nbk35zw wrote:so, hear me out. let us say we line fitzpatric, Drew Cason, matt scott next to each other, and have them through 40 crisp throws to Seattle WR.
What doe you think the out outcome, full of impressions, would be from the wider receivers.
You find an enormous underbelly of "unyielding need come sucking up from the floor.
the place would go mad.. plain mad!!!
and just for the kicker... yo them take the winner to PJCS, perform the drill again... let all that shall be be.
I'd be wise to got bed now
nbk35zw wrote:Forgive me if this has already been hashed through. I'm relatively new to the process.
So, let's assume Flynn is a Raider. And let's assume that Seattle stays put at #56. If EJ Manual, Tyler Wilson, Matt Scott are there to be taken, as well as Robert Woods, Sylvester Williams, Margus Hunt, David Amerson, Menelik Watson, Kyle Long, ect.
Is it against some unwritten rule to draft a QB a full round ahead of your franchise QB?
The advantageous are obvious: cheaper, can be molded, will buy into competition, can build up as collateral.
So, for the 56th pick in the draft to have the most value, do you take Matt Scott?
onanygivensunday wrote:I want a contributor at #56... not a bench-riding back-up QB.
I think it's an excellent idea if his name is Matt Scott. Strong arm, quick feet,
reminds me of Wisconsin's QB from last year.
With an infusion of Russell's film study group and a time with this coaching staff,
he would provide quality backup at the most important position for a bargain rate.
In a couple of years, when Russell gets his payday, you would have another year of
service on Scott's rookie contract. Or you could flip him for a first round plus.
It's an investment I would make.