I think if Denver really wants him they could still move up and get him. 12 & 18 would look real nice for a team like St. Louis that needs a lot of help.
+1 excellent post, it's surprising to see how many QB's are successful on the back of being late round picks or un-drafted.
I haven't heard Denver mentioned as a possible suitor but maybe..you're right, those two picks would look good but only if Sanchez ends up being as good as Cutler was. Otherwise they will look like idiots.
Brady got the ball year 2 game 2 and never looked back. He didn't ride the bench and he wasn't really developed. He stepped in and never looked back. Kurt Warner started first game in his second year in the NFL and had one of the single greatest years in NFL history.
Well to be honest, it still is a good deal for Denver, because essentially it is Cutler for Sanchez + a first in 2010 and a third in 2009. that still gives them a lot to use to build around.
i completely agree with seeing what we have in ratliff and clemens this year. once we see what they could do behind a good o line.....then lets decide to keep them or draft a new qb in the 2010 nfl draft which figures to be very heavy in qb.
This is really interesting as it talks about Denver's interest but the most interesting line in the story is this. "The Broncos also made preliminary inquiries about Brady Quinn but were told the Cleveland Browns' third-year quarterback was not available for trade. " http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_12214434 Could be a smoke screen but why wouldn't they want to trade with Denver with all the picks they have?
He was riding the bench for a year and from what I have read the Patriots had no intention of starting him over Bledsoe (but you are right he was only on the bench for one year - at work and typing too fast). He took his opportunity when Bledsoe was hurt and the rest is history. But he also came in behind an already great Oline with a solid defense and running game. While Brady didn't have to be "developed," there are numerous examples of very good QBs who did need time. Clemens only shot came behind a shit oline. So neither he nor Ratliff has been given a real chance yet. But my point is the same. We need to see what we have - if one of these guys will turn into our Montana or Brady, or just another Leaf. We have no idea. But people just want to write them off to get a flashy name. If they don't work out, then next years draft class has a better crop of QBs. Yes and what I said still holds true. He started his NFL career late after bagging groceries and spending a year in NFL Europe. No one gave him a chance either. I think you completely missed the point of my post. There is no reason to just write-off Ratliff or Clemens just because they weren't first round picks or flashy names. Not when there are numerous examples of great QBs coming into the league from the late rounds or undrafted.
I certainly wouldn't write either one of them off although Ratliff is a big time project. It just seems like we have been dancing around this issue since Chad went down in 04.
I think you need to redo the math here... If the broncos actually wasted the 12th and 18th overall picks on Sanchez: They would actually have traded Cutler and their 2009 1st for Sanchez and a 2010 first and 2009 third. It essentially boils down to Cutler for Sanchez and a third, not sure how ur getting an extra first. If that strikes you as a good deal, then I don't know what strikes you as a bad one.
I honestly have no clue what we should do draft-wise. The argument made above about a draft pick QB being just as unproven as what we already have is valid, but you also wonder that same thing about a WR. We have several guys at WR on our team already that haven't had a chance to prove themselves, most notably Clowney. Drafting a blocking TE first is starting to make good sense to me since we apparently don't have one, but I'll probably change my mind in an hour. Doesn't make sense to me to give away a lot to draft Sanchez who would just step right in line with the other 3 QBs we already have who are just as unproven. Its one thing to give up picks/$$ to get a proven commodity, but why have 4 unproven QBs instead of 3? All of them are still young guys anyway. I don't know, I'll still enjoy watching Saturday and trust that the guys in the front office know what they're doing. Lord willing, we'll avoid the Ryan Leaf of 2009.
I agree with what you're saying about WRs, but if we're starting an unproven QB, which we should be, he should given as much help as he can get. Clowney is promising and has great speed but his route-running, catching, and durability are still somewhat of a question mark. Honestly I think our two biggest holes are a blocking TE and a short yardage back, both which can be found later in the draft.
PETTIGREW would help the unproven qb compete better. 1. more protection. 2. another weopon 3. improve running game no other 1st round pick would help this many assets of the game
I agree that we need to give the QB some help, but I do wonder if a WR that we get in the first round (assuming we don't trade up to get Maclin or Crabtree) would be any better than the guys we have. Maybe they would be. I think the blocking TE would help out the QB more, giving him more than 0.01 seconds to get rid of the ball.
We knew when we signed Favre last year that we would be in this position going into this season. Yet most jet fans were willing to accept that at the time. No use complaining now. We really should have given Clemmons the start against Seattle last season so we could have got an idea of what we had in him.
I don't think anyone is writing them off because they weren't first round picks. Rather, people are writing them off because the Jets staff has written them off as evidenced by the Jets being linked to every QB in the draft and on the trade market.
