PDA

View Full Version : Jacksonville and Tampa QB plan?


Halsey
04-19-2009, 02:01 PM
I wonder if Jacksonville and Tampa plan to bypass taking a QB all together in this Draft and waiting until next year when Tim Tebow is available. Think of the impact Tebow would have on local interest in those teams. There'd be tons more people trying to get tickets and jerseys would seel like hotcakes the moment they hit stores.

Strongside
04-19-2009, 02:02 PM
I doubt many scouts have that mentality. You don't pass on a prospect for a future prospect

superman
04-19-2009, 02:03 PM
I wonder if Jacksonville and Tampa plan to bypass taking a QB all together in this Draft and waiting until next year when Tim Tebow is available. Think of the impact Tebow would have on local interest in those teams. There'd be tons more people trying to get tickets and jerseys would seel like hotcakes the moment they hit stores.

i wouldn't bank on tebow even being a qb in the nfl, much less passing on qb's this year hoping he can be next year...and that they can get him

princefielder28
04-19-2009, 02:04 PM
I doubt many scouts have that mentality. You don't pass on a prospect for a future prospect

Right. There's no "we're waiting til next year" mentality. If you have a need at QB, you have a prospect rated as a potential franchise QB, and he is available then you pull the trigger.

Smokey Joe
04-19-2009, 02:08 PM
I doubt many scouts have that mentality. You don't pass on a prospect for a future prospect
Not only that... but Tim freaking Tebow being the guy they are waiting for?

TheBuffaloBills
04-19-2009, 02:09 PM
Right. There's no "we're waiting til next year" mentality. If you have a need at QB, you have a prospect rated as a potential franchise QB, and he is available then you pull the trigger.

Exactly. You don't say, "Lets not draft Delmas, we could get Mays or Berry next year". I know for sure, GM's don't even factor in the 2010 draft class.

hockey619
04-19-2009, 02:20 PM
Plausible, sort of anyway.

The patriots at least and im sure a lot of other teams have been known in the past to trade down and aqcuire future picks because their scouts felt that the next draft was stronger than the current one. I dont know if theyd pass on this years qbs and just assume that they can get Tebow next year, but if they thought that next years qb class was stronger all around, they might choose to pass under the right circumstances.

For example, if they feel this draft is strong on D players and next years is very weak, they may choose to fill more D needs this year and pass on the Qb issue until next year.

SKim172
04-19-2009, 04:37 PM
Plausible, if they thought the next year's guy was amazing and they had a veteran who could be solid in the current spot. But I don't think we're dealing with that, this year. Besides, Tebow isn't expected to be a hot prospect or even a starter - draft a QB this year and take Tebow next year as a backup.

Although I do get your point about Tebow being a big local draw.

Calvin & Kevin
04-19-2009, 04:43 PM
Sure, let's throw away this year so we can take a guy next year who won't be able to run a NFL passing game... so we can sell some tickets and jerseys. Genius.

CashmoneyDrew
04-19-2009, 04:44 PM
Jacksonville should go with Sanchez for their eventual move to L.A. anyways.

Caddy
04-19-2009, 09:19 PM
Yeah you can't afford to take a 'wait till next year' approach when it comes to the draft. Especially when it comes to Tebow who I don't think will be an elite QB when he comes out any way.

Cicero
04-19-2009, 09:28 PM
Wait for Tebow. That's what you call epic fail. David Garrard is a great quarterback and I don't see why people are ready to give up on him. Who is going to look good with the line he had to work with? We know what he can do when you give him a decent line.

Halsey
04-19-2009, 09:35 PM
I'm just throwing this out for discussion more than a completely serious topic. I really don't know if Tebow can be a starting quality pro QB. People can say whatever they want about the offense he runs, his throwing motion, etc. Tebow is a unique player. The odds are against him, but the odds were also against him winning a Heisman as a true sophmore and scoring 55 TD's in the SEC in one season. Maybe they won't want him as a pure QB, but I have no doubt the Jaguars and Bucs would love to have him and would find a way to use him if they got him.

WMD
04-19-2009, 09:38 PM
I laugh at any team that wants Tebow as their starting QB!

Crickett
04-19-2009, 09:40 PM
Why not? Its Tim Tebow. His mere presence will make any team superbowl favorites and every player on those teams all-pro. John Henderson gets slapped in the face to fire him up. If Tim Tebow slapped John Henderson across the face, he would become a super saiyan level 3 and his power would be maximum. Because he's Tim Tebow. :D

SKim172
04-19-2009, 09:49 PM
There are a LOT of people who LOVE Tebow. He's got a cult following all across the nation. I can see how people might want him as their QB. That doesn't make them right.

