How badly do you want a franchise QB?
by The Ancient Mariner on Dec 11, 2011 11:07 AM PST
Email
PrintThe Seahawks' season is going well enough that they'll probably have a long jump to deal up for one of the top three QBs in the draft -- probably a longer jump than the team will have the draft ammunition to make. So, what options do they have?
This is just me thinking out loud -- this isn't a rumor or based on anything but my own ideas -- but it seems to me that the only way for Seattle to outbid other teams for a top-5 pick is to include the player equivalent of a top draft pick: an elite, cheap player. Unfortunately, it seems to me we only have three such players, and one (Russell Okung) is a significant health risk. That leaves, as potential trade chips, our safety tandem -- Earl Thomas and Kam Chancellor. So, my question to you is this: would you deal one of them for a franchise QB prospect, and if so, for whom?
174 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'd be willing to trade one, but I don't think it'd come to that.
Seattle has enough draft picks to get up and grab who they want. If two firsts and two seconds aren’t enough, Thomas in place of one of those picks isn’t likely to make a huge difference and they certainly aren’t going to offer him on top of all that.
Players won't be the difference
Is my guess…
That said you can’t be elite over a period of time without a top QB. You do what you can to get one. The Hawks need to make every effort to go get Barkley if he comes out.
by Seahawcla on Dec 11, 2011 11:27 AM PST via mobile reply actions
When hell freezes over, basically.
I trust that this organization will find our guy
by jhmg16 on Dec 11, 2011 12:39 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
ET fell to us. Even Tim Tebow can't plan aroudn such a divine windfall.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
I do, if it came to that.
I guess I’m saying, I trust that we will be able to have our cake and eat it too.
You can also have
the best QB in the NFL, a sub par defense, and not win super bowls.
It’s a balancing act, and a “potentially elite” QB is not worth trading a “proven elite” defensive player for in my mind.
by Tokyo Slim on Dec 11, 2011 12:40 PM PST reply actions 7 recs
I'd consider it dealing one of them.
Safety is always going to be easier to man than quarterback.
But as mentioned above, if we do move up it’s likely going to be picks for a pick.
Kam and Earl have too mich chemistry to seperate them.
It wouldn’t be worth it, in my opinion.
by B0w1-of-R1ce on Dec 11, 2011 2:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Eh, for all we know someone else could come in and have even better chemistry.
That’s not enough of a reason for a team to avoid trading one of them for a quarterback.
you are still trading
a proven commodity in the “elite” category for one in the “potential” category.
It’s a risk. And kind of a big one.
They're going to have to take a risk at some point.
Quarterbacks offer a big enough potential reward that they’d have to consider it.
If that's what you really think
Then we should have traded for ET and two picks for Kolb, and then given him a huge contract, right?
Meh.
This argument we’re having on this post has lost its merit. Tug of war (or whatever you want to call this) arguments do not accomplish anything. Lets just hope that the Seahawk front office appeases both viewpoints presented in this thread. I’m sure we would all be much happier.
Not a straw man.
If you disagree, how do you rectify not being willing to trade a guy and draft picks for a player like Kevin Kolb, who represents a lesser risk than trading the same player and picks for a comparitively unproven draft pick?
Or in other words: It was a legit question
based on your willingness to trade an elite player and a draft pick for a QB prospect with potential. I’m just trying to figure out whether that goes for anyone, or just one specific guy? Seems like a recipe for dissapointment to me, but hey, maybe you enjoy that. :)
It's not a legit question, it's about as fair as me saying you wouldn't trade ET for Aaron Rodgers.
I said you need to be willing to take a risk at some point. You said that means being willing to trade ET and two picks for Kolb. That’s far more than the Cardinals gave up for Kolb, so right away the analogy is ridiculous.
Even before he disappointed in Arizona, Kolb did not represent the upside that any of the quarterbacks talked about in this post represents. Kolb was a second round pick by talent, all of the players we’re talking about are potential top ten picks. Kolb is 27, Luck is the oldest of the top QBs in this draft at 22. Kolb signed a 6 year, 65M dollar contract with the Cardinals, far more than the 4 year, 22M dollar contract Cam Newton got last year as the top pick. Kevin Kolb already failed to some degree in the NFL, losing his starting job to Michael Vick after having it handed to him at the start of the year. Beyond getting benched, Kolb just wasn’t that impressive, making his name mostly off of his first two starts against terrible pass defenses. His career 4.5 ANY/A was evidence of this. So yes, it was a straw man argument. There’s no comparing Kolb’s upside or situation to someone like Barkley’s.
Furthermore, there’s not any actual discussion about what in addition to ET Seattle would give up. Would you give up ET for the number one pick in this draft straight up? ET and a second? ET and a first? Thomas is very good and looks to be on his way to being one of the better safeties in the league, but if there isn’t a scenario where you would consider trading him then you’re being unreasonable.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 12, 2011 2:39 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Now I'm confused.
This entire post is about whether you’d trade ET or Kam (and I assume) a draft pick for one of the three QB’s.
A pro bowl caliber player and a 2nd round pick is exactly what it took to get Kolb to AZ. To outbid them, we’d have likely needed ET and 2 picks. (or, a first, I guess)
Are you talking about something else? Because it sure sounded like you were all for it in your posts above…
Kolb is not one of the three QBs in this class.
Because I would be willing to trade ET for a shot at one of the three QBs in this class does not mean I would be at all interested in trading him for Kolb.
Well the difference is...
Many of us never believed the Kolb hype even before this season.
Kolb wasnt even considered a first round pick coming out of college and definately does not have the physical talents of any of the top 5-6 QBs in this draft. His upside was never very high, but because he played with very talented players his mediocre play was considered better than it was.
I would trade him for Aaron Rogers.
And I’d strongly consider it for Tom Brady and Drew Brees. (their age being the primary knock against them)
I would not trade him for someone who is at this moment, a “best guess” – whether we are talking about offseason Kevin Kolb or an upcoming draft pick, unless I already knew there was no place for him here next year.
E.T. has as much value to the defense
as Luck/Barkley/RG3 would have for the offense. The end result will be more pronounced, people love offense. But E.T. is a HUGE part of what makes this defense work as well as it is because of his unique & insane range. Safeties like E.T. are as rare as those QB’s mentioned, IMO.
by twocolorcrayon on Dec 15, 2011 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
Which Kevin Kolb?
The Kevin Kolb we thought the Cardinals were trading for or the Kevin Kolb that they got or some future version of the guy that may be better or worse?
