I would rather go undrafted so I could chose the best team for me. Very little of the mr. irrelevants make it. But the reason why Tony Homo did well is because he choose the team that would allow him to go the furthest, make the team, and develop into a good QB.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (panthersare#1 @ Apr 27 2008, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But the reason why <u>Tony Homo </u>did well is because he choose the team that would allow him to go the furthest, make the team, and develop into a good QB.</div> Maybe the 49ers would have been better for him?
I'd rather be Mr. Irrelevant, at least I could say I got drafted, and would be less uncertain about my immediate career plans.
Both have advantages.....at a minimum, if you get drafted, you have that for picking up chicks and on resumes forever....but you may have a better chance to make a team if you pick your situation....id vote for undrafted though, just because i would hate all the stupid attention mr irrelevant gets
Dunno. If I was a QB, I'd rather go undrafted. Then I could pick a team that has QB problems and have a better chance of sticking. If I was a RB, I'd rather be drafted. RBs are found everywhere, and I think you can probably latch on easier to a team if you were a draft pick at RB than an undrafted guy (not always, I know).... In general, I'd rather be drafted.... at least you'll get better pay, even if you do get cut. I think QB being the one exception that I'd rather not be drafted....since QB is such a tough position to latch on to...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 27 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (panthersare#1 @ Apr 27 2008, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But the reason why <u>Tony Homo </u>did well is because he choose the team that would allow him to go the furthest, make the team, and develop into a good QB.</div> Maybe the 49ers would have been better for him? </div> I dont think he would be the same kind of QB in San Fran as Dallas. 1. He would be rushed into service, probably playing in his first year which would not allow him to develop well, they started Cody Pickett for a couple games that year. 2. He has way more weapons surrounding him Dallas, like a great o line, good running backs, great TE (assuming that they did well enough to get more than the #5 overall pick for Veron Davis with him at QB). 3. Also, Dallas had a better defense which reduced the pressure on the QB to force throws.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (panthersare#1 @ Apr 27 2008, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Return of the Raider @ Apr 27 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (panthersare#1 @ Apr 27 2008, 06:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But the reason why <u>Tony Homo </u>did well is because he choose the team that would allow him to go the furthest, make the team, and develop into a good QB.</div> Maybe the 49ers would have been better for him? </div> I dont think he would be the same kind of QB in San Fran as Dallas. 1. He would be rushed into service, probably playing in his first year which would not allow him to develop well, they started Cody Pickett for a couple games that year. 2. He has way more weapons surrounding him Dallas, like a great o line, good running backs, great TE (assuming that they did well enough to get more than the #5 overall pick for Veron Davis with him at QB). 3. Also, Dallas had a better defense which reduced the pressure on the QB to force throws. </div> The only thing I question is how great our OL actually is. Adams, Kosier, Gurode, Rivera, and Colombo started for us two years ago.... and with Bledsoe, they looked pretty bad. Romo comes in, and the OL suddenly looked good. I question how much of it was the OL actually playing better vs. Romo being mobile, having a quick release, and going through his reads quickly. Last season, the OL played pretty well, for the most part. Davis was a big reason why, as he was a HUGE uprade over Rivera (double pun, not intended). But I think Romo definitely helps the OL look good. I begin to wonder, really, how good Gurode, Kosier, and Colombo are. They are solid, which, there is nothing wrong with that. But I don't think they are great. Gurode is the best of the 3, and I'd say he is good.... but I suspect if someone else was our QB, you'd start seeing some problems again. OTOH, its probably the best OL we've had since the early 90s. Of course, that's not saying much though, either. I dunno. I've gone back and forth on this issue a lot... and I still cannot make heads or tails of it. Maybe Bledsoe was so inept the OL was going to suck no matter what they did with Bledsoe under center. I don't know....
I'd rather be Mr. Irrelevant than the players taken the last 10 picks before him. At least you get publicity. Otherwise, the undrafted route is better
How many people can actually say they was drafted in the NFL? Give me the draft spot any day of the week.
