Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666521)

Ok, please tell me you've never bred, because this type of stupidity should never be passed on. Suggs plays DE in a 4-3, not OLB. Hence the comparison with Jason Taylor, for example.

The Ravens run a 3-4, genius. Type in "Baltimore Ravens" depth chart and tell me how many times you see Suggs listed as a DE.

Jason Taylor is a DE in a 4-3. He does not play even close to the same position as Suggs. Taylor plays all of his snaps with his hands on the ground. Suggs does not.



You have implied it. Trust me. Everyone on this board knows that this is exactly what you've been saying. You have been saying all along that Suggs and Mayo and Rivers are examples of linebackers who should have been drafted in the top 5. And what I am AGAIN reiterating is that Rivers and Mayo are traditional, hands-off-the-ground, LBs who are drafted because of their speed and instincts. Suggs was drafted to be a pass rusher first and foremost. You can't make that comparison. Again, 3-4 OLBs carry high draft value. 4-3 OLBs or 3-4 ILBs typically do not.



Yes, and almost all 3-4 OLBs are DEs, and almost all 3-4 ILBs are you're more traditional 4-3 LBs. Don't act like traditional LBs have sometimes played OLB or that DEs have sometimes played ILB. Bellichick used Mike Vrabel, who was a 4-3 DE at Ohio State, to be his OLB. Notice a trend? Again. 3-4 OLBs are not traditional LBs. Almost 100% of the time, they are DEs that play a little bit of linebacker. You apparently can't see the enormous difference between a traditional LB and a 3-4 OLB. 4-3 ROLB, MLB, LOLB are similar to 3-4 RILB and LILB. 3-4 ROLBs and LOLBs are entirely different.



You keep saying that Detroit should have drafted Terrell Suggs to play 4-3 DE. And I'm pointing out that there's a very good likelihood he wouldn't have been that good in Detroit, because he would play a COMPLETELY different position.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5666573)

Ok, you're an idiot. Get back to me when you gain enough IQ points to put you in double digits.

Someone please tell me there's an ignore button around here.

P.S. Nevermind, I found it. Good Lord, what a dipshit this clown is.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666581)

However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5666573)

Yes, and almost all 3-4 OLBs are DEs, and almost all 3-4 ILBs are you're more traditional 4-3 LBs. Don't act like traditional LBs have sometimes played OLB or that DEs have sometimes played ILB. Bellichick used Mike Vrabel, who was a 4-3 DE at Ohio State, to be his OLB. Notice a trend? Again. 3-4 OLBs are not traditional LBs. Almost 100% of the time, they are DEs that play a little bit of linebacker. You apparently can't see the enormous difference between a traditional LB and a 3-4 OLB. 4-3 ROLB, MLB, LOLB are similar to 3-4 RILB and LILB. 3-4 ROLBs and LOLBs are entirely different.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666571)

If positional value were all that mattered, no QB would make it past the first round.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5666735)

When did I say that positional value is ALL that mattered? Talk about moving the goalposts. ROFL

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666581)

I agree that teams take position into account. My initial point to htismaqe was that this was an unusual year and it shouldn't hold water this season. Naturally, instead of actually responding to that, he changed the argument to "winning teams" instead of remaining focused on one specific season.

The reality is that all teams value somewhat differently. That's why the Raiders drafted a kicker as high as they did, for example. However, people here are being so ridiculously stubborn about non-issues that they can't even admit to blatant truths about minor points right now.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666741)

I'm amazed that you don't catch the irony of your own comment. It's the whole point.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5666751)

There was nothing ironic about my comment at all. You mischaracterized my statements, AGAIN, and now you're being deliberately obtuse in an effort to deflect away from it.

You're the one that wants to speak in absolutes, not me.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666794)

I quoted your statements. I did not mischaracterize them. You're the person with the ridiculous take on positional value and Curry, not me. You post against Curry at #3 and you post against O-line at #3. So, other than QB, what's there to take at #3?

Just as an example, Kiper's Big Board (as of 4/9) has Crabtree, Orakpo, Pettigrew and Maclin as the only players besides Curry that are not QB or OL in his top 10.

Not one of them is a top 10 pick in a lot of years. Which one of them is your choice for the #3 pick?

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666845)

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5666893)

Wow, so they agree with me. Imagine that.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5666887)

We were talking about Curry and LB's. Not offensive linemen. Don't try to change the subject again.

I've said I'd take Crabtree ahead of Curry.

Furthermore, you and alot of the other Curry advocates continuously want to remove QB from the discussion, as if that's either fair or relevant and it's neither. I'd absolutely take Sanchez over Curry.

As for my stance on Curry being ridiculous, that's easy to say when you're willing to throw the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window. Talk about ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 5666980)

1.) I'm not changing the subject at all. You've made the same statements about not taking OL as about not taking Curry at #3.

2.) And, AGAIN, I'm not a Curry advocate. I pointed out that I'd look to Raji at #3 before anyone else. Seriously, if you're not going to bother reading, what's the point of this?

3.) It's not throwing the entirety of modern NFL draft history out the window, as you well know.

4.) Of course I'm removing QB from the discussion. If Pioli takes a QB at #3, that would be far more groundbreaking than taking Curry there, unless you can remember a time that a team has ever drafted a QB in round 1 after trading for a franchise tagged QB. I believe that, if it happens, it'll be a first, unlike a LB being drafted in the top 5.