Breaking down the drafts in the NFC West

clif

ASFN Addict
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Posts
8,967
Reaction score
214
Location
Phoenix, az
Every year dozens of mock drafts project players to teams on the basis of need. And every year NFL general managers do post-draft interviews where they swear up and down that the guys they took were on the top of their board and that they couldn't believe their luck that the guys were still there.

Everyone drafts for need but no one seems to want to admit it. There's good reason for that — no general manager has to apologize for taking the best guy on the board if it didn't work out, but if he passed over a player with a higher grade and that player turns into Anquan Boldin or Terrell Owens or (gulp), Tom Brady, then that GM has a lot to answer for. So teams will massage their boards to ensure that their picks will end up on top.
Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, it is possible for fans to independently verify the quality of their team's draft choices. A virtual cottage industry has sprung up around the draft, and ex-scouts and professional (and amateur) draftniks have flooded the web with scouting reports, mock drafts and player rankings. While there are always disagreements, there is a surprising degree of consensus that builds up about many of the prospects, so that examining these boards can provide a good impression of what the general perception was about these players on the eve of the draft.

In the next eight editions of Four Downs, we are going to examine every team's draft to see how it stacks up against a collection of major draft site boards. A player will be considered a steal if he was taken at or beyond the point in the draft that he was projected to go, and a reach if he was taken before that point. He will be considered a major reach or steal if he came off the board more than a round before or after he was slotted. We will also put up the best available player who was available at the time of the selection according to the independent draft boards.
Arizona Cardinals

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5590920 {There is a chart I can’t paste here}

Not every draft has a defining moment, a decision or sequence of decisions that profoundly alters the course of two franchises, but one such moment took place at the 9-10 junction of the 2006 draft. Detroit and Arizona were in some ways mirror images of each other. Both teams had invested heavily in their receiving corps. In recent years, Detroit drafted three wide receivers in the first round, while Arizona drafted two in the first and one in the second. Both teams spent the off-season throwing money at the quarterback position in an attempt to lock in at least competent play after years of below-average starters. Both teams had need of an impact defensive player. Both drafts were directed by men on the hot seat who could ill-afford to whiff on the pick. When Detroit was on the clock they opted for need, while the Cardinals took the best player on the board. When Lions fans are watching Matt Leinart hoist the Lombardi Trophy in 2008, all of Matt Millen's wide receiver picks will seem positively benign next to this one.

Denny Green has been drafting BPA since he arrived in Arizona; his first three drafts are textbook examples of how to infuse a team with a base of young talent in a short period of time. By ignoring the composition of his roster and drafting based simply on player grades, he has netted quality young talent like Larry Fitzgerald, Karlos Dansby, Darnell Dockett, Antrel Rolle, Eric Green, Elton Brown and Darryl Blackstock. This year, Green followed the same approach, and it's highly likely that this draft class will bear similar fruit. Leonard Pope and Gabe Watson were both considered late first round possibilities, but Green landed them in the third and fourth rounds, respectively. Both players have some issues — Pope is a poor blocker for a man of his size and does not run crisp routes, while Watson is notorious for taking plays off — but each one will step into the starting lineup and provide a tremendous upgrade in size and athleticism. (That Pope plays a position where Arizona had a huge hole is just an added bonus.) Jonathan Lewis and Todd Watkins could have come off the board in the fourth or fifth round, yet Green was able to nab them both at the back end of the draft. In all five of his seven selections were considered the best available player by at least one of the draft boards, and two of them were unanimously considered to
be so.

But it is the Leinart selection that will define this draft. Not unlike Carson Palmer before him, Leinart will be dropped into an offensive unit that is stacked at the skill positions. He is going to a quarterback-friendly system that suits his skill set, and will be playing for a coach who has shown himself willing to give young quarterbacks playing time if they earn it. He won't have to worry about inclement weather in any of his home games or any divisional away games. There has never been a rookie quarterback who has come into the league with the sort of on-the-job training Leinart has received — three years of excelling in a pro-style offense run by NFL coaches — and there have been few who have been put into as advantageous a situation. Arizona was on the rise anyway thanks to Green's astute eye for talent, but thanks to their draft class of 2006, they are poised to put their reputation as a laughingstock franchise to bed in much the way that Tony Dungy's Tampa Bay teams did in the late 90's.

