As usual your brilliant argument lowers the level of discussion to that of a monkey slinging poo.:shake:

No its not relevant. Did you read what I said or are you gonna plug your ears and stomp around the room like a 3 yr old?

Every draft is different. Our position is different. We have a LT and QB. No solid DE/olb rusher so that "history" goes out the window. Period. Common cense.

But one of us is going to the playoffs, regardless of record. 7 wins could take it this year, what if Rivers gets injured?

If we can't trade down, I would vote on taking Curry.

But if you believe in taking the QB for value for a possible trade, why not pick the LT for a possible trade???? Obviously the position of QB is more valuable but I believe most have Monroe graded out higher than Sanchez. So, if you are taking someone to trade, why not take Monroe and if for some reason you can't trade him at least he doesn't sit the bench.

If those are my two choices, I'd probably opt for #3 - gouge my eyes out with a spoon.

No.

The argument says that COUNTING on him to be a pass rusher is not smart. There's little to no evidence that he can.

It's not that he CAN'T be a pass rusher, it's that his skillset isn't suited for it, and since he's never had the chance to show in the past that he could do it, you're taking on a huge risk.

Not gonna happen. This draft sucks too bad.

Yeah. After all I went out of my way to call you names and stuff, right?

I've done NOTHING but kept it reasonable and civil. So shove it.

I read what you said. And you've said, more than once, that the arguments against Curry are based on draft history. And you've also said that those arguments are inadequate. Therefore, you don't place relevance on draft history, right? Looks like I was right, since you opened the above paragraph with "No its not relevant".

And guess what?

History is ALWAYS relevant. There is never a situation or set of circumstances in which history is not relevant. Human beings basic understanding of the universe is built on experience. Experience is history. History is NEVER irrelevant.

As for me stomping around like a 3-year old, you've either confused me with someone else, or you're manufacturing. Simple as that.

Every draft IS different. Yet, this situation has happened exactly once, despite there being dozens and dozens of LB's in the last 20 drafts. Common sense would say that one player like Curry has been drafted in the Top 5 in the last 20 years and that there's a reason for that. Ignoring that and suggesting that "history goes out the window" is the opposite of common sense.

But you have said you would hold your nose and take Curry? Correct? So even you by that statement would break the draft rules under certain circumstances.

PhilFree:arrow:

Drafting Curry top 5 to play OLB in a 3-4 would be like drafting a safety to play CB.

I've said several times - I've changed my mind and I will continue to change my mind. There is NO good answer to this situation.

In the top 3.

LOL Well at one point you were willing to take Curry at #3 even if you didn't like it which in turn means that you were willing to break the forever burnt into stone draft rule about not taking a non pass rushing LB in the toop five. Well until you changed your mind. Got it!

PhilFree:arrow:

In both Pendergast and Gibbs system they rush 5 about 30% of the time or less. If Curry is the OLB opposite Vrabel, he will probably used in coverage the majority of the time. He's not going to be rushing every play.

OOOh shit!!!!!!! Schlereth and Darren Woodson said Aaron Curry isn't worthy of a top 5 or even top 10 consideration because of his skill set

The point is the guy drafted 3rd SHOULD BE RUSHING.