Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    57,849
    Honestly, the more I think about it.

    If they really do get rid of Nate Washington, I can' rule out Patterson or Tavon Austin at 10.

    I mean I doubt it since Munch comes from the old regime which valued WRs as much as Kickers (ironically the 2 positions that cost them multiple SB titles) so I doubt it, but i wouldn't totally put it past them either.
    Mac9, to the true warrior. the ultimate competitor and the most worth adversary any athlete has ever faced off against. He was an inspiration for both his on the field play, off the field contributions and his leadership. The world is now a worse place without him.

    "Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity" - Justice Antonin Scalia

    "Just because you're the lone voice in the wilderness, it doesn't mean you're wrong."
    - Ghandi

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    18,849
    There is absolutely zero chance that the Bills will move up to the #1 pick. None.

    Washington could get away with giving up all those picks for RGIII because Snyder spends like a mad man. A team with a limited budget that only can build through the draft like Buffalo could never field a competent roster if they paid the price it would take to move up from #8 to #1 because they don't have the money to be able to suppliment lost draft picks through free agency.
    Last edited by ducky; 03-18-2013 at 03:30 PM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,189
    Quote Originally Posted by ducky View Post
    There is absolutely zero chance that the Bills will move up to the #1 pick. None.

    Washington could get away with giving up all those picks for RGIII because Snyder spends like a mad man. A team with a limited budget that only can build through the draft like Buffalo could never field a competent roster if they paid the price it would take to move up from #8 to #1 because they don't have the money to be able to suppliment lost draft picks through free agency.
    Of course there's a chance. It might not happen but that's a silly comment, and I'm not sure about your justification, either. They paid Mario Williams how many pennies, exactly?

    Keep in mind, if a trade was to happen, it wouldn't be for RG3 compensation. I already said that.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,189
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbleHead View Post
    Steelers won't take DJ Fluker. Draft falls poorly for them. I bet they'd attempt a trade down or take Warmack or Damontre Moore if this is how it goes. Congrats on the effort!
    I strongly considered it, but it'd make a ridiculous investment in purely interior OL, while their edge play still sucks wang. I agree, it certainly falls poorly, and they'd be desperate to get out, but just made picks in this mock.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    All over the F'in World
    Posts
    8,248
    not that it's probably a reason, but has anyone else noticed that a few of the players that KC has signed are from Utah (Utah St, precisely), and that A. Reid is a mormon?

    makes them taking that BYU player, or Star Ukelale (whatever his name is), a possibility for the "connection". ;)

    no, i'm not serious. it just occurred to me when my boss asked me where S. Smith played college at, and so did Alex Smith (Utah St). haven't looked into the other FA additions they've had, cuz i don't give a sh|t.
    only commenting because i noticed their adds last week, and then saw this mock with KC taking a guy from BYU.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    18,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyndham View Post
    Of course there's a chance. It might not happen but that's a silly comment, and I'm not sure about your justification, either. They paid Mario Williams how many pennies, exactly?

    Keep in mind, if a trade was to happen, it wouldn't be for RG3 compensation. I already said that.
    Yeah I suppose both the KC and Buffalo GM's could have debilitating strokes on draft day.

    KC would have to take PENNIES on the dollar for the #1 overall pick just a couple of months after they paid dollars on the penny for Alex Smith. Not likely at all.

    And Buffalo would have to ignore the fact that they are terrible team currently with as many offensive holes as any team in football and would have to think they could develop a good but not great QB prospect with virtually no talent around him and not any help coming soon. Not likely at all.

    Could it happen? Sure. But it is within the realm of possiblity that KC could take Chance Warmack #1 overall too. I am pretty sure that if I put that mock up that you would have a pretty similar reaction as I did to your idea of KC trading down with Buffalo.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    31,103
    Steelers can't afford to take another Olineman. They are lacking playmakers everywhere.

    Can't see the Giants taking a TE when the Oline has holes and the defense needs to be restocked. Eli's made a lot of average TEs look good.

