2024-2025 NFL Season - Dak Prescott's MVP Tour Part 2

Skylancer81 said:

So here is why the Redskins need to NOT DRAFT a QB at #2 and trade back. (FYI trading Sam Howell was the stupidest move they have made yet this year, but trust me it will not be the last one)

Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks who were taken with the #2 pick in the NFL Draft.

1. Eli Manning: Eli was selected as the #2 pick in the 2004 NFL Draft by the San Diego Chargers (although he was later traded to the New York Giants). Eli Manning achieved Super Bowl glory twice, leading the Giants to victories in Super Bowls XLII and XLVI as the starting quarterback1.

So, in total, one quarterbacks taken with the #2 pick have won Super Bowls as starter. Stupid Ai said Peyton was taken #2 in 1998, but no he was number 1 and Ryan Leaf was #2 to San Diego.

Since no Quarterback named Eli Manning is in this draft, and the last QB they drafted at #2 cost them 12 years of being shit... Trade back or take an O Tackle. But again this new ownership group is about to be as dumb as the last one and take a QB with no offensive line again, and will destroy another player setting the team back again for 10+ years.

Click to expand...

Others have already corrected Eli part...but the idea no one/barely anyone has done it from #2 is just silly logic to use. I would have liked to see what Howell could still be, and he's a very cheap backup option, but the problem is you can't have last year's guy in the room still when you draft someone else at #2 who is supposed to be THE guy. So it just made sense to move him.

Is it likely we find a stud at #2? Maybe not, but you don't get to pick this high often to get a potential franchise QB, so when you get the chance, take a swing if you don't have that QB already on the roster.

The last time we picked #2, we tooke Chase Young over potentially Tua or Herbert. Not that those two have had massive success or anything, but they've been better than anyone we've had for awhile at QB.

Kirun said:

Keep my team's name out yo fuckin' mouth!

Click to expand...

63-21!

DickTrickle said:

Making your whole argument based on the actual draft number (instead of maybe something like nth QB taken or team quality) is dumb as fuck.

Do you think if Terry Bradshaw or Peyton Manning had been drafted to the same team but one pick lower their entire career trajectory would have changed?

Click to expand...

Absolutely. The team each was drafted by in their days, 1970 and 1998, had dominate running games and superior offensive lines. Would a later team had the same? Maybe, probably not. Who drafts you is more important than what pick. That's why virtually every high pick fails when the team they go to has a crap offensive line. And that's my point we had the worst offensive line last year and have done nothing to change that. Until that is addressed you will kill whoever you put behind it. At least Howell lived one year behind and would have been worlds better with new stud linemen. But they are going in the complete wrong direction, because that's what every other new head coach with a low draft pick does. It works almost never, yet they still think it's the best route. Just sick of seeing history repeat itself with my team.

Skylancer81 said:

Absolutely. The team each was drafted by in their days, 1970 and 1998, had dominate running games and superior offensive lines. Would a later team had the same? Maybe, probably not. Who drafts you is more important than what pick. That's why virtually every high pick fails when the team they go to has a crap offensive line. And that's my point we had the worst offensive line last year and have done nothing to change that. Until that is addressed you will kill whoever you put behind it. At least Howell lived one year behind and would have been worlds better with new stud linemen. But they are going in the complete wrong direction, because that's what every other new head coach with a low draft pick does. It works almost never, yet they still think it's the best route. Just sick of seeing history repeat itself with my team.

Click to expand...

We had a bad O line, not the absolute worst. Frankly Howell had just as much responsibility for his sack total as the O line did (if not more). We've already signed a good vet center, a potential new starter for LG. This O line draft class is deep, even into Day 2. We have 6 picks in the top 100.

you're not wrong that picking that QB high works almost never...but hoping your 5th round "gem" who led the league in sacks and interceptions last year turns into "the guy" works even less of the time. Much, much less. Granted, if you told me we were going to trade down to lower in the top 10 and get a LT and roll with Howell for another year...I wouldn't have been upset. Although all the other picks we would have added as a part of that would be a big reason. But at some point, you have to find the QB. A guy we pick at 2 still has a better chance of being franchise caliber than what Howell looked like to end the season (and that's even giving him some leeway for having it rough a lot of the year).

Howell's bad year was more on Eric Bieniemy, and his "I do not know how to run the ball" play calling. The games we won we had 28, 23, 22, and 29 rushes, which I call too few as is. The losses we ran 13, 28, 10, 19, 16, 14, 28, 27, 28*, 21, 22, 14, 17. The only games we were not blown out in we ran over 20 times, except for the Miami game with *28 attempts. Running the ball is a lost art to Offensive Coordinators.

