NFL Playoffs

[Hikohadon]

Again, wake me when the Jets win anything but a few playoff games against flawed teams.

I don't want to do the knee-jerk political-talk kind of thing where I lump all the QBerz into one group and triumphantly point and smirk at inconsistencies that stretch over several different people, but in order to avoid doing that, in order to keep my head from blowing off my body, in order to resist finally lighting the accelerant this forum has encouraged me to douse my body with over the last week or so, I'm going to need some help from you.

What, praytell, is it you specifically feel you 1) need and/or 2) ideally want in order to compete for championships in the NFL? And at what cost are you willing to pursue these needs & wants?

(I beg of you, though. If your answer in any way resembles "QBs are all that matter. I'd move up for Luck or RG3, regardless of cost," do me a favor and just shoot me in the back of the head, so I don't have to see it coming.)

QB's are not all that matters.

They do matter more than any other position on the team, however.

You can win a SB with a mediocre RT, a mediocre LB, a mediocre WR, a mediocre Safety. In today's day and age, I don't believe you can win without at least a "very good" QB.

Thus, my belief that Mark Sanchez will never win a SB no matter what you put around him.

Thus, my belief that the Jets have already hit their ceiling with that guy, so the next couple years for them will be, essentially, useless.

I have no problem with building the defense into a monster. I have no problem with getting all the best playmakers on offense that we can. I want all those things - but they won't get us where (I assume) we want to go unless the QB is in place too.

You mistake me if you think I don't share your desire to build this team in every way. In no way do I think that the Browns should just take a shot at getting an elite QB and then their job is done. Even if the Browns got Luck or RG3, there is no guarantee they would a) develop properly into elite or b) become elite even if everything were perfect for them.

But you HAVE to have a QB in that spot who you realistically think CAN be elite/really good/SB win-worthy/insert term here regardless of what you do with the rest of your team-building efforts.

In that sense, no, I'm not comfortable with selling out to move up 2 or 3 spots. But I do caution that if we enter 2012 with Colt or Seneca, that's just another year we're stuck in neutral until we get "The Guy" in here and he starts to develop. Thus, I gladly leave the "Move Up or Not To Move Up" decision to Heckert and hope that he makes the right decision in the QB regard.

To answer your question specifically, I 1) need a Top 12-ish QB with some playmakers, consistent coaching, and a defense that isn't necessarily great statistically but can rush the passer and create turnovers and/or 2) want Green Bay's offense with Ray Rice and a better O Line, combined with the Giants Defense from the 2007 SB run.

And if Luck/RG3 indeed are the next coming of Brees/Rodgers/Brady, then it would be hard to find a cost too high. Again, that's not my decision, nor my job. The Browns don't even necessarily need a Brees/Rodgers/Brady to win it all, imho.

But they do need at least an Eli/POS/Rivers/Stafford.

In the end, I don't see how our paths differ that much. I want the same things you do - I'm sure you don't not want a franchise QB. Where we differ is that it seems you think having a top-end QB is a luxury whereas I feel it is a necessity.

[HoodooMan]

[Following post now one post behind!!!]

...because, you know, ***LUMPING!!!***, in a league where QBs are all that matter, there isn't anything the least bit flawed about the 2010 Patriots & Colts. In fact, that's ideally what you want--a Sooooper Elite QB. It may even be what you HAVE to have. So it actually shouldn't be possible for an archaically-constructed team like the 2010 Jets--playing great defense, running the ball, having a shitty QB--to compete with the 2010 Patriots or Colts, let alone beat them.

But "Flukes happen!" you say! Indeeeeeeeeeeed. NFL playoff games are flukes (or even better, ancient history!) when they don't follow your narrative, but damning evidence when they do.

And our definition of what and what does not constitute that must-have franchise QB can be pretty damn fluid too, can't it? 2007 Eli Manning wouldn't even have measured up to 2011 Matt Ryan or 2011 Joe Flacco, but the Giants won four games in a row, er-GOEZ, he was instantly, by definition, a franchise QB. <--Conveniently, hindsightily, foolproof way to construct things. When teams led by middling QBs lose in the playoffs, we should wake you when they win in the playoffs. When teams led by middling QBs win in the playoffs, it's a fluke, it's ancient history, or they're no longer middling QBs, because they won in the playoffs. (Tautologies are fun!)

