I like T Y, but it's going to be a good WR available rnd 1

[HarassedOffTheSite]

Dude I'm done discussing this

 

Goodbye. Next time humble up and you might be able to learn something.

 

Sure you win bro...

 

??? This wasn't checkers. It was a discussion. One way I might add because you were rambling all over the map and not really focused AT ALL.

 

I'm completely stupid in all this...

 

Not if you'd set your neurosis aside and think without emotion.

 

...an informed opinion. Which is an oxymoron...

 

No. It isn't.

 

now...express your "informed" opinions to someone else.

 

Ok. Your loss.

[AntonMcG]

Dude I'm done discussing this with a belligerent *. Sure you win bro, I'm completely stupid in all this and have not been looking at this with an informed opinion. Which is an oxymoron, now cheer up, calm down, and express your "informed" opinions to someone else.

This isn't my fight but I just had to ask, do you know what oxymoron means?

[chad72]

This isn't my fight but I just had to ask, do you know what oxymoron means?

 

Not my right to answer it but "Microsoft Works" is an oxymoron in my geeky world .

[Narcosys]

This isn't my fight but I just had to ask, do you know what oxymoron means?

Yes, combining contradictory terms. Informed is having facts, opinions are more like assumptions and lacking facts but filling in what you think to be true. If your informed you can provide facts to back up your position. Of which he never provided any only attack personally. Even when I was sincerely interested in his opinion about other positions he could not provide anything other than he had informed opinions.

[mvbighead]

My God, are you allergic to reading or do you just not know the concept of BPA? My point... for the third time now... is that if an OLB falls to us, there is a strong possibility that he will be BPA, because the top ones are projected higher, and silly team will continue to reach, and average QBs will be drafted in the first round, it what happens every year. The majority of mocks from people I respect, who are usually right, have an OLB coming our length.

Walden, who I hope is a success, is guaranteed $4million of that contract, he is an experiment but one that could very well pay off, as for your article, I saw that too, and I can also show you plenty more that portray him as horrible, I doubt Grigson would sign him if that was the case, but I don't think he is a cert to perform. Do we have a top rated pass-rushing OLB? Mathis is 32, production is dropping, and he has played second fiddle his entire career while the other guy got the double team attention, including last season. I like him, but time will catch up with him and we need a long-term replacement, and I like the guys that could be available in this draft to be that replacement. And why is it so laughable for a 32 year old (who you seem to think is of Demarcus Ware quality) to be out-produced? And by out-produced, I mean in the scenario where we bring in an OLB in the first, I should have made that clear. Jerry Hughes is distinctly average and has yet to impress given his draft position.

OLB is the premium position in modern 3-4 schemes, it is hugely important. Mathis needs to be replaced the same way Reggie needs to be replaced. Did you watch him last year? Because he just didn't blow me away.

Now to the WRs... the fact that you only count someone who is projected +15 spots as a reach is laughable, especially in the first round, +5 maybe, but +15? Go tell Mike Mayock this and give him a giggle. Everyone of the players you named are a reach at #24 except for Patterson, Austin (who plays in the slot where we have Hilton) and maybe Allen... I don't see any of them being there, and the prospects next year will be of a higher standard. Now, we could trade back, that is actually a very possible scenario, but to me, a WR at #24 does not support the notion that Grigson has talked about on several occasions of Best Player Available. What Big Boards are you reading? I am yet to see any of them that project all of those guys in the top 35... please link me to them. And Woods isn't a reach at #24? My God.

As for your points about not bringing in a QB to compete with Luck... that doesn't warrant a response. The other guys... we had no cap space, we had to draft well and we did, they were later round guys who came in and produced... that backs up my point more so than yours, I think good WRs will be available in the third, as they were last year.

And the eloquent conclusion to your article, where you claim I said we are dead set on grabbing an OLB, and stay away from WRs, again proves your ineptitude at reading my posts. I said (and this is the fourth time now) that I believe a value OLB pick, or 3-4 DE pick, will be available at #24, because other team will draft poorly ahead of us, I do not see that happening with WR, and don't see the value in the position early in the draft.

And don't put words in my mouth, I never called any of our signings "lesser signings", Grigson has proven to us that he is more than competent, but I don't believe we are set at OLB, again Walden is only guaranteed $4mill, and Mathis is old.

If you are going to retort, please retort to what I write.

 

I believe I referred to them (in a positive fashion) as lesser signings.  Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

As for the concept of a reach, you do realize that each GM has his own grades.  Their grade doesn't necessarily mimick another GM.  It is quite possible that the Raiders had DHB as a top 5 talent, and another GM had him as an earlier second rounder.  That being said, if Grigson feels that Robert Woods is a Reggie Wayne kinda talent, and he's there at 24, he could take him and not consider it a reach in his mind.  In other words, what may be considered a reach to one is not considered a reach to someone else.  Easy enough concept?

 

As to those receivers, they all grade in the top 35-40.  We pick at 24, and two of those receivers grade just above 30 and should be there at our pick.  Those are not my evaluations.

 

As to the OLB topic, well, a top 15 guy could fall to us, and if he does and Grigson pulls the trigger, I'd think it was a good move.  But you're being purely hypothetical.  But but but a top 15 OLB is going to fall to us!  That may or may not happen.  My point is based on what is more likely.  Most of those receivers will be there.  Grigson may feel that one of them is a top 20 talent.  That could be Woods, that could be someone else.  My bigger point is that WR is a bigger need.

 

As for BPA, that is a tired Polian philosophy.  If you strictly draft the best player available and end up with 5 1st round QBs on your team, have you built wisely?  I'd prefer they use a BPA/need basis, to make sure they grab players that can contribute and not ride the pine.  That's just me.

 

Which leads to the possibility that a top 15 WR and OLB are sitting there at 24... which do you take?  IMO, you take the WR because the bigger need is there, and we have more potential and investment at the LB position already.

[AntonMcG]

Yes, combining contradictory terms. Informed is having facts, opinions are more like assumptions and lacking facts but filling in what you think to be true. If your informed you can provide facts to back up your position. Of which he never provided any only attack personally. Even when I was sincerely interested in his opinion about other positions he could not provide anything other than he had informed opinions.

An informed opinion is not an oxymoron. An informed opinion is giving your view on a certain topic, having a sufficient knowledge of the area in which you are discussing.

I'll give you an example I used earlier....

- My mother giving her opinion on the rigors of child birth is an informed opinion.

- Me giving my opinion on the rigors of childbirth in an uninformed opinion.

My informed opinion is that we live in a society where people are far too quick to share their uninformed opinion.

[Carlos Danger]

BPA at #24... assuming we get a SS in FA... we could still use a little help at a number of positions... you don't pass on a stud just because you have Walden on the team and you don't pass a receiver that you have high on your board because we need a DE... JMO

 

Some positions are obviously set, all of the others are in play... depends on where Grigson has these guys rated...

 

great discussion, though guys... healthy debate and all...

