if you get a shot at luck, you take him. hell trade matt if you need (not advocating) but you have to take luck. he is an upgrade.
yep. having Luck as a trading chip gets you much more than just trading the pick. I won't say he is a franchise qb, but judging from his play and assertiveness/awareness on the field, he has all the makings of a franchise quarterback.
not to mention you can trade Schaub for more than decent picks as well. I'm very sure teams like Buffalo, Seattle, and Arizona would more than willingly trade for Schaub if Luck isn't still available.
Exactly, if for some reason we end up with the #2 pick and the Panthers go brain dead then take Luck and trade Matt for another 1st round pick. Matt is a nice QB, Luck has all the makings of the next GREAT QB or at worst a Matt Ryan type who is pretty darn great in his own.
#2 pick talk is incredibly optimistic - we need three 4-win teams to all win, there's SIX other 5-win teams we'd need to win if possible, and then would have to come out on the right side of every tiebreaker and coin flip. I don't understand how a loss next week (5-11) makes us a top-5 pick lock....when 11 teams could finish with 5 wins or less. Do we own all of these tiebreakers on: Minn, SF, ARI, CLE, Dal, and Det? I assume SoS (1st tiebreaker) is calculated at the end of the year.
That same quote has only been said about many QBs before only for them to turn into busts. We do not have a need at QB. Schaub is not a problem. It's all speculation about Luck at this point. Plus, if we did take Luck, then teams KNOW that we have to trade Luck or Schaub. Does that not cause us to lose some leverage? I would think trading the pick to a team that we know wants it could get us more in terms of players/picks. There is no way you can say Luck is better than Schaub at this point. We know what we have in Schaub, and while he is not Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, he is still an above average QB. Most teams don't have a guy like Manning/Brady, i.e. one of the best QBs of all-time.
1. Patrick Peterson 2. Marcell Dareus 3. Rahim Moore In that order. First available. I like Moore a lot. Having a ball hawk safety would help keep Pollard out of coverage, where he is useless, and in the box, where he excels. The pass rush Dareus would almost certainly provide uo the middle is hard to pass if available though. Patterson is just to perfect for a CB to pass up. Drafting CBs in the first round for 2 years consecutively would be a bit hard to swallow though.
Either way it looks like we'll get our guy Peterson. If we get the #2 pick, hopefully we can trade down. Nobody wants to shell out top 5 money to a 1st rounder.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NAZYdrwwEeM?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NAZYdrwwEeM?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Is Peterson head and shoulders better than Prince? I've seen several of Prince's games this year and can see his potential but he was never just flat out dominant.
The thought of choosing another CB in the first round makes me want to vomit. I'd rather get the best DT in the draft and shore up the secondary with veterans. CB is too difficult of a position for a rookie to come in and do well. I dont have that kind of time on my hands.
Agreed. Conventional wisdom is to shore up your lines. Good O-Line and D-lines will hide a wealth of sins and deficiencies else where. Rocket River
I don't think you understand how draft tie breakers work. Teams win the tiebreaker with WEAKER strength of schedules. The texans SOS is higher than 5 of those 6 teams before week 16. Considering we hope to lose to a team that would end up 9-7, our SOS will not go down much. Also consider that we would need all those crappy teams to win which would give their opponents an additional lose, weakening their SOS. (Weakening to a point. The overall SOS could go up if the team they are playing has a very good record.) The point of the draft is for bad teams to pick first. Teams that play bad opponents and still lose get rewarded with higher picks.
Its all about the trenches. You win those battles and you will be competitive in each and every game. Thats why teams like the Eagles, Steelers, Ravens, etc.. are always good.
bring in a defensive coordinator worth a damn switch to the 3-4 draft Mr. Von Miller out of Texas A&M University success
Realistically, I think we end up drafting at 7-8. The lions/vikings and cards/49ers play next week so we jump 2 spots automatically with a loss. Ideally, we need the Vikings to win tomm and then lose next week. We also need others upsets..namely the boys and browns winning. A lot has to go our way to end up in the top 5. I see Nick Fairly in a Texans uni. Edit: A Vikings win against Detroit is all we need to jump both teams bc I think the only team we hold the tie-breaker with is Detroit.
If Kubes and Smith return no way in hell do we take another CB. They won't readily admit Kareem was/is a mistake just after one year and rightfully so. Now a good DT I could see. Crazy we could be drafting in top 5...and i'm rooting for it. Winning does nothing to help the team in the long run at this point.
Because "can't miss" prospects miss all the time, I wouldn't draft Luck and trade Matt at the same time. If we were to draft Luck, I'd much rather have him sit for a year behind Schaub, and if he is who you think he is, then you trade Schaub. He'd still be under contract at that point.
