OK lets see it

Saccopoo · 04-07-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Urlacher taken 9th overall. Value difference between the 3rd and 9th pick: 850 points - equal to the 20th pick in the draft.

Lewis taken 26th overall. Value difference between the 3rd and 26th pick: 1500 points - equal to the 7th pick in the draft.

Okay Confucius, nice work with that abacus. What is your point anyway?

RustShack · 04-07-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Okay Confucius, nice work with that abacus. What is your point anyway?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-07-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saccogoo

Okay Confucius, nice work with that abacus. What is your point anyway?

Dear God.

Seriously?

Urlacher went 9th in a bad class. Lewis was the 4th LB taken in his class. Willis was taken 11th in a bad class.

And we're supposed to just drop our pants and take Curry at 3, crossing our fingers and hoping like hell he is better than all of them?

Because he HAS to be better than all of them to justify taking a goddamn INSIDE LINEBACKER with the THIRD overall pick in the draft.

Name the last ILB that was taken in the Top 3. I think there's been ONE in the past TWENTY years.

philfree · 04-07-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Dear God.

Seriously?

Urlacher went 9th in a bad class. Lewis was the 4th LB taken in his class. Willis was taken 11th in a bad class.

And we're supposed to just drop our pants and take Curry at 3, crossing our fingers and hoping like hell he is better than all of them?
Because he HAS to be better than all of them to justify taking a goddamn INSIDE LINEBACKER with the THIRD overall pick in the draft.

Name the last ILB that was taken in the Top 3.

And that's different then reaching for a player because his position is considered more valuable even though he isn't good enough to be picked that high? Eh---yeah he sucks but the position he plays holds a high value so he's our pick.

PhilFree

RustShack · 04-07-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

And that's different then reaching for a player because his position is considered more valuable even though he isn't good enough to be picked that high? Eh---yeah he sucks but the position he plays holds a high value so he's our pick.

PhilFree

Interesting, I've read multiple articles saying Everette Brown could be a top 5 pick, but I guess thats too much of a reach. Orakpo who I don't want, is ranked at #4 on Scouts Inc, but thats probably too much of a reach too.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-07-2009, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

And that's different then reaching for a player because his position is considered more valuable even though he isn't good enough to be picked that high? Eh---yeah he sucks but the position he plays holds a high value so he's our pick.

PhilFree

I'm not sure how many times this has to be said...

You have NO IDEA what Pioli's draft board looks like. How are you determining who would be a "reach?"

Oh yeah, piggybacking off of Kiper or Mayock.

For all you know, Pioli has Rey Maualuga rated higher than Jesus Curry.

philfree · 04-07-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm not sure how many times this has to be said...

You have NO IDEA what Pioli's draft board looks like. How are you determining who would be a "reach?"

Oh yeah, piggybacking off of Kiper or Mayock.

For all you know, Pioli has Rey Maualuga rated higher than Jesus Curry.

I believe the same applies to you so what's your point. Pioli & Co. could also have Curry rated as the top player on their board for all you know.

PhilFree

RustShack · 04-07-2009, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I believe the same applies to you so what's your point. Pioli & Co. could also have Curry rated as the top player on their board for all you know.

PhilFree

Yeah a position that wasn't highly regarded by Pioli in NE and usually filled by Veterans is #1 on Pioli's list, thats a safe assumption.

philfree · 04-07-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustShack

Yeah a position that wasn't highly regarded by Pioli in NE and usually filled by Veterans is #1 on Pioli's list, thats a safe assumption.

I'm not assuming anything.

PhilFree

htismaqe · 04-07-2009, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I believe the same applies to you so what's your point. Pioli & Co. could also have Curry rated as the top player on their board for all you know.

PhilFree

Of course, none of us have EVER said that the Chiefs WILL take Sanchez, or anybody else for that matter.

The same can't be said for the people on the Curry side of the argument.

philfree · 04-07-2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Of course, none of us have EVER said that the Chiefs WILL take Sanchez, or anybody else for that matter.

The same can't be said for the people on the Curry side of the argument.

That should probably read "some of the people on the Curry side of the argument. I have no idea who the Chiefs will pick.

PhilFree

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-07-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Of course, none of us have EVER said that the Chiefs WILL take Sanchez, or anybody else for that matter.

The same can't be said for the people on the Curry side of the argument.

Exactly.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 04-07-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I believe the same applies to you so what's your point. Pioli & Co. could also have Curry rated as the top player on their board for all you know.

PhilFree

No, Phil - it doesn't apply to me.

I'm not the one spouting off all over this board that the Chiefs HAVE to take a particular player.

I'm also not the one that is incapable of watching games and forming my own opinion.

Everyone wants to turn this into Curry v. Sanchez, when in all reality, the Curry backers are the only folks who see it this way.

To them, it's Curry or nothing.

To the Sanchez backers, they'll be thrilled if we take him, but will also accept other players. Curry just doesn't happen to be one of those players, and it chaps the ass of you guys that think Curry walks on ****ing water.

philfree · 04-07-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

No, Phil - it doesn't apply to me.

I'm not the one spouting off all over this board that the Chiefs HAVE to take a particular player.

I'm also not the one that is incapable of watching games and forming my own opinion.

Everyone wants to turn this into Curry v. Sanchez, when in all reality, the Curry backers are the only folks who see it this way.

To them, it's Curry or nothing.

To the Sanchez backers, they'll be thrilled if we take him, but will also accept other players. Curry just doesn't happen to be one of those players, and it chaps the ass of you guys that think Curry walks on ****ing water.

Obviuosly you haven't comprehended everything I've posted on the subject. I have no problem taking Curry or Sanchez or any other player who is worth our pick but the arguments against Curry are not very sound IMO so I've refuted them. Got it?

PhilFree

Saccopoo · 04-07-2009, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Dear God.

Seriously?

Urlacher went 9th in a bad class. Lewis was the 4th LB taken in his class. Willis was taken 11th in a bad class.

And we're supposed to just drop our pants and take Curry at 3, crossing our fingers and hoping like hell he is better than all of them?

Because he HAS to be better than all of them to justify taking a goddamn INSIDE LINEBACKER with the THIRD overall pick in the draft.

Name the last ILB that was taken in the Top 3. I think there's been ONE in the past TWENTY years.

Jesus, you whine like a bitch. All you seem to be able to do is bag on anyone who mentions taking Curry with the #3 pick and whenever pressed for your selection, all you can say is the most non-sensical of all picks - Sanchez.

I mean, seriously. You saying that you'd pick Sanchez, even after the Chiefs traded for Cassel, and then giving shit to people who want to draft Curry is the most hypocritical, dipshitiest thing I've seen on this topic.