Who takes a flyer on Clausen?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm lazy...how many less teams were there back then?

4, so that really doesn't factor in to anything.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by stevew

How does Pryor rate for 2011? Number one?

I think unless he shows a huge amount of improvement as a passer in the next year, he is going to end up in the 3rd round or lower.

[Sun Tzu]

Well...this is what I think will happen.

The Rams will have first crack at him, but wont want to shell out the CRAZY big bucks that the #1 overall spot will demand...especially for an Irish QB. Then he'll fall to the Raiders at #4 or #5, and Al Davis will promptly select Daryle Lamonica.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Why not just draft Suh and put him next to Shaun Rogers? That'll disguise a whole lot of bad secondaries, and Rogers will be close to retirement around when Suh's rookie contract is ending/being extended.

I'd personally like it, but the Browns currently run a 3-4 - assuming for the moment that Mangini is still around next year; then that would mean transitioning Suh to a 3-4 DE type. I'd love to have Suh and Rogers as DTs in a 4-3, though.

[stevew]

The browns should have drafted Orapko, kicked Williams inside and ran a 4/3. Much better use of players they already had. They lack virtually everything to run a 34.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Why not just draft Suh and put him next to Shaun Rogers? That'll disguise a whole lot of bad secondaries, and Rogers will be close to retirement around when Suh's rookie contract is ending/being extended.

I am not sure Suh is big enough to be a dominant NT in the NFL. He seems like more of a Warren Sapp type - get up the field 4-3 DT.

As for putting him on end in the 3-4, those guys don't tend to make a lot of plays, they more eat up blockers - and also tend not to be highly drafted guys. Why take a big time playmaker and waste him there? Cleveland would be better off taking Gerald McCoy than Suh if they are going to continue with the 3-4.

But, I really think the Browns will have a new coach AND front office, so there is every possibility they'd be running a 4-3. And Rogers with Suh would be a devastating combo.

[Celeval]

If I was in charge of the Browns, I certainly would go with the 4-3 and a new coach.

Actually, I don't mind the trading down they did last year, particularly since I like Mack in the center; but I think I'd go with not drafting Robieski out of OSU and getting Malaunga (my spelling is horrible, I'm sure) out of USC as the LB.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Look at Alex Smith...he's finally getting it together after what? 5 years? All it took was Frank Gore being Frank Gore, VD finally saying "fuck this I want to be the best TE in the league", and a couple of decent receivers. The best situation I think for Clausen would be to go late first round to a team like the Cardinals.

You forgot the team finally putting him in the shotgun (and possibly the stuff in his personal life that led him to focus more.)

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Samdari

I agree that its hard to find QBs. Your chances go up the higher they are drafted.

I dont agree that you should avoid taking a QB early because of how often they fail. Its hard to find players. ....

I'm pretty sure that is what I said above.

Originally Posted by Me

If you want to improve your lot at QB through the draft. You should be willing to make that early selection. Even though you have considerable chance at picking up a bust. You will have more success than if you wait a round or two.

Originally Posted by Samdari

My main point was that the situations of these two are not remotely similar. Please stop grouping them like they had the same story.

My memory is that Montana was eschewed by most scouts at his try out. The knock was that he had a weak arm. He was still a relatively early pick in the third round, but I've always attributed that to Bill Walsh's feeling that Montana was special, and him not wanting to miss out by waiting until a later round. So I do sorta still group Brady and Montana together. My take is that most teams at the time didn't think Montana had the goods. Most teams didn't feel Brady had much chance of being much more than a serviceable backup. You disagree...I can live with that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

My take is that most teams at the time didn't think Montana had the goods. Most teams didn't feel Brady had much chance of being much more than a serviceable backup.

Clearly at least one team thought Montana had it, and he had decent hype coming out of college - he led ND to a national championship in '77 and just came off the epic comeback against Houston in the '78 Cotton Bowl. Tom Brady was an occasional starter that nobody thought would be more than a serviceable backup/fill-in. Belichick was asked if he waited so long to grab Brady because he knew other teams would pass on him, and he famously responded if he thought Brady could be that good he not only would have picked him 1st round, he would have traded up as close to 1.1 as possible to do it.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

You forgot the team finally putting him in the shotgun (and possibly the stuff in his personal life that led him to focus more.)

True. The playcalling is still suspect though. I hope it doesn't take too many more failures to make the OC Jimmy Raye realize that Smith just plays worse under center.

[molson]

Brady's Michigan career was underrated. He started every game for two years, set the all time Michigan single-season record for completions, and he won an Orange Bowl and a Citrus Bowl. I'm still surprised he didn't get more love on draft day.