2017 NFL Draft Thread

[Chongo94]

Weird stance you're taking. Name all of our first round QB picks

David Carr...

I'm not talking first round only, I'm talking any round. They continually make a bad choice or overreach whether it's in the draft or the offseason with moves like the Osweiler one last year.

Yeah David Carr could've been a good one except they decided to never get a line to protect him and instead he ended up getting ptsd from all the running for his life he did.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I'm not talking first round only, I'm talking any round. They continually make a bad choice or overreach whether it's in the draft or the offseason with moves like the Osweiler one last year.

Yeah David Carr could've been a good one except they decided to never get a line to protect him and instead he ended up getting ptsd from all the running for his life he did.

No I'm saying that we NEVER draft a QB. David Carr sucked, line or no line. He's your one example.

I'm just saying that you're acting like we have some long storied history of drafting bad QB's, when in reality, the issue isn't that we draft bad QB's, it's that we don't draft QB's.

Sure, we've taken some guys in the mid-late rounds over the years, but no one really expects those guys to work out and become All Pros.

This is the 2nd QB we've ever drafted that anyone expects to become a starter (unless I'm blanking on one).

 

[Chongo94]

No I'm saying that we NEVER draft a QB. David Carr sucked, line or no line. He's your one example.

I'm just saying that you're acting like we have some long storied history of drafting bad QB's, when in reality, the issue isn't that we draft bad QB's, it's that we don't draft QB's.

Sure, we've taken some guys in the mid-late rounds over the years, but no one really expects those guys to work out and become All Pros.

This is the 2nd QB we've ever drafted that anyone expects to become a starter (unless I'm blanking on one).

Ah I see. And you're correct but it's not just about the draft or not drafting them that is. It's their continued decisions about qbs period. Draft, offseason, whatever, the Texans seem to always reach or flub it...Ryan mallett, Ryan Fitzpatrick, osweiler.

Basically seems like Uncle Rico could start for them at this point.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Ah I see. And you're correct but it's not just about the draft or not drafting them that is. It's their continued decisions about qbs period. Draft, offseason, whatever, the Texans seem to always reach or flub it...Ryan mallett, Ryan Fitzpatrick, osweiler.

Basically seems like Uncle Rico could start for them at this point.

I agree with that.

You said draft in your posts, which is what I was confused by.

 

[Chongo94]

I agree with that.

You said draft in your posts, which is what I was confused by.

My bad, sorry.

 

[NNM]

I'm as sick of the SECSECSEC hype as anybody, and think it's ridiculous that a conference comprised of 1 great team, 2-3 good teams, a bunch of mediocre teams, and some bad teams is considered head and shoulders above everything else.

But the NFL doesn't really care about conference. It cares about talent. And 12 of 32 1st round picks were from SECSECSEC. 4 from 'Bama. B12 had one.

There is a talent gap between the top B12 teams and the top SECSECSEC teams. We have to keep more of that talent in conference.

 

[TCU_backer]

I'm as sick of the SECSECSEC hype as anybody, and think it's ridiculous that a conference comprised of 1 great team, 2-3 good teams, a bunch of mediocre teams, and some bad teams is considered head and shoulders above everything else.

But the NFL doesn't really care about conference. It cares about talent. And 12 of 32 1st round picks were from SECSECSEC. 4 from 'Bama. B12 had one.

There is a talent gap between the top B12 teams and the top SECSECSEC teams. We have to keep more of that talent in conference.

Agreed. I just don't see it happening. There is a task wave for top players to play in the SEC and BIG10 right now.

 

[f_399]

Most these top rated players want to go pro and going through the SEC seems to be the way to go.

It's a tough battle.

 

[Wexahu]

I'm as sick of the SECSECSEC hype as anybody, and think it's ridiculous that a conference comprised of 1 great team, 2-3 good teams, a bunch of mediocre teams, and some bad teams is considered head and shoulders above everything else.

But the NFL doesn't really care about conference. It cares about talent. And 12 of 32 1st round picks were from SECSECSEC. 4 from 'Bama. B12 had one.

There is a talent gap between the top B12 teams and the top SECSECSEC teams. We have to keep more of that talent in conference.

You're selling them short though. The SEC isn't one great team, a couple good ones, and a bunch of mediocre or bad ones. It's more like a great team, a few very good teams, a few good teams, a few mediocre teams, and a couple bad ones. By your definition, id say the Big 12 is a good team, 4-5 mediocre teams, and the rest bad teams.

Its the best conference Top to bottom by a fairly decent margin, I don't know how that can even be disputed. They are recognized as the best because they are. A few of those programs I assume you are calling mediocre have won national titles in the past 20 years.

 

[RollToad]

You're selling them short though. The SEC isn't one great team, a couple good ones, and a bunch of mediocre or bad ones. It's more like a great team, a few very good teams, a few good teams, a few mediocre teams, and a couple bad ones. By your definition, id say the Big 12 is a good team, 4-5 mediocre teams, and the rest bad teams.

Its the best conference Top to bottom by a fairly decent margin, I don't know how that can even be disputed. They are recognized as the best because they are. A few of those programs I assume you are calling mediocre have won national titles in the past 20 years.

Ohio State isn't in the SEC...

 

[NNM]

You're selling them short though. The SEC isn't one great team, a couple good ones, and a bunch of mediocre or bad ones. It's more like a great team, a few very good teams, a few good teams, a few mediocre teams, and a couple bad ones. By your definition, id say the Big 12 is a good team, 4-5 mediocre teams, and the rest bad teams.

Its the best conference Top to bottom by a fairly decent margin, I don't know how that can even be disputed. They are recognized as the best because they are. A few of those programs I assume you are calling mediocre have won national titles in the past 20 years.

They're good at the top. No doubt. But "top to bottom" is absurd. They have a better overall top tier, but not a stranglehold. Their middle is no better than anyone else's, including the much-maligned ACC, PAC, and B12. Their bottom is just as bad as everyone else's.

Sure, "mediocre" teams can have a natty in their recent past. Would you call UT anything other than mediocre over the last 5 years? They have a natty.

 

[Wexahu]

They're good at the top. No doubt. But "top to bottom" is absurd. They have a better overall top tier, but not a stranglehold. Their middle is no better than anyone else's, including the much-maligned ACC, PAC, and B12. Their bottom is just as bad as everyone else's.

Sure, "mediocre" teams can have a natty in their recent past. Would you call UT anything other than mediocre over the last 5 years? They have a natty.

No, they are good at the top and the middle and the bottom compared to the other P5 conferences. The "middle" is where they are substantially better than the other conferences. Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss....those as a group are better than any other P5's middle-tier teams, especially in terms of quality of athletes. Throw in Arkansas and it's even stronger. Vandy, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri as a group are far better than other P5 conference's bottom feeders, as in they are better than Rutgers, Purdue, Maryland, Iowa State, Kansas, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Boston College.....you get the point.

On a side note, the word "natty" needs to be eliminated from the english language. WAY too Bayloresque.

 

[NNM]

No, they are good at the top and the middle and the bottom compared to the other P5 conferences. The "middle" is where they are substantially better than the other conferences. Tennessee, Georgia, Auburn, Texas A&M, Ole Miss....those as a group are better than any other P5's middle-tier teams, especially in terms of quality of athletes. Throw in Arkansas and it's even stronger. Vandy, South Carolina, Kentucky, and Missouri as a group are far better than other P5 conference's bottom feeders, as in they are better than Rutgers, Purdue, Maryland, Iowa State, Kansas, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Boston College.....you get the point.

On a side note, the word "natty" needs to be eliminated from the english language. WAY too Bayloresque.

Good grief. Tennessee? Georgia? Auburn? TAMU? Ole Miss? Arkansas? Substantially better?

