PDA

View Full Version : Players you would start a franchise with


Sam Hall
05-28-2007, 09:08 PM
Len Pasquarelli wouldn't mind starting with an image problem:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2884722&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

listopencil
05-28-2007, 09:13 PM
Start a franchise with a LB?

No.

cdcox
05-28-2007, 09:14 PM
Not a bad pick considering the years it takes to build a franchise and Palmer's injuries.

ChiefsCountry
05-28-2007, 09:24 PM
Umm not a single one took a stud LT, which is the most important position in football.

Sam Hall
05-28-2007, 09:30 PM
Umm not a single one took a stud LT, which is the most important position in football.

Click on the poll in the article. Only 15% would start a franchise with OL. Most people just don't get it.

cdcox
05-28-2007, 09:31 PM
Umm not a single one took a stud LT, which is the most important position in football.

Even if he becomes the all-time leading rusher, he is half used up, and will have his best remaining years in the early years of the franchise, when it is still struggling.

Or are you being sarcastic with the "most important position in football" business?

Mecca
05-28-2007, 09:32 PM
Eh......LT's are important but not like QB's......if you know what you are getting there are guys you'd take over the lineman.

Marlboro_Chief
05-28-2007, 09:33 PM
Most Popular Response on the Mane:

Jay Cutler

Douche Baggins
05-28-2007, 09:34 PM
I would honestly only take a QB if he had the ability to move like Elway or Tarkenton.

ChiefsCountry
05-28-2007, 09:44 PM
Even if he becomes the all-time leading rusher, he is half used up, and will have his best remaining years in the early years of the franchise, when it is still struggling.

Or are you being sarcastic with the "most important position in football" business?

Left Tackle, not the Chargers running back.

cdcox
05-28-2007, 09:49 PM
Left Tackle, not the Chargers running back.

Realized that after reading some of the other replies. Who is the young Willie Roaf of today? If I'm gonna take a LT for a brand new franchise, I want at least 8 years of HOF level play.

Amnorix
05-28-2007, 10:02 PM
Umm not a single one took a stud LT, which is the most important position in football.


errr...come again?

So if you have a choice between a GREAT QB and an average Left Tackle, or a GREAT LT and average QB, you take the GREAT LT, because its "the most important position in football?"

No, definitely not.

Look -- all you need at LT is one who is "good". One who won't hurt you. You do NOT need a GREAT one to have a very good or great team.

Rain Man
05-28-2007, 10:03 PM
I'd love to be in a fantasy football league against the guy in the comments section who said he'd take Tony Romo.

Perhaps people don't remember that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both took over abysmal teams when they came into the league. Both have proven that they can survive and thrive, so it would be insane to take anyone but one of them. I'd go with Manning myself.

Amnorix
05-28-2007, 10:04 PM
Start a franchise with a LB?

No.

Actually, his logic is pretty good. He's assuming his team will stink for a few years, and by the time it's ready to compete, Brady/Manning/Palmer will be all done -- and he doesn't even mention the realistic fact that those guys would take a pounding due to a mediocre offense, over hte next few years.

Merriman, at 23, will be in his late 20s by the time you're ready to compete. It's not that bad an idea.

He's counting on high picks the next few years, and hopes to hit on the QB that way, or via free agency.

That's not to say I like MErriman, as the pick, due to his own issues, but the logic isn't bad.

listopencil
05-28-2007, 10:06 PM
Click on the poll in the article. Only 15% would start a franchise with OL. Most people just don't get it.

I can see why people would start with a QB. But those that do sure as hell better go get a line.

Sam Hall
05-28-2007, 10:09 PM
I think we can look at our own team and realize that OL is most important.

Amnorix
05-28-2007, 10:10 PM
I'd love to be in a fantasy football league against the guy in the comments section who said he'd take Tony Romo.

Perhaps people don't remember that Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both took over abysmal teams when they came into the league. Both have proven that they can survive and thrive, so it would be insane to take anyone but one of them. I'd go with Manning myself.

Indy was absymal.

Pats were definitely not abysmal. They were 5 years off a Super Bowl and had made the playoffs in 1994, 96 (super Bowl loss), '97, and '98. A mediocre '99 season (7-9) gets Carroll fired, and '00 was the first season of Belichick, at 5-11.

Brady took over early in the season and took us right away to a highly improbable 11-5 record and Super Bowl win. No way you can call it an "abysmal" team that he came into.

"Average" or "unimpressive", I'd certainly agree with...

Of course, I'm only picking these nits because you took Manning. :D

ChiefsCountry
05-28-2007, 10:11 PM
errr...come again?

So if you have a choice between a GREAT QB and an average Left Tackle, or a GREAT LT and average QB, you take the GREAT LT, because its "the most important position in football?"

No, definitely not.

Look -- all you need at LT is one who is "good". One who won't hurt you. You do NOT need a GREAT one to have a very good or great team.

If I am starting a team from scratch, bare bones, yes I would go with OL before a QB. I would build up the lines first and then try to get my franchise QB later. I would love to have a Tom Brady/Peyton Manning type but I want my investment to succeed, and a great OL would make them even better.

ChiefsCountry
05-28-2007, 10:13 PM
I can see why people would start with a QB. But those that do sure as hell better go get a line.

Exactly. For examples lets look at how Jacksonville and Houston were built. One took the stud LT and the other took the franchise QB.