[e0y2e3]

To be fair bow, the fact that you can hang your hat on the Dolts and Pats from last year as examples of a defense overcoming great QBs is kinda counter-intuitive to your whole argument.

The Colts, without Manning are a very, very, very bad football team.

The Pats, without Brady, would be the same.

Both of those teams have failed miserably in the draft for the last five plus years and it shows. The only reason those teams are even remotely relevant is tied almost 100% to one player.

[peeker643]

narrative

2 'narratives' and another half lap.

I am fueling this Nascar race of a thread. Giddyup!!

Not to mention this unwinnable race is being run by two of racings' best and brightest drivers who apparently are either unaware or unconcerned that there s no finish line in this one.

[e0y2e3]

^ writing his own narrative on his way to hell

[Triple-S]

The Colts, without Manning are a very, very, very bad football team.

The Pats, without Brady, would be the same..

I was close to bringing up the whole matt cassel season of 2008, but they seemed to have been coasting on with the last of the players from the 3 time super bowl champion team.

[peeker643]

^ writing his own narrative on his way to hell

Negative. I'll write a story, account, my experience, have a line of thought or an opinion, maybe a POV, etc.

Narratives are for the really smart dudes who look to separate from those with stories, accounts, chronicles, POVs, etc., or who have heard it used by people they believe are smart and therefore adopt it themselves.

I'm not that bright.

Clearly.

Seriously, go back and look it up. I wonder when it started showing up here more.

I haven't added to my words yet either. I will.

Narrative, Presser and 'The Show' are still Top 3 on my list.

[Hikohadon]

[Following post now one post behind!!!]

...because, you know, ***LUMPING!!!***, in a league where QBs are all that matter, there isn't anything the least bit flawed about the 2010 Patriots & Colts. In fact, that's ideally what you want--a Sooooper Elite QB. It may even be what you HAVE to have. So it actually shouldn't be possible for an archaically-constructed team like the 2010 Jets--playing great defense, running the ball, having a shitty QB--to compete with the 2010 Patriots or Colts, let alone beat them.

But "Flukes happen!" you say! Indeeeeeeeeeeed. NFL playoff games are flukes (or even better, ancient history!) when they don't follow your narrative, but damning evidence when they do.

And our definition of what and what does not constitute that must-have franchise QB can be pretty damn fluid too, can't it? 2007 Eli Manning wouldn't even have measured up to 2011 Matt Ryan or 2011 Joe Flacco, but the Giants won four games in a row, er-GOEZ, he was instantly, by definition, a franchise QB. <--Conveniently, hindsightily, foolproof way to construct things. When teams led by middling QBs lose in the playoffs, we should wake you when they win in the playoffs. When teams led by middling QBs win in the playoffs, it's a fluke, it's ancient history, or they're no longer middling QBs, because they won in the playoffs. (Tautologies are fun!)

Flukes do happen. Very rare you fluke your way to a crown.

We've had the Eli discussion before - what Eli was before the 2007 playoff run matters not, b/c he was very solid during that SB run, and has since established himself as elite/franchise/whatever.

If Joe Flacco were to somehow get his shit together, sure, he could be elite. He has all the potential to be that. And if he got his shit together enough to win a SB in this QB age, then I'd throw him in with the elite.

You see, Eli was drafted #1 overall. Obviously, he had high POTENTIAL to be elite. Whether he was before he won it all is immaterial. Flacco was drafted in the 1st round too. Sanchez was drafted at #5 overall. Ryan was #1 overall. Sure, they're all at different levels of potential right now, but, when they were drafted, these guys were all SUPPOSED to be elite. Whether they are or not is up in the air, but if they go ahead and deliver a SB title, I would think most would say they lived up to their draft position.

Sanchez proved 2 years in a row that he was good enough to get some ugly wins, but not good enough to even reach the SB, much less win it. He needed to raise his game. He hasn't. It clearly seems he will not live up to his draft status.