Recent free agent moves

Arizona signed LB Mark Brown and P Fred Capshaw on May 4th. Brown, who played for the Jets over the last three seasons, had a career-high 65 tackles, 1.5 sacks, two interceptions and a forced fumble last season. The former Auburn UDFA will bring much-needed depth to the Cardinals' linebacker corps. Capshaw was cut by the 49ers in their 2003 training camp.

Remaining team needs

Although Lutui was a good pickup, serious questions still abound as to the potential effectiveness of the Cardinal o-line. Leinart, in particular, will not be used to such a porous front five. That's the downside of the pro-level training he received at USC—he was also the beneficiary of a series of great offensive lines. Edgerrin James will also presumably feel the effects of running without Indy's line, ranked first by Football Outsiders in 2005 in Adjusted Line Yards. Arizona's success will be dependent, first and foremost, on this underachieving unit. Defensively, the secondary requires Antrel Rolle's return — but the 2005 first-rounder may need arthroscopic surgery on his right knee. This is the same knee that required meniscus surgery and forced Rolle to miss nine games in his rookie season.

Undrafted free agents of note

Arizona agreed to terms with ten undrafted free agents on May 4th. Perhaps the most
interesting talent is Georgia Tech receiver Damarius Bilbo. Bilbo played three seasons at wideout for the Yellowjackets, and enjoyed a career-high 40 receptions for 591 yards in 2005. He's also a lock for induction into anyone's NFL All-Name Team. Another receiver, Pitt's Greg Lee, will be reunited with former teammate Larry Fitzgerald, at least in the short term. Princeton CB Jay McCareins is the younger brother of Jets receiver Justin McCareins, and led Division I-AA with 9 interceptions, 20 passes defended, two interceptions for touchdowns and 236 interception return yards during the 2005 season.
 

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
Good find. Interesting notes and decent insight. I've just soured on the whole immediate draft grade thing. Different GMs see different things and I think there is a lot more to consider than most people ever do. Like a guy may be a great talent but not a good fit for a particular system. One scout might like size over speed and will rank players accordingly. A scout might rank a great cover corner that's 5'9" might lower than a 6'0" with only average coverage ability.

Last year, I wanted Blackstock in the 1st because all of the scouts had him ranked there. Every team passed him twice until Arizona finally decided that he was too good a value that late to pass up. I also moaned when we took Tatupu in the second, knowing he was a concensus fourth rounder. But look how it has turned out.

Besides, how many scouts missed guys like Rod Smith and Priest Holmes who ended up undrafted. Can you imagine what might have been said about the Patriots if they had taken Tom Brady in the third? They would have completely flamed them. As we now know, Brady would have been a fine pick at first overall.

IMO, all these guys that say you had a good or a bad draft have no more clue than any of us whether the draft was good or not. The best way to tell is to wait three years and look back at it. No one can really tell you if a guy is going to work out or not.
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,577
Reaction score
5,388
Location
Fort Myers
SeaChicken said:
IMO, all these guys that say you had a good or a bad draft have no more clue than any of us whether the draft was good or not. The best way to tell is to wait three years and look back at it. No one can really tell you if a guy is going to work out or not.

I agree with that 100%, I hate when these "experts" give out grades immediately after the draft...those are based on where a player was "projected" to go not on how productive they have been.

I'd like to see a site give grades for drafts from 2000-2004, that would give a much better indicator to how well a team drafts.
 

Redsz

We do this together
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Posts
4,728
Reaction score
1,835
In my opinion, the draft is two things: 1) Filling needs and 2) Getting value with your selections. You can totally give out grades or break down picks based on those two things.

How a player turns out is quite often based on coaching and scheme - making it a different issue all together.
 

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
Redsz said:
In my opinion, the draft is two things: 1) Filling needs and 2) Getting value with your selections. You can totally give out grades or break down picks based on those two things.

How a player turns out is quite often based on coaching and scheme - making it a different issue all together.
I agree with the filling needs part. It's the "getting value" I struggle with. Needs are usually evident but "value" is subjective. One guy may say that a guy doesn't have this or that and that's why he's not a good value. I remember people saying Fitzgerald didn't have enough speed to be taken that high in the first round. Where are those guys now?