FD
05-28-2007, 10:16 PM
I feel like you'd have to be crazy to take anyone but Manning. It is the most important position on the team and he is the best in the league at it.

Rain Man
05-28-2007, 10:42 PM
I think we can look at our own team and realize that OL is most important.

Yeah, because look at all those Super Bowls we won with our great offensive line.

Rain Man
05-28-2007, 10:44 PM
Indy was absymal.

Pats were definitely not abysmal. They were 5 years off a Super Bowl and had made the playoffs in 1994, 96 (super Bowl loss), '97, and '98. A mediocre '99 season (7-9) gets Carroll fired, and '00 was the first season of Belichick, at 5-11.

Brady took over early in the season and took us right away to a highly improbable 11-5 record and Super Bowl win. No way you can call it an "abysmal" team that he came into.

"Average" or "unimpressive", I'd certainly agree with...

Of course, I'm only picking these nits because you took Manning. :D

I will yield to your knowledge of all things Patriotic, but I vaguely recall the Patriots starting out bad that year and then losing their best player - Drew Bledsoe - to a season-ending injury. Maybe those who knew them were more optimistic than I was.

Sam Hall
05-28-2007, 11:01 PM
Yeah, because look at all those Super Bowls we won with our great offensive line.

Look at all the points that line helped us score before this year.

Rain Man
05-28-2007, 11:05 PM
Look at all the points that line helped us score before this year.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I love offensive lines, and I tend to favor building the lines early. However, I think you have to take a top QB over a top lineman with your #1 pick.

ClevelandBronco
05-28-2007, 11:14 PM
If I'm starting a team from scratch, I'm banking on a championship coach before I go for any player.

Coach: Belichick

Player: Manning

But not on the same team. Oil and water.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-28-2007, 11:55 PM
If I have a choice between a 25 year old Roaf or a 25 year old Brady, I pick Roaf.

But at this point, all the dominant tackles are getting up there (Walter Jones is slipping as is Ogden) so I'd probably go with


Tommie Harris or Jamaal Williams.

Logical
05-29-2007, 01:26 AM
Even if he becomes the all-time leading rusher, he is half used up, and will have his best remaining years in the early years of the franchise, when it is still struggling.

Or are you being sarcastic with the "most important position in football" business?

I think he means Left Tackle not LT the player.

Amnorix
05-29-2007, 07:44 AM
I will yield to your knowledge of all things Patriotic, but I vaguely recall the Patriots starting out bad that year and then losing their best player - Drew Bledsoe - to a season-ending injury. Maybe those who knew them were more optimistic than I was.


We started 0-2, lost the Statute to injury, won 1 and then lost one, to start at 1-3. Then the winning started.

And Bledsoe wasn't our best player. That's why we won -- we upgraded significantly at QB by getting rid of the gunslinging guy with the $10M arm and $0.10 head.

My only real point is that Brady didn't turn a terrible team, with years of ineptitude and losing, around. Parcells/Bledsoe had already done that. There was a core of good players, good talent and talent that knew how to win -- had been to multiple playoff games, etc., already there.

Amnorix
05-29-2007, 07:45 AM
If I'm starting a team from scratch, I'm banking on a championship coach before I go for any player.

Coach: Belichick

Player: Manning

But not on the same team. Oil and water.


You're nuts. Belichick/Manning would do FINE.

OctoberFart
05-29-2007, 08:06 AM
Umm not a single one took a stud LT, which is the most important position in football.
or one of the easiest postions to get production so it is a little overrated.

sedated
05-29-2007, 08:31 AM
Eh......LT's are important but not like QB's.

OLines make and break QBs and RBs


....if you know what you are getting there are guys you'd take over the lineman.

and they would promply get destroyed, and take years off their career (ya know, those important ones where you're actually competing)

Chiefnj
05-29-2007, 08:51 AM
I'd take Manning and trade him for 4-5 quality OL and DL from another team.

Brock
05-29-2007, 08:57 AM
or one of the easiest postions to get production so it is a little overrated.

That's funny, cuz the Raiders don't seem to be able to do anything without one.

Brock
05-29-2007, 08:58 AM
Look at all the points that line helped us score before this year.

Look at all the so what.

ChiefsCountry
05-29-2007, 10:18 AM
or one of the easiest postions to get production so it is a little overrated.

Okay look at both of our teams last year and see if that statement is true.

OctoberFart
05-29-2007, 11:40 AM
Okay look at both of our teams last year and see if that statement is true.
Well raiders had some injury issues and a terrible OL. I'm not debating a queef vs raider thread just making a statement that rb is a little overrated and you can get a guy to be productive for a low cost. Go ahead Carl sign LJ to the 80 million dollar deal so he can blow his knee out on the first carry of the season.

BIG_DADDY
05-29-2007, 11:43 AM
Peyton

ChiefsCountry
05-29-2007, 12:06 PM
Well raiders had some injury issues and a terrible OL. I'm not debating a queef vs raider thread just making a statement that rb is a little overrated and you can get a guy to be productive for a low cost. Go ahead Carl sign LJ to the 80 million dollar deal so he can blow his knee out on the first carry of the season.

I was talking about Left Tackle not LT.

OctoberFart
05-29-2007, 01:40 PM
QB, then build both lines.

Simply Red
05-29-2007, 01:42 PM
QB, then build both lines.
genious