[Narcosys]

An informed opinion is not an oxymoron. An informed opinion is giving your view on a certain topic, having a sufficient knowledge of the area in which you are discussing.

I'll give you an example I used earlier....

- My mother giving her opinion on the rigors of child birth is an informed opinion.

- Me giving my opinion on the rigors of childbirth in an uninformed opinion.

My informed opinion is that we live in a society where people are far too quick to share their uninformed opinion.

opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view ...

Belief: : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

If you are informed then you know factual information. Which is contradictory to the definition of opinion. It is a commonly used term, but so is military intelligence, which is an oxymoron. If you state something that is factual, it is no longer an opinion. Something with which mr. Casserly was trying to do and refusing to listen to any other opinion which contradicted his which he was trying to pass off as fact, or very strongly pushing for.

Seems very close to one to me.

[AntonMcG]

I believe I referred to them (in a positive fashion) as lesser signings.  Don't get your panties in a bunch.

 

As for the concept of a reach, you do realize that each GM has his own grades.  Their grade doesn't necessarily mimick another GM.  It is quite possible that the Raiders had DHB as a top 5 talent, and another GM had him as an earlier second rounder.  That being said, if Grigson feels that Robert Woods is a Reggie Wayne kinda talent, and he's there at 24, he could take him and not consider it a reach in his mind.  In other words, what may be considered a reach to one is not considered a reach to someone else.  Easy enough concept?

 

As to those receivers, they all grade in the top 35-40.  We pick at 24, and two of those receivers grade just above 30 and should be there at our pick.  Those are not my evaluations.

 

As to the OLB topic, well, a top 15 guy could fall to us, and if he does and Grigson pulls the trigger, I'd think it was a good move.  But you're being purely hypothetical.  But but but a top 15 OLB is going to fall to us!  That may or may not happen.  My point is based on what is more likely.  Most of those receivers will be there.  Grigson may feel that one of them is a top 20 talent.  That could be Woods, that could be someone else.  My bigger point is that WR is a bigger need.

 

As for BPA, that is a tired Polian philosophy.  If you strictly draft the best player available and end up with 5 1st round QBs on your team, have you built wisely?  I'd prefer they use a BPA/need basis, to make sure they grab players that can contribute and not ride the pine.  That's just me.

 

Which leads to the possibility that a top 15 WR and OLB are sitting there at 24... which do you take?  IMO, you take the WR because the bigger need is there, and we have more potential and investment at the LB position already.

My good God it never stops.

I never once questioned what teams Big Boards may look like, not once. I said that your peculiar notion of 15 draft spots too early is where you start calling it a reach, which is just ridiculous. But you chose not the address that, perhaps for fear if making yourself appear foolish.

Now, if Robert Woods was indeed high on Grigson's Big Board, and he believed his perceived value lay in the second round, would it not make more sense to trade back? You have the somewhat common issue with thinking talent and draft value are aligned.

And no, I am not being hypothetical with regard to the OLBs (and as you continue to neglect I also said DEs) dropping to us. I am basing this on a lot of mock draft and the fact that every year value players drop, this year there is a very good chance it is a OLB or DE, WR is much less likely, simply because there are many more highly graded OLBs and DEs than WRs.

You may indeed think BPA is a tired Polian philosophy, but the fact is our GM has said several times that that will be how he drafts, Dwayne Allen is a good example from last year. And you trying to back up your claim by saying we would draft QB every year... well QBs would not be on our Big Board... we will only draft of our Big Board, and it will be Best Player Available on our Big Board. If there isn't much difference from a BPA perspective between multiple players in the same position, or if you believe that perceived draft value to other teams of a certain player is lower, then you trade back. Easy enough concept?

My point is, and bear in mind, this is now the fifth time, so I will try and word it extra carefully, that I believe, based on analysts I respect, that BPA at #24 will not be a WR, but if Patterson drops, by all means go for him. I do, however, think it might be a OLB or 3-4 DE, based on those same projections. Draft stock may go up, draft stock may go down, but that is how I see it right now.

I am well aware of the need for WR, but the value does not appear to be there. As another poster commented, I can see us searching for a #2 this year later in the draft when value may exist for WRs, and potentially a #1 next year, when there should be more value.

Now... if you are going to reply further, I must beg you that you read my post, and respond to it, not spout nonsensical interpretations of what you think you read.

P.S. Thank you kindly for the bolded words, they really helped me grasp the intensity with which the were intended to be delivered.

[AntonMcG]

opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view ...

Belief: : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

If you are informed then you know factual information. Which is contradictory to the definition of opinion. It is a commonly used term, but so is military intelligence, which is an oxymoron. If you state something that is factual, it is no longer an opinion. Something with which mr. Casserly was trying to do and refusing to listen to any other opinion which contradicted his which he was trying to pass off as fact, or very strongly pushing for.

Seems very close to one to me.

Hmmm... I appreciate the effort you have went to whilst Googling all of this, but once again I must disagree.

You can form an opinion on something based of knowledge you have accumulated in regard to the specific topic you are discussing. Facts are not the only prerequisite whilst forming an informed opinion, some knowledge-bases cannot accommodate fact but that does not mean they are not informed, as accurate interpretation is also a contributing factor.

So for example, if you know quite a bit about a topic, and are asked a question with regard to that topic, but you do not know the answer, or the answer is simply unattainable, you can still give an informed opinion based on the information that you do know within the same area of discussion. Whilst someone who is asked the same question, who has no knowledge of the topic, can give an opinion, but it will not be informed. So at no time does the opinion become fact as you claimed, the opinion is simply formed through other facts and accumulated knowledge.

Just so you know, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Plus I was at no point trying to claim you don't have an informed opinion, I haven't read enough from you to make such a claim and if I did think so I would generally keep it to myself... maybe.

[Narcosys]

Just so you know, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Really? That's what your going with? Flavor Flav WOOOOOOOOOOOOWW!

Websters dictionary bro.

You only got into this to try and prove me wrong and feed your ego. Whoop whoop, your cool.

Either way, guess its another "uninformed opinion" of mine. Anyone else care to pop off about this? I'm here all day lol

[AntonMcG]

Really? That's what your going with? Flavor Flav WOOOOOOOOOOOOWW!

Websters dictionary bro.

You only got into this to try and prove me wrong and feed your ego. Whoop whoop, your cool.

Either way, guess its another "uninformed opinion" of mine. Anyone else care to pop off about this? I'm here all day lol

Okay, I don't understand the majority of what you are saying but I think I may have deciphered the jist of it.

It seems that if Websters Dictionary have deemed 'informed opinion' to be an oxymoron, then they are indeed wrong, because at no point does the opinion become factual, you use facts and knowledge to support the opinion. Do you understand?

Now if you would be so kind provide me to a link to the Websters Dictionary page were this information resides, or is it a members only club?

[Dustin]

What a dumb thing to be arguing over.

[mvbighead]

My good God it never stops.

I never once questioned what teams Big Boards may look like, not once. I said that your peculiar notion of 15 draft spots too early is where you start calling it a reach, which is just ridiculous. But you chose not the address that, perhaps for fear if making yourself appear foolish.

