| 03 March 2010
So you think that the Rams would be better served by going after Suh than one of the two top quarterbacks this year or Seattle would be better served picking McCoy instead of Clausen if both were available at number six? I would have thought that one of the defensive tackles would have been the safer pick if nothing else but a study done by WalterFootball has opened my eyes and brought something into focus that I've often articulated about quarterbacks but never had the research to back it up.
WalterFootball went back to 1993 and looked at both defensive tackles and quarterbacks taken at pick 16 and higher from then until now. The players were rated as hits, busts, or OK meaning that they weren't busts but neither were they any great shakes at the position (think Dilfer). Surprisingly, it turned out that taking a defensive tackle turned out to be a bigger risk than a quarterback. I know most fans would tell you that the quarterback position is the riskiest of all positions to draft but it's not true.
Here's the sumarization of the results of the study:
Quarterbacks:
There were 29 quarterbacks selected in the top 16 of the NFL Draft since 1993...
Hits: 13
Busts: 12
OK: 2
TBA: 2
Defensive Tackles:
There were 33 defensive tackles selected in the top 16 of the NFL Draft since 1993...
Hits: 15
Busts: 15
OK: 2
TBA: 1
Now, let's look at the hit and bust rates for each position:
Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
Defensive Tackle Hit Rate: 46.9%
Quarterback Bust Rate: 44.4%
Defensive Tackle Bust Rate: 46.9%
I find it very interesting that according to this data, quarterbacks have higher success rates and lower bust rates than defensive tackles, yet defensive tackle is generally perceived to be the safer route.
It's a small sample size, but the disparity is even larger in the top five. In that area, only one defensive tackle has panned out of five opportunities, whereas five of 10 quarterbacks have been "hits," and only four of 10 quarterbacks have been busts.
Considering how important the quarterback is in relation to the defensive tackle, if a team is deciding between the two positions, the "risk" factor should not sway them away from taking a signal-caller. In fact, it's actually riskier to take a defensive tackle.
You can read all the detail here including all the players that were evaluated in the study and how they were rated. Press Read more to continue. In another part of WalterFootball's website, they say that second round quarterbacks have a bust rate of over 90%.Also, second-round quarterbacks have a 90.9-percent bust rate (I'll be exploring this soon). Excluding Drew Brees and possibly Chad Henne, name one successful Round 2 quarterback in the past decade. Don't try, because there are none. Believe it or not, the next best guy is Tarvaris Jackson (Kevin Kolb and Chad Henne being unknowns right now).
A lot of guys are saying that Seattle should wait and take a quarterback in the second or fourth rounds or even later rather than risk picking one in the first round. If you believe the work done at WalterFootball and facts are facts, you have to ask yourself if you would be better off picking the most important position on the team in the first round and have a 1 in 2 chance that he'll become a hit or wait until the second round and select a quarterback at 1 in 10 odds. I would suspect that the odds go down from there in each successive round.
The Rams are talking about drafting Suh again instead of one of the two so called franchise quarterbacks. They have passed on three potential franchise quarterbacks in the last four drafts (Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, and Mark Sanchez) preferring to make a "safe pick". The Rams have won 6 games in the last three seasons. Maybe they would have fared better with Ryan, Cutler, or Sanchez under center than Tye Hill the shutdown corner (he hasn't been), or Chris Long the defensive end who was supposed to be a dominant defensive lineman like Suh is projected to be (he hasn't been either), or Jason Smith who now looks as if he has severe concussion syndrome that may not allow him to ever live up to his potential. The Rams have done what many are saying Seattle should do. Pass on potential franchise quarterbacks unless they see a sure thing like Peyton Manning or wait for Jake Locker next season. Bad philosophy according to these statistics.
First of all, you're not going to get a Peyton Manning or Jake Locker unless you own one of the top two or three picks in the draft. To get to number one or two this season even from number six would require almost our whole draft if you figure the points. How would we get there from outside the top ten? I don't think Carroll has plans to remain a team picking in the top ten for long. The Rams have shown us the model for ignoring quarterback needs and bypassing franchise quarterback prospects waiting for who knows what but Suh isn't going to make the Rams a winner by himself but Bradford or Clausen might. And the quarterback is the less risky pick too.
I think Seattle has to take a hard look at either of the elite quarterback prospects if they are available to them with the number six pick. Unless there is a red flag that the coaching and scouting staff know about, they need to look at where we'll be with no viable quarterback on the team versus having another top talent at another position. Can Berry affect the game like a franchise quarterback could? Can Haden? How about McCoy? We might not get a shot at a top rated quarterback for years. If we go 7 - 9 next year or better, we'll be drafting out of the top ten and at 8 - 8 somewhere in the middle of the draft. Forget getting a sniff at a top rated quarterback there and forget having enough ammunition to move up unless we want to get rid of a top player and lots of draft choices.
Those of you who would summarily pass on Bradford or Clausen without even doing a proper evaluation or considering the risk/reward elements of picking one of them at number six are looking at putting the team into the same hole the Rams are in. If, after doing such an evaluation, there are some reasons to pass on either candidate, that's a different story but we can't just dismiss the idea out of hand no matter who is also on the board at the time.
I hear some of you Addicts saying that we've got Hass for at least a couple more years so we're really not needing a quarterback yet anyway. That's a fallacy coupled with wishful thinking. Hass has been hurt significant portions of the last two seasons. What makes anyone think he won't miss games again this season? Also, who really thinks he will re-sign with Seattle and spend his last year or two on a rebuilding team perhaps tutoring a new quarterback who is being groomed to take his place? I think you have to consider that Hass may not play this whole season and is most likely gone afterwards in free agency. If you don't plan for that, you are taking a huge risk unless you really don't care about winning. I would say that risk is greater than the 50% you're looking at in picking a franchise quarterback out of the first round.
OK Addicts, quarterback has been a big controversy this off-season. What about the revelation that the quarterback position isn't the most risky pick? Can we afford to just ignore Hasselbeck's injury history or bank on him re-signing with the team and being able to play effectively for a couple more years? Do we want to lower our odds from 50% to 10% or less when searching for a quarterback by being afraid to take a chance on a good one with a high pick? How many years are we willing to devote to the search if we're going to try the low odds approach? How many more chances will we get to pick a top ten quarterback where the highest odds are? Think about it.
