You know what today showed us? Caldwell is a boss.

 

We all know Joeckel is a franchise LT, Gratz had a pick today, Cyprien had a pick today, Ace Sanders balled out, Marks has been our best FA signing,

 

These guys who are rookies are playing like vets. Caldwell studies film and scouts talent like a pro. Whoever we pick and wherever we pick I fully trust that Dave will get it right.

 

Joeckel struggled (or at very least inconsistent enough) at RT so he was moved back to LT. There's no way you can definitively say that "we all know Joeckel is a franchise LT". He didn't show enough, because he started at RT then got hurt immediately at LT. Gratz had a pick today. It also took Derek Cox exactly one game to get his first interception...against a HoF QB nonetheless in Peyton Manning. 

 

Its far too early to tell. Just remember how impressive Gene's 2009 draft looked initially, and it's not like Dave has been without blemish (or at least questions). Just like most GMs, he makes great decisions, and he also makes ones you can question.

 

Like I said, Luke was inconsistent enough and got hurt. Meanwhile, another guy that was mocked to us at #2 was Ansah. He would be our leading pass-rusher already.We took Cyp in round 2, but you can argue that the RBs taken after him could have been our eventual starter. Speaking of running backs, Dave fell in love with Denard, and viewed him as a RB so he took him in the 5th round. Or he could have taken an actual running back in Zac Stacy or Andre Ellington.

 

Gratz has looked good, and honestly exceeded my expectations, but Honeybadger's been a big-time playmaker for the Cards (though I admit they play different roles, and Badger may not have success here due to scheme, and not having someone like Patrick Peterson already on the outside to lock guys down).

 

Like I said, far too early to crown Dave right now, but I'll agree it looks promising. That said, if Dave really is that good of a drafter, 

 

Wouldn't you want him getting first dibs instead of picking after other GMs (who may or may not get lucky taking the guy that Dave wanted ahead of him)?

---

Joeckel struggled (or at very least inconsistent enough) at RT so he was moved back to LT.

 

No, Joeckel was moved to LT because

 

1) We traded Monroe because Monroe was headed to free agency.

2) It was Joeckel's natural position. 

 

It had nothing to do with any struggles at RT, which, if he had any struggles, they would be just the normal acclimating process for a rookie. 

 

And as for all the other woulda coulda shouldas in your post, you can do that for almost every draft pick.  For almost every draft pick for all the teams in the NFL, there was someone picked later who would have been a better pick. 

 

I'm not saying Caldwell is good or bad.  Obviously we can't judge that for a few years yet. 

---

This is exactly my feelings on the matter and I don't understand why more people can't see it like this.

 

It works all the time, 60% of the time...

---

No, Joeckel was moved to LT because

 

1) We traded Monroe because Monroe was headed to free agency.

2) It was Joeckel's natural position. 

 

It had nothing to do with any struggles at RT, which, if he had any struggles, they would be just the normal acclimating process for a rookie. 

 

And as for all the other woulda coulda shouldas in your post, you can do that for almost every draft pick.  For almost every draft pick for all the teams in the NFL, there was someone picked later who would have been a better pick. 

 

I'm not saying Caldwell is good or bad.  Obviously we can't judge that for a few years yet. 

 

That was the point. The OP is already crowning Caldwell as good based on limited that we've seen of Joekel (already out), Cyp (out for a few games), Gratz (missed a few games). Same with Ace. He's using an incredibly small sample size to state, that we don't need the best QB in the draft because Caldwell is good and will get us good players regardless.

 

Maybe Caldwell is the real deal, maybe he's not. Like I said, every GM makes the wrong pick at multiple point in his career. 

 

But as I bolded...if Dave is THAT good, wouldn't you want him getting first dibs?

 

If you have a great chef, wouldn't you want him choosing the ingredients before others can start buying up the best stuff? Sure, he's so good that he'll still get a good product even if he gets there after everyone else has made their pick, but he wouldn't get his absolute best and first choice.

