Thanking Rams, Eagles

[Denim Chicken]

Here is my final word.

If Wentz end up being a franchise QB, than yes the Eagles will have made a good move. If not, they will likely have years of unsuccessful seasons. If he doesn't work out, then it indeed benefits the Boys as it weakens Philly.

We have Romo. With a healthy #9, we can be in any game. If he does indeed go down, we'll end right back up in this position again and can make the decision to take a QB. Maybe an even better prospect than the two top QBs avaliabile in this draft. There is always going to be prospects.

Some people hear a quote like the Eagles FO said about lack of QB prospects and take it as gospel. Funny, as someone else pointed out, they probably did not even have Wentz on their radar until very recently.

 

[Stash]

I'll quote you then: you used the phrase: "The term you're looking for is 'idiots" and also "internet morons" when describing anyone who thought the Cowboys should draft them and anyone who agreed with that position from the Cowboys as incompetent. You implied you felt they were incompetent by saying they failed for 20 years etc etc( the normal stuff you say) as well as your ever popular boycott threat.

You hailed the teams that moved up to get them as Nfl minds or some simailar to that. You repeatedly said they must know what they were doing and others who disagreed were "internet morons".

You also alluded to a "consensus" that these Qb's were top prospects. I asked for links stating that because I've heard many analysts take shots at them in some ways to make me leary, and possibly the Cowboys too, of drafting them that high. I asked for proof and you sarcastically responding I should Google.

So taken from all that I deduced you agreed with your consensus and they were cant miss prospects and the Cowboys were fools if they had passed on them.

My point always was with so many top Qbs failing in the nfl that a more consensus safe pick would be better for our team.

And if that's your position, you'll never get that perfect quarterback and 'safe pick' that you're looking for. The Andrew Luck 'slam dunk' quarterbacks come along once a decade and the team drafting 1st overall draft's them, not a team drafting 4th.

 

[Stash]

There are plenty of studies of that, including this one from Cleveland.com. The numbers pretty much correlate with what I showed for the top five.

CLEVELAND, Ohio - Two things are true about finding a so-called franchise quarterback in the NFL Draft.

Nearly all the good ones are picked in the first round.

But even those chosen near the very top of the first round carry a less than 50-50 chance of turning out to be winners. This is the difficulty NFL teams face in trying to fill what arguably is the most important position in all of pro team sports.

What are to odds of success?

To get an idea, we looked back at the 45 quarterbacks chosen in the first round over the previous 16 drafts - starting with the return of the Cleveland Browns in 1999.

• 17 of these quarterbacks (38 percent) have won a playoff game.
• 16 of the 45 (36 percent) have winning records as starters during the regular season.
• The career passer ratings for only a half-dozen of these quarterbacks is high enough to be ranked in the top half of the league last year.
• Eleven out of the last 16 drafts, a quarterback has gone first overall. These QBs are a combined 445-475-4 as NFL starters in the regular season and 15-17 in the playoffs. Eight of the 15 playoff wins, however, are by Eli Manning.
• http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2015/04/success_for_quarterbacks_picke.html

I prefer this one, have you read it?

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/nfl-draft-round-round-quarterback-data

 

[Ratmatt]

From a football stand point,the Dallas Cowboys are simply not a very welled run team.It's that simple!

 

[jday]

Honestly, the only way this could work out better for us is if whichever QB the Eagles take is a colossal bust.

The trades force the two QBs to the top of the draft (whether they are truly considered the top two players in the draft or not), which gives Dallas its pick of the other player minus whomever the Chargers take.

I know for the QB-at-all-costs crowd that's little consolation, but I'm ecstatic about the trades, especially with what the Eagles had to pay to ensure that they get one of the QBs.

Now, we can get Bosa, Ramsey or Elliott and still have plenty of picks left to address other positions, even QB.

Here's my question: Are we absolutely certain the Eagles are going to take 1 of the QB's?

 

[gimmesix]

I prefer this one, have you read it?

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/nfl-draft-round-round-quarterback-data

Yes. I think it's similar in results, but takes a more "statistical" approach.

I think the bottom line probably tells us it's really a futile subject to debate because there's just so much failure at the position.

"After studying 20 drafts featuring 237 quarterbacks, I only pegged 34 (14.3 percent) players as good starters. That's a lot of ugliness, but when it comes to a quarterback, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you have to take what you can get until you find better. Very few drafts have an Elway, Manning or Luck as the top prize or a Montana, Brady or Wilson hidden deep inside."

This is why I prefer the approach of drafting a QB each year no matter if Romo stays healthy (and I'm not opposed to drafting more than one). If the best shot we have is 50-50, then keep firing until we get it right ... and yes, that eventually even means using a a first-round bullet.

I will reiterate my stance that I was not opposed to using our first-round pick on Wentz or Goff if Dallas felt either was worthy of it. I'm not thankful that the Eagles and Rams traded up for them for that reason. I'm thankful because if Dallas had passed on either of them at 4, this place would have had a meltdown.

I'm hopeful that whomever the Eagles get will fall in that 50 percent of first-round QBs who fail, especially considering what they traded to get him. I'm hopeful that whomever we get will beat the odds and succeed, but expect our true quest for a QB to begin when Romo calls it quits.

Now, we can hopefully focus on the players who will actually be available when we pick.

 

[gimmesix]

Here's my question: Are we absolutely certain the Eagles are going to take 1 of the QB's?

I believe both teams have stated their intent, but I'm not solid on that.

