LinderFournette Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 57 minutes ago, Blue said: Hm, I wonder who has a more accurate opinion of their team's players, the guys hyping up a guy on a 1-15 team or the guy who's not. A 1-15 team that was 1-10 in games in 2 score games or the same team that was a few plays from being the Packers, browns and the titans once. Your discounting the fact that we literally started Mike "freaking " Glennon and rookie Jake Luton. Our cb position was ravaged by injuries. Our best pass rusher was injured for the majority of the year. Myles jack was one of the few bright spots on a craptastic season. Him at wlb and not inside was night and day and he could play to his strengths instead of doing all the communication and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinderFournette Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 4 minutes ago, Blue said: I'm not but okay. Your team was 1-15, I have no doubt you would vote Myles Jack as your best player because your team sucked. Even nfl beat writers or insiders would put jack as a top 3 performer last season on the jags. Ya we sucked cuz the team decided instead of being stuck as a 6/7th team with no true franchise qb we decided to blow it up and restart and guess what myles was elite last year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted April 5, 2021 Author Share Posted April 5, 2021 Yeah, I'm deffo gonna take the word of a guy named "LinderFournette" over someone I know actually watched the games and whose opinion on players from his own team I respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chops013 Posted April 5, 2021 Share Posted April 5, 2021 54 minutes ago, Blue said: I'm not but okay. Your team was 1-15, I have no doubt you would vote Myles Jack as your best player because your team sucked. I’m willing to bet you can’t find one other Jaguar fan that has anything negative to say about Myles Jack last year. This take is so bad that I am wondering if I am being trolled at this point. Just admit you got this one wrong and update your next mock accordingly lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted April 5, 2021 Author Share Posted April 5, 2021 50 minutes ago, Chops013 said: I’m willing to bet you can’t find one other Jaguar fan that has anything negative to say about Myles Jack last year. This take is so bad that I am wondering if I am being trolled at this point. Just admit you got this one wrong and update your next mock accordingly lol. No, you're just homering massively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brushmyhair Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 On 4/4/2021 at 12:53 PM, scar988 said: You seem to be the same guy who keeps giving the Falcons an inside linebacker in every mock in the top 3 rounds when they have zero need for one. I think it's safe to say we understand the team better than you do. That being said, If the Falcons go QB, it's either Lance or Fields. If they choose to not go QB, it's for Pitts. That's it. That's their board right now. I think the Falcons are going QB after todays trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 3 minutes ago, brushmyhair said: I think the Falcons are going QB after todays trade. That's great and all, but you still don't listen to us when we talk about how the team doesn't need certain spots. You should listen to the people that actually follow the team when we say that the team doesn't need an off ball LB early. Or that the team may not go QB. (though, if they don't, it's Pitts). My point is that we know the team better than someone who doesn't watch a single game of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brushmyhair Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 1 minute ago, scar988 said: That's great and all, but you still don't listen to us when we talk about how the team doesn't need certain spots. You should listen to the people that actually follow the team when we say that the team doesn't need an off ball LB early. Or that the team may not go QB. (though, if they don't, it's Pitts). My point is that we know the team better than someone who doesn't watch a single game of them. That mock is null and void so disregard it. I'll make 1 more mock. The night before the draft. And most likely it'll be Fields going to you guys. It'll probably be a 2 rounder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 Fields won't be there at 15. If he is, then I'd start to believe in conspiracies to favor NE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gnat Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 LB might be BPA and a need, but Fields sitting there is so tempting as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ajayii Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 On 4/4/2021 at 6:56 PM, Blue said: Ahahahahahaha As @Forge said, he is based on numbers. Take a look https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/mike-gesicki They both have incredible hands and make impossible catches, but Pitts is much smoother and moves like a WR while Gesicki is very stiff at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted April 6, 2021 Author Share Posted April 6, 2021 12 minutes ago, Ajayii said: As @Forge said, he is based on numbers. Take a look https://www.mockdraftable.com/player/mike-gesicki They both have incredible hands and make impossible catches, but Pitts is much smoother and moves like a WR while Gesicki is very stiff at times. I've looked at the numbers. The very first one is 40 time, where Pitts is a full tenth of a second faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 4 minutes ago, Blue said: I've looked at the numbers. The very first one is 40 time, where Pitts is a full tenth of a second faster. At a pro day compared to the combine. General consensus is that you can add a little bit to that. I'm also not sure that "40 time" would be the end all be all of "athletic testing". Gesicki had a vert 8 inches higher...which is pretty extreme. Same broad, a better short shuttle by .2, and was nearly a half second better in 3-cone. Same bench. You're really going to die on the hill of, "but 40 at a pro day"? And again, doesn't mean that they are the same in practical application, but if you put those numbers side by side, I'd take the Gesicki side every time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted April 6, 2021 Share Posted April 6, 2021 The only logical conclusion to Bengals fans wanting a big name receiver as opposed to an OL, after having two capable ones in Higgins and Boyd, is that they clearly want to see Joe Burrow die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted April 6, 2021 Author Share Posted April 6, 2021 59 minutes ago, Forge said: At a pro day compared to the combine. General consensus is that you can add a little bit to that. I'm also not sure that "40 time" would be the end all be all of "athletic testing". Gesicki had a vert 8 inches higher...which is pretty extreme. Same broad, a better short shuttle by .2, and was nearly a half second better in 3-cone. Same bench. You're really going to die on the hill of, "but 40 at a pro day"? And again, doesn't mean that they are the same in practical application, but if you put those numbers side by side, I'd take the Gesicki side every time. I brought up the 40 because it's the first number people look at with athletic testing, not because it's the "end-all be-all." Suggesting Gesicki is an athlete on par with Pitts, who is rather widely regarded as one of the best tight end prospects since Vernon Davis, is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.