That Guy
-
Posts
1,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by That Guy
-
-
We’re not really pressed for cap space right now. I like the way things ended up, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking Norwell would have been a bad signing.
Hopefully we show enough improvement this year to attract some players in free agency next year. We had too many question marks to be an attractive team this year.
-
1 hour ago, Steamboat_Shaun said:
**Me to every other fanbase**
Oh, your QB doesn't look like he's gonna rip someone's head off this coming season? Can't relate.
That first football he throws is going into orbit.
I'm starting to wonder if all this "shoulder injury" nonsense was really just a cover up for a secret, experimental upgrade on that cannon.
I think there are some shady European doctors hiding in the background of each of his press conferences just smirking and wringing their hands.
-
1
-
-
The optimist in me is saying: "Yay! Sign ALL the offensive linemen!"
The pessimist in me is saying: "Please don't be another Todd Herremans!"
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, John Waylon said:
Ballard has cut bait on higher draft picks than this guy.
Zach Banner took my order at McDonalds this morning.
You mean after they served you your order, Zach Banner came and took it from you?
-
1
-
-
-
Wait... WHAT???
-
2
-
-
53 minutes ago, CR91 said:
Really good article. Gives some great insight.
Good read.
I keep forgetting that TJ Green is younger than a lot of rookies that came out this year.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:
It seems the player that Nelson tea bagged is K'Lavon Chaisson 6-4 240 lbs. OLB for LSU
Ha! Wasn't he a freshman? Watch him put on weight, and we'll draft him in two years!
-
42 minutes ago, Moosejawcolt said:
Nelson and Smith will b our day 1 starters at the guard positions. They were drafted high in the 1st and 2nd rounds. If they fail to win the starting jobs at either guard position, it will b seen as a big disappointment by the staff. Signings in the off season were for depth and/or if the Colts could not address their offensive line in the draft. The only question is who will play at RT.
High picks don’t always win the starting jobs. Dorsett, Green, Clark, etc.
I also doubt Turray or Lewis (also round 2 players) will be starting at any point this season. Smith, Turray, and Lewis were all drafted to give both sides of our team some quality rotations up front.
-
5 minutes ago, Boiler_Colt said:
Mewhort is absolutely not a RT. Good, Clark, and Haeg will compete unless they sign Austin Howard later since he visited.
New scheme, clean slate.
-
All four were drafted for a power man scheme with Pagano; but Haeg, Mewhort, and maybe Clark should actually be better in our new zone scheme. I think Good will be relegated back to guard, and one of the others should emerge as a decent RT. Castonzo is a better fit for the new scheme, too; and Kelly is scheme-versatile.
All in all, i see a depth chart of:
LT - Castonzo, Haeg
LG - Nelson, Vujnovich
C - Kelly, Bond
RG - Slauson, Smith
RT - Mewhort, Clark
-
Can we get this pinned at least for a little while? I’d hate to see it get drowned out with everyone’s complaint threads and whining.
-
1
-
-
Traded back from 49 to gain a late 5.
Traded our 3 and our 6 to gain a late 2.
-
27 minutes ago, Superman said:
One of those things is not like the other, which is why I question this report. The Maras and Tisch are involved big picture, but they aren't the kind of owners to meddle in football decisions, historically.
Fair enough. I'd agree that they've mostly been hands off, but maybe things have changed. Maybe they're not going to allow Gettleman the same freedom they allowed Coughlin. I hope this is not the case (I think the NFL needs more owners like Khan).
-
1
-
-
Some times the Al Davises and Jerry Joneses and John Maras (and Jim Irsays) of the world need to be told "no." You hired Gettleman to build you a team, and now you're going to handicap him by trying to micromanage things.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Valpo2004 said:
Where is the cut-off between old and young?
I'm 35.
I'm worried about Andrew but not so worried that I think we should be trying to draft a QB.
2 minutes ago, Swan Ronson said:What's the cut off to go from young to older fan?
I think we're just in the middle...
If you're an old fan, you know it. If you're a young fan, you know it. We're just past the latter but not quite the former.
-
1
-
-
If I had my choice of any of them, I'd want Josh Jackson. He seems like another ball-hawk that would pair with Hooker to give us a dangerous secondary.
If we're talking about which one I would want at the spot where they'll most likely be drafted, I'd want Carlton Davis. He'd be a great value for us in the middle-to-late second round.