Hasta,
BillT
Comments (49)
...
written by T.J., March 03, 2010
written by T.J., March 03, 2010
Interesting stuff Bill. I agree with your thought that a QB should be taken, but I am curious what exactly qualified a QB or DT as a bust. To me, a "bust" at DT can still contribute as a starter. For example, Dan Wilkenson was the top overall pick in the mid-90s and is considered a bust because he never lived up to his draft status. But, he started and contributed for over a decade. The Bengals still got value out of him, just not as much as they expected. QB's who bust tend to not even contribute. There are many examples...Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Andre Ware, etc. - Guys who either couldn't start or were so bad, their starting positions didn't last long. The teams that drafted them got little or no value because their teams were better off with them on the sideline. I think that LT is similar to DT in the bust factor. Even a LT like Robert Gallery, who was a total bust at LT, is able to make a solid contribution as a G. Could you find the criteria used to designate these guys? That being said, I still believe that drafting a QB is worth the risk, because hitting on a franchise QB can propel a team to long-term success and I would be 100% behind taking a QB in round 1 if that is the route Carroll & Schnieder go.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by BillT, March 03, 2010
written by BillT, March 03, 2010
T.J.
Dan Wilkenson was considered a "hit" in the study probably for just the reasons you mentioned. I'll try and contact WalterFootball and see if they can quantify the criteria they used or if it was just a subjective evaluation. Did you go look at the list of quarterbacks and defensive tackles? If so, did your analysis agree with how they rated the players or not?
BillT
Dan Wilkenson was considered a "hit" in the study probably for just the reasons you mentioned. I'll try and contact WalterFootball and see if they can quantify the criteria they used or if it was just a subjective evaluation. Did you go look at the list of quarterbacks and defensive tackles? If so, did your analysis agree with how they rated the players or not?
BillT
-
- -1
-
-
HAHA
written by gnarlyhawks, March 03, 2010
written by gnarlyhawks, March 03, 2010
Bill, you don't have to use the Rams as an example of what happens /out a franchise QB. You can look no further than the Seahawks. Their Bulg and our Hass have been statistically on par with one another the last two years. We are the same team as the Rams at this point in time. Just saying... Flame aay everyone.
If the right player is available w/ our picks, we should take him. If he's a #6 QB then so be it. Our current staff knows best, until they prove they don't.
If the right player is available w/ our picks, we should take him. If he's a #6 QB then so be it. Our current staff knows best, until they prove they don't.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by T.J., March 03, 2010
written by T.J., March 03, 2010
Bill - I agreed for the most part with their ratings. I don't think that I would call Leftwich a bust, which strengthens your argument even more. He's been OK. Another factor that I would like more analysis on would be supporting casts. I think that it is easier for a DT to look good even with weak players around him than for a QB to do the same - Cortez Kennedy comes immedately to mind. In my opinion David Carr was doomed from the beginning because he had no protection from his OL, and poor skill players on the offense with him.
I think that we are in a perfect position to take our QB of the future this year, if availabe at 6. We still have the #14 pick, which considering the quantity and quality of LTs in the draft, should still allow us to use a 1st round pick on a LT. I would consider Bradford/Clausen and Charles Brown/Bryan Baluga a successful 1st round that could set the team up for years of success. As long as Carroll and Scheider successfully evaluate them, which they should, it would provide building blocks at the 2 most important positions on the offense. Everything else could then be built around them.
I think that we are in a perfect position to take our QB of the future this year, if availabe at 6. We still have the #14 pick, which considering the quantity and quality of LTs in the draft, should still allow us to use a 1st round pick on a LT. I would consider Bradford/Clausen and Charles Brown/Bryan Baluga a successful 1st round that could set the team up for years of success. As long as Carroll and Scheider successfully evaluate them, which they should, it would provide building blocks at the 2 most important positions on the offense. Everything else could then be built around them.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by MontanaMike, March 03, 2010
written by MontanaMike, March 03, 2010
I have to agree with gnarly on this one. I've never trusted our coaches on knowledge of prospects like i do with this group. I have confidence they'll make good choices.
I can't say the same for our former regime.
I can't say the same for our former regime.
-
- +1
-
-
Size 48 tripple E Maidenform
written by 5% off, March 03, 2010
written by 5% off, March 03, 2010
Good article BT but if both so called franchise QB's bust and I think there is a good chance of that then a statistically insignificant 2-3% spread between QB's and DT's is academic.
-
- +0
-
-
Not really an issue for Seattle...
written by Hawksince77, March 03, 2010
written by Hawksince77, March 03, 2010
...as they are not choosing between drafting a DT and a potential franchise QB.
If you are correct in valuing franchise QBs so highly (and I think you are) and if both Bradford and Clausen grade out as potential franchise QBs (and I think they will) then the only way Seattle drafts one is by trading up above the 4th pick (Redskins) because the Rams and the Redskins will draft Bradford/Clausen, or someone else (like Denver) will trade up for one of them.
In other words, if one of these two guys is available at 6, it means that someone (the Rams, Redskins) don't think they are potential franchise QBs, and given that they will be privy to the same info about both of them that Seattle will, presumably they come to the same conclusion. In that case, the one that falls to six probably isn't worth being drafted that high.
So unless someone argues for Seattle trading up to 1, 2 or 3 (a real possibility) than the point is likely moot.
If you are correct in valuing franchise QBs so highly (and I think you are) and if both Bradford and Clausen grade out as potential franchise QBs (and I think they will) then the only way Seattle drafts one is by trading up above the 4th pick (Redskins) because the Rams and the Redskins will draft Bradford/Clausen, or someone else (like Denver) will trade up for one of them.
In other words, if one of these two guys is available at 6, it means that someone (the Rams, Redskins) don't think they are potential franchise QBs, and given that they will be privy to the same info about both of them that Seattle will, presumably they come to the same conclusion. In that case, the one that falls to six probably isn't worth being drafted that high.
So unless someone argues for Seattle trading up to 1, 2 or 3 (a real possibility) than the point is likely moot.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by omar little, March 03, 2010
written by omar little, March 03, 2010
I agree that pick 6 has to be a QB if available. We really messed up last year taking a strong side linebacker (don't care how good he is, he is still only a SSLB) with the 4th pick in the draft when we had far more important needs along the OL, DL, and at QB and WR.
How many games is a DT or DB going to win you compared to a QB? QB has to be the pick as this team moves on to a new era.
How many games is a DT or DB going to win you compared to a QB? QB has to be the pick as this team moves on to a new era.
-
- +1
-
-
If my analysis of the situation is correct...
written by Hawksince77, March 03, 2010
written by Hawksince77, March 03, 2010
...and Seattle chooses not to trade up for one of the top two QBs, then the likely possibilities at 6 will be:
1) Berry
2) Haden
3) Bryant
4) Spiller (obviously a reach, but the only other player other than those mentioned that may be truly elite).