---

That was the point. The OP is already crowning Caldwell as good based on limited that we've seen of Joekel (already out), Cyp (out for a few games), Gratz (missed a few games). Same with Ace. He's using an incredibly small sample size to state, that we don't need the best QB in the draft because Caldwell is good and will get us good players regardless.

 

Maybe Caldwell is the real deal, maybe he's not. Like I said, every GM makes the wrong pick at multiple point in his career. 

 

But as I bolded...if Dave is THAT good, wouldn't you want him getting first dibs?

 

If you have a great chef, wouldn't you want him choosing the ingredients before others can start buying up the best stuff? Sure, he's so good that he'll still get a good product even if he gets there after everyone else has made their pick, but he wouldn't get his absolute best and first choice.

 

Everyone wants the first pick.  But no one wants to have the worst team in the NFL, and that is what is required to get the first pick. 

---

Agree. There is some serious Kool-aid being passed around here and it isn't tasty.

Coming from someone calling someone a racist for liking Carr more than Bridgewater? So who's drinking the Kool-aid? Another poster digging in teddy's undies drawer.

I asked you the last time you called AJ a game magager, how often youve sat down and watched him play and was ignored. So lets try again. Or maybe its you who is the racist?

---

Yes, for the next 6 months we will be seeing tons of 'rogue' scouts who fall in love with prospect and rank them way above the norm. The vast majority of draftniks have him ranked as a late day 2 pick or later.

And who's to say, that the player being ranked too high is'nt Teddy?

BTW, will you be taking your cute "Teddy train" to Houston in may?

---

Everyone wants the first pick.  But no one wants to have the worst team in the NFL, and that is what is required to get the first pick. 

 

Everyone wants the first pick.  But no one wants to have the worst team in the NFL, and that is what is required to get the first pick. 

 

Which has nothing to do with the OP's first post, or my response to that post...

 

No one wants to be the worst team, yes. But quite frankly, no one wants to be the 2nd worst team either. Or the 3rd. Or the 4th. It really does not matter. Being the 2nd worst team isn't some kind of gratification that you can thump your chest and be proud of. We may win 4 games. We may win 5. Who really cares? We've been in this conversation since 2007. Just rip the bandage out, get it over with and get that #1 pick. I mean, seriously...who cares that the Colts were the worst team in 2011? 

 

NOBODY.

 

Just like nobody cares that MJD was the rushing king in 2011. Do you remember the teams we beat in 2011? I sure don't. But I sure know who the Colts got as a result of them being the worst team that year.

---

Which has nothing to do with the OP's first post, or my response to that post...

 

No one wants to be the worst team, yes. But quite frankly, no one wants to be the 2nd worst team either. Or the 3rd. Or the 4th. It really does not matter. Being the 2nd worst team isn't some kind of gratification that you can thump your chest and be proud of. We may win 4 games. We may win 5. Who really cares? We've been in this conversation since 2007. Just rip the bandage out, get it over with and get that #1 pick. I mean, seriously...who cares that the Colts were the worst team in 2011? 

 

NOBODY.

 

Just like nobody cares that MJD was the rushing king in 2011. Do you remember the teams we beat in 2011? I sure don't. But I sure know who the Colts got as a result of them being the worst team that year.

 

Dang....that post might have been a slap back down to reality. 

---

Which has nothing to do with the OP's first post, or my response to that post...

 

No one wants to be the worst team, yes. But quite frankly, no one wants to be the 2nd worst team either. Or the 3rd. Or the 4th. It really does not matter. Being the 2nd worst team isn't some kind of gratification that you can thump your chest and be proud of. We may win 4 games. We may win 5. Who really cares? We've been in this conversation since 2007. Just rip the bandage out, get it over with and get that #1 pick. I mean, seriously...who cares that the Colts were the worst team in 2011? 

 

NOBODY.

 

Just like nobody cares that MJD was the rushing king in 2011. Do you remember the teams we beat in 2011? I sure don't. But I sure know who the Colts got as a result of them being the worst team that year.

