. And you might even gonna take a tackle infront of him (remember how good Schaub looked, when he had a good line?).
 
LikeMike said:
So, if we believe a QB is worth taking, then don`t blink even if you believe, Watkins might be the better prospect. And if a passrusher is there you think is worth taking, you probably wanna take him infront of Watkins as well. And you might even gonna take a tackle infront of him (remember how good Schaub looked, when he had a good line?).
Click to expand...

Agreed. If.

& I never thought we had a good pass blocking OL. Matt was a better QB than they were at blocking.
 
WolverineFan said:
With the new rookie wage scale, a 1st round QB busting doesn't carry the same ramifications anymore. It still puts your team in a hole because they have to address the issue, but the cap issues do not come along with it like they used to.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the salary of the QB that sets you back, it is the development and the lost time. When you draft a QB you can plan on there being some growing pains and you can't just cut him after a year. While you are busy figuring out that he's not a legitimate QB you are wasting productive years of other players. QB is unique in that there is no backup plan with a player either. If you have a WR that doesn't work out, he might be able to play on special teams. Same with LBs, DBs, etc. Get a QB that doesn't work out and even Tebow wasn't much help on special teams. If you make a mistake on LT you move him around the line to try to find a fit. A QB, you give him a clip board (after a year or 3).

If you bust on QB at 1-26, its not as hard to recover.

Mike
 
seems like people are down on posey. I'm expecting big things from him this year and combined with dre and hopkins we have a pretty darn good WR corp. I agree that getting watkins would help this team because his probably a better wr than both hopkins and posey but the difference he makes to the team wouldn't be nearly as much as say robinson, mack, barr, clowney or mosley
 
After grading 12 or 13 quarterbacks in the class, NFL Films' Greg Cosell believes UCF's Blake Bortles is the best of the bunch.

"There's a lot to work with, with Bortles," Cosell stated. "I think ultimately he's a pocket passer who can execute boot action. He can extend plays, and he can run effectively if that's what you want to do... he could be a quality NFL starter." The well respected evaluator added he believes Bortles' arm strength will improve when his mechanics are fixed. Cosell previously stated he would select receiver Sammy Watkins over any quarterback in this class.
Click to expand...
 
When asked about WRs who project best to the slot, NFL Films' Greg Cosell said he believes LSU's Jarvis Landry will absolutely be a terrific player in the NFL.

"And I think the slot is where he will do most of his work," Cosell added. The respected NFL analyst then suggested names like Brandin Cooks and Josh Huff of Oregon. "There's plenty of guys in this draft that can fill that role." Our own Josh Norris thinks Landry could be this year's example of Andre Ellington, in terms of evaluators freaking out about Combine times and results while overlooking a quality player.
Click to expand...

I agree, the tape doesn't lie. There's been some negativity growing around Landry, would love to take advantage of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top