PDA

View Full Version : NFL Draft Chance to see Matt Stafford & Michael Johnson today


suds79
11-29-2008, 10:19 AM
Georgia v Georgia Tech 11 am.

About the only thing we have to look forward to now. :(

blueballs
11-29-2008, 10:21 AM
the CHiefs already are a limp Johnson fest

blackhawk
11-29-2008, 11:59 AM
michael johnson stink it up!

Mr. Arrowhead
11-29-2008, 12:09 PM
he would fit in with the chief pass rush, Non existent

milkman
11-29-2008, 12:10 PM
he would fit in with the chief pass rush, Non existent

He certainly would be a bad fit in KC if Cunther and Krumrie are still around.

The kid needs good coaching.

blackhawk
11-29-2008, 02:21 PM
Andre Smith is up next let's see what he got!

Dayze
11-29-2008, 03:49 PM
Stafford is good; but he will be over-hyped/rated by draft day if he declares.

His size and arm will force someone to take a flyer on him.

Wilson at 'Bama seems to be more polished IMO. Better deep throws & decision making. Don't get me wrong; i don't think Wilson should warrant a 1st /2nd round pick etc...

flame away.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:07 PM
The Golden Boy loses another one..... ooops

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:08 PM
The Golden Boy loses another one..... ooops

Do you know what Jay Cutler's record was in college?

RustShack
11-29-2008, 05:09 PM
The Golden Boy loses another one..... ooops

He doesn't play defense.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:09 PM
Do you know what Jay Cutler's record was in college?

does it REALLY matter? the same ones that bash thigpen for the TEAM not winning throw shit like that out all the time.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:09 PM
He doesn't play defense.

neither does tyler thigpen, does that stop the haters?

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:09 PM
does it REALLY matter?

Yes, it does.

And you should debate college quarterbacks without bringing up Thigpen.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:10 PM
Yes, it does.

And you should debate college quarterbacks without bringing up Thigpen.

look i dont think we really need to be worrying about stafford. we have our QBOTF

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:13 PM
look i dont think we really need to be worrying about stafford. we have our QBOTF

Then why even post in a thread about Stafford?

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:16 PM
Then why even post in a thread about Stafford?

well you see there are people here who would annoit stafford king, yet bash thigpen, they use stafford having to carry his team and having NO defense as an excuse for his losses this year(#1 to start the season IIRC) but those same people when bashing thigpen use the losses like they ALL rest on his shoulders, so when stafford loses in much the same way why not point it out?
Oh yeah and by the way like you have room to talk banned boy.

Mecca
11-29-2008, 05:25 PM
Um Matt Stafford put up 400 yards a 5 TD's it's hardly a day to be bashing him.

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:26 PM
Um Matt Stafford put up 400 yards a 5 TD's it's hardly a day to be bashing him.

Holy shit, nice.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:30 PM
Um Matt Stafford put up 400 yards a 5 TD's it's hardly a day to be bashing him.
man i remember people telling you and claythan the exact same thing the past couple of weeks, see it can go the other way. people can use YOUR arguments against players YOU like.
still a loss right? it doesnt matter what thigpen does you still bash right?

Mecca
11-29-2008, 05:31 PM
When Matt Stafford is in a more pro style scheme right now than the Chiefs are...that's a serious issue to me.

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:33 PM
man i remember people telling you and claythan the exact same thing the past couple of weeks, see it can go the other way. people can use YOUR arguments against players YOU like.
still a loss right? it doesnt matter what thigpen does you still bash right?

#1 I never bashed Thigpen for losing games. My entire argument against him has been his inconsistent accuracy.

#2 Losing 45-42 while throwing for 5 TDs and 400 yards is different than losing 54-31 while throwing for 3 TDs and 240 yards. Huge difference.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:34 PM
#1 I never bashed Thigpen for losing games. My entire argument against him has been his inconsistent accuracy.

#2 Losing 45-42 while throwing for 5 TDs and 400 yards is different than losing 54-31 while throwing for 3 TDs and 240 yards. Huge difference.

college- NFL. now claythan there's your HUGE DIFFERENCE
and clay YOU have said the guy cant even win a game

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:35 PM
When Matt Stafford is in a more pro style scheme right now than the Chiefs are...that's a serious issue to me.

mecca who are you to say that the spread wont work in the nfl? seems to me like it has so far and noone knows where it will go

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:35 PM
college- NFL. now claythan there's your HUGE DIFFERENCE
and clay YOU have said the guy cant even win a game

I certainly have not. I recognize that winning a game with this defense is facing nearly insurmountable odds.

JASONSAUTO
11-29-2008, 05:36 PM
I certainly have not. I recognize that winning a game with this defense is facing nearly insurmountable odds.

oh come on clay you have said that. i'm too lazy to go through ALL your posts but i have a pretty good memory, you HAVE said that

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 05:37 PM
oh come on clay you have said that. i'm too lazy to go through ALL your posts but i have a pretty good memory, you HAVE said that

Nope. Never said it.

Ari Chi3fs
11-29-2008, 05:37 PM
I wish Todd Reesing had the physique of Matt Stafford. I bet Reesing does to.

If so, top 5 pick. But when you are 5 foot and some change there is no hope. Thats a pity...

Mecca
11-29-2008, 05:38 PM
I asked my friends who are Bills fans what they thought of Thigpen.......

They basically said he looks like a good backup who you could win a couple games with if your starter went down on a good team.

chiefzilla1501
11-29-2008, 05:48 PM
I asked my friends who are Bills fans what they thought of Thigpen.......

They basically said he looks like a good backup who you could win a couple games with if your starter went down on a good team.

I'm sure they're great Bills fans, but I hardly trust the advice of fans who've only seen a player play for one game where he wasn't at his sharpest. It was a slight hiccup, but Thigpen was not great, he was not bad. He still hasn't shown enough to definitively prove he's a QBOTF, but hasn't screwed up badly enough to think he's a career backup either.

I personally think he has a very bright future. I'm sure that the Falcons and the Ravens aren't nagging on their QB for a bad game or two. As I've said many times, the ONLY reason Thigpen is being heavily scrutinized is because of how late he was picked, and because he's not winning games--as if that's entirely his fault.

chiefzilla1501
11-29-2008, 08:24 PM
The problem I have is that we all know Orakpo and Johnson and Bradford probably aren't top 5 picks. We all know that it's a tremendous waste to draft a guy like Oher only to move Albert to Guard or Tackle. I sense that all of you make these claims with reservation and uncomfort. For good reasons. Orakpo and Johnson seem far too flawed to be considered top 5 picks.