Are there instances where QB's vastly outplayed their draft position (i.e. Brady)? Of course. But if you COUNT on that, you are a fool.

Playoff teams: #1 overall (NYG), #1 overall (SF), #1 overall (DET), #3 overall (ATL), 1st rd (PIT), 1st rd (DEN), 1st rd (BAL), 1st Rd (GB), high 2nd rd (NO), high 2nd rd (CIN), 3rd rd (HOU), and your once-in-a-generation Tom Brady.

Honestly Dan, if you don't have a guy that has at least high potential to be a really good QB, who are you going to war with? If you're GM, how do you go into 2012? How do you build this team? Whose model do you emulate?

[HoodooMan]

QB's are not all that matters.

Agreed.

They do matter more than any other position on the team, however.

Agreed.

You can win a SB with a mediocre RT, a mediocre LB, a mediocre WR, a mediocre Safety.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed.

In today's day and age, I don't believe you can win without at least a "very good" QB.

Not agreed.

I think you can. I just think it's more difficult.

Thus, my belief that Mark Sanchez will never win a SB no matter what you put around him.

Well, winning Super Bowls is hard, so the odds are kind of in your favor, almost regardless of who you pick. I mean, I could say, "Detroit will never win a SB with Matt Stafford as long as they don't have an elite center," and odds are pretty good that I'm right, even if my way of reasoning to that conclusion is complete nonsense.

But in the spirit of agreement, I'd say that I go so far as to agree that it's going to be difficult for the Jets to win a Super Bowl with Mark Sanchez, because QB is the most important position, and Mark Sanchez doesn't merely fall short of "very good;" he sucks. Still, it seems to me that if the Jets can make it as far as they've already made it with him--twice!--he doesn't have to improve by that much for them to win it all, mostly in spite of him.

But you HAVE to have a QB in that spot who you realistically think CAN be elite/really good/SB win-worthy/insert term here regardless of what you do with the rest of your team-building efforts.

I agree!

My list of QBs who could conceivably fit that description is just more expansive than yours.

In that sense, no, I'm not comfortable with selling out to move up 2 or 3 spots.

I really agree!

In the end, I don't see how our paths differ that much. I want the same things you do - I'm sure you don't not want a franchise QB. Where we differ is that it seems you think having a top-end QB is a luxury whereas I feel it is a necessity.

Luxury goes too far, but I'm certainly not there with you on necessity, and it seems to me that in order to get to necessity, you have to do a good deal of logical gymnastics, but of course this post isn't about that; it's about AGREEMENT!!! If we could draft a franchise QB prospect, and he ends up as a very-good-to-elite franchise QB, that'd without a doubt be my preferred starting point to building this team. But, for the most part, team-building generally involves a good deal of taking what you can get and making the most of the opportunities that present themselves.

Right now, this moment, the Cleveland Browns aren't good at anything. Literally every direction for improvement is open to us. Likewise, I see more than one Team Model option open to us as well. I'd personally love to see us draft RG3 (as long as he falls to us at 4), but if The AYCHes see an abundance of appealing defensive prospects available at our picks this year, and that's the direction they want to go, I'm happily on board with that.

[jjgmyers]

The Pats, without Brady, would be the same.

Sincerely,
Matt Cassel

[e0y2e3]

/LIGHTSSELFONFIRE

[e0y2e3]

The Colts, without Manning are a very, very, very bad football team.

The Pats, without Brady, would be the same..

I was close to bringing up the whole matt cassel season of 2008, but they seemed to have been coasting on with the last of the players from the 3 time super bowl champion team.

I will now thank you for actually taking the time to look at the fucking Pats roster in 2008 compared to this year.

And let's not even get into their 2008 schedule.....

[HoodooMan]

Flukes do happen. Very rare you fluke your way to a crown.

On Flukes:

Up to now, three of the four Sooooper Elite QBs in the NFL have each only won one SB. Was it a fluke when Rodgers won his one SB? When Brees won his? When Peyton won his? But for the occasional fluke, shouldn't the Final 4 every year be Brady vs. Manning & Brees vs. Rodgers?

