Battle for #1 overall pick thread

dbair1967 · Dec 20, 2015

Sticky this thread.

Chargers, Titans, Browns all 3-10
Cowboys now 4-10
Niners, Lions, Ravens all 4-9

Remaining schedules:

Cowboys: at Bills (6-7), Redskins (6-7)
Chargers: Dolphins (5-8), at Raiders (6-7), at Broncos (10-3)
Titans: at Patriots (11-2), Texans (6-7), at Colts (6-7)
Browns: at Seahawks (8-5), at Chiefs (8-5), Steelers (8-5)
Niners: Bengals (10-3), at Lions (4-9), Rams (6-8)
Lions: at Saints (5-8), Niners (4-9), at Bears (5-8)
Ravens: Chiefs (8-5), Steelers (8-5), at Bengals (10-3)

I think we're likely to lose both games, at best maybe split to finish 4-12 or 5-11
Chargers are likely to lose out, at best win once I suspect. Either 3-13 or 4-12
Titans likely to lose out, maybe win once. 3-13 or 4-12
Browns, almost a lock to lose out and finish 3-13
Niners, either lose out or win once. 4-12 or 5-11
Lions, might be most likely to win 2 or 3 of their games. 5-11 or 6-10
Ravens, like Browns almost a virtual lock to lose out and finish 4-12

Dodger12 · Dec 20, 2015

Not sure if I want the #1 pick. Is there a consensus #1 player? More importantly, I don't think there is a QB worthy of the #1 overall. Either way, this decreases the trade value of that pick.

dbair1967 · Dec 20, 2015

Dodger12 said:
Not sure if I want the #1 pick. Is there a consensus #1 player? More importantly, I don't think there is a QB worthy of the #1 overall.

That's something that might not be determined until after the all star games, combine and private workouts. Teams will always overpay for the QB spot.

Either way, this decreases the trade value of that pick.

Maybe, but getting SOMETHING extra is better than staying where they are and not getting extra picks. The depth of the draft appears to be defense, and at positions we need help at (DB, DT, LB). But we also need a QB of the future, and if we arnt going to take one with the first pick then we need to be in position where we can take one early 2nd or perhaps trade back into late 1st and get one.

bvhawkeye · Dec 20, 2015

No question we will lose both remaining games. This team has quit.

Looks like the Titans and Browns will probably lose all their remaining games too.

I'm guessing #3 pick.

Probably use it on OJ Howard to get that double TE offense finally working

Scot · Dec 20, 2015

bvhawkeye said:
No question we will lose both remaining games. This team has quit.

Looks like the Titans and Browns will probably lose all their remaining games too.

I'm guessing #3 pick.

Probably use it on OJ Howard to get that double TE offense finally working

When Garret put in Moore last night that was his way of saying to the team "we are done boys, it's ok to finally quit on the season"

dbair1967 · Dec 20, 2015

Scot said:
When Garret put in Moore last night that was his way of saying to the team "we are done boys, it's ok to finally quit on the season"

Moore gave them a better chance to win and be competitive though.

If anything, leaving Cassel in last night or naming him the starter next week is more of a sign of "giving up" than playing Moore.

Midswat · Dec 20, 2015

If I was convinced we were going to take a QB, I'd want that #1 pick. But I don't think we will, so I'm fine with anywhere in the top 5.

My fear is winning a meaningless game and ending up 7-14 range.

Scot · Dec 20, 2015

dbair1967 said:
Moore gave them a better chance to win and be competitive though.

If anything, leaving Cassel in last night or naming him the starter next week is more of a sign of "giving up" than playing Moore.

I call BS on that

You are correct in that It turned out that Moore gave us a better chance to win last night.

But NO ONE knew that before they put him in. Since he had never taken a single snap in a regular season NFL game before no one including the coaches knew how he would play! Therefore there was no way that the coaches knew ahead of time that he would give us a better chance to win and be competitive.

Now if your argument is that the coaches saw something in him during the preseason or during practice that lead them to believe he was a better option over Cassel then that's another thing. But if that was the case then he should have got the start over Cassel last night or even long before last night. And if they honestly believed Moore gave us a better shot at a win or to even be competitive than they royalty fucked up by not starting him sooner.

I'm sure the conversation on the sideline amongst the coaches went something like this....

"Fuck it, ok Rod, go ahead and put the kid in, let's see what he can do!"

"He can't be anywhere near as bad as this asshole we are playing at QB right now"

dbair1967 · Dec 20, 2015

Scot said:
"He can't be anywhere near as bad as this asshole we are playing at QB right now"

I suspect that's what it was.

By the way I am not suggesting they were playing Cassel with the intent to tank on purpose. Everyone knows that wasn't the case. It was a sarcastic (yet accurate) observation. Cassel gives the team less chance to win.

Everyone wanted Weeden out of here, but had they just left him in there all season I suspect we'd have won a couple more games, maybe three more. He was far better than Cassel, and he didn't have Dez Bryant to throw to or McFadden running the ball the way he has.

Dodger12 · Dec 20, 2015

dbair1967 said:
That's something that might not be determined until after the all star games, combine and private workouts. Teams will always overpay for the QB spot.

True, but how many times have we overlooked success in college (or lack thereof) when the bullets are flying because someone was a workout warrior. I don't need some kid throwing the ball through the uprights on his knees from the 50 yard line to increase his draft stock like Kyle Boller. We need a winner......

Dodger12 · Dec 20, 2015

Scot said:
I call BS on that

You are correct in that It turned out that Moore gave us a better chance to win last night.

But NO ONE knew that before they put him in. Since he had never taken a single snap in a regular season NFL game before no one including the coaches knew how he would play! Therefore there was no way that the coaches knew ahead of time that he would give us a better chance to win and be competitive.

