Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PsychoViking View Post
    I don't think the Browns can really afford to take another CB that high.
    I don't really see why not. Top picks aren't too expensive any more.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wyndham View Post
    Sometimes need and value align so perfectly that you ask yourself, why the hell wouldn't X team do it? And that's the case here. There IS going to be a monster pass-rusher who deserves to go at 6, and the Browns have to have one. The only argument I'd see against it is if Milliner grades out that much higher than the rusher, but I don't see that at this point.
    True, but the question was posed based on the idea that they had already filled this hole in FA.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    36,494
    Not a financial thing, most teams don't spent that kind of a quality pick on 2 CBs. They are important but they are also useless without a pass rush, strong OL/DL, etc.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    Agreed, but I don't think thats the position Cleveland is in. They have a few interesting guys like Sheard and Taylor up front and again, the question was posed assuming they had signed another pass rusher. Say an Anthony Spencer or something. Plus I think you can do a lot of interesting things with 2 strong CBs.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    Here's the new Scott Wright mock. I won't start a thread or anything, but I'll throw it up just for sh1ts and giggles. We aren't discussing anything else.

    http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Mock-Draft-A.php
    Last edited by Nastradamus; 02-15-2013 at 05:00 PM.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    36,494
    I saw a report that the Chiefs may pursue Foles. IMO this is a good idea for both clubs, he doesn't really fit the Eagles new offense and they also signed Dixon. They could trade a 3rd or 4th this year and maybe a conditional next year and then spend the #1 pick on a more certain player.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    If they really believe in Foles, its not a bad idea. It sounds like Philly is only trading him if they get something good, so it might have to be that 34 pick. Maybe with Philly throwing in a 5th or something like that even. I like your idea of a 3rd and a conditional next year, maybe ranging from 4-2. I like Geno, but if Reid believes in Foles there is some logic to this. Not sure who you take #1 though. I suppose Joeckel. Its a lateral move, but its much easier on your cap for the next 5 years.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    36,494
    I'd take Joeckel and see if Albert will re-sign and kick inside. Having an obscenely good OL and running game wouldn't exactly hurt them.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    I think they like their interior line though. I don't think they are going to pay big money for a G. Ideally you trade him to a team like Chicago for a 1st and hopefully use that money on someone else, whether keeping Bowe, signing Wallace, or maybe adding a CB like Talib or an ILB like Ellerbe.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  9. #24
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    27,909
    Albert wants top 5 OT money. There's no chance he's moving inside to guard.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    "Cornfields and Crick-ets forever"
    Posts
    11,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Nastradamus View Post
    Here's the new Scott Wright mock. I won't start a thread or anything, but I'll throw it up just for sh1ts and giggles. We aren't discussing anything else.

    http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Mock-Draft-A.php

    Looked pretty good. It didn't inspire my bowels, but I did smile a little at 2 Gs in R1.
    The word "hero" is frequently abused badly. This is a real hero.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    I don't think there's any question at this point that 2 OGs are going in the 1st.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    18,818
    Quote Originally Posted by PsychoViking View Post
    I'd take Joeckel and see if Albert will re-sign and kick inside. Having an obscenely good OL and running game wouldn't exactly hurt them.
    Just...wow. This is the summation of 30 years of failure and Chiefs fans, by and large, buying it hook, line and sinker.

    Here's the plan: Take an OT #1 overall; move a LT who gave up 1 sack in 750 snaps last year to OG; bench the OG you took in round 2 last year because you moved your top 10 LT to OG; and, last of all, do absolutely zilch with the OT you drafted in the 3rd round last year and showed some flashes because you just drafted an OT #1, paid an OG top 10 LT money, and have great talent across the rest of your line.

    Seriously. For God sake people. Which draft pundit are you reading to get this stuff and, more importantly, WHY?

    As for Foles, I like his talent, but he'll either be too costly to acquire, or so cheap that you can think nothing other than that he won't be any good since 2 teams place a weak value on him. No, the Chiefs have to draft THEIR QB. Even if it's not Geno, they should trade into the 20s and take the 2nd or 3rd guy and pray.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    35,421
    In what situation would Foles be too costly? I find that comment a bit absurd. Is the 34 too much, as opposed to using 1-1 on your QB? I imagine that would be the absolute max, with the more likely compensation being a 3rd plus a possible conditional 2014 pick.

    As far as Albert and Joeckel, I get your point and don't necessarily disagree too much, but you are probably being too extreme about it. The Chiefs have a lot to consider with that pick. They have to think about the best value and with all their decisions right now they need to consider the long term affects and not just the short term. There is a situation where you take Joeckel, but a lot of other things would have to fall into place. You'd have to desire to spend the ALbert money elsewhere, you'd have to not believe in Stephenson, you'd have to not like any QB there at all and you'd have to know that you could get a 1st for Albert.
    "Governing doesn’t disappear when government shrinks; instead corporations come to govern your life — like HMO’s, oil companies, drug companies, agribusiness, and so on, with accountability only to maximizing profit, not to public needs." - George Lakoff

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  






Fantasy Football Rankings


Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.