The Cards gave up too much on the trade AND Kolb underperformed their expectations, but I’d absolutely support the Seahawks trading away a Pro Bowl non-QB and draft picks for a franchise QB or the best QB in a draft class.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 12, 2011 1:58 PM PST up reply actions
I think you're confusing "sometimes you have to take a risk"
With “Take any risk, ever”
by MT Olson on Dec 12, 2011 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
It's a pretty fair question
I guess I get why you guys are confused, but honestly, trading a pro bowl caliber defensive player and a pick or two for a draft QB vs doing the same for someone with actual NFL game experience (and some success) is not a stretch.
Upside
Kolb had none of it, Luck, Barkley and RGIII ooze it.
With great risk comes, great reward. Id prefer draft picks but within reason the Hawks need to take the risk so the Hawks can be great.
It will all come down to competition for the picks and where we finish out.
Um
Revise history much? How can Kolb have had no upside? I find it ironic that you lectured someone else on saying Ben Roethlisberger hasn’t always been a great QB below, and then come back and say definitively that someone who played pretty well in some NFL games coming off the bench/ limited time as starter pre injury has no upside.
Can only speak for me...
I was against picking up Kolb for anything more then peanuts. Barkley and Luck can potentially be top 10 QBs or higher. Kolb is nothing more then a serviceable QB.
It’s all opinion, my bet is the right situation like we have here would lead to Pro Bowl status for both of them.
It really comes back to great teams need a great QB. There has been no dynasty without one for a reason. They are worth the risk and the Hawks need to take one at some point instead of kicking the issue down the road.
by Seahawcla on Dec 12, 2011 6:27 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Here is another stir the pot question.
two part.
1. Is Kolb better than Tarvaris Jackson, right now?
2. Who has more upside talent wise?
Now if you had to think about either question for more than a second or two than Jackson is better. He is cheaper, and didnt have to lose any equity to obtain him.
I actually think Tavaris is better, regardless.
He seems to have improved his decision-making considerably this year.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 14, 2011 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think
Tarvaris came into a situation here that matched his talents well, and he was familiar with the terminology.
I think Kolb’s true litmus test will begin in 2012, because he went into a new system with no offseason, and that team is not really built to protect him at all. He could be a bum, but I withold final judgement until I see signs that it’s actually him holding back everyone else, not everyone just sucking in unison. :)
I don't disagree with that.
But that’s the key regardless. Finding a QB and a situation that match.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 14, 2011 10:37 PM PST up reply actions
Also pointing out
that while it is possible that Luck and Barkley are future “top ten QB or higher” it’s also technically just as statistically likely that five years from now at least one of them will not even be a “servicable QB”.
I think it's a fair question,
but I don’t agree that Kolb represents a lesser risk. Many of us weren’t sold on Kolb’s potential and thought his asking price was way too high.
But the risk is higher because you’re now picking up a veteran contract for an unproven commodity. Where a rookie top 10 QB pick is going to have a 4 year 25 million contract approximately. That is a substantially lower risk cap wise that doesn’t run the risk of handcuffing the franchise like a Kolb deal.
And most people would consider the upside of the top 3 QBs in this draft to be light years higher than the few glimpses of Kolb that we saw.
That doesn’t even factor in the fact that trading for an Andy Reid QB is asking to get fleeced.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I agree with most of this,
But I used the word “risk” as meaning “can this guy play in the NFL and what’s his actual NFL upside”?
Kolb (even before the trade) was a far more knowable quantity, Luck, Barkley, and RGIII are not right now. They are question marks with blank resumes. Kolb has started in the NFL with some success. There is tape on him reacting to NFL defenses and making NFL reads. Playing at NFL game speeds and making decisions under pressure, etc. Taking and escaping hits. Things he needs to work on to impove, and what his actual strengths are in comparison to other NFL players.
We know he’s capable of being an NFL QB. We don’t know if any draftees are NFL players or athletes, or just dudes looking to get paid and fade until they do it. You can look at it as if the (now) lower cost of drafting players reflects this. Remember that last year’s draft board was supposedly pretty weak on QB. Nobody thought Cam Newton was going to be very good very fast. Though everyone agreed that his athleticism was very good. And yet a few months later – How’s he doing so far? Blaine Gabbert, who was second (or first) on a lot of people’s boards because he was supposedly a better pure QB, but less of an athlete, has comparitively been a chump. The same people who told you that Gabbert was pretty good and that Cam Newton was most likely “a project” nine months ago, are telling you that Luck is the next Peyton Manning and that RGIII is the second coming of Steve Young. Just remember that. :)
The risks inherent in signing a rookie player are higher than anyone you have actual NFL tape on. That’s all I meant.
And all that I mean is that
rookies are cheap now, and only risks picks vs. Kolb being a high dollar cap hit for years and being dead weight.
You get new picks every year. But Kolb is the gift that keeps on giving.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I see you've already determined
that Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley, and RGIII are HOF QB, and that a guy who’s proven at least capable, and at most good – is worth nothing.
I suppose this means we have nothing left to discuss
It just seems like everyone around here is in a big hurry
To be the latest team to learn the hard way not to mortgage your future for a highly drafted QB.
Kyle Boller? Joe Flacco? J.P. Losman? Jason Campbell? Brady Quinn? Tim Tebow? Mark Sanchez?
Ehh… I’ll keep my picks and draft best player available. That’s how people end up with Aaron Rogers and Drew Brees and Tom Brady.
by Tokyo Slim on Dec 13, 2011 9:17 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Brady was an anomoly.
Brees was picked up off an injury.
And Rodgers was the second QB taken in the draft. It’s supply and demand. Packers got a QB when only one team was looking for one. We happen to be shopping for one while a third of the league has been as well.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
None of those teams mortgaged their future to get those players.
Kyle Boller – Ravens traded a first and second round pick to get back into the first round at pick 19. Boller is terrible, the Ravens have averaged nine and a half wins since drafting him.
Joe Flacco – Ravens took him with their own pick and have made the playoffs every year with him. He’s no great shakes, but he hasn’t mortgaged anything. I have no idea why he’s on this list.
J.P. Losman – Bills traded their first and second round pick to get back into the first round to select the 4th quarterback taken in that draft at pick 22. The Bills averaged 6 wins in the four years before Losman, they averaged 7 in the four years after. Losman was terrible but it hardly crippled the franchise.
Jason Campbell – Redskins traded first, third and fourth round picks to get back into the first round and select the third quarterback taken in that draft at pick 25, one pick after Aaron Rodgers was taken by Green Bay . Campbell has been mostly mediocre but not anywhere near franchise crippling bad. The Redskins crippled their franchise more by trading first round picks for Malcolm Kelly and Laverneous Coles, second round picks for Rocky MacIntosh, Mark Brunell and Jason Taylor, a third round pick for Brandon Lloyd.
Brady Quinn – The Browns traded a first and second round pick to get back into the first round at pick 22. They averaged 5 wins a year in the four years before drafting him and have averaged 5 win in the 4 years since.
