|
It's stupid how bad injury and lovely line play hurt the birds. I'm assuming Houston went south because of injury and Matt Schaub regressing to his high-school level of play.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Kirios posted:Well this sounds like exactly what Texans fans are saying. Cushing and Foster were injured, other than that it was just terrible QB play and huge regressions from the offensive line and pass rush Given their schedule though and the pieces in place, if they can get decent QB play (sounds like Fitzpatrick is starting regardless of who they draft so nope) they could easily be an 8-10 win team
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Doltos posted:Haters better recognize that for more than a few years the 1A and 1B pass rushers in the league were Osi and Ware. Osi and Ware both had one of the most phenomenal first steps in the history of the NFL. Ware in 2008 was unreal. I think he's still got 3 more 10+ sack seasons left before he falls off or retires. It was just two years ago when he had 11 sacks, and 3 years ago when he racked up 19. People forget that he played nearly all of last season injured.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
John Brown posted:Ware in 2008 was unreal. I think he's still got 3 more 10+ sack seasons left before he falls off or retires. It was just two years ago when he had 11 sacks, and 3 years ago when he racked up 19. People forget that he played nearly all of last season injured. Apparently "people" in this statement is "the Dallas front office".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
I hope Ware gets a ring up in Denver in the next couple of years, and then I hope he wears the hell out of that thing to any future Cowboys reunions he might attend
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Then panthers love abbrederis and he won't make it past them in the third. oh christ my premonition was real
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Holy gently caress, you're stupid, if the Falcons could get that bounty of picks I'd want them to do it in a heartbeat. 25 picks is a long loving way man. Unless the Raiders had already traded down once, throw in next years first from a playoff team at the very least or get off my phone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:25 picks is a long loving way man. Unless the Raiders had already traded down once, throw in next years first from a playoff team at the very least or get off my phone. I would normally agree, but for a team with as many holes and in a draft of such supposed depth....
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Lol at getting the 5th pick with basically three second rounders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:I would normally agree, but for a team with as many holes and in a draft of such supposed depth.... Basically 3 seconds and a 3rd to trade out of the first round from a top 5 pick. Come the gently caress on. Especially from a team in a position to part with a lot more than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Nawid posted:Lol at getting the 5th pick with basically three second rounders. Depending on where those picks are, that doesn't sound bad. Second rounders are very good prospects and you can find some real studs. There is no guarantee the top five pick is doing to do anything for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Man deep draft chat has really messed with ya'lls head when you're like yeah Khalil Mack is real good and all, but if you trade that pick you could get Gabe Jackson in the second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Man deep draft chat has really messed with ya'lls head I was bitching about this exact thing like 3 weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Nawid posted:Lol at getting the 5th pick with basically three second rounders. Isn't that the plot of Draft Day?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
I think the standard goon thinking is that upper 1st-round picks are bad and 2nd and 3rd round picks are good. I know better. I keep quiet
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Cruel and Unusual posted:Isn't that the plot of Draft Day? Only he got the 1st overall for that
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
I still can't believe the Seahawks give up a player for the privilege of moving from #1 overall to #7 overall
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Counteroffer: This years picks 1 30 2 56 2 61 3 94 3 100 7 242 7 243 Future: 1 3 5 Edit: And I still feel like this is getting jipped because I picked their 2 later 3rds this year. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Only he got the 1st overall for that Not true actually! He gave up three firsts to move from 7 to 1, then traded three seconds for 6, then traded 6 for those three firsts back 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
So a team traded 3 firsts to move from 7th to 6th after they had just traded down from 1st overall? Lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Rap posted:I think the standard goon thinking is that upper 1st-round picks are bad and 2nd and 3rd round picks are good. I know better. I keep quiet I'd rather have two Kia Sorentos than one GTO
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
