Joey Bosa or Marcus Peters are at the top of the best defenders under 25 list for me.-OZ- said:I'd be somewhat more interested in which non QB you'd take to start a franchise. That might be either Khalil Mack or DeAndre Hopkins.
Yeah but I think hes 4-5 Years more developed than the kids on the list. Gimme the sub 30 super bowl winner. I wanna win now.Hard to believe, but he's almost 29.
Yeah this week was bad. But if you had watched him most weeks he'd be on your list. Plus he seems like a genuinely good guy.dhockster said:I didn't have Mariotta on my list because I have only seen him play against the Texans and he has had two mediorcre games against them. Based on last years number alone he should be pretty high on the list. He is possibly showing that he is injury prone.
True. I don't know if I'd take bosa over Mack but they're both on the short list.Joey Bosa or Marcus Peters are at the top of the best defenders under 25 list for me.
Mack or Aaron Donald are both 26 so age is not that important of a consideration. All three guys are disruptive and would make a great foundation to build upon.True. I don't know if I'd take bosa over Mack but they're both on the short list.Joey Bosa or Marcus Peters are at the top of the best defenders under 25 list for me.
I'll add Jalen Ramsey (CB, Jaguars) to that best defenders list. Ramsey will be shutting down #1 receivers for a long time to come. He's only 22 years old.Joey Bosa or Marcus Peters are at the top of the best defenders under 25 list for me.
So did Kaep. And RG3. I'll be sure to re-visit this comment in a year or two.I know it’s really early in his pro career, but I love Watson. Always have. He has “it”.
Ok, you do that. Just an opinion, not sure where you’re hostility is coming from. Anyway, he’s a much better passer than either of the guys you mentioned, and he’s a winner. Who knows what RG3 would have been had he not been riddled with injuries. His rookie year was pretty special.So did Kaep. And RG3. I'll be sure to re-visit this comment in a year or two.
Rodgers is only 33 and is the most complete QB in the league. There is no weakness in his game; still has mobility, one of the best arms and quickest releases, his memory is legendary, progressions, I mean the guy is an all-time great. I'd pick him in a heartbeat.
Non-QB ... Watt was the no-brainer pick for years his value-added was higher than most QBs in the league. I think Mack is getting close to that title - not QUITE as dominant but still the best defensive player in the league.
I'm gonna disagree hard on this ... the knocks on Watson are that you can time his release with a sundial, his accuracy on everything from check-downs/slants to deep-balls is scattershot at times, and he lacks elite vision of the field. Those are three items that are very hard to fix and can be very exploitable at the NFL level. I'm warning you to give him a couple years before you proclaim him the next big thing.Ok, you do that. Just an opinion, not sure where you’re hostility is coming from. Anyway, he’s a much better passer than either of the guys you mentioned, and he’s a winner. Who knows what RG3 would have been had he not been riddled with injuries. His rookie year was pretty special.
I think the only real presumption is if you are starting a franchise, you want the player you pick to be a part of that franchise for as long as possible, assuming that they are as great as you think they are. Rodgers would lose consideration from a lot of people because he probably will only be around 5-7 years. But you might win a couple championships with Rodgers in those 5-7 years, so it might be worth it to take him.Another vote for Aaron Rodgers.
I presume we're factoring in that anyone you take will only be under contract for 4-5 years regardless of their age. Rodgers will still be playing, and very likely at a high level, for that long.
I’ve read a lot of the same opinions on him before. You’re not telling me anything new here. I like what I see with my eyes when I watch him. Having different opinions is one of the great thing about sports. Right now all we can say is “we’ll see”I'm gonna disagree hard on this ... the knocks on Watson are that you can time his release with a sundial, his accuracy on everything from check-downs/slants to deep-balls is scattershot at times, and he lacks elite vision of the field. Those are three items that are very hard to fix and can be very exploitable at the NFL level. I'm warning you to give him a couple years before you proclaim him the next big thing.
How is Aaron Rodgers not unanimous? 5 more years of HoF caliber...
Exactly. And all of these young guys look great now--Wentz, Dak, Mariota, etc. But wait until they're making 25M a year--will their teams still be legitimate threats? That's a strong maybe for all of those guys. Rodgers is a guy you can give monster money to and still compete for super bowls.Another vote for Aaron Rodgers.
I presume we're factoring in that anyone you take will only be under contract for 4-5 years regardless of their age. Rodgers will still be playing, and very likely at a high level, for that long.
The best prospects at offensive tackle the last several years many of those have turned out to be busts or just ok.Wentz if QBs are eligible. Donald if not. I am a little surprised the league doesn't have any youngish slamdunk HOF OTs. It seemed like we always have seen one or two over the last 25 years.
For this kind of question I think about it as if you were playing Madden and had a fantasy draft where all players are thrown back to the pool to select from. So I would be looking to go younger than Rodgers is right now. But if only looking at the next 5 years in your decision I could see Roders being the pick.How is Aaron Rodgers not unanimous? 5 more years of HoF caliber...
Man, such a waste of talent. He's one of the guys I almost feel bad for (as bad as you can feel for a multi millionaire making his living playing a game with Uber respect from his fans). Too bad he couldn't have played for a competent team. Also shows how the position isn't close to QB in impact.The best prospects at offensive tackle the last several years many of those have turned out to be busts or just ok.
