pi2000

How do you know this... Did you interview all of them? Watch every throw they made their entire college career? Talk to their teammates and coaches? There is so much FUD out there, unless you do your due diligence... which none of us have access to do... we simply can't know who the best QB is.

Yes. And there will no doubt be a QB there at 12. The QBs are hyped up every draft, and only 1 or 2 go in the top 10... happens every year. Rosen, Mayfield or Allen will be there at 12.

I've tried to research these QBs best I can, but only guys like Beane and other GMs have access to mountains of data and can sit down face to face and interview these kids, so I'll trust that Beane has done his due diligence... he seems like a smart guy who's made some slick moves so far... and had a great draft last year. Hope that continues, QB or not.

They used to do it that way... at least before they implemented the rookie wage scale. eg, Mario Williams signed a deal before the draft in 2006 IIRC. David Carr and Carson Palmer too I think?

They looked slow... same with the Kings.... but anybody facing the Knights will look slow. My Ducks sources (an employee and a player) says Bob Murray is an idiot.

They could still trade the pick/player after the announcement. Maybe the league has put a halt to it as a way to increase the drama/attract viewers. The advantage was they could begin contract negotiations earlier.

Why hasn't CLE announced who they're picking 1st yet? Doesn't that usually happen by now?

I suppose with somebody like Rosen the receivers won't need as much separation for him to throw the ball, so he doesn't need as much time to wait for guys to be breaking open down the field.

Somebody arguing that McCarron will be better than Taylor because he won't miss as many open receivers. My point is that McCarron won't get those same looks from the pocket that Taylor did, so even though McCarron may have a more accurate arm, he won't have as many of those same opportunities to hit open receivers as Taylor did. But yeah, I agree, they need to draft a top flight QB.

Like Flagg said, teams that shut Taylor down said they "forced him to be a QB", meaning they didn't let him get outside the pocket. He's at his best when he's on the move. With a a pocket passer you can attack the pocket and not worry about them escaping pressure. With Taylor they didn't attack the pocket, rather they contained him, which gave receivers more time to get open. With McCarron, you can bet opposing defenses will attack the pocket with a variety of schemes and blitzes. This means he'll have less time to throw, less time for receivers to get open. I'm not trying to defend Taylor... My point is that McCarron (or whoever) is back there, won't be facing the same fronts and types of pressure that Taylor did. Receivers won't have as much time to get open.

Before I comment, I kindly ask that you include the TRpm for each of the individuals you listed above. Thank You.

Neuromancer

Thing is.. defenses needed to game plan around Taylor's ability to run. Without that running threat, defenses will have an easier time defending... which means fewer open receivers.

A+ He did what he was instructed to do.

Rams

Yes. He hates losing, it eats at him and he speaks the truth... so yeah If you call that a "self-loathing emo bitch", then we need more of them. A 60 point player, best face-off man in the league, kills penalties, 1st power play unit, great defensively.... yeah I'd say he's worth every penny.

The 77'-78' unis are the best IMO....

For the record, trading ROR would be a colossal mistake. He's everything you want in a 3rd line center... Eichel, Mittlestadt, ROR down the middle is how you build a Cup contender. That could be the best center combination in the league in the not too distant future.... you don't sacrifice that just because ROR has a hard time playing in a losing environment.

I played center, we had a handful of set plays off the draw and most of the time we knew which play based on game situation and where the draw was taking place, so all it would take was a nod, a look, a point of the stick and we'd all be on the same page. Sometimes we'd get creative and draw something up in the dirt real quick depending on the other team's tendencies. D-zone you always try to win it back to the corner, maybe once in a blue moon you try to go forward with it towards the half-wall and catch them off guard for a quick break. In the o-zone you're typically trying to win it back too, but sometimes I'd try to just win it back a couple feet or push my guy off the dot allowing our wing to cut across off the half-wall, picking up the puck on this forehand for a quick shot. My wingers would need to switch sides in some cases. Other times if I really felt like I could beat the other guy I'd tell the strong side winger to beat his man to the far post, I'd push it forward and if I could get to the puck first I knew where to go with it without looking. In general yes, C's have much more defensive zone responsibility. Some coaches prefer man-to-man in the d-zone, but mostly you're supporting your defensemen, picking up the extra guy, collapsing, locking up, etc.. C's need to be quick, anticipating when your defensemen are about to win a battle and be there to support the puck. The most import aspect however, is communication.... handing guys off, chasing behind the net, who has puck, how much time they have, calling reverses, how fast is the pressure coming, etc.. it's such a fast chaotic game you're just reacting out there, it's very rare that you execute a play exactly as it's drawn up... it's more important to understand the concepts and communicate effectively than knowing exactly where on the ice you should be at all times.

He was noticeable in the NCAA playoffs, very fast, his game is speed.

I'm getting tired of saying this, but... It's always darkest before the dawn. It's been dark for a long long time now.

Hamilton: "Jason, it's been a tough tough season. How much of that do you attribute to the players learning a new system which resulted in a slow start, that they just never seemed to recover from which seemed to snowball into December and January before they had a chance to really grasp the details of what Phil was asking them to do on the ice which was a significant departure from what they were asked to do under the previous coaching staff of Dan Bylsma and blah blah blah blah..." JBOTS: "Yes" </presser>

My experience as a player. I've never been paid very much to play, but it's very very difficult to have the same drive and determination in everything you do when you have zero chance of reaching your goal (playoffs). It's not a conscious decision, it's a natural reaction to dealing with a painful experience. The first step in dealing with loss is acceptance.... you can't move on from it until you accept it. When you're forced to accept it over and over and over and over again, then suddenly the 20th loss of the season becomes just a bit easier to stomach than the 1st loss, and it snowballs from there. The only cure is winning, which breeds confidence and re-affirms that all the hard work and attention to detail is being rewarded. When you work and work and work and work you ass off, do all the right things off the ice, but never get rewarded for it, the fire inside will dim just a bit... and that's all it takes to derail your season. I don't care who you are, that's just human nature.