I actually do think either approach could work just fine, depending on what your team needs and what the prospects are like. It's hard to really talk in terms of "I'd rather pick 10th" vs "I'd rather pick 30th and 40th" or whatever, without knowing who the prospects are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:So a team traded 3 firsts to move from 7th to 6th after they had just traded down from 1st overall? Lol. The idea was the Browns traded up to #1 and the Seahawks fans were pissy because they were going to miss out on their QB, on draft day the QB falls all the way to 6 and the Browns trade for that pick, scaring the Seahawks into trading those firsts back to make sure they get the QB because of fan pressure or something It's really really dumb
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
the perfect spot to pick is where you can get he guy you need without having to trade or politic *hot take*
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:the perfect spot to pick is where you can get he guy you need without having to trade or politic Sometimes trading gives you more assets so I wouldn't say that. There really is no right or wrong way to approach the draft. The best way to think about it is saying "Hey do I want to fill up my team with pricey veterans or cheap draft picks?". The Falcons thought the first way when they traded up for Jones for a win now mentality, and the Patriots think the other way by constantly trading back into the 2nd round. Neither guarantees success or failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Man deep draft chat has really messed with ya'lls head when you're like yeah Khalil Mack is real good and all, but if you trade that pick you could get Gabe Jackson in the second. Don't get me wrong, if Mack were there, there is no way I trade out. The way I see it, the top studs like Clowney, Mack, Watkins and Robinson are not worth trading down if they are there for you, unless you are getting a 1st next year in your trade package. And even still, I would hesitate with Clowney and Mack. But if they are gone, I think it might be worth having multiple 2nd rounders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Sataere posted:Don't get me wrong, if Mack were there, there is no way I trade out. The way I see it, the top studs like Clowney, Mack, Watkins and Robinson are not worth trading down if they are there for you, unless you are getting a 1st next year in your trade package. And even still, I would hesitate with Clowney and Mack. But if they are gone, I think it might be worth having multiple 2nd rounders. In that situation literally every qb is on the board, so that pick would be valued based on that. I'd take my pick of the litter from this class of qb's over 3 seconds any day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:In that situation literally every qb is on the board, so that pick would be valued based on that. I'd take my pick of the litter from this class of qb's over 3 seconds any day. That depends on how you rank those QBs. If you really think this class is interchangeable, then trading down is a great idea there. I'd probably take Bridgewater, but I think he is superior to everyone in this class.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Man, what is it about Robinson? Everyone is talking about him like he's the next Jonathan Ogden or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
I haven't STUDIED THE TAPE but where does Sammy Watkins rate in relation to the other receivers coming out this year, and in relation to receivers from the last 10 years? It he "the best in a long time" or " the best this year".
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Man, what is it about Robinson? Everyone is talking about him like he's the next Jonathan Ogden or some poo poo. He's just a really good prospect, at least physically. There are some questions as to whether he can handle pass-blocking quite so well as run-blocking considering the offense Auburn ran, for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Man, what is it about Robinson? Everyone is talking about him like he's the next Jonathan Ogden or some poo poo. Robinson was a road grader OT that obliterated the competition this year and was one of the major reasons the Auburn offense did so well. He has blue chip leverage abilities combined with being a huge guy that can move that bulk well. He's good with his hands, can punch pretty fast and get a good grip on his guy, but they're not violent hands. Still kind of a work in progress in pass blocking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:I haven't STUDIED THE TAPE but where does Sammy Watkins rate in relation to the other receivers coming out this year, and in relation to receivers from the last 10 years? It he "the best in a long time" or " the best this year". Best this year. He rates up there with Blackmon and Jones, guys like that. Not in anyway an A.J. Green or Megatron type. Absolutely one of the fastest guys in the draft, has a big frame despite being 6'1", attacks the ball, and has that kind of after the catch playmaking that got Cordarelle Patterson so popular last year. Plus he's only 21. By far the best WR in the draft but there are so many good ones that I could see him falling, or even getting picked second behind Mike Evans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Bigass Moth posted:I haven't STUDIED THE TAPE but where does Sammy Watkins rate in relation to the other receivers coming out this year, and in relation to receivers from the last 10 years? It he "the best in a long time" or " the best this year". In my opinion, general tiers of WRs: Calvin Johnson: top 5 prospect all time regardless of position Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Braylon Edwards, Keyshawn Johnson, AJ Green: all about equal; easy top 5 picks, no serious concerns, perennial AP potential Justin Blackmon, Julio Jones, Randy Moss, Torry Holt, Charles Rodgers, Peter Warrick, Michael Crabtree: potential to be outstanding but have one or two concerns Watkins is pretty comfortably in that third group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Sataere posted:That depends on how you rank those QBs. If you really think this class is interchangeable, then trading down is a great idea there. I'd probably take Bridgewater, but I think he is superior to everyone in this class. Not to loving 30th it's not, because then you don't get any of them. I think Bridgewater is the best too, but this isn't my job. For a GM, if they want to pick a QB, they would obviously want to be able to pick from every prospect in the draft. I do think there's 3 guys who are pretty well regarded as top 10 quality picks, so being at 5 with all of them on the board is a place where you make a pick if you don't have an answer at quarterback. It'd take a sizable offer to do otherwise. The only question mark for me is if Clowney, Watkins, Manziel/Bridgewater/Bortles, and Mack get taken. Then you've got two great LT prospects who are roughly equal and both could easily end up worse than Lewan, and a smaller selection at QB. That's p much worst case scenario IMO. That's where you might see a trade with less value coming to the Raiders, but if the QB highest on Reggie's board is still there, or he loves one of the tackles or whatever, then it shoots right back up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Not to loving 30th it's not, because then you don't get any of them. I think Bridgewater is the best too, but this isn't my job. For a GM, if they want to pick a QB, they would obviously want to be able to pick from every prospect in the draft. I do think there's 3 guys who are pretty well regarded as top 10 quality picks, so being at 5 with all of them on the board is a place where you make a pick if you don't have an answer at quarterback. It'd take a sizable offer to do otherwise. The only question mark for me is if Clowney, Watkins, Manziel/Bridgewater/Bortles, and Mack get taken. Then you've got two great LT prospects who are roughly equal and both could easily end up worse than Lewan, and a smaller selection at QB. That's p much worst case scenario IMO. That's where you might see a trade with less value coming to the Raiders, but if the QB highest on Reggie's board is still there, or he loves one of the tackles or whatever, then it shoots right back up. I think it is a moot point anyway, because no way he trades down that far for that little. I just don't think it is as crazy as you make it out to be. If he trades back, it'll be about five or six spots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Sataere posted:I think it is a moot point anyway, because no way he trades down that far for that little. I just don't think it is as crazy as you make it out to be. If he trades back, it'll be about five or six spots. It probably is a moot point for the 49ers trade, but that's arguable, evidently. Trading back a few spots wouldn't be a big deal, and depending on value and who's on the board, is probably not a bad idea. In the top 12, you've still got a shot at guys like Lewan, Donald, Bridgewater, Manziel, and Evans, who are one knock away from being a top 5 pick, or the guys who fell from the top 5 that were replaced with the guys I just listed. Once all those guys are gone, the talent pool drops a tier and a half.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
If the Texans trade down they could potentially have 13 picks this year... That's a lot of shot in the dark potential.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:If the Texans trade down they could potentially have 13 picks this year... That's a lot of shot in the dark potential. http://fanspeak.com/ontheclock/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:Man deep draft chat has really messed with ya'lls head when you're like yeah Khalil Mack is real good and all, but if you trade that pick you could get Gabe Jackson in the second. The reasoning is pretty simple. The value of the players this year in the 33-100 range is higher than in years past, because of the extra 80 or so underclassmen who declared. There are several teams looking to trade out of the top ten and get more picks this year, in large part because of this. The 49ers have a lot of top 100 picks to offer, and are one of the few teams (possibly) looking to trade into the top ten. We've been over this before (twice now), but I'll go ahead and repeat it. Do I think it's likely? No. Am I saying it's likely? No. Would I be very happy if it happened? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2014 21:36
|
|