You run 30+ times you almost always win, and it's not just to finish the game it's to control the clock, slow down the pass rush and rest your defense. It's that simple and Bieniemy could not grasp that in his first year calling plays. Even with this passing league winning teams run way more than we did last year. The NFL wants us to pass so we need to pass... BS do what helps you win, not try to invent the wheel ffs.

Years we had good offensive lines we always ran 30+ averages per game and had winning records, the few ones we have had over the past 30+ years. But they always go for the shinny new toy to throw or throw to and let the offensive line degrade and wonder why they lose. It is that simple, and most teams refuse to see it.

Skylancer81 said:

Absolutely. The team each was drafted by in their days, 1970 and 1998, had dominate running games and superior offensive lines. Would a later team had the same? Maybe, probably not. Who drafts you is more important than what pick.

Click to expand...

wut? The Steelers had a slightly better than average running game and a mediocre offensive line, Bradshaw got sacked a lot his first couple years (well beyond rookie learning numbers). Colts had a shit tier running game but Peyton was either well protected or had exceptional pocket awareness for a rookie.

Marshal Faulk was shit teir>?

324 attempts 1319 yards 6 TDs 86 receptions 908 yards 4 TDs in 1998. He was 2nd team all pro this season too.

Then after that he had Edgerrin James 1999+

Oh and Manning set the rookie record for Interceptions of 28, still stands today and would have led the league last year. For reference Sam Howell led the league last year with...21

Peyton in 16 games 1998 3739 Yards 26 TDs 28 INTs
Howell in 17 games 2023 3946 Yards 21 TDS 21 INTs

Just saying

Skylancer81 said:

Marshal Faulk was shit teir>?

324 attempts 1319 yards 6 TDs 86 receptions 908 yards 4 TDs in 1998

Click to expand...

The best example of shit tier in this thread is your reading comprehension. The Colts put up a grand total of 1486 rushing yards in 1998, putting them at 26th out of 30. So yes, shit tier is a pretty good description of their overall rushing game, either way it sure as shit wasn't dominant.

Excuse me?
Does not change my point that he went to a team built to succeed with him. By having a dominate running game and an excellent offensive line.
Your definition of their running game and mine are clearly different. The fact the team did not rush much more than what Faulk ran for does not change his performance.
Marshall Faulk's 1319 yards in 16 games, those are dominate running back numbers. For comparison ONLY Christian McCaffrey at 1459 had more last year.
Team rushing number wise the Colts in 1998 is lower than anyone last year. But a Dominate back is a dominate rushing attack. The threat of the run sets up the pass etc. Him just being on the field makes a difference.

Anyway

Skylancer81 said:

Absolutely. The team each was drafted by in their days, 1970 and 1998, had dominate running games and superior offensive lines. Would a later team had the same? Maybe, probably not. Who drafts you is more important than what pick. That's why virtually every high pick fails when the team they go to has a crap offensive line. And that's my point we had the worst offensive line last year and have done nothing to change that. Until that is addressed you will kill whoever you put behind it. At least Howell lived one year behind and would have been worlds better with new stud linemen. But they are going in the complete wrong direction, because that's what every other new head coach with a low draft pick does. It works almost never, yet they still think it's the best route. Just sick of seeing history repeat itself with my team.

Click to expand...

I think you missed my "if they were drafted by the same team." You actually made my point for me. Who drafts you is more important than what pick -- I absolutely agree! That's why saying something like "no #2 QB pick has ever gone to the Super Bowl so drafting a QB at #2 is wrong" is just nonsense.

For the Commanders this year, sure, you could make a case that they should build up their offensive line instead of going for a QB right away. That still doesn't mean there's some voodoo curse on picking a QB at #2. I'm beginning to think you just phrased things really poorly in your initial post since your expanded explanation at least makes some sense.

That said, I think an offensive line is way more important that a top tier running attack. 13 of the last 16 SB champs did not have a 1000 yard rusher and most of them were middle of the pack as a team. The idea that you need to run the ball 30 times a game to win a SB is not backed up by actual results. That's a pretty small sample size, though. I think just looking at SB wins is myopic but even that narrow view doesn't support your perspective about the running attack.

jooka said:

Click to expand...

Very on board with this signing. I still wonder if there's a chance Tee gets traded. But this might be it for the Bengals until the draft.

Still need a proper replacement for Reader. May go DT in the first round.