What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mel Kiper & Todd McShay draft podcast (1 Viewer)

Bracie Smathers

Footballguy
They go over the top prospects and McShay quickly goes over his entire updated first round mock.

On the ESPN NFL front page down the left side of the page in the media box. Just click on the play arrow.

Mel Kiper & Todd McShay podcast

McShay gives solid logic in defending the Vikings pick and in-so-doing he makes an excellent case for the Rams selecting OLT Ryan Kalil with their top pick. The case McShay makes defending the Minnesota spins seems to offset the rumors that the Vikings and Rams both are seeking to trade down.

McShay's argument is that both the Rams and Vikings need O-Line help, more specifically both could use a blue-chip OLT and he has both taking OLTs with the 2nd and 3rd picks. If either wind up trading down they would do not wish to move down too far or they would miss out on a blue-chip OLT prospect unless they got a big package of picks to entice a move down which leads back to how much teams are willing to offer for RG III?

McShay and Kiper seem down on the QBs after Luck. They claim that if Barkley would have come out that he would have gone ahead of RG III and they are probably right. They state that after Griffin that their is a big drop in quarterback talent in this draft class but throw out Tannenhill as a possible late first rounder. True that the QB drops but is RG III really worth paying a premuim for if both confess that Barkely would have gone higher than Griffin? I think people are subconciously thinking back to last year and how Cam Newton blew up.

Cam Newton was an exception to the rule of rookie starting QBs coming in and struggling. Cam supassed Peyton Manning's rookie QB totals so his performance was rare, very rare. It is highly unlikely that RG III will come close to Cam Newton's record shattering rookie season. I feel Griffin will need time and will/should sit for much of his rookie season or he will wind up struggling.

I'm not sure any team would pay a premium of picks for a raw rookie QB like RG III who likely struggle is pressed to start or he will not see the field much his rookie season. I like Griffin but I don't see any team dying to pay a premuim to make a move up for him.

McShay and Kiper cover all sorts of first round draft prospects like Trent Richardson and Blackmon and Claiborne so it is well worth a listen if you are seeking some quality draft talk and have the time. :banned:

 
Most if not all "us". FFers shied from Cam. I got him as a FA in week4. Now we all think RG3 is the deal. In a ff rookie draft there are 4RBs & 4 WRs I might take before him.

But, ya never know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most if not all "us". FFers shied from Cam. I got him as a FA in week4. Now we all think RG3 is the deal. In a ff rookie draft there are 4RBs & 4 WRs I might take before him. But, ya never know.
I'm in a long running dynasty league so the way to get new talent is our rookie draft. My team is loaded with the exception of QB. I was one-pick away from taking Newton last year and wasn't too upset when he was taken before my pick because I had been burned taking guys like Jamarcus Russell and Vince Young and most recently Josh Freeman but he still has a chance. I like RG III but finding quality rookie QBs is difficult whether its fantasy or in the NFL.
 
Just did some digging where I checked out the last decade of NFL drafts and found something that looks interesting pertaining to the top-two QBs selected in the last ten drafts just to satisfy my curiousity on whether or not their was a noticeable drop-off in talent from the top QB picked and the second.

This is what I found:

Pro Football Reference QB draft data

2011

1 1 CAR Cam Newton

1 8 TEN Jake Locker

2010

1 1 STL Sam Bradford

1 25 DEN Tim Tebow

2009

1 1 DET Matthew Stafford

1 5 NYJ Mark Sanchez

2008

1 3 ATL Matt Ryan

1 18 BAL Joe Flacco

2007

1 1 OAK JaMarcus Russell

1 22 CLE Brady Quinn

2006

1 3 TEN Vince Young

1 10 ARI Matt Leinart

2005

1 1 SFO Alex Smith

1 24 GNB Aaron Rodgers

2003

1 1 CIN Carson Palmer

1 7 JAX Byron Leftwich

2002

1 1 HOU David Carr

1 3 DET Joey Harrington

In 2001 Mike Vick was the only first round QB taken, Brees went in the second round.

So of the last decade it appears as though the top QB was better than the next best QB taken in the first round with the exception of Aarron Rodgers and no-one moved up to get him.

The Broncos moved up for Tebow but didn't pay a premium.

The Jets moved up for Sanchez but didn't pay a premium.

I think the Ravens moved up for Flacco but didn't pay a premium.

The Browns moved up for Quinn but didn't pay a premium.

I don't think anyone else moved up for the other second-chosen QBs over the last decade and if they did they did not pay a premium.

History doesn't dictate the future but it appears that the top QB was superior in most instances and the second guy chosen hasn't really blown up to the same degree as the top guy. Arguments can be made in just about every case but the data does seem to point in a direction.

Also the data seems to say, don't pay a premium to move up to get the second-best QB at the top of the draft. Let them fall to you like Rodgers or Brees but if you move up history doesn't show teams are willing to pay a premium for the second best QB from an NFL draft.

 
I've listened to every episode of this in the 4(?) years that they have had it. You will get great insight on the first round guys, but not too much talk about the mid to late rounders. You have to go to the draftcountdown.com one for that.

 
What were Kiper and McShay saying about Newton this time last year?

IMO, the NFL is changing fast and QBs are performing better earlier in their careers. But that aside, if Kiper and McShay actually spent a lot of time in the podcast talking about how other QBs won't perform like Newton in their first year, then that's just a gigantic waste of time. Not only because there's a decent chance that they're right since Newton had such an amazing season, but also because it doesn't even really matter. Any GM that won't draft a QB because they won't put up Cam Newton numbers in their first year deserves to be immediately fired. You don't draft an RGIII because you think that he'll put up 4,000 total yards and 25+ TDs his first year, you draft him because you believe that he'll turn into that guy in a few years and be your franchise QB. If you think he has the talent to be an elite offensive threat, then you take him. You don't pass on guys just because you don't think that they'll be elite in their first year.

I think what is really going on here is that neither Kiper nor McShay were all that sold on Newton last year and his success makes them look kind of bad. So if they play it as a one-off that nobody could have possibly predicted, then they look better. And they're certainly right to a point. But I also think that we're seeing more and more QBs play from very early on and do so at least somewhat successfully. I think that the ESPN guys are largely ignoring that trend because they're simply too lazy and stuck in their ways to acknowledge the sea change in the NFL.

 
'GroveDiesel said:
... if Kiper and McShay actually spent a lot of time in the podcast talking about how other QBs won't perform like Newton in their first year, then that's just a gigantic waste of time. Not only because there's a decent chance that they're right since Newton had such an amazing season, but also because it doesn't even really matter. Any GM that won't draft a QB because they won't put up Cam Newton numbers in their first year deserves to be immediately fired. You don't draft an RGIII because you think that he'll put up 4,000 total yards and 25+ TDs his first year, you draft him because you believe that he'll turn into that guy in a few years and be your franchise QB. If you think he has the talent to be an elite offensive threat, then you take him. You don't pass on guys just because you don't think that they'll be elite in their first year.
If you listen to what someone says then you can respond to what they say. The podcast is a good listen, I am not about to transcribe the entire thing. The points made by Kiper and McShay pertaining to the QB class boiled down that they both agree that Luck goes #1 so their is nothing to discuss with Luck so they moved onto RG III because their is some questions. They both feel he is clearly the second best QB from this class but if Barkley would have come out RG III would be the third best QB. They began with a discussion about the top three picks and they agree with the first and second picks but when it came to the Vikings they discussed that the Vikings could move down but McShay asked "where are they going to get their OLT?" Kiper agreed that all of the top OLT prosects will be gone by the second round so they both agreed that if the Vikings moed down that they couldn't move down very far. They then try to figure out who needs a QB and would move up and where the Rams or Vikings could still get their OLT prospect.I am the one who went back to look at the historic QB trend.Cam Newton is an exception. Robert Griffin the third is not Cam Newton. He's not 6'6 and 248lbs. These are not the same guy, the upside is not the same, the immediate results will not be the same. So the question is how much would a team pay in the form of a premium for RG III? Historically the trend is clear, teams do not pay a premium for the second best QB from an NFL draft class. Historically the second best QB prospect is not as successful as the top drafted QB. The fact that Cam Newton came out last year does not mean RG III will ever have a season like Cam Newton.
I think what is really going on here is that neither Kiper nor McShay were all that sold on Newton last year and his success makes them look kind of bad. So if they play it as a one-off that nobody could have possibly predicted, then they look better. And they're certainly right to a point. But I also think that we're seeing more and more QBs play from very early on and do so at least somewhat successfully. I think that the ESPN guys are largely ignoring that trend because they're simply too lazy and stuck in their ways to acknowledge the sea change in the NFL.
You clearly did not listen to the podcast this year let alone last year so you are guessing with your comments about what they said. You are incorrect with your guess and the podcast is pretty good and worth a listen.When Micheal Vick came out he scared the daylights out of league defenses. A friend asked me if I felt Mike Vick tranformed the QB position in the NFL and I said no. I said John Elway didn't transform the QB position, neither did Marino, neither did Peyton Manning. I said each of those guys had unique skills and they were rare. No one saw them coming, it wasn't a trend that the rest of the league could jump on because a unique skill set is not a trend. Cam Newton has a unique skill set. He does not represent a trend. Some will think he's an easily replicatable trend and that RG III represents the new wave of the Cam Newton trend.If RG III proves to be his own unique player then he'll make it but he won't make it because he's the second wave of the Cam Newton trend. If history has enough data it can show a clear trend. Their wasn't an Elway trend because the league wasn't flooded with QBs with Elways size-arm-mobility-improvisation-my ball mentality in the cluth, their wasn't a Marino trend, their wasn't a Peyton Manning or Micheal Vick trend because the skills those guys brought into the league were unique and teams couldn't coach-up a prospect to throw like Marino or read defenses like Peyton or spread out a defense with his scrambling ability like Vick.History has enough data to show the second best QB in a draft class rarely makes an much of an impact as the top drafted QB and that teams haven't paid a premium to move up for the second best QB in a class based on non-existent past QB trends.RG III isn't the second wave of a trend. Cam Newton was a unique QB prospect. No one saw him coming in and throwing for 400 yards in his first two rookie games.Robert Griffin III will make it or break it on his own merits. He will not be riding Cam Newton's coat tails.
 
'GroveDiesel said:
... if Kiper and McShay actually spent a lot of time in the podcast talking about how other QBs won't perform like Newton in their first year, then that's just a gigantic waste of time. Not only because there's a decent chance that they're right since Newton had such an amazing season, but also because it doesn't even really matter. Any GM that won't draft a QB because they won't put up Cam Newton numbers in their first year deserves to be immediately fired. You don't draft an RGIII because you think that he'll put up 4,000 total yards and 25+ TDs his first year, you draft him because you believe that he'll turn into that guy in a few years and be your franchise QB. If you think he has the talent to be an elite offensive threat, then you take him. You don't pass on guys just because you don't think that they'll be elite in their first year.
If you listen to what someone says then you can respond to what they say. The podcast is a good listen, I am not about to transcribe the entire thing. The points made by Kiper and McShay pertaining to the QB class boiled down that they both agree that Luck goes #1 so their is nothing to discuss with Luck so they moved onto RG III because their is some questions. They both feel he is clearly the second best QB from this class but if Barkley would have come out RG III would be the third best QB. They began with a discussion about the top three picks and they agree with the first and second picks but when it came to the Vikings they discussed that the Vikings could move down but McShay asked "where are they going to get their OLT?" Kiper agreed that all of the top OLT prosects will be gone by the second round so they both agreed that if the Vikings moed down that they couldn't move down very far. They then try to figure out who needs a QB and would move up and where the Rams or Vikings could still get their OLT prospect.I am the one who went back to look at the historic QB trend.Cam Newton is an exception. Robert Griffin the third is not Cam Newton. He's not 6'6 and 248lbs. These are not the same guy, the upside is not the same, the immediate results will not be the same. So the question is how much would a team pay in the form of a premium for RG III? Historically the trend is clear, teams do not pay a premium for the second best QB from an NFL draft class. Historically the second best QB prospect is not as successful as the top drafted QB. The fact that Cam Newton came out last year does not mean RG III will ever have a season like Cam Newton.
I think what is really going on here is that neither Kiper nor McShay were all that sold on Newton last year and his success makes them look kind of bad. So if they play it as a one-off that nobody could have possibly predicted, then they look better. And they're certainly right to a point. But I also think that we're seeing more and more QBs play from very early on and do so at least somewhat successfully. I think that the ESPN guys are largely ignoring that trend because they're simply too lazy and stuck in their ways to acknowledge the sea change in the NFL.
You clearly did not listen to the podcast this year let alone last year so you are guessing with your comments about what they said. You are incorrect with your guess and the podcast is pretty good and worth a listen.When Micheal Vick came out he scared the daylights out of league defenses. A friend asked me if I felt Mike Vick tranformed the QB position in the NFL and I said no. I said John Elway didn't transform the QB position, neither did Marino, neither did Peyton Manning. I said each of those guys had unique skills and they were rare. No one saw them coming, it wasn't a trend that the rest of the league could jump on because a unique skill set is not a trend. Cam Newton has a unique skill set. He does not represent a trend. Some will think he's an easily replicatable trend and that RG III represents the new wave of the Cam Newton trend.If RG III proves to be his own unique player then he'll make it but he won't make it because he's the second wave of the Cam Newton trend. If history has enough data it can show a clear trend. Their wasn't an Elway trend because the league wasn't flooded with QBs with Elways size-arm-mobility-improvisation-my ball mentality in the cluth, their wasn't a Marino trend, their wasn't a Peyton Manning or Micheal Vick trend because the skills those guys brought into the league were unique and teams couldn't coach-up a prospect to throw like Marino or read defenses like Peyton or spread out a defense with his scrambling ability like Vick.History has enough data to show the second best QB in a draft class rarely makes an much of an impact as the top drafted QB and that teams haven't paid a premium to move up for the second best QB in a class based on non-existent past QB trends.RG III isn't the second wave of a trend. Cam Newton was a unique QB prospect. No one saw him coming in and throwing for 400 yards in his first two rookie games.Robert Griffin III will make it or break it on his own merits. He will not be riding Cam Newton's coat tails.
This is the most interesting/enlightening post I"ve read in some time.
 