IMO, it's kind of that beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument. Who am I to say that a player you picked up is not a good value? He may not be a good value to me but you may think he's a steal. There's really no way to know for sure what kind of value he is until he's actually gotten on an NFL field.

Every one of these draftees can play. Show me the worst guy in the draft and I'll show you a guy that had his jersey retired at his high school because he was that good. The question is, "Do his skills transfer to the next level?" And while everyone takes a guess at it, no one is really sure. The only way to know for sure is to put them on the field and see. That's why I think the whole draft grade process is fun to do, but it's largely just for entertainment. IMO, the "three years later" grades are much more relevant.
 

john h

Registered User
LEGACY MEMBER
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
10,552
Reaction score
13
Location
Little Rock
SeaChicken said:
Good find. Interesting notes and decent insight. I've just soured on the whole immediate draft grade thing. Different GMs see different things and I think there is a lot more to consider than most people ever do. Like a guy may be a great talent but not a good fit for a particular system. One scout might like size over speed and will rank players accordingly. A scout might rank a great cover corner that's 5'9" might lower than a 6'0" with only average coverage ability.

Last year, I wanted Blackstock in the 1st because all of the scouts had him ranked there. Every team passed him twice until Arizona finally decided that he was too good a value that late to pass up. I also moaned when we took Tatupu in the second, knowing he was a concensus fourth rounder. But look how it has turned out.

Besides, how many scouts missed guys like Rod Smith and Priest Holmes who ended up undrafted. Can you imagine what might have been said about the Patriots if they had taken Tom Brady in the third? They would have completely flamed them. As we now know, Brady would have been a fine pick at first overall.

IMO, all these guys that say you had a good or a bad draft have no more clue than any of us whether the draft was good or not. The best way to tell is to wait three years and look back at it. No one can really tell you if a guy is going to work out or not.

One guy who many have penciled in as a great draft pick is Rolle. At this point he has yet to prove anything. He may turn out to be an all pro but for the moment he is basically an injured rookie as far as performance and playing time. Hope for the best.
 

Cardsmasochist

Full Throttle!!
Joined
Sep 21, 2002
Posts
5,100
Reaction score
7,304
Location
Downtown Phoenix
clif said:
Arizona signed LB Mark Brown and P Fred Capshaw on May 4th. Brown, who played for the Jets over the last three seasons, had a career-high 65 tackles, 1.5 sacks, two interceptions and a forced fumble last season. The former Auburn UDFA will bring much-needed depth to the Cardinals' linebacker corps. Capshaw was cut by the 49ers in their 2003 training camp.


I thought we signed Milford Brown from the Texans. Did we also sign Mark Brown?
 

Bada0Bing

Don't Stop Believin'
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
7,654
Reaction score
905
Location
Goodyear
SeaChicken said:
Good find. Interesting notes and decent insight. I've just soured on the whole immediate draft grade thing. Different GMs see different things and I think there is a lot more to consider than most people ever do. Like a guy may be a great talent but not a good fit for a particular system. One scout might like size over speed and will rank players accordingly. A scout might rank a great cover corner that's 5'9" might lower than a 6'0" with only average coverage ability.

Last year, I wanted Blackstock in the 1st because all of the scouts had him ranked there. Every team passed him twice until Arizona finally decided that he was too good a value that late to pass up. I also moaned when we took Tatupu in the second, knowing he was a concensus fourth rounder. But look how it has turned out.

Besides, how many scouts missed guys like Rod Smith and Priest Holmes who ended up undrafted. Can you imagine what might have been said about the Patriots if they had taken Tom Brady in the third? They would have completely flamed them. As we now know, Brady would have been a fine pick at first overall.

IMO, all these guys that say you had a good or a bad draft have no more clue than any of us whether the draft was good or not. The best way to tell is to wait three years and look back at it. No one can really tell you if a guy is going to work out or not.

What he said. I think the same way, however you put it into words much than I could have.

Green has done an awesome job of building this team through the draft and signing the right free-agents. This just might be a whole new era for Cardinal fans.
 

Redsz

We do this together
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Posts
4,728
Reaction score
1,835
SeaChicken said:
I agree with the filling needs part. It's the "getting value" I struggle with. Needs are usually evident but "value" is subjective. One guy may say that a guy doesn't have this or that and that's why he's not a good value. I remember people saying Fitzgerald didn't have enough speed to be taken that high in the first round. Where are those guys now?

