Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5488418)

It has absolutely nothing to do with the players in the 2009 draft. Could be used as an indicator for what i'll call a soft rule but it ain't fool proof. If the guy is The Best Player On The Board why would you pick a lesser player and let another team have the better player? Because you just don't take LBs that high? There are times when it's O.K. to deviate from these unwritten rules.

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5488418)

If the QBs are gone then who would you draft at #3? I really don't have a solid favorite after the QBs but I'm sure I'll develope a front runner as we get near the draft.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 5488407)

Was he advocating taking Curry at 3?

Originally Posted by blaise (Post 5488444)

This is the question some people here don't like to answer. They have all their chips on Sanchez being there and the Chiefs liking him, and they're in denial that it might not happen.
I appreciate that Brock answered the question. Some people just start throwing "trade down" nonsense out there even though it's not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 5488430)

If the QBs are gone the most valuable player on the board is probably Malcolm Jenkins, at the risk of repeating myself. There is no way a non-rushing LB goes that high. None.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5488483)

Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5488483)

Jenkins. He never stood out when I watched Ohio State but I didn't watch them much. I need to study him more. CB is kinda like OT though. We drafted one high last year and one later and they started and played decent. Leggett suprised too. Did read somewhere that some are considering Jenkins as a safety?


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 5488536)

It appears to me that he's the best CB in this class, which is a pretty good class. It makes a lot more sense to replace Carr/Leggett than it does to replace Branden Albert.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5488592)

Albert will still be on the field but so will both those CBs I would imagine. A team needs two starting CBs as well as two starting OTs. We have two starting CBs and it can be argued that we don't have two starting OTs.

IMO Pioli&Co are in a position to draft the BPA at #3. If we can't get the QB then I'm starting to lean that way and I won't care if the BPA is an OT, WR, LB or what ever. No a guard won't be the best player.

PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5488614)

Clearly you don't understand positional value. You don't draft a RT in the 1st round, much less the top-5. You can get a RT later in the draft. You're a casual fan, it's ok.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5488654)

I understand it. I just don't think it's absolute and with the way this draft seems to be setting up this might be a year where we deviate from what are considered to be the draft rules. Or we can reach for a player that might not get picked till five picks or more later.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5488664)

Sorry, but no team is going to invest $25 million + guaranteed dollars in a rookie RT. It's just stupid.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5488695)

This became a stupid argument.

There's a better chance of BOTH QB's being available when we pick than there is of both QB's being gone.

This argument only exists for the people that want to pigeonhole Curry into the 3 slot.