NFL 2016: Is there a draft in here or is it just me?

[Trebla]

22 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Drafting for a 4 week need is stupid.  Draft long term. They need a pass rusher, but they also need secondary.  And the people I'm trusting have Ramsey ranked significantly higher than Bosa (at least as significant as possible at the top end of the first round).

But it's not just for a 4 week need anymore. Both dudes are in the drug program which means they have failed multiple drug tests. Once a player gets suspended for four games they go into Stage 3 of the drug program. Another slip up and they are looking at a 10 game or full season suspension. 

NFL Drug Program

Quote

Stage Three, like the other two stages, involves complying with a treatment plan and submitting to unannounced drug tests. The consequences for violations during Stage Three are much more severe: The player faces a year-long ban from the NFL. If the first violation in Stage Three is for marijuana, the player receives a 10-game suspension instead of a year-long ban.

 

[JonSnow4President]

Drafting solely with a short term (even a year long) need is missing the point.  Free agency is your year long band-aid process.  The draft is regenerative surgery, but it takes awhile for those cells to reach full strength.  

When I think I can get a good starter in early round 2, I'd rather grab the guy I think is an elite corner and still get a good pass rusher in 2, than freak out and ignore draft class depth because I need a defensive end right now.

ETA: The 'boys draft decision makers are also unfireable.  So there isn't that short term urgency that a regular GM is going to have to worry for.  

[Jaime L]

Sorry in advance Sperry, but there's something amusing about Sam Bradford's last two employers both giving up a million picks in the same draft so as to begin a new bold era of "not Sam Bradford".

The last guy to have that effect on teams was the Sex Cannon whose time in Chicago and Washington immediately preceded both teams giving up a combined 5 first rounders to get a QB who would hopefully spend more time studying film than cheerleaders*.

 

*Instead both teams got a guy who spent more time studying drama than film, but that's a story for another time. 

[Jace, Extat]

9 hours ago, sperry said:

 

 

Browns should be a little better than last year. RGIII is a huge upgrade over Josh McCown/Johnny Manziel.

 

 

Regardless, the Browns are in great shape.  They are likely to have two top 5 draft picks in the 2017 draft.  They can get their quarterback plus another huge impact player, as well having tons of middle round picks to play with.

 

I know Browns are gonna Brown, but the same used to be true of plenty of moribund organizations.

I am most certainly not the mother figure of this thread, but I am nonetheless shaking my head at you my sweet summer child.

6 hours ago, SkynJay said:

Denver doesn't want to give a third rounder for Kaep, no chance of one for Bradford.  If they didn't already have Sanchez I'd fear a trade for Bradford but I don't see them going after him even if he agreed to reduce his salery.

Yeah, I'd take Sanchize at a Sanchalary over Bradford at... really anything. 'Cause paying Bradford means you have to pay him for Sanchize to start when he gets a boo boo.

2 hours ago, Jaime L said:

Sorry in advance Sperry, but there's something amusing about Sam Bradford's last two employers both giving up a million picks in the same draft so as to begin a new bold era of "not Sam Bradford".

The last guy to have that effect on teams was the Sex Cannon whose time in Chicago and Washington immediately preceded both teams giving up a combined 5 first rounders to get a QB who would hopefully spend more time studying film than cheerleaders*.

 

*Instead both teams got a guy who spent more time studying drama than film, but that's a story for another time. 

You're a guy who spent more time studying your face than film!

[sperry]

3 hours ago, Jaime L said:

Sorry in advance Sperry, but there's something amusing about Sam Bradford's last two employers both giving up a million picks in the same draft so as to begin a new bold era of "not Sam Bradford".

The last guy to have that effect on teams was the Sex Cannon whose time in Chicago and Washington immediately preceded both teams giving up a combined 5 first rounders to get a QB who would hopefully spend more time studying film than cheerleaders*.

 

*Instead both teams got a guy who spent more time studying drama than film, but that's a story for another time. 

More of a sign that he's been stuck on two of the worst run organizations in football.

[CBeck113]

12 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Trading up to 2 just to get Tunsil makes even less sense than trading up for Wentz.  There are some draftniks who consider OT Staley to be just as good a prospect as Tunsil, and Staley would almost assuredly still be there at #8.  Hell, there is a good chance that Tunsil would have lasted until pick 5 or 6 anyway, and moving from 8 to 5 would only cost a 2nd rounder at most. 

It is possible the Eagles will try and trade Bradford, although at his salary I'm really not sure anybody would want him.  At the very least, you aren't going to get much, maybe a late 3rd rounder from Denver or NYJ?   

Nope, I don't expect much for Bradford, maybe they're hoping for a 1st round  pick in exchange while covering most of his cash options, but I really don't see how this could go good.  That way they'd be paying for him to be injured for a different team and not our own.  I do see Denver as a chance for Brad, but does Denver really want to go there?  He throws about as many interceptions as touchdowns, which is his biggest weakness, and has problems staying healthy....I wouldn't touch him, but I don't have to make that decision either ;-).  On the other hand, maybe Philly sees this too, and wants to really plan long-term by getting him out , and see something in one of the kids that they think is worth it.  I hope they're right, whatever they do.