IMO, it's kind of that beauty is in the eye of the beholder argument. Who am I to say that a player you picked up is not a good value? He may not be a good value to me but you may think he's a steal. There's really no way to know for sure what kind of value he is until he's actually gotten on an NFL field.

Every one of these draftees can play. Show me the worst guy in the draft and I'll show you a guy that had his jersey retired at his high school because he was that good. The question is, "Do his skills transfer to the next level?" And while everyone takes a guess at it, no one is really sure. The only way to know for sure is to put them on the field and see. That's why I think the whole draft grade process is fun to do, but it's largely just for entertainment. IMO, the "three years later" grades are much more relevant.

I agree value is somewhat subjective - but it isn't as ambiguous as your making it seem.

You had teams trading up for Jimmy Williams and Winston Justice at the top of the 2nd round. These were guys who were slated to go in the first round and slid because of the big 'C'. Picking those guys at that postion is what I would classify as getting 'value' with your selection. Donte Whitner (for example) at #8 was not good value because he could of been had 5 picks later.

I kinda look at the draft as a seperate event from the NFL season. Because as I said, how a player turns out is due to a combination of factors such as a coaching and scheme. You can grade a teams picks from the draft as a stand alone event without having to take the development of the player in three years into account.
 
Last edited:

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
Redsz said:
I agree value is somewhat subjective - but it isn't as ambiguous as your making it seem.

You had teams trading up for Jimmy Williams and Winston Justice at the top of the 2nd round. These were guys who were slated to go in the first round and slid because of the big 'C'. Picking those guys at that postion is what I would classify as getting 'value' with your selection. Donte Whitner (for example) at #8 was not good value because he could of been had 5 picks later.

I kinda look at the draft as a seperate event from the NFL season. Because as I said, how a player turns out is due to a combination of factors such as a coaching and scheme. You can grade a teams picks from the draft as a stand alone event without having to take the development of the player in three years into account.
I hear where you're going but I think there's more to it. Take the Whitner example for instance. If Whitner was the guy they felt they wanted and needed, then are we saying they should have passed on him because they had a pick that other's considered five picks to high for him... or even ten? It's easy to say that Whitner would have been their five picks later if we assume we know what the other teams are thinking. If one GM is willing to "reach" for a guy, how do we know another wasn't willing to as well? I mean, nobody saw the first guy's reach coming, right?

We always talk about when players would be there as if it was a given. But the very fact that people do reach makes the "he would have been there later" argument moot. If one GMs willing to reach for him, who's to say another wouldn't?

I think you're oversimplifying with the Justice and Williams picks and it ties into why I disagree with judging the draft as a stand alone event. You're saying that Justice and Williams were great value despite their character flaws. IMO, that's like saying Williams was a steal despite running a 4.8 forty (an exaggeration). You're arbitrarily discounting one of the factors that makes a good pick. Sure he can run a 4.4 and he's over 6' tall but if he ends up in legal trouble that keeps him off of the field, was he a great value? What if he is devisive and ruins the team chemistry in your locker room. Good value then? Isn't the overall purpose of the draft to make your team better? Sure it's fun to look at how the draft went on paper but those grades mean nothing if it doesn't translate to the field and make your team better. I don't believe you can separate the two.

At the end of the day, the draft was only a success if you got players that you needed. For example, I think the Giants taking Mathias Kiwanuka at the end of the first was a bad pick. It may have been a "decent value" pick as many had him rated as a late first rounder. You take a DE when you've got Strahan, Umenyiora, and Tuck? THAT is your first pick? To me, that's one of those picks that is a "high value" pick but makes no sense. I don't think having Kiwanuka will improve them immediately the way you hope that a first rounder will. IMO, they did what "conventional wisdom" said and passed on players that would have had an immediate impact... but I'll save my judgement for ooooh, say three years.
 
Last edited:

vinnymac

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Posts
3,022
Reaction score
0
my opinion is if like a gut then take him. the bills took whitner at number 8 because the bills liked him and they are satified with that. that is all that matters anyway. they traded up to macargo caused they liked him and they didn't want anybody else to get him. i hope everything works out for them. i don't think macargo going to make an impact in his first season, but who am i to say that he won't. the main thing is that the cardinals draft choices work out. that is all that matters to me. the cardinals have their people and other teams have theirs. hopefully theirs don't work out and the cardinals do.
 

