Hey I figured they were due. Vick's hurt, they were at home... I mean.... come on. They can't go 0-16, can they?
He has always done that. He's Minstrel. My question is; why is it "favourite" but not "contributour"?
My parents were from India and grew up reading a famous British children's author (named Enid Blyton). They passed those along to me, and I read her books a ton as kid...she wrote a lot of (very good, IMO) books. So I picked up British spellings from that introduction to reading. Of course, all my school was done in the US, so there was a clash...the result is that I am inconsistent in whether I use British or US spellings.
And about the 49ers...I'm not sure that they can go 0-16, but I wouldn't mind the #1 pick and Andrew Luck. Tank for Luck.
With their luck, no pun intended, he would be a complete bust. Knowing what we know, however, maybe a great QB is exactly what this team needs. Montana was the heart and soul of those epic Niners teams... that's what they need now.
I feel pretty confident that it's Luck. I don't believe in reaching for a quarterback and I generally am not a proponent of hoping for a total bottom-out for the top pick...but when (in my opinion) the BPA also happens to be a quarterback...I'm tempted. Luck is the college quarterback I've felt most confident about his NFL chances since Peyton Manning. He has tremendous poise and polish which is remarkable at his age, has great accuracy, he can make all the throws and even has athleticism to escape pressure. I thought Bradford was a great prospect and I like Luck even more.
No way the 9ers finish the season with the worst record. Their schedule gets considerably easier, and Carolina looks to be the worst team this season. Fortunately, they already have their QB of the future, so if the 9ers finish with the 2nd worst record, Luck should still be there. But I still don't think the 9ers are even that bad.
They shouldn't be that bad. Their talent isn't that bad or even necessarily "bad." What it would take is a collapse and fluky season, which they're on their way to. As for the schedule getting easier...they've barely lost the games they were favoured to lose and got blown out in the games they were favoured to win.
Oh, and don't forget about the Bills. They would definitely take Luck if they had the #2 pick in the draft. Being a Seahawk homer, I really want the 9ers to be just good enough not to land Luck, and just bad enough to not catch the Seahawks in the division. We already are going to have to deal with Bradford twice a year (at a minimum) for the next 15 years. I don't want to have to deal with Luck as well.
Well, they at least need luck if not Luck. 49ers continue to find new and creative ways to cough up (or should that be puke up?) games.
I felt that way about Matt Ryan. Luck is definitely a damn good QB. But, I look back to last years draft and think that the Rams made a big mistake going with Bradford ahead of Suh. Suh is the type of player that can change a whole defense and instantly make the rest of his D-line a whole lot better. Another great example was the draft when Texans made the right choice and took Mario Williams over Bush. You work them out at the combines, study tape religiously and make your decision. Don't pick a player, especially in football, because that player is at the position that needs to be filled. Alex Smith was taken that high because they needed a QB and he was the best one that was coming out. Nevermind that he ran the spread primarily at Utah. To most, it was a no brainer that Aaron Rodgers should have been the pick for the 9ers and they would have never been in the situation they are currently in.
I agree with you about Suh, but I think Bradford was legitimately the most talented player in the draft. I think he's going to be a star. What sealed it for me was when Gil Brandt, at Bradford's workout, said that he had not seen a more impressive quarterback workout since Troy Aikman's. Combine that with his very polished, poised play in college and I think you have a truly blue chip prospect. I've made plenty of mistakes on draft predictions, but this is one I actually got right. I took a lot of abuse when I said, in football discussions, that the Texans didn't make a silly choice. That was for two reasons: I felt Bush was overrated, that he was killing college defenses with athleticism that wouldn't kill NFL defenses and his elusiveness was not good enough (ala Barry Sanders) to succeed as an every-down scatback. Plus, defensive end is just a much more impact position. A premium pass rusher is more impactful than a premium running back, if talent is equal. And I thought Williams' talent was higher. It was not a no-brainer at all. Rodgers, based on everything known up to that point, would have been a massive reach at the #1 pick. No one, not even Green Bay, would have selected him #1. He was only linked to the 49ers because they needed a quarterback and he came from a similar WCO system at Cal. His talent, as evaluated at the time, didn't warrant the top pick. Of course, I didn't want Alex Smith either. I felt he was a reach at #1, too. I didn't want them to reach for a quarterback. I wanted (and here comes my own error) them to select Braylon Edwards. I felt he was the most talented player in the draft. Coming into the draft, he was an Andre Johnson like prospect. Oops. I don't think Luck will be a reach at all. I think he's legitimately the best talent in the draft, if he comes out.
I just don't know about Bradford, I'm pretty skeptical. Seems like in todays football there's just no need to draft a quarterback when you have a pick that high. More and more, your seeing guys like Brady, Brees and Romo types that you don't have to use a top 10 pick on, or even a 1st rounder. In my eyes, Suh is a once in a generation D-lineman. I was wrong about the Bush draft. I was a senior in high school then and fell in love with his athleticism and thought there was no way he couldn't be a great back. I was pretty naive at predicting pro success from college success back then. You're right about tailbacks being a dime a dozen these days though. Given a good offensive line, there's not much difference between a starter and 3rd stringer, except opportunity in most cases. There's definitely exceptions. I remember Rodgers wasn't #1 type talent, but if they were going to go after a QB with that number 1 pick he was a no brainer over Smith. The real difference separating the two were combine results and the fact that Smith was the flavor at the time because of his Fiesta Bowl performance. But the reality was, the spread was all that he knew coming into the NFL. I remember Rodgers falling and falling to #24 and the analysts beaming that someone was going to get a steal with Rodgers. That was a draft very weak in QB's, coming right after a year that was saturated with good QB's.
