|
TBC posted:It's looking like the Bucs will be leading for at least one day in the race for the first pick What do Bucs fans think about Glennon? I'm happy with the #2 pick if the Bucs are just gonna take Clowney.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
thatguyclint posted:What do Bucs fans think about Glennon? I'm happy with the #2 pick if the Bucs are just gonna take Clowney. He strikes me as a solid back up but not a franchise QB. Game manager type who has a strong arm but is more apt to check down on any given play. Poor pocket presence. He's also absolute poo poo in the second half this far. I don't think fans are seriously considering him to be our QB moving forward especially when Schiano gets fired. I'm rooting for bridgewater.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
TBC posted:He strikes me as a solid back up but not a franchise QB. Game manager type who has a strong arm but is more apt to check down on any given play. Poor pocket presence. He's also absolute poo poo in the second half this far. One of the youngest QB's in the draft going to Tampa where he will start day 1. I like it. Happy birthday to Teddy by the way. Go buy yourself some brews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
TBC posted:He strikes me as a solid back up but not a franchise QB. Game manager type who has a strong arm but is more apt to check down on any given play. Poor pocket presence. He's also absolute poo poo in the second half this far. Pretty much this but ultimately I don't think we will end up with the number one pick unless Jacksonville wins one more game. Bucs still have St. Louis, Buffalo, Miami, and Atlanta on the schedule. We could accidentally win two of those games. Also play N.O week 17 and they could possibly be resting starters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Pretty much this but ultimately I don't think we will end up with the number one pick unless Jacksonville wins one more game. You rang?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
wandler20 posted:Pretty much this but ultimately I don't think we will end up with the number one pick unless Jacksonville wins one more game. Bucs still have St. Louis, Buffalo, Miami, and Atlanta on the schedule. We could accidentally win two of those games. Also play N.O week 17 and they could possibly be resting starters. I think we'll need that week 17 game, but of we're resting I hope we throw the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 09:18
|
|
|
MJBuddy posted:I think we'll need that week 17 game, but of we're resting I hope we throw the game. Between the Panthers and the Seahawks, we're gonna need that week 17 game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Jaguars beat the Texans both times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
Kirios posted:At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Jaguars beat the Texans both times. The Keenum-led Texans aren't that bad. It's not like Kansas City, Arizona or Indy are bad teams; the Cardinals may have the league's best defense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The Keenum-led Texans aren't that bad. It's not like Kansas City, Arizona or Indy are bad teams; the Cardinals may have the league's best defense. Not only that; they were close and/or leading late in each of those games. I wonder what they do in the draft if they decide Keenum deserves the starting job next year. Offensive line?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Speaking of Keenum, during the Texans/Cards broadcast they mentioned Case's size and I realized he's only an inch taller and a couple of pounds heavier than Manziel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Perhaps, but it's kind of difficult to be too confident about a 2-7 team's chance in any game, even if it is the Jaguars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:Not only that; they were close and/or leading late in each of those games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Kirios posted:At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Jaguars beat the Texans both times. Let's not get too crazy here. It took a near-entire Titans collapse for them to get their first win of the season. They're still a very, very, very bad football team, one that still went 3/12 on third down efficiency in a game they won. The Texans are a good football team that keep falling apart at the least opportune times, and are probably pretty likely to keep that usual lead in the 3rd/4th quarter against the worst offense in the league.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Nawid posted:WATTerCLOWNEY Can Clowney play 3-4 OLB? I'm sure the answer is "probably" but I'm just curious because I've only heard him discussed as a 4-3 DE, and most of the teams projected to be in the bottom of the draft (Tampa, Oakland, New York, Jacksonville) run the 4-3.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Disillusionist posted:Can Clowney play 3-4 OLB? I'm sure the answer is "probably" but I'm just curious because I've only heard him discussed as a 4-3 DE, and most of the teams projected to be in the bottom of the draft (Tampa, Oakland, New York, Jacksonville) run the 4-3. I don't think he'd need a whole lot of additional size to even play 3-4 DE; the dude is just so physically gifted he'll probably succeed as long as he's motivated. I'm not even going to get my hopes up about Clowney unless Houston's looking at a top 3 pick though. As things stand I think he goes to Tampa Bay at 1 or 2. dirty shrimp money fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
I think a lot of people would expect Clowney to be used much like Mario was during Wade's first year, assuming we don't switch to a 4-3 as a result of any possible coaching changes. EDIT: There's a LOT of people who want Jake Matthews with the 5th overall pick, though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I think a lot of people would expect Clowney to be used much like Mario was during Wade's first year, assuming we don't switch to a 4-3 as a result of any possible coaching changes. I don't blame them though--Matthews would be a great pick and has as good a pedigree as an NFL player can possibly have. And it's not like the Texans don't really, really need a right tackle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
bhsman posted:EDIT: There's a LOT of people who want Jake Matthews with the 5th overall pick, though. It goes with being an Aggie and being a legendary Oilers' kid, and I can see it actually happening if the Texans pick around 3 or 4 and go BPA. If the Texans decide Keenum is a franchise QB a big upgrade on the line never hurts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
So Mariotta is out of the top 15 now right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
I'd rather trade down than spend TRIGGER WARNING, CHIEFS FANS: a top five pick on a right tackle when you can find one later in the draft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