Pat McManamon, a Browns beat writer, spells out the cost to move up to the second pick in terms of draft picks.

He makes the assumption that Luck and Griffin go 1-2 and that sommeone will pay the price to move up for RG III with St. Louis. I don't happen to agree with his take but this is the price that he comes up with for each of the teams rumored to be willing to move up for Griffinn.

Cost to move up to 2nd pick

... That bidding war could include any team — there’s always a surprise — but Cleveland, Washington and Miami are quarterback-needy teams drafting in the top 10. The price will be enough to make a general manger double-clutch his Wheaties.

... Some teams use a chart that gives a point value to each draft slot, with the first overall pick traditionally worth 3,000 points and the second pick 2,600.

Cleveland’s fourth pick is worth 1,800 points, Washington’s sixth worth 1,600 and Miami’s ninth worth 1,350. Only the Browns have two first-round picks this year. They also have the 22nd selection, which they acquired from Atlanta a year ago on draft day. That pick is valued at 780 points.

Could the Browns get the second pick from St. Louis for those two picks?

Not likely. The value of their two picks is 20 points light. But more important, precedent shows it takes multiple picks or players to acquire quarterbacks on or near draft day, not two:

• 2004: San Diego sent Manning to the Giants for two first-round picks, one third and one fifth.

• 2001: San Diego sent the pick for Vick to Atlanta for first-, second- and third-round choices and wide receiver Tim Dwight. The Chargers then used the first-round pick to take running back LaDainian Tomlinson.

• 1998: San Diego traded with Arizona to move up one spot, from third to second, to take Leaf. The Chargers gave up two first-rounders, a second and two players (including Eric Metcalf).

• 1990: The Colts gave up first- and fifth-round picks, plus two Pro Bowl players (Andre Rison and tackle Chris Hinton) to move up to take Jeff George and get a fourth-round pick thrown in.

• 1985: The Browns gave up two ones, a three and a six to get the supplemental draft pick used to acquire Bernie Kosar.

Times change and demands change, but clearly the starting point for any deal would be three high picks, two of which are first-rounders.

Miami would have to start with first-round choices this year and next. The Miami Herald speculated a trade from nine to two would require three first-rounders.

Washington, too, would have to include next year’s No. 1 pick and perhaps this year’s second and next year’s third.

Cleveland might be able to avoid giving up both its first rounders this year — general manager Tom Heckert and president Mike Holmgren have gone on record saying they got extra picks to rebuild the team — but it would have to give next year’s No. 1.

That might be palatable to the Browns because they would be getting two first-round players this year. They also have an extra pick in the fourth round.

Much has to shake out. The Seahawks also need a quarterback, so they, Miami or Washington could sign a free-agent such as Peyton Manning or Matt Flynn. If Washington goes with a veteran, Cleveland’s bargaining position improves — because nobody else could guarantee the Rams a top-six player.

Trading up to take a quarterback does not always work, as the Chargers can attest.

It also costs a lot.

But it has great potential rewards. Just ask the Giants.
Bottom line draft picks:Miami - 3 first round draft picks

Washington - 2 first round draft pick, 1 second round draft pick + 1 third round draft pick

Cleveland - 2 first round draft picks

If a team was 100% certain that RG III had unique skills along the lines of Cam Newton or Marino or Vick then the price is palatable but all three of those teams have other needs outside of QB so the cost would mean bypassing other needs and RG III isn't a sure bet.

When you see the cost in terms of cold hard draft selections it would make you queasy especially if you are Miami who can send off three number one draft picks or make a play to sign a Matt Flynn or a Washington who has a veteran coach in Mike Shannahan entering his third year where he has to win now so a gamble on a Peyton Manning looks more attractive over shipping draft picks out the door for a rookie knowing he'll likely need time that you do not have and that he'll likely struggle.

The lowest cost = lowest risk play is Cleveland trading up and I think the Browns wanted Barkley and would love to move down to recoup ammo for next year's draft so they can get the guy they like.

If RG III falls to the Browns I think it would be hard for them to pass on him but I don't see them paying a premium to move up for him and that is a highly probable scenario IMHO on how the draft will eventually turn out.

 
I don't necessarily think that QBs have changed the game, but they absolutely HAVE evolved as defensive players have evolved. Defensive players are so fast now that you can't have a stone footed QB like a Drew Bledsoe anymore. A guy like Bledsoe as the norm in the past. But guys like that would get absolutely killed today. QBs have to have at least some amount of mobility, and QBs with more mobility give defenses twice the amount of things to think about. You won't see QBs with big windups or taking 7 step drops anymore. It's just not part of the game. And because of that, fleet footed QBs are more valuable and stone footed QBs or QBs with bad footwork aren't as valuable as they used to be.

And I'm not so sure about this argument that there's a steep dropoff between the 1st and 2nd QBs taken. Firstly, we would expect the 1st QB taken to generally grade out ahead of the other QBs in the draft when all is said and done. But I think it's faulty logic to then compare that guy taken to one specific other position where QBs are taken and use that as proof that there's a big drop between the top QB taken and every other QB. In a lot of those drafts, the #3 QB taken or later is arguably better than the #1 QB taken. And while I think Luck is certainly the #1 QB and #1 overall guy this year, I think the debate between RGIII and Matt Barkley would have been pretty vigorous. Heck, there have actually been a couple of guys that have said that they actually like RGIII better than Luck. I think they're wrong, but I also think it's silly to try to create some argument that RGIII won't be an elite QB simply because he'll be the #2 QB taken in the draft and not the #1.

 
Do you guys think that the demand will still be there if RG3 measures around 6ft at the combine?
There was a picture of Griffin standing between Derrick Brooks (listed at 6'0) and Solomon Wilcots (listed at 5'11). He looks a little taller than Brooks and lot taller than Wilcots (don't believe he's 5'11). As long as he measures in at above 6'0, I think he'll be fine. My guess is he's right around 6'1; taller than Brees and Vick, and about the same height as Romo. Only way I think he'd be hurt by his height is if he's below 6'0, which doesn't appear to be the case.
 
I don't necessarily think that QBs have changed the game, but they absolutely HAVE evolved as defensive players have evolved. Defensive players are so fast now that you can't have a stone footed QB like a Drew Bledsoe anymore. A guy like Bledsoe as the norm in the past. But guys like that would get absolutely killed today. QBs have to have at least some amount of mobility, and QBs with more mobility give defenses twice the amount of things to think about. You won't see QBs with big windups or taking 7 step drops anymore. It's just not part of the game. And because of that, fleet footed QBs are more valuable and stone footed QBs or QBs with bad footwork aren't as valuable as they used to be.
I agree with you that QBs haven't changed the game and that the entire game has evolved therefore ALL positions have changed not just the QB position. All boats rise with the tide not just some boats. With the understanding that the game has evolved their is also an understanding when talking about one position, like quarterback, that the other positions have also evolved to place things into proper context. That said I don't think it is an absolute must to have a QB who can phycically move around to win in today's game. Peyton Manning is not a mobile QB yet he survived and more than thrived for 13 seasons of his career on the strength of being mentally adept, i.e., mentally mobile. He reads defenses like no other QB and he can shift plays to attack the weakness that he reads and quickly gets rid of the ball to out manuveur the defense. Their is more than one way to skin a cat.

I'd take Peyton Manning over Cam Newton or Micheal Vick and I am sure I would win with him.

