Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Raiders need draft Geno Smith, Bray, Or Matt Barkley next.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22834
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Watched the Texas/West Va game last night to get a better look at Smith against a stronger defense. He did not disappoint.

He showed exactly what you want in a QB.

-Made all the throws, including the tricky outside throws some QBs struggle with.
-Made throws with touch and accuracy on each level.
-Called the offense in a hostile environment with ease and leadership.
-Made plays with his feet when he had to. Avoided pressure and made tough throws.
-Stood in the face of pressure all night, hung in and delivered strikes on 3rd and 4th down.
-Didn't force throws. Threw the ball away when it wasn't there. Smart, savvy QBing.

He rose the challenge tonight and look exceptional doing it. Fiery and professional as a leader. WV's defense is junk and he continued to lead his team back until they could put it away. Had a couple fumbles taking pressure from a strong Dline, but was really impressive standing tall in the pocket and throwing pinpoint accurate balls to his WRs.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Roninho


Joined: 10 Feb 2009
Posts: 1666
Location: The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
bitty wrote:
NickButera wrote:
I'm with Totty. I've seens way to many QB prospects miss and too few hit in my day. There's really so sure formula to determine who's going to be great in this league. I'll hop on the bandwagon once we have a rookie who is actually winning games for us consistently. If we pick a QB, I'll certainly be routing for him and I'll be optomistic, but if there's one constant it's how most top college QB's will fail (or not amount to much) once they get into the NFL.


A good young quarterback is so important that it's worth taking the risk.


Not only is Smith gonna be gone by the time we pick (at this rate, he might be going number 1) but this logic is flawed. If you miss that QB prospect ala 2007, it sets you back FAR. IMO, we have to go defense w/ our first pick and there's really no debate.


The Raiders could be competing for the #1 pick. They play Jacksonville and Cleveland. They lose those games, they will have the pick. They haven't shown they are any better than those teams.

Missing on QB pick now is not the same as in 2007. There isn't near the amount of guaranteed money thanks to the wage scale.

Lastly, there is a debate. You need a franchise QB in the NFL to be consistently successful. The Raiders also need a long term solution at QB. I won't care either way be it defense or QB. The Raiders team is lacking all the way around. They need to find TALENTED players on both sides of the ball.

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14483
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Roninho wrote:

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.


Are you suggesting he'd go with a QB he doesn't really believe in if we didn't have Palmer? Hopefully, he'd never go with such a desperate move.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3813
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JTagg7754 wrote:
bitty wrote:
NickButera wrote:
I'm with Totty. I've seens way to many QB prospects miss and too few hit in my day. There's really so sure formula to determine who's going to be great in this league. I'll hop on the bandwagon once we have a rookie who is actually winning games for us consistently. If we pick a QB, I'll certainly be routing for him and I'll be optomistic, but if there's one constant it's how most top college QB's will fail (or not amount to much) once they get into the NFL.


A good young quarterback is so important that it's worth taking the risk.


Not only is Smith gonna be gone by the time we pick (at this rate, he might be going number 1) but this logic is flawed. If you miss that QB prospect ala 2007, it sets you back FAR. IMO, we have to go defense w/ our first pick and there's really no debate.




Not with the new draft slot system. They don't get paid that much anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8597
Location: CA
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
bitty wrote:
NickButera wrote:
I'm with Totty. I've seens way to many QB prospects miss and too few hit in my day. There's really so sure formula to determine who's going to be great in this league. I'll hop on the bandwagon once we have a rookie who is actually winning games for us consistently. If we pick a QB, I'll certainly be routing for him and I'll be optomistic, but if there's one constant it's how most top college QB's will fail (or not amount to much) once they get into the NFL.


A good young quarterback is so important that it's worth taking the risk.


Not only is Smith gonna be gone by the time we pick (at this rate, he might be going number 1) but this logic is flawed. If you miss that QB prospect ala 2007, it sets you back FAR. IMO, we have to go defense w/ our first pick and there's really no debate.


The Raiders could be competing for the #1 pick. They play Jacksonville and Cleveland. They lose those games, they will have the pick. They haven't shown they are any better than those teams.

Missing on QB pick now is not the same as in 2007. There isn't near the amount of guaranteed money thanks to the wage scale.

Lastly, there is a debate. You need a franchise QB in the NFL to be consistently successful. The Raiders also need a long term solution at QB. I won't care either way be it defense or QB. The Raiders team is lacking all the way around. They need to find TALENTED players on both sides of the ball.


Ideally at positions this team already doesn't have talent at. Geno Smith is the only QB the front office makes an exception for IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bitty


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 3813
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkness wrote:
big_palooka wrote:
JTagg7754 wrote:
bitty wrote:
NickButera wrote:
I'm with Totty. I've seens way to many QB prospects miss and too few hit in my day. There's really so sure formula to determine who's going to be great in this league. I'll hop on the bandwagon once we have a rookie who is actually winning games for us consistently. If we pick a QB, I'll certainly be routing for him and I'll be optomistic, but if there's one constant it's how most top college QB's will fail (or not amount to much) once they get into the NFL.


A good young quarterback is so important that it's worth taking the risk.


Not only is Smith gonna be gone by the time we pick (at this rate, he might be going number 1) but this logic is flawed. If you miss that QB prospect ala 2007, it sets you back FAR. IMO, we have to go defense w/ our first pick and there's really no debate.