You don't think the team knew after 9 games or whatever Cassell played or week after week of practices. Garrett trotting out Cassell week after week after a 15 or 50 QBR loses the team. It shouldn't take that long to see that Cassell didn't have it.

dbair1967 · Dec 20, 2015

Dodger12 said:
True, but how many times have we overlooked success in college (or lack thereof) when the bullets are flying because someone was a workout warrior. I don't need some kid throwing the ball through the uprights on his knees from the 50 yard line to increase his draft stock like Kyle Boller. We need a winner......

There are clearly no Elway/Aikman/Luck types, guys who were absolutely consensus #1 pick/franchise QB types. That said, my interest in the #1 overall pick for us is probably more due to the flexibility we'd have to pick up an extra premium pick or two. I haven't studied the QB's enough to have a firm opinion yet, but there are a few guys who will be available late 1st/early to mid 2nd that I think have ability to develop into starter quality guys in a year or two. The ideal situation for us if we wanted to target one of them (in lieu of a Lynch or Goff) would be to have an extra 2nd and/or 3rd etc etc and be able to maneuver around if needed to ensure we get one, while still having the other picks we had to address other areas. (Like DB, DT, LB or RB)

ThoughtExperiment · Dec 20, 2015

Scot said:
But NO ONE knew that before they put him in. Since he had never taken a single snap in a regular season NFL game before no one including the coaches knew how he would play! Therefore there was no way that the coaches knew ahead of time that he would give us a better chance to win and be competitive.

Now if your argument is that the coaches saw something in him during the preseason or during practice that lead them to believe he was a better option over Cassel then that's another thing. But if that was the case then he should have got the start over Cassel last night or even long before last night. And if they honestly believed Moore gave us a better shot at a win or to even be competitive than they royalty fucked up by not starting him sooner.

Apparently Linehan knew. Saw a post from a reputable person at CZ saying exactly what I suspected. He said Broaddus said Linehan has wanted to start Moore for weeks now but Garrett was stuck on Cassel.

Again, that fits exactly with Garrett's ultra-conservative, ultra-protective personality: Stick with the vet everyone is familiar with over the young guy who could be a total disaster. But Cassel was the disaster. Apparently Garrett is one of the worst QB evaluators of all time -- besides having tiny little raisins for balls.

But back to something you said: My first thought when Moore came in after Cassel got only a few series was how badly they mismanaged this. You don't give an old vet all (or 90%) of the first team reps all week and then throw in a kid who's never played before. At least give him all those practice snaps all week and game plan for what you think he can do.

Omegasupreme · Dec 20, 2015

dbair1967 said:
Chargers, Titans, Browns
Cowboys
Niners, Lions, Ravens

That's the answer. The Jeopardy question is: Which 7 out of the 8 NFL losing teams have been adversely affected within the last 5 years by Norv Turner, Jason Garrett, Scott Linehan and Cam Cameron and their failing Air Coryell scheme?

Remember that Cameron was fired for not running the ball and being too predictable and Caldwell simplified the scheme and won the SB.

Midswat · Dec 20, 2015

Titans suck, so they'll be drafting ahead of us. Winning that Redskins game really fucked us.

ThoughtExperiment · Dec 20, 2015

Omegasupreme said:
That's the answer. The Jeopardy question is: Which 7 out of the 8 NFL losing teams have been adversely affected within the last 5 years by Norv Turner, Jason Garrett, Scott Linehan and Cam Cameron and their failing Air Coryell scheme?

Omega, did you happen to hear Moore's first interview he gave last week? He was asked about the offense here vs Detroit, and he said there were some similarities but the terminology was quite a bit different. Thought you might find that interesting. Apparently there are some significant differences between Jason's offense and Linehan's, and what we're running is Jason's. Might sound obvious, but some would suggest they were basically the same thing.

Doomsday · Dec 20, 2015

bvhawkeye said:
No question we will lose both remaining games. This team has quit.

Nah they battlin, fightin scratchin and clawin.

Omegasupreme · Dec 20, 2015

ThoughtExperiment said:
Omega, did you happen to hear Moore's first interview he gave last week? He was asked about the offense here vs Detroit, and he said there were some similarities but the terminology was quite a bit different. Thought you might find that interesting. Apparently there are some significant differences between Jason's offense and Linehan's, and what we're running is Jason's. Might sound obvious, but some would suggest they were basically the same thing.

Yeah, but the problem is that there are parts of Linehans past, especially failure in the red zone and repetitive play calls, that are just endemic to the scheme. I think extreme talent makes a big difference. When he had Moss, Robert Smith et al in Minnesota the scheme was deadly but Moss is his own universe. Then in Miami having Ricky Williams ans Ronnie Brown were able to produce quite a bit of yards but not really anything more than what the Lions did two years ago (when he had Bell and Bush).

Jason's scheme is really bad and Linehan is stuck with it. But Linehan has had carte Blanche with the running game so far this year and has nothing even remotely close to the variety and clever manipulation that Callahan had last year.

Midswat · Dec 20, 2015

Dodger12 said:
True, but how many times have we overlooked success in college (or lack thereof) when the bullets are flying because someone was a workout warrior. I don't need some kid throwing the ball through the uprights on his knees from the 50 yard line to increase his draft stock like Kyle Boller. We need a winner......

Scot · Dec 20, 2015

God he has got to be the dumbest looking starting QB in the NFL

Administrator

Super Moderator

Administrator

In the Rotation

Pro Bowler

Administrator

2

Pro Bowler

Administrator

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

Administrator

Quality Starter

2

2

Quality Starter

High Plains Drifter

2

2

Pro Bowler