Staubach12
04-19-2009, 09:53 PM
Here are the facts: Jacksonville and Tampa don't have franchise QBs. There are quality QB prospects available in this draft. Del Rio and Raheem Morris like having jobs. They need to win. There is no way in hell you mortgage the future of your franchise AND your career on a local hero who plays in a spread offense, stares down his receivers, has a HORRIBLE release, has an average arm, etc. These people are not stupid.

PossibleCabbage
04-19-2009, 10:25 PM
Teams should absolutely factor in the 2010 draft when it comes to needs they anticipate having in the future. "Our starting DTs are past their prime, and one of them is in a contract year this year" is a situation in which a team should consider both what's available at that position in this draft, as well as what's likely to be available next year in the draft. So, to extend the example, while this year is fairly light in terms of starting caliber DT prospects with first round grades, next year's draft seems to be fairly deep when it comes to defensive tackles.

But if you need a starter now? You need a starter now. Go get one. But it's silly to only look at the needs you have now, smart teams look at the needs they're going to have in the future as well, and will address them now if it makes sense to do so.

I'm also not sure why everybody is convinced Jacksonville lacks a QB. Didn't they sign Garrard to a big extension just a year ago? Sure, he didn't play well last year, but the Jags OL was terrible last year, and that tends to have a bearing on the QB performancs, plus he played very well the year before last. Why give up on a guy like that? I don't see any of the QBs in this year's draft or next as clearly being an upgrade for Jacksonville. Some probably will be, but first round QBs don't alway pan out and Garrard was good enough to get the Jags to 11-5 and the divisional playoff round when his defense wasn't soft and his offensive line could pass protect. The coaching staff down there is suspect, but why give up on a guy after the first year after giving him a six year extension?

WMD
04-19-2009, 10:39 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0325/ncb_a_tebow1_400.jpg

TACKLE
04-19-2009, 10:49 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/0325/ncb_a_tebow1_400.jpg

That fact that they were able to back that up with a National Championship is epic.

derza222
04-19-2009, 10:51 PM
Teams should absolutely factor in the 2010 draft when it comes to needs they anticipate having in the future. "Our starting DTs are past their prime, and one of them is in a contract year this year" is a situation in which a team should consider both what's available at that position in this draft, as well as what's likely to be available next year in the draft. So, to extend the example, while this year is fairly light in terms of starting caliber DT prospects with first round grades, next year's draft seems to be fairly deep when it comes to defensive tackles.

But if you need a starter now? You need a starter now. Go get one. But it's silly to only look at the needs you have now, smart teams look at the needs they're going to have in the future as well, and will address them now if it makes sense to do so.

I'm also not sure why everybody is convinced Jacksonville lacks a QB. Didn't they sign Garrard to a big extension just a year ago? Sure, he didn't play well last year, but the Jags OL was terrible last year, and that tends to have a bearing on the QB performancs, plus he played very well the year before last. Why give up on a guy like that? I don't see any of the QBs in this year's draft or next as clearly being an upgrade for Jacksonville. Some probably will be, but first round QBs don't alway pan out and Garrard was good enough to get the Jags to 11-5 and the divisional playoff round when his defense wasn't soft and his offensive line could pass protect. The coaching staff down there is suspect, but why give up on a guy after the first year after giving him a six year extension?

I definitely agree teams need to take future drafts into account. But as you implied, as opposed to saying "we really want to draft _____ because we have a need at his position and he'd be a great fit" I'd imagine teams are looking at the draft saying "well next year's draft looks very deep at position X, so maybe we don't need to go in that direction this year as much as position Y which looks a lot stronger this year than it should be next year".

It's obviously hard to predict, but for example a good amount of potential 4-3 DT's that were being looked at as maybe fitting in as 3-4 DE's as well decided to return for their senior seasons. Oghobaase, Odrick, Suh, and Jones come to mind off the top of my head. So if a team that needs a DT or a 3-4 end to develop instead of to plug in right away, they may decide that unless the value really presents itself this year there's a good chance that they can get something at the position next year because of the solid high-end depth that there seems to be in the senior class. You'd imagine not all of those guys are going to fall off of the map, and at least 2 or 3 should still be considered very good prospects heading into next year.

SRK85
04-19-2009, 11:08 PM
Well if Freeman is avaiable at pick 19 for the Bucs they will draft him. But thats unlikely. McCown or Griese will be the starter for the bucs next season.

SRK85
04-19-2009, 11:10 PM
Delete please repetition.

Mr.Regular
04-19-2009, 11:17 PM
Well if Freeman is avaiable at pick 19 for the Bucs they will draft him. But thats unlikely. McCown or Griese will be the starter for the bucs next season.
Leftwich >>>> Griese and McCown

georgiafan
04-20-2009, 08:11 AM
I don't think any GM's are saying that, but the owners might be.

Abaddon
04-20-2009, 10:55 AM
David Garrard is a great quarterback and I don't see why people are ready to give up on him. Who is going to look good with the line he had to work with? We know what he can do when you give him a decent line.

This.

I can't imagine Jacksonville holding last season against Garrard. He had no line, no receivers, a leaky defense "supporting" him...he was all alone out there.

Big, strong, mobile, great arm, good accuracy...

This ain't the MAC. You can't expect a QB to carry your whole sorry ass team. Give the man some tools.

Abaddon
04-20-2009, 11:03 AM
Here are the facts: Jacksonville and Tampa don't have QBs.

Damn puzzling that anyone think this. Tampa needs a QB, sure. Jacksonville? Damn puzzling.

PossibleCabbage
04-20-2009, 11:32 AM
Damn puzzling that anyone think this. Tampa needs a QB, sure. Jacksonville? Damn puzzling.

When you think about it, there are quite a few teams in the draft that need a QB more than Jacksonville.

I'd say the following teams are clearly more in need of a QB than the Jags:

Detroit (obvious)
Tampa (they guy they have is the guy that Garrard beat)
San Francisco (They have Shaun Hill, JT O'Sullivan, Alex Smith and Jamie Martin, that ain't pretty.)
New York Jets (Who would you rather have at the helm: Garrard, or Clemens?)
Minnesota (How many people would pick Gus over Garrard?)
Denver (Kyle Orton did some decent things in Chicago with a great defense to back him up, but he doesn't have that anymore. Chris Simms is useless without his spleen).

And there are a bunch of teams that are at about the same level as Jacksonville in terms of "confidence in their QB". Hasselbeck doesn't have many games left in him for the Seahawks, it's not clear whether Cassell is just a system QB and we don't know how he's going to do with a less-talented Chiefs roster, Washington seems perennially dissatisfied with Jason Campbell (though I don't get that), Brady Quinn was unimpressive in Cleveland last year and Derek Anderson regressed dramatically, both Arizona and Tennessee have good starters who are up there in years and only high profile busts behind them. Trent Edwards and Jamarcus Russell are promising but unproven, other than in the W column Joe Flacco's year wasn't as good as everybody thinks it was, and Jake Delhomme's performance in the divisional playoffs last year should make anybody wonder. Not saying all these guys are bad, but a lot of teams in the league have a less than perfect situation at QB.

I just don't see why anybody would say that with a decimated OL, a leaky defense, and the possibly the worst WR corps in the league that the first thing Jacksonville needs to do is fix the QB situation and ditch this guy we just signed to a 6 year extension for $60,000,000.

Where does this idea come from?

LonghornsLegend
04-20-2009, 01:00 PM
I don't know about passing up a QB for Tebow, but I could definately see the interest in a Florida team...Had Tebow came out I said Jax would be great for him, that's a team that relies on the running game and he is somewhat similiar to Garrard.


I'm still not sold on him actually being a QB but he's already working on things to improve his draft stock, I think a Florida team would be good for him.

Black Bolt
04-20-2009, 01:07 PM
needs a QB when they have one? They had poor OTs and poor WR play, and somehow that's reflects on Garraud. Yet a guy scrub John Kitna gets two long starting gigs and no one seems to mind.

yourfavestoner
04-20-2009, 02:05 PM
The Jags aren't going to draft a quarterback this year. I've been wary that they could fall in love with Sanchez, but I don't think they're going to pull the trigger on him if he's there. I think the strategy for this year is going to be to trade down (and they could be picking in a hotspot for trades iof Sanchez falls to them) and acquire as many picks as possible. They're supposed to really like the Ole Miss big guys (Oher and Jerry) and were reportedly very enamored with Harvin. Character concerns have likely moved Harvin down their boards. The front office has put a new emphasis on character after all the arrests they've had in the past few years.