[Maithanet]

4 hours ago, CBeck113 said:

On the other hand, maybe Philly sees this too, and wants to really plan long-term by getting him out , and see something in one of the kids that they think is worth it.  I hope they're right, whatever they do.

I'm not sure this is going to make you feel better, but I've definitely been there.  When Washington was in discussions to make the RG3 trade, I was like "cool, we need a quarterback so badly", and then I heard the price tag and I was just dismayed.  But you have no choice but to accept it and hope for the best.  If you get a ten year starter at quarterback, then it's totally worth it.  If not, then your team is going to be short on talent for the next four-five years.  Shouldn't last more than that, but that's a long time in sports fandom. 

[DanteGabriel]

Word is that Washington is close to signing Josh Norman:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2634795-josh-norman-rumors-redskins-reportedly-expected-to-sign-star-cb

I bet a big part of this is the opportunity to get inside ODB's head twice a season.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Word is that Washington is close to signing Josh Norman:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2634795-josh-norman-rumors-redskins-reportedly-expected-to-sign-star-cb

I bet a big part of this is the opportunity to get inside ODB's head twice a season.

I am very leery of a potential Norman signing.  I mean, I can obviously see the appeal - he is only 28, he's been a top 5 corner the past two years, and we are very thin in the secondary.  If he were to be in Washington the next 3 years, that sounds like a big improvement, right?

The problem is that I've seen this show way too many times where the Redskins have some whiff of success and then pay big money for a free agent to "take us to the next level".  It has, literally, never worked.  Every single time we have done this, we have regressed.  McLoughin has talked a big game about not signing big time free agents, and really the past two years he has backed that up.  We signed zero big contracts this offseason, and the only one last year was a $10 mil per year for cb Chris Culliver.  It looked like we were saving up our money for flexibility in resigning Kirk Cousins and Jordan Reed. 

If we sign Norman, it would be a totally different direction, and it's easy to think this is Dan Snyder getting impatient again. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Word is that Washington is close to signing Josh Norman:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2634795-josh-norman-rumors-redskins-reportedly-expected-to-sign-star-cb

I bet a big part of this is the opportunity to get inside ODB's head twice a season.

But will they provide him with enough bats?

[Jace, Extat]

10 hours ago, sperry said:

More of a sign that he's been stuck on two of the worst run organizations in football.

He hasn't been on the Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, Titans, Lions, or Bucs to my knowledge.

Rams are in the Dolphins, Washingtons, Texans, Jets, Cowboys, and Bears level of mediocrity.

And the Eagles are actually a pretty successful team. Over a decade of sustained success with Andy Reid before the Dream Team debacle, and they posted winning records in 2 of Chip's seasons thanks in large part to good leftover talent from Reid's years.

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

He hasn't been on the Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, Titans, Lions, or Bucs to my knowledge.

Rams are in the Dolphins, Washingtons, Texans, Jets, Cowboys, and Bears level of mediocrity.

And the Eagles are actually a pretty successful team. Over a decade of sustained success with Andy Reid before the Dream Team debacle, and they posted winning records in 2 of Chip's seasons thanks in large part to good leftover talent from Reid's years.

I agree that you can't argue that the Eagles or Rams are terrible franchises.  The Eagles have made the playoffs more often than not this century.  The Rams have gone from awesome (greatest show on turf) to atrocious to mediocre this century, but they're at least above the very worst franchises.

 

Also, everyone should check out this cool graphic from WaPo about teams drafting success.  I thought it was a lot of fun.  Surprising no one, the most successful teams at drafting win more.  Best teams - Steelers, Colts, Packers.  Worst teams - Bills, Raiders, Browns. 

[sperry]

1 hour ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

He hasn't been on the Jaguars, Browns, Raiders, Titans, Lions, or Bucs to my knowledge.

Rams are in the Dolphins, Washingtons, Texans, Jets, Cowboys, and Bears level of mediocrity.

And the Eagles are actually a pretty successful team. Over a decade of sustained success with Andy Reid before the Dream Team debacle, and they posted winning records in 2 of Chip's seasons thanks in large part to good leftover talent from Reid's years.

 

The Eagles are imploding due to management. 

 

And the Rams are in the midst of an 11 year playoff drought, which includes the worst 5 year span in the history of the league.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, sperry said:

The Eagles are imploding due to management.

You know what would have prevented an Eagles implosion?  Bradford playing well.  If Bradford put up Ryan Fitzpatrick numbers last year, they probably win at least one of the two Redskins games and either the Dolphins or Falcons losses.  Win two of those four and they're 9-7, win the division and nobody is panicking. 

