Why the 49ers Should NOT Take a QB in the Draft
by indymike on Nov 14, 2010 7:41 PM PST
Email
PrintNow that we've changed Smiths at QB, can we please let the calls for drafting a QB die? Drafting players for positional needs in early rounds often leads to disaster for a couple of reasons:
- If you make a positional selection, chances are you will overpay, leading future roster issues. If you picking fourth and are filling a need for a RB and the best available RB would otherwise go at pick 28, you are going to overpay for two years.
- If you make a positional pick, you may pass up on much better players which could have huge impact later. Take the 2006 draft, and say the 49ers needed a QB and had traded up to get Vince Young, and not taken Vernon Davis. One of these two players is a potential HOF player. VD clearly was a better choice.
Even worse is making a positional selection of a QB. Here's why:
My hope is that the 49ers simply take the best player available in this year's draft, and let teams who believe in positional picks like the Redskins, Browns, Cowboys, Raiders and Broncos squander away picks on ill advised trades to fill positional needs.
My other favorite team is the Colts. Polian is a strict believer in the "Best Player Available" theory, drafting players like Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Robert Mathis, and Dallas Clark. Every one of these picks, except Manning was not a positional need, and drove sportswriters and fans crazy because they didn't fix a specific positional problem. Every one of these picks has been a crucial part of why the Colts have performed so well over the past decade. There are a few other teams in addition to the Colts that are subscribers to the "best player available" theory: Ravens, Giants, Packers, Steelers, Saints.
When you say draft a QB, just remember you are suggesting doing what Al Davis would do.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Niners Nation's writers or editors.
74 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree 110%
And that is why I will be highly upset if the Niners take a QB with a top 10 pick in this draft. There are no QB’s in the top 10 of my personal big board and drafting one with a top 5-7 pick would be drafting for perceived need.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
They should take the best DB or Pass rusher available...
then hope Mallet falls to them in the next round, or maybe even move up to get him
by sanfranfanmdk on Nov 14, 2010 7:58 PM PST up reply actions
They should take BPA regardless of position
Even if that means A.J. Green. And Mallett won’t get out of the first round, you can bank on that statement.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 15, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
They should do BPABON
Best Player Available Based On Needs. No point in drafting a TE
Kellen Moore is awesome
You eliminate positions of surplus before you take BPA
The key to BPA is to eliminate surplus positions instead of targeting positions of need.
Obviously there’s no point in drafting TE, P, or HB in the 1st round of this year’s draft. Other than that, open ballgame. Take the BPA and find a place for them to play. Injuries happen and players move on.
Just like last year when countless people on this forum were against drafting Dez Bryant because we took Crabtree the year before, if we end up with someone like A.J. Green staring us in the face and other elite talents are off of the board….. you take the BPA.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 15, 2010 3:29 PM PST up reply actions
This. Witness the Colts dumping Jim Harbaugh prior to picking Peyton Manning, trading Marshall Faulk to the Rams prior to taking Edgerrin James and dumping James after taking Joe Addai. If you commit to the BPA theory, then you release expensive players that become redundant to relieve pressure on the salary cap.
What I'm trying to say is that the #2 CB is going to be worth more than the #1 WR
Because CB is a greater need than WR thus filling a need and picking the best player available.
Kellen Moore is awesome
yes
i think the qb class is pretty weak right now, if troy smith can perform like he did today on a regular basis we got our qb for next season and beyond perhaps. our offense looked explosive today with so many big plays, take away the dumb penalties and the game wouldnt of been close. hopefully we can comeback next week and redeem ourselves in the penalty dept.
Question: Would you have taken Bradford over Suh if the Niners had the 1st overall pick last year?
Because I think Peterson vs. Luck is basically the same question. And in my mind, you always go for a good shot at a franchise QB. If he drops to wherever the Niners pick ends up being, then I’d say he’s cheap enough where you can afford to sit him for a year behind Troy Smith and let him learn before starting him. (If he doesn’t, and Locker somehow falls to the 2nd, I’d do the same. Locker has tons of natural talent. An year or two with an NFL QB coach would do him wonders IMO.)
