Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

from Darin's mailbag re: the 2002 top 3 picks in the draft


rayzor
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Varking said:

I agree but that’s also my point. The Chiefs got their guy. And anyone who had him as their guy should have traded up to get him rather than hope he falls. When you pick high you have that luxury of getting your guy but you need to scout it right and make the call. 

Andy Reid is the best QB coach in NFL history.  

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young has a frame like that of a high school player. The coach would be on him every day about lifting weights and eating right. Alabama this season is not the typical Alabama team, but they are still better stocked than 95% of the competition.  Young will not have that advantage at the next level. If I was making the pick at the top of the draft, I'm not spending that pick on Young. I don't care if someone wants to argue he's a Kyler Murray-type. Murray has not developed any at this level, and is not one of the top qbs.

Stroud is criticized for being a system qb. He's surrounded by top talent. They do a great job of scheming players open and then it's just pitch and catch. Not SEC level of competition. One read qb. Not mobile. Hasn't looked great every game. OSU curse. Is he worth the top pick? Probably not.

I guess the funny thing is, unless the qb is named Manning or Elway, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence that a qb, as one of the top couple of picks in the draft, has met the moment.  It just seems like some of these prospects may be more Bradford than Burrow, and there is more depth with this qb class and less shine.

  • Beer 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, UnluckyforSome said:

Young has a frame like that of a high school player. The coach would be on him every day about lifting weights and eating right. Alabama this season is not the typical Alabama team, but they are still better stocked than 95% of the competition.  Young will not have that advantage at the next level. If I was making the pick at the top of the draft, I'm not spending that pick on Young. I don't care if someone wants to argue he's a Kyler Murray-type. Murray has not developed any at this level, and is not one of the top qbs.

Stroud is criticized for being a system qb. He's surrounded by top talent. They do a great job of scheming players open and then it's just pitch and catch. Not SEC level of competition. One read qb. Not mobile. Hasn't looked great every game. OSU curse. Is he worth the top pick? Probably not.

I guess the funny thing is, unless the qb is named Manning or Elway, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of evidence that a qb, as one of the top couple of picks in the draft, has met the moment.  It just seems like some of these prospects may be more Bradford than Burrow, and there is more depth with this qb class and less shine.

Bradford was rookie of the year before injuries took their toll. Plus before the rookie pay limits got introduced it was a lot harder to stack a good side around a rookie QB 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

200.gif

 

 

35 minutes ago, Aussie Tank said:

Bradford was rookie of the year before injuries took their toll. Plus before the rookie pay limits got introduced it was a lot harder to stack a good side around a rookie QB 

From 1998 with Peyton Manning, to 2010 with Sam Bradford, 10 qbs were selected #1 overall. Bradford was the last under the old contract process. Three non qbs were taken over this period. 

Bradford was not worth the top pick, but for teams that found themselves at that spot the position had to align with the expanding value of the contract. The non qbs taken were 2 de and a t. Premium contract meant for premium positions. It wasn't necessarily more difficult to build through the draft, so long as a team didn't get back broken over a top contract for a bust pick.

I'm not picking on Bradford so don't get all in a funk about ROY and injuries. Busts happen for a number of reasons.

 

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, UnluckyforSome said:

 

From 1998 with Peyton Manning, to 2010 with Sam Bradford, 10 qbs were selected #1 overall. Bradford was the last under the old contract process. Three non qbs were taken over this period. 

Bradford was not worth the top pick, but for teams that found themselves at that spot the position had to align with the expanding value of the contract. The non qbs taken were 2 de and a t. Premium contract meant for premium positions. It wasn't necessarily more difficult to build through the draft, so long as a team didn't get back broken over a top contract for a bust pick.

I'm not picking on Bradford so don't get all in a funk about ROY and injuries. Busts happen for a number of reasons.

 

Of course it was harder contracts were 3 times the size with a lower overall salary cap 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, UnluckyforSome said:

Price did not make it more difficult. You can argue price made it more risky or raised the stakes on higher picks, but the difficulty level was no different. 

The difficulty I’m talking about is it was more difficult to field talent around them to help them succeed 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Aussie Tank said:

The difficulty I’m talking about is it was more difficult to field talent around them to help them succeed 

Disagree, and that's fine. If the organization was sound, utilized it's resources, scouted thoroughly, went into the draft with a plan, and was generally well-run, then it was not an impossible task.

To contrast, this is a good bit of why the Bengals were terrible for so long. So, to that extent, rookie wage scales have mitigated a good portion of the penalty of draft busts, and I think we agree on that at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2022 at 2:23 PM, Growl said:

those three teams share the same number of championships

 

 

But one of those teams (our beloved Panthers) has made it it to 3 conference title games and made two Super Bowl appearances. You can't say that about the Texans and the Lions. And our team had a legit chance to win both of those Super Bowls.

I hate pointing this out, but the journeyman QB who led us to our first appearance matched Tom Brady throw for throw and would/could have been MVP if we had won.  He played better in game than our  #1 pick and 2015 league MVP in his loss to Denver. A game in which Peyton Manning couldn't lead his team to 200 total yards on offense.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/16/2022 at 2:47 PM, 4Corners said:

Where does Peppers rank all time in terms of greatest NC athletes? 
 

Jordan

Peppers

Dale Sr

catfish Hunter

Enos Slaughter

madison bumgartner 

Gaylord Perry also. 2 Cy Young Awards .MLB  HOF

If we go old school,  Sonny Jurgensen NFL HOF,  & Roman Gabriel  NFL MVP  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m all about BPA, but QB is the only exception. Sure, NOBODY is a sure fire thing, but you have to have a QB to win consistently in the NFL. 

We’ve had the chance to draft Lamar Jackson, Mahomes, Watson, and Fields. This doesn’t include the players we were in range to trade up for like an Herbert.