And yet, we cling to these arguments, because we're so convinced that BPA should have us take Oher and that need should have us take Orakpo or Johnson. And that it's so taboo to even consider trading down. So we're satisfied with a second-rate, flawed player we need or an elite player at a position we don't need. And so, because we are so stuck on the idea that we need to stick around for our pick, we are talking about forcing a pick even though we don't like what we have available.

I still assert that deep down inside all of you know that Maualuga, Laurinaitis, and Mays are the best picks for the Chiefs. And I'm sure all of you agree that Orakpo and Johnson would be a terrific pick, if picked at #9 instead of #3. And yet I have found less than a handful of people out there who support a trade down. And with a potential franchise left tackle like Oher probably still on the board, I GUARANTEE there are teams that would trade the moon for him.

Let me present this clearly again: based on what we know now, NOBODY is worth a #2 or #3 pick for us. And there are 5 or so players who we really want and need that will be sitting for us at #9 or #10 guaranteed. Why reach when you can get a player you want AND a draft pick, regardless of if you get awesome compensation. If we got Orakpo/Maualuga/Mays/Laurinaitis/Johnson at #8 or #9 plus a second round pick (which we can spend on a starting LB or Guard), wouldn't you agree that we hit a grand slam?

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 08:26 PM
Orakpo's not a top five pick?? Since when?

Who was that POS DE the Jags took at 8 this year?

chiefzilla1501
11-29-2008, 08:32 PM
Orakpo's not a top five pick?? Since when?

Who was that POS DE the Jags took at 8 this year?

He could prove otherwise at the combine. But he looks to me to be nothing more than either a successful 3/4 OLB/DE or a rotational DE. He's not explosive enough to be a premier pass rusher and not going to be a run-stuffer.

Like Gholston and Hali, these are overachievers who I just don't think have the skill sets to match the next level. I can handle Orakpo in the first round, but in the top 5 based on what we know now is a huge reach. I know he's got a great bench, but this team badly needs speed off the edge, not another Hali/McBride clone who are reasonably fast, but neither explosive.

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 08:37 PM
The fact you lumped GHOLSTON in with HALI says a lot about your talent evaluation.

chiefzilla1501
11-29-2008, 08:46 PM
The fact you lumped GHOLSTON in with HALI says a lot about your talent evaluation.

They're not the same player, but the circumstances are the same. Both were overproductive in college and both have skills that don't translate overly well to the next level. Hali doesn't have the physical frame or wingspan. Gholston is a workout warrior who had a great 40 time, but doesn't have any real explosion to the QB.

Both racked up a lot of sacks in college that would never be sacks in the NFL. And when all is said and done, Gholston will probably be an average rotational defender in the NFL, like Hali.

I see the same fate for Orakpo. He's fast, but in the NFL, you have to be explosive. He's strong, but in the NFL, you can't just bully linemen with power as you did in college.

If I'm using a top 5 pick, I don't want to drain it on a player I'm unsure about. Orakpo could really wow in the Combine, but as of now, I don't see top 5 potential. The Chiefs need a pure edge speed rusher. They don't need yet another power guy who doesn't have the explosion to get off the edge.

milkman
11-29-2008, 09:19 PM
The problem I have is that we all know Orakpo and Johnson and Bradford probably aren't top 5 picks. We all know that it's a tremendous waste to draft a guy like Oher only to move Albert to Guard or Tackle. I sense that all of you make these claims with reservation and uncomfort. For good reasons. Orakpo and Johnson seem far too flawed to be considered top 5 picks.

And yet, we cling to these arguments, because we're so convinced that BPA should have us take Oher and that need should have us take Orakpo or Johnson. And that it's so taboo to even consider trading down. So we're satisfied with a second-rate, flawed player we need or an elite player at a position we don't need. And so, because we are so stuck on the idea that we need to stick around for our pick, we are talking about forcing a pick even though we don't like what we have available.

I still assert that deep down inside all of you know that Maualuga, Laurinaitis, and Mays are the best picks for the Chiefs. And I'm sure all of you agree that Orakpo and Johnson would be a terrific pick, if picked at #9 instead of #3. And yet I have found less than a handful of people out there who support a trade down. And with a potential franchise left tackle like Oher probably still on the board, I GUARANTEE there are teams that would trade the moon for him.

Let me present this clearly again: based on what we know now, NOBODY is worth a #2 or #3 pick for us. And there are 5 or so players who we really want and need that will be sitting for us at #9 or #10 guaranteed. Why reach when you can get a player you want AND a draft pick, regardless of if you get awesome compensation. If we got Orakpo/Maualuga/Mays/Laurinaitis/Johnson at #8 or #9 plus a second round pick (which we can spend on a starting LB or Guard), wouldn't you agree that we hit a grand slam?

Most of the arguments against the tradedown scenario you present has to do with the fact that you think we should not concern ourselves with getting what that draft position is worth.

Easily the stupidest fucking idea ever.

the Talking Can
11-29-2008, 09:34 PM
Stafford is good; but he will be over-hyped/rated by draft day if he declares.

His size and arm will force someone to take a flyer on him.

Wilson at 'Bama seems to be more polished IMO. Better deep throws & decision making.

jesus fucking christ people


fuck me with a whale

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 09:36 PM
Both racked up a lot of sacks in college that would never be sacks in the NFL.


Gholston had like 17 sacks as a senior.

Hali had what, 20 for his entire college career?

Hali came out maxed out as a player (not physically), Gholston has some developing to do.

You're basically comparing two completely different players. Hali is all motor, work ethic and limited, talent wise. Gholston is the opposite. Their talent levels are not comparable whatsoever.

The Chiefs need a pure edge speed rusher. They don't need yet another power guy who doesn't have the explosion to get off the edge.

Have you been ignoring the highlight films of Orakpo just racing right around left tackles?

the Talking Can
11-29-2008, 09:39 PM
The Golden Boy loses another one..... ooops

did you watch him today you moran?

all he did was make one sweet pass after another from every formation imaginable - pro-set, shotgun, bootleg - while consistently calling audibles at the line of scrimmage

to the tune of

24-39
407 yards
5 td passes
1int
10 yard per pass average

but he isn't good enough for a knuckle dragging, box score expert like you?

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 09:49 PM
The Golden Boy loses another one..... ooops

This fucking Stafford thing keeps rollin' and rollin' along on this board, and I simply do NOT get it.

