this exactly.

I think there is no other player likely to be available to us at #11 that would have as much impact as Richardson, particularly considering that we have crap at QB.

I know, I know, Brady doesn't need a running game, and Eli didn't have one this year, and The Saints can't run the ball and look at what Brees did, yeah, yeah.

We don't have a QB that's even in the same ****ing sport as those guys. So we'd better find another way to move the chains. I don't know that you can count on Charles to be 100%-and you don't want him carrying 300+times anyway.

Just sayin'. I'd rather have a top notch QB, but it ain't happening.

I don't buy the no value at RB. In this era where you can only win with a franchise QB, teams are going to have to take a different route if they don't have one. We beat the Packers because our offense kept them off the field and our defense disrupted their rhythm.

That said, I think Richardson would be a luxury pick when we have other needs. In this scenario I'd have us going with Hightower.

Hightower will be ther in the second IMO.

I wouldn't mind to have Richardson, but only if we resign Orton.

So says the team with a HOFer at QB.

Having one of those is pretty damn nice - but we don't. And no amount of draft picks spent on WRs or tackles is going to change that.

However, getting a powerful RB that can force teams to slide their safeties up into the box might help. Further, having a guy like Richardson that's an excellent pass-blocker will help us keep from having to chip with a TE on passing downs as often so it frees up Moeaki to operate over the middle. Better still, Richardson's a very nice pass-catcher in his own right, so LBs or safeties will have to either account for him, or be burned by him.

Richardson will do more to help this offense due to his versatility than any other player we could draft at that spot, other than a premium quarterback. His contributions to the offense would go far beyond merely running the football. They would extend to the secondary through the threat he presents, to the blocking schemes due to his blocking ability, all the way to having a direct impact on the passing game itself because of his ability to catch balls out of the backfield.

Congratulations - you have a HOF quarterback. Beyond that, Patriots fans don't have the ****ing patent on football knowledge. If you didn't have Tom Brady, you'd still be the same pack of self-loathing shitheads you Massholes have always been. You'd shut right the **** up when it comes time to talk football because no amount of scrappy white WRs, Gronknandez's or RBs by committee would've won you a damn thing.

That's true, so why are we knocking ourselves out trying to be the best team in the NFL without a QB?

I'd rather have the best QB in football and the worst supporting cast than the other way around...and we're getting close to being the other way around.

Thank you DJ. I had been pondering how I was gonna fire back at Amnorix about that.



I wouldn't mind grabbing Richardson there if we kept Orton.

If we can pick up Richardson this draft and add some other nice pieces, then grab say Barkley next draft, I'd be extremely happy.

Preaching to the choir.

But this draft is a QB graveyard, it truly is. There are going to be guys going in the first round this year that would be 3rd or even 4th rounders a lot of years. Next year there are likely to be 5+ guys that are going to be better options than all but the top 2 in this year's draft. Beyond the obvious in Barkley (asshole), there's Jones and Manuel, not to mention underclassmen like Wilson and Bray that could come out, maybe even Murray. And there's always an off-the-radar guy that emerges and rises like a rocket.

All of those guys are likely to be better prospects than anyone we would consider that high, except for maybe Tannehill.

And I'm also pro-Tannehill, I wouldn't be at all upset if we took a HR swing on him. He could be our guy.

But then again, 'our guy' could possibly be even better next season and at a less significant opportunity cost (i.e. not giving up a potentially elite multi-purpose back like Richardson to get him).

But apart from using that pick on a QB, I really see no other great option for us to use it on.

If Orton were to sign here, I think I'd be 100 % on Richardson.

Richardson, Charles, McCluster, Baldwin, Moeaki, Bowe, Breaston, Joe Adams, Egnew

We could put a really really good lineup on the field offensively.

If we coudl swing Richardson in the first and Mike Adams fell to us in the second that would be a perfect situation.

Mike Adams might not make it out of the top 15. If he's there in the second, I'll eat my hat.

And Orton sucks dog nuts. He's a shorter, less athletic Cassel. I mean, seriously. This is the guy who Denver cut for nothing in return. Not Brady Quinn, who is horrible. Not Tim Tebow, who can't break the 50% completion mark, but Kyle Orton. How ****ing bad do you have to be to have a team drop you and keep Brady Quinn instead? The guy defines "tomato can."

And don't take this the wrong way O. I like you. Just not when you hypothesize Kyle Orton being on this team.

That's interesting, because the top passer in any year has never won the SB that year.

I know that I don't.

This is about the team. We have a lot of needs but we are close to being good.
We need a QB badly! But there is not a realistic option available to us right now. So we need to build the team and be patient. We don't want to be like the Colts either. Hopefully next season with what looks like a much deeper QB class next year there might be one in range or the team will be in a position to be able to afford to give up more to move up.

I know everyone is tired of waiting. I know it has been a bazillion years.

we should...they're moving from one #1 draft pick QB to another...

we're moving from Cassel to Cassel/Orton

Here's why I'd rather NOT take Tannehill at 11:

There is absolutely NO way that he could play in 2012. None, zip, zero. It's unlikely that he could go in 2013, but that would be the absolute soonest.

IF our QB situation is as bad as it looks, we will have a shot at one of the five or more quality first round options next year, which could, at the earliest, be ready to play in 2013.

So, do you take the guy that can't play until at least 2013 or just wait until 2013 to do that and take a guy that can help you now?

I think you take the guy that can help you now and take a less inexperienced guy next year.

Teams are going to have to figure out another way to do things. If you don't have a franchise QB these days, you have to figure out how to slow the game down, keep those offenses off the field and throw off their timing. I think more teams are going to take the route of the Ravens and 49ers if they don't have that QB. It may take more than one running back with all the pounding they take.