CubbieBum

Becuase he doesn't do it all the time. You always select one minute thing that you can dispute that doesn't have anything to do with the overall argument. You know what is meant when people call something an individual stat and it is a rather common thing so why make that post? There is really only one reason and I've already explained it.

Mays isn't really that similar to Sharper, I don't think. Sharper's strength is roaming the field and making plays and the biggest question about Mays is whether he can make plays on the ball. If they want to replace Sharper they should have traded up for Berry or Thomas. Just because they don't play a similar doesn't mean Mays can't fill the void left by Sharper. They need a S not necessarily a Sharper clone.

God you such a prick arguer. You nit pick to try and win and skew crap. Yes, nothing is a solely individual stat. Congratulations on such a revelation. There are stats that are generally described as individual stats as I'm sure you know and QB rating is one of them. Stop nit-picky and being a prick just so you can try and look right. Actually try to have an good, logical argument. Attack the post, not the poster Yes dad.

Depends on what their read on Sharper returning is but it would be a very good pick.

God you such a prick arguer. You nit pick to try and win and skew crap. Yes, nothing is a solely individual stat. Congratulations on such a revelation. There are stats that are generally described as individual stats as I'm sure you know and QB rating is one of them. Stop nit-picky and being a prick just so you can try and look right. Actually try to have an good, logical argument.

Umm QB rating is a individual stat. QB rating isn't the end all be all. It's major weakness is that it gives way to much credit for having lots of yards per pass attempt and TD%. Neither of those was Orton particularly good at. He had a good completion percentage and a good TD-INT ratio. He is an average to above-average QB. Saying he is well-blow average is just plain wrong which is what I have been arguing. QB rating is attributed to an individual, but it is so very team dependent it's unreliable. It's not very team dependent. Honestly never heard anyone try to say that before. You get a lot of yards and TD's with a great supporting cast but a bad QB is still going to be inaccurate leading to a low completion percentage and interceptions which will kill a QB rating. If QB rating is so team dependent then how does Big Ben post a 80.1 rating in 2008 with a Super bowl caliber team around him? QB rating is affected some by a team's talent as all stats are but QB rating is one of the least team dependent stats in my opinion.

Umm QB rating is a individual stat. QB rating isn't the end all be all. It's major weakness is that it gives way to much credit for having lots of yards per pass attempt and TD%. Neither of those was Orton particularly good at. He had a good completion percentage and a good TD-INT ratio. He is an average to above-average QB. Saying he is well-blow average is just plain wrong which is what I have been arguing.

Orton is a well-below average NFL QB and Tebow wont be half as good as Orton. That is why it was a terrible move. Umm no. Do some research. Orton had an 86.8 QB rating this year which was 14th in the league i.e. he an above-average NFL QB. He also had a good completion percentage at 62% and over 3,800 yards. That doesn't necessarily mean he's an above average quarterback. That means that when you take it all together, Denver had an above average passing attack. True but a "well-below average NFL QB" could never put up those stats. You can get some yards and not be good but you would have a bad completion percentage and/or bad TD-INT ratio which would kill your QB rating.

Orton is a well-below average NFL QB and Tebow wont be half as good as Orton. That is why it was a terrible move. Umm no. Do some research. Orton had an 86.8 QB rating this year which was 14th in the league i.e. he an above-average NFL QB. He also had a good completion percentage at 62% and over 3,800 yards.

Hahaha

Friday

McDaniels: "I think we will trade one of the best WR's to ruin that and make our team worse. Sounds good to me." Common Sense: "Why not swallow your ego and give the guy a contract rather than trade him. You can't get WR's with his talent very often. You had a QB have a high 80's QB rating in his first year in your system and a great core of WR's" McDaniels: "I will not be disrespected. I can disrespect Pro Bowl WR's and QB's but no one can disrespect me." Common Sense: "You traded for Brady Quinn and have a good young QB already. Your set at QB." McDaniels: "I didn't draft either of them so I have to get my guy."

Why trade for Quinn when you are going to take Tebow before anyone else cared to?

49ers offense is looking to be the breakout offense. Our OL was autrocious last year. With Davis and Iupati you got to figure it is at least a decent improvement. With play makers like VD, Crabs and Gore you can have a very good offense. Just have to have blocking and a competent QB. Obviously the last part is still a question mark but you got to figure Smith will be at least as good as last year with the OL improvements, first year having the same offense as the year before and a full season with Crabs.

Dew much be taking a celebratory shot.

no kidding. i don't want clausen anywhere near SF. would love to see Pitt take him. SF is a good spot for a young QB to go. They aren't what they were even a year ago. They have a very good, young receiving core with a strong run game.

Say no San Fran. Just say no to Clausen.

Que?

Wow. I expected a few trades in the mid-late parts due to it only being 1st rd today but this is crazy. I love it.

1. The Jags are [expletive] morons. I don't care if you love the guy or not you don't make that big of reach when you can get him later. It's not just where you value him it's also where everyone else values him. They no doubt did this because they don't have a second and thus knew they wouldn't get him unless they took him now but you have to know that no matter how good you think someone is there is still a chance he busts. 2. I'm not overly exciting about giving up a 4th to move up two spots (especially with Bulaga and Davis still out there) but at least we took what we needed in an OT. I was very worried we were trading up to get Clausen.

May not happen this year. JPP is a ridiculous athlete and considered by many a top 10 talent.

:yahoo:

Good ole ESPN has Leftwich listed in Tampa Bay's QB depth on the scroll at the bottom. Hmmmm ...

Let's hear it. I also agree with a bump in keeper points, but if we're bumping up to 15 keepers, I think we need to go to 2500 points at the very least. The way the system is now once a player reaches 130 AB/50 IP that players exempt clock begins to tick and he is exempt for the next three seasons. Sometimes with these young players they don't always stick in the majors, get injured or become bench players or what not. What if the rule changed that instead of the next three years automatically being exempt, that we change it so the player is exempt until he reaches that same plateau (130/50) for three more seasons. For example.....Josh Johnson's exempt clock began to tick during the 2006 season. He was exempt then for 2007, 2008 & 2009, however, he only pitched 15 innings in 2007 and whatever team had him lost out on that exempt year. The new rule would allow for 2007 not to have counted against him and he would still have 2010 to be exempt. As far as the increase in keeper points maybe we should keep it within the current average per player? We currently sit at 1800 SCP with 12 keepers (150 per). Increasing the keepers to 15 would put the cap at 2250 SCP. I like the exemption thing a lot and would definitely vote for it. The keeper points is a bit too low from Mooch and I think 2500 is just right but would rather go lower than higher. Mooch going with the same ratio as with 12 players isn't right because no one will have more exempt players worth keeping. That means the extra players kept are going to cost more on average than the previous 12 because as I mentioned they will most likely be non-exempt players. I don't want to go too high and allow everyone to keep three more really good non-exempt players because that will severely weaken the draft and make it hard for bad teams to improve (especially if new draftees from the June draft aren't held for the league draft). I think giving 700 more points allows a team to keep 1 more top player, 1 decent player and one somewhat promising but under-performing player. For instance a guy like Jake Fox wasn't kept but in this scenario probably would be as the exempt player. That would still leave quite a few quality players in the league draft.

Aaron Brooks named Most Improved Player as he should have been. I knew he had set the franchise record for 3's made I didn't know this tidbit though ... He is the sixth player in history to make 200 3's and have 400 assists in the same season. Not a huge thing but still impressive.