 

[gimmesix]

And if that's your position, you'll never get that perfect quarterback and 'safe pick' that you're looking for. The Andrew Luck 'slam dunk' quarterbacks come along once a decade and the team drafting 1st overall draft's them, not a team drafting 4th.

Well, it would depend on if a team like the Titans, who just got their franchise QB, holds the No. 1 pick. The cost would be high, though.

 

[Stash]

Yes. I think it's similar in results, but takes a more "statistical" approach.

I think the bottom line probably tells us it's really a futile subject to debate because there's just so much failure at the position.

"After studying 20 drafts featuring 237 quarterbacks, I only pegged 34 (14.3 percent) players as good starters. That's a lot of ugliness, but when it comes to a quarterback, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you have to take what you can get until you find better. Very few drafts have an Elway, Manning or Luck as the top prize or a Montana, Brady or Wilson hidden deep inside."

This is why I prefer the approach of drafting a QB each year no matter if Romo stays healthy (and I'm not opposed to drafting more than one). If the best shot we have is 50-50, then keep firing until we get it right ... and yes, that eventually even means using a a first-round bullet.

I will reiterate my stance that I was not opposed to using our first-round pick on Wentz or Goff if Dallas felt either was worthy of it. I'm not thankful that the Eagles and Rams traded up for them for that reason. I'm thankful because if Dallas had passed on either of them at 4, this place would have had a meltdown.

I'm hopeful that whomever the Eagles get will fall in that 50 percent of first-round QBs who fail, especially considering what they traded to get him. I'm hopeful that whomever we get will beat the odds and succeed, but expect our true quest for a QB to begin when Romo calls it quits.

Now, we can hopefully focus on the players who will actually be available when we pick.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. It makes things much clearer now and it looks like we agree on much more than we disagree.

I can especially appreciate that 'draft a quarterback every year' philosophy. They're so hard to find and so in demand that teams should be devoting at least one draft pick a year to hopefully finding one. Or a smart team anyway.

 

[DogFace]

And if that's your position, you'll never get that perfect quarterback and 'safe pick' that you're looking for. The Andrew Luck 'slam dunk' quarterbacks come along once a decade and the team drafting 1st overall draft's them, not a team drafting 4th.

I agree with you. We may and likely will have to make more of a gamble or take a chance. I just don't think now with this roster and the doubts many have about these two would be a good time.

We may disagree but, I think now at this time and with this horrible season when we lost our two best players we have an opportunity to build a powerhouse team with the right couple of picks. I feel our needs are greater in other positions that we can fill now. It may be a shortsighted view but, combined with my doubts about these two I think we should wait.

Maybe we take a QB with the second or third pick and get lucky. Probably not again but maybe.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Here's my question: Are we absolutely certain the Eagles are going to take 1 of the QB's?

I was thinking about that. Be funny if they took Tunsil.

 

[Stash]

Well, it would depend on if a team like the Titans, who just got their franchise QB, holds the No. 1 pick. The cost would be high, though.

Yep, they're the rarer exception to the rule. Like us. Typically, the teams drafting at the top of the draft are there because they don't have the quarterback.

 

[Stash]

I agree with you. We may and likely will have to make more of a gamble or take a chance rather. I just don't think now with this roster and the doubts many have about these two would be a good time.

We may disagree but, I think now at this time and with this horrible season when we lost our two best players we have an opportunity to build a powerhouse team with the right couple of picks. I feel our needs are greater in other positions that we can fill now. It may be a shortsighted view but, combined with my doubts about these two I think we should wait.

Maybe we take a QB with the second or third pick and get lucky. Probably not again but maybe.

While I may disagree with your opinions, I can't disagree with the way you've explained them here.

 

[Stash]

Here's my question: Are we absolutely certain the Eagles are going to take 1 of the QB's?

From everything that I have seen everywhere, it's a certainty.

 

[DogFace]

While I may disagree with your opinions, I can't disagree with the way you've explained them here.

I apologize for trying to anger you. That wasn't cool. Its our team and we are obvouisly very passionate about them.
These debates are entertaining and educational. I appreciate everyone on here and all they contribute.

 

[Stash]

I apologize for trying to anger you. That wasn't cool. Its our team and we are obvouisly very passionate about them.
These debates are entertaining and educational. I appreciate everyone on here and all they contribute.

Likewise friend, likewise. I know I can get emotional and caught up in nonsense sometimes too. My apologies for my part as well.

 

[jday]

I was thinking about that. Be funny if they took Tunsil.

Or Zeke...dun, dun dun!!!!

 

[jday]

From everything that I have seen everywhere, it's a certainty.

Hope so.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I'm saying to look at the body of work, rather than the one player who was successful before and after they got here. There's a record of failure, not success. Romo is the anomaly, the deviation from the norm. Neither of these clown has ever been able to put even a competent player on the field otherwise.



And you sound like a homer who just can't bear to hear any criticism of 'my Cowboys!' In any way, at any level. You can't accept anything being less than perfect with 'your team'. That's your problem.

One of us can see the body of work and complete track record. The other points to one good player (the starter here before either of them arrived) and tries to ignore everything else.

So you think Romo has not progressed as a player int he last decade?

 

[Stash]

So you think Romo has not progressed as a player int he last decade?

Sure he has. He has improved his game. I just think it has little to do with two abject failures who have ruined every other quarterback they've touched. I think Romo has built off of a great foundation, given to him by two coaches that have succeeded with numerous other quarterbacks.

I have little respect for the bodies of work of either Wade Wilson or Jason Garrett. When every other quarterback they've been around looks unprepared and inept, Romo is the outlier and anomaly, not an indicator that either is good at the job of coaching quarterbacks. And I do see the irony in that.