 

What one team calls a reach, another team calls a call who fell further than they should.  What you think of as a reach may be considered a value pick based on Grigson's big board.  Get the idea now slick?

Now, if Robert Woods was indeed high on Grigson's Big Board, and he believed his perceived value lay in the second round, would it not make more sense to trade back? You have the somewhat common issue with thinking talent and draft value are aligned.

My point was if Grigson had Woods as a 1st rounder.  But yes, if they don't see value at their slot, trading back makes sense.  However, talent and draft value can be aligned by a GM.  If he fears that the Vikings are liable to snatch up his guy, he may not want to risk dropping back.  This stuff is purely HYPOTHETICAL.  If Grigson were to see any receiver as a 1st round talent, and Mel Kiper sees them as a 3rd rounder, that is neither here nor there.  Grigson is paid to do what he does, and thus far he has been very good at it.  Rest assured, he isn't watching NFL network or ESPN to figure out who he should draft.

And no, I am not being hypothetical with regard to the OLBs (and as you continue to neglect I also said DEs) dropping to us. I am basing this on a lot of mock draft and the fact that every year value players drop, this year there is a very good chance it is a OLB or DE, WR is much less likely, simply because there are many more highly graded OLBs and DEs than WRs.

I neglect DEs because I have already said they are worthy of a selection with our 1st pick, as we have a need there (or a lack of talent on our current roster).  You are being hypothetical because you are using what-ifs on whether a guy rated in the top 15 drops to us.  There is no assurance that that will happen.  I am basing my suggestions on guys that will and should be available beyond the 24th pick.  I've even gone so far as to list 5 options.

You may indeed think BPA is a tired Polian philosophy, but the fact is our GM has said several times that that will be how he drafts, Dwayne Allen is a good example from last year. And you trying to back up your claim by saying we would draft QB every year... well QBs would not be on our Big Board... we will only draft of our Big Board, and it will be Best Player Available on our Big Board. If there isn't much difference from a BPA perspective between multiple players in the same position, or if you believe that perceived draft value to other teams of a certain player is lower, then you trade back. Easy enough concept?

BPA, to some, has a need factor included.  I can agree with your logic to an extent, but the reality is, as far as OLB is concerned, we have money heavily invested there on guys that are going to get opportunities.  Why add a 5th guy to the mix?  That'll mean that we're cutting a guy that has some promise, and we still have a gaping hole at WR and DE.  I'd like to think that BPA for our first selection is a DE or a WR.  We didn't sign Mathis to a 36 million dollar deal because we didn't believe in him.  We didn't sign Walden to a 14 million dollar deal because we wanted to use him as a solid backup.  To me, that spells out the fact that OLB is not a glaring need.  If the perfect guy fell, sure.  But that is just guessing to consider that as a basis for drafting an OLB.  Heck, why don't we start talking about Joekel falling to 24, or Milliner, or Mingo.  it is pointless to speculate that a top 15 OLB (according to your guys) is going to fall to 24.  You sure are keeping your guys pretty private in this whole discussion.  At least I am proving links to paid analysts progressions.

My point is, and bear in mind, this is now the fifth time, so I will try and word it extra carefully, that I believe, based on analysts I respect, that BPA at #24 will not be a WR, but if Patterson drops, by all means go for him. I do, however, think it might be a OLB or 3-4 DE, based on those same projections. Draft stock may go up, draft stock may go down, but that is how I see it right now.

It's extremely ridiculous for you to keep reiterating this drivel.  Your guess is a top 15 OLB will drop to us.  Do you have a magic 8 ball or something?  My 5 mentioned players are all players who are LIKELY to be available at 24, not pure speculation.  Who these so called analysts that you respect?  I've seen countless mock drafts via NFL or ESPN, and many of the receivers I've mentioned have been listed above or just below our pick.  I've provided links... what have you provided other than some guess that the BPA is going to be an OLB?  As for the DE, I've addressed that before in this thread.  A DE selection is also likely as we don't have a quality guy opposite Redding.  And again, none of this matters because Grigson will be using his board.  not your analyst, and not anyone's that I've mentioned.

I am well aware of the need for WR, but the value does not appear to be there. As another poster commented, I can see us searching for a #2 this year later in the draft when value may exist for WRs, and potentially a #1 next year, when there should be more value.

Based on what?  "Your guys."  Our #2 for the past 10+ years was drafted late in the first.  He goes by the name Reggie.  Reggie Wayne.  We very well could get our #1 or #2 this year in the first.  There will be several quality guys available.  We might wait and find a good one later, as you say, but lets just say, most top wideouts were selected in earlier rounds.  Fitzgerald, Johnson, Moss, Ochocinco (a while ago), Harrison, Wayne, etc. etc. etc.

Now... if you are going to reply further, I must beg you that you read my post, and respond to it, not spout nonsensical interpretations of what you think you read.

My responses are in bold, point for point, paragraph for paragraph.  Does that help?

P.S. Thank you kindly for the bolded words, they really helped me grasp the intensity with which the were intended to be delivered.

Emphasis is apparently required if you don't actually read or grasp the points I am making.

 

Read my responses in bold.

[Narcosys]

Okay, I don't understand the majority of what you are saying but I think I may have deciphered the jist of it.

It seems that if Websters Dictionary have deemed 'informed opinion' to be an oxymoron, then they are indeed wrong, because at no point does the opinion become factual, you use facts and knowledge to support the opinion. Do you understand?

Now if you would be so kind provide me to a link to the Websters Dictionary page were this information resides, or is it a members only club?

Holy Smokes dude, websters was for the definition of opinion and belief. Never said oxymoron. Wth are you talking about. Let me guess, friends with Brian? If not you should be, just as persistent.

[optimusprimetime]

I think the colts have a couple moves up there sleeves....nothing to exciting though.....what do colts fans think of Darius Heyward Bay?  I think he could replace Avery, younger, faster, but needs a little help running routes....Numbers are similar to Avery's with a washed up Palmer and the raiders line! 

[mvbighead]

Brady did it with Moss, Welker, and Stallworth.  That's pretty similar to what you guys had last year with Wayne, Hilton, and Avery and the results (not the stats) were no better than when Brady had worse receivers.  Again, WR will be a need for you in the next year or two but right now it takes a backseat to your interior OL, DL, and pass rush needs.  I also wouldn't take a receiver if a better S or CB prospect is available given what has transpired so far in the offseason.

 

Weapons are important on offense but do I really need to remind you just how well Brady and Manning have done in the postseason on teams with questionable defenses?  You guys would be wise not to make the same mistakes Polian did with roster management.

Moss' season that year was far more than anything Wayne has done in his career.  Ego aside, that guy is a crazy talent.  Wayne is supremely talented, but is physical abilities pale to what Moss is capable of.  Welker has had how many consecutive 100+ catch seasons?  That is not Hilton or Avery.  Stallworth was meh, he was a field stretcher comparable to either Avery or Hilton last year.  I see Hilton having a high ceiling, and should be much better than last year.  But Brady's weapons that year should not be understated.

 

As for our line, we've already grabbed two new starters (most likely to be starters that is).  Are you looking for them to sign 4 new linemen?  They've made tremendous progress on our line.  And, by most accounts, solid offense linemen take time to develop.  Unless there is a great specimen there (Pouncey brothers, Nick Mangold, etc.), there doesn't seem to be such a guy that will fall there.  There are far more options at receiver, and even DE.

 

As to our defense, it is already on the upward swing.  Chapman is a guy they have high hopes for.  Redding is solid.  Mathis is still an excellent pass rusher.  Davis is someone who could be a shutdown corner with the right coaching.  Bethea is excellent.  They've upgraded their #2 corner, IMO, with Toler.  And Walden is a guy who has shown promise and done well with his opportunities as of late.  He could be a big contributer if thrust into a starting role.  They've made some upgrades on defense, and they've made some additions that could wind up being upgrades.  It seems to me that they are very much on the path of upgrading both sides of the ball.

 

And, it would be wise not to make Polian's mistakes of drafting players in the 1st round who don't have a glimmer of hope in seeing a starting position.  We didn't hang on to Manning and draft Luck as it would've been counter-intuitive.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to pay Walden 14 and then draft a guy we want to place ahead of him.  After this investment, it'd be wise to give Walden a year as a starter, and perhaps add an OLB later in the draft if we feel the need to add better depth.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that adding a weapon is wrong.  They've addressed the offensive line a great deal already, and while more could be done, Luck should have much improved protection compared to last year.  And, we can still throw our remaining starting guards into a battle for the remaining G spot.  They weren't great, but they weren't revolving doors either.

[AntonMcG]

Holy Smokes dude, websters was for the definition of opinion and belief. Never said oxymoron. Wth are you talking about. Let me guess, friends with Brian? If not you should be, just as persistent.

 

So that pathetic attempt at a post to insinuate that you had somehow claimed victory in this ridiculous conversation (that I am embarrassed to even be involved in), holds no merit whatsoever, and you are still wrong?

 

I was simply pointing out a mistake on your behalf, and enlightening you.

 

"Informed Opinion" is still not an oxymoron... just letting you know.

[Narcosys]

So that pathetic attempt at a post to insinuate that you had somehow claimed victory in this ridiculous conversation (that I am embarrassed to even be involved in), holds no merit whatsoever, and you are still wrong?

I was simply pointing out a mistake on your behalf, and enlightening you.

"Informed Opinion" is still not an oxymoron... just letting you know.

, embarrassed? You started this thing by asking if i knew the definition iof oxymoron. You really had no reason to chime in on this other than to try and make me look bad, or to try to stroke your ego with a forum argument. that is sad. only be embarrassed of yourself. I know I am for you. I did not insenuate anything. People here are overly sensitive and judgemental anymore. Change your tampon bro. You can let me know whatever you want, it's your opinion, not mine. Again just like Brian, if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, you feel the need to prove yourself even further. Please be done with this cause I know I am. Say whatever you want, I'm no longer responding to you. Good day.

[indycrazy1887]

barrett jones. offensive line problem solved!

[AntonMcG]

My good God it never stops.

I never once questioned what teams Big Boards may look like, not once. I said that your peculiar notion of 15 draft spots too early is where you start calling it a reach, which is just ridiculous. But you chose not the address that, perhaps for fear if making yourself appear foolish.

 

What one team calls a reach, another team calls a call who fell further than they should. What you think of as a reach may be considered a value pick based on Grigson's big board. Get the idea now slick?

 

Once again, read what I said, I never question what anyone Big Board would look like, they will all of course have differences, what I said AGAIN is what you claimed is 15 picks too early is when you begin to call it a reach, on any given board, which is stupid.

Now, if Robert Woods was indeed high on Grigson's Big Board, and he believed his perceived value lay in the second round, would it not make more sense to trade back? You have the somewhat common issue with thinking talent and draft value are aligned.

 

My point was if Grigson had Woods as a 1st rounder. But yes, if they don't see value at their slot, trading back makes sense. However, talent and draft value can be aligned by a GM. If he fears that the Vikings are liable to snatch up his guy, he may not want to risk dropping back. This stuff is purely HYPOTHETICAL. If Grigson were to see any receiver as a 1st round talent, and Mel Kiper sees them as a 3rd rounder, that is neither here nor there. Grigson is paid to do what he does, and thus far he has been very good at it. Rest assured, he isn't watching NFL network or ESPN to figure out who he should draft.

 

Of course is it hypothetical, it was an example... my god. Again I must stress that I have not seen Grigson Big Board, and dare I say nor have you, so IN MY OPINION, the only viable WRs who would have value at #24 are Patterson, Austin (a slot guy) and maybe, at a stretch, Allen. But Allen will not be a top 15 guy. And IN MY OPINION (as I have said countless times but you continue to ignore) a top 15-17 guy will fall, because bad QBs will go early, and teams will draft badly. I can only base these opinions on the guys whom I respect, and who are paid to evaluate this talent, these guys are Todd McShay, Bucky Brooks, Mike Mayock and Mel Kiper, probably the same guys most of us listen to. Free Agency will change their mocks a lot, but all of them have a really good value DE or OLB falling to us, who (I presume) would be rated ahead of any WR available.

 

And no, I am not being hypothetical with regard to the OLBs (and as you continue to neglect I also said DEs) dropping to us. I am basing this on a lot of mock draft and the fact that every year value players drop, this year there is a very good chance it is a OLB or DE, WR is much less likely, simply because there are many more highly graded OLBs and DEs than WRs.

 

I neglect DEs because I have already said they are worthy of a selection with our 1st pick, as we have a need there (or a lack of talent on our current roster). You are being hypothetical because you are using what-ifs on whether a guy rated in the top 15 drops to us. There is no assurance that that will happen. I am basing my suggestions on guys that will and should be available beyond the 24th pick. I've even gone so far as to list 5 options.

 

Again, of course there is no assurance this will happen, at what point did I claim this would definitely happen, I am saying the guys I named above think it will, that may change after this FA frenzy, or it may not. What is unlikely to change is that all of them only consider Patterson a top 15 guy, against 6 OLB/DEs in the top 17. So its more likely that a really good value OLB/DE falls than the one really good value WR. (By really good value I mean someone around top-15, maybe a bit higher.)

You may indeed think BPA is a tired Polian philosophy, but the fact is our GM has said several times that that will be how he drafts, Dwayne Allen is a good example from last year. And you trying to back up your claim by saying we would draft QB every year... well QBs would not be on our Big Board... we will only draft of our Big Board, and it will be Best Player Available on our Big Board. If there isn't much difference from a BPA perspective between multiple players in the same position, or if you believe that perceived draft value to other teams of a certain player is lower, then you trade back. Easy enough concept?

 

BPA, to some, has a need factor included. I can agree with your logic to an extent, but the reality is, as far as OLB is concerned, we have money heavily invested there on guys that are going to get opportunities. Why add a 5th guy to the mix? That'll mean that we're cutting a guy that has some promise, and we still have a gaping hole at WR and DE. I'd like to think that BPA for our first selection is a DE or a WR. We didn't sign Mathis to a 36 million dollar deal because we didn't believe in him. We didn't sign Walden to a 14 million dollar deal because we wanted to use him as a solid backup. To me, that spells out the fact that OLB is not a glaring need. If the perfect guy fell, sure. But that is just guessing to consider that as a basis for drafting an OLB. Heck, why don't we start talking about Joekel falling to 24, or Milliner, or Mingo. it is pointless to speculate that a top 15 OLB (according to your guys) is going to fall to 24. You sure are keeping your guys pretty private in this whole discussion. At least I am proving links to paid analysts progressions.

 

Again, Whalen only has $4mill guaranteed according to reports, so a lot of money has not been invested in him, and Mathis is old, so IF a great OLB falls, take him! If not, maybe a DE falls, then take him! You are just being silly naming individuals falling, especially ones projected so high, I am talking about 7 potential players, one of which may drop. And I have actually seen mocks where Mingo does fall to us, though they are probably out-of-date by now. If I remember correctly, I think you gave me one link where we draft a DE, hardly reinforcing your argument. I do not believe we are as set at OLB as you do, a difference of opinion.

 

 

My point is, and bear in mind, this is now the fifth time, so I will try and word it extra carefully, that I believe, based on analysts I respect, that BPA at #24 will not be a WR, but if Patterson drops, by all means go for him. I do, however, think it might be a OLB or 3-4 DE, based on those same projections. Draft stock may go up, draft stock may go down, but that is how I see it right now.

 

It's extremely ridiculous for you to keep reiterating this drivel. Your guess is a top 15 OLB will drop to us. Do you have a magic 8 ball or something? My 5 mentioned players are all players who are LIKELY to be available at 24, not pure speculation. Who these so called analysts that you respect? I've seen countless mock drafts via NFL or ESPN, and many of the receivers I've mentioned have been listed above or just below our pick. I've provided links... what have you provided other than some guess that the BPA is going to be an OLB? As for the DE, I've addressed that before in this thread. A DE selection is also likely as we don't have a quality guy opposite Redding. And again, none of this matters because Grigson will be using his board. not your analyst, and not anyone's that I've mentioned.

 

You are reading the same mocks I am, but what you must not be doing is reading the Big Boards, of course WRs are available, because they aren't value picks at #24. You are refusing to understand my logic... I am saying that if we do go BPA, which we are supposed to, what is the likelihood of that being a WR? Maybe it is, but it's unlikely, because the only really good value receiver is probably gone. Again I reiterate my point that we don't know Grigson's Big Board so we have nothing to go on other than speculation. There is Jordan Ansah, Moore, Jones, Mingo (possibly Jamie Collins whose stock is rising fast) at OLB, and Lotulei, Hunt and Jones at DE. Now not everyone has all of these guys top 15, but many do. I think we get value with one of these guys, over Allen who is realistically the only high value guy that may be there. And again I don't see Austin as a viable option, as he's purely slot, I could be wrong though.

I am well aware of the need for WR, but the value does not appear to be there. As another poster commented, I can see us searching for a #2 this year later in the draft when value may exist for WRs, and potentially a #1 next year, when there should be more value.

Based on what? "Your guys." Our #2 for the past 10+ years was drafted late in the first. He goes by the name Reggie. Reggie Wayne. We very well could get our #1 or #2 this year in the first. There will be several quality guys available. We might wait and find a good one later, as you say, but lets just say, most top wideouts were selected in earlier rounds. Fitzgerald, Johnson, Moss, Ochocinco (a while ago), Harrison, Wayne, etc. etc. etc.

 

Oh come on... everyone has been talking about who WR's aren't strong at the top but there is depth available, I'm sure you have seen it said many time at this stage. And most consider next year to be a very strong WR class, do you really want me to look for articles to back this up, because I find it hard to believe you haven't read the same. I am not just spouting these things without basis.

Now... if you are going to reply further, I must beg you that you read my post, and respond to it, not spout nonsensical interpretations of what you think you read.

My responses are in bold, point for point, paragraph for paragraph. Does that help?

 

No, because you are saying the same things as before, and forcing me to do the same.

 

 

 

P.S. Thank you kindly for the bolded words, they really helped me grasp the intensity with which the were intended to be delivered.

Emphasis is apparently required if you don't actually read or grasp the points I am making.

 

I have addressed everything you have said in every post, you come at me with the same stuff every time, I think it is you who does not understand what I am trying to get across. I realize we differ and am not prepared to spend more time reiterating what has been said. WR is a need, I hope it is addressed, but not at #24... my opinion, and one I did not just come up with without basis.

[AntonMcG]

, embarrassed? You started this thing by asking if i knew the definition iof oxymoron. You really had no reason to chime in on this other than to try and make me look bad, or to try to stroke your ego with a forum argument. that is sad. only be embarrassed of yourself. I know I am for you. I did not insenuate anything. People here are overly sensitive and judgemental anymore. Change your tampon bro. You can let me know whatever you want, it's your opinion, not mine. Again just like Brian, if someone doesn't agree with your opinion, you feel the need to prove yourself even further. Please be done with this cause I know I am. Say whatever you want, I'm no longer responding to you. Good day.

 

No, you see that is not opinion, it is fact... which is pretty ironic when you think about it.

 

Great to hear we can put this fiasco to bed then.

[BOTT]

Moss' season that year was far more than anything Wayne has done in his career.  Ego aside, that guy is a crazy talent.  Wayne is supremely talented, but is physical abilities pale to what Moss is capable of.  Welker has had how many consecutive 100+ catch seasons?  That is not Hilton or Avery.  Stallworth was meh, he was a field stretcher comparable to either Avery or Hilton last year.  I see Hilton having a high ceiling, and should be much better than last year.  But Brady's weapons that year should not be understated.

 

As for our line, we've already grabbed two new starters (most likely to be starters that is).  Are you looking for them to sign 4 new linemen?  They've made tremendous progress on our line.  And, by most accounts, solid offense linemen take time to develop.  Unless there is a great specimen there (Pouncey brothers, Nick Mangold, etc.), there doesn't seem to be such a guy that will fall there.  There are far more options at receiver, and even DE.

 

As to our defense, it is already on the upward swing.  Chapman is a guy they have high hopes for.  Redding is solid.  Mathis is still an excellent pass rusher.  Davis is someone who could be a shutdown corner with the right coaching.  Bethea is excellent.  They've upgraded their #2 corner, IMO, with Toler.  And Walden is a guy who has shown promise and done well with his opportunities as of late.  He could be a big contributer if thrust into a starting role.  They've made some upgrades on defense, and they've made some additions that could wind up being upgrades.  It seems to me that they are very much on the path of upgrading both sides of the ball.

 

And, it would be wise not to make Polian's mistakes of drafting players in the 1st round who don't have a glimmer of hope in seeing a starting position.  We didn't hang on to Manning and draft Luck as it would've been counter-intuitive.  It wouldn't make a lot of sense to pay Walden 14 and then draft a guy we want to place ahead of him.  After this investment, it'd be wise to give Walden a year as a starter, and perhaps add an OLB later in the draft if we feel the need to add better depth.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that adding a weapon is wrong.  They've addressed the offensive line a great deal already, and while more could be done, Luck should have much improved protection compared to last year.  And, we can still throw our remaining starting guards into a battle for the remaining G spot.  They weren't great, but they weren't revolving doors either.

Must shorten posts

[BOTT]

barrett jones. offensive line problem solved!

If he is there in the 3rd

[mvbighead]

 

I'll just call it a loss then.  I understand your points, but you hide behind the opinion of "your guys."  That whole 15 guys thing and different boards, take a second and think about that.  I mentioned the Raiders may have had DHB in the top 10, and someone else in the middle second.  Well, there is the 15 spots I am referring to.  It all depends on the GM's big board.  Not Kiper, not McShay, not Scheffler, not anyone but the GM.  So what one may call a reach of about 15 positions, another GM may have thought they were lucky he fell 5 more to them.  And despite Kiper, McShay, or anyone else's opinion, if that GM thinks highly enough of the kid and doesn't want to risk losing him, drafting him makes sense even if Kiper has him in the middle third.  As far as I am concerned, Kiper and McShay aren't right.  GMs interview these kids.  They may see someone else's top 10 as third rounder due to off the field stuff.  Alphonso Dennard fell to the 7th when he could've been an upper third or better.  Projected draft position is based on opinions, evaluations, etc.  Everyone's is going to be different.

 

As for a QB going eary... I don't see it happening.  They once had Geno at the top pick.  Now he might make it out of the top 10 with KC settled in with Smith.  AZ has a big need, and they might grab him, but no other QB is projected for the 1st round.  AZ might get crazy and take Barkley, who they are rumored to have interest in, but I think they'd be smart to wait for the second.

 

While there are certainly a number of quality guys at OLB/(4-3)DE early in the draft, most are projected to go early in the draft.  We'll be getting the guy no one else thought was viable for the top 15.  Or, we could hand pick our successor to Reggie Wayne from the sounds of it.  Granted, the 3-4 DE guy that falls to us is certainly a viable option, whoever that may be.  Jones was a name I saw pop up.  But there will be about 5 receivers slated for late 1 early 2 according to most mocks, and if Grigson feels one of them will be a "baller" I would rather he grab that guy now than trade back and miss him.  Marvin Harrison boosted PM's career, as did Wayne.  Calvin Johnson is a boost to Stafford's.

 

Also, the problem with next year's WR class is that, well, it is next year.  We don't know how long we'll have Wayne.  If we can get a new top-talent young guy to learn from one of the league's greats, it'd be a benefit to him and again, a benefit to Luck.

 

My problem with your hypothetical is that is purely based on someone dropping further than they're projected to.  The reality is, if they drop that far, GMs/coaches are passing for one reason or another.  And that will be true of anyone we select at 24.  I just don't see how drafting an OLB for this scheme makes any sense in round 1, unless it's the absolute perfect guy that they didn't think would fall.  But if it isn't that, and it's just some guy that did fall from the top 15 that they didn't feel that great about, why not set your sights on 4-5 guys that are realistically attainable and scout the heck out of them to know which one would be the best fit, and put them to work immediately.  That OLB is going to have to displace Walden, Hughes, and Sidburry to see time.  And while Walden isn't getting a boatload, he is getting paid like a starter.  We have 1 receiver who is being paid like a starter in Wayne, and no reason not to give a 1st round rookie receiver a shot at starting based on contractual obligation (IE - It is highly unwise of a GM to pay through the nose for a player and find a way to make him ride the pine.).

 

I have read your points time and again, and responded in a way that you don't agree with.  Fine, I can't help you.  Suffice it to say that Grigson could see 5 receivers going in the top 25, and have 3 still available when he picks.  He could also see a (3-4)DE that should've gone in the top 15 sitting there.  In that case, you have an easy decision.  But if it's an OLB, why change the grade of that position from a B to a B+ when you can potential change the grade of our receivers from a B- to a B+.  It all depends on who Grigson feels the strongest about, and thus far, he's made some good decisions.

[mvbighead]

Must shorten posts

 

This is true, but I am being told that I am not listening, and must validate my reasoning.  If someone doesn't understand that, I can't help them.

[AntonMcG]

I'll just call it a loss then.  I understand your points, but you hide behind the opinion of "your guys."  That whole 15 guys thing and different boards, take a second and think about that.  I mentioned the Raiders may have had DHB in the top 10, and someone else in the middle second.  Well, there is the 15 spots I am referring to.  It all depends on the GM's big board.  Not Kiper, not McShay, not Scheffler, not anyone but the GM.  So what one may call a reach of about 15 positions, another GM may have thought they were lucky he fell 5 more to them.  And despite Kiper, McShay, or anyone else's opinion, if that GM thinks highly enough of the kid and doesn't want to risk losing him, drafting him makes sense even if Kiper has him in the middle third.  As far as I am concerned, Kiper and McShay aren't right.  GMs interview these kids.  They may see someone else's top 10 as third rounder due to off the field stuff.  Alphonso Dennard fell to the 7th when he could've been an upper third or better.  Projected draft position is based on opinions, evaluations, etc.  Everyone's is going to be different.

 

You are really just not getting what I am saying here, or just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't suit your argument. I cannot see Grigson's big board, that is why, at this point, I have no choice but to use Kiper, Mayock and Brooks' big boards. That is why I call it my opinion. You were talking about one Big Board before, or you worded it that way anyway, and to say that it isn't a reach up until 15 picks premature is ridiculous... and that was the point I was making, regardless of what Grigson's Board may or may not look like.

 

As for a QB going eary... I don't see it happening.  They once had Geno at the top pick.  Now he might make it out of the top 10 with KC settled in with Smith.  AZ has a big need, and they might grab him, but no other QB is projected for the 1st round.  AZ might get crazy and take Barkley, who they are rumored to have interest in, but I think they'd be smart to wait for the second.

 

People don't see this happening most years, but it does, last time 2 QBs were not taken in the first round as 2001, teams panic, maybe this year will be different but I doubt it, that's why the same teams pick in the top-ten every year.

 

While there are certainly a number of quality guys at OLB/(4-3)DE early in the draft, most are projected to go early in the draft.  We'll be getting the guy no one else thought was viable for the top 15.  Or, we could hand pick our successor to Reggie Wayne from the sounds of it.  Granted, the 3-4 DE guy that falls to us is certainly a viable option, whoever that may be.  Jones was a name I saw pop up.  But there will be about 5 receivers slated for late 1 early 2 according to most mocks, and if Grigson feels one of them will be a "baller" I would rather he grab that guy now than trade back and miss him.  Marvin Harrison boosted PM's career, as did Wayne.  Calvin Johnson is a boost to Stafford's.

