Here's a summary of the Bleacher Report link you posted. I too thought they had a pretty good analysis, including this bit on Washington:Alpe d'Huez said:Moving away from the conspiracy fun and back to the sport. Here's the latest mock draft, courtesy of Bleacher Report. I agree with their thoughts that it's very possible the Redskins will give up three picks in order to be able to draft RG3 with the second pick in the draft. Very possible. It's something Snider and the Redskins would risk, and it's something St. Louis will give up. The only question I think is just how much they'll give up.
This makes good sense to me. I have a gut feeling Shanahan will not want to pass up on a QB who could be as valuable to a team as Elway was in Mike's stint in Denver. Only question is, how much is Washington willing to give and how little is STL will to get in return. The Rams have already been posturing a little bit by saying they may not be satisfied with Bradford, implying they might want to use the 2nd overall pick to take the QB. These kind of mind games make the whole process more interesting, but could also push a team wanting the QB to offer a bit more to get him. STL needs a WR, and a guy like Blackmon could be just the guy to help Bradford out. So the second gut feeling I have is STL is not really going to throw in the towel on Bradford just yet. That could be good news for Washington.The Washington Redskins hopefully learned from their previous mistakes and avoid signing a veteran quarterback. Peyton Manning, Matt Flynn and Kyle Orton are not what this franchise needs to get back into contention. A young quarterback like Baylor's Robert Griffin III would provide both a long-term and immediate upgrade.
Mike Shanahan wants to win now, but that want could end up costing him his job. He needs to look further into the future and make a move to land Griffin III. The Redskins have a good enough defense to make the playoffs, and I argue that Griffin III can get the offense where it needs to be.
The play of rookie quarterbacks like Andy Dalton and Cam Newton show that you don't need a veteran quarterback to find success. Griffin III's explosiveness and ability to attack the deep part of the field will greatly improve this offense.
If son decides to join the forum he could be Indyhammer. (ok, dumb joke)Amsterhammer said:My son in Indy tells me that it is widely believed that Peyton will retire, and indeed, that Luck is nailed on to succeed him.
You should have watched on Espn international. There you get the original commentator and in the commercial breaks you get "old" highlightes of NFL-Games. It´s obvious that to watch on a channel who has no clue about the sport and only shows one game in the season, is not a good idea.Cobblestoned said:I really have no clue about the sport, improving myself by watching the Superbowl regularly in last few years.
But just wanted to say, it was an absolute mess to watch on German private TV station Sat1.
Actually they made me lose the feeling and "contact" to the game.
That whole commercial mess, the timing, the frequency, and the selection of "spots" was very very close to beeing an "absolutely unconscionable impudence" and not worth a Superbowl TV time.
They even messed up a touchdown, and 99% of the commercial selection and time was actually one and the same spot about a meeting platform, including an annoying theme-"song". It came close to brain-washing or water-boarding.
Lost contact, couldn't stand it, only watched it additionally to playing cyclingmanager then, mute on TV. That poor Bud beer I always chose to drink during superbowl, it even survived, warm and half-emptied.
Later they even included a "best of Superbowl spots"
I really enjoyed last few years on German public TV, without any commercials. That feeling is completely different.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the "Arschbomben" touchdown.
Funny you should say that. Years ago, before he had two kids, he posted on the same West Ham forum as I did and yup, he was Indyhammer.on3m@n@rmy said:If son decides to join the forum he could be Indyhammer. (ok, dumb joke)
I can explain soccer in one sentence: Kick ball into goal. However, nuances and rules take 100 pages, 90 of which involve referee interpretation and judgment.FoxxyBrown1111 said:That´s it. Football rules in 5 lines. I think to explain offsides in soccer needs 10 pages.
Funny thing is, we really don't know that much. Enough to be a scout's junior assistant maybe. Try talking to a true coach about play breakdowns, blocking schemes and assignments, or player evaluations. Keep reading this post to find a link to Rob Staton's site. That guy is an NFL geek. And coaches know more than he does. I don't know anything.Amsterhammer said:Ask a question, get half a page back. Very much appreciate all this input guys, I feel like I'm in NFL school.