Bradford looked a lot better than Luck and faced better Ds
I would take Bradford over Suh even though both are crazy good and we need a QB more than we need a DE. But I would take Peterson over Luck because CB is a really big need.
Kellen Moore is awesome
I'd take Suh over Bradford. Bradford looks good...
But Suh so far looks like he might be a legend.
Gimme 1 round!
by ItBurnzWhenIP on Nov 14, 2010 10:37 PM PST up reply actions
Agreed. Bradford also may have shoulder issues – some seem to go the way of Drew Brees and others the way of Alex Smith. Suh is already a monster and will be for a long time.
Some people think Luck is the best college QB since Manning.
Luck will be special, but will be gone before we draft. Stansi would be a great pickup for us. He makes great decisions and plays out of a pro style O.
by ericalancanty on Nov 14, 2010 10:44 PM PST up reply actions
Every year “some people” think that a Leinert, Ryan Leaf or JaMarcus Russel is the best since Manning. Reality is the Colts got lucky as Manning turned out to be the actual Peyton Manning… but would not have been if the Colts didn’t get rid of Jim Harbaugh and let Manning play every snap his rookie year. Manning was HORRIBLE for many of those games… 3 INTs… but always a few plays that were harbingers of things to come.
Manning in the wrong circumstance could have languished on the bench while the team pursued getting into the playoffs. That the football gods that Polian decided to scrap a season on developing Manning.
Nobody except the Raiders and idiots thought JaMarcus Russel was going to be the next Peyton Manning. He had bust written all over him. Leinart was more of a surprise, and I still think he had the potential to be really good but he was too stupid and more worried about his lavish Hollywood lifestyle than being a good QB.
Luck will be good. The kid is intelligent, has all the tools and has a good foundation of support around him. He already has an advantage with NFL experience from his Dad and his coach, and history has shown that it helps.
Suh, NQA
I would have taken Suh, no questions asked. He was and is clearly the best player that was available in his draft class. Bradford has made an impression, but Suh… wow. The Lions vs. Redskins was amazing – the Lions D line OWNED that game.
Can we watch Troy Smith for a few more games before we unequivocally decide against a QB?
He went against two weak defenses.
And I’m saying this as one of the few guys here who does not want Andrew Luck.
8
The Rams are a pretty good D
By football outsiders they were ranked 14 which is above average.
Kellen Moore is awesome
Not every team has a great defense
Steelers was suppose to have the best defense. they taken some loses as well.
You can only control whats on the schedule.
>< just win the d**n game or else! Or else what? Exactly!
Really? Is that so?
Because the Rams are only the #1 pass rush D in the entire NFL, #7 in pass defensed, and #3 in forced fumbles. That sounds like a sorry Defense to me.
QB
Other than liking our 2nd and 3rd round picks I would have liked to have seen either Colt McCoy or Jimmy Clausen picked up with one of those picks.
McCoy? Maybe. Clausen? No thanks.
Granted, he plays for a dreadful Carolina team, but he didn’t show much. Besides, at Notre Dame he was staring down receivers like nobody’s business – even against Navy, whose DBs are now driving cruisers and destroyers in the Pacific. If you can’t outsmart guys who will never have an NFL career, what makes you think you’ll be able to outfox Nnandi Asomugha?
Now McCoy has looked good, but I’d like to see more before we officially blast Baalke for not drafting him. A few good games does not a Hall of Fame career make.
The scary part the 49ers really liked Clausen
I’ve had serious issues with their QB evaluations. I hated the Nate Davis selection at first because he had errors I didn’t think they would work with him. I thought Nate showed he could play in the league than the 49ers coaching staff soured and now won’t work with him.
Not to mention the Alex Smith debacle. Trust me, I knew nothing about Alex Smith when they picked up. However I did listen to the reasons they picked them and they were horrible reasons, his fast feet and mild manners … really those aren’t franchise QB traits.
"Coach, it came down like a hail marry"
Completely agree
I have felt this way ever since the Alex Smith draft and it is has become something I have noticed from many teams in the NFL. QB evaluation is a big problem for this team, I have no doubt about that.
