dew1679666265

Because he's going to end up starting in center field for the Cardinals, making the all-star team, and winning another gold glove. and Ryan Theriot is winning the MVP after hitting 100 HRs and having a OBP .528 whilst playing SS and 2B at the same time by himself. I'm pretty sure Theriot won't make an out this season.

NCAA said it would release its ruling on this and the Bruce Pearl thing "very soon," but with the NCAA that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I advocated this trade, but the more I think about it, the more I think it depends on your view on DeWitt. If he's a guy you can see getting to be a 1.5-2 WAR player pretty soon, it's probably not worth adding Young. If, however, you don't see DeWitt getting any better, then Young is a 1-2 WAR upgrade at second and can much more easily be spun off next year for prospects if he doesn't fall off a cliff since we'll just be paying him $7 mil a year.

That's a good point. If there's a choice to be made, I'd much rather have (skinny)Fielder/DeWitt than Young/? at first.

On the face of it, I think this would be a very good deal for the Cubs. We'd be paying Young and Murphy around $10 to provide 4 wins a year. And even though I'm one of the bigger Kosuke fans on the board, I think he and Baker are well worth giving up to get that. I don't know that the Rangers would do it, though. The only concern from our perspective is Young's age. He'll be 34 this year, so a dropoff is very possible even though he's remained very steadily a 2.4+ WAR player throughout his career. It may just be a fluke, but his LD% was down to 18.5% from his career average of 24.1% (22.4% last year). It's been in decline since 2007, but I'm not sure how much that means.

Titans have already interviewed OL coach Mike Munchak and OC Mike Heimerdinger for the head coaching vacancy. Up next are Falcons OC Mike Mularkey (former Bills HC I believe) and Giants DC Perry Fewell. Munchak is still apparently the strong frontrunner to get the job and I doubt that changes.

I like Kaepernick more than Mallett and Locker if a team has a veteran to start immediately. There was no question about Kaepernick's physical tools coming into the offseason and honestly I might like his arm strength as much as or more than Mallett's. Both have cannons. The question regarding Kaepernick is how ready he is to step in. He did look pretty good overall in the Senior Bowl dropping back and making reads, but that was without much, if any, pressure/blitzes and against pretty vanilla coverages. His problem is going to be reading the difficult coverages, picking up blitzes and still dropping back cleanly and making good decisions. He'll look good throughout the offseason workouts, but I still think he'll need more time than Mallett and Locker to be ready for an NFL offense. He has a much higher upside than either, though, and I think would be a better pick than either. I just don't think he will be picked higher than the other two (due to NFL teams' need to win now).

That apparently doesn't matter to a lot of people. They laud Rivers for posting this line when he played shortly after surgery: 19/37 - 211 yds - 0:2 TD:INT For a lot of people, it seems, it's more about being tough than about being good.

He has: Gabbert at 8 (Titans) Newton at 15 (Dolphins) Kaepernick at 34 (Bills) Ponder at 45 (49ers) Mallett at 66 (Bengals) Locker at 69 (Cardinals) Stanzi at 80 (Jags) I don't see any way Mallett and Locker's stock has fallen so much that Kaepernick will go before them. Both are much closer to being starting NFL QBs than Kaepernick and will almost certainly be better than him in each of the next couple of years. He's probably the better long term option, but most coaches in the NFL don't think long term. I'd be stunned to see Ponder go ahead of either as well, though it makes a bit more sense.

Too many teams need QBs for that to happen, I think.

Missing on both Gabe Wright and Timmy Jernigan hurt, but this was still a good to very good class for UT. It helps that there are quite a few 3 stars who I keep hearing analysts say ought to be 4 stars. This could become a great to incredible class depending on Dooley and staff's ability to develop the intriguing players. Biggest gets: Maurice Couch and Antonio Richardson. Honorable mention to Marlin Lane and Curt Maggitt.

Timmy Jernigan to Florida State.

Richardson picks Tennessee, but LOI hasn't been received yet.

Lamar Dawson to USC. Crap - at least he didn't go to Kentucky.

On Locker, the more I see him the less I like him. Each time I see him play his physical tools look more and more unimpressive. And when you post the kind of numbers he has, you've got to have fantastic physical tools. I don't care what kind of leadership capability a guy has if he never throws a 2:1 TD:INT ratio and never completes 60% of his passes. It's like people who argue Vince was a great QB in Nashville because, even though his stats were subpar, "his" record was 30-18 or something like that.

Really, the mental edge, it would appear, goes pretty heavily in Cam's favor. You can point to the big jump Auburn made with the addition of him and Fairley, along with the playmaking ability he showed on the field. Stats wise, you have this: Cam: 66.1% comp; 2,854 yards; 30:7 TD:INT; 124.9 rating Mallett: 64.7% comp; 3,869 yards; 32:12 TD:INT; 109.0 rating The numbers are similar (Arkansas being a more vertical passing game gives Mallett more raw yardage), but Cam's are slightly better all around. Unless Cam simply got lucky, it would seem a QB in the same system for 3 years should have been the superior player this year. Mallett's good but not great numbers is a concern, as Cam's massive year in his only go around in major college football is a big positive. Mallett did improve his completion percentage from sophomore to junior year, but his INTs also went up from junior to senior year, even though attempts stayed very similar (eight more in senior year). Physically, Mallett has the body (6'6) and the arm (laser rocket) that NFL teams crave, but he has very limited mobility. Cam, on the other hand, has similar measureables (6'6 frame, definite NFL arm) plus he has very good mobility. It just seems that everything Mallett does, Cam does it better. Combine all that with my belief that Cam has much better upside and I like Cam a lot better. And the least scientific method of all – from watching both play a number of games over their careers, Mallett made some great throws, but also a lot of inexplicable decisions. Cam, on the other hand, made a bunch of great throws/plays and rarely did he do something that made me wonder what in the world he was thinking.

For me, there's a pretty sizeable gap after the Gabbert/Newton duo and very little separation between Mallett/Locker and Stanzi/Devlin/Kaepernick. The only disagreeing I'd do with you in terms of order is I'd move Stanzi below Devlin and Kaepernick. Otherwise, I pretty much agree.

Kaepernick's upside is just so hard to pass up. I'll admit I'm wooed by physical tools a bit too often and Kaepernick has some fantastic tools. He will need 2-3 years to develop, but what he could be is extremely intriguing. How often do those raw, developmental guys pan out in the NFL though? Don't get me wrong I'm with you, those are the kind of guys I love in the draft also. But either out of a lack of patience or ability to fit into a specific system, the athletic (not just black) guys don't seem to work. That's exactly the risk and it's a big reason why I've soured quite a bit on Locker. I love the idea of Kaepernick so much because you're "only" using a 2nd-3rd round pick on him and paying him as such, instead of a first round pick and big money on Locker. If you take Kaepernick, the organization needs to accept that his risk of failure is quite high and not stake everything on his development. If they're smart about it, it's a risk worth taking. If you take a guy like Locker in the first round, however, you've got so much invested in him that he has to pan out and be a franchise QB. It's all about weighing the risk with how much the player will cost with how strongly you feel you can develop the player. That'll differ, obviously, from franchise to franchise.

Wow . . . Clowney would be a better NSD shocker, but I'm not complaining if it's Wilder. Maggitt, Tiny, Dawson, Wright and Jernigan all committing on NSD would be amazing.

Kaepernick's upside is just so hard to pass up. I'll admit I'm wooed by physical tools a bit too often and Kaepernick has some fantastic tools. He will need 2-3 years to develop, but what he could be is extremely intriguing.

Poor wording on my part. It's a very deep QB draft, but there are quite a few teams that need a QB. Like I said, Stanzi could be the sixth QB taken and go in the middle of the second round.

That's fantastic news. If this scenario plays out tomorrow, there's no longer any question about this staff's recruiting ability. I'm starting to love this class.

I'd take Devlin and Kaepernick over Stanzi. He and Dalton are pretty similar, but I like the upside of Kaepernick too much to pass him up for a guy with (as I perceive) a fairly low ceiling.

Well I would hope that Tenn could get the top talent in her own damn state. Y'all jump ahead of us on Rivals with his commit I believe. Just looked at some rankings and what the heck...the whole State of Tenn only has two 4 Stars? We have one 5 star and nine 4 stars and y'all have twice as many people in your state than we do... Tennessee recruiting is always mediocre at best. Two 4 stars isn't that out of the ordinary, to be honest. Biggest reason, I think, is that middle/high school football programs are generally terrible across the state. Kids aren't getting enough tutelage.

This is a good point. Stanzi could very well be taken in the middle of the second round and be the 6th-7th QB taken pretty easily. This is a very deep QB draft and quite a few teams have a good chance of taking a QB.