Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
We could've literally passed 5 times and been better off.
Jackson would've been there at 8. We could've just passed on our pick, worked down in the draft and got our guy cheaper.
This is dumber than anything Peterson did short of hiring Herm Edwards. This was a complete mind****.
Pioli's used up all the patience I'm giving the arrogant ****er. If he's so ****ing awesome that he can prety much do whatever he wants, sense be damned, then we'll start winning and winning soon.
If, on the other hand, we're not in playoff contention by 2010, I'll know he's the same full of shit pussy that drafts to save his job as the guy he replaced.
Way to go spend our #3 on a #20 level player. "Safe" is great when you're picking 15, not at 3 assbag.
And with that I'm done with the draft. The dumb ****ing Cassel contract combined with this pick....I simply can't tolerate this team right now. I'm going to ignore that this weekend ever happened.
|
There is no guarantee that Jackson would have fallen past Cleveland. And again, you're rating a guy as a #20 level player based on Mel Kiper's draft ratings and a rating scale that is heavily skewed toward a 4-3 defense. Aaron Curry was in the top 3 on a lot of draft boards, but I guarantee he was a hell of a lot lower on a 3-4 board. I don't understand the complaint. There were no knockout prospects at #3, and the Chiefs got a player they really wanted.
And as for Cassel, I don't understand why people are so appalled at giving Cassel $36 M in guarantees, but think it would have been okay to give a guy like Stafford who is arguably riskier $41M in guarantees, not to mention that Stafford would spend 2-3 years on a very steep learning curve. I don't see a problem with either of these moves.