Mr. Scot

From Sean Salisbury... My feelings as well.

I'm not taking using a top ten pick on someone I think has only a 20% chance of being what I want. Mahomes and Allen are both solid passers who also have physical ability. And while that's great, it's also not that common (neither was it enough for either one this year). But again, the idea that you can just take any guy that's got great athletic ability and teach him to be an NFL level quarterback is fool's gold. Give me the guys who have got the quarterback skills over the athletic freaks that people think can be taught them ten times out of ten.

Think Aikman is going to ESPN for Monday Night Football.

I have. It was...less than inspiring. And I'm not alone on this: As far as being able to improve with great coaching, I know people think that's easy but more often than not, it isn't what happens.

Word is Washington made "a strong offer" for Wilson but Seattle declined.

If they don't have accuracy or the ability to read and process a defense, all the physical tools in the world won't make a difference. I'd add though that Willis's physical tools aren't as good as some folks think. If you watch him against higher level competition, he's nothing special.

But it wasn't, and it didn't. And on an annual basis, it's still the guys who can read a defense and throw an accurate pass who win.

Not necessarily to that level, but a mind like Stafford or Burrow is enough. Mind you, I'm not saying guys have to be immobile. Just that the whole idea of taking a super athlete who doesn't have the other tools and thinking you can teach him those things is fool's gold. If they can't read a defense on at least a medium level as a senior in college, there's a good chance they're not going to learn it on the fly in the pros.

The guy who won more Super Bowls than anyone else in the modern era was about as mobile as I am. Brees, Manning and the other Manning weren't anything special in that department either.

I get that, but it's still the passers who win the big games. And if you're not playing to win the big ones, what are you playing for? Exciting highlights? Sure those are fun, but that's not how you build a consistent winner.

Look at who wins in the playoffs on an annual basis. Intelligence is important. Passing accuracy is vital. Processing speed is crucial. Arm strength is negotiable. Running ability is nice to have but basic pocket mobility is all you really need.

I'm just giving the profile. Individual abilities still vary. Tom Brady and Tim Couch technically have the same playing style but one is just a little better player than the other. I don't want a quarterback in this draft.

I know everybody loves the guys with the crazy physical tools. And every year I hear people say things like "oh, we can teach them the other stuff". And likewise, every year I watch some team realize it's not working. People have been predicting the physical style quarterbacks were going to "change the league" ever since Michael Vick. It still hasn't happened, and barring some major rule changes I don't believe it's going to. Give me an accurate passer with intelligence and the ability to process quickly every time. If they also have physical tools that's cool but you don't really need those to win.

Remember last year we were talking about the crazy huge cap space we were gonna have this year?

Still not exactly a huge amount...

I'd agree And yeah, generally speaking, Walter Football is full of sh-t.

I don't buy the "except Brian Burns" part. I think they'd trade him too for the right price.

More to the point though, it only matters what the team thinks of it, not us.

Let me put it this way... If your primary goal is to generate some short-term excitement, you're not particularly concerned about building for the future and you want to potentially give David Tepper a reason to keep Matt Rhule around for a little longer, then yes this is a great idea. Otherwise, not so much.

Solid football moves aren't necessarily exciting. And moves that are done for "excitement" more often than not turn out to be bad football moves. Prime example: David Tepper was looking for "big splash / get everybody excited" energy when he hired Matt Rhule. How'd that work out?

To be perfectly clear, "excitement" doesn't mean sh-t to me. Win consistently, even if it looks boring. Then we can talk.

Last season, the signing got people excited. The actual results left them disappointed. I could see this following the same path.