PDA

View Full Version : RG III


philfree
02-24-2012, 09:51 AM
McShay13 Todd McShay
RGIII's height: 6-2 3/8. No longer an issue

At this point I don't know why people don't just put him at #2 on their draft boards.

Direckshun
02-24-2012, 09:57 AM
I'm pretty sure they do.

philfree
02-24-2012, 10:02 AM
I'm pretty sure they do.

I guess I should look around a little more instead of paying to much attention to Kiper and McShay.

suds79
02-24-2012, 10:48 AM
What's his weight? Curious to get the official number there.

Chiefnj2
02-24-2012, 10:52 AM
223 lbs.

Since Stanford had Luck listed at 6'5" and he measured 6'4 and something, does that mean his stock will drop?

Obviously I'm joking. I don't know why people made such a big deal out of RGIII's possibly only being 6'.

KCrockaholic
02-24-2012, 10:54 AM
223 lbs.

Since Stanford had Luck listed at 6'5" and he measured 6'4 and something, does that mean his stock will drop?

Obviously I'm joking. I don't know why people made such a big deal out of RGIII's possibly only being 6'.

Stanford had Luck listed as 6'4.

Chiefnj2
02-24-2012, 10:55 AM
Stanford had Luck listed as 6'4.

My bad. I looked at a different site that had him at 6-5.

Mr. Laz
02-24-2012, 11:02 AM
223 lbs.

Since Stanford had Luck listed at 6'5" and he measured 6'4 and something, does that mean his stock will drop?

Obviously I'm joking. I don't know why people made such a big deal out of RGIII's possibly only being 6'.

being only 6' is kind of a big deal with his style of play

yes, Brees is an except but it's still an issue


RGIII being a legit 6'2 223lb helps a lot

Chiefnj2
02-24-2012, 11:04 AM
being only 6' is kind of a big deal with his style of play

yes, Brees is an except but it's still an issue


RGIII being a legit 6'2 223lb helps a lot

Some players get the benefit of the doubt with regard to measurements, other guys get rumors and doubt.

suds79
02-24-2012, 11:09 AM
being only 6' is kind of a big deal with his style of play

yes, Brees is an except but it's still an issue


RGIII being a legit 6'2 223lb helps a lot

Definitely think you can make more of a Randall Cunningham (who had a nice career) comparison vs the Michael Vick one being that size. RG3 doesn't need Vick comparisons. People think injuries when they think Vick.

Mr. Laz
02-24-2012, 11:10 AM
Some players get the benefit of the doubt with regard to measurements, other guys get rumors and doubt.
so what's you point?

just say it and stop hinting


imo EVERY QB prospect that is not 6'2-ish is a concern

Goes for weight too ... if they aren't a solid 215lbs+ you have to be concern with durability.

SNR
02-24-2012, 11:19 AM
Musta been drinking his milk!

whoman69
02-24-2012, 12:32 PM
Maybe he's just on a really tall team.

buddha
02-25-2012, 12:25 AM
RGIII is so much more polished as a player than Cunningham was when he came out of UNLV. There is no comparison. I know people are trying really hard to find a black QB to compare RGIII to, but he's a different cat. He's an excellent passer who just happens to have some sick wheels on his body. The Chiefs would be morons to not get him if they could...move up, show some sack, make it happen. St. Louis doesn't want him or need him.

Or, we could do the typically stupid SAFE thing and take another f'ing receiver.

Nightfyre
02-25-2012, 01:59 AM
I am an absolute RGIII believer. Especially given the press conference... We should do whatever it takes to get him or Luck. No one is untouchable.

milkman
02-25-2012, 07:08 AM
I am an absolute RGIII believer. Especially given the press conference... We should do whatever it takes to get him or Luck. No one is untouchable.

The Colts aren't going to give up their chance at continued greatness at the QB position for the next 12-15 years.

The Rams have to come away from this draft with either Justin Blackmon or Matt Kalil, and moving down to 11 eliminates that possibility.

They don't have the cap space to sign Bowe to the kind of contract that he's looking for, so he's out as a bargaining chip.

The Chiefs can make an offer, but the reality is, they don't have the bargaining chips that the Browns have to move up.

The Chiefs moving to #1 or #2 is nothing more than an unrealistic pipe dream.

Dr. Gigglepants
02-25-2012, 07:19 AM
The Colts aren't going to give up their chance at continued greatness at the QB position for the next 12-15 years.

The Rams have to come away from this draft with either Justin Blackmon or Matt Kalil, and moving down to 11 eliminates that possibility.

They don't have the cap space to sign Bowe to the kind of contract that he's looking for, so he's out as a bargaining chip.

The Chiefs can make an offer, but the reality is, they don't have the bargaining chips that the Browns have to move up.

The Chiefs moving to #1 or #2 is nothing more than an unrealistic pipe dream.

There is a high level of truth in this statement. I almost had to slap my co worker out of an RGIII induced seizure the other day. I had to say, "DUDE! It isn't going to happen, just start preparing yourself for Riley Reiff so you aren't too crushed." The Browns have 2 first round picks and the Rams can probably still get whoever they want by only moving down 2 spots. We would just have to give up way too much to convince STL to deal with us. I would do it though.

whoman69
02-25-2012, 01:21 PM
I am an absolute RGIII believer. Especially given the press conference... We should do whatever it takes to get him or Luck. No one is untouchable.

Its just a pipe dream.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/pipe-dream.jpg

Bewbies
02-25-2012, 02:39 PM
The Colts aren't going to give up their chance at continued greatness at the QB position for the next 12-15 years.

The Rams have to come away from this draft with either Justin Blackmon or Matt Kalil, and moving down to 11 eliminates that possibility.

They don't have the cap space to sign Bowe to the kind of contract that he's looking for, so he's out as a bargaining chip.

The Chiefs can make an offer, but the reality is, they don't have the bargaining chips that the Browns have to move up.

The Chiefs moving to #1 or #2 is nothing more than an unrealistic pipe dream.

If the Browns sign Flynn, which I have seen reports that they'd like to, then you have WAS and MIA looking. All of the sudden it's pick 4 or 5 you want to move up to.

I am in the minority for sure, but I don't think RG3 goes #2.

milkman
02-25-2012, 04:10 PM
If the Browns sign Flynn, which I have seen reports that they'd like to, then you have WAS and MIA looking. All of the sudden it's pick 4 or 5 you want to move up to.

I am in the minority for sure, but I don't think RG3 goes #2.

I think we'll get a read on things in Miami if they actively persue Matt Flynn.

That, for Flynn, money aside, would be the best landing spot for hi because he's have some continuity in offensive system with Regis (yeah, I know it's Joe) Philbin at HC.

If the Dolphins don't actively persue Flynn, then you'd have to question just how much he's really worth, even moreso than we already do.

Bewbies
02-25-2012, 04:20 PM
I think we'll get a read on things in Miami if they actively persue Matt Flynn.

That, for Flynn, money aside, would be the best landing spot for hi because he's have some continuity in offensive system with Regis (yeah, I know it's Joe) Philbin at HC.

If the Dolphins don't actively persue Flynn, then you'd have to question just how much he's really worth, even moreso than we already do.

I agree. I don't want anything to do with him personally, he has Matt Cassel written all over him.

Nightfyre
02-25-2012, 04:50 PM
Two points:

1) The packers control where Flynn goes, not Flynn.
2) How parallel would it be if the Raiders traded for Flynn?
3) I hope the Browns are interested in Flynn and that isn't just a smokescreen. Trading up with the Vikings could be easier than trading with the Rams.

jd1020
02-25-2012, 04:52 PM
Two points:

1) The packers control where Flynn goes, not Flynn.


How do you figure?

Nightfyre
02-25-2012, 05:01 PM
How do you figure?

They will tag him.

milkman
02-25-2012, 05:02 PM
How do you figure?

Haven't heard it confirmed yet, but with JerMichael Finley signed, it looks like the Pack will franchise and trade Flynn.

jd1020
02-25-2012, 05:02 PM
They will tag him.

Why is everyone so sure about that?

They have 7M in cap space and the QB tag is 14.4M.

If they cant find a trade partner then they are pretty fucked.

O.city
02-25-2012, 05:02 PM
DIdn't they say they woudln't tag him?

Nightfyre
02-25-2012, 05:04 PM
Why is everyone so sure about that?

They have 7M in cap space and the QB tag is 14.4M.

If they cant find a trade partner then they are pretty ****ed.

You guys act like finding 7.5MM in cap space is hard.

milkman
02-25-2012, 05:07 PM
DIdn't they say they woudln't tag him?

That was before they signed Finley.

milkman
02-25-2012, 05:07 PM
Why is everyone so sure about that?

They have 7M in cap space and the QB tag is 14.4M.

If they cant find a trade partner then they are pretty ****ed.

Go back and look at the Pats cap situation when they tagged Cassel.

jd1020
02-25-2012, 05:08 PM
You guys act like finding 7.5MM in cap space is hard.

Its harder than saying fuck the 2nd round pick we might get for Flynn and not risk having to cut starters.

jd1020
02-25-2012, 05:13 PM
Go back and look at the Pats cap situation when they tagged Cassel.

They were still under the cap.

Can't find an actual number but what I've found ranges from 2M-5M under. A lot different than +7.5M

whoman69
02-25-2012, 06:21 PM
I have to wonder how much of that $14 million they'd be forced to keep on the cap rolls after they trade him.

ForeverChiefs58
02-25-2012, 11:40 PM
I am by no means a cap expert, but my understanding is that teams have a certain date to be under the cap. Therefore, even if they are over the cap, they can sign and trade a player without having their signing count against them if it is before such date. That is why teams can still sign players even if they are over the cap, as long as they cut enough space before the deadline.

Dmello12
02-26-2012, 10:30 AM
4.38 at the combine (unofficial)

whoman69
02-26-2012, 02:17 PM
I am by no means a cap expert, but my understanding is that teams have a certain date to be under the cap. Therefore, even if they are over the cap, they can sign and trade a player without having their signing count against them if it is before such date. That is why teams can still sign players even if they are over the cap, as long as they cut enough space before the deadline.

Yes and no. The following year's contracts don't kick in until the start of the business season. Unless players are cut early like Routh, they can't be signed until the start of the FA season. Teams always have to be under the cap, its just that they will usually have several players no longer under contract for them.