I don't think any OT is worthy at #6 (including Okung, but if he is available the staff may believe differently and select him), nor will there be a DT available worthy of #6 consideration (although Suh or McCoy would be if they were there) and I don't believe any DE in the draft even close to being worthy of #6 consideration. What does that leave? LB? Not very likely. Guard? Not. I think that covers all the positions and all the possibilities.
Yes, o-line is a big need, but pick #14 is far more suitable for the position, given this draft. There simply isn't an elite tackle in this draft, although there are several very good ones.
1) Berry
2) Haden
3) Bryant
4) Spiller (obviously a reach, but the only other player other than those mentioned that may be truly elite).
I don't think any OT is worthy at #6 (including Okung, but if he is available the staff may believe differently and select him), nor will there be a DT available worthy of #6 consideration (although Suh or McCoy would be if they were there) and I don't believe any DE in the draft even close to being worthy of #6 consideration. What does that leave? LB? Not very likely. Guard? Not. I think that covers all the positions and all the possibilities.
Yes, o-line is a big need, but pick #14 is far more suitable for the position, given this draft. There simply isn't an elite tackle in this draft, although there are several very good ones.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by omar little, March 03, 2010
written by omar little, March 03, 2010
BillT and TJ I would just like to thank you two for making sense.
I'm tired of this "wait till next year", and "QB is too risky" crap. The direction some people want us to go in the draft is not playing to win, but playing not to lose.
I have always felt the the risk/reward of drafting a QB is worth it. The next Peyton Manning is out there, and sitting around and delaying the inevitable first round QB draft is not helping.
I'm tired of this "wait till next year", and "QB is too risky" crap. The direction some people want us to go in the draft is not playing to win, but playing not to lose.
I have always felt the the risk/reward of drafting a QB is worth it. The next Peyton Manning is out there, and sitting around and delaying the inevitable first round QB draft is not helping.
-
- +2
-
-
Comp Picks
written by CougHawk, March 03, 2010
written by CougHawk, March 03, 2010
Anyone know when the compensation picks are handed out?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by MontanaMike, March 03, 2010
written by MontanaMike, March 03, 2010
There's still the Teel factor, he might already be a bust, or he might be in the process of being groomed? All the misdirections that are coming out really leaves me scratching my head.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by T.J., March 03, 2010
written by T.J., March 03, 2010
HS77 - I understand your point, but don't agree. Every team does their own evaluation and draws their own conclusions. Not all GMs are on par. Not all stack their boards the same way. Not all use the same criteria to grade prospects. Our own former GM didn't know how to pick players in the 1st round. The Rams and Redskins make a lot of dumb personnel moves. That is why they are picking at the top of the draft (just like we are). Teams picking at the top of the draft have passed on Brees and Roethlisberger recently. Our own GM was in GB when they were able to get Aaron Rogers at 20-something. Hell, even Dan Marino was passed over by 20-some teams. He turned out to be one of the all time great franchise QBs.
-
- +2
-
-
...
written by Highlander, March 03, 2010
written by Highlander, March 03, 2010
one must remember that statistics like this: Quarterback Hit Rate: 48.2%
is predicated upon the inclusion of QB's like the Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer...QB's that were not much of a risk.
I don't believe either of the 2 QB's likely to be taken early in the 1st round are anywhere near their quality and potential...hence the risk is higher with them...so using statistics that include Manning (for example) slants the statistics. Ultimately, these 2 QB's need to be judged based on them, not all QB's taken in previous drafts.
And sorry, but what's with this bit...
___________________
So you think that the Rams would be better served by going after Suh than one of the two top quarterbacks this year or Seattle would be better served picking McCoy instead of Clausen if both were available at number six?
____________________
While there is dispute between Suh and one of the top 2 QB's I don't think anyone is suggesting McCoy at 6. Why use a straw man arguement...make your case without them.
is predicated upon the inclusion of QB's like the Peyton Manning and Carson Palmer...QB's that were not much of a risk.
I don't believe either of the 2 QB's likely to be taken early in the 1st round are anywhere near their quality and potential...hence the risk is higher with them...so using statistics that include Manning (for example) slants the statistics. Ultimately, these 2 QB's need to be judged based on them, not all QB's taken in previous drafts.
And sorry, but what's with this bit...
___________________
So you think that the Rams would be better served by going after Suh than one of the two top quarterbacks this year or Seattle would be better served picking McCoy instead of Clausen if both were available at number six?
____________________
While there is dispute between Suh and one of the top 2 QB's I don't think anyone is suggesting McCoy at 6. Why use a straw man arguement...make your case without them.
-
- +0
-
-
How Seattle drafts the top QB in the 2010 draft
written by Hawksince77, March 03, 2010
written by Hawksince77, March 03, 2010
Okay, you have to stay with me on this one, cause it's not simple. First, the assumptions:
1- Billt is right about the value of franchise QBs
2- There are only 2 franchise QBs in this draft
3- the Rams remain in the market for a franchise QB (they don't pick one up in FA)
4- the Redskins will do whatever it takes to draft a franchise QB
5- Detroit is willing to trade down (as has been reported)
6- Pete Carroll expects to win more games in 2010, and will be drafting at a lower place next year
7- Pete Carroll wants to draft one of the 2 franchise QBs this year because he won't be able to do it any time soon
8- PC believes that if the draft were held today, with no trades, it goes something like this: Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Clausen (Rams, Lions, Bucs, Redskins), meaning no franchise QB at #6.
Based on these assumptions, I would predict that no matter what, the Redskins trade up with Detroit for the second pick, guaranteeing they get one of the two top QBs. It won't cost them much, and Seattle won't be able to outbid them, because Detroit will love the deal, because the still get one of the top two DTs (or Okung) as they would at #2, but get at least one extra pick and have to pay pick #4 money for the same guy they would pick at #2 anyway.
Therefore, the only way Seattle gets their QB of the future is by trading up to the top spot with the Rams, a deal that they can probably do. The good news is, they get whoever they think the best QB is (Bradford or Clausen). The bad news is, it costs them plenty.
If they wait until the Rams pick, and the Rams pick a QB, it's too late, because the Redskins have the inside track on the 2nd spot, and someone else could still trade up in front of Seattle (maybe Detroit trades back again, for example).
So if this analysis is correct, then the only way Seattle gets the QB it wants (and that may be the highest priority in the draft) they have to plan on trading up to the first pick.
Bradford may be worth the effort. I think he might be the gem in this draft. If that's the case, they can't just wait and hope he falls to six - cause he won't. They have to go up and get him.
1- Billt is right about the value of franchise QBs
2- There are only 2 franchise QBs in this draft
3- the Rams remain in the market for a franchise QB (they don't pick one up in FA)
4- the Redskins will do whatever it takes to draft a franchise QB
5- Detroit is willing to trade down (as has been reported)
6- Pete Carroll expects to win more games in 2010, and will be drafting at a lower place next year
7- Pete Carroll wants to draft one of the 2 franchise QBs this year because he won't be able to do it any time soon
8- PC believes that if the draft were held today, with no trades, it goes something like this: Bradford, Suh, McCoy, Clausen (Rams, Lions, Bucs, Redskins), meaning no franchise QB at #6.
Based on these assumptions, I would predict that no matter what, the Redskins trade up with Detroit for the second pick, guaranteeing they get one of the two top QBs. It won't cost them much, and Seattle won't be able to outbid them, because Detroit will love the deal, because the still get one of the top two DTs (or Okung) as they would at #2, but get at least one extra pick and have to pay pick #4 money for the same guy they would pick at #2 anyway.
Therefore, the only way Seattle gets their QB of the future is by trading up to the top spot with the Rams, a deal that they can probably do. The good news is, they get whoever they think the best QB is (Bradford or Clausen). The bad news is, it costs them plenty.
If they wait until the Rams pick, and the Rams pick a QB, it's too late, because the Redskins have the inside track on the 2nd spot, and someone else could still trade up in front of Seattle (maybe Detroit trades back again, for example).
So if this analysis is correct, then the only way Seattle gets the QB it wants (and that may be the highest priority in the draft) they have to plan on trading up to the first pick.
Bradford may be worth the effort. I think he might be the gem in this draft. If that's the case, they can't just wait and hope he falls to six - cause he won't. They have to go up and get him.
-
- +0
-
-
This is how stats lead people astray
written by JohnnyB, March 03, 2010
written by JohnnyB, March 03, 2010
McCoy vs Clausen. Seriously? It's not even close! Any GM who tried to make a decision like that based upon the stats you used would fail hard and fast in the NFL. You should judge players individually, not based upon past stats. You're making the same mistake everyone made with last years 1st round OTs.
McCoy isn't just your every day top 16 pick. He's a once every ten years bonafied number one draft pick. He's a player who has a *much better* than 50% chance of succeeding at a crucial position in the defense. It would be the miracle of the decade if he even fell to #6.
Clausen is the opposite. Questionable arm strength and ability to make pro passes. Some good skills, but some serious question marks. Pretty much your run of the mill first round QB who has about the same chance of success as first round QBs have, 40%. No NFL scout would bat an eye if he fell out of the top of the first round.
McCoy isn't just your every day top 16 pick. He's a once every ten years bonafied number one draft pick. He's a player who has a *much better* than 50% chance of succeeding at a crucial position in the defense. It would be the miracle of the decade if he even fell to #6.
Clausen is the opposite. Questionable arm strength and ability to make pro passes. Some good skills, but some serious question marks. Pretty much your run of the mill first round QB who has about the same chance of success as first round QBs have, 40%. No NFL scout would bat an eye if he fell out of the top of the first round.
-
- -1
-
-
Hey Bill T.
written by LouieLouie, March 03, 2010
written by LouieLouie, March 03, 2010
Interesting article. One negitive point about drafting a high first round QB that you failed to mention. If Timmy Boy had drafted Mark Sanchez rather then Curry at number 4, Timmy might still be GM, and the Timmy and Jimmy era might still be happening.
In that case (last year I mean) it would have been worse for the Hawks to have drafted a QB, even if he turned out to be a "hit." It would have only prolonged the inevitable conclusion to Timmy and Jimmy era. This way it was out of its misery sooner rather than later. Now we have Carroll and Co., and still have an opportunity to get a high first round QB.
Just thinking.
In that case (last year I mean) it would have been worse for the Hawks to have drafted a QB, even if he turned out to be a "hit." It would have only prolonged the inevitable conclusion to Timmy and Jimmy era. This way it was out of its misery sooner rather than later. Now we have Carroll and Co., and still have an opportunity to get a high first round QB.
Just thinking.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by BillT, March 03, 2010
written by BillT, March 03, 2010
LouieLouie,
Sometimes you just gotta think outside the box.
I like either of this years QB's better than Sanchez anyway but the one thing that Sanchez had going for him that none of the others have had so far is that he was available to us. We might not get a chance at any other top rated QB's.
Sometimes you just gotta think outside the box.
I like either of this years QB's better than Sanchez anyway but the one thing that Sanchez had going for him that none of the others have had so far is that he was available to us. We might not get a chance at any other top rated QB's.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by JohnnyB, March 03, 2010
Why is that? Sanchez stunk it up pretty bad last season. Plug either Seneca Wallace or Matt Hasselbeck in there with the Jets and they win the Super Bowl. The Jets last season were an example of how an NFL team can do well *without* a great QB.
written by JohnnyB, March 03, 2010
If Timmy Boy had drafted Mark Sanchez rather then Curry at number 4, Timmy might still be GM, and the Timmy and Jimmy era might still be happening.
Why is that? Sanchez stunk it up pretty bad last season. Plug either Seneca Wallace or Matt Hasselbeck in there with the Jets and they win the Super Bowl. The Jets last season were an example of how an NFL team can do well *without* a great QB.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by BillT, March 03, 2010
written by BillT, March 03, 2010
If you're not going to go with a great QB and try to be successful with an average QB like Dilfer, you've got to have some compensatations like the Ravens Elite defense did the year they did it with Dilfer. Also, how long did that arrangement last? Obviously, that isn't something you're going to win with consistently but can be a factor in one magical season with some players like Sam Adams playing way over their head. The teams that are getting there year after year like Indy, New England, San Deigo, etc. all have top notch QB's.
You can do Ok with an average QB with a elite offensive line but that also takes time to build and gel and it's not cheap either since the second most important position on the offense is your LT and the great ones are usually found in the top 5 or top 10 picks at the very least and therefore very expensive.
I could see an average QB and/or RB doing well in Seattle if we were to get Okung or Campbell at 6, Trent Williams at 14 to play RT, and traded up to snatch lupati or got another top guard prospect at numnber 40. Give Okung, Sims, Unger, lupati, and Williams a year or two to gel and you could probably get by with an average QB, an average RB, and some WR's who can get free and catch the ball since our QB will have all kinds of time to throw.
The problem is what would that cost us? Okung or Campbell, Williams and probably our 2nd rounder and next year's 2nd rounder to move up and get lupati will be an expensive Oline too. Now you could interest me in a deal like that in a heartbeat but I think most head coaches want to be more versitile and have some star power at the skill positions too. Whichever way you go, it's going to cost money and draft picks to get there.
It's more exciting for most fans to see Spiller darting around and slipping tackles to score TD's than watching Julis Jones run through gaping holes and making 7 or 8 yards a pop and a QB like Dilfer hitting WR's for short gains as we move the ball down the field like a well oiled machine instead of 49 and 50 yard bombs to a Fitzgerald like receiver. I'm a football purist and can take low scoring games in which we win by shutting down our opponents and mauling the opponents defensive line with our offensive linemen allowing no name RB's and an average QB move down the field in long controlled scoring drives with a 5 yards a play average. Boring football to many but winning football to me and therefore acceptable.
You can do Ok with an average QB with a elite offensive line but that also takes time to build and gel and it's not cheap either since the second most important position on the offense is your LT and the great ones are usually found in the top 5 or top 10 picks at the very least and therefore very expensive.
I could see an average QB and/or RB doing well in Seattle if we were to get Okung or Campbell at 6, Trent Williams at 14 to play RT, and traded up to snatch lupati or got another top guard prospect at numnber 40. Give Okung, Sims, Unger, lupati, and Williams a year or two to gel and you could probably get by with an average QB, an average RB, and some WR's who can get free and catch the ball since our QB will have all kinds of time to throw.
The problem is what would that cost us? Okung or Campbell, Williams and probably our 2nd rounder and next year's 2nd rounder to move up and get lupati will be an expensive Oline too. Now you could interest me in a deal like that in a heartbeat but I think most head coaches want to be more versitile and have some star power at the skill positions too. Whichever way you go, it's going to cost money and draft picks to get there.
It's more exciting for most fans to see Spiller darting around and slipping tackles to score TD's than watching Julis Jones run through gaping holes and making 7 or 8 yards a pop and a QB like Dilfer hitting WR's for short gains as we move the ball down the field like a well oiled machine instead of 49 and 50 yard bombs to a Fitzgerald like receiver. I'm a football purist and can take low scoring games in which we win by shutting down our opponents and mauling the opponents defensive line with our offensive linemen allowing no name RB's and an average QB move down the field in long controlled scoring drives with a 5 yards a play average. Boring football to many but winning football to me and therefore acceptable.
-
- -1
-
-
I hate to be off topic
written by MontanaMike, March 04, 2010
I'm sorry to interupt the discusion but our police reports are hilarious. does anybody else have these kind of reports in their town?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/police_reports/
written by MontanaMike, March 04, 2010
I'm sorry to interupt the discusion but our police reports are hilarious. does anybody else have these kind of reports in their town? http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/police_reports/
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Ryan J, March 04, 2010
written by Ryan J, March 04, 2010
The sample size is too small and thus the margin of error is bigger than the difference between the two statistics. Even if that wasn't the problem, you still pay a premium for a quarterback in the first round, thus the cost benefit ratio for a DT vs a QB is in the DT's favor
-
- -1
-
-
Seattle needs to draft a QB in the 1st this year
written by SSReporters, March 04, 2010
written by SSReporters, March 04, 2010
He doesn't even need to start this season. If you think Seattle is fine at QB and there is no reason to draft any this year then you are also totally in the tank in thinking Hasselbeck can get the Seahawks back in contention.
Hass' window has closed and 2006, 2008, and 2009 prove this. Injury riddled and awful in all of those seasons while not amassing many wins.
Hass' window has closed and 2006, 2008, and 2009 prove this. Injury riddled and awful in all of those seasons while not amassing many wins.
-
- +3
-
-
...
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
Right, you have to have great players somewhere on the team. That's the point. You always take the great players, you don't pass up the great players and reach down to take a quarterback because it's an important position and your own great QB only has a few years left.
No, you don't have to act desperate that way either. You just pick the player most likely to make the most impact when your turn comes up. If that player is a QB, you take him.
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
If you're not going to go with a great QB and try to be successful with an average QB like Dilfer, you've got to have some compensatations like the Ravens Elite defense did the year they did it with Dilfer.
Right, you have to have great players somewhere on the team. That's the point. You always take the great players, you don't pass up the great players and reach down to take a quarterback because it's an important position and your own great QB only has a few years left.
if we were to get Okung or Campbell at 6, Trent Williams at 14 to play RT, and traded up to snatch lupati or got another top guard prospect at numnber 40
No, you don't have to act desperate that way either. You just pick the player most likely to make the most impact when your turn comes up. If that player is a QB, you take him.
-
- +0
-
-
Hey Johnny B.
written by LouieLouie, March 04, 2010
written by LouieLouie, March 04, 2010
Don't forget that QB's like Payton Manning and John Elway didn't look so great in their first year. Neither of them took their team to the AFC Title Game in their rookie year either.
Sanchez was thrown to the wolves, which might not have been the case in Seattle where he would have had the opportunity to play behind Hass for a year or more. Also, he would have been able to play when Hass went down. Sanchez may not have had great stats (not many rookies do) but he showed great leadership and poise. I think that Sanchez is the real deal.
If one of the two top QB's are available at #6, I think that Carroll and Co. won't make the same mistake that Timmy and Jimmy made. If neither is available, then it will be the best QB avaialble at #40. Having Pike, Lafevoure, Tebow or another of those guys competing with Teel for the future would be OK with me.
Sanchez was thrown to the wolves, which might not have been the case in Seattle where he would have had the opportunity to play behind Hass for a year or more. Also, he would have been able to play when Hass went down. Sanchez may not have had great stats (not many rookies do) but he showed great leadership and poise. I think that Sanchez is the real deal.
If one of the two top QB's are available at #6, I think that Carroll and Co. won't make the same mistake that Timmy and Jimmy made. If neither is available, then it will be the best QB avaialble at #40. Having Pike, Lafevoure, Tebow or another of those guys competing with Teel for the future would be OK with me.
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by T.J., March 04, 2010
written by T.J., March 04, 2010
HS77- another thought...I also think that it is incorrect to assume that the Redskins need a franchise QB. They have Shanahan now. Maybe he likes Jason Campbell and thinks that his problems have been coaching related. Just because all of the draft pundits think Washington is in the market for a QB doesn't mean Shanahan does. Chris Samuels just announced his retirement, so they also have a gaping hole at LT, which could be filled by Okung.
-
- +2
-
-
T.J.
written by Hawksince77, March 04, 2010
written by Hawksince77, March 04, 2010
Good point about Washington. I am basing my analysis on my assessment of Jason Campbell. There was some talk at some point about picking him up this off season as he was going to be a FA, so I paid some attention to him, and didn't like what I saw at all. He has terrible pocket presence and makes poor decisions. With that, his physical skills become far less relevant.
Now if Shanahan thinks he can fix Campbell, then great. But I am betting he sees the same thing I do, and knows that Campbell does not have the ability to lead the Redskins to the playoffs.
And Snyder will spend the money and the picks to get the guy he wants - he has already shown that, so if you add all that up, I say Washington drafts a QB with their first pick.
Now if Shanahan thinks he can fix Campbell, then great. But I am betting he sees the same thing I do, and knows that Campbell does not have the ability to lead the Redskins to the playoffs.
And Snyder will spend the money and the picks to get the guy he wants - he has already shown that, so if you add all that up, I say Washington drafts a QB with their first pick.
-
- +0
-
-
LouieLouie
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
I am all for trying to find the quarterback of the future. What I am against is drafting the opposite of BPA, as you recommend. Even first round QBs have a 60% failure rate, so you don't take picks to fill needs, you take picks with great scouting which leads you to think they have a good chance of doing well in the NFL. The best QB available at #40 might stink, compared to, say, the best RB available. If so, take the RB. The Seahawks are far from desperate at QB. There is no reason to act desperate by reaching for certain positions.
As for Sanchez, he has a lot to prove before he can be declared the real deal. He was surrounded by great talent and still stunk it up. His second and third year will tell. Teams will adjust to his weaknesses next season and he will have to get much better in his weak areas or he will stink even worse.
As for Sanchez, he has a lot to prove before he can be declared the real deal. He was surrounded by great talent and still stunk it up. His second and third year will tell. Teams will adjust to his weaknesses next season and he will have to get much better in his weak areas or he will stink even worse.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by Mike Wood, March 04, 2010
written by Mike Wood, March 04, 2010
Drafting a franchise QB in the first round with a poor offensive line is a bad decision. With a bad offensive line Hass will get beat up and there will be a move to put the young QB in the meat grinder. A Jerome Bettis type RB would be a smarter decision until the line improves and would have a better reward to risk ratio. Work with Teel or maybe find A QB under a rock in Michigan.
-
- -1
-
-
...
written by BillT, March 04, 2010
written by BillT, March 04, 2010
I'm not sure the Seahawks aren't desperate for a QB. They are one injury away and this is Hass's last season in Seattle most likely. How does that equate to Seattle not being in desperate need of a QB of the future and now?
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by omar little, March 04, 2010
written by omar little, March 04, 2010
BPA is a piss poor strategy. Sure you may have more pro bowlers, but that doesn't make a better team. We would be the next Dallas Cowboys if we continue to pass up on LTs and QBs for LBs or a safety, tons of talented players but nothing real to show for it.
-
- +0
-
-
QBs are still riskier
written by hawksruleva, March 04, 2010
written by hawksruleva, March 04, 2010
Look at the busts at DT. Damione Lewis? Still starting. Jimmy Kennedy? Playing. Gerard Warren is still playing. DeWayne Robertson had 16 sacks in 6 seasons. Okoye is starting. Adam Carriker was starting before a season-ending injury.
A bust at QB is useless. His presence on the field guarantees losses. A bust at DT can still plug a whole against the run, or relieve the starters at DT, or play adequately until a replacement is found. They're a drain on the salary cap, but at least they can still help the team.
A bust at QB is useless. His presence on the field guarantees losses. A bust at DT can still plug a whole against the run, or relieve the starters at DT, or play adequately until a replacement is found. They're a drain on the salary cap, but at least they can still help the team.
-
- +0
-
-
Elite QBs?
written by hawksruleva, March 04, 2010
written by hawksruleva, March 04, 2010
Are Bradford, Clausen, or McCoy really elite QBs? Bradford has some huge injury questions. McCoy has some injury issue, and isn't in everybody's conversations as a top-tier QB. Clausen is widely said to have already maximized his potential.
I don't think any of these guys merit the #6 pick.
I don't think any of these guys merit the #6 pick.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by abababababab, March 04, 2010
written by abababababab, March 04, 2010
Uhhmmmm.... First of all your looking at an incredibly small sample size to make any generalizations about. Secondly the hit to bust ration for both positions is nearly 1 to 1. This study really has no relevance to anyone doing anything anywhere.
-
- +0
-
-
hawksrul
written by Hawksince77, March 04, 2010
written by Hawksince77, March 04, 2010
I think that Bradford may be the real deal, and the star player of this very deep draft (only time will tell).
Clausen seems more of a risk, and hear conflicting perspectives, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bradford ends up as one of the very best QBs, in the top tier with Montana, Elway, Manning, etc.
Can't really explain why I believe this might be the case, but he is the first QB in years that seems like he might carry that kind of potential.
Clausen seems more of a risk, and hear conflicting perspectives, but I wouldn't be surprised if Bradford ends up as one of the very best QBs, in the top tier with Montana, Elway, Manning, etc.
Can't really explain why I believe this might be the case, but he is the first QB in years that seems like he might carry that kind of potential.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by omar little, March 04, 2010
written by omar little, March 04, 2010
So what if the bust ratio is 1:1 as you claim it is? How many SBs do DTs lead their teams to? How many games did Albert Haynesworth or Cortez Kennedy win single handedly compared to a Unitas Marino, Brady, Elway or Montana? QB is the most important posistion on the field, every other posistion pales in comparision to a QB.
Also who says that Clausen has maximised his potential?! Are you claiming this just because he is the most pro ready QB in the draft and had success in Weis' system at ND? Does that mean we shouldn't take Bryan Bulaga at 14 if he is there because he doesn't have the upside of a Bruce Campbell or Selvish Capers??
Also who says that Clausen has maximised his potential?! Are you claiming this just because he is the most pro ready QB in the draft and had success in Weis' system at ND? Does that mean we shouldn't take Bryan Bulaga at 14 if he is there because he doesn't have the upside of a Bruce Campbell or Selvish Capers??
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by westseattleguy, March 04, 2010
written by westseattleguy, March 04, 2010
I am happy as long as Bill's favorite bud Ruskell the f*ck-up is no longer in charge...
-
- +1
-
-
...
written by hawksfan80, March 04, 2010
written by hawksfan80, March 04, 2010
Clausen is the real deal. We have never had an elite quarterback in Seattle but right now we are desperate for a new QB1...period. I think Jimmy Clausen will be a star but will probably be gone by 6. I do not think Carroll will be as stupid as Ruskell was last season when he let Sanchez get away.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
Funny you should bring this up. One funny thing is that Hass is still great but sucks because no QB actually can win singlehandedly. He has such a piss poor supporting cast that he looks terrible, just as happens to all QBs in the NFL.
The other funny thing is that if you look at your list of QBs and are aware of their actual careers, they never got anywhere when the rest of their team wasn't good enough. Brady has never been in that position, but Marino and Elway and Montana sure were. People give QBs too much credit and blame. Anyone that knows football will tell you that.
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
How many games did Albert Haynesworth or Cortez Kennedy win single handedly compared to a Unitas Marino, Brady, Elway or Montana
Funny you should bring this up. One funny thing is that Hass is still great but sucks because no QB actually can win singlehandedly. He has such a piss poor supporting cast that he looks terrible, just as happens to all QBs in the NFL.
The other funny thing is that if you look at your list of QBs and are aware of their actual careers, they never got anywhere when the rest of their team wasn't good enough. Brady has never been in that position, but Marino and Elway and Montana sure were. People give QBs too much credit and blame. Anyone that knows football will tell you that.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
First of all, if we build up the rest of the team enough, Wallace is good enough to win the Superbowl. He is as good as numerous other QBs that have come close or won it all. Sanchez being the most recent example I can think of. He's not a long term solution, but he will do enough to make the team not desperate and build up the rest of the team while they are trying to get someone.
Secondly, you are making a highly speculative assumption about Hasselbeck. He could easily re-sign with the Seahawks. No reason why he wouldn't, really.
written by JohnnyB, March 04, 2010
I'm not sure the Seahawks aren't desperate for a QB. They are one injury away and this is Hass's last season in Seattle most likely.
First of all, if we build up the rest of the team enough, Wallace is good enough to win the Superbowl. He is as good as numerous other QBs that have come close or won it all. Sanchez being the most recent example I can think of. He's not a long term solution, but he will do enough to make the team not desperate and build up the rest of the team while they are trying to get someone.
Secondly, you are making a highly speculative assumption about Hasselbeck. He could easily re-sign with the Seahawks. No reason why he wouldn't, really.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by S.TTBM, March 04, 2010
written by S.TTBM, March 04, 2010
It makes sense to take a look at any potential "franchise" qb's in the draft. But it makes no sense to say "We gotta have a qb THIS year, so we're just gonna take the best one available." That puts you in line for a decade of misery if you fail, and the odds are higher that you fail than succeed.
There's small chance Bradford or Claussen will be there at 6, so unless you advocate Colt "Anderson" McCoy, what other qb is there??
The only time you should take a qb high is if you are certain they will be great, and that you wont get another shot at talent like that for a decade.
I dont feel that way about Claussen, and Bradford has an injured shoulder. Plus, as I said they wont be there at 6 so who cares.
Billt--You present your stats as fact and hard evidence that drafting a qb is necessary. But what your stats dont take into account AT ALL, is mistakes and/or successes by scouts: For example, if you look at a team of idiots like Detroit, who have ALWAYS drafted poorly, especially under that fool Millen, any position they picked is liable to be a bust, as they were lousy talent evaluators--so they position they picked is really not to blame for the busts, rather thier terrible talent evaluation "skills" are to blame. Which throws all your stats out. They are not scientific, nor absolute proof of anything.
The stats are, however, very interesting, and worth analyzing. I do think that picking a qb sounds more palatable with your info. But the stats you dug up are only a partial picture, a "tool" in a toolbox if you will.
Anyway, I think its a moot point anyhow, as I dont see any sense or liklihood of trading up, and Claussen and Bradford will be long gone by our pick. So, that leaves us choosing, as Hawksince77 said, between several players which could include Berry, Haden, Bryant, Spiller, and perhaps Okung or McCoy/Suh.
I like Berry, Bryant, Okung (but Id rather get a LT at 14 or 40), Haden, and of course if McCoy or Suh is there that would be freaking great!
If we pass on Bryant, we can still likely get Demaryius Thomas at 14 or possibly 40 so Im cool with that.
There's small chance Bradford or Claussen will be there at 6, so unless you advocate Colt "Anderson" McCoy, what other qb is there??
The only time you should take a qb high is if you are certain they will be great, and that you wont get another shot at talent like that for a decade.
I dont feel that way about Claussen, and Bradford has an injured shoulder. Plus, as I said they wont be there at 6 so who cares.
Billt--You present your stats as fact and hard evidence that drafting a qb is necessary. But what your stats dont take into account AT ALL, is mistakes and/or successes by scouts: For example, if you look at a team of idiots like Detroit, who have ALWAYS drafted poorly, especially under that fool Millen, any position they picked is liable to be a bust, as they were lousy talent evaluators--so they position they picked is really not to blame for the busts, rather thier terrible talent evaluation "skills" are to blame. Which throws all your stats out. They are not scientific, nor absolute proof of anything.
The stats are, however, very interesting, and worth analyzing. I do think that picking a qb sounds more palatable with your info. But the stats you dug up are only a partial picture, a "tool" in a toolbox if you will.
Anyway, I think its a moot point anyhow, as I dont see any sense or liklihood of trading up, and Claussen and Bradford will be long gone by our pick. So, that leaves us choosing, as Hawksince77 said, between several players which could include Berry, Haden, Bryant, Spiller, and perhaps Okung or McCoy/Suh.
I like Berry, Bryant, Okung (but Id rather get a LT at 14 or 40), Haden, and of course if McCoy or Suh is there that would be freaking great!
If we pass on Bryant, we can still likely get Demaryius Thomas at 14 or possibly 40 so Im cool with that.
-
- +0
-
-
ugg boots
written by ugg boots, September 15, 2010
written by ugg boots, September 15, 2010
Nowugg boots is one snowy boot brand which is made of Australian pure wool.ofuggs are very popular,if you want buy boots ugg australia is a good choose,such asugg classic boots ugg boots uk anugg classic tall are On Sale now.Hurry to buy your favorittall ugg boots nowshort ugg boots is one of Ugg made from the highest quality plush twin-faced sheepskin.nowuggs sale.pleasebuy ugg ,buy ugg boots. We can providediscount ugg ,buy uggs ,ugg boots online ,discount uggs , you canbuy cheap ugg boots ,knitted ugg boots ,ugg boats australia will keep your feet warm and dry in freezing winter. cheapugg boats is coming,we providbuy ugg site ,buy discount ugg boots ,Ladies UGG Boots .UGG boots sale now . ugg boats have many style ,UGG Classic Tall 5815 Boots ,ugg 5879 ,ugg 5803 ,ugg 5819 ,ugg 5833 ,ugg 5854 ,ugg 5825 ,ugg 5815 , ugg 5359 ,ugg 5325 ,ugg 5225 , ugg is2010 Hot Selling Boots.