Hey hey, take it easy.
Their lack of NFL career is more attributed to their commitment to their country than their skill level. Navy puts together solid programs year in and year out.
But that is not to say that I don’t disagree on your assessment of Clausen for the most part.
Ricky Stanzi or Andy Dalton in the middle rounds next draft.
by bmcrae83@yahoo.com on Nov 14, 2010 11:57 PM PST reply actions
Stanzi was outplayed by the QB from Northwestern, SO UTTER FAIL TO SUGGEST IT.
2010 in memory of the 1970 Bengals.......
Nate clements: Hey coach, had you put a better gameplan together, i wouldn't have fumbled!!
Two Real McCoys
I think Colt McCoy has the toughness and the smarts to become a great NFL QB. He looked awesome today against the Jets.
I also think Troy Smith has the same skills and has that special something that you not to tough out a win in the fourth quarter. The kid is so very gutsy and some of the throws he made today were insanely brilliant.
My main point today is: We need to sign Troy Smith right now. Some of you say two games aren’t enough to tell. I say, that’s a loser’s attitude. If we wait too long. enough time to be sure, don’t you think every team in the NFL that needs a QB are going to be offering him the moon when the season is over? Think about Minnesota next year without Farve> Think about the Raiders, Miami, the Redskins, the Bears, and not least of all, Seattle and Arizona. What will they offer a kid like this if he’s unsigned? And why would he sign with us if we wait too long and offer him a decent but not great contract? We need to move fast and sign him for decent money, give him some guaranteed money upfront and a long term deal that we can void if we must. But this is our shot at filling the biggest hole the Niners have had since Steven Young retired.
I say the Yorks need to move to sign him now.
And at the end of the season, get a real HC in here to cut down on the stupid penalties and teach these kids how to play air-tight hard-nosed NFL football. When they match the smarts Troy Smith has shown then we’ll have a truly great young team.
By the way: two games: Two come-from-behind thrilling wins. ZERO interceptions. This kid is something special.
i would take luck not Locker
Very good QB are far but few, I rather have the eagles problem. and have 2 good QB
The Eagles have good D lineman and corners, so we can't be the Eagles just yet.
2010 in memory of the 1970 Bengals.......
Nate clements: Hey coach, had you put a better gameplan together, i wouldn't have fumbled!!
We absolutely should take a QB in the draft
That’s not to say we should take a QB in the first round. Personally, I won’t annoint T. Smith the second coming of Steve Young, but he looked impressive and we haven’t had a 350 yard passer in how many years? I’d move forward with Smith as the starter and let him grow into his role, however, I would still draft a QB somewhere in the mid rounds.
With each game that Smith plays, if he continues to impress, I’ll quickly be warming to the idea of drafting Peterson in the 1st and getting a pass rusher in the 2nd. This becomes dependent on us not winning the division and losing all chance of getting Peterson.
absolutely
we can’t leave everything up to chance (with another smith again). we need that security blanket, which we don’t have now. i’m not even comfortable having alex around as the number 2. we should draft another qb, and bump nate up.
Alex Smith is garbage...
Case Keenum
will be available late round and he could turn out to be a steal
WE NEED A FIRST ROUND QB -PERIOD!!!
C’Mon folks, wot you guyz smoking ?
Ofcourse we need a qb like yetsrday. Let us not make the mistake we did last year. We need a top notch QB to develop. l guess we can keep TROY & ALEX for now whilst we develop a qb either LOCKER, LUCK or MALLETT. On combine day we can analyse whose best suited and available for our needs. QB is everything like Steve Young said,and we need to revert back to WEST COAST OFFENSE !!!
If our passing game functions like it did yesterday, we don't need a WCO
We need the running game to work along with it, but the WCO is not necessary if we can have a 350 yard passer on a semi-regular basis.
by 9thevolution on Nov 15, 2010 8:07 AM PST up reply actions
West Coast offense? Why because it worked for Joe and Steve, give up the good ol days, you can't get them back.
