Livewire Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 30 minutes ago, JLambert58 said: I"m not sure Cleveland maximized their return last night. In fact, they may have set the franchise back years... again. The Pats are always going to find good players to plug in and continue the continuity of what they do. Honestly at the this point, the Jags scare me as much as the Pats. I'm thrilled with what Cleveland did last night. I'm not a Mayfield fan and I don't think that Ward is a shutdown corner worth enough to be the fourth overall pick in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 2 hours ago, wwhickok said: A writer in the USA Today. No one noteable, Lorenzo something or other. It was in a "winners and losers" article, Pittsburgh was listed as a loser. Was Seattle listed as a loser? Draftniks said that Penny was a 3rd round pick. and this loser thing is based on perceived value set by draftniks? Are these the same ones who had Levon Bell as the 5th best RB in 2013? Had Antonio Brown as a 7th/UDFA? How often have the Browns won the draft? Do I need to go on for how many times these winners/loser crap is wrong based on absolutely nothing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chieferific Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 We all know what a reach is. It doesn't matter if the reach pans out or not (meaning hindsight is 20/20). A reach is a reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 21 minutes ago, Chieferific said: Maybe they are viewing him as a Kam Chancellor type. We can only hope. I think the problem people here have is that it was quite a reach and the mentality of our scheme being a certain fixed way and how does this RD1 pick contribute right away. If we get near the cam chancellor type of player then all this criticism is for nothing. Also of note, our History of recent RD1 picks probably doesn't help either, some of this criticism might be directed indirectly at the FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFF Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Chieferific said: We all know what a reach is. It doesn't matter if the reach pans out or not. A reach is a reach. We consider it a reach...the Steelers obviously don’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Chieferific said: We all know what a reach is. It doesn't matter if the reach pans out or not (meaning hindsight is 20/20). A reach is a reach. How do you know it was a reach? Is reach based on perceived value set by draftniks? If so it is crap. There were about 25 players in the draft with true 1st round talent( could be closer to 15-20) from 26 to 120 all of the talent is about the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 4 minutes ago, jebrick said: Was Seattle listed as a loser? Draftniks said that Penny was a 3rd round pick. and this loser thing is based on perceived value set by draftniks? Are these the same ones who had Levon Bell as the 5th best RB in 2013? Had Antonio Brown as a 7th/UDFA? How often have the Browns won the draft? Do I need to go on for how many times these winners/loser crap is wrong based on absolutely nothing? I read a grade for the Penny pick, it was bad. These critics grade based on projection and not what could possibly happen. Penny should be a good pick if they get the OL fixed. The bold is why they play the game. I was hoping for the Browns to get this draft right and become a good divisional foe. If we get a prowl late RD pick, thats good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjfollett Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 I read one of those winners/losers articles that said Loser: Joe Flacco. Made me chuckle. He is elite! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chieferific Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 26 minutes ago, 3rivers said: I think the problem people here have is that it was quite a reach and the mentality of our scheme being a certain fixed way and how does this RD1 pick contribute right away. If we get near the cam chancellor type of player then all this criticism is for nothing. Also of note, our History of recent RD1 picks probably doesn't help either, some of this criticism might be directed indirectly at the FO. Oh no, I get it. I am one of those "people". As suggested by @warfelg, there were VERY similar players available in later Rds even if Edmunds wasn't there (I think he would have been). But you mean to tell me by the time we picked at #60, Edmunds, Reid, Harrison, Moore, K. White, Bates, Allen, Elliot.....would all be gone? Ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chieferific Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, jebrick said: How do you know it was a reach? Is reach based on perceived value set by draftniks? If so it is crap. There were about 25 players in the draft with true 1st round talent( could be closer to 15-20) from 26 to 120 all of the talent is about the same. Again, don't over think it. Of course it only takes one team to rate a player higher but a reach is a reach. Use your own eyeballs. You can't tell me he stands out THAT MUCH over 6-7 other Safeties surely of which 1 would be there @ #60. Was Heyward-Bey a reach? Was Christian Ponder a reach? You get the idea. You can sugar coat this pick all you want but ON DRAFT DAY it was a poor pick. Hopefully he plays to his Rd 1 slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chieferific Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, jebrick said: How do you know it was a reach? Is reach based on perceived value set by draftniks? If so it is crap. There were about 25 players in the draft with true 1st round talent( could be closer to 15-20) from 26 to 120 all of the talent is about the same. I hope you can see the flaw in using the argument that "draftnik" value is crap when it comes to Edmunds' selection but then use it to determine that there were 25 players with a 1st Rd grade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 1 minute ago, jebrick said: How do you know it was a reach? Is reach based on perceived value set by draftniks? If so it is crap. There were about 25 players in the draft with true 1st round talent( could be closer to 15-20) from 26 to 120 all of the talent is about the same. I would say a reach is if the player could be drafted in later rounds. The problem with such a hypothesis is , how do we know? It's probably based on publications and sites that have draft projections and boards etc. Wait and see because we have drafted RD1 picks that were never any good but the FO wanted to prove they were even if it was 4 years, or 5 years later. Lets hope this isn't another, and he gets to play in a scheme that suits his skills that will help the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rivers Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 24 minutes ago, Chieferific said: Oh no, I get it. I am one of those "people". As suggested by @warfelg, there were VERY similar players available in later Rds even if Edmunds wasn't there (I think he would have been). But you mean to tell me by the time we picked at #60, Edmunds, Reid, Harrison, Moore, K. White, Bates, Allen, Elliot.....would all be gone? Ridiculous. I know, this is where I feel the term reach is a pain for a fan. To thin that a similar player will be there in later rounds. In the end, we have to see how the player we draft does for us. Barkley went to the Giants, but he would have more rushing yards for other teams since the OL in HYG isn't that good. The pick of Edmunds was a shock to me not only due to projections, but I thought we would have went ILB, CB, Edge in that order with safety later unless a player fell to them or traded up for that special player. At least they say Edmunds has good hands and effort. We need more iNT's and possible leaders, despite what draft boards say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 J.T. Watt was rated #60 prospect by Gil Brandt. What a reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chieferific Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 Just now, jebrick said: J.T. Watt was rated #60 prospect by Gil Brandt. What a reach. If you want to play the "Handpick a reach that panned out" game, I'm sure I will win handpicking the ones that didn't. Before the draft, did YOU think Edmunds would be drafted in the1st? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.