So a list of teams, most of which traded into the bottom of the first round for quarterbacks they’d already passed on once. This is completely different than the situation we’re talking about here of trading into the top ten. None of the teams were worse off for the trades and have had time to recover from these trades if they were truely crippling in and of themselves. That they haven’t speaks to larger failures in those organizations.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 14, 2011 8:54 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
One could say that the "failure"
is the mentality that trading away future picks for higher picks is a good strategy.
Also, RE: Flacco
Sorry, he was on the wrong list. Baltimore Traded down for him, but it was confusing, because then they traded back up for him. It wasn’t the Ravens original pick.
Baltimore traded its first-round (No. 8) pick to Jacksonville for the Jaguars’ first- (No. 26); two third- (No. 71) and (No. 89) and fourth-round (No. 125) picks. Jacksonville selected Derrick Harvey, de, Florida.
Houston traded its first-round (No. 18) pick to Baltimore for the Ravens’ first- (No.26); third- (No. 89) and sixth-round (No. 173) picks. Baltimore selected Joe Flacco, qb, Delaware. Houston selected Duane Brown, ot, Virginia Tech; (No. 89) and (No. 173).
Of course everyone is in a big hurry.
We’ve been needing to draft a new QB since 2007.
Wanted: Franchise Quarterback
It's Great To Be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Dec 15, 2011 9:14 AM PST up reply actions
sorry
I just get frustrated with the desperation and negativity around here. This place is rife with both of these things, and it usually masquerades as logic. But I draw the line at trying to convince people that the only way we will ever win is by mortgaging the future of this team for an unproven QB, either by trading away a bunch of future picks or by trading away one of our best young home grown players (plus likely some future pics)
That’s how losers try to get ahead and I can’t remember it ever working. Good teams don’t operate this way. Trying to convince everyone that this is the only way we are going to get a QB is setting us up to be laughing stocks.
I apologize if it sounded like I was saying we should have overspent for Kolb, that was not my point. We should not overspend for anyone. But we are talking about trading one of our best defensive players and/or several future draft picks for ONE GUY who has a 50/50 chance of even being good enough to play at the NFL level. If QB is “the most important position” – why are people so determined to pin the entire short term future of the franchise on one who’s a crap shoot?
by Tokyo Slim on Dec 13, 2011 11:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
One reason
Upside…
If you want to be a great team you have to get a great QB, its quite simply worth the risk.
This team can not get to the top of the league (for more then one magical season) until we take a chance on a QB.
If you are OK with being OK then stay the course, if the goal is a Super Bowl or an era where we are in the discussion you take a chance on rare talents such as Luck and Barkley.
I dont think we would have to give up Earl or Kam, but multiple picks to get the most important piece is worth it.
I have to agree about polarized opinions.
Too many people are saying THE ONLY WAY TO do (Insert comment). when its been clearly done differente ways in the past, distant and near.
Does having a great QB mean we will win a super bowl, no. Does it help, hell yea.
Does lacking a great QB mean we wont get to the superbowl, no. It doestn help.
Does having a high draft pick guarentee we get a Franchise QB, no. It helps though.
Does having a low pick mean we have a terrible QB, no. It doesnt help though.
Can we at least agree on those four points?
Also, just to prove a point, Here are recent teams that have made play offs with QB with under 85 PR for the season.
2007 Bears (Grossman 66 PR)
2007 Falcons (harrington 77 PR)
2007 Ravens (Boller 75 PR)
2007 Cheifs ( Croyle 69 PR)
2007 Jets (Clemens 60 PR)
2008 Bears (Orton 79 PR)
2008 Steelers(Rothlesburger 80 PR)
2008 Cheifs (Thigpen 76 PR)
2008 Ravens (Flacco 80.3 PR)
2008 Jets (Favre 73 PR)
2009 Jets (Sanchez 63 PR)
2009 Bengals (Palmer 83 PR)
2010 Jets (Sanchez 75 PR)
2010 Seahawks (Hasslebeck 73PR)
What I notice is that most of these teams are still good teams, who get to the play offs regularly.
by Oliudyen on Dec 14, 2011 7:19 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Good comment, rec'ed.
But can I suggest you avoid passer rating in future comments. Try using ANY/A instead, it’s easy to find at PFR.
If you're going to spew platitudes at least try to find some that fit.
Trading for a 22 year old quarterback is not mortgaging the future and has nothing to do with short term hopes.
Trading your best player and/or two or more likely three first round picks.
That’s what we are discussing. Catch up here buddy.
No, I've only determined that Kolb is a bust.
And decided that if we throw 3 picks at a team to trade up for Barkley and he busts it was worth the risk.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Which is why I think you are nuts.
crippling the franchise in the draft for the next three years in order to take one home run swing on a QB…
Especially the second or third best QB.
No good teams do this.
Pete better be damn sure he can make it work.
Cause otherwise, these same people who are mad at him for not selling the farm sooner, are going to be after his head if he spends three first round picks on a career backup.
just to be clear
You are OK with mediocrity?
A good QB rarely just falls into your lap. The odds of finding a QB decrease the lower in the draft they are selected, the trend is the top QBs in the league are selected in the first round.
You cant be a top team over time without a top QB…
Do you think Carroll who knows football is going to risk his livelihood and reputation on other teams hand-me-downs?
If he wants to change his NFL legacy he will need to take a risk.
No.
But I’m willing to build a constantly improving team rather than try and take shortcuts. Our team is constantly improving.
When you examine all these “dynasties” that people want to be, you’ll note a startling lack of desperate gambles in order to get that “one last piece”. They take what comes to them, improve the players they draft, and build a system and heritage of winning that allows them to gamble on more “known quantities” in free agency at a much lower price than “next years XX best college player”.
See: Patriots and Packers for example.
See: Patriots and Packers for example
Yes, the #31 and #32 ranked defenses in the NFL who happened to both luck into the best QB’s playing today.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Also, the Packers who traded a first round pick for Brett Favre.
And then were able to be patient and let Rodgers fall into their lap.
Trading one pick
sure.
Can we get Luck, Barkley, or RGIII for one pick? Do it.
Will it take a 2012, 2013, and 2014 pick? No thanks.
Aside from
everyone who’s been talking about it being approximately the price It’ll take to move into the top three picks and grab Barkley from where we are?
Start
Then move on to most of the comments dealing with trading into the top three from the 15-18th spot over the entire course of the year.
That's Davis saying that mathematically this is what Luck could be worth.
But then there is this part:
Conclusion
Whether you believe in discounting future picks by 25% or not, I think it is fair to say that the likely trade value for Andrew Luck is around 3 or 4 1st round picks or the equivalent combination of 1st, 2nd or other round picks, for any team looking to trade into the #1 spot.
I do not believe that the pick for Andrew Luck will be traded because it is just too risky to trade four 1st round picks for the acquiring club – especially if he gets hurt or plays poorly. I also think the team drafting at the top can’t risk trading Luck away unless they were offered something laughable- (like four 1sts plus).