Our offense put up over 400 plus yards of offense, and you want the WCO, makes no sense.
2010 in memory of the 1970 Bengals.......
Nate clements: Hey coach, had you put a better gameplan together, i wouldn't have fumbled!!
ditto
It would be nice to get more vertical. You need an extremely intelligent QB and disciplined WR’s to run the WCO at a championship level and that combination is hard to find in the modern salary cap era of the NFL.
If you put a legitimate vertical threat opposite of Crabtree then the field opens up immensely for Crabtree and Davis.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 15, 2010 3:32 PM PST up reply actions
Check out the difference between Troy and Alex
http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb
Its not up to date but Troys DVOA is the best, but that is a really small sample. We shall see where he ranks after this week. Look at Alex rank 31 which isn’t very good.
Kellen Moore is awesome
Patience
Why does it seem that you have to pro-Troy or anti-Troy? Why not just ambivalent on Troy? He’s played well in two games, but why suddenly does that necessitate that we start talking about him as the QB of the future? He just might be, but it’s far too early to give him the job and talk of not drafting a QB.
Let’s just be patient and see what Troy does over the remaining games this season and then we’ll all sit down w/ Sing, assuming he still has a job, and ‘watch the film.’ I’d like to see Troy perform well, assume the starting role heading into next season, and have the 49ers draft a QB to develop—doesn’t have to be a 1st rounder if Troy plays well enough to have the team’s confidence for at least the short term. For now, though, patience is a must.
"The principle is competing against yourself. It's about self improvement, about being better than you were the day before." ~Steve Young #8
The Colts have made many need picks
Donald Brown and Joseph Addai. Tony Ugoh at OT. They pay their core stars exorbitantly and then fill needs in the draft. Actually I don’t think there is a team in the league that drafts for need more consistently. They are just very good at evaluation and player development.
Even if they didn’t, their strategy doesn’t really matter since they have had probably the greatest regular season QB of all time for 13 years. Their success is predicated mostly around him, not a BPA philosophy.
The Ravens have as strong a drafting record as anyone. Consistently taking BPA and drafting pro bowl players. And even they have traded up to take two QB’s in the first round in the last 7 years. Boller didn’t work out, so they drafted Flacco. Now they are set to contend for years.
BPA philosophy is great unless you don’t have a QB. QB’s are vastly more important than any other position.
You still make the assumption
That the QB position MUST be filled via the draft. That’s the assumption that I challenge. Only a handful of teams have found a true franchise QB via the draft. NFL teams can find QB’s via free agency and trades and let another team take the responsibility of teaching a young QB how to be a professional quarterback.
I’d much rather trade a 2nd/3rd round pick for a 25-26 year old who has learned on the bench for a couple of years than take a huge 1st round risk on a 21-22 year old unless that guy was a truly elite QB prospect.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 16, 2010 6:29 AM PST up reply actions
That's a pretty sound philosophy...
but how often can you get that guy? Right now, you’re talking about Kevin Kolb, Matt Moore and either J. Campbell or Gradkowski. Those are the guys likely available for trade this offseason or come draft day.
Personally, if the coaching staff remains here after this season, we’re best off signing Troy to a small extension (2-3 years) and drafting a mid round guy that has the tools, but needs development.
by 9thevolution on Nov 16, 2010 7:36 AM PST up reply actions
When you think about it
Troy Smith fits that description of being a slightly older guy who has learned on the bench. You just need a 2nd QB like him and that’s where either Nate Davis steps up his learning curve or you go grab a guy like Campbell, Gradkowski, or T. Jackson to compete with Troy Smith for the starting job. Not only do you need the competition, but you need the insurance in case of injury.
Either way, I think you draft a QB in the middle rounds of this draft. This has the potential to be a very deep QB class and I’m sure one of the non-1st rounders will end up having a long career in the NFL.
If you gamble it all on a top 10 overall QB and miss, then the damage is simply too great to recover from. You can’t give up on a 1st round QB after 1-2 years, so you’re usually 3 years in before you realize that you made a mistake. Even worse is getting a marginally good QB in the top 10 and leaving your franchise in “mediocrity purgatory” because of the investment and loyalty to an average QB (see David Carr, Alex Smith, Kyle Boller, and others).