I'm being absolutely fucking serious here; no smack talk, no bullshit.
WHAT DOES THIS GUY HAVE?

SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME, BECAUSE I AM NOT SEEING IT.

the Talking Can
11-29-2008, 09:50 PM
This ****ing Stafford thing keeps rollin' and rollin' along on this board, and I simply do NOT get it.

I'm being absolutely ****ing serious here; no smack talk, no bullshit.
WHAT DOES THIS GUY HAVE?

SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME, BECAUSE I AM NOT SEEING IT.

wipe the shit out of your eyes

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 09:52 PM
WHAT DOES THIS GUY HAVE?


Everything Thigpen doesn't.

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 09:52 PM
Gholston had like 17 sacks as a senior.

Hali had what, 20 for his entire college career?

Hali came out maxed out as a player (not physically), Gholston has some developing to do.

You're basically comparing two completely different players. Hali is all motor, work ethic and limited, talent wise. Gholston is the opposite. Their talent levels are not comparable whatsoever.



Have you been ignoring the highlight films of Orakpo just racing right around left tackles?


The Chiefs need #58 from USC. After that, pick whatever ball-lobber makes your collective dicks hard; I don't fucking care anymore.

I'd like to start winning some games next year; how bout' you?

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 09:53 PM
Everything Thigpen doesn't.

That not an answer goddamnit; make the case.

the Talking Can
11-29-2008, 09:54 PM
That not an answer goddamnit; make the case.

the case has been made 1000 times on this board

what didn't you see him do today?

because he basically did fucking everything

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 09:58 PM
That not an answer goddamnit; make the case.

He has a laser rocket arm.

And Einstein's brain.

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 10:01 PM
the case has been made 1000 times on this board

what didn't you see him do today?

because he basically did fucking everything

I did not see the game, and I did not see the highlights. I'm sure I can find them online, and I WILL watch them.

I have to say though, that for all the non-attention Tebow get's on this board, and though I've never been a fan of his, he's the ONLY guy I've seen in ALL of today's film, that looked like a straight-up, tough as nails WARRIOR.

That guy fucking FIGHTS. And mark my words; whoever gets him cheap because of his low glamor profile, is getting a winner.

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 10:01 PM
He has a laser rocket arm.

And Einstein's brain.

I love you.

tk13
11-29-2008, 10:15 PM
I really don't know how you can't like Stafford. He seems to become more impressive every week. At the beginning of the season I thought he was the best QB, but maybe not really one of the best 5 prospects or so. Right now he might truly be #1. I don't know what's not to like.

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 10:27 PM
I really don't know how you can't like Stafford. He seems to become more impressive every week. At the beginning of the season I thought he was the best QB, but maybe not really one of the best 5 prospects or so. Right now he might truly be #1. I don't know what's not to like.

I'm gonna' watch the film. The wins/losses and stats are irrelevant to me now; I'm looking at straight-up technique and decision making.
I'm gonna' be nothing but fair; there's no team bias, and no bias at all outside of certain physical requirements that are a must for pro-level play.

We'll see.

chop
11-29-2008, 10:27 PM
A Detroit radio station was saying how the Detroit front office was in love with Stafford. I know Detroit doesn't have a GM as of yet but they were saying that Stafford was the leading candidate for them in the next draft. They were also not happy about it. These radio personalities were saying that they think the Lions should draft lineman first. They seemed pretty upset about the possible selection of a QB. They think Culpepper is a good stop gap QB for the next couple of years and the pick should be used on a different need.

Tribal Warfare
11-29-2008, 10:31 PM
A Detroit radio station was saying how the Detroit front office was in love with Stafford. I know Detroit doesn't have a GM as of yet but they were saying that Stafford was the leading candidate for them in the next draft. They were also not happy about it. These radio personalities were saying that they think the Lions should draft lineman first. They seemed pretty upset about the possible selection of a QB. They think Culpepper is a good stop gap QB for the next couple of years and the pick should be used on a different need.

They'll have to stay winless to get the number #1 overall though

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 10:37 PM
A Detroit radio station was saying how the Detroit front office was in love with Stafford. I know Detroit doesn't have a GM as of yet but they were saying that Stafford was the leading candidate for them in the next draft. They were also not happy about it. These radio personalities were saying that they think the Lions should draft lineman first. They seemed pretty upset about the possible selection of a QB. They think Culpepper is a good stop gap QB for the next couple of years and the pick should be used on a different need.

Those radio personalities are morons. That team needs a leader, however symbolic it may be, but they need a leader.

Mecca
11-29-2008, 10:39 PM
Most Lions fans seem to want to take an OT....sounds like Chiefs fans.

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 10:43 PM
Most Lions fans seem to want to take an OT....sounds like Chiefs fans.

Maybe for once someone else will fuck up and we'll get our Cutler.

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 10:54 PM
Maybe for once someone else will fuck up and we'll get our Cutler.

Why the fuck would we want a 'Cutler'?

Count Alex's Losses
11-29-2008, 10:58 PM
Cutler rules, brah!

Darth CarlSatan
11-29-2008, 11:06 PM
Cutler rules, brah!

He IS the winningest QB in the Septic Tank that IS the AFC West!

Woo-Woo!!!:thumb:

chiefzilla1501
11-29-2008, 11:58 PM
Most of the arguments against the tradedown scenario you present has to do with the fact that you think we should not concern ourselves with getting what that draft position is worth.

Easily the stupidest ****ing idea ever.

Most of the arguments against the tradedown scenario you present has to do with the fact that you think we should not concern ourselves with getting what that draft position is worth.

Easily the stupidest ****ing idea ever.

And your argument is that the Chiefs should reach for a player or take a player they don't need, all because they wanted a first round pick instead of a second rounder. Alex Smith is NOT Carson Palmer. And yet, on draft day, the two carry the same exact draft value. Reggie Bush had the same draft value on draft day as Chris Long. Nevermind that everyone wanted Bush and no team would ever trade up to take a guy like Chris Long. By your draft chart, you would have traded the same exact value for Lebron James as Andrew Bogut, nevermind that Lebron walked into the draft with a ridiculous amount of hype.

Let's take a complete hypothetical. Let's say this is the 2009 draft and for some reason, the New England Patriots completely tanked the 2008 season without Brady and lost all 16 games. The Patriots walk into the draft knowing full well that Stafford and Oher are the top 2 players. Based on BPA, it says... "who cares if you have Brady, use your 1st round pick and throw $80 million at Stafford." The Pats get an offer to trade down 3 spots to a #4 pick for a high 2nd round and a mid-round pick. They turn the trade down because they were off on value. So the Pats should take Stafford? That's what the "stay put" logic suggests.