Instead we’ve drafted the defensive stud with a less chance of a bust rate. They’ve mostly all been really good players, but it’s gotten us a combined like 23 wins or something. Look at the NFL and the teams that are constantly in the playoffs(not just winning a Super Bowl) and they Al have franchise QBs. YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CHANCE ON A QB TO WIN CONSISTENTLY! I’m not saying any of these QBs are going to be franchise QBs, but we’re Watson, Mahomes, Jackson, or Fields considered “can’t miss, sure fire Franchise QBs”? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A great QB can elevate an average to good supporting cast. A great all around team can elevate an average to good QB.

Jeff Hostetler, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jim Mc McMahon, Joe Flacco, and Nick Foles will never sniff the Hall of Fame. However, they do have one thing in common. All won 5 won SB rings when they started the big game. Why was that possible? They only had to stay w/in the game plan and not mess things up by turning the ball over.

We don’t need a Mahomes, Allen, Jackson, or Burrow in this years draft to compete for a title going forward “IF” the rest of the team is solid. What we need is a guy that can drop back 25-30 times per game, complete 60% of his passes, throw 25-28 TD (averages out to less than 2 per game) and not turn the ball over on a regular basis. If we had that right now we’d be in first place in the NFC South.

You don’t have to have a top 5 pick to find a guy like that in the draft. But, a guy selected lower in the draft may take a little longer to develop and require more rigorous coaching.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The wins will be a factor but I believe it will be more about how he progresses. If he's pulling a Darnold and making the same mistakes over and over again the wins won't mean that much. They say he's a smart QB. He'll have weapons this season so we'll see if he uses them.
    • I'm going to give my 2 cents after a long hiatus. I'm not going to focus on the player's ability as I can now admit that I don't really know so much about that. I will focus on the way the draft was run based on said objectives and how those objectives were obtained. It's not based on what I wanted but what they said they wanted. Whether or not that's a good thing remains to be seen but Dan Morgan was a bad ass on the field and I'm happy with the idea of looking for badasses moving forward. I know the key word is dawgs but I have to deal with key words in my work all the time and they make me sick so I'll just use old terms like badass.  I wasn't high on Legette, I wanted another but he was gone so it doesn't matter. I understand why they wanted him and they got him. More importantly to me is the way they got him. People like to say it was for the 5th year option but I doubt that was the main reason because if he's really good they will want to sign him long term and not use that tag as it's expensive anyway. It's more of an emergency thing and usually not a good sign of a healthy relationship. It was more likely because someone else wanted him and we knew it so we used our connections to move up and take him from another team. Yes, we traded up but it cost us practically nothing overall. A (We got our target) Next, I would like to include the part of the draft that impressed me most. Whether or not the pick was right or wrong I have know idea yet and neither does anyone else but these moves were brilliant. Morgan traded pick 39 for 52 and 155 PLUS a 2nd next season. I know people say a second next year has a 3rd year value this year and that's true but next year it has a 2nd round value and for a team without a 2nd round pick that's huge even if it's likely later in the round. For a team rebuilding that's great.  Even better, is they then traded up at a low cost, once again increasing draft value to get their 2nd target and it worked. Again, I'm not judging the pick but the execution. It appears that they had targets early in this draft and they got both of them and at the same time improved next season draft and put themselves in position on the board to grab other targets even if from this point on it's not the primary target necessarily at that pick but someone they are ok with but they got their first 2.  A (drafted first 2 primary targets and improved this year's draft and next years)  At this point, I assume it becomes more difficult to pinpoint specific targets as they did in rounds 1 and 2. However, it looks to me like once again they worked this out well overall. The next trade back may have cost them their 3rd target and they may have had to take the back-up pick here. I don't know how they valued the LBs but I think it's possible that they selected their 2nd choice here but, because of what they get next from that trade , it was worth it to them. Instead of 1 player they wanted as a primary target, they got the back-up 3rd pick target and still got their 4th primary target. Meaning they got their 2nd LB target but still got their primary TE target instead of getting only one primary target at one position. IMO, this is when we can really see how each trade was well thought out to give the Panthers the best chance to improve the roster with their guys. Again, it's not an evaluation of the players themselves but what they wanted. Although this time I will say that I LOVE the Sanders pick personally and the fact that they could get him and a much needed LB in this part of the draft is better than I had hoped for. B+ (I don't think they got their first target at LB but got their 2nd and yet still got their first target at TE and) The last 3 picks are usually anyone's guess and I think the last 2 are just that. Throw a hail mary and maybe you score a TD. But I think the 5th pick is from the 25 yard line instead of the 50. It's still a long shot but possible which is why we ran a play to get us here for 1 shot instead of 2 from further away. I can understand both lines of thought but I'm partial to percentages and therefore I agree with the process that got us the pick here as I think this player has a chance. Could we have got a player with a better chance of being our long-term nickle in draft?  Probably. Would I take that player over either of our previous 2 picks? Absolutely not. LB and TE are more important to me than nickle db. It's a 5th rounder so if he looks bad we can try again but if he shows promise, which I think is possible in this defense then day 3 is at least a FG. The last 2 picks are throws from the 40 or 45 after a penalty but if either one hits the board then day 3 was a TD.  B- (I upped the score because the trades that improved day 2 hurt day 3 but overall I think the moves were good value so I increased the day 3 rating from a C to a B-)  Overall, A-. I think Morgan did a masterful job targeting specific players, which I approve of, and manipulating trades to acquire those players. I'm actually very impressed.             
    • I'm back and without, much fanfare, 4 games into Round 1 we finally have a winner! Technically, there are no "standings" since only 1 person has picked a winner. Nonetheless... organicrusty1201              ... and everyone else.... nothing.
×
×
  • Create New...