KD in CA Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 A high end QB who plays his best in big spots and never gets hurt? Gee, who wants that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racketmaster Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 22 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Rosen @ #4 makes sense. If we can't do that and Allen is the only alternative, I'd consider Lauletta in round 2 and keep both our 1st rounders. Ok. #4 for Rosen is probably a little too rich for my taste but not a horrible plan. Lauletta has a chance to be a decent backup qb but almost no franchise qb potential. I would much prefer Rudolph to Lauletta if I were hoping to strike gold outside the top 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted April 26, 2018 Share Posted April 26, 2018 53 minutes ago, racketmaster said: I don't think you understand what I was trying to lay out in the original post. 1. I never said being immobility leads to not being any good. I am looking at how the game is evolving and mobility does seem to be more of a desired trait. The speed of the game and defensive schemes make the off script plays that a Tony Romo or Aaron Rodgers make more important. They can turn bad plays (an offensive lineman getting beat or mssing an assignment) into good plays. So all things equal, I would prefer my qb to have a little more mobility. Hopefully, this is not too controversial. 2. Eli and Matt Ryan are solid franchise quarterbacks and there is nothing wrong with them. So if we were to draft Rosen at 12, I am happy with it. I also know that both those players need stron offensive lines, a good running game and often really talented wrs to be highly successful. Neither player is going to carry a team on their backs with limited talent around them. This again is not a problem because this is true for most qbs. Surround them with good talent and they will look better. The elite players like Farve, Elway, Rodgers can play with lesser talent and still have a good deal of success. I don't think this is too outrageous. 3. I have said Rosen is probably the most pro ready and plug and play qb in this draft. Again not that controversial and it is a positive attribute. 4. What I don't see for Rosen is a lot of upside. I think he is what you see similar to what you got at UCLA where he started right away and was good but never really made significant improvements. So I was mostly asking and cautioning, the most likely scenario is that you get Eli (on the field) when you draft Rosen. You take that if that is where the discussion ends. 5. But there happens to be more layers to the Rosen evaluation (character/durability). Those concerns lead me to be more cautious and more apt to see if he falls to 12. Again, I may be wrong but don't see this as overly controversial. To me you weigh the risks and rewards and taking him in the 10-12 range is where I see his value. You are basing everything on assumptions about Rosen. He may or may not be what you are saying. It is all a guessing game at this point. Aaron Rodgers slid in the draft. Tony Romo wasn't even drafted. Nobody knew that these guys you mentioned would be as good as they are. The same applies to Rosen. Nobody knows how good or bad he'll be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racketmaster Posted April 26, 2018 Author Share Posted April 26, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, MJS said: You are basing everything on assumptions about Rosen. He may or may not be what you are saying. It is all a guessing game at this point. Aaron Rodgers slid in the draft. Tony Romo wasn't even drafted. Nobody knew that these guys you mentioned would be as good as they are. The same applies to Rosen. Nobody knows how good or bad he'll be. It's all about the odds and I make assumptions based on the odds. I think we all do this right? Edited April 26, 2018 by racketmaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts