By Bucky Brooks, NFL media analyst. Interesting perspective: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000341796/article/2012-nfl-draft-doover-redskins-take-wilson-not-rgiii
An unproven quarterback has potentially tons more of an impact on a team than a proven tailback. If my choices are between Tannehill and Morris on a team devoid of both positions, today, I'll take Tannehill.
Russell Wilson is even more overrated than Joe Flacco was at this time last year. Seattle is lucky wasn't in a contract year.
Shuda, coulda, woulda....means nothing in the real world. Besides, in a pass happy league that we are in, a potential QB over a RB is not only a must, but the best thing for the franchise overall...
The Morris pick simply doesn't make any sense. Even if you know you're getting a Pro Bowler, if you don't have a QB you are going to take one. If not Tannehill, why not Foles even? Strange pick.
An elite QB can give you 12-15 years of standout play, how many years on the average does an elite RB give you?
And that's why he's doing it for the NFL and not an NFL team So many things wrong. Josh Gordon, a supplemental pick, being drafted in the regular draft. Redskins trading up to take Russell Wilson at #2. LOL
LMAO at this logic. Teams built for the long haul have a f***ing franchise QB in place first and foremost. The 2009-10 Jets say hello, Bucky. That stellar ground game under Rex, which was a priority, lasted 2 damn years and then fell off the planet in 2011. Maintaining a successful ground game over the long haul takes a lot of f***ing work and is incredibly volatile with all the working parts involved, including having a QB good enough to keep defenses from stacking the box. Meanwhile, a franchise quarterback changes it all in one fell swoop. Bucky must think we're still in the 80's and 90's before modern Free Agency, a higher rate of RB injuries, and a greater percentage of athletic linemen choosing the defensive side of the ball have all but killed the ability to sustain a solid ground game over the long haul.
Agree with those above ... QB (Foles or Tannehill) over Morris. If he is going to rate Foles over Tanny, then he should have Miami drafting him at 8, and not Morris. That is just a bad pick.
No. Russell is Tom Brady circa 2001. What he's achieving at such a young age is incredible. Nothing like Joe Flacco.
Every single time anyone does one of these, they screw over the Dolphins, often making a joke about it. It makes me crazy, but the only thing I can take away is that the national media thinks that our team is such a joke that they'll screw up every time that they're given the chance.
Taking a RB in the top 10 would be a huge mistake. Their NFL lives are too short and they just don't have that big of an impact on winning a super bowl. They can certainly help but you need a QB, pass rushers, ball hawking defensive backs and a good OL.
Oh that is the perception and reality, need to put higher priority on toughness, character and leadership when aquiring players.
Beware the opinions of former scouts. I've heard grumbling before from actual scouts about how several former scouts on television are no longer scouts for a reason, and I've even heard Bucky Brooks explicitly named within that context.
He's really the worst they have on there along with Jamie Dukes (who can't seem to find a niche on that network). I like Mayock. Daniel Jeremiah is alright along with Charles Davis, but they fall under the trap of thinking every prospect picked is going to start day 1.
Amazing that kinda logic earns a guy the title of NFL media analyst. The Vikings would be a perennial playoff team if that were the case.