Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
fix the OL first, then go find your QB of the future. Pointless to take a QB so high you have to start him immediately, or nearly immediately if you cant protect him, which our line cant do. want to talk sunk costs, how about the first rounder that was spent on Bradbury, he just doesnt have the lead in his ass to get it done, focus on finding the OL first, and then go looking to put your future franchise guy back there and let him learn without fear on every single drop back. Our OL with Zimmers preferred game plan equals David Carr 2.0 IMO, I am curious to see what else we have at center and give Bradbury a week off to get his shit together. Let Kirk make the OL calls from the QB position so that the back up can just focus on his assignment.
Thats the thing.....a franchise QB just doesn't appear when you need one or have built the best OL. The most important position in the sport needs to viewed like that in every draft. I wonder what Spelly's draft grade on QB's have been over the last decade. You can gauge your acumen by tracking that. I thought their were 5 potential franchise QB coming out of this past draft which has only happened about 20 years ago. Who knows about next years draft or the following. I thought, and still think, that their could be 3 and maybe even 4 franchise QB's after the next few season pass on the 2021 draft. Most drafts you will be lucky to find 1 maybe 2, so we will see. We decided to pass on the Top 5 or really 2 of the Top 5 because we had zero chance at Lawrence, Wilson and Lance. But Fields was within our reach if we had the conviction on him an clearly we passed on Mac Jones because we didn't value him at 14.
I like what the Chiefs did to get Mahomes or what the Bills did to get Josh Allen. That is trust your evaluation and if a guy jumps off the charts you go get him come hell or highwater. The funny thing about both the Chiefs and the Bills is that they were both playoff teams the years they decided to trade up for "their" guy so the teams had some talent but some clear weakness's as well. It is similar to what the 49'ers did to move up and get Lance IMO. They knew who they wanted and they made it happen.
Basically, if you are waiting for the perfect moment of building a special unit like an OL, it will never come. You have to go get your guy!!!!
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
fix the OL first, then go find your QB of the future. Pointless to take a QB so high you have to start him immediately, or nearly immediately if you cant protect him, which our line cant do. want to talk sunk costs, how about the first rounder that was spent on Bradbury, he just doesnt have the lead in his ass to get it done, focus on finding the OL first, and then go looking to put your future franchise guy back there and let him learn without fear on every single drop back. Our OL with Zimmers preferred game plan equals David Carr 2.0 IMO, I am curious to see what else we have at center and give Bradbury a week off to get his shit together. Let Kirk make the OL calls from the QB position so that the back up can just focus on his assignment.
All what this says is that those charged with fixing the OL cant fix it given the number of draft picks they have used in this area. if Bradbury is not good eniugh then thats another watsed pick. Those that know how to evaluate players better than me say Cleveland is not good enough. Then there was the cant miss talent called Kalil. Yet OL issues still exist. Kalil, Bradbury, Cleveland and now Darrisaw - all high draft picks that are yet to help fix thenOL. Lets not even talk about picks in round 3+.
There are teams that drafted franchise QBs before solidifying the OL. If people who are paid millions to build the team have to pass on a franchise QB because they want to fix the OL then we really are screwed. We are talking about a franchise QB something the vikings have not had for a really long time
I felt they should have made a change at the coaching and front office level last offseason, would have been in a position to get aggresive for a qb in the 21 draft. Instead they loaded up with veterans on defense for another hollow run and thats where they are.
Quote: @kmillard said:
I felt they should have made a change at the coaching and front office level last offseason, would have been in a position to get aggresive for a qb in the 21 draft. Instead they loaded up with veterans on defense for another hollow run and thats where they are.
many of us shared that same feeling. it just seemed like the right time
Quote: @Hawkvike25 said:
One bad game from Kirk and everyone is saying we should have drafted Mac Jones...lolz that's funny. If the Browns had Kirk instead of Baker they likely beat us by 30. The OL showed its true colors again yesterday, total doo doo. If Darrisaw is good to go then you play him over Hill. I know it wont happen, but I fully support giving Davis a shot at center because Bradbury aint it.
That's what I was thinking all game long. Truth is, Mayfield just wasn't that good in this game. Missed receivers left and right.
Definitely agree that we should be giving Davis snaps at center. I think we're set at guard with Cleveland and Udoh. Neither played well against Cleveland's stunts, but they're still young. Three years in, there's just too many games like that on Bradbury's resume. We at least need to be hedging our bets at center in case he just doesn't get any better.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
One bad game from Kirk and everyone is saying we should have drafted Mac Jones...lolz that's funny. If the Browns had Kirk instead of Baker they likely beat us by 30. The OL showed its true colors again yesterday, total doo doo. If Darrisaw is good to go then you play him over Hill. I know it wont happen, but I fully support giving Davis a shot at center because Bradbury aint it.
That's what I was thinking all game long. Truth is, Mayfield just wasn't that good in this game. Missed receivers left and right.
Definitely agree that we should be giving Davis snaps at center. I think we're set at guard with Cleveland and Udoh. Neither played well against Cleveland's stunts, but they're still young. Three years in, there's just too many games like that on Bradbury's resume. We at least need to be hedging our bets at center in case he just doesn't get any better.
Bradbury is such a huge disappointment...I was hoping we had our next Swilley or some stalwart in there.
While the IOL struggled mightily, Clowney schooled O'Neil and Hill has to go as starter @ LT. He may have played the worst of all of them.
OTOH, no way they could have put Darrisaw in as starter against that DL. It would be nice to see him getting some game snaps...
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ Hawkvike25 said:
One bad game from Kirk and everyone is saying we should have drafted Mac Jones...lolz that's funny. If the Browns had Kirk instead of Baker they likely beat us by 30. The OL showed its true colors again yesterday, total doo doo. If Darrisaw is good to go then you play him over Hill. I know it wont happen, but I fully support giving Davis a shot at center because Bradbury aint it.
That's what I was thinking all game long. Truth is, Mayfield just wasn't that good in this game. Missed receivers left and right.
Definitely agree that we should be giving Davis snaps at center. I think we're set at guard with Cleveland and Udoh. Neither played well against Cleveland's stunts, but they're still young. Three years in, there's just too many games like that on Bradbury's resume. We at least need to be hedging our bets at center in case he just doesn't get any better.
Bradbury is such a huge disappointment...I was hoping we had our next Swilley or some stalwart in there.
While the IOL struggled mightily, Clowney schooled O'Neil and Hill has to go as starter @ LT. He may have played the worst of all of them.
OTOH, no way they could have put Darrisaw in as starter against that DL. It would be nice to see him getting some game snaps...
It would be a huge surprise if Darrisaw is anywhere near ready to start. Clowney and Garrett have a laundry list of all pros they've schooled.
I could be wrong, I haven't re-watched the game, but my impression is that our line wasn't beat physically (except Hill) as much as they failed to recognize the middle stunts. Is that more on Bradbury or Cousins? Don't know.
Regarding Bradbury, I keep thinking in terms of his 5th year option. And he keep moving above and below that line. Right now, he's below. I don't think he's a bust. He'll probably play 12 years in the league. But that may be with another team.
Buy a OL, draft a QB. You can get similar play with varying contract sizes at guard, but not a QB
Young QB's can perform better, faster with a strong OL vs an expensive QB with a young and developing OL.
2018, the plan should have been simply spend FA money (Cousins and Richardson $50 million) on OL, keep Case and draft a QB (Jackson)
|