And I'm not so sure about this argument that there's a steep dropoff between the 1st and 2nd QBs taken. Firstly, we would expect the 1st QB taken to generally grade out ahead of the other QBs in the draft when all is said and done. But I think it's faulty logic to then compare that guy taken to one specific other position where QBs are taken and use that as proof that there's a big drop between the top QB taken and every other QB. In a lot of those drafts, the #3 QB taken or later is arguably better than the #1 QB taken. And while I think Luck is certainly the #1 QB and #1 overall guy this year, I think the debate between RGIII and Matt Barkley would have been pretty vigorous. Heck, there have actually been a couple of guys that have said that they actually like RGIII better than Luck. I think they're wrong, but I also think it's silly to try to create some argument that RGIII won't be an elite QB simply because he'll be the #2 QB taken in the draft and not the #1.
A strawman argument is a fallacy of logic where someone takes an argument and instead of repeating the argument they prop up a false and much weaker argument and then knock down the false/weak strawman argument. A common tactic used to prop-up a false argument is to use hyperbolic words like STEEP DROPOFF instead of the actual words used which were:"... of the last decade it appears as though the top QB was better than the next best QB taken in the first round ..."

"History doesn't dictate the future but it appears that the top QB was superior in most instances and the second guy chosen hasn't really blown up to the same degree as the top guy."

I did not say that their is a STEEP DROPOFF between the first and second QB taken. I not only used the data but cut and pasted a decade's worth of drafts before I gave my interpretation of the data. I used the terms 'appears' and 'apparantly' refferncing the actual data that backed my take.

On the last point, you say:

"I also think it's silly to try to create some argument that RGIII won't be an elite QB simply because he'll be the #2 QB taken in the draft and not the #1."

I also think its silly to try and create some argument about a ficticious statement that was never said.

I like RG III and have said so every time I have ever made a post that mentions him. I will defend statements that I have actually said but I don't feel the need to defend silly things I never said.

The data over the last decade shows a drop from the top QB taken to the second QB taken.

I have given reasons why I think Griffin will take time and shouldn't start his rookie season also why I don't consider him a sure thing and do look at things like historical data of drafts when considering paying a premium to get the second best QB from a draft. I do like RG III but I don't think he's a sure thing. He is not Cam Newton and he's not Andrew Luck.

I think that some people are subconciously thinking back to last year and Cam Newton when they look at RG III, he's not the same guy. Also I think that some people are thinking about the price mentioned to move up for Andrew Luck and somehow thinking that teams will or should pay the same exhorbinant price to move up for RG III, once again RG III is not Andrew Luck, they aren't the same guy.

I think Griffin is raw and he will take more time before he's ready. I also wonder about his frame and how he will hold up.

 
They go over the top prospects and McShay quickly goes over his entire updated first round mock.

On the ESPN NFL front page down the left side of the page in the media box. Just click on the play arrow.

Mel Kiper & Todd McShay podcast
Man, I was prepared to be disappointed by lack of downloadable content, and was.Once again, ESPN offers "podcasts" that are just flash audio.

But I was wrong. Dug a minute and found they have a download page for FIRST DRAFT.

Excellent. I'd looked for this in a past year, and was unable to find any of the Kiper content outside of the pay wall (Insider).

Thands for the tip. I'll be adding this show to my list of weeklies.

 
Kiper and McShay have a new podcast today.

They seem to back off of their torrid pace of the first-two podcasts and speculate on 40 times which we will know soon enough so that isn't very usefull but they still dish out some nuggets.

 
Dude ... Bracie .... don't be so sensitive.

I didn't read Grove's post as an attack on you. Clearly he isn't high on Mel and McShay, which is fine, there's plety of people who aren't.

One thing Grove did address, which I fully agree with, is that NFL GM's should not waver from drafting RG3 solely based on a lack of confidence that he can produce Cam Newton numbers in his rookie season. We all agree that this is a ridiculous expectation. Look no further than the notion that Luck, who is considered the most "Can't Miss" NFL QB prospect since Peyton Manning isn't being asked, or predicted, to top Newton's rookie year either.

You made the following assertion:

"I'm not sure any team would pay a premium of picks for a raw rookie QB like RG III who likely struggle is pressed to start or he will not see the field much his rookie season. I like Griffin but I don't see any team dying to pay a premuim to make a move up for him."

Your reference to rookie year production is what triggered Grove's response. As Grove indicated, NFL GM's likely are not gauging RG3's value on his expected rookie season, nor should they. They're making predictions on the caliber of player he'll develop into. Philip Rivers, Eli Manning and Drew Brees all struggled early but are now considered elite QB's. Based on what has been the normal developmental curve for an NFL QB I tend to think there will be plenty of teams interested in acquiring RG3's services. Whether they can pony up the price the Rams ask is another question altogether but I don't think it's unlikely to predict the Rams will be offered two first rounders. Whether that qualifies as paying a premium is subjective.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top