    Can't see Austin going that high. You want size and speed with that early a WR.

    Fisher would love to add Lacy and get that O smashing into people.

    Good effort overall.
    Last edited by eaglesnut; 03-19-2013 at 04:42 PM.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Tied to the KFFL merry-go-round
    Posts
    24,770
    Keenan Allen would make me extremely happy. I've been trying not to allow myself to entertain the idea that his injury and the rise of some other guys might push him down to the Pats, so thank you for saying it out loud for me.
    "My life is not easy, but it's awesome." - Steve Gleason

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    19,189
    Quote Originally Posted by ducky View Post
    And Buffalo would have to ignore the fact that they are terrible team currently with as many offensive holes as any team in football and would have to think they could develop a good but not great QB prospect with virtually no talent around him and not any help coming soon. Not likely at all.
    Dude, you write like you pay no attention to the NFL. Teams do exactly this ALL THE TIME. We see year after year teams making irresponsible trades in an effort to get better. The GMs think their own team is better than it is. "Just give us this guy and we're good."

    Quote Originally Posted by ducky View Post
    Could it happen? Sure. But it is within the realm of possiblity that KC could take Chance Warmack #1 overall too. I am pretty sure that if I put that mock up that you would have a pretty similar reaction as I did to your idea of KC trading down with Buffalo.
    The thing is, yours has NEVER happened in the history of football and categorically never will happen in the future. On the other hand, we've seen trades many many many times before. You acting like there's 0 chance a team can trade up 7 spots to land its potential franchise QB is really quite ridiculous.

    Yeah, they've got some holes, but QBs > holes. Washington wasn't anywhere close to perfect. And they franchise their safety, sign DEs to $120 million combined deals, pay turd QBs $60m. They're not the Redskins in FA but acting like they'll never spend a penny is stoopid.

    I'm not saying by any stretch that it WILL happen, but your position here is completely ridiculous.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    38,173
    Yah, I don't see how the Redskins spending comes into play. They have some talent, but roughly the same amount as Buffalo.
    "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

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Gettysburg
    Posts
    16,440
    I would be very happy with Allen for the Pats.

    Great value and he fits a need.
    Cherish your children for who they are, not who you'd like them to be.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Las Vegas, nv
    Posts
    1,425
    What helps the QB the most isnt a small 173 lb WR, it is a better OL. The Chargers wont be picking a WR at #11...no way. I have doubts Austin goes in the first round anyways. Somebody name me one WR that small under 175 LBs that was a first round pick?

    There isnt one. I think Santana Moss comes closest and he was 185 lbs @ 5'10"

    Warmack would be a great pick there. Their OL was A.W.F.U.L and we lost one of the decent OL we had, RG Vasquez to Denver.
    Last edited by Boltjolt; 03-24-2013 at 05:28 PM.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    38,173
    Austin's an anomaly no doubt, but I think you have to accept that he's going in the 1st at this point. If you want to argue he'll fall our of the top half, I get that.

    Warmack would definitely be a good pick for them. I can't understand why they let Vasquez go for the life of me. How do you let that OL get weaker? I do like the Dunlap signing though, underrated pass blocker.
    "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

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    29,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Boltjolt View Post
    What helps the QB the most isnt a small 173 lb WR, it is a better OL. The Chargers wont be picking a WR at #11...no way. I have doubts Austin goes in the first round anyways. Somebody name me one WR that small under 175 LBs that was a first round pick?
    Ted Ginn Jr. Technically, he was 178, so doesn't meet your criteria, but he was also 2 inches taller, and less polished as a receiver. Granted, smaller WRs don't go that high very often, but I think smaller, more elusive WRs will get a look earlier more often in the future. That said, I agree that wouldn't be a good pick for the Chargers.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    38,173
    The Chargers need OL help, but they are pretty desperate for playmakers as well. Austin wouldn't be such a horrible pick if you ask me. I think he does help your QB, and OL because he can get you big yardage out of quick developing, low risk plays.
    "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 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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






Part of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.