That´s right. You won the argument.Alpe d'Huez said:I can explain soccer in one sentence: Kick ball into goal. However, nuances and rules take 100 pages, 90 of which involve referee interpretation and judgment.
Don´t make yourself smaller than you are, you know a good amount of all sides of football. But i have to admit, i knew more about formations and assignments in the late 80´s/early 90´s when we had the good old pro set and i formations and the Berlin Adler were running with Clarence Rambo. Yes his name was Rambo. And another players name was/is Mücke (a player in a german/italo football movie with Bud Spencer is called the same).Alpe d'Huez said:Funny thing is, we really don't know that much. Enough to be a scout's junior assistant maybe. Try talking to a true coach about play breakdowns, blocking schemes and assignments, or player evaluations. Keep reading this post to find a link to Rob Staton's site. That guy is an NFL geek. And coaches know more than he does. I don't know anything.
No doubt. A bust.Alpe d'Huez said:You are correct Foxxy on all the draft busts, and misreads from scouts. Even looking at the last couple of years we can play this game: I'm going to skip the obvious busts like Russel and Leaf, or even semi-busts like Leinhart or Young, and going to skip Tom Brady. Let's just look at recent years:
Mark Sanchez (5) - A real question if this was a good pick, I say no.
Freeman. LOL. What a waste of money and pick. They have and had a equal talented QB on the bench (JJohnson). Since he was a 5th rounder, he was/is even cheap. Just shake my head.Alpe d'Huez said:Josh Freeman (17) - After a very good sophomore season, he played very poorly this year. If he can right the ship there's still hope.
Bryan Hoyer was undrafted, and picked up by NE, where he seems cemented as the backup QB and has looked quite good filling in for Brady. RB Arian Foster also went undrafted.
And the Packers also wasted Rodgers on the bench for a 60 year old QB who didn´t know when it´s time to retire.Alpe d'Huez said:2008 The Packers also took Brohem in the 2nd round, showing you even their own scouts were wrong (so far).
Ryan Fitzpatrick ... Charlie Frye
That's actually not far off when comparing football rules vs futbol rules. I think there are, what, 15 rules total in futbol. Several hundred in football.Alpe d'Huez said:I can explain soccer in one sentence: Kick ball into goal. However, nuances and rules take 100 pages, 90 of which involve referee interpretation and judgment.
Not to mention not knowing a lot about player techniques (but that's part of player evaluations you mentioned I guess). Then our opinions of what team needs will likely be different from the coaches. Then where certain players in the draft fall on a team's draft board, we really have no clue about. Even team's opponents don't know. They try to guess, and that's why team's will posture to make other teams think they are looking hard at a certain guy - bluffing - so the team doing the posturing and bluffing might have a better chance to get the guy they really want. It's a bit like playing poker. Then on top of all that, each team has their own philosophical approach (e.g. take the best athlete available, or draft to fill a specific position regardless who is still on the draft board, unselected). All this creates a bit of suspense on draft day, and is what IMO make it interesting to watch.Alpe d'Huez said:Funny thing is, we really don't know that much. Enough to be a scout's junior assistant maybe. Try talking to a true coach about play breakdowns, blocking schemes and assignments, or player evaluations. Keep reading this post to find a link to Rob Staton's site. That guy is an NFL geek. And coaches know more than he does. I don't know anything.
God I hope not (I think the SI mock had him going to Seattle in the 1st round, but then they also are the jinx magazine). Not that I think he's such a terrible QB. Just that I think he's a low first-rounder or upper second-rounder in the draft, and I'd hate to see Seattle take him at the number 13 spot overall. BTW, DraftTek.com has him going in the second round to... WASHINGTON.Alpe d'Huez said:As to Ryan Tannehill, I don't see any way the Seahawks take him in the first round.
I'm saving this bit, just in case.Alpe d'Huez said:.....If Sanchez, Holmes, a new DT, and Rex Ryan lead the Jets to a SB next year against the Giants I'll eat my jock strap.