 

Now who is dealing purely speculatively? I am not talking about top-15 players in terms of draft projection, I am talking about top-15 talent in the class, there isn't a definitive correlation between the two and many teams ahead of us will draft for need, and many do not play in a 3-4. So there is a chance a great talent falls, as is the case every year. What I continue to say is that that talent more than likely will not by a WR.

 

 

Also, the problem with next year's WR class is that, well, it is next year.  We don't know how long we'll have Wayne.  If we can get a new top-talent young guy to learn from one of the league's greats, it'd be a benefit to him and again, a benefit to Luck.

 

True.

 

My problem with your hypothetical is that is purely based on someone dropping further than they're projected to.  The reality is, if they drop that far, GMs/coaches are passing for one reason or another.  And that will be true of anyone we select at 24.  I just don't see how drafting an OLB for this scheme makes any sense in round 1, unless it's the absolute perfect guy that they didn't think would fall.  But if it isn't that, and it's just some guy that did fall from the top 15 that they didn't feel that great about, why not set your sights on 4-5 guys that are realistically attainable and scout the heck out of them to know which one would be the best fit, and put them to work immediately.  That OLB is going to have to displace Walden, Hughes, and Sidburry to see time.  And while Walden isn't getting a boatload, he is getting paid like a starter.  We have 1 receiver who is being paid like a starter in Wayne, and no reason not to give a 1st round rookie receiver a shot at starting based on contractual obligation (IE - It is highly unwise of a GM to pay through the nose for a player and find a way to make him ride the pine.).

 

Read my hypothesis above, this explains my reasoning. They will scout the heck out of everyone on their board, that is their job, no one can predict draft day and who might fall. I have never questioned the need for a WR, but I will repeat yet again that I don't see the value there at #24.

 

I have read your points time and again, and responded in a way that you don't agree with.  Fine, I can't help you.  Suffice it to say that Grigson could see 5 receivers going in the top 25, and have 3 still available when he picks.  He could also see a (3-4)DE that should've gone in the top 15 sitting there.  In that case, you have an easy decision.  But if it's an OLB, why change the grade of that position from a B to a B+ when you can potential change the grade of our receivers from a B- to a B+.  It all depends on who Grigson feels the strongest about, and thus far, he's made some good decisions.

 

Because if he is BPA, you take him, that's why.

[UKColt13]

I cant see us going WR until the middle rounds.

 

Just because of the other needs we have on the team.

 

Since the Walden signing, i'm pushing for a rush backer in the first.

 

From then on it's as follows for me:

 

DE/NT > G > CB > S > WR

[Charliemac24]

Hilton is a slot i dont think he can play outside

[mvbighead]

 

For the 5th time and final time, when I reference different boards for GMs, what I am saying is one GM, perhaps Grigson, has 5 receivers in the top 25. Another may have 1 or 2, and another may have 0.  So that reach of 15 you keep sticking to, might be a considered a reach by the 3rd GM in my example, and perhaps even the second, but the first guy has 5 guys he sees as top 25 picks.  By his OWN definition, he isn't reaching 15 slots.  He is picking a value guy.  Can you comprehend that?

 

I am not suggesting Grigson reach down 15 spots on his own board to find a receiver.  I am suggesting that it is quite possible he has more than just 2 or 3 receivers that he feels are top 25 talents.  By his own definition, he isn't reaching, but according to Mayock or Kiper, it may be a 15 spot reach.  You can't really be this dense can you?

 

As for the rest of it, I see two position of need where there should be a value sitting there at 24.  Defensive end (3-4 that is) and wide receiver.  We have 4 guys at OLB.  We have two legitimate starters at WR, and we will frequently field 3 at a time.  I don't feel that strongly about Walden or Sidbury, but Grigson paid Walden a starter's salary, which, to me, suggests he sees potential in him as a contributor.  They've yet to cut Hughes, and they added Sidbury for depth (I assume).

 

Again, if the perfect OLB falls, that's great.  But if the perfect WR is also sitting there, and they can hand pick the best because of the run on OLBs, why not make that selection before the WR class starts to widdle down and then you're stuck picking the left overs.  From most of the boards I've read, there are about 5 guys in projected around the lower 1st and the upper second.  Some are higher on one guys board, and some on another.  It wouldn't be a 15 spot reach if Grigson values a particular guy.  Deandre Hopkins in my mind is a guy who can be there, and grades right in on that spot.  And if Mingo or Ansah fall that far, they could be good value picks, and I wouldn't fault Grigson for it, but I still feel that #24 will be a prime picking spot for receiver, based on the grades on NFL.com.

 

And again, BPA is a flawed concept.  Hughes was Polian's BPA, as was Brown.  Neither has contributed in a high volume on the Colts.  In part could be due to poor talent evaluation, and the other part is based on the fact that we have proven starters in those positions (Addai, Mathis, Freeney).  At this time, given the FA investments made, DL and WR are the only gaping holes that have yet to be addressed.  It would be unwise to draft an OLB at 24, and would be much wiser to trade out for someone else who wants to take an OLB.  Or, as I like to look at it, it'd be wise to make your choice of one of the 4-5 talented wideouts available at that spot, and hand select him.

[mvbighead]

Hilton is a slot i dont think he can play outside

 

Hilton is our #3, but he frequently plays the outside with Reggie sliding in.  My only thought on Hilton is that he is a field stretcher.  It makes good sense to continue to use him as a #3 to keep him fresh for stretching the field.  He's a bit smaller, and may not serve us very well on rushing downs.  He could be our #2 though, but I just figure a guy that small is best used a handful of times to keep them fresh and explosive.

 

i look at Hester in Chicago being used as a #2 and kick returner, and when they started giving him full time reps at receiver, his explosiveness diminished.  He'd have been better being used sporadically on offense (#3/#4), and kept fresh for returns.  I only bring that up because I see explosive players like that the same way.  The more tired they are, the less of an advantage they have over their opponent.

[AntonMcG]

For the 5th time and final time, when I reference different boards for GMs, what I am saying is one GM, perhaps Grigson, has 5 receivers in the top 25. Another may have 1 or 2, and another may have 0.  So that reach of 15 you keep sticking to, might be a considered a reach by the 3rd GM in my example, and perhaps even the second, but the first guy has 5 guys he sees as top 25 picks.  By his OWN definition, he isn't reaching 15 slots.  He is picking a value guy.  Can you comprehend that?

 

" (A reach, to me, is someone selected 15+ spots ahead of when they should be.)" -Quote from you

 

I am not suggesting Grigson reach down 15 spots on his own board to find a receiver.  I am suggesting that it is quite possible he has more than just 2 or 3 receivers that he feels are top 25 talents.  By his own definition, he isn't reaching, but according to Mayock or Kiper, it may be a 15 spot reach.  You can't really be this dense can you?

 

No, in fact I can promise you I am much smarter than you.

 

As for the rest of it, I see two position of need where there should be a value sitting there at 24.  Defensive end (3-4 that is) and wide receiver.  We have 4 guys at OLB.  We have two legitimate starters at WR, and we will frequently field 3 at a time.  I don't feel that strongly about Walden or Sidbury, but Grigson paid Walden a starter's salary, which, to me, suggests he sees potential in him as a contributor.  They've yet to cut Hughes, and they added Sidbury for depth (I assume).

 

Again, if the perfect OLB falls, that's great.  But if the perfect WR is also sitting there, and they can hand pick the best because of the run on OLBs, why not make that selection before the WR class starts to widdle down and then you're stuck picking the left overs.  From most of the boards I've read, there are about 5 guys in projected around the lower 1st and the upper second.  Some are higher on one guys board, and some on another.  It wouldn't be a 15 spot reach if Grigson values a particular guy.  Deandre Hopkins in my mind is a guy who can be there, and grades right in on that spot.  And if Mingo or Ansah fall that far, they could be good value picks, and I wouldn't fault Grigson for it, but I still feel that #24 will be a prime picking spot for receiver, based on the grades on NFL.com.

Answered this so many times now it defies all conceivable logic how you don't see my point.

 

 

And again, BPA is a flawed concept.  Hughes was Polian's BPA, as was Brown.  Neither has contributed in a high volume on the Colts.  In part could be due to poor talent evaluation, and the other part is based on the fact that we have proven starters in those positions (Addai, Mathis, Freeney).  At this time, given the FA investments made, DL and WR are the only gaping holes that have yet to be addressed.  It would be unwise to draft an OLB at 24, and would be much wiser to trade out for someone else who wants to take an OLB.  Or, as I like to look at it, it'd be wise to make your choice of one of the 4-5 talented wideouts available at that spot, and hand select him.

Fine, Grigsoon says that's how he drafts, I believe him.

 

Stop engaging me now, I don't need you to copy and paste the same thing over again, whilst disregarding my points.

[mvbighead]

" (A reach, to me, is someone selected 15+ spots ahead of when they should be.)" -Quote from you

 

 

No, in fact I can promise you I am much smarter than you.

 

Answered this so many times now it defies all conceivable logic how you don't see my point.

 

 

Fine, Grigsoon says that's how he drafts, I believe him.

 

Stop engaging me now, I don't need you to copy and paste the same thing over again, whilst disregarding my points.

 

I haven't disregarded anything.  I have answered point by point.  I can't help you if you defy logical answers.  When they should be is determined by each GM, it's based on their grades and their big board.  It isn't a tough concept.  Again, these GMs aren't watching NFL network and ESPN to see what they should do.  They don't look at Kiper's best 5 available and pick one of the five guys who is highest on their board.  They have their own evaluations to work with, which are much more in depth than anything Mayock or Kiper do.  They interview the draftees for crying out loud.

 

As for your promise, I find that hilarious.  I refer to one point as you being dense, and now suddenly this is a test of overall wit?

 

All I can say is, Grigson is thus far proving that he is building on this team's weaknesses.  He has improved our CB, SS, G, T, and OLB positions through FA.  He left Avery walk, and has yet to fill his shoes.  That could be because he believes in Brazill or Whalen, but it could also be that he believes he has a guy in the  draft that will be a better prospect.

 

Again, I have said over and over that I see your point, I simply don't agree with it.  If we had Harrison, Wayne, and Stokley all in their primes and all locked up for 3+ years, I wouldn't be suggesting a WR is a viable 1st round option.  Same with OLB.  We have money invested there, I just don't see OLB as a necessary addition by way of our 1st round selection.  If it was, then why sign Walden and pay him a starter's salary?  I just don't think this is where Grigson is headed.

 

Again, Grigson, or any GM for that matter, has to factor BPA into the equation, but there are certain players they won't even consider because there is absolutely no need for them.  He could've had Kirk Cousins as a 2nd round guy, but felt that we would get better value with Allen in the 3rd.  Rest assured, we won't be using our 1st on a TE this year because he likely doesn't even consider any of them on his board at pick 1 or 3.

 

You can demand that I stop engaging you, but I most likely just keep reiterating point for point where I disagree.  We're not even watching the draft yet, and you've already determined that OLB is going to be the best player available at the time, when most are projected to go well ahead of us.  I've agreed that if the perfect OLB is there, we take him, but I just don't see that happening when other teams with pass rush needs are likely to take the best prospects before we get to them, as that is a premium position right now in the NFL.

 

End of it all, you're disregarding more of my points than I am of yours.  I can assure you that.  You stick to the reach of 15, and I have clarified time and again exactly what I mean.  One GM's reach is another GM's draft value.  There are 300+ prospects available to be drafted, are you telling me that every GM's board is identical?  Some have prospects with a 4th round grade, while others have the same prospects in the 6th or 2nd rounds.  A 15 point reach to one isn't a 15 point reach to another.

[chad72]

Must shorten posts

 

You need to type it like that keyboard in the movie Ghost

 

Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....

 

   

[BOTT]

You need to type it like that keyboard in the movie Ghost

 

Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....Must shorten posts....

 

   

I will never admit to watching Ghost. Now other Swayze classics such as Black Dog, Next of Kin and Roadhouse are golden......

[Tark The Shark]

I will never admit to watching Ghost. Now other Swayze classics such as Black Dog, Next of Kin and Roadhouse are golden......

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbAiY1ZF69U

[Mouthfire]

Not going to read the previous big mess of a discussion (don't have the time).  But here's my 2 cents.

 

This is one year that I would avoid picking a 1st round WR like the plague.  The strength of this year's WR class is in the middle rounds.  You could easily get a 2nd round talent in the 3rd or 4th round this year, since there isn't much of a talent drop at point in the draft.  That's where the value is.

 

I'd much rather spend our 1st round pick on offensive line, a pass-rusher, or cornerback.  Those positions are particularly top-heavy in this year's draft, and I'm not totally convinced that Thomas, Toler, or Walden were signed with intent of being permanent solutions (much like FA signees McGlynn and Justice weren't permanent solutions last year)

[indycrazy1887]

If he is there in the 3rd

why not take him in the first? he is one heck of a kid. highly underrated.

[Juanjo]

After the FA signings I think we can go BPA in the draft. BPA means BPA, if we have a WR high on the board, why not?

 

We can live with our current WR corps but Reggie is 34.

[indycrazy1887]

but seriously, everyone on here who is starting fights over intelligence and other ridiculous stuff like that needs to leave. to him, his own. everyone will have their own OPINION. nothing is fact. none of us are positions of importance, we need to stop our pointless bickering and just leave it be. anton and mvbighead, there is no reason to be arguing. anton please stop instigating issues that really arent a big deal. i cant remember who it was you and brian were fighting over an informed opinion about, but it just got to such an unbelievable point that i was shocked we all were rooting for the same team. were all brothers here on the forum. but if you have nothing nice to say then leave. and that goes for anyone!