Next year, they could definitely be in the quarterback market. Remember that Garrard is over 30 and has probably maxed out in terms of potential that he offers to a team. It's unlikely he'll ever be able to produce at the level he did in 2007, although I do think he has a few good seasons left in him. If Jack Del Rio gets fired after this season, I'd definitely expect Gene Smith and the new head coach to draft a quarterback for the future and have him sit behind Garrard for a couple years.

Halsey
04-20-2009, 02:52 PM
So Garrard is good when he has a good supporting cast, but when his supporting cast is not as good suddenly he shares no responsibility. So when things are going well give him credit, but he shares no responsibility when things are down...

Look, Garrard plays well at times, but there is reason to question if he is the long term answer for Jacksonville. He needs to be more consistent and show he can play well even when his supporting cast is down.

PossibleCabbage
04-20-2009, 02:57 PM
Look, Garrard plays well at times, but there is reason to question if he is the long term answer for Jacksonville. He needs to be more consistent and show he can play well even when his supporting cast is down.

Is he the long term answer? No. But he can hold the spot adequately for the duration of his contract and probably won't be resigned after then. Jacksonville is absolutely in the stage where they don't need to take a QB in the first round, since they have a guy to keep the home fires burning while a guy they get somewhere between the second and the fourth learns how to play QB in the NFL.

I mean, whoever else they get playing in that QB is going to get killed behind that offensive line and isn't going to have anybody to throw to. Draft Rhett Bomar or somebody in the later rounds of the draft, and bring him along slowly.

It's just weird how you singled out Jacksonville as "a team with a QB need" and not a team like the Jets, Vikings, or 49ers each of which currently have worse prospects at QB than Jacksonville.

Staubach12
04-20-2009, 04:08 PM
Damn puzzling that anyone think this. Tampa needs a QB, sure. Jacksonville? Damn puzzling.

I meant true franchise QBs. But you're right, that was not put well.

Crickett
04-20-2009, 04:32 PM
I meant true franchise QBs. But you're right, that was not put well.

True franchise QB's

True franchise QB's don't need offensive lines.
True franchise QB's don't need wide receivers.
True franchise QB's don't need running backs.
True franchise QB's can will targets into existence.
True franchise QB's can prevent sacks with the power of their minds.
True franchise QB's can throw passes to themselves for touchdowns.
True franchise QB's could take your team to the Superbowl with a bunch of little leaguers.



"True franchise QB's" are mythological creatures that like "mermaids" "True #1 WR's" or "centaurs", don't really exist.

yourfavestoner
04-20-2009, 05:23 PM
So Garrard is good when he has a good supporting cast, but when his supporting cast is not as good suddenly he shares no responsibility. So when things are going well give him credit, but he shares no responsibility when things are down...

Look, Garrard plays well at times, but there is reason to question if he is the long term answer for Jacksonville. He needs to be more consistent and show he can play well even when his supporting cast is down.

Exactly. Like I said, I believe next year will be the season the Jags start really looking at quarterbacks. If they have a new head coach, I'd almost guarantee they draft one in the first round. I assume Garrard will be in Jacksonville for 2-3 more seasons.

LookItsAlDavis
04-20-2009, 06:22 PM
Supposedly Florida is putting more under-center packages in this year. They also hired Michigan's old QB coach just to work some pro-style aspects into Tebow's game.

PS-It's absurd that firefox doesn't recognize Tebow as a real word in the spellcheck

bucs-buffs-avs
04-20-2009, 08:22 PM
MCcown will start for Tampa next year.

He has all the atheletic ability in the world and has shown some great flashes. He has just never gotten a chance under Gruden and his love for all QB's over age 30. This appears to be the plan.

If he succeeds, he is starter for a while.
If he fails, they draft a QB next year.

If the oppurtunity to trade for Stafford or Sanchez presented itself, the Bucs would probably take it (but it won't). But I think it is pretty clear that Freeman is a massive risk, no less of a risk than McCown. So he is, in a sense, a totally wasted pick.

And before the "McCown sucks, you stupid homer" posts come firing at me, please ask yourself, "How many times have I seen McCown play? And how many times has this guy seen McCown play?" He has ALL the physical tools; mobility, accuracy (something Freeman doesn't even know about) and a massive arm, he just needs to put it together.


But as for Tebow, he sucks as a prospect. Absolutely not.