Virtually no quarterback is handed a perfect situation to succeed.  All teams have holes, flaws and dysfunction.  Last year the Redskins wouldn't admit that Cousins was the starter until week 3 of preseason.  But he still led that team to the division title, in spite of a very poor defense and virtually no running game.  That's what quarterbacks are expected to do - make the most of opportunities that are provided to them.  Bradford has had a LOT of chances.  At some point you just have to admit that the two things that Bradford's teams all have in common is that Bradford is the starting quarterback and that those teams suck. 

[sperry]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

You know what would have prevented an Eagles implosion?  Bradford playing well.  If Bradford put up Ryan Fitzpatrick numbers last year, they probably win at least one of the two Redskins games and either the Dolphins or Falcons losses.  Win two of those four and they're 9-7, win the division and nobody is panicking. 

Virtually no quarterback is handed a perfect situation to succeed.  All teams have holes, flaws and dysfunction.  Last year the Redskins wouldn't admit that Cousins was the starter until week 3 of preseason.  But he still led that team to the division title, in spite of a very poor defense and virtually no running game.  That's what quarterbacks are expected to do - make the most of opportunities that are provided to them.  Bradford has had a LOT of chances.  At some point you just have to admit that the two things that Bradford's teams all have in common is that Bradford is the starting quarterback and that those teams suck. 

 

The Eagles implosion is going to start this year.  Last year they were okay.  They went 7-9, 7-6 with Bradford playing the whole game.  More than likely would ahve made the playoffs without Bradford getting injured on a blindside hit (lost the Dolphins game they were winning handily when he went out, then lost to the Lions and Bucs with the Sanchize starting.)

 

Regardless, can you name one player that Bradford has played with on offense, in 6 years in the league, that was above average league wide for his position?

[Maithanet]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

The Eagles implosion is going to start this year.  Last year they were okay.  They went 7-9, 7-6 with Bradford playing the whole game.  More than likely would ahve made the playoffs without Bradford getting injured on a blindside hit (lost the Dolphins game they were winning handily when he went out, then lost to the Lions and Bucs with the Sanchize starting.)

I refuse to accept "if Bradford hadn't gotten hurt" as an excuse.  Bradford getting hurt is a big part of what makes him such a poor starting quarterback.  Quarterbacks who can't stay healthy get replaced. 

Quote

Regardless, can you name one player that Bradford has played with on offense, in 6 years in the league, that was above average league wide for his position?

Pro Bowlers:  Steven Jackson, Darren Sproles and Jason Peters all made the Pro Bowl while playing with Bradford.  Lane Johnson is always highly rated on PFF, and Zach Ertz is clearly above average as well. 

[sperry]

21 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I refuse to accept "if Bradford hadn't gotten hurt" as an excuse.  Bradford getting hurt is a big part of what makes him such a poor starting quarterback.  Quarterbacks who can't stay healthy get replaced. 

Pro Bowlers:  Steven Jackson, Darren Sproles and Jason Peters all made the Pro Bowl while playing with Bradford.  Lane Johnson is always highly rated on PFF, and Zach Ertz is clearly above average as well. 

 

Darren Sproles made the pro bowler for special teams, Jason Peters was horrible last year, he made the pro bowl on name recognition alone.  Stephen Jackson did have a good year in 2012, but was abysmal his other two years in St. Louis. And Bradford was out because of a concussion on a play where he was blindsided because the aforementioned Jason Peters didn't get a hand on his man.  You can hardly chalk taht up to being injury prone.

[Jace, Extat]

1 hour ago, sperry said:

 

The Eagles implosion is going to start this year.  Last year they were okay.  They went 7-9, 7-6 with Bradford playing the whole game.  More than likely would ahve made the playoffs without Bradford getting injured on a blindside hit (lost the Dolphins game they were winning handily when he went out, then lost to the Lions and Bucs with the Sanchize starting.)

 

Regardless, can you name one player that Bradford has played with on offense, in 6 years in the league, that was above average league wide for his position?

Dawg, you can make excuses for any player at any position all day to explain things away. But at the end of the day if Sam Bradford is your quarterback your team is capped at 7-9. Likewise, if Peyton Manning's your quarterback you'll be one-and-done and if it's Andrew Luck you're gonna get 5-10 interceptions in the total amount of playoff games played.

[Joe Pesci]

11 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Dawg, you can make excuses for any player at any position all day to explain things away. But at the end of the day if Sam Bradford is your quarterback your team is capped at 7-9. Likewise, if Peyton Manning's your quarterback you'll be one-and-done and if it's Andrew Luck you're gonna get 5-10 interceptions in the total amount of playoff games played.

Did you order your new Trent Richardson jersey off of the Ravens website yet? 

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, Joe Pesci said:

Did you order your new Trent Richardson jersey off of the Ravens website yet? 

I ordered you a gold card from Ryan Reynolds.