NextGenBoys;2994344 said:We're not going to get any of those guys anyway. We drafted McGee with the first pick in the 4th round to groom him.
Besides a cheap veteran, we have our QB for the next 3-5 years on this team.
DIAF;2994358 said:You do not spend a 4th round pick to groom someone to be a starting QB in the NFL.
Beast_from_East;2994324 said:I can see you have not watched Bradford play. I have seen almost all of Bradford's games and he is a stud, durability is the only question.
How exactly is this a knee-jerk post??? The OP asked what people thought of the QBs on the list and in my opinion, Bradford is the best.
How exactly is this a dumb post??? Apparently you have not watched the QBs play on the list since you have no opinion on the matter.
Strange respone???
Chocolate Lab;2994325 said:Stephen McGee.
rcaldw;2994397 said:From all I've heard McGee has all the natural abilities you would want in a QB. I guess my thought as I watched him in preseason is that he reminded me a lot of Drew Henson. I don't want to get bit by that bug twice. In other words, McGee looked stiff and like he was THINKING a lot. If they can (or experience can) get him out of that, then fine. But athletic and can't play I've had enough of.
casmith07;2994382 said:I have watched Bradford play. In college.
And my response was triggered by your reference to Felix being glass.
windward;2994256 said:They are all projected 1st or 2nd rounders .
rcaldw;2994250 said:I would agree with you that McCoy, Bradford and Clausen have a great chance of flaming out, but I think Locker is a lock (no pun intended) to have a starter's career in the NFL.
utrunner07;2994617 said:Sorry, I mis-posted. I agree with this here. Except Locker being a lock. He is more likely to be successful than the rest but thats not saying much. either way, i don't think we draft him, shoot, we won't draft a QB in the first four rounds period this year.
CowboyMike;2994677 said:Stephen McGee.
CowboyMike;2994677 said:Stephen McGee.
The reason he looked stiff and like he was thinking too much is because he was. But it's because he is a very very raw rookie. That is normal. Two or three years being nurtured (like Romo) can be good for him. He is a project, but he has very good upside. He certainly has all the tools. And he has 'pedigree'.
[youtube]Y6FUDeqarXk[/youtube]
[youtube]KxsFEjmr-wA[/youtube]
[youtube]n4ozxm37V[/youtube]
rcaldw;2994684 said:CowboyMike, I agree with you about him being raw and his potential upside, but I wouldn't identify him as having pedigree. I think I know what you mean, he came from a major program and all, but pedigree to me means a 1st round kind of guy and McGee wasn't that.
CowboyMike;2994716 said:By pedigree, I mean talent and upbringing. McGee was the top recruit coming out of high school, and lit it up back then. It's not his fault A&M switched to the option offense. But despite that, he made the best of it and played well. And I do think if he had ended up at Texas or USC or some place like that, he'd have been a higher round pick.