Well the guy you remember the Colts getting, looks like he will lead his team to a one-and-done this year in the postseason, while the guy Seattle got in the third round in the same draft may very well take home the gold! Dont give me this rarely happens crap either, cause Wilson is proof that it does! (btw, looks like it happened TWICE in the same draft with Foles, who also looks like he could go farther than Luck in the playoffs)

---

Dang....that post might have been a slap back down to reality. 

Read my post above for your reality!

---

Well the guy you remember the Colts getting, looks like he will lead his team to a one-and-done this year in the postseason, while the guy Seattle got in the third round in the same draft may very well take home the gold! Dont give me this rarely happens crap either, cause Wilson is proof that it does! (btw, looks like it happened TWICE in the same draft with Foles, who also looks like he could go farther than Luck in the playoffs)

Haleys Comet also happens....Once every 76 years which is basically once a life time. Sure things happen if you give it enough time.

---

I don't anymore. We supposedly have a great talent scout in Caldwell. It shouldn't matter where we pick.

---

"If they teachin' how to Dougie, I'm condoning dropping out."

Which has nothing to do with the OP's first post, or my response to that post...

 

No one wants to be the worst team, yes. But quite frankly, no one wants to be the 2nd worst team either. Or the 3rd. Or the 4th. It really does not matter. Being the 2nd worst team isn't some kind of gratification that you can thump your chest and be proud of. We may win 4 games. We may win 5. Who really cares? We've been in this conversation since 2007. Just rip the bandage out, get it over with and get that #1 pick. I mean, seriously...who cares that the Colts were the worst team in 2011? 

 

NOBODY.

 

Just like nobody cares that MJD was the rushing king in 2011. Do you remember the teams we beat in 2011? I sure don't. But I sure know who the Colts got as a result of them being the worst team that year.

 

But some people seem to thing winning and losing is a choice.   It's not.   You can't choose to win or lose.   Players are going to play hard and coaches are going to do their best.    The value of winning and losing is as a measuring stick of where you are as a team.    Wouldn't you rather be the 4th worst team with the 4th pick in the draft than the worst team with the first pick in the draft?   People act like having the first pick in the draft is going to jump the worst team in the league over the 4th worst team with the 4th pick in the draft.   It's not.   All it would mean is that you have the worst team in the league plus one guy.    I would rather be starting from a better position, with a better team and have a worse draft pick, than start with the worst team in the league and have the first draft pick.  

 

Some people only seem to be looking at draft position.   They don't seem to be cognizant of the price you have to pay to get that pick.   You have to actually actually suck as a team.   That's not a good position to build on.   And then you have to roll the dice on a possible home run pick with the first pick in the draft.   I don't want that.  

 

People who want us to lose  to get the first pick in the draft are actually saying, I hope it turns out that when we measure where we are by playing the games, that it turns out that we truly suck and are miles and miles away from contending. 

 

Personally, I would rather be a little more advanced  towards our ultimate goal, and, if it were actually a choice, I would be willing to give up the number one pick and have a better team that is a little bit closer to actually contending.  I think that's a better position to be in. 

 

People seem to think that whether we win or lose, we have the same quality of roster to build on.   But that's not true.   Winning and losing is a measure of where you are.   Yes, you have the same set of 53 players, but if you measure what you have by playing games and having wins and losses, wouldn't you rather find out that you had a better roster than find out you have a worse roster?   Take it down to the individual level, wouldn't you rather find out that Ace Sanders is better than you thought he was than find out that he is worse than you thought he was?   That's what winning and losing is all about.    It's about finding out what you have.   That's why winning and losing is never irrelevant.  

 

Sure, there's one sure fire way to get the number one pick.   It's to find out that Ace Sanders, and Dwayne Gratz, and Jonathan Cyprien all suck and you have a really crappy roster to build on.  

 

I can't explain it any better than  this.  If you don't get it now, you just don't get it. 