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 16, 2010 8:25 AM PST up reply actions
I completely agree on Troy
He doesn’t have a ton of starting experience, but he could easily earn what he needs with a consistent level of play. Even if he struggles or has a bad game, I think he should be given his opportunity to close out this season. Sing would be wise to let him do that too. If he stays after this season, he has to know Alex isn’t gonna be back, and he needs someone. After that, getting another journeyman type QB who could potentially start would be a very wise decision. Personally, I’d want Gradkowski, think he brings that attitude you need at QB and can rally the team around him.
I was big on going for a top QB, but watching Troy was inspiring on Sunday. He did have some mistakes, primarily holding the ball too long, but he also gave the team the spark it needed and made big plays that have been lacking for years. I’m now looking more towards getting a QB 3rd-4th round and allowing them to learn behind someone who knows how the league works and can help them along in their development.
by 9thevolution on Nov 16, 2010 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
I don't make that assumption
I really don’t care how you get the Qb, I just recognize you have to address it and can’t hide behind “Best Player Available” if there’s a chance to address the position in the draft. Yes 1st round QB’s are risky…but they don’t all fail! Why only view the downside of the equation? If you hit on your first round QB you are set to contend for years.
Also, there are a LOT more examples of 1st round picks becoming star QB’s then 25ish backups traded for picks. In the last 15 years you’ve got Schaub, Hasselbeck, Brunell….anyone else? Its not exactly a murderers row. There’s plenty of misfires in this group too.
Of course, if Kolb is made available he has about as strong a pedigree as any recent prospect in that group.
I even like Troy Smith too. I had him on my radar as a potentially cheap option heading into the 09 offseason. I am very interested to see how he plays down the stretch. My point is, we HAVE to get a good QB and its extremely foolish to rule out the most common route to getting a franchise QB, the 1st round.
by hammystyle on Nov 16, 2010 11:16 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Well...
Brees, Schaub, Hasselbeck, Brunell, Cassel, Trent Green all come to mind in the past decade.
As for the comment about contending for years after hitting on a 1st round QB, please tell me which QB’s have lifted their teams to contention for years and years to come after being drafted.
Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers, Donovan McNabb, Ben Roethlisberger. That’s the end of the list. Four guys out of how many? Four QB’s out of 32 teams and only two in the past decade.
Yes there have been plenty of good QB’s taken, but show me how they have catapulted their franchises into Super Bowl contention on a consistent basis. Only Eli Manning is fringe on that list and I think we all know that the Giants defensive line is the only thing that has kept that team in contention for the past 5-6 years.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 16, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
I’m not falling into some silly semantics argument. If you can’t see that a great deal of the good QB’s in the league, right now, were taken in the first round then you are blind. So my point stands, we need to address this position one way or the other, and shouldn’t be ruling out one of the best ways to do it.
by hammystyle on Nov 16, 2010 1:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I’ll disagree on the Colts, manly because:
a) Colts GM Bill Polian has been very clear about his strategy from day one. BPA, no questons asked.
b) Jim Mora, Tony Dungy and Jim Caldwell have echoed Polian.
c) We did not need Brown (who is a walking injury) as we still have Addai. Edge was released to make room for Addai.
I’m not going to say never, but the Colts rarely use a draft pick on a positional need. We are very quick to grab players off the waiver wire and pick up unsigned free agents to fill positional needs.
I will agree that having a great QB makes the BPA philosophy work better, but it’s still pretty effective. Also, moving up to get better talent is not incompatible with the BPA philosophy.
Every team says bpa
Because you sound like an idiot if you say you are passing on better players to fill a hole.
by hammystyle on Nov 16, 2010 10:44 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
sounding like an idiot
You mean like trading up to obviously draft for need by taking Anthony Davis?
shock
It wasn’t a terrible pick, but the first round of that draft was the most glaring example of drafting for need that I’ve seen in a long time. Luckily they made up for it in the 2nd/3rd rounds with Mays and Bowman.
