Just because you disagree with my logic doesn't make it flawed and certainly doesn't make it "misguided" or "dishonest". Again, I ask if we can please keep the debate on the topic and not try to make it personal.
A & B) Basically the same argument... but still, Fisher came to a team that had a #1 overall QB. If he wants the team, long term, to be running dominated, then that asset is not being used effectively. He's also being as big a control freak as the previous coach was accused of being, but I don't want to reopen that can of worms.
I'm not making anything personal.
There is no #1 overall QB. Our QB's name is Sam Bradford. And to argue that he's not being used correctly if our offense is run-centric is a bad argument imo.
C & D) Also basically the same argument... and not even an argument. It's really only name calling. Sure, the highly drafted QB might be slightly better, but you're limiting his ceiling (just as you are by not giving him a #1) if you limit his job to managing a run-centric offense. You can use an expensive custom made sword to cut steak, but a common steak knife will do the job just as well and be a lot cheaper.
I can stand a debate with another person with an opposing view, what I can't stand is a victim act. There wasn't a single instance of name-calling in my post. You weren't insulted. The closest I came to that was saying that at worst, you were being dishonest with the point you were making.
I don't care to have a discussion with a person that's going to act like they're being persecuted if I think their argument is incorrect. So, please, cut it out or I'm not going to continue on with this discussion.
You're not limiting anyone's ceiling. Sam doesn't need to throw the ball 600 times to be effective. Russell Wilson did quite well this year despite being on a run-centric team. Steve McNair did quite well during his time in Tennessee on a run-centric team.
Nick Foles led the NFL in QB Rating in 2013 on the #1 team in the NFL in rushing yardage.
Sam Bradford will not be restricted by us using a run-centric offense. If anything, having a strong running game will help make him a more efficient player statistically.
And the idea that a journeyman QB can do the job just as well as Sam in a run-centric offense is PREPOSTEROUS.
E) The Seahawks and 49ers are both succeeding because of their defense right now.
Seahawks - 8th in PPG Scored
49ers - 11th in PPG Scored
Obviously, their offenses are doing something right.
If he can't do the job, admit that it was a failed signing. If he can, let him do it for another year and wait to draft LT when we need to. Drafting a top ten tackle one year after signing Long is going to be seen, fairly or not, as an admission of a mistake.
Well, if it were me, I wouldn't give a rat's tookus what the media or fans took it as. Because they won't be complaining when Long and Matthews/Robinson are blowing open massive holes on the left side of the OL and giving Sam Bradford ample time to throw.
The idea that we wait and draft a LT when we need to is poor strategic planning. It ignores a few important facts:
1. We may not be in position to get one.
2. There may not be any good prospects available.
3. Will that rookie be ready to step in as a LT immediately and start?
I prefer not to fly by the seat of my pants in scenarios like this. We have a shot at a blue chip talent that can start right away at a position of need(LG) and then move over to LT when Long goes. That sounds ideal to me.
Wow. How many times is this argument going to have to be answered? Yes, you can get good, and maybe even great WRs later. But we're not after just another WR. We're after a #1. A #1 MIGHT emerge from a lower round or what we have but it's very, very unlikely. As opposed to the vast majority of great guards throughout history who were drafted later than Top 10.
And a great guard might emerge from a lower round...but it's very unlikely. Because when you take a player in the lower round, the odds of you hitting on the pick decrease significantly. So frankly, the Saints finding Carl Nicks in the 5th round does jackshit for us when we draft Rokevious Watkins.
It's a bad argument. You can find a #1 WR in the mid to late rounds. You can find a great OG in the mid to late rounds. But the odds of you finding either one are not high. They're quite low.
In fact, lets take a look at the modern era Guards in the HOF:
Larry Allen -> 2nd round
Larry Little -> UDFA
Tom Mack -> 1st round(#2)
John Hannah -> 1st round(#4)
Russ Grimm -> 3rd round
Gene Upshaw -> 1st round(#1)
Billy Shaw -> 2nd round
Mike Munchak -> 1st round(#8)
Randall McDaniel -> 1st round(#19)
Bruce Matthews -> 1st round(#9)
Interesting. All but one were drafted in the first 3 rounds. 6 out of the 10 were drafted in the first round.
With this logic being presented though... the Draft a Tackle camp used to facetiously ask if people would want to draft ANOTHER WR high next year if Watkins didn't immediately dominate. I answered that we wouldn't because the only recent WR we drafted feeling that he had a great chance at being a #1 type was Quick. He's had two years and hasn't shown much. That might change next year, and if it does, that's awesome, but I wouldn't bet money on it. But the logic being used by those who want a tackles could easily apply for clamoring for another "once a decade" tackle next year even if we take Robinson or Matthews. Hell, I think a few people here would take Robinson AND Matthews if we could swing it. Smart GMing involves balancing priorities instead of focusing on one area.
If we don't sign a starting caliber OL in FA, hell freaking yeah I would draft both Matthews and Robinson if we could swing it.
This is the Not For Long league. (Although, if this league isn't for Jake, that's a good argument to replace him. Heyo!) While I agree that rookies are unpredictable in the sense that anyone we could pick could be a bust, I still think we should follow the conventional wisdom (hence name because it's conventionally wise) and not draft a tackle unless we need a tackle right now. We don't. We need guards. Drafting a tackle to play guard for 1, 2, 3 years isn't the best plan in my opinion.
I wasn't meaning a bust. I was meaning unpredictable as in even successful NFL players are hit and miss as rookies.
You have every right to an alternate opinion. And I'll admit, there's validity to the tackle arguments. I think the Rams are going to be good either way. I just have my personal preference.
Understandable. You have every right to disagree. I don't pretend my stance here is a popular one. I feel quite differently about OGs than most. I don't oppose Watkins as a player, I think he's a plenty talented kid. I just have my board set and prefer certain players over him.