The Raiders could be competing for the #1 pick. They play Jacksonville and Cleveland. They lose those games, they will have the pick. They haven't shown they are any better than those teams.

Missing on QB pick now is not the same as in 2007. There isn't near the amount of guaranteed money thanks to the wage scale.

Lastly, there is a debate. You need a franchise QB in the NFL to be consistently successful. The Raiders also need a long term solution at QB. I won't care either way be it defense or QB. The Raiders team is lacking all the way around. They need to find TALENTED players on both sides of the ball.


Ideally at positions this team already doesn't have talent at. Geno Smith is the only QB the front office makes an exception for IMO.


I don't know the Raiders love USC QBs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5412
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Roninho wrote:

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.


Are you suggesting he'd go with a QB he doesn't really believe in if we didn't have Palmer? Hopefully, he'd never go with such a desperate move.


I think he's saying that we should have a shot at a top QB, rather than using a 1st on a QB like Weeden or Tannehill just because we need a QB.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
big_palooka


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 22834
Location: ATL
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Roninho wrote:

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.


Are you suggesting he'd go with a QB he doesn't really believe in if we didn't have Palmer? Hopefully, he'd never go with such a desperate move.


I think he's saying that we should have a shot at a top QB, rather than using a 1st on a QB like Weeden or Tannehill just because we need a QB.


I'd loved to find a Tannehill type. Kid is a competitor. Looks really good early on. He's going to have a bright future.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5412
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big_palooka wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Roninho wrote:

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.


Are you suggesting he'd go with a QB he doesn't really believe in if we didn't have Palmer? Hopefully, he'd never go with such a desperate move.


I think he's saying that we should have a shot at a top QB, rather than using a 1st on a QB like Weeden or Tannehill just because we need a QB.


I'd loved to find a Tannehill type. Kid is a competitor. Looks really good early on. He's going to have a bright future.


If we end up with a top-10 pick I would much rather use it on a QB who has played at a high level for at least a couple years like Smith or Barkley than a one year starter like Tannehill. Even if he has the tools, one OK year just isn't enough for me to feel comfortable using a top-10 pick on.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14483
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZoomWaffle wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Roninho wrote:

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.


Are you suggesting he'd go with a QB he doesn't really believe in if we didn't have Palmer? Hopefully, he'd never go with such a desperate move.


I think he's saying that we should have a shot at a top QB, rather than using a 1st on a QB like Weeden or Tannehill just because we need a QB.


Yeah, like i said, you don't draft someone just because you have a need at the position. You draft someone because you think he can be good. And i'd like to think it'd be the case with or without Palmer on the roster.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5412
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
ZoomWaffle wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Roninho wrote:

Look, we need a long term solution at QB, but imo Reggie at least has the advantage in that he has Palmer playing at QB. It gives him an option. If he feels there is a 'franchise qb' available when we pick he picks him. If there isn't one available (at least not one who he believes can be a top 10 qb the next decade) we'll just go with Palmer next year and Reggie picks a difference maker for another position. And considering our lack of quality all around he can't do much wrong in terms of the position as long as it is a good player.


Are you suggesting he'd go with a QB he doesn't really believe in if we didn't have Palmer? Hopefully, he'd never go with such a desperate move.


I think he's saying that we should have a shot at a top QB, rather than using a 1st on a QB like Weeden or Tannehill just because we need a QB.


Yeah, like i said, you don't draft someone just because you have a need at the position. You draft someone because you think he can be good. And i'd like to think it'd be the case with or without Palmer on the roster.


Right, I was just saying I don't think he was suggesting anything. He was just pointing out that at least we do have a QB so if, by some chance, all the top QBs are gone by the time we pick, we don't need to reach for one that isn't worth that high of a pick. I don't think he was saying Reggie would do that, only that its a good thing we do have a QB just in case we dont land one of the top QBs in the draft.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Baggabonez


Joined: 29 Apr 2010
Posts: 6474
Location: RaiderNation
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No way the Raiders are KC bad, but don't worry you'll see Geno at least twice a year.
_________________
Nodisrespect wrote:
(on building inside out) teams without highly draft DT's make the playoffs and win the superbowl regularly.

Bonez wrote:
Teams that win Superbowls and make the playoffs aren't picking in the Top 5, clearly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CrashMan510


Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 4626
Location: Bay Area
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we land the #1 pick do you guys think we can land a Redskins-Rams type of trade?
_________________


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eSN8Cwit_s
fuarge
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ZoomWaffle


Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Posts: 5412
Location: United Kingdom
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CrashMan510 wrote:
If we land the #1 pick do you guys think we can land a Redskins-Rams type of trade?


How would everyone feel better about using the #1 or 2 pick on a franchise QB, or trading and getting a boatload of picks to use elsewhere?

Honestly, I'd take the 3 1st's and a 2nd in a heartbeat. Draft a bunch of difference makers and have 4 1st rounders in the next 2 drafts to get a QB.
_________________


Silver&Black88 on the sig

La_Vader wrote:
I wouldn't trade Pryor for any prospect in this years draft. Quote me on that
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigMike1b


Joined: 27 Apr 2008
Posts: 1879
Location: 626, CA
PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Baggabonez wrote:
No way the Raiders are KC bad, but don't worry you'll see Geno at least twice a year.


Have you seen our Defense? I think KC is better than us slightly, and that pains me to type this.
_________________


2012 Adopt a Raider: DE Lamarr Houston

Silver&Black88 with the sweet sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 12 of 24

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group