Matt Kalil
Luke Joeckel (now playing guard for the Seahawks)
Greg Robinson
Ereck Flowers
There have been some ok guys like Eric FIsher, Jake Matthews, Taylor Lewan but none of them really stand out to me as guys so good you would want to start your team with them.
Joe Thomas is really the last rock solid stud offensive tackle to come out from my perspective and that was a pretty long time ago and he is getting pretty old now.
Its a QB driven league now so understandable that QBs would be the main players to consider if starting a new team from scratch. Other top players to consider if not QB would be defenders who can affect the QB. Donald is a good choice there. Mack and Bosa also good choices I think.
At cornerback I don't think any of them have been better than Xavier Rhodes but I would still take a young QB over him. Not sure which QB that would be at this point. They all have some flaws. I guess I would go with Russell Wilson who has proven more than the other young QBs to this point.
Agreed.Man, such a waste of talent. He's one of the guys I almost feel bad for (as bad as you can feel for a multi millionaire making his living playing a game with Uber respect from his fans). Too bad he couldn't have played for a competent team. Also shows how the position isn't close to QB in impact.
Rodgers will play for 7-9 more years and probable be in the playoffs each of those years. In 7-9 years, most of the players mentioned in this thread won't be playing or will be a backup. And the problem is we don't know who.I think the only real presumption is if you are starting a franchise, you want the player you pick to be a part of that franchise for as long as possible, assuming that they are as great as you think they are. Rodgers would lose consideration from a lot of people because he probably will only be around 5-7 years. But you might win a couple championships with Rodgers in those 5-7 years, so it might be worth it to take him.
That's actually a fair point. Even though I firmly believe in Mariota and Winston, injuries do happen (obviously). 7 years ago flacco was looking like a possible top franchise qb, Freeman looked pretty good, Schaub had just come off a pro bowl year. Not to mention Vick had come back.Rodgers will play for 7-9 more years and probable be in the playoffs each of those years. In 7-9 years, most of the players mentioned in this thread won't be playing or will be a backup. And the problem is we don't know who.
Wonder where RG3 or Kaepernick would have been on this list 4 years ago. Neither of those dudes play anymore.
Think Wilson can which i why I chose him. Rodgers would be my second choice. Just like my cornerstone a little younger.Rodgers. For the next 4-5 years he has proven that I can have a lot of holes in my offense and he can keep me competitive. I don’t believe at this point any of the young guys can do that.
Wilson would be my 2nd choice. ?Think Wilson can which i why I chose him. Rodgers would be my second choice. Just like my cornerstone a little younger.
Exactly. It's a joke when anyone but a QB wins MVP.Just like MVP voting....MVQ
If you have the first overall pick this is true.You should really make this a QB thread, because to take anyone other than a QB in this scenario is simply naive.
1. Hasn't worked so well for the Texans yet.Someone like JJ Watt. Build a strong D and a mistake free offense.
Maybe a crazy question but are you sure Russell is much better than the young guys? Sure he has won, but a lot of that credit goes to the run game, defense and line.Most of the names coming up most often are insane to me. Wentz? Dak? Mariota? Winston? Goff? What the heck?
OK, they're young and have shown promise, but the vast vast majority of guys that fall into that bucket never end up becoming great. Realistically you're probably going to end up with mostly Ryan Tannehill type players out of these guys with a few RG3's mixed in, and maybe two Philip Rivers with an outside shot that even one of them ends up becoming truly great.
This is like saying you'd take Christian McCaffrey first overall in a startup dynasty draft because he has twice as long left in his career as David Johnson or Le'Veon Bell.
Back to the question at hand, it's Rodgers easily. If this really happened I think probably 30ish of the 32 NFL GMs would go that direction, with maybe a couple of Russell Wilson picks mixed in as he's the only other real option. Maybe 1 or 2 would go with an elite pass rusher like Watt or Miller as a stretch.
I would not personally choose Wilson but I was speaking from a GM's standpoint in that particular sentence, and NFL GMs have clearly shown that they place a ton of value in "winning" and Super Bowls.Maybe a crazy question but are you sure Russell is much better than the young guys? Sure he has won, but a lot of that credit goes to the run game, defense and line.
The reason I'm a huge Mariota fan is his character and leadership, which is similar to Russell. IMO they're very similar players.
I like most of your post, but nobody would take anything but a QB.Most of the names coming up most often are insane to me. Wentz? Dak? Mariota? Winston? Goff? What the heck?
OK, they're young and have shown promise, but the vast vast majority of guys that fall into that bucket never end up becoming great. Realistically you're probably going to end up with mostly Ryan Tannehill type players out of these guys with a few RG3's mixed in, and maybe two Philip Rivers with an outside shot that even one of them ends up becoming truly great.
This is like saying you'd take Christian McCaffrey first overall in a startup dynasty draft because he has twice as long left in his career as David Johnson or Le'Veon Bell.
Back to the question at hand, it's Rodgers easily. If this really happened I think probably 30ish of the 32 NFL GMs would go that direction, with maybe a couple of Russell Wilson picks mixed in as he's the only other real option. Maybe 1 or 2 would go with an elite pass rusher like Watt or Miller as a stretch.