Why is it a fluke for a dominant defense to lead a team to a championship, as dominant defenses did somewhat recently in 2007, 2005, 2002, and 2000; but not a fluke for a dominant QB to do the same?

Winning 3 or 4 games in a row against good teams is hard. Lots of things can happen.

[Hikohadon]

In today's day and age, I don't believe you can win without at least a "very good" QB.

Not agreed.

I think you can. I just think it's more difficult.

Even if you're right, why would we want to make it more difficult on this team to win a SB, a task which seems nigh impossible as it is?

Right now, this moment, the Cleveland Browns aren't good at anything. Literally every direction for improvement is open to us. Likewise, I see more than one Team Model option open to us as well. I'd personally love to see us draft RG3 (as long as he falls to us at 4), but if The AYCHes see an abundance of appealing defensive prospects available at our picks this year, and that's the direction they want to go, I'm happily on board with that.

I too agree with this... with the caveat that we clearly do not have a QB capable of winning and we have no assurances we'll be drafting this high again anytime soon so if the Powers That Be decide to pass on an RG3 b/c they're not sold on him, they had better fucking be right.

Personally, if someone trades up and takes him before #4, then I'm probably OK with that. But just flat passing on him at #4... that guy they do take had better cure cancer.

[e0y2e3]

2007, (arguably) 2005, 2002, and 2000

SUPERBOWLZ BEFORE MANNING CRIED AND CHANGED THE NFL RULEZ DO NOT COUNT, DIFFERENT ERA!!!!

[Hikohadon]

Flukes do happen. Very rare you fluke your way to a crown.

On Flukes:

Up to now, three of the four Sooooper Elite QBs in the NFL have each only won one SB. Was it a fluke when Rodgers won his one SB? When Brees won his? When Peyton won his? But for the occasional fluke, shouldn't the Final 4 every year be Brady vs. Manning & Brees vs. Rodgers?

Why is it a fluke for a dominant defense to lead a team to a championship, as dominant defenses did somewhat recently in 2007, 2005, 2002, and 2000; but not a fluke for a dominant QB to do the same?

Winning 3 or 4 games in a row against good teams is hard. Lots of things can happen.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on Manning's role in 2007, because I say no way in hell does Matt Ryan or Mark Sanchez or Joe Flacco (playing like they are now) even get to the SB, much less win it, even with the Giants D. Eli was much better than a game manager in those games.

And even with those examples, I look to rules implemented since that time (can't hit QB, can't hit WR, can't even really touch WR) along with the advent of these wide-open passing games that Defenses have yet to really stop on a consistent basis (it will probably come, but we don't know when and the rules really aren't helping things) and say this is a different NFL than even 4 years ago.

[HoodooMan]

Eli was much better than a game manager in those games.

20-27, 185yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
12-18, 163yds, 2 TD, 0 INT
21-40, 251yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
19-34, 255yds, 2 TD, 1 INT

^Eli's miracle run. I know, stats, but ^Eli's miracle run.

And even with those examples, I look to rules implemented since that time (can't hit QB, can't hit WR, can't even really touch WR) along with the advent of these wide-open passing games that Defenses have yet to really stop on a consistent basis (it will probably come, but we don't know when and the rules really aren't helping things) and say this is a different NFL than even 4 years ago.

Jets' defense looked pretty damn good in spite of those rules last year. Giants' defense looked pretty damn good in spite of those rules on Sunday. We'll see.

[Hikohadon]

Jets' defense looked pretty damn good in spite of those rules last year. Giants' defense looked pretty damn good in spite of those rules on Sunday. We'll see.

The Jets D did... and they still didn't go to the SB.

The Giants might b/c they have a really good QB to go with their D.

[HoodooMan]

The Jets D did...

<--happily takes ^ as a concession that "This is NOT [<--amendment!!!] a different NFL than even 4 years ago."

[Hikohadon]

The Jets D did...

<--happily takes ^ as a concession that "This is NOT [<--amendment!!!] a different NFL than even 4 years ago."

<--more than joyous to let you have that so long as you never try to use the Jets again in a discussion of what we hope the Browns grow to be (even though I know that's not necessarily what you were saying).

[peeker643]

The Jets D did...

<--happily takes ^ as a concession that "This is NOT [<--amendment!!!] a different NFL than even 4 years ago."

<--more than joyous to let you have that so long as you never try to use the Jets again in a discussion of what we hope the Browns grow to be (even though I know that's not necessarily what you were saying).

<----

[HoodooMan]

^BWAH!

In today's day and age, I don't believe you can win without at least a "very good" QB.

Not agreed.

I think you can. I just think it's more difficult.

Even if you're right, why would we want to make it more difficult on this team to win a SB, a task which seems nigh impossible as it is?

Because I feel it's probably safer & easier to build a great defense than it is to find a great QB. (And building a great defense still doesn't preclude you from finding a great QB as several teams have done without spending a pick on one at the very top of the draft.) <--Not a reason to pass on a franchise QB prospect you really like; just a reason to not jump on the first one that comes around.

If we draft RG3 at #4 overall, and he ends up as the 16th best QB in the NFL, he becomes yet another one of your "Wake me when" guys. And drafting a WR at #22 and a RT at #37 probably doesn't change that.

If we draft Claiborne at #4, Mercilus at #22, and Burfict at #37; and Claiborne only manages to be the 16th best CB in the NFL, that's still a pretty good starting CB, and I might still be on my way to a great NFL defense. Load me up on defense with defenders of GB-Receiver quality, and I think I'm probably there.

[Hikohadon]

^BWAH!

In today's day and age, I don't believe you can win without at least a "very good" QB.

Not agreed.

I think you can. I just think it's more difficult.

Even if you're right, why would we want to make it more difficult on this team to win a SB, a task which seems nigh impossible as it is?

Because I feel it's probably safer & easier to build a great defense than it is to find a great QB. (And building a great defense still doesn't preclude you from finding a great QB as several teams have done without spending a pick on one at the very top of the draft.) <--Not a reason to pass on a franchise QB prospect you really like; just a reason to not jump on the first one that comes around.

If we draft RG3 at #4 overall, and he ends up as the 16th best QB in the NFL, he becomes yet another one of your "Wake me when" guys. And drafting a WR at #22 and a RT at #37 probably doesn't change that.

If we draft Claiborne at #4, Mercilus at #22, and Burfict at #37; and Claiborne only manages to be the 16th best CB in the NFL, that's still a pretty good starting CB, and I might still be on my way to a great NFL defense. Load me up on defense with defenders of GB-Receiver quality, and I think I'm probably there.

If if if... we could go all day. Everyone's got a bust factor. RG3, Claiborne... either could bust.

If we went with your draft layout there (which in no way makes me sad), what the hell do we do at QB?

We both want a good D and a good QB. I see no reason they have to sacrifice one for the good of the other. If they don't go QB at #4, they need to address it in one of those next 2 picks.

[peeker643]

Sonofabitch. Premature checkeredflagulation. The yellow is out and it's a perfect picture for this dogged thread.

[HoodooMan]

I see a pretty significant difference between bustability and your demanding threshold for acceptable QB play.

If RG3's anything less than one of the Top 12ish QBs of the last 14ish years, he's garbage, right?

[peeker643]

I see a pretty significant difference between bustability and your demanding threshold for acceptable QB play.

If RG3's anything less than one of the Top 12ish QBs of the last 14ish years, he's garbage, right?

^^^^

My main issue in drafting the guy at all, much less giving up another pick or two to do it.

It's easy to bitch if they don't take him. Much harder to pimp him and then bitch about them not seeing his fatal flaw if/when he has one. But people will.

[Hikohadon]

I see a pretty significant difference between bustability and your demanding threshold for acceptable QB play.

If RG3's anything less than one of the Top 12ish QBs of the last 14ish years, he's garbage, right?

Last 14 years would be disingenuous since so few of those QB's are left.

But, yeah, if he's not a Top 12-ish QB within 3 years, then he's a disappointment. I wouldn't call him garbage - that's way too black/white for me (even Colt McCoy isn't "garbage"), but if you take RG3 at #4 and he becomes, say, Vince Young or Alex Smith (2 other Top 4 picks), then I'd call that a massive miss.

I don't think it's asking too much to expect your Top 5 QB pick to be in the upper third of the league.

Top 12 (no order) - Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Peyton (if healthy), Eli, Newton, Stafford, POS, Cutler, Vick, Romo, Rivers. Throw in Ryan, Flacco, or Schaub in that 13 range. So you're really just asking Luck or RG3 to end up being better than Ryan, Flacco, and Schaub (assuming those guys have plateaued) in order to be in the Top 12-ish conversation. You hope for more, but I'm not sure you can cry about 8 years of Cutler/Vick/Romo/Rivers, low-end.

[HoodooMan]

I don't think it's asking too much to expect your Top 5 QB pick to be in the upper third of the league.

Really? Go back 11 years instead of 14 (to 2001, the year of Vick & Brees). If you're good, you can last at least that long at QB.

Over that time, there have been 14 Top 5 picks at QB:

Vick
Carr
Harrington
Palmer
Manning
Rivers
Smith
Young
Russell
Ryan
Stafford
Sanchez
Bradford
Newton

5 acceptably good QBs out of 14 strikes me as pretty demanding.

[FUDU]

...and only 1 SB winner out of the bunch.

ETA: this just in, Vick is not a good QB.

Stage 5, acceptance.

[Hikohadon]

...and only 1 SB winner out of the bunch.

ETA: this just in, Vick is not a good QB.

Stage 5, acceptance.

Then it should be easy to better him.

[FUDU]

Real easy, unless we're talking penal league or flag football.

[HoodooMan]

...and over that same 11-year span for CBs taken in the first half of the first round:

Peterson
Haden
Jenkins
McKelvin
Rodgers-Cromartie
Revis
Hill
Allen
Pacman
Rolle
Rogers
Hall
Robinson
Newman
Trufant
Jammer

<--feeling better about 13 out of 16

And to repeat: I'm not talking Bustability here; rather, Good-Enoughiness.

[Hikohadon]

I don't think it's asking too much to expect your Top 5 QB pick to be in the upper third of the league.

Really? Go back 11 years instead of 14 (to 2001, the year of Vick & Brees). If you're good, you can last at least that long at QB.

Over that time, there have been 14 Top 5 picks at QB:

Vick
Carr
Harrington
Palmer
Manning
Rivers
Smith
Young
Russell
Ryan
Stafford
Sanchez
Bradford
Newton

5 acceptably good QBs out of 14 strikes me as pretty demanding.

I'd expect any player I select in the Top 5 to be in the top 30% of the NFL within 3 years, no matter the position. I'm not sure you can find a sane person that hopes their new #4 overall pick turns out to be "average".

That's why GM's get paid what they do.

[HoodooMan]

^DODGE!

[Hikohadon]

...and over that same 11-year span for CBs taken in the first half of the first round:

Peterson
Haden
Jenkins
McKelvin
Rodgers-Cromartie
Revis
Hill
Allen
Pacman
Rolle
Rogers
Hall
Robinson
Newman
Trufant
Jammer

<--feeling better about 13 out of 16

And to repeat: I'm not talking Bustability here; rather, Good-Enoughiness.

Again, it's not my job to make the pick. If the GM wants to play it safe, that's his prerogative.

But he's gonna need to get a QB from somewhere if he expects to keep his job.

[Hikohadon]

^DODGE!

I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Dodge what, exactly?

This from the man who still hasn't answered what he plans to do about the QB position after his Def-Def-Def draft.

[FUDU]

HooDoo exactly how many CBs off that list have SB rings, if you don't mind?

[Hikohadon]

HooDoo exactly how many CBs off that list have SB rings, if you don't mind?

And if they do, I'm sure that their team wouldn't have been there without them.

[FUDU]

I'm not disagreeing with Hoodoo's over all approach to the Browns approach right now, but I think it is pretty much established that today is a QB driven league and it only goes hand in hand that teams need top notch CBs as well.