---

Well the guy you remember the Colts getting, looks like he will lead his team to a one-and-done this year in the postseason, while the guy Seattle got in the third round in the same draft may very well take home the gold! Dont give me this rarely happens crap either, cause Wilson is proof that it does! (btw, looks like it happened TWICE in the same draft with Foles, who also looks like he could go farther than Luck in the playoffs)

 

You can also get a QB from the 6th round and win 3 Super Bowls. Ready to skip on a QB every single draft except in the 6th round?

---

But some people seem to thing winning and losing is a choice.   It's not.   You can't choose to win or lose.   Players are going to play hard and coaches are going to do their best.    The value of winning and losing is as a measuring stick of where you are as a team.    Wouldn't you rather be the 4th worst team with the 4th pick in the draft than the worst team with the first pick in the draft?   People act like having the first pick in the draft is going to jump the worst team in the league over the 4th worst team with the 4th pick in the draft.   It's not.   All it would mean is that you have the worst team in the league plus one guy.    I would rather be starting from a better position, with a better team and have a worse draft pick, than start with the worst team in the league and have the first draft pick.  

 

Some people only seem to be looking at draft position.   They don't seem to be cognizant of the price you have to pay to get that pick.   You have to actually actually suck as a team.   That's not a good position to build on.   And then you have to roll the dice on a possible home run pick with the first pick in the draft.   I don't want that.  

 

People who want us to lose  to get the first pick in the draft are actually saying, I hope it turns out that when we measure where we are by playing the games, that it turns out that we truly suck and are miles and miles away from contending. 

 

Personally, I would rather be a little more advanced  towards our ultimate goal, and, if it were actually a choice, I would be willing to give up the number one pick and have a better team that is a little bit closer to actually contending.  I think that's a better position to be in. 

 

People seem to think that whether we win or lose, we have the same quality of roster to build on.   But that's not true.   Winning and losing is a measure of where you are.   Yes, you have the same set of 53 players, but if you measure what you have by playing games and having wins and losses, wouldn't you rather find out that you had a better roster than find out you have a worse roster?   Take it down to the individual level, wouldn't you rather find out that Ace Sanders is better than you thought he was than find out that he is worse than you thought he was?   That's what winning and losing is all about.    It's about finding out what you have.   That's why winning and losing is never irrelevant.  

 

Sure, there's one sure fire way to get the number one pick.   It's to find out that Ace Sanders, and Dwayne Gratz, and Jonathan Cyprien all suck and you have a really crappy roster to build on.  

 

I can't explain it any better than  this.  If you don't get it now, you just don't get it. 

No one's claiming that the players should lay down and lose their games. Its their jobs. They're not going to intentionally play bad and risk not showing up on tape and losing their career. When people speak of tanking, we only speak for us as fans. I don't care what winning five wins means, because it doesn't mean anything. Also, just because the team is losing doesn't mean the young guys aren't improving.

 

You don't measure the improvement of the team by wins or losses. Heck, even our Head Coach has that as our mantra. I can't explain it any better than this. If you don't get it now, you just don't get it.

---

When we go 7-9 and pick outside the top 5 and secure our MLB Of the future....then go 6-10 next year and miss on another top QB...maybe just maybe people will get that this teams biggest need will always be QB until We get one.

---

When we go 7-9 and pick outside the top 5 and secure our MLB Of the future....then go 6-10 next year and miss on another top QB...maybe just maybe people will get that this teams biggest need will always be QB until We get one.

 

Well, I'm not going to give up yet. 

 

Good fortune sometimes favors the teams that have it together....Caldwell is showing signs that he might be decent. 

 

Roethlisberger fell to 9. 

 

Rodgers fell to 25. 

---

When we go 7-9 and pick outside the top 5 and secure our MLB Of the future....then go 6-10 next year and miss on another top QB...maybe just maybe people will get that this teams biggest need will always be QB until We get one.

So why are you even following the team if that's what you've predetermined is going to happen?

---

Haleys Comet also happens....Once every 76 years which is basically once a life time. Sure things happen if you give it enough time.

Nice, on the comet response!! Did you learn that in school today? I just gave you 2 names from the same draft genius.

---