Auburn has a mythical national championship (better? or are you going to question that too, when TCU by every metric had the same claim that year as well?), which is the only claim any of those programs have to anything other than mediocrity over the last 10 years. TAMU could be listed in the dictionary with the definition of mediocrity, as could all of the rest. The only reason anyone thinks those programs are superior is the SECSECSEC circle jerk.

No, I don't get the SECSECSEC point.

 

[talor]

Wonder what the seahawks want to do? They didn't have a first round pick right?

Are they going for a QB in the later rounds?

They are being very smart. You have to fill a roster and 1st rounders are expensive.

Also, anyone bashing Mahomes must have very low football intellect . Guy has a cannon, is mobile, plays hurt etc. The rest of his team is garbage. Those off the back foot bombs hes throwing? Hes trying to keep his team in the game because he has to score every time he touches the ball because Tech hasn't played defense in over a decade. I could understand an argument that the Chiefs gave up too much for him, so you dispute the value, but not the tools.

 

[Wexahu]

Good grief. Tennessee? Georgia? Auburn? TAMU? Ole Miss? Arkansas? Substantially better?

Auburn has a mythical national championship (better? or are you going to question that too, when TCU by every metric had the same claim that year as well?), which is the only claim any of those programs have to anything other than mediocrity over the last 10 years. TAMU could be listed in the dictionary with the definition of mediocrity, as could all of the rest. The only reason anyone thinks those programs are superior is the SECSECSEC circle jerk.

No, I don't get the SECSECSEC point.

Yes, AS A GROUP they are substantially better programs than are Texas Tech, Kansas State, Baylor, and West Virginia. Heck, we went 0-2 against that group last year and I'm even going out on a limb and considering TCU one of the Big 12's good teams.

I think if we were to go on the road and beat any one of those teams, we'd be pretty darn proud of ourselves. I KNOW we would. Heck, we'd be proud of ourselves if we would beat them at home. Much more proud than if we beat some "mediocre" team.

 

[RollToad]

Yes, AS A GROUP they are substantially better programs than are Texas Tech, Kansas State, Baylor, and West Virginia. Heck, we went 0-2 against that group last year and I'm even going out on a limb and considering TCU one of the Big 12's good teams.

I think if we were to go on the road and beat any one of those teams, we'd be pretty darn proud of ourselves. I KNOW we would. Heck, we'd be proud of ourselves if we would beat them at home. Much more proud than if we beat some "mediocre" team.

You must not have gotten laid off.

 

[Portland Frog]

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/chris...-draft-others-will-follow-lead-050800978.html

Updated story on the trend with players skipping bowl games as a precautionary measure before the draft. Skipping their bowl games didn't seem to impact their draft status.

 

[Zubaz]

Hard to argue with any of that.

In any given year, there's going to be what, maybe 10 players that are good enough where skipping a bowl game (and of those, maybe 3 or 4 would be on CFP teams anyway so they'd certainly play). Pretty much everyone else is still going to have a ton to play for where it makes sense to utilize another opportunity on national television to show their talent. So they skip the Music City Bowl or Emerald Bowl or whatever. OK. In most of those cases, that game isn't even the biggest one they played in that year, so what's the reward?

In the last 20 years of TCU football, I can think of maybe 1 player that might have considered skipping their bowl game (LT). Hughes was in the Fiesta Bowl, he was playing. Verrett didn't have a bowl game but he might have considered it had it been some 6-6 bowl, Doctson was hurt and didn't play in his.

 

[f_399]

Don't be like Boykin.

He skipped a bowl game and was not drafted.

 

[SnoSki]

https://sports.yahoo.com/news/chris...-draft-others-will-follow-lead-050800978.html

Updated story on the trend with players skipping bowl games as a precautionary measure before the draft. Skipping their bowl games didn't seem to impact their draft status.

Sample size probably comes into play here. Doubt it would be advised for all NFL bound seniors.