[Hikohadon]

I'm not disagreeing with Hoodoo's over all approach to the Browns approach right now, but I think it is pretty much established that today is a QB driven league and it only goes hand in hand that teams need top notch CBs as well.

Neither am I. Just that we desperately need a QB and his plan doesn't seem to have us obtaining one.

"Down the road" is a shitty answer.

Our Defense could be better, but unless we do something about the QB spot (and Offense in general), we're gonna be in a lot of those 6-3 games again next year, and the teams that have good QB's will continue to kill us. They'll just throw to their TE's, that's all.

[leadpipe]

I saw a team win a Super Bowl with a WR playing CB. Never saw one with a WR playing QB.

Good chance it happens again this year.

Look, beating a dead horse here, but Christ has this game changed. And Revis will probably be the last of the "shutdown" corners, cause it's damned near impossibe to lay a hand on guys anymore.

Again, in recent years they have;

1. Made several forms of holding by the offensive line legal.

2. Adjusted the rules so not only are DB's not allowed to touch a guy, the rules are such they can hardly be coached, cause shit is being called that's not even clear.

3. Made touching a QB a GD felony.

and quickly developing over the last few years;

4. Taking the fear of going across the middle out of the game. Cause any big hit is getting flagged and fined. Get an OOOOOOHHHHH from the crowd? Fined. TJ Ward at safety, for example. His big hit ability is losing value by the minute in this league.

So, it's as important to get the guy that all the rules are against vs. the guy who all the rules are for?

And some stuff being spouted is just silly. Someone asked what's Brady won since 2006? Well, he was knocked off in the playoffs early the last few years. He also is about 9 zillion and 3 during that time, including years like last year, which was CLEARLY supposed to be a rebuliding year, as pre-season Vegas totals, the dealing for draft picks, and the roster turnover show us - yet they still reel off 14 cause they didn't rebuild under center.

And the Matt Cassel references are great until you see they played the Dereck Anderson/Josh Freeman schedule that year....

Again, Brees two years ago, Rodgers last - and I'll take Brees, Rodgers and Brady for the next 5 against the field no matter how lousy the defenses remain, how poorly they continue to draft, and all that other important stuff.

It's not what we want the game to be - it's what it is.

On display. Every week.

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Trade the second 1st round pick for Flynn...

How's that?

[peeker643]

Trade the second 1st round pick for Flynn...

How's that?

He's a free agent. He gets to hit the market or the Packers have to franchise him at ~$15million which thereby makes him untradeable. As does the 2 first rounders it would cost for you to sign him from underneath them.

[Hikohadon]

Trade the second 1st round pick for Flynn...

How's that?

I personally hate that plan, but at least it's a plan.

[HoodooMan]

HooDoo exactly how many CBs off that list have SB rings, if you don't mind?

Well, teams drafting in the first half of the first round have a funny way of Having Not Made the Playoffs the Previous Year, which in turn has a funny way of eliminating you from Super Bowl contention. Also, bad teams have a funny way of remaining bad. See: Buffalo, Miami, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Oakland, etc, etc...

[HoodooMan]

Neither am I. Just that we desperately need a QB and his plan doesn't seem to have us obtaining one.

No, I think we have to obtain one. I don't think The AYCHes survive another sub-7 win season, and I don't think we avoid another sub-7 win season going status quo at QB.

My preferences at QB this offseason:

1. RG3 at 4
2. Matt Flynn in FA
3. Jason Campbell...yes, Jason Campbell in FA.
4. Another late-round scratch off QB prospect, like Wisconsin Troy Smith.

Tricky thing about #1 & #2, obviously, is that you have to make a call on #2 before you know you have a shot at #1, and you can't have them both. Because I'd prefer seeing someone trade ahead of us for RG3 than settling for Flynn and then having RG3 fall to us at 4 without the ability to take him, I'd pass on Flynn and cross my fingers for RG3. But to hedge my bets at least a little, I'd try really hard to sign Jason Campbell as a "You can at least begin next season starting for us at QB, even if we draft a guy at #4" guy who's either a bridge guy to a QB down the road or the bridge guy to the guy we take at #4. You can't get away with that with Flynn.

[Hikohadon]

Neither am I. Just that we desperately need a QB and his plan doesn't seem to have us obtaining one.

No, I think we have to obtain one. I don't think The AYCHes survive another sub-7 win season, and I don't think we avoid another sub-7 win season going status quo at QB.

My preferences at QB this offseason:

1. RG3 at 4
2. Matt Flynn in FA
3. Jason Campbell...yes, Jason Campbell in FA.
4. Another late-round scratch off QB prospect, like Wisconsin Troy Smith.

Tricky thing about #1 & #2, obviously, is that you have to make a call on #2 before you know you have a shot at #1, and you can't have them both. Because I'd prefer seeing someone trade ahead of us for RG3 than settling for Flynn and then having RG3 fall to us at 4 without the ability to take him, I'd pass on Flynn and cross my fingers for RG3. But to hedge my bets at least a little, I'd try really hard to sign Jason Campbell as a "You can at least begin next season starting for us at QB, even if we draft a guy at #4" guy who's either a bridge guy to a QB down the road or the bridge guy to the guy we take at #4. You can't get away with that with Flynn.

Agree with the #1/#2 issue. I too would hedge my bets and hope no one traded up.

#4 does nothing for me since we already have one of those.

#3... there are worse options.

But I think they go #5 if they bypass #2 and don't get #1 - trade some 2013 picks for Kolb.

[SoulDawg74]

Trade the second 1st round pick for Flynn...

How's that?

He's a free agent. He gets to hit the market or the Packers have to franchise him at ~$15million which thereby makes him untradeable. As does the 2 first rounders it would cost for you to sign him from underneath them.

SD:

Not exactly Peeks .

There is an exclusive and non exclusive tag , and while placing the tag on a RFA requires two #1 picks in compensation tagging a free agent under the guise of negotiating a contract gives the tem the option to take less .

We pulled off a trade for Corey Williams with a second round pick after he was tagged ,and the Chiefs only gave up a second for Cassel in a sweetheart deal with Pioli.

The Packers aren't gonna try and extort anybody which by all rights two number ones for a seventh rounder couldn't be construed as anything less. if that was indeed what they were seeking , , just parlay the expected interest in Flynn into a pick on his way out the door .

They'll want our Atlanta pick at 22 , but I'd counter with a second in 2013 and step it up from there.


Souldawg

[pup]

Neither am I. Just that we desperately need a QB and his plan doesn't seem to have us obtaining one.

No, I think we have to obtain one. I don't think The AYCHes survive another sub-7 win season, and I don't think we avoid another sub-7 win season going status quo at QB.

My preferences at QB this offseason:

1. RG3 at 4
2. Matt Flynn in FA
3. Jason Campbell...yes, Jason Campbell in FA.
4. Another late-round scratch off QB prospect, like Wisconsin Troy Smith.

Tricky thing about #1 & #2, obviously, is that you have to make a call on #2 before you know you have a shot at #1, and you can't have them both. Because I'd prefer seeing someone trade ahead of us for RG3 than settling for Flynn and then having RG3 fall to us at 4 without the ability to take him, I'd pass on Flynn and cross my fingers for RG3. But to hedge my bets at least a little, I'd try really hard to sign Jason Campbell as a "You can at least begin next season starting for us at QB, even if we draft a guy at #4" guy who's either a bridge guy to a QB down the road or the bridge guy to the guy we take at #4. You can't get away with that with Flynn.

If mediocrity is the goal, that is a great plan.

[Gradysmanldy]

Jim Mora voice,

JASON CAMPBELL? We're talking.....Jason Campbell??

This is the guy they traded a potential #1 pick to REPLACE when he was 12-7 as a starter?

Trust me, living in DC, i've seen enough of Jason Campbell. I'd rather save the cash and go with Colteca Mcwallace. Jason's *ceiling* is game manager. If we want to lose another 9-10 games and have a great #1 pick and groused fanbase, those tools are already in place.