Two of the better prospects went back to school. I'm not even sure this class is any better than last year.
aren't the Bucs in a bit of a Catch-22 though with respect to QBs? It looks like if they are not sold on Glennon they would have to "reach" for one this draft. If they dont "reach" and say they go 8-8 this year, they would not be in a very good position for one of next year's QBs, right?
aren't the Bucs in a bit of a Catch-22 though with respect to QBs? It looks like if they are not sold on Glennon they would have to "reach" for one this draft. If they dont "reach" and say they go 8-8 this year, they would not be in a very good position for one of next year's QBs, right?
Absolutely, if the Bucs go with Glennon and he stinks it up the team would still be maybe 6-10 at the worst and would be out of position to draft a QB next year. IMO the Bucs will draft a QB at 7.
I think Tedford is more of a question mark than Glennon is. Will Ted go all "mad scientist" by trying to "fix" Glennon?
Where's the audio in the OP?
I think Tedford is more of a question mark than Glennon is. Will Ted go all "mad scientist" by trying to "fix" Glennon?
I would feel better about it if glennon didn't have schiano stench still on him. The better option would be for them to get "their guy." I'd rather they draft manziel, but regardless, it has to be someone they feel they can work with, or at the very least, have confidence in.
Where's the audio in the OP?
http://houston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/23/greg-cosell-looks-at-texans-qb-issues-ahead-at-the-draft/
aren't the Bucs in a bit of a Catch-22 though with respect to QBs? It looks like if they are not sold on Glennon they would have to "reach" for one this draft. If they dont "reach" and say they go 8-8 this year, they would not be in a very good position for one of next year's QBs, right?
1. In the end, there's no such thing as a "reach" or a "steal". The only thing there is are good players and bad players. If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick. If the Bucs "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers, he'll have been a good pick. It's that simple. 2. However much better the 2015 class may potentially be, there aren't going to be fifteen John Elways where one of them will trickle down to the middle of the 1st round where a 8-8 record will put you. If there are a couple great prospects, they're going to get picked by the teams that had the worst records and the Bucs will be looking at the same type of prospect they're looking at now and just hoping the rest of the league is wrong about whatever everyone thinks is his biggest flaw just like now.
During the season I recall him saying that not only is he the best QB in this draft , he is better than RGIII .
You recall incorrectly. He called him more "advanced" than RGIII. The deal with Cosell is this - he believes in the pocket passing game 100%, and that mobility - beyond the functional mobility within the pocket - is way down the list of QB attributes necessary to be successful in the NFL. So when he says that Glennon is "more advanced" than RGIII, he means that Glennon does more of the tried and true NFL QB things - throws with anticipation, reads defenses, etc. A lot of guys don't have to do those things to be extremely successful in college, so the pro game is an adjustment. And in 2012, the Skins built on offense around RGIII that utilized a lot of those non-traditional/college aspects and had immediate success. I think the goal for the Skins was to work on those traditional NFL things over time, but that got interrupted by his injury (in other words, hard to work on in the offseason). And then suddenly this year you have a guy who no longer really can run, which means the offense breaks down. Glennon came from a pro-style offense (as did Russel Wilson) - he's going to be more advanced at doing those things.
Thanks, Calico.
aren't the Bucs in a bit of a Catch-22 though with respect to QBs? It looks like if they are not sold on Glennon they would have to "reach" for one this draft. If they dont "reach" and say they go 8-8 this year, they would not be in a very good position for one of next year's QBs, right?
1. In the end, there's no such thing as a "reach" or a "steal". The only thing there is are good players and bad players. If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick. If the Bucs "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers, he'll have been a good pick. It's that simple.
Interesting because I thought about that point after I used the word "reach." I think I get your point, but I guess some could call it semantics or, perhaps, just driven by the results. For example, your first scenario - "If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick -- described what I meant by "reach," I was just accepting as fact that the consensus was that none of the available QBs would be a #7 pick but for the class. If your first scenario played out with, say, Carr then after the fact everyone would be calling the Carr pick a "reach" driven by need.
1. In the end, there's no such thing as a "reach" or a "steal". The only thing there is are good players and bad players. If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick. If the Bucs "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers, he'll have been a good pick. It's that simple.
I'm with you on the issue of "reach." For one thing, what is the "reach" based on? Some pundit who's never drafted a guy in his life and his mock draft or prospect rankings that don't take into account scheme or fit? My epiphany on this was looking at the shots of the Dallas Cowboy's board that ended up on the web a few years ago. Some of it was chalk, but they had some players much higher on there than I would have guessed, and some players much lower than I'd have guessed. Taking Travis Frederick where they did seemed high to me, but are they supposed to hope that they are the only team that had that high an opinion on Travis Frederick?
Well, when the analysts make a mock, they act like it's set in stone. Heck, the fanbases act the same.When you're drafting, I think you should look for talent, then get it on your team as long as it doesn't completely break the bank. The opinions of others should not matter whatsoever, but in many cases hc and gm's will cave to the popular pick to ease the boos they'll get.
aren't the Bucs in a bit of a Catch-22 though with respect to QBs? It looks like if they are not sold on Glennon they would have to "reach" for one this draft. If they dont "reach" and say they go 8-8 this year, they would not be in a very good position for one of next year's QBs, right?
1. In the end, there's no such thing as a "reach" or a "steal". The only thing there is are good players and bad players. If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick. If the Bucs "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers, he'll have been a good pick. It's that simple.
Interesting because I thought about that point after I used the word "reach." I think I get your point, but I guess some could call it semantics or, perhaps, just driven by the results. For example, your first scenario - "If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick -- described what I meant by "reach," I was just accepting as fact that the consensus was that none of the available QBs would be a #7 pick but for the class. If your first scenario played out with, say, Carr then after the fact everyone would be calling the Carr pick a "reach" driven by need.
In my mind calling a player "reach" before he's played means it's already a forgone conclusion that player is going to be bad. My point is no one knows if whichever QB the Bucs may pick at #7 will have been a "reach" until a few years later. Scouting is an inexact science. Scouts are wrong all the time and sometimes players who have flaws are able to overcome those flaws. The only thing we'll know about whichever QB the Bucs pick at #7 is at least a few teams thought there was something wrong with him. Whether they were right, we won't know for a little while. As I said, Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers were picked where they were picked for a reason. People were wrong.
1. In the end, there's no such thing as a "reach" or a "steal". The only thing there is are good players and bad players. If the Bucs were to "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Christian Ponder, he'll have been a bad pick. If the Bucs "reach" on a lower-rated QB and he turns into Ben Roethlisberger or Aaron Rodgers, he'll have been a good pick. It's that simple.
I'm with you on the issue of "reach." For one thing, what is the "reach" based on? Some pundit who's never drafted a guy in his life and his mock draft or prospect rankings that don't take into account scheme or fit? My epiphany on this was looking at the shots of the Dallas Cowboy's board that ended up on the web a few years ago. Some of it was chalk, but they had some players much higher on there than I would have guessed, and some players much lower than I'd have guessed. Taking Travis Frederick where they did seemed high to me, but are they supposed to hope that they are the only team that had that high an opinion on Travis Frederick?
In other words, you go get the guys you want at the value you place on them. After the fact some might describe a failed pick as a "reach" but it was not in the technical sense if you went with your own analysis? So, for example, if the Bucs had the App State WR (D. Jackson) as a third round pick or lower, it was a "reach" for them to take him in the 2nd, but it would not have been if they legitimately had him as a 2nd round talent (even if many of the pundits disagreed)?Is that what you guys mean because that seems reasonable?