Different drafts have different depth charts. They have different demand for blue chip picks. The demand for Michael Oher will be much different than the demand for Chris Long. So why are the two trade compensations identical? If you had five Heisman candidates in the top 5 and you can trade down from #1 to #4, why should the trade compensation be exactly the same as a year where you know the talent in the top 5 is shitty?

If the Chiefs aren't excited about the BPA, then they should trade down to a team who is. But only down a few spots and only if they have a few players very high on their list still on the board. If that's the case, which it probably will be in 2009, then a trade-down is a no-brainer.

DeezNutz
11-30-2008, 12:14 AM
I really don't know how you can't like Stafford. He seems to become more impressive every week. At the beginning of the season I thought he was the best QB, but maybe not really one of the best 5 prospects or so. Right now he might truly be #1. I don't know what's not to like.

For many, I think it's simply a reaction to the fact that some posters are very high on him as a prospect.

Mecca likes him? Well...**** that.

Mecca
11-30-2008, 12:36 AM
For many, I think it's simply a reaction to the fact that some posters are very high on him as a prospect.

Mecca likes him? Well...**** that.

Isn't that a good thing? I've liked several guys who went on to be good.

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 12:50 AM
Isn't that a good thing? I've liked several guys who went on to be good.

Your boy 58's coming to town if I have to abduct him after assassinating Carl and Herm; I love everything about that kid and I will be very, very upset if he doesn't become a Chief.

Dayze
11-30-2008, 03:42 AM
jesus ****ing christ people


**** me with a whale

Don't misinterpret what I'm implying; he's a good QB. I just think he's a bit over-hyped at the moment.

And, if he declares and is there when we pick, I'm not saying we shouldn't pull the trigger. I just wonder what GMs/Scouts etc will think of him; there is still a lot of 'ifs' (declaration, our record, combine, etc).

Dayze
11-30-2008, 03:45 AM
I really don't know how you can't like Stafford. He seems to become more impressive every week. At the beginning of the season I thought he was the best QB, but maybe not really one of the best 5 prospects or so. Right now he might truly be #1. I don't know what's not to like.

he is good; I probably phrased my oringinal post poorly.

If he's not there when we pick etc; I think there will still be a QB out there worthy of spending a high pick on (move back into the 1st, mid-2nd etc) that could give us production once we fix the swiss cheese line.

milkman
11-30-2008, 07:15 AM
And your argument is that the Chiefs should reach for a player or take a player they don't need, all because they wanted a first round pick instead of a second rounder. Alex Smith is NOT Carson Palmer. And yet, on draft day, the two carry the same exact draft value. Reggie Bush had the same draft value on draft day as Chris Long. Nevermind that everyone wanted Bush and no team would ever trade up to take a guy like Chris Long. By your draft chart, you would have traded the same exact value for Lebron James as Andrew Bogut, nevermind that Lebron walked into the draft with a ridiculous amount of hype.

Let's take a complete hypothetical. Let's say this is the 2009 draft and for some reason, the New England Patriots completely tanked the 2008 season without Brady and lost all 16 games. The Patriots walk into the draft knowing full well that Stafford and Oher are the top 2 players. Based on BPA, it says... "who cares if you have Brady, use your 1st round pick and throw $80 million at Stafford." The Pats get an offer to trade down 3 spots to a #4 pick for a high 2nd round and a mid-round pick. They turn the trade down because they were off on value. So the Pats should take Stafford? That's what the "stay put" logic suggests.

Different drafts have different depth charts. They have different demand for blue chip picks. The demand for Michael Oher will be much different than the demand for Chris Long. So why are the two trade compensations identical? If you had five Heisman candidates in the top 5 and you can trade down from #1 to #4, why should the trade compensation be exactly the same as a year where you know the talent in the top 5 is shitty?

If the Chiefs aren't excited about the BPA, then they should trade down to a team who is. But only down a few spots and only if they have a few players very high on their list still on the board. If that's the case, which it probably will be in 2009, then a trade-down is a no-brainer.

I've covered this before.

But first, you are talking about potential in the draft, not players that are proven at the NFL level, so the value is placed on the pick, not the specific player.

However, if someone calls you with an offer to move up to your spot, then that is a pretty good indication there is a player there that they covet, and are concerned that another team ahead of them at their pick will take that player.

You don't settle for lesser value, because you have the leverage in that situation.

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 09:41 AM
Yes, we are talking potential, but you are assuming that Reggie Bush and Calvin Johnson are deemed to have the same exact potential as Chris Long. There were obviously a ton more excitement about Bush than there was for Long. Or how about Jamarcus vs. Eli--Jamarcus was largely believed to be a default #1 whereas Eli was a consensus #1 well before the college football season even ended. There are deep drafts when there are consensus "can't miss" #1, #2, and/or #3 picks. Then there are lousy draft classes like in 2005, when guys like Alex Smith and Cadillac Williams are in the top 3. Word is the 49ers tried very hard to unload the Alex Smith pick but could find no takers. And so, they took a player they didn't want only because they refused to move away from the draft chart. Maybe if they stopped treating Alex Smith like Eli Manning when looking for trade compensation, they could have pulled something off.

I agree that you field offers first, but realize that there isn't going to be demand for a #2 pick if the compensation is set to Reggie Bush levels as it is every single year. Negotiating is about give-and-take, not just take, take, take. If the draft class is shallow and the talent pool is low, then the draft chart is far too high and you have to reach out to teams and tell them that you're willing to bend a little bit. Sorry, but when you're sitting on a #1 or #2 pick that doesn't come in with much excitement, you DON'T have leverage because nobody wants to pay the moon for Alex Smith.

The draft chart is relied on way too heavily. If the NBA had a draft chart, it would assume that Lebron walks in with as much "potential" hype as Andrew Bogut. The fact that so many teams have tried to unload top 3 picks but never can tells you a lot about how badly the draft chart is doing. It's interesting that all the trades happen in the middle to late first round, when the draft chart significantly starts to drop trade value. Even if 2009 rated as the absolute worst draft class in NFL history, the team with the #2 pick would be asking for Reggie Bush compensation. Maybe you don't agree, but I don't understand why you continue to insist that it's stupid.



I've covered this before.

But first, you are talking about potential in the draft, not players that are proven at the NFL level, so the value is placed on the pick, not the specific player.