commy gun posted:So Mariotta is out of the top 15 now right? He played on an injured knee and still looked alright. Also, it was one game against a top 5 college defense. Maybe pump the breaks a little bit. bhsman posted:I'd rather trade down than spend TRIGGER WARNING, CHIEFS FANS: a top five pick on a right tackle when you can find one later in the draft. You may not necessarily find one and why not take the best one? He's also probably the best player at that draft slot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I'd rather trade down than spend TRIGGER WARNING, CHIEFS FANS: a top five pick on a right tackle when you can find one later in the draft. Yeah, yeah you would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I'd rather trade down than spend TRIGGER WARNING, CHIEFS FANS: a top five pick on a right tackle when you can find one later in the draft. Chargers took a RT at 12 and it owns
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
^^^That's at 12, though.Declan MacManus posted:You may not necessarily find one and why not take the best one? He's also probably the best player at that draft slot. Is it worth more to put Clowney or Barr next to Watt and pick a tackle in the second round? I think it would be. The Chiefs at least had the excuse of their left tackle not signed to a new deal, whereas Houston has Duane Brown locked up for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:He played on an injured knee and still looked alright. Also, it was one game against a top 5 college defense. Maybe pump the breaks a little bit. Its not just the one game. Granted, people will look at this and last year's losses to Stanford, but is his skill set gonna infatuate a team in the top 10? Hes a fit for the read option, but its not as hot right now as it was last year (thanks to RG3, probably) and I don't see it trending back up anytime soon. Then again, QB Driven League. Cash Monet fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
I'd only want an RT that early if my QB was a lefty. Those top 5 overall tackles will all end up playing LT when they hit their prime anyways, even if they entered the league on the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:I'd only want an RT that early if my QB was a lefty. Those top 5 overall tackles will all end up playing LT when they hit their prime anyways, even if they entered the league on the right. Matthews is currently playing LT. The only reason he'd play RT in Houston is because the team already has a pro bowl left tackle, who Matthews could eventually replace if need be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
I mean, if the thought of Watt and Clowney/Barr rushing the passer together doesn't give you a literal erect penis with the potential I don't know what to tell you. EDIT: Seriously though, if Houston could trade down a bit to, say, #8-12 overall and could still grab Matthews? No complaints whatsoever. I just feel like a potential franchise QB/pass-rusher to set next to Watt helps the team far more than having a stud RT. gently caress, who cares about RT if we don't replace Wade Smith, though Quessenberry will probably take his spot due to Smith's contract being up this year. bhsman fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
You can't just make sexy picks all the time. That's not how you build for success in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
bhsman posted:I mean, if the thought of Watt and Clowney/Barr rushing the passer together doesn't give you a literal erect penis with the potential I don't know what to tell you. Because defense is the problem in Houston
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
SteelAngel2000 posted:Because defense is the problem in Houston If we can't score points, neither will you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Grozz Nuy posted:He was! He and Vereen were both on the team at the time actually, that was 2008. Kind of the last year before it all started unraveling, too. *sigh* Those really were better times. I think the only pro prospect (and he's probably a udfa) is DeAndre Coleman, mostly for his ridiculous size and strength. Not for any productivity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:You can't just make sexy picks all the time. That's not how you build for success in the long term. Won't disagree, but I just don't see the point in taking Matthews at #5 if Clowney is available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
bhsman posted:Won't disagree, but I just don't see the point in taking Matthews at #5 if Clowney is available. Well of course not, because Clowney would be the best player available at #5 by a wide margin. Barr, not so much. Not that Anthony Barr isn't good, but he's not Clowney or Matthews.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:You can't just make sexy picks all the time. That's not how you build for success in the long term. If you're taking Clowney you're taking him because hes the best player, and there's nothing wrong with that. "Need is the worst evaluator of talent" or whatever that quote is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
commy gun posted:So Mariotta is out of the top 15 now right? He barely looks like a first rounder, and this is based on all season. Not like I think he needs another year in college either because it would just reinforce his bad habits.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
commy gun posted:If you're taking Clowney you're taking him because hes the best player, and there's nothing wrong with that. "Need is the worst evaluator of talent" or whatever that quote is. Well yes but you're also assuming that Clowney is going to be there to take at #5. If he's there you take him, but that's not what bhsman said (at first). He was debating the merits of taking a right tackle top 5.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:05
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:Well of course not, because Clowney would be the best player available at #5 by a wide margin. Barr, not so much. Not that Anthony Barr isn't good, but he's not Clowney or Matthews. There are various draftniks that think Barr could go before Clowney if a 3-4 team is drafting at the right spot, so don't push Barr too far down your boards. I think the general impression from some people is that Barr is a better 3-4 OLB than Clowney would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
vaginal culture posted:He barely looks like a first rounder, and this is based on all season. We're talking about the same guy who has yet to throw an interception in almost 300 attempts and is averaging 8 yards per carry right? Also I'm starting to become a convert to the position that there isn't much differentiation between LT and RT anymore. It seems like NFL teams line their best pass rusher up against the weakest OT more often now than they do against the blind side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 00:11
|
|