BACH

Superbowl, Homeboy!
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
5,967
Reaction score
1,470
Location
Expat in Kuala Lumpur
john h said:
One guy who many have penciled in as a great draft pick is Rolle. At this point he has yet to prove anything. He may turn out to be an all pro but for the moment he is basically an injured rookie as far as performance and playing time. Hope for the best.
But in terms of rating the draft it's still a great draft pick. Rolle was perhaps the top defensive player in the draft with no off-field issues or injury concerns.

It hard to blame the front office for Rolle getting injured...
 

football karma

Michael snuggles the cap space
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Posts
15,046
Reaction score
13,706
I have decided that there is absolutely no point in grading a draft -- almost no matter what the standard is.

You can grade it today based on "perceived value" -- i.e. the Bills did poor because they reached for Whitner. But frankly, that is grading the pros, who have the most information based on how the amatuers, who have less information, thought it should go. Fine for entertainment, but only that.

Then there is "filling needs". I hate this because the draft is a long term exercise, and the filling needs method judges it on a "what will this do for me next year" standard. Maybe I have been conditioned to hate this because it resulted in Thomas Jones over Brian Urlacher and Tommy Knight over Tony Gonzales (BTW-- I know for a fact that in both situations, the Cards war room agonized over those choices).

Finally -- the hindsight is 20/20 method where you wait three years. Also a little unfair in that journalists who gave the draft an "A" on the day of the draft get to look back and rip the selection, while the poor GM has to live with the choice. Everyone loved Andre Wadsworth, but he turned into a bust. Also, by two years later, usually the team's record indicates how the drafting process has gone, so who cares.
 

Goldfield

Formally known as BEERZ
Joined
Sep 13, 2002
Posts
10,487
Reaction score
2,256
Location
ASFN
Every year dozens of mock drafts project players to teams on the basis of need. And every year NFL general managers do post-draft interviews where they swear up and down that the guys they took were on the top of their board and that they couldn't believe their luck that the guys were still there.

Everyone drafts for need but no one seems to want to admit it. There's good reason for that — no general manager has to apologize for taking the best guy on the board if it didn't work out, but if he passed over a player with a higher grade and that player turns into Anquan Boldin or Terrell Owens or (gulp), Tom Brady, then that GM has a lot to answer for. So teams will massage their boards to ensure that their picks will end up on top.
Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, it is possible for fans to independently verify the quality of their team's draft choices. A virtual cottage industry has sprung up around the draft, and ex-scouts and professional (and amateur) draftniks have flooded the web with scouting reports, mock drafts and player rankings. While there are always disagreements, there is a surprising degree of consensus that builds up about many of the prospects, so that examining these boards can provide a good impression of what the general perception was about these players on the eve of the draft.

In the next eight editions of Four Downs, we are going to examine every team's draft to see how it stacks up against a collection of major draft site boards. A player will be considered a steal if he was taken at or beyond the point in the draft that he was projected to go, and a reach if he was taken before that point. He will be considered a major reach or steal if he came off the board more than a round before or after he was slotted. We will also put up the best available player who was available at the time of the selection according to the independent draft boards.
Arizona Cardinals

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5590920 {There is a chart I can’t paste here}

Not every draft has a defining moment, a decision or sequence of decisions that profoundly alters the course of two franchises, but one such moment took place at the 9-10 junction of the 2006 draft. Detroit and Arizona were in some ways mirror images of each other. Both teams had invested heavily in their receiving corps. In recent years, Detroit drafted three wide receivers in the first round, while Arizona drafted two in the first and one in the second. Both teams spent the off-season throwing money at the quarterback position in an attempt to lock in at least competent play after years of below-average starters. Both teams had need of an impact defensive player. Both drafts were directed by men on the hot seat who could ill-afford to whiff on the pick. When Detroit was on the clock they opted for need, while the Cardinals took the best player on the board. When Lions fans are watching Matt Leinart hoist the Lombardi Trophy in 2008, all of Matt Millen's wide receiver picks will seem positively benign next to this one.