However, if someone calls you with an offer to move up to your spot, then that is a pretty good indication there is a player there that they covet, and are concerned that another team ahead of them at their pick will take that player.

You don't settle for lesser value, because you have the leverage in that situation.

blueballs
11-30-2008, 09:48 AM
Isn't that a good thing? I've liked several guys who went on to be good.

I suppose Lienart and Bush
have thier place in the NFL
it's called a 3rd round reach

milkman
11-30-2008, 09:50 AM
Yes, we are talking potential, but you are assuming that Reggie Bush and Calvin Johnson are deemed to have the same exact potential as Chris Long. There were obviously a ton more excitement about Bush than there was for Long. Or how about Jamarcus vs. Eli--Jamarcus was largely believed to be a default #1 whereas Eli was a consensus #1 well before the college football season even ended. There are deep drafts when there are consensus "can't miss" #1, #2, and/or #3 picks. Then there are lousy draft classes like in 2005, when guys like Alex Smith and Cadillac Williams are in the top 3. Word is the 49ers tried very hard to unload the Alex Smith pick but could find no takers. And so, they took a player they didn't want only because they refused to move away from the draft chart. Maybe if they stopped treating Alex Smith like Eli Manning when looking for trade compensation, they could have pulled something off.

I agree that you field offers first, but realize that there isn't going to be demand for a #2 pick if the compensation is set to Reggie Bush levels as it is every single year. Negotiating is about give-and-take, not just take, take, take. If the draft class is shallow and the talent pool is low, then the draft chart is far too high and you have to reach out to teams and tell them that you're willing to bend a little bit. Sorry, but when you're sitting on a #1 or #2 pick that doesn't come in with much excitement, you DON'T have leverage because nobody wants to pay the moon for Alex Smith.

The draft chart is relied on way too heavily. If the NBA had a draft chart, it would assume that Lebron walks in with as much "potential" hype as Andrew Bogut. The fact that so many teams have tried to unload top 3 picks but never can tells you a lot about how badly the draft chart is doing. It's interesting that all the trades happen in the middle to late first round, when the draft chart significantly starts to drop trade value. Even if 2009 rated as the absolute worst draft class in NFL history, the team with the #2 pick would be asking for Reggie Bush compensation. Maybe you don't agree, but I don't understand why you continue to insist that it's stupid.

No one was all that interested in moving up to get that 9ers pick.
The 9ers were calling around to see if there was any interest, and the interest wasn't there.

Brock
11-30-2008, 10:04 AM
"And so, they took a player they didn't want only because they refused to move away from the draft chart"

They didn't take a player they didn't want. They took a player they wanted. They could have taken Braylon Edwards and been fine and chose not to.

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 11:47 AM
"And so, they took a player they didn't want only because they refused to move away from the draft chart"

They didn't take a player they didn't want. They took a player they wanted. They could have taken Braylon Edwards and been fine and chose not to.

The fact that they were aggressively seeking a trade is a strong indication that they didn't want him. They took him by default. And Braylon Edwards didn't walk into that draft with nearly the amount of hype as say a Reggie Bush or a Calvin Johnson.

The fact is, the 49ers were aggressively seeking a trade but expecting Eli Manning compensation for a guy who carried with him a hell of a lot less hype. While I didn't see the offers being extended, I can guarantee it was very close to the draft chart. If you really don't want a guy, why do you justify sticking around in your spot and paying a buttload of money for a guy you don't want?

There's a reason no trades are made for a top 3 pick. Money is one issues, but it's largely because the draft chart is retarded.

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 11:51 AM
No one was all that interested in moving up to get that 9ers pick.
The 9ers were calling around to see if there was any interest, and the interest wasn't there.

While I don't know what offers were being extended, my guess is they were asking for Eli Manning compensation. If I was a GM I would laugh my ass off if anyone expected me to take that bait. I can make this claim because I have seen very, very few trades over the last few years that were any lower than the compensation set by the draft chart.

It's completely ridiculous. Again, Alex Smith is NOT Eli Manning. We all knew that before the draft. And it's ridiculous to suggest that both should have the same compensation value.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 11:55 AM
did you watch him today you moran?

all he did was make one sweet pass after another from every formation imaginable - pro-set, shotgun, bootleg - while consistently calling audibles at the line of scrimmage

to the tune of

24-39
407 yards
5 td passes
1int
10 yard per pass average

but he isn't good enough for a knuckle dragging, box score expert like you?

before you call people names you should learn how to SPELL them first, and i did watch the game yesterday. no matter what he still lost right? to you guys thats all that matters with the chiefs. but for a college guy its ok to lose?

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 11:57 AM
Most Lions fans seem to want to take an OT....sounds like Chiefs fans.

not many people are saying ANYTHING about a LT, it's DE LB OR SAFETY, our needs right now.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 11:59 AM
[QUOTE=Claythan;5257501]
You're basically comparing two completely different players. Hali is all motor, work ethic and limited, talent wise. Gholston is the opposite. Their talent levels are not comparable whatsoever.



QUOTE]

it doesnt matter how much talent the guy has if he has no motor, or work ethic. you know the drive to be the best, not saying hali has it but gholston does not for sure.

Brock
11-30-2008, 12:00 PM
The fact that they were aggressively seeking a trade is a strong indication that they didn't want him. They took him by default. And Braylon Edwards didn't walk into that draft with nearly the amount of hype as say a Reggie Bush or a Calvin Johnson.

The fact is, the 49ers were aggressively seeking a trade but expecting Eli Manning compensation for a guy who carried with him a hell of a lot less hype. While I didn't see the offers being extended, I can guarantee it was very close to the draft chart. If you really don't want a guy, why do you justify sticking around in your spot and paying a buttload of money for a guy you don't want?

There's a reason no trades are made for a top 3 pick. Money is one issues, but it's largely because the draft chart is retarded.

They didn't take him "by default". They took him because they didn't do their homework. If they had, they would have taken another player, because Alex Smith wasn't considered a legitimate number one pick by anyone.

milkman
11-30-2008, 12:01 PM
While I don't know what offers were being extended, my guess is they were asking for Eli Manning compensation. If I was a GM I would laugh my ass off if anyone expected me to take that bait. I can make this claim because I have seen very, very few trades over the last few years that were any lower than the compensation set by the draft chart.

It's completely ridiculous. Again, Alex Smith is NOT Eli Manning. We all knew that before the draft. And it's ridiculous to suggest that both should have the same compensation value.

The key words here are "I don't know".

