Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mehta is a hack to begin with, but the whole premise of the article is ridculous. It's basically saying "don't believe anything you hear during the draft process. I'm hearing..."
Teams telling scouts to keep down-talking Watson so other teams will over look him.
There have probably been 40 QBs drafted outside the top 5 in the past 15 years. Sure, some of them are "starters" but not very good ones.
Cousins
It's your math that is off, because you're using the wrong denominator in your fractions,
Tyrod is not a good starter. Tannehill has promise but the guy has a torn ACL right now which could be a big problem since he a mobile QB. Brees was drafted more than 15 years ago so I left him off the list. Same for Brady. Cousins might be good jury still out. Dak was a rookie and we need to see more.
If you're arguing simply that when a qb is worth a top 5 pick you should take him as a general rule, sure. If you're arguing that a team should trade up into the top 5 to take a qb, I don't fully agree as it depends on cost. But this does not mean Watson is worth a top 5 pick. That's individual and usually the teams that reached for a qb who wasn't worth the pick, they've regretted it.
A quick look at Top 5 picks seems to indicate the 50% proposition holds true regardless of position. Granted, QBs seem a little more likely to be total busts - probably because the other positions get rotated in more than QB, so more opportunity to contribute.
Yes I think that may have been one of the least informed efforts I have seen from Cosell. Like most, he gets as many wrong as he gets right. Alex Smith game manager distributor guy is not the first comparison that should come to mind for Watson.
We'll see what happens but I don't think the Browns draft a qb #1. More likely, Glennon fills one of the spots - jets/bears, thus one of the 3 drop to 12.
flapgreen said:
Common sense. Can't see teams evaluating a qb on tape in game situations and changing their minds much observing a qb in drills in a controlled environment, unless they just have unbelievably awful combine. They use combine to back up most of what they already know.
it isn't necessarily a mistake to draft a qb in the first six picks. But it would be a mistake to take all 3 of these guys in the top six picks. There are at least 5 players more worthy of a top pick than these QBs.
I'm talking about qbs. Pertaining to qbs, do you think boards change that much when no games have been played during that time? The teams who needed a qb at the end of the season will still need a qb by draft.
Depends on how bad you need a QB.
If you're sold on all 3 of these guys being starting caliber QBs, great. But I think you're wrong.
It's relative. If a team really needs a qb, i the value of qb for them is much higher than other players available at that spot. Without a qb, the rest of the team doesn't matter much.
All three? Probably not. Watson yes. Trubisky maybe. Kizer not right away but eventually.
I'll agree with Watson.
They might be, but reaching for a qb when that qb is not worth the pick tends to set the franchise back a few years as they try to develop the guy who fails.
I'm not a scout, obviously. Just going by the history of qbs being drafted. Bunch of teams need one. The success of qbs taken after the first round is not very good. Arguing on who deserves it and who doesn't is a different discussion. Will have to leave it to the NFL scouts and GMs to decide, but I think need alone will lead to at least 4 qbs being taken in the top half of the first round.