Denny Green has been drafting BPA since he arrived in Arizona; his first three drafts are textbook examples of how to infuse a team with a base of young talent in a short period of time. By ignoring the composition of his roster and drafting based simply on player grades, he has netted quality young talent like Larry Fitzgerald, Karlos Dansby, Darnell Dockett, Antrel Rolle, Eric Green, Elton Brown and Darryl Blackstock. This year, Green followed the same approach, and it's highly likely that this draft class will bear similar fruit. Leonard Pope and Gabe Watson were both considered late first round possibilities, but Green landed them in the third and fourth rounds, respectively. Both players have some issues — Pope is a poor blocker for a man of his size and does not run crisp routes, while Watson is notorious for taking plays off — but each one will step into the starting lineup and provide a tremendous upgrade in size and athleticism. (That Pope plays a position where Arizona had a huge hole is just an added bonus.) Jonathan Lewis and Todd Watkins could have come off the board in the fourth or fifth round, yet Green was able to nab them both at the back end of the draft. In all five of his seven selections were considered the best available player by at least one of the draft boards, and two of them were unanimously considered to
be so.

But it is the Leinart selection that will define this draft. Not unlike Carson Palmer before him, Leinart will be dropped into an offensive unit that is stacked at the skill positions. He is going to a quarterback-friendly system that suits his skill set, and will be playing for a coach who has shown himself willing to give young quarterbacks playing time if they earn it. He won't have to worry about inclement weather in any of his home games or any divisional away games. There has never been a rookie quarterback who has come into the league with the sort of on-the-job training Leinart has received — three years of excelling in a pro-style offense run by NFL coaches — and there have been few who have been put into as advantageous a situation. Arizona was on the rise anyway thanks to Green's astute eye for talent, but thanks to their draft class of 2006, they are poised to put their reputation as a laughingstock franchise to bed in much the way that Tony Dungy's Tampa Bay teams did in the late 90's.

Recent free agent moves

Arizona signed LB Mark Brown and P Fred Capshaw on May 4th. Brown, who played for the Jets over the last three seasons, had a career-high 65 tackles, 1.5 sacks, two interceptions and a forced fumble last season. The former Auburn UDFA will bring much-needed depth to the Cardinals' linebacker corps. Capshaw was cut by the 49ers in their 2003 training camp.

Remaining team needs

Although Lutui was a good pickup, serious questions still abound as to the potential effectiveness of the Cardinal o-line. Leinart, in particular, will not be used to such a porous front five. That's the downside of the pro-level training he received at USC—he was also the beneficiary of a series of great offensive lines. Edgerrin James will also presumably feel the effects of running without Indy's line, ranked first by Football Outsiders in 2005 in Adjusted Line Yards. Arizona's success will be dependent, first and foremost, on this underachieving unit. Defensively, the secondary requires Antrel Rolle's return — but the 2005 first-rounder may need arthroscopic surgery on his right knee. This is the same knee that required meniscus surgery and forced Rolle to miss nine games in his rookie season.

Undrafted free agents of note

Arizona agreed to terms with ten undrafted free agents on May 4th. Perhaps the most
interesting talent is Georgia Tech receiver Damarius Bilbo. Bilbo played three seasons at wideout for the Yellowjackets, and enjoyed a career-high 40 receptions for 591 yards in 2005. He's also a lock for induction into anyone's NFL All-Name Team. Another receiver, Pitt's Greg Lee, will be reunited with former teammate Larry Fitzgerald, at least in the short term. Princeton CB Jay McCareins is the younger brother of Jets receiver Justin McCareins, and led Division I-AA with 9 interceptions, 20 passes defended, two interceptions for touchdowns and 236 interception return yards during the 2005 season.
Painfull to read... How did things end up soooo bad.
 

Russ Smith

The Original Whizzinator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
86,236
Reaction score
36,378
So when exactly did Dennis Green show a willingness to play a young QB? IIRC Leinart is the first rookie he's ever started, Culpepper sat a whole year, most of his QB's in Minnesota were 30 or older.

That's the thing I overlooked when he came here and I convinced myself maybe he COULD get Josh to be the guy, he really hadn't done it with a young Qb except for Culpepper.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
547,586
Posts
5,352,102
Members
6,304
Latest member
Dbacks05
Top