No one was clamoring to move up to the 9ers spot.

If teams are calling looking to move up, you have the leverage.
If you are calling to move down, then they have the leverage.

The 9ers might not have clung to the exact value of the chart, but they would have been stupid to take too much less than the value of that pick, as the Chiefs would be if they didn't at least approach the value of their pick.

What you are proposing is that the Chiefs take far less value than the pick is worth, and that simply is not acceptable.

milkman
11-30-2008, 12:03 PM
before you call people names you should learn how to SPELL them first, and i did watch the game yesterday. no matter what he still lost right? to you guys thats all that matters with the chiefs. but for a college guy its ok to lose?

Moran=Chiefs planet spelling, part of the lexicon.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 12:03 PM
.

What you are proposing is that the Chiefs take far less value than the pick is worth, and that simply is not acceptable.

QFT

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 12:54 PM
And what you are suggesting is that that value stays the same every year.

Here's the flaw in your argument. By your approach, the only time you'd ever make a trade is when there is a player you badly want. But when the BPA is a player that isn't highly graded, then you don't have any leverage. Does that make any sense to you? That means that if you have Eli Manning at the top of the board then you have leverage and should shop around, but when Alex Smith/Braylon Edwards is at the top of the board (and you really, really want to trade out of that spot) then you should wait for phone calls.

Here's a news flash: NOBODY IS GOING TO CALL YOU for Alex Smith. Because they all know that the opening offer is Eli Manning compensation that is way out of reach. You have no leverage when you have a player that you don't want and that isn't highly graded. You have to start the conversation, reach out to another team, and tell them that you are willing to talk compensation that might be slightly lower than Eli Manning compensation.

The logic you suggest doesn't make sense. Isn't the best time to trade out of your spot when you don't like what's available to you? By your approach, a team should shop around Eli Manning but never shop Alex Smith around because the offer will never be good enough. That doesn't make sense. Alex Smith is valued very differently than Eli Manning, and yet you have teams like the 49ers asking for Eli Manning like compensation to trade out of the #1 spot. It's insanity.

The key words here are "I don't know".

No one was clamoring to move up to the 9ers spot.

If teams are calling looking to move up, you have the leverage.
If you are calling to move down, then they have the leverage.

The 9ers might not have clung to the exact value of the chart, but they would have been stupid to take too much less than the value of that pick, as the Chiefs would be if they didn't at least approach the value of their pick.

What you are proposing is that the Chiefs take far less value than the pick is worth, and that simply is not acceptable.

milkman
11-30-2008, 01:14 PM
And what you are suggesting is that that value stays the same every year.

Here's the flaw in your argument. By your approach, the only time you'd ever make a trade is when there is a player you badly want. But when the BPA is a player that isn't highly graded, then you don't have any leverage. Does that make any sense to you? That means that if you have Eli Manning at the top of the board then you have leverage and should shop around, but when Alex Smith/Braylon Edwards is at the top of the board (and you really, really want to trade out of that spot) then you should wait for phone calls.

Here's a news flash: NOBODY IS GOING TO CALL YOU for Alex Smith. Because they all know that the opening offer is Eli Manning compensation that is way out of reach. You have no leverage when you have a player that you don't want and that isn't highly graded. You have to start the conversation, reach out to another team, and tell them that you are willing to talk compensation that might be slightly lower than Eli Manning compensation.

The logic you suggest doesn't make sense. Isn't the best time to trade out of your spot when you don't like what's available to you? By your approach, a team should shop around Eli Manning but never shop Alex Smith around because the offer will never be good enough. That doesn't make sense. Alex Smith is valued very differently than Eli Manning, and yet you have teams like the 49ers asking for Eli Manning like compensation to trade out of the #1 spot. It's insanity.

There's nothing wrong with my logic.

If I'm sitting there with the pick for Eli Manning, and that's the guy I want, then I'm not going to shop that pick.

Teams are going to offer me excetional value to get that pick from me.

But if I'm sittting there with the pick for Brian Orakpo, and I'm uncertain that I want Orakpo, and there aren't any teams that are targeting a specific player that they want to move up to get, then I won't ask for Manning compensation in order to move.

But I'm not going to give it away, either.

You are saying, "Let's ignore the value chart.
If the value chart says that the pick is worth their first, and the equivalent of two seconds, let's just take a first and second if a team offers it".

That is giving away that pick.

I may settle for less than chart value, but I'm not giving it away.

There has to be another pick.

If I have a car that's worth $30,000, I'm not going to give it away for $18,000.

I have to get close to value, if not full value.

The Bad Guy
11-30-2008, 01:31 PM
Why do you guys even debate with Chiefzilla?

It's obvious, he's working with less chromosomes than an average human.

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 01:42 PM
When you say it that way, I agree with you a lot. I don't suggest giving the pick away. I'm saying that too many teams use the trade chart as a bible and not as a benchmark. If you really want to move out of the pick, then you can sacrifice a round or two. Who cares if they give you a first rounder instead of a second rounder, if it's a trade you really want to make. We agree on that, it seems. What I would also suggest is that if the talent pool in the draft class is less talented, then you can afford to move further away from the chart. There's obviously a limit to how far away you move and I realize that my original argument weeks ago was wrong in how far away you move.

To your car example... if this was a closed economy and the best car on the market was $18,000, then you should ask for $18,000. Of course you should start much higher than that and try to find a sucker, but more likely than not, you won't get $30,000 for it. If you really want to sell your car and you put out a Classified Ad requesting $30,000, of course nobody's going to call you. That's what's going on in the NFL. By relying on the draft chart, they are asking for $30,000 (Eli Manning trade comp) for an $18,000 car (Alex Smith value).

If every team assumes you're asking for $30,000 for an $18,000 car, nobody will call you. So when Alex Smith is on top of the board, you have a lot less leverage. In this case, if nobody is calling you, you pick up the phone and bring the compensation value down. If you're still being lowballed and nobody will budge, then you stay put. But if there's a still pretty aggressive bid on the table that's less than the draft chart, but a fair trade compensation, then you take it.

You have leverage in that you can decide whether to take or accept a trade. You don't have leverage in starting the conversation, though, if the talent is not Eli Manning level.


There's nothing wrong with my logic.

If I'm sitting there with the pick for Eli Manning, and that's the guy I want, then I'm not going to shop that pick.

Teams are going to offer me excetional value to get that pick from me.