I’m completely confused at this point about the Niners draft strategy going forward so this draft should be interesting.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 16, 2010 11:04 AM PST up reply actions
I expected Davis to struggle
He was a 20 year old kid starting the year at a mans position. Just very unlikely he would succeed right off the bat.
by hammystyle on Nov 16, 2010 1:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I said this earlier
But in football you can’t afford to draft based on long-term potential, especially in the 1st round and especially at a position such as LT/RT. This is a results driven sport where players need to contribute immediately at a high level.
Given the absurd salaries that 1st round rookies bring in, you’re usually better off taking the 4th year senior with experience. Take the risks on younger players later in the draft when the financial stakes are not as high.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 16, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
That doesn’t make sense to me. That’s not exactly BPA, more like BIPA … I for Immediate.
"Coach, it came down like a hail marry"
It's still BPA
But the focus is on best player, not best potential, in the 1st round. Where do you play a guy with “potential” on an NFL roster?
This isn’t baseball or hockey where you let guys play in the minor leagues.
This isn’t basketball where you can rotate a guy in for 10 minutes a game (at most positions).
In the NFL, you’re paying 1st round rookies a huge amount of money to play immediately and you should generally receive early dividends from that player. If a starter on your team is going through growing pains, then your team is going through growing pains and will take losses as a result.
It’s an easier blow to handle at positions like WR or CB where you need starting depth and can rotate guys into the game on a regular basis. It’s not as easy at the cornerstone positions such as QB and HB where you’re usually either on the field or on the bench.
Look at the winning organizations of the past decade and you will find that they rarely trade up, often trade down in the 1st/2nd rounds, and they select players who are NFL-ready and can provide above-average value in some capacity early in their careers even if that means a specialized role.
Rays in '08.... Desmond Jennings - the breakout continues.....
by youALREADYknow on Nov 17, 2010 6:12 AM PST up reply actions
Since most Rookie contracts are 2 year, you have to see some ROI in the first two years because after that, all bets are off on retaining the player. It really is BPIA.
If you can’t get the Rookie on the field inside of 2 years, it makes little sense to keep them. That’s why you see BPA teams jettison veterans within one year for the Rookie player. The exception is late round pickups like Nate Davis, who’s salary is low enough to make keeping him around for 3-5 years make sense. The minute a late rounder starts starting, all bets are off because the salary is going to go way up on the next contract.
The only place where this seems to be traumatic is replacing QBs, top level receivers (how could you replace Rice at the peak of his career) and the guy calling audibles on defense (think Ray Lewis types who don’t just make tackles, but who make reads and change the D at the line of scrimmage).
The thing about Anthony Davis
A minority of prognosticators believed he was the BPA @ OT in the draft. He certainly brought a huge variance of opinions on him.
"Coach, it came down like a hail marry"
Play calling and AD
I like what Troy Smith has brought to the game. Mostly an intensity and some understanding of how to win. That being said, I don’t believe comparing him to Alex is fair at this point. Alex had one good half with Johnson as play caller. The rest of his season and last was with Raye. Why did Singletary ever hire Raye? He has never been successful. Anywhere. So he wasn’t hired because of his record, but because he would be Sing’s yes man. And he did do exactly what Sing wanted. He ran the ball, predictably, over and over again until the 49ers go so far behind that hey had to pass. This put crazy pressure on the QB, and the running game, and the defense. I hope Troy Smith, the latest anointed one, will pan out, but I would support drafting a QB to develop for 2-4 years down the pike. And for better or worse, Nate Davis is not cutting it here. Whether it’s his cognitive limitations or the coaches’ incompetence, who knows. It just doesn’t look like he’s going to get a good look here.
AD
Whoops, I forgot the AD part. I think he is going to be really good. He’s very, very young to be a starting tackle in the NFL. And he’s growing up fast. Trial by fire. He would have benefited from a year or two to get his strength and skill set up to NFL level, but not on this team. We needed help now.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Niners Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