Todayboots shoes is raised in Australiaugg boots,Wooluggs a sheep boots, and high-quality woolugg australia boots from the Australian nativeugg australia entire lamb skin leather production. Woolugg uk as fur, so maximum retention of a soft, dense, breathable and warm.winter boots at the bottom is made of a sheetfur boots of parchment Princesse,ugg sale ,ugg boots sale at classic designs and skilled craftsmanship help your feet stay in the most comfortable states, ensure that the fur and leatherugg boots uk of durability and comfort, and atclassic tall the same time, the reliableugg boots cheap ,sheepskin shoes ,uggs sale supplier to match with jeans, skirts and various dressing styles. Buyuggs uk,boots footwear ,celtic sheepskin at uggbootscrazydiscount.com ,love from australia, get moresheepskin boot ,slippers boots ,classic tall chestnut ,boot discount ,ugg discount ,ugg australia sale ,ugg boots discount ,sheep skin boots ,ugg boats ,celtic sheepskin company ,sheepskin footwear ,ugg australia online ,australia classic tall ,women's classic cardy ,genuine uggboots . They are all hot selling ones at this season. If you prefer the others, dont worry, we also can offer you, for example,ugg 5815 ,ugg 5825 ,ugg 5803 ,ugg 5819 ,ugg 5833 ,ugg 5879 ,ugg 5854 ,ugg 5359 ,ugg 5325 andugg 5225 . So its a nice choose for you to select the one you like in our store. Welcome!
It's a interesting news,i like it.Additionally,wellcome to my websitevibram ,five fingers .There are so manyvibram five fingers ,five fingers vibram ,vibram five ,such as:vibram five fingers sale ,vibram five fingers classic ,vibram five fingers flow ,vibram five fingers kso ,cheap vibram five fingers,vibram five fingers surge ,vibram five fingers kso black ,buy vibram five fingers ,vibram five fingers discount ,vibram five fingers size ,vibram five fingers reviews vibram five fingers shoes ,vibram five fingers shoe ,the vibram five fingers ,vibram five fingers ebay ,vibram five fingers women ,new vibram five fingers ,vibram five finger running ,vibram five fingers hiking ,vibram five fingers Bikila ,vibram five fingers Performa ,vibram five fingers Performa Jane ,Vibram Five Fingers Sprint. There are so much style of the shoes,so once you go to my website you will be very surprise.
Todayboots shoes is raised in Australiaugg boots,Wooluggs a sheep boots, and high-quality woolugg australia boots from the Australian nativeugg australia entire lamb skin leather production. Woolugg uk as fur, so maximum retention of a soft, dense, breathable and warm.winter boots at the bottom is made of a sheetfur boots of parchment Princesse,ugg sale ,ugg boots sale at classic designs and skilled craftsmanship help your feet stay in the most comfortable states, ensure that the fur and leatherugg boots uk of durability and comfort, and atclassic tall the same time, the reliableugg boots cheap ,sheepskin shoes ,uggs sale supplier to match with jeans, skirts and various dressing styles. Buyuggs uk,boots footwear ,celtic sheepskin at uggbootscrazydiscount.com ,love from australia, get moresheepskin boot ,slippers boots ,classic tall chestnut ,boot discount ,ugg discount ,ugg australia sale ,ugg boots discount ,sheep skin boots ,ugg boats ,celtic sheepskin company ,sheepskin footwear ,ugg australia online ,australia classic tall ,women's classic cardy ,genuine uggboots . They are all hot selling ones at this season. If you prefer the others, dont worry, we also can offer you, for example,ugg 5815 ,ugg 5825 ,ugg 5803 ,ugg 5819 ,ugg 5833 ,ugg 5879 ,ugg 5854 ,ugg 5359 ,ugg 5325 andugg 5225 . So its a nice choose for you to select the one you like in our store. Welcome!
It's a interesting news,i like it.Additionally,wellcome to my websitevibram ,five fingers .There are so manyvibram five fingers ,five fingers vibram ,vibram five ,such as:vibram five fingers sale ,vibram five fingers classic ,vibram five fingers flow ,vibram five fingers kso ,cheap vibram five fingers,vibram five fingers surge ,vibram five fingers kso black ,buy vibram five fingers ,vibram five fingers discount ,vibram five fingers size ,vibram five fingers reviews vibram five fingers shoes ,vibram five fingers shoe ,the vibram five fingers ,vibram five fingers ebay ,vibram five fingers women ,new vibram five fingers ,vibram five finger running ,vibram five fingers hiking ,vibram five fingers Bikila ,vibram five fingers Performa ,vibram five fingers Performa Jane ,Vibram Five Fingers Sprint. There are so much style of the shoes,so once you go to my website you will be very surprise.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by Coach handbags outlet, October 31, 2010
written by Coach handbags outlet, October 31, 2010
thanks very much ,i like this website very much /
-
- +0
-
-
ugg boots sale
written by ugg boots sale, November 12, 2010
written by ugg boots sale, November 12, 2010
Nowugg boots is one snowy boot brand which is made of Australian pure wool.ofuggs are very popular
-
- +0
-
-
http://www.monclerwomens.com
written by xie560@sina.cn, November 28, 2010
written by xie560@sina.cn, November 28, 2010
Welcome to http://www.monclerwomens.com , Official online Wholesaler and Retailer of moncler coats the leading brand-moncler coats. We are Official Online Retailers of Moncler Jacket, we are glad that you spend your time to browse our selection of authentic moncler coats commodity, and also you can read our news, reviews and blogs. These boots are a must have among celebrities such as Kate Moss. We hope that you can write your reviews about our products on our site and find our collection of moncler coats news and information articles.
-
- +0
-
-
...
written by nike air max, December 12, 2010
written by nike air max, December 12, 2010
The Air Force 1 shown above is another product of the cooperation of Victory with a French rapper. After designing a shoe Busy P, Nike is once again working with other French symbols named Booba. These temperatures appear to create a trainer is very attractive indeed unique among Air Force 1, we have. This sneaker sports a red leather like a patent, which is a good combination. This red top is designed nike air max 95 with a tattoo, it even looks attractive at this sneaker. This tattoo Booba retailer turns as you can see, tattoos all over his body.
-
- +0
-
-
http://www.discountuggoutlets.com
written by UGG Boots Outlet, December 31, 2010
written by UGG Boots Outlet, December 31, 2010
ugg suburb crochet ugg suburb crochet
ugg suburb crochet boots on sale ugg suburb crochet boots on sale
ugg australia suburb crochet ugg australia suburb crochet
ugg suburb crochet boots on sale ugg suburb crochet boots on sale
ugg australia suburb crochet ugg australia suburb crochet
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
