Jump to content

Roninho

Veteran Members
  • Content Count

    2,386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

134 Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would have kept him. But to call it idiotic when nobody picks him up from the waiver is a stretch imo.
  2. It probably has more to do with Parker simply not being good enough for the NFL then an issue with moving him a position. There are a bunch of guys every year who get drafted and asked to switch position.
  3. I don't think that was a case of higher quality prospects being available earlier, but more a case of teams simply failing to correctly scout Brady and his qualities.
  4. i'd prefer stay put and just pick defensive bpa with all 3 picks in the 2nd and 3rd.
  5. I'll give hime a pass on injuries, but without injuries he needs to start and perform thats for sure.
  6. No the remark was about drafting value. Blaming picking a RT at 17 when we could have traded down and probably draft him later is fair critique. But then suggesting to pick JOK when he is still available at 33 makes no sense. How can you blame us for not trading down but then suggest picking a guy at 17 who is still available at 33. With our current pick we might have been able to draft him later but who know he could have been picked at 18 as well, we simply don't know. But with JOK we at least now drafting him at 17 would have been an overdraft since he is still available.
  7. Yeah using that logic you can never make a mistake.
  8. I'm hoping on 3 defensive guys with the 2nd and two 3rd round picks, and those 3 at least turn into 1 very good starter, another decent starter and 1 depth guy. With the weak talent we haven on D that should be doable. Assuming Leatherwood turns into a bona fida starter then we'd end up with a good draft with just again missed value.
  9. Yeah i understand what you are doing with your table, and havnt looked at it but probably from a trade value chart the Bears didnt pay that much more for the 11th pick so in a way it's still great value. Just as i said not a fan of trading up for a lot.
  10. Not sure i would consider giving up 2 first rounds for Fields being good value. I probably rather overdraft a guy but not giving up additional draft capital (like the Pats did) then trade up and essentially spend 2 picks on Fields. But then again i am a trade down kind of guy, not trade up
  11. What i like about this pick: With what i'm hearing/reading this is at a worst case when things dont work out at OT a guy who will move to OG and start for years. If he is similar to Miller and it works out we have LT & RT fixed for the next 5+ years It should mean that we don't take a step back on offense, which is nice With all other spots at offense addressed it should hopefully mean we spend the 2nd & two 3rd rounders on D. We need more talent at D badly. What i don't like about this pick: I fully agree with Stanfords coach Shaw. He was quite clear
  12. I'm not sure. It's all from with hindsight obviously, but thinking back Gruden made it quite clear back when he re-joined us that he wanted to keep the franchise QB upright. That was the whole story with picking Kolton Miller. I get the same vibes from this pick as well, especially with us now also having a good RB. It looks like we telegraphed that as well, since the Jets moved up to 14 to make sure they picked before us.
×
×
  • Create New...