-
1
-
-
Round 1:
Quenton Nelson
Tremaine Edmunds
Roquan Smith
2a:
Sony Michel
Isaiah Wynn
2b:
Billy Price
Connor Williams
2c:
Carlton Davis
Arden Key
3:
Braden Smith
Rashaad Penny
4:
Fred Warner
Geron Christian
5:
Hercules Mata'afa
Bilal Nichols
6:
Alan Lazard
Tegray Scales
7:
Brandon Facyson
Michael Joseph
-
31 minutes ago, PeterBowman said:
if the team absolutely loves a player and that player would be a massive upgrade and at a position of need, what difference would a couple draft spots make?
While I happen to agree that Smith is fine at 6, I disagree with the idea that a couple of picks is meaningless. The difference between 6 and 9 on the draft value chart is 250 points, which is a high third round pick. That's also enough to turn our pick 36 in the early second into pick 22 in the middle of the first.
If we want to target Smith, pushing a trade back and regaining some of that value makes the most sense. Moving back is not meaningless, ESPECIALLY in the first.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Trueman said:
Agreed, that was one of the first things I noticed. It would never happen.
Good mock though , and I appreciate the post.
Thanks, but I’m not so sure the trade is so far-fetched. We’ve already been linked to Chicago for a trade up. In fact, we already have a thread on the subject:
There’s a player they want, and they are willing to trade up to get them. If they’re willing to trade with us, why is it so difficult to imagine them trading up to the spot directly ahead of us? They don’t need a quarterback, Chubb doesn’t fit their 3-4, they don’t need Barkley; who else is going to be gone by pick 8? I think they want Nelson, and the move won’t cost nearly as mch as what we stole from the Jets.
-
13 minutes ago, Hoose said:
One thing: I don’t see a team spending the capital to move up in the 1st round to pick a Guard. Chicago won’t do that for Nelson IMO. Maybe for Barkley or Chubb. I still think one of the Big 3 non QBs will fall to the Colts. Then it’s who wants to give up the bank to move into the 6 slot vs picking a big time difference making player. My guess: the Colts stay put and pick Nelson. And I’d be just fine with that.
Denver has been pretty vocal about wanting to trade back, and 8 to 5 still lets them get the player they want (Ward).
I think Chicago REALLY wants Nelson; and, you even said yourself that if he’s there at 6, we should take him. Chicago doesn’t seem to have any qualms about trading up to guarantee getting the player they want.
On the point value chart, its a 300 point difference. Thats just swapping Chicago’s 2 for Denver’s 3. Chicago gives pick 8 and their second and sixth for Denver’s pick 5 and their third.
-
3 hours ago, rock8591 said:
Would love Edmunds and Landry in the first round.
Landry reminds me of Lance Johnstone a bit...
Situational pass rusher, good for 30-40 tackles, 8-12 sacks a year, but not considered to be a great run stopper.
That’s a pretty fair comp, but I’d hope for more. Johnstone was a decent second round pick, but I really started liking the idea of Landry learning from Mathis and/or Freeney! I think he has enough raw ability for them to turn him into a monster!
-
27 minutes ago, Dr. T said:
The Jets will be picking Baker Mayfield at #3 ... and that will change everything.
I would love to get Edmunds at #12, but he will be long gone by then.
That doesn't actually change much in my mock. It pretty much just swaps Mayfield and Allen at 3 and 6.
Edmunds has a lot of teams that might take him. Chicago will take him if Nelson isn't available, but I had them moving up before us for Nelson.
TB will probably take a DB.
Denver will probably take a DB.
SF might take him if they think Foster will be gone for a while, but I had them taking Fitzpatrick who is another position of need for them.
Oakland will take Edmunds or Smith, but I had Gruden taking Smith to play as his Derrick Brooks style linebacker.
Miami might take him unless a QB is available, and I still have a good one on the board.
I don't think it's that unreasonable to think we can move back to 12 and get a top quality player. It'll be Ward, Smith, Edmunds, Fitzpatrick, or James.
-
1 hour ago, WarGhost21 said:
IMO I only see 3 or 4 quality interior rushers in this class, and most of the talent is off the edge. I can’t wait until next year, though, because the entire 2019 draft is chock full of players who rush the passer both from outside and inside!
I think the top of the draft is about equal with inside and outside, but the later rounds have few outside rushers. Meanwhile Nichols, Fatukasi, Hill, Hall, the NC State pair, etc. all give a decent push and will probably go round 4 or later. With Anderson apparently losing weight to play strong side DE, Sheard playing outside, and Simon gaining weight to play DE; we might need more push up the middle anyway.
Roethlisberger not happy with Rudolph pick
in NFL General
Posted
Did he not notice that he gets injured almost EVERY season? And when he's injured, the Steelers tend to LOSE games. Having a good backup is getting to be pretty important in the NFL these days. The Eagles were only able to win a super bowl because of the stellar play of their backup.