But if I'm sittting there with the pick for Brian Orakpo, and I'm uncertain that I want Orakpo, and there aren't any teams that are targeting a specific player that they want to move up to get, then I won't ask for Manning compensation in order to move.

But I'm not going to give it away, either.

You are saying, "Let's ignore the value chart.
If the value chart says that the pick is worth their first, and the equivalent of two seconds, let's just take a first and second if a team offers it".

That is giving away that pick.

I may settle for less than chart value, but I'm not giving it away.

There has to be another pick.

If I have a car that's worth $30,000, I'm not going to give it away for $18,000.

I have to get close to value, if not full value.

Brock
11-30-2008, 01:47 PM
It's a lame argument all the way around. If the 49ers didn't take Alex Smith, he would have fallen even farther than Aaron Rodgers did. They screwed up the pick plain and simple. It doesn't have anything to do with the chart, despite all of your speculation that it does.

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 01:48 PM
Why do you guys even debate with Chiefzilla?

It's obvious, he's working with less chromosomes than an average human.

I love you too

chiefzilla1501
11-30-2008, 01:50 PM
It's a lame argument all the way around. If the 49ers didn't take Alex Smith, he would have fallen even farther than Aaron Rodgers did. They screwed up the pick plain and simple. It doesn't have anything to do with the chart, despite all of your speculation that it does.

If Alex Smith would have fallen as low as you suggested, than that means the 49ers could have traded down, got an extra pick, and still got Alex Smith.

The 49ers clearly wanted to trade that pick away. But they didn't. And I would argue it was probably because they were asking for Eli Manning compensation.

It has everything to do with the argument. THe 49ers didn't want that first pick, wanted to trade out of their spot, and for some reason didn't. The quesiton is... why?

Brock
11-30-2008, 01:58 PM
It has everything to do with the argument. THe 49ers didn't want that first pick, wanted to trade out of their spot, and for some reason didn't. The quesiton is... why?

The same as any other year: Because it's expensive.

MahiMike
11-30-2008, 02:40 PM
Tebow or nothing.

mylittlepony
11-30-2008, 02:53 PM
Why do you guys even debate with Chiefzilla?

It's obvious, he's working with less chromosomes than an average human.

I think you actually mean he has more chromosomes.

There are no recorded cases of people with less and its very unlikely that you could survive without 46(23 pairs).

Additional chromosomes however often causes mental retardation. And from the posts Im guessing he is collecting them like baseball cards.

Brock
11-30-2008, 02:53 PM
Tebow or nothing.

Die.

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 03:05 PM
Tebow or nothing.

I don't know about "or nothing", but I'll back you on the guy playing like a fucking stud yesterday for sure!

Impressive!


One hour of highlights last night, and what did Stafford get? I pass, and one handoff.

Off to You Tube to see the actual greatness I guess...

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-30-2008, 03:12 PM
[

it doesnt matter how much talent the guy has if he has no motor, or work ethic. you know the drive to be the best, not saying hali has it but gholston does not for sure.

Yeah, it's not like he had droves of scouting reports praising his work ethic, or the media in New York praising him for seeking out Lawrence Taylor to help him with pass rushing moves or anything.

God, the fucking morons on this forum just wear me out.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 03:15 PM
Yeah, it's not like he had droves of scouting reports praising his work ethic, or the media in New York praising him for seeking out Lawrence Taylor to help him with pass rushing moves or anything.

God, the fucking morons on this forum just wear me out.

so he works out alot, how has that translated over to the field? scouts get enamored with workouts, but there's a reason some called him a "workout warrior" not all scouts thought his skill set would translate, hell against our sorry assed team his name wasnt called once that i can recall

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-30-2008, 03:18 PM
so he works out alot, how has that translated over to the field? scouts get enamored with workouts, but there's a reason some called him a "workout warrior" not all scouts thought his skill set would translate, hell against our sorry assed team his name wasnt called once that i can recall

You stupid fuck, he was praised for his motor on the field AND his work ethic coming into the draft.

ChiefsCountry
11-30-2008, 06:16 PM
Your boy 58's coming to town if I have to abduct him after assassinating Carl and Herm; I love everything about that kid and I will be very, very upset if he doesn't become a Chief.

No offense Mr. Darth but alot people like Rey Rey alot but you dont take a MLB with a top 5 pick. Now if we are in the 7-10 range then Rey Rey makes sense.

Tribal Warfare
11-30-2008, 06:22 PM
No offense Mr. Darth but alot people like Rey Rey alot but you dont take a MLB with a top 5 pick. Now if we are in the 7-10 range then Rey Rey makes sense.

Junior Seau was taken in #5 overall, and Rey looks like a clone of Junior. Plus Derrick was selected #4 overall

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 06:56 PM
No offense Mr. Darth but alot people like Rey Rey alot but you dont take a MLB with a top 5 pick. Now if we are in the 7-10 range then Rey Rey makes sense.

I don't give a fuck WHERE we take him, as long as we take him. And Laurinaitis too.
And Orakpo.

Did I mention I'm all about the Defense? And getting as much FA augmentation as possible for both lines?

That's how I roll. Word.

Mecca
11-30-2008, 06:57 PM
So you're saying you'd like to be able to win 8 games next year...

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 06:59 PM
You stupid fuck, he was praised for his motor on the field AND his work ethic coming into the draft.

whats he done ON THE FIELD GENIOUS?

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-30-2008, 07:00 PM
whats he done ON THE FIELD GENIOUS?

Been buried by a team signing as many FA's as possible to make a futile Peterson-like run at a playoff win, rather than developing their best players.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:02 PM
Been buried by a team signing as many FA's as possible to make a futile Peterson-like run at a playoff win, rather than developing their best players.

maybe just maybe hamas those guys ahead of him are playing better.(look obviously you must like him i'm not busting your balls here) just sayin

'Hamas' Jenkins
11-30-2008, 07:03 PM
maybe just maybe hamas those guys ahead of him are playing better.(look obviously you must like him i'm not busting your balls here) just sayin

Generally, 7 year vets who are league average OLBs will play better than a guy with only 5 years of playing organized football, but it doesn't mean that playing them and them only is the right move for your franchise.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:05 PM
Generally, 7 year vets who are league average OLBs will play better than a guy with only 5 years of playing organized football, but it doesn't mean that playing them and them only is the right move for your franchise.

got it. just there WERE people who thought he would fail at this level, even compared him to vernon davis

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 07:06 PM
So you're saying you'd like to be able to win 8 games next year...

It would be a START.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:08 PM
It would be a START.

NOOOOOOOOOOOO we HAVE to go from 2-10 to super bowl in one fucking year, AND 1 SB wouldnt mean anything if we dont win another, and another means nothing without another/ mecca

Mecca
11-30-2008, 07:09 PM
I really don't think Jason understands what I say 99% of the time.

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 07:09 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOO we HAVE to go from 2-10 to super bowl in one fucking year, AND 1 SB wouldnt mean anything if we dont win another, and another means nothing without another/ mecca

ROFLROFLROFL

That's EXACTLY where I was gonna' go, but I figured you'd pick the ball up and run.

REP!

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:11 PM
I really don't think Jason understands what I say 99% of the time.

now mecca you HAVE said that you didnt want to be a team that could win A sb it only would matter to you if we won multiple sbs. thats the truth buddy

Delano
11-30-2008, 07:13 PM
That's how I roll. Word.

I bet you are ungodly annoying in real life.

Mecca
11-30-2008, 07:13 PM
That is some great spin of what I actually said...

Mecca
11-30-2008, 07:13 PM
I bet you are ungodly annoying in real life.

Don't worry I bet Jason is too...

CoMoChief
11-30-2008, 07:14 PM
I don't give a **** WHERE we take him, as long as we take him. And Laurinaitis too.
And Orakpo.

Did I mention I'm all about the Defense? And getting as much FA augmentation as possible for both lines?

That's how I roll. Word.

Wow, we must have 3 top 15 1st rd draft picks

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 07:16 PM
Wow, we must have 3 top 15 1st rd draft picks

WE DO! WE DO!:evil:

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:16 PM
That is some great spin of what I actually said...

no its not, and bitching about spin is classic coming from you, nevertheless you said it exactly that way

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 07:18 PM
I bet you are ungodly annoying in real life.

I was actually a well-behaved and unassuming person; then I arrived here.:doh!:

Oh SNAP!ROFL

Mecca
11-30-2008, 07:18 PM
no its not, and bitching about spin is classic coming from you, nevertheless you said it exactly that way

You're taking a line of something I said when I was pointing out what kind of teams won multiple super bowls and which ones won one.....there is a very big difference on how those teams were built.

If you want to ignore that, go ahead.

ChiefsCountry
11-30-2008, 07:18 PM
Jason with Mecca
http://www.fragrancecounter.com/graphics_test/obsession_m.jpg

Mecca
11-30-2008, 07:19 PM
Jason with Mecca
http://www.fragrancecounter.com/graphics_test/obsession_m.jpg

I know it's fucked up isn't it? I'd like my net stalker to atleast be female.

milkman
11-30-2008, 07:19 PM
no its not, and bitching about spin is classic coming from you, nevertheless you said it exactly that way

Are you sure?

I thought he said he wants a team that has the chace to compete for a SB for a number of years.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:25 PM
Are you sure?

I thought he said he wants a team that has the chace to compete for a SB for a number of years.

no he was talking about balt. and dilfer, said we were the kinds of fans who would be happy with a super bowl and he was the type who wouldnt be happy with just one.

milkman
11-30-2008, 07:29 PM
no he was talking about balt. and dilfer, said we were the kinds of fans who would be happy with a super bowl and he was the type who wouldnt be happy with just one.

I think I agree with him, because, the reality is, that Raven team wasn't one that could be considered a legitimate SB contender year in and year out.

It's rare for a team to be as limited on one side of the ball as they were for years to make it to the SB.

A team needs to have some semblence of balance to really compete year in and year out for a number of years.

JASONSAUTO
11-30-2008, 07:30 PM
I think I agree with him, because, the reality is, that Raven team wasn't one that could be considered a legitimate SB contender year in and year out.

It's rare for a team to be as limited on one side of the ball as they were for years to make it to the SB.

A team needs to have some semblence of balance to really compete year in and year out for a number of years.

all right the way i see it is that you have to win 1 first then try again, lets not put the cart before the horse

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 07:35 PM
I think I agree with him, because, the reality is, that Raven team wasn't one that could be considered a legitimate SB contender year in and year out.

It's rare for a team to be as limited on one side of the ball as they were for years to make it to the SB.

A team needs to have some semblence of balance to really compete year in and year out for a number of years.

What are the chances of our "small market" team becoming the next 90's Cowboys, though?
It takes $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, man. A shitload of it. And I don't see Jerry Jones sitting in our Owners Box. Just sayin'.

ChiefsCountry
11-30-2008, 07:43 PM
What are the chances of our "small market" team becoming the next 90's Cowboys, though?
It takes $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, man. A shitload of it. And I don't see Jerry Jones sitting in our Owners Box. Just sayin'.

Cowboys drafted most of their players sans Deion and Haley.

milkman
11-30-2008, 07:50 PM
What are the chances of our "small market" team becoming the next 90's Cowboys, though?
It takes $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, man. A shitload of it. And I don't see Jerry Jones sitting in our Owners Box. Just sayin'.

The Pats didn't build their "Dynaty" by spending more money than anyone.
They built it by spending more wisely.

The Giants right now appear to be on the same path.
Build through the draft and target the right FAs to compliment your core.

Simply stated, it's more talent evaluation than money spent.

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 08:07 PM
The Pats didn't build their "Dynaty" by spending more money than anyone.
They built it by spending more wisely.

The Giants right now appear to be on the same path.
Build through the draft and target the right FAs to compliment your core.

Simply stated, it's more talent evaluation than money spent.

Sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately, that puts us right back in the never ending miasma-cluster fuck of "draft this guy" / "no he sucks"; it will never end. Never, never, never...

And then, when I or someone else want's to point out the fact that our entire Defense( sans-Corners ), followed by our Offensive line needs help more than anything else, it's "why give Gun more players to ruin"?, followed by "Quarterback first".

What...a...fucking...headache.:spock:

milkman
11-30-2008, 08:11 PM
Sounds reasonable.

Unfortunately, that puts us right back in the never ending miasma-cluster **** of "draft this guy" / "no he sucks"; it will never end. Never, never, never...

And then, when I or someone else want's to point out the fact that our entire Defense( sans-Corners ), followed by our Offensive line needs help more than anything else, it's "why give Gun more players to ruin"?, followed by "Quarterback first".

What...a...****ing...headache.:spock:

It's a never ending debate.

Bottom line is that this team needs a lot of help, everywhere.

Darth CarlSatan
11-30-2008, 08:15 PM
It's a never ending debate. Point ceded.

Bottom line is that this team needs a lot of help, everywhere. Agreed.

:toast: