![]() |
Quote:
Do people wish we had stayed at #29 and ended up with a developmental prospect, or traded down when there was nothing thrilling at #29 - ending up with a couple of special teams players who probably won't get many snaps at all? Who would be starting if not for Clark? How is that an acceptable compromise? How can anyone be mad that we went to get a guy who is an every down impact player right now? We should have stayed there and instead bought a raffle ticket hoping we'd win someone who would turn into a Frank Clark in a few years for free? Get out of here with that, people... (not you htis) |
I’ll never understand why people don’t get that just because you think they should’ve gotten more for a guy means they in fact could have.
Trust me, if Veach could’ve gotten more for Peters or Ford, he would have. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That and the people that spent hundreds of hours talking draft. |
Quote:
You can be angry that Peters and Ford weren't worth as much as you had hoped, but the market spoke. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I'm excited as hell to have Clark. I just don't get people swearing off what a 29 and 60-ish pick could do just because they won't be frank Clark calibre. A few years from now when all our contracts expire at once and we have virtually no young pipeline to fill those gaps, we're going to be asking a lot more "who will do this" questions. I hope to God we have a super bowl before then. |
Quote:
Losing Hill would hurt in the short term, but nobody is irreplaceable. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
One of those guys didn't win a Super Bowl in 20 years of trying, the other is already close. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You’re just not going to have a decent defense with 25 choir boys. It’s not happening. The guy F’ed up when he was what, 21? It happens and virtually every company, including the one that you probably work for, employs guys with things in their past. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.