Bottom line, I do not think the deal comes together, but if it does – the 3-4 First Round pick range is justified by the Jimmy Johnson Draft Value Chart.
What Luck’s value might be and what the trade market actually is will probably be different.
No one in the comments advocates doing it, either.
I think you fail to see the point.
Yes, it’s a hypothetical trade scenario for Luck.
But it’s also a fairly realistic baseline scale as to what the percieved trade value is on the top three picks, backed up by (admittedly fairly anectdotal) Julio Jones trade data which falls in line with the pre-inflated-rookie-salary Jimmy Johnson scale.
Trading into the 2nd/3rd spot for Barkley will cost 2-3 first round picks. (or the equivalent) If you think otherwise, there’s not much I can tell you. People have been discussing this all season. It’s pretty common that someone proposes two firsts and two seconds, or whatever.
If you propose
“doing what it takes” to get Luck, Barkley, or RGIII –
This is what it takes to ensure you get him. Two or three first round picks or the equivalent. Otherwise you are not only gambling on the player, you are gambling on 32 other teams not doing what it takes to get him.
Two firsts and two seconds I agree with.
And to loop this all back to Ancient Mariner’s original question, If another team was offering two firsts and two seconds as well, I would be ok with Seattle offering one first, one ET, and two seconds to put them over the top. If the Q/PM are confident enough in whoever they are targeting to be willing to give up Thomas or Chancellor, I don’t have any problem offering something like that.
I'm glad you aren't in charge.
That’s all I have to say.
Two firsts and two seconds = about 2400 points give or take, which is about 200 more points than three firsts by the chart.
So now you are on board with three firsts or the equivalent for trading into the 2nd/3rd spot.
To clarify:
That’s based on the Seahawks present position. If they move down past 16, the math gets worse for the Seahawks.
Not always.
There is such a thing as asset appreciation. Has E.T. peaked? If not, then he will gain value for nothing more than the investment we’ve already made in him, which was fairly low to start with. So his value in remaining with us is greater than baseline for a player of his talent. But that has little bearing on his trade value. In other words, he’s worth more here than in trade.
Until they are exchanged for people, draft picks do not really appreciate or depreciate, but from the perspective of the 2nd and 3rd team in the draft, those spots are worth more than face value because of the desperation factor. Those picks, if traded, will be bid up.
Just dont see how the improvement will continue
Packers got Rodgers in the first round, Brady was the shot in the dark and an outlier.
Carroll and Schnieder can also find themselves on the unemployment line before getting the magical QB to fall into their lap.
Its a QB league now, find one or get left behind.
Really?
You don’t see how the Seahawks, one of the youngest teams in the NFL, who make plenty of dumb/rookie mistakes, who have drafted or picked up gems in free agency for nearly nothing…
You don’t see how this team can improve? You guys must be really depressing to hang out with. :)
I see how this team can improve.
PC/JS have proven to be able to find starters in late rounds. Have proven to be able to pick up quality FAs. Have stocked the roster with young talent.
All those things make a few high draft picks less valuable in my mind compared to the need at QB.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I find your position legitmately fascinating, because I feel exactly the opposite.
Given PC/JS proven ability to find gems in late rounds, I’d rather see them have even more picks to work with.
Additionally, after seeing Pete’s offensive strategy in action, I think I’m a little less concerned about needing the absolute best available QB option in the draft — with the caveat that JS’s opinion and pursuit of Whitehurst does give me pause, at least for a brief moment.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 14, 2011 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
No I cant
We have a limit to how high we can improve with the current roster. Until we get the key piece we are stuck at a ceiling of being pretty good.
Odds of us going 13-3 with a lower tier QB is slim.
If PC/JS think that Barkley/Luck/RG3 are a top 10 QB you give up multiple picks to land him.
"No good teams do this"
That was before the rookie salary cap, and before the NFL changed the rules once again to favor passing offenses.
The going rate for QBs went up. I’ll take my chances with a Barkley vs. a Kolb or Palmer.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I would prefer Barkley over those guys too
But if we don’t get him, Luck, or RGIII – that doesn’t automatically doom this franchise into mediocrity forever.
Yes, Barkley is the one I want.
And I’m only talking trading picks, I’m not on board with trading our safties.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Dec 14, 2011 9:34 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
My more rational response.
An elite defense can sometimes/often bridge the gap between a solid QB and an elite QB. Pete and John have worked hard to build up this defense, and I’d rather not undo that.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 11, 2011 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
You might not be winning super bowls, but you'd be contending for them.
A QB can do that, a single safety can guarantee your defense will even be good.
but a single bad safety can guarantee your defense will be bad
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Seattle's 2007 defense disagrees!
Brian Russell was about as disastrous as a safety can be and he didn’t submarine them.
That was a different scheme.
Safeties are more important in this defense. The 2007 defense needed a Tatupu to both stuff the run and cover the deep middle. We saw what happened with deep passes to the middle of the field when Tatupu was hurt. Earl Thomas does that in this defense. Chancellor is as key as Deon Grant was to Carolina, us and New York. I don’t think he gets the appreciation he deserves. We’ve finally got a solid defensive core. Let’s build around it instead of breaking it up for trade bait.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:05 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Yes yes yes yes yes yes.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, seriously.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 17, 2011 8:47 PM PST up reply actions
This is the problem with using radio buttons for the survey.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Well I'd hope so.
Wanted: Franchise Quarterback
It's Great To Be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Dec 11, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
The QB position does not have to be the end-all be-all for SB wins.
Fans of the Ravens and Stealers can attest to that.
I shudder to think where the defense would be without Earl Thomas and he is the only Seahawk other teams would trade first rounders for. Kam Chancellor is good but he is a fifth rounder in his first starter season. NFL teams will likely not give up first round picks for Kam at this point. Earl is the better option for trading up but he is integral to this defense and filling the void he leaves behind in the secondary would not be a cake walk.
Don't buy it
Ravens were a one hit wonder and needed Flacco just to get back in the discussion. Big Ben is a top five QB.
If you want to be one of the big boys over time a QB is required. Every dynasty has one for a reason.
We need to take a chance unless we are happy with 6-10 wins under the Carroll era.
by Seahawcla on Dec 11, 2011 4:11 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Need a QB =/= Need the absolute best available QB at whatever cost
Teams can actually be very good without going balls to the wall for the currently perceived best available QB.
by Matt Erickson on Dec 11, 2011 4:56 PM PST up reply actions
Big Ben only became a top five QB recently.
He has definitely become a better QB through his career but he was not the reason they won their recent Super Bowls. The defense that the Steelers had is why they won those Super Bowls. The Ravens and the Steelers have been consistent playoff contenders because of their defense.
Trading key contributors of this Seahawk defense to draft a QB would not do us any favors. Earl Thomas is a big part of why the defense is good this year. Getting rid of one good thing (current Seahawk D) for a potentially good thing (QBOTF) leaves us in the same frustrating neutral gear that we are in this year. I’d rather add to what we have right now. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t draft a QBOTF, I’m just saying it is not so imperative that we trade the “QB” of our defense. Drafts picks are another matter, I’d part with them like a day trader with stocks.
by Doomcarver on Dec 11, 2011 4:59 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This FO uses their picks extremely well.
I’d trust them to find reliable players with whatever picks they have left.
by Doomcarver on Dec 11, 2011 5:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Spin job
Big Ben has been an upper QB his whole career and has grown into the elite one he is now.
Ravens dropped off until try got Flacco which proves my point. As does Big Ben…
Long term success comes with a high end QB. A good defense can not get you long term success.
We can continue to be average with a good season now and then or take a risk and get what is needed to be at the top.
by Seahawcla on Dec 11, 2011 6:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
He had a one hell of shitty line in front of him for most of his career
Now that they’ve moved forward in pass protection, he’s really shown the growth.
Statistically speaking
his 2006 wasn’t very good. I remember feeling pretty much like we got beat in the Superbowl by fat Terry Bradshaw. He’s been much better since then though…
We beat ourselves.
We played a terrible game, and the refs added onto it.
Why doesn't a high end qb come with long term success?
The contention that all dynasty teams have an elite qb doesn’t define a causal relationship.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:08 PM PST up reply actions
Houston comes to mind.
They’ve made a slow, steady climb over the last five years by adding parts on defense and sticking with Schaub. Schaub has improved as the team has improved. Does that mean he’s been getting better and pulling the team along? What about Andy Dalton? Was everybody wrong about how good he is or are the Bengals just better as a team than everybody expected? How important is Green to Dalton’s success? I think it’s true that quarterback is more important overall than it was twenty years ago but when we get to the point where we say, ‘Tom Brady beat Tim Tebow today’, we’re taking it too far.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:16 PM PST up reply actions
Denver and Carolina, by the way,
might be a new model for NFL success. Do something so different that nobody has time in the 2-3 practice days they get each week to adequately prepare. Not only that but teams in your division will find it’s not worth it to draft and scheme for you. Pete Carroll does a bit of this. He also has unique positions (on defense at least) that can be played to an elite level by players who would not be elite on other teams. I can’t really believe that Jackson is that kind of player for the offense but Carroll has surprised me before.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:21 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ravens have been in the playoffs for 7 of the last 10 years, with bad to average QBs
Trent Dilfer and Tony Banks were rated 34th and 33rd best QBs by AdvancedNFLStats.com.
Big Ben in his first superbowl season was a efficient but limited 2nd year QB on a run and defense dominant team, and his performance in the Superbowl was relatively poor. Oddly, ANFLS rates his 2005-6 season as the 2 best in the league, even though he passed for less than 2400 yards, 17 TDs and 9 INT. You could argue he became elite around the time of his second superbowl in 2009, but in the 2008-09 season he was only rated the 13th best QB. In the prior 8 years, Steelers made the playoffs 5 times, 2 before Big Ben, one during his rookie year in 2004-5, and 2 after he was drafted.
Eli Manning was a poor QB the year the Giants beat NE, rated 19th in the league by ANFLS with a regular season QB rating of 73.9, 3300 yards passing, 23 TD, 20 INT. He did pull it together in the playoffs.
Defense and run oriented teams can win the Superbowl without drafting a top 3 QB, or with poor QB play, or without asking the QB to do very much.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 14, 2011 6:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Ravens had the best defense of the last decade and made the Superbowl once.
The Bucs might have had the second best defense of the last decade and they only made the Superbowl once as well. You can get to and win Superbowls without a top 3 QB, but the examples of teams that can consistently win in the playoffs without a top tier QB are few and far between.
Top three
meaning P. Manning, Brady and Brees right? This year maybe rodgers, Brady, Brees?
So Rothlisberger x3, E manning, Warner x2, Hasslebeck, Grossman, McNabb, Johnson, Gannon, Delhome
All in the last 10 years. Not so rare for a non top 3 QB to get to the super bowl.
But what is indicitive is that Playing good defense is almost needed to get to the superbowl. 13 of the last 20 are top 10 defenses. Only three were not in the top half of all defenses.
2002 SB- SL 6th defense, NE 8th defense.
2003 SB- Oakland #20 defense, TB #1
2004 SB- NE #2, Car #7
2005 SB- NE 6th, Phi 12th
2006 SB- Sea #12, Pit 3rd
2007 SB- Chi #2, Ind 31
2008 Sb- NE 4, NYG 16
2009 SB- Pit #2, Az 29
2010 SB- NO 7, Ind 14
2011 SB- GB 3, Pit #1
Really?
Out of that list only Johnson, Grossman, and Delhomme would not be considered a top 10 QB the year they played. And all of those teams were flash in the pan.
You use top three QB then go for a wider net to prove some point on defense. (Go check GB this year and see if that helps you out)
Posters are forgetting the Ravens had a dark period which got Billick shown the door because the dominant defense had no QB. Flacco is not setting the world on fire but he is in the upper half of the league.
BALTIMORE RECORDS after the Dilfer outlier
2001 10-6
2002 7-9
2003 10-6
2004 9-7
2005 6-10
2006 13-3
2007 5-11 (Billick Fired)
2008 11-5 (Flacco arrived)
2009 9-7
2010 12-4
2011 10-3
Looks like having a decent QB just might have turned that franchise into a consistent threat?
We don’t need Barkley/Luck/RGIII or whoever to be the best (would be nice), but what we do need to be great is above average play out of the position. QB is a needed risk.
Dominant teams of the last few decades all had QBs, with the rules changing to favor offense the need for a QB grows.
Still waiting for that dominant team without a QB
The ravens lacked a lot more than just a QB on offense. They lacked any play maker WRs.
They were much more effective runing the ball.
2001 Qadry Ismail
2002 Travis Taylor
2003 Todd Heap (only 693 yards)
2004 Travis Taylor (421 yards)
2005 Darrick Mason
2006 Mark Clayton
2007 Darrick Mason
2008 Darrick Mason
2009 Darrick Mason
2010 Anquan Bolden
2011 So far Anquan Boldin
One could make the case that lacking decent recievers was more a problem for their offense. Its a Team sport, and a LOT of rules favor the QB, and its an important position, but if you have garbage to throw to, you wont get many yards. (remember the walk ons the hawks had to sign back in the holmgren era and how terrible they were?)
Also Coaching Philosophy
I rememebr through a lot of those years, they would refuse to pass on thrid and long because their defense was so good they didnt want to turn it over.
I cant say that since Harbaugh has been coach they have played so conservitively.
In fact, i have to say that Coaching is the major problem here, because they are ultimately responsable for getting the right talent on the field. Seeing how PCJS have gotten huge impact players off the street at many positions means that there is a lot of talent being wasted.
Or they remembered who they were and started running the ball again
In 07 they had 557 pass attempts and 446 run attempts. They were 4 yards per carry, but got just over 110 yards per game. Boller and McNair didn’t take care of the ball or do much with it when they did.
In 08 they had 433 pass attempts and 592 pass attempts. They still had 4 yards per carry, but now were almost 150 yards per game. Flacco took care of the ball, but didn’t do much more than that compared to his predecessors.
Sound like a winning plan that we may have heard of?
Run the ball successfully and make sure that no matter what the QB doesn’t hurt you. Oh by the way they completely won the turnover battle in 08, not so much in 07.
Flacco didn’t turn them around, getting rid of Billick turned them around.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
taht was 593 run attempts in 08
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Wait. Now you only need a decent quarterback?
I would be surprised to if a team won the superbowl with no quarterback at all. Maybe Denver will do it.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:25 PM PST up reply actions
I think you misread.
You can get to and win Superbowls without a top 3 QB, but the examples of teams that can consistently win in the playoffs without a top tier QB are few and far between.
Uuuuuuuuggh. I hate to get involved in the QB shenanigans controversy, but comments like the one highlighted here are bad arguments.
“We need to take a chance unless we are happy with 6-10 wins under the Carroll era.”
This is a false dilemma, known as the fallacy of false choice. You’re basically arguing “take a risk in this draft, or else we’ll be stuck with 6 – 10 wins forever” which is not true.
NOT taking a risk by trading up in the draft does NOT equate to a guarantee of <10 wins every season. It’s the fallacy of false choice, with a dash of hyperbole to spice it up.
There are countless other options to consider, including A) the price for a QB is too high, B) an existing QB becomes “good enough” to hit 10-12 wins, even for multiple seasons, C) A QB not taken in the top 10 still becomes good/elite, etc. etc. etc.
A higher pick generally has a higher chance of panning out, but (as we’ve all touched on) NOT trading up for a top 5 pick does NOT guarantee mediocrity!
by HititHere on Dec 15, 2011 12:32 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting
Your quoting me, yet I agree with most of your stuff…
A-Price is too high by all means we stand pat, how high is too high?
B-I like TJack, we do not have a top QB on our roster
C-Odds are against it but every now and then some team gets lucky
So there has been zero modern era examples of sustained success without a good QB ill keep asking. “As we’ve all touched on” implies there has been some evidence to the contrary i’ve taken the Ravens example and I thought pretty clearly showed the impact of having a competent QB. Feel free to find another example.
So the best argument we have against taking a risk to get a potential star QB is, hope we get lucky with a find later or hope TJack has the light bulb turn on.
True, I'm not sure how high is "too high" and that's what the whole post is about.
As for C, I guess that’s really the main point of my argument. We’ve heard it dozens of times in the last months, but we’re all focused on trading the farm and/or players for a top 3 or 4 pick to get our franchise QB. Sure, odds are slightly better with a higher draft pick, but if we’re talking about a “above average” or “good” or “great” QB (as many posters have been doing!) there are a ton of examples of “good” QBs that come outside the top 5 picks.
A guy like Landry Jones could fall to us if we’re picking in the middle of the 1st round (though he may not be the answer).
All kinds of mid-late 1st rounders or later have had success, including most of the guys named in the posts above.
Big Ben (11), Flacco (18), Rodgers (24), Dalton (35), Schaub (90)…and many other solid QBs have come outside the top 10. How many rings would Pitt have if they traded Polomalu for one of the “better” QBs? Hmm…
A guy like Landry Jones
should go back to school, because he could fall to us in the 4th round.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Landry Jones is interesting to me.
St. Louis’s struggles this year make me think that you’ve got to have the right system to bring in quarterbacks from this Oklahoma era. Bradford did well before McD started making him take seven step drops behind a bad line to throw to receivers who don’t get separation. That has a ring of familiarity to it. I think we were wise not to take Dalton after all but would have done very will with guys like Cam Newton or Robert Griffith.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:32 PM PST up reply actions
Honestly 2 firsts is too high.
A. If you could guarentee me we would get Elway, Marino, Manning. Id pull the trigger. But there is a good chance you get Leaf, Mirer, Russell.
I do not think RG3, Luck, or Barkely will bust.
I also think Tarvaris has shown enough to not draft a QB. A lot of people will balk at that comment, but he is statistically better than hasslebeck had been the previous three years. He has shown leadership, poise, toughness, and all of the physical talents needed. He has aweful spacial vision, and terrible technique. But he also can thorw a 55 yarder on a dime off his back foot falling away. He shows touch to the TEs and RBs and lasers to receivers.
I wonder if all the “Draft a QB” talk would suddenly go away if we make a good play off run, or even win a superbowl this year or next (Some teams just click late in the season)
B just like with Whitehurst, the second and third string QB are unknowns until you see them. I agree whitehurst can not should not be on the roster after this year.
C. I actually think its the teams perspective and ability to teach Qbs. Some people just have more talent for it. A team has to have a Great QB coach, and they have to have a team supporting them with talent and patience.
Tarvaris who? Jackson?
He does not throw 55 yards on a dime. That’s why Mike Williams has like 300 yards and Rice has a concussion. When did he show any ‘touch’ throwing to Zach Miller? Jackson is very good for throwing less than 150 yards per game and sometimes is able to scramble away from pressure. The fact that he’s been performing well lately is outstanding, though. I love it. He is a tough guy who plays through pain and is being coached very well. I think it’s the coaches and players around him lifting him up more than any real improvement in quarterbacking skills this year. He looks very much like he did in Minnesota.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:39 PM PST up reply actions
Mike Williams
has 205 yards, and doesnt get seperation. In the last game he hit Miller with really nice touch, rewatch the game, it was a really nice pass.
You have to realize 2 very important things.
1. We have a terrible pass blocking line, for the year.
5th in sacks allowed with 39 already.
5th in yards lost on sacks.
1st in QB hits with 86
12th in tackles for a loss allowed, (how much worse would that be with Julius jones instead of Beast Mode?)
23 in OL pass WPA
30th in OL EPA
Almost any QB who gets hit 125+ times while throwing, is gonna get hurt
2. Tarvaris was hurt for what 8-9 games? His injury is equivalent to a torn hamstring to a WR, its also the same massive injury that knocked Tatupu out of half a season. Mario williams (2011), Elvis Dumerville(2010) had to shut it down too from same injury. He had no chance to build timing with any of his recievers except Rice. Those recievers also were all learning a new offense, Obo for the fourth time in four years.
If you think you could put Brady in that situation that he would have been “Bradyesque” in the first 4 weeks then you are kidding yourself, then if you think Brees could play through a torn pec like Tarvaris, you are also living in a dream land.
Im not by any stretch saying Tarvaris is a GREAT QB who will lead us to the promised land!!! Im just saying, this guy hasnt had a fair shot, and has done pretty damn good with what he was given. If it was hasslebeck he would have pulled his back putting on his helmet. Tarvaris is a tough SoB amd considering the direction the team is moving right now, he fits in. Browner, Sherman, Lynch, Jackson, these guys are tough, old school players.
by Oliudyen on Dec 17, 2011 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The O line is playing much better than they were, but TJ owns those stats just as much as the OL does
He holds the ball too long, waits for the perfect throw and doesn’t step up to avoid pressure very well. That has all been better the last few weeks also. I’m know that the OL is playing better, but I’m not convinced TJ is that much better, we are just running so well that he has more easy reads.
BMW is the perfect example of TJs limitations reading a D. BMW has separation just based on the nature of his size, if the ball is thrown correctly. TJ doesn’t see this and/or isn’t able to make that throw. Whenever a team tries to blitz us there should be a hot route available to BMW.
TJ is limited and will continue to be limited, because if he was going to figure out how to read and react at a high NFL level, he would have done it. With the right coaching and team around him, he will do just fine and maybe even take us on a couple of playoff runs, but he will always be limited.
I want a guy who has the potential to carry the team.
I will root for TJ until I get that guy.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
You dont give enough credit to the Line
Not saying by any stretch that CBJ is indicitive of anything, but he did take 8 sacks in the equivilent of two games. Its a small sample in an already small sample. It just shows that the OL is giving up pressure, a lot of it.
I grant you, Tarvaris holds on the ball too long, but you have to be honest and real. If you say 1/4 of the hits are Tarvaris’s fault, then the OL is still bottom 5 in QB hits given up. Give Tarvaris credit for 1/4 of the sacks and the OL is still bottom half of the league in sacks allowed. Carpenter and Moffit were regularly treated like red headed step children in the first three games, giving up 13 sacks and numerous hits.
Last year Mike Williams was the 37th in yards(751), 27th in receptions(65), 159th in average(11.6), a 3.4 YAC. That was withHasselbeck, someone who is a timing QB and should have been a perfect fit for a big receiver like Williams. by way of compairison Baldwin needs 34 yards to have gotten more yards than Williams did last year. Sidney Rice (15.1) and Baldwin (16.0) dominate Williams average from last year. He only had 2 TDs last year (isnt that where a big slow reciever is suppose to excell?), Baldwin, Rice, Obo, and Tate all have at least that many this year.
when ever people blitz us BALDWIN should be the hot route cause he catches the ball and makes something happen. Williams was an exciting come back story, but he just like last year he breaks off his routes , and usually way too early. That screams laziness, something he has a history of. I really feel like he built timing with Hasselbeck and there wasnt a lot of good recieving options (Butler was just gettign it before he was injured, Golden didnt get it, Obo was hardly targeted, Stokely was way under used.)
The lack of a running game is something tha t really only elite QBs can over come on a consistent basis, Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers. So i guess if you are gonna penalize TJ for having a run game, you should be fair and do that to Rothlesburger, Newton, Romo, Ponder, Tebow(that pretty much makes him a bust) Vick, Fitzpatrick, Brees, Palmer/Campbell, Cutler/Haine, Stafford, Kolb, Shaub, Rivers, Flacco, Smith, and Brady. All of those guys get more yards per carry than TJ gets.
I get that mike williams was our best reciever out of a young corps, but he isnt even the 5th best
Theres always the possibility
of signing manning if he opts out, just saying
I don't see us trading up in the draft
PC & JS seem that they don’t trade up. I think they like stockpiling picks in later rounds to find gems. I could see us trading our 2nd or 3rd for multiple late round picks but not using them to move up in the 1st
by luciuswolfey_96 on Dec 11, 2011 6:29 PM PST reply actions
But there's plenty of reason for him to fog with that statement--
whereas, there’s no angle in saying “For that position, you do move up if you need to.”
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Spin, smoke, and mirrors if I've ever heard it.
T-Jackson is backup-quality at best. If Pete and his coaches think that he’s any more than that, I have no hope in them.
Wanted: Franchise Quarterback
It's Great To Be a Florida Gator!
by Wayward Llama on Dec 13, 2011 5:49 AM PST up reply actions
I think you overestimate backup QBs in the league
These are backup QBs that have played a bit this year… Cade McCown, Matt Leinart (good stats before he was injured, but I watched the game and the ball came out of his hand like a cannon ball from a catapult built of overcooked spaghetti), Caleb Hanie (who we get to see this week), Whitehurst, John Skelton (who actually looked serviceable), Curtis Painter, Dan Orlovsky, Josh Johnson, TJ Yates (I’m pretty impressed with the little I’ve seen, but he is on the team with the best rushing attack and a top 3 defense), AJ Feely.
If you need to win a game this week, would you play Jackson or any player off of the list above? I’d start Jackson for sure, he is definitely better than “backup-quality”. For a long term solution, the only guy I’d maybe like to have more than Jackson from that list is Josh Johnson…
Advanced NFL stats has Tarv rated as the 23rd best QB, Football outsiders has him rated as the 20th best QB, and ESPN has him rated 23rd in passer rating, 15th in comp%, and 26th in QBR. He had to be rated one of the worst 4 QBs for the first 4 weeks of the season, so his performance for the past 9 weeks has been somewhere in 15-20 range.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
by pqlqi on Dec 15, 2011 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed, and well said.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 15, 2011 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
I'd have to say Yates is much, much better in his first few games than Jackson was.
He’s the North Carolina guy that some scouts were very excited about. NC wasn’t good while Yates was there and didn’t beat anybody good, I don’t think. There’s definitely a bias there. For all the talk about throwing motion, height and accuracy, going to a big school is the best way to get scouts’ attention. Would Griffith even be going in the first round if Baylor hadn’t beat Oklahoma?
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:47 PM PST up reply actions
Yes. Griffith would still be high on everyone's list.
He has incredible tools and the bonus of great intangibles.
Cutler being a loser at Vandy but still going high based on attributes and lifting a team to modest competitiveness in an elite league is a great example.
"Now I'm tired of this s---. I'm sick and f------ tired of an 8-10 record. I'm f------ tired of losing to Purdue. I'm not here to f--- around this week. Now you may be, but I'm not." -- Bobby Knight, circa 1992
by Tyler Jorgensen on Dec 18, 2011 10:04 PM PST up reply actions
Just a little information on TJ.
100% unabashedly filtered to make my point look sparkly and new, but still pretty nice over all.
Tarvaris Jackson in the month of December for the Seahawks.
10th NFL in Rating with 104.5 QBR, 10th NFL in completion percentage, 13th NFL in Yards, 19th NFL in attempts, 8.1 Y/A, 3 TDs, 0 INTs,
No thanks.
But they flat need to do something. T Jack is a great guy, tough, strong arm & all that but any pressure at all and it’s over. He has a QB number of like 30 something under pressure. No. It isn’t even funny anymore Carroll get us a QB.
Earl Thomas is way more valuable than a top 5 pick right?
Draft picks come with risks that don’t really apply to a guy who has proven he can play at the NFL level. Not only could they flat out bust, even the % of the time they only turn into a league average starter is something that Thomas has already surpassed.
We have unquestionable the best young Safety tandem
Please keep it that way.
by SeahawksPhan on Dec 11, 2011 10:06 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Player trades are so rare in the NFL I'm baffled people still discuss it like a realistic scenario.
by Benne on Dec 12, 2011 12:34 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
You're just talking about "high profile" player trades, right?
Because Leon, Marshawn, Charlie, Lendale, Clemons and Polumbus all came here because of player trades and Sims/Wilson/Tapp/Curry left the same way.
More valuable players tend to get traded less frequently, but you see some high-profile players get traded from time to time (Cutler, Cassel, Palmer, McNabb, Seymour, Marshall, Boldin, Cromartie, etc).
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 12, 2011 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis.
Rare, but it happens.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Dec 12, 2011 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, player-for-player trades are extremely rare
but the type of trade The Ancient Mariner is a little different and more common. We’d be likely trading one of the safeties for the pick with which we’d grab RGIII or MB (in this fantasy), not trading for the player after they’d been picked and signed.
Player-for-picks trades happen by the dozens every year. If we were actually interested in this sort of trade, we could even trade the player separately for draft capital (to the highest bidder) and then use that draft capital to trade up higher in the draft for the targeted QB.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Dec 12, 2011 3:27 PM PST up reply actions
No
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
by stufr on Dec 12, 2011 3:00 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
To answer the OP question,
I’d first point to the team’s design. Don’t have to to consider team design, but I would. Pete’s designing the team in a specific way. Wouldn’t be my first choice of design, but it’s a nice, enjoyable design, something I can get behind.
Recognizing that, I don’t want a new QB so badly that I’d trade key cogs away. It doesn’t seem remotely necessary.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 12, 2011 3:16 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Not necessary?
We are not going anywhere until we get a QB, we should aim for hire then above average or OK which is where we are stuck until we get a leader on offense.
I meant, trading Thomas or Chancellor is not remotely in the picture.
Head of catering.
by jacobstevens on Dec 13, 2011 9:26 AM PST up reply actions
And then BAM! It hits you like if you were running headlong into a brick wall!
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 15, 2011 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
I agree so much about the scheme.
We flushed the whole 2008 team away and are collecting just the right pieces. It’s been so long since we’ve had an effective pair of safeties that it would feel like whack-a-mole to trade one for a quarterback. Especially considering how important safeties are to this defense. I hope I didn’t accidentally flag your comment trying to rec it.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Leave the defense alone.
I’d rather give 3 firsts than lose Earl or Kam.
how about....four?
Heresy grows from idleness.
Check out my story at Fanfiction.net
http://www.fanfiction.net/s/7456440/1/Tide_of_War_Mass_Effect_Warhammer_Crossover
by Corax --Nevermore-- on Dec 15, 2011 9:02 PM PST up reply actions
If you look at the chart
three firsts (at a median of 15th overall) is more than our entire 2012 draft is worth.
So we might as well Ditka the entire 2012 draft for Matt Barkley. It would be “cheaper”. Since everyone is so sure that he’s going to be the next…. what…. Troy Aikman? And they think the only way to win is to set fire to our draft board – fuck it.
Trade all the Seahawks 2011 picks to the first or second overall team and pick up some dude who might be an NFL QB. That way PC/JS can go on vacation instead of worrying about watching weeks of film and going to the damn Combine. :)
Really, who wouldn't want a future HOF QB for ten years?
The problem is identifying them and being in the right place to land them. As well as Cam Newton has played, there were plenty of doubters. Locker and Ponder have yet to prove anything. Dalton has played well, although I’m not sure his ceiling is any higher than Orton who has played really well over stretches in his career. And after watching Blaine Gabbert last night, WOW am I relieved we didn’t waste a 1st round pick on that wimp. Really, would you rather have a “franchise” guy like Gabbert than TJack? By franchise, I mean selected in the 1st round, with franchise success tied to that guy, because everyone seems to be clamoring for us to “just pick one” in the 1st round and then, WHEW, we can relax because we know what the future will be. The problem is the future could be Jacksonville. I pity their fans and the few good players on that squad. What a mess. Khan just got conned. I think if you look objectively at TJack 2011 vs. Hasselbeck 2010, TJack is an upgrade. As of right now, I’d rather give TJack another year and continue to improve talent at other positions than trade away multiple high draft picks to move up for Barkley or Griffin. It’s not like we’re only a QB away from being superbowl contenders. Despite young talent that has surprised, we are still sub .500 and you can’t put all the blame at TJacks feet.
Perhaps you haven't been following along,
but if Andrew Luck = Peyton Manning – all the commercials, with some deductive reasoning, who wouldn’t sell their entire draft to get the SECOND or THIRD best guy? They have to at least be… Jim Kelly and Steve Young, right? I mean, at worst you end up with Sid Luckman/Jake Plummer.
You've made this same comment several times.
I think we all know where you’re coming from on this.
by Nate Dogg on Dec 16, 2011 10:36 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I take it that's your clever way of telling me to shut up?
I guess I will if you will. It seems fair, right?
Jackson is a rookie starting on a bad team. Come on, now.
Newton, though. Wow. I’ve had him in fantasy all year and his low points are still pretty good. He does throw picks, though. If he played for Jacksonville, there’s no guarantee they’d turn him loose as a runnning back like Carolina has. Were the situations reversed, Gabbert could be playing like Dalson. Locker, by the way, looked pretty fucking good in his first start.
Ah, hello my slow fat fingers say to Lord Humongous
-Kingdomer
by EthelGemerman on Dec 17, 2011 5:57 PM PST up reply actions
What's nice is the guys doing our bidding are real good at it.
The only inconsistency being Whitehurst. I hope that’s not an indication evaluating QBs isn’t their strongest suit. You know at least one out of that second tier of prospects is going to surprise and make some GM look brilliant. I expect to see a pass-rusher taken in the first and a QB in the second or maybe even third. My hope is trade up and nab Barkley. We don’t need more than 3 or 4 picks anyway. The roster is already packed with talent with 14 coming back from IR.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
