Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Let's say Russell, Thomas and Johnson are off the board « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5



Guest
#60 : January 29, 2007, 03:10:02 PM

The Vikes could go QB with their first pick but Tarvaris Jackson is a project they like.

Haven't been able to get a good handle on that, I'm hearing mixed things about Jackson.



Guest
#61 : January 29, 2007, 03:13:58 PM

That would leave Arizona or Minny as trading partners; they have 2nd round picks and Washington doesn't.

I think Minnesota could be a willing partner if CJ is still on the board when we pick.

The 7th pick wouldn't be a bad spot to take Okoye and if he's gone, Anderson would most likely be there.

CurtR1995

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2711
Offline
#62 : January 30, 2007, 07:58:25 AM

Of the two QB's I like Russell a lot better than Quinn. But I am not certain how Russell would fair in this offense that Gruden runs. Quinn on the other hand seems to fit Gruden's offensive system. Even assuming Quinn is average that would be good enough for Gruden's offense. But I am really intrigued by what Russell could do in this offense as I can not imagine him being at the very least average at the NFL level. Russell can hit the slants and out routes with ease. Not to mention a killer deep ball and an unbelievable ability to deliver strikes downfield when flushed out of the pocket when defenders ease up in their coverage. Quinn needs to work on his ball placement instead of lobbing it up becuase lobbs turn into INT's at the NFL level. But that is something Gruden can work with Quinn on.



Quinn and Peterson are the best prospects at that spot in the draft. I would be happy with either since we need both positions IMHO. Quinn is an NFL ready WCO quarterback and we badly need that. Peterson, if healthy, was the best RB prospect since Walker as a freshmen. I know everyone will whine about Caddy, but Caddy is an outstanding #2 RB, but a miserable everydown WCO back due his limitations.
RB is not a need, you've proven again and again you're pretty clueless on some subjects.

Sticks and Stones.

RB is absolutely a need, unless we all of a sudden have the 93 Cowboy OLine in the current group or you enjoy 3.5 per carry and 1 TD from the tailback position.  In 6 of Caddy's last 8 starts, he had 44 yards or less rushing.  Just because we spent the 5th pick in the draft doesn't mean we fixed the RB problem.  The fact is, outside of Caddy's first 3 games, he has been ordinary at best, and a flat out bust at worst.  He didn't carry the load at Aurburn, and he sure as heck has proved that he can't on this level either. 

It not a fluke that Gruden's offense is more effective overall with Pittman at tailback instead of Caddy despite Pittman's woefull running skills.  Gruden needs to have a RB that is either an incredible runner, or at least a factor in the  passing game with blocking and catching with YAC.  Pittman gives them that. 

The NFL is going to the two back system with success.  Caddy would be a wonderfull #2 back.  He is a terrible #1 back, especially in Gruden's WCO. 

Rusty

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 11562
Offline
#63 : January 30, 2007, 08:00:17 AM

Fix the lines. Everything else is pointless.

                \'Every day above ground is a good day\'

CurtR1995

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2711
Offline
#64 : January 30, 2007, 08:23:27 AM

Fix the lines. Everything else is pointless.

Agree both lines are in desperate shape.  But don't reach in the draft exclusively to do it. 

alldaway

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 37352
Offline
#65 : January 30, 2007, 08:15:23 PM

Quote
It not a fluke that Gruden's offense is more effective overall with Pittman at tailback instead of Caddy despite Pittman's woefull running skills.

I would say it is a fluke (Pittman hits holes way too quickly).

That is why Thomas Jones was not given a fair shake and I feel Carnell should being given a chance to show what he can do as well.

Lets face it Thomas Jones cleary showed he was the better runner than Pittman.  If Gruden felt Pittman was the better fit a big mistake on his part for playing Pittman and letting Thomas Jones sit on the pine for so long.   I do not want the Bucs to repeat the same mistake twice and think that Carnell is not capable.  In my opinion Carnell has shown he is capable just like Thomas Jones did.

Thomas Jones > Michael Pittman

Carnell Williams > Michael Pittman

As for Adrian Peterson?  He is an excellent back and a tandem of Peterson and Carnell sounds intriguing but Peterson (just like Carnell) is not known for being a good pass catcher either. You only take Peterson based on BAP approach with the draft.   I do not know why Gruden and Holmgren put up with running backs that do not excell in pass catching (eg Shaun Alexander) but they do.  :D

Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54599
Offline
#66 : January 30, 2007, 08:19:07 PM

The good thing about Carnell having a bad year is that it might drive his bargaining chip down come re-up time....


gone

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 9244
Offline
#67 : January 30, 2007, 09:15:58 PM

I'd go Okoye or Carricker.  Quinn is overrated.  I'd rather take a bite on a potential stud UT than potential stud DE.  Carricker gives a 2-way option.

(not sure name is right)
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Let's say Russell, Thomas and Johnson are off the board « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools