Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

I dont know if thats dumb or genius haha 

 

I'm going with genius. But its not a terrible idea anyway. There will always be someone willing to take accommodation or tickets off your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

interesting, but i don't see him falling past 15, and I don't see the colts using the draft capital needed to move up to get him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Irish YJ said:

interesting, but i don't see him falling past 15, and I don't see the colts using the draft capital needed to move up to get him.

 

Mocks have him going between 15-20. If hes there at 18, colts can move up and still keep both second round picks. Draft calcutor shows the 18th pick is worth our 1st 3rd and 4th round picks which is not too steep and we can always trade down from 34 to get back a pick if we want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Mocks have him going between 15-20. If hes there at 18, colts can move up and still keep both second round picks. Draft calcutor shows the 18th pick is worth our 1st 3rd and 4th round picks which is not too steep and we can always trade down from 34 to get back a pick if we want to.

 

You say this as if it's just that simple and that your cost estimate is close to accurate.  Stop using the draft calculator as the be all, end all.  It is not.  I keep going back to what it cost the Saints to move up to 14 from 27.  They had to swap # 1's with the Packers last year and also give Green Bay a 5th rounder last year and a # 1 this year.  

 

To move up, that is the far more likely required compensation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jskinnz said:

 

You say this as if it's just that simple and that your cost estimate is close to accurate.  Stop using the draft calculator as the be all, end all.  It is not.  I keep going back to what it cost the Saints to move up to 14 from 27.  They had to swap # 1's with the Packers last year and also give Green Bay a 5th rounder last year and a # 1 this year.  

 

To move up, that is the far more likely required compensation.  

 

Thats 12 spots compared to 8 and moving to pick 15 compared to pick 18. That is two completely different scerinos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any team willing to trade back from the mid/late teens is going to wanna be well compensated or they'll just stay where they're at.

Plus I think it's very possible Burns gets taken by the Panthers or the Giants. They both could use an edge. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fisticuffs111 said:

I think any team willing to trade back from the mid/late teens is going to wanna be well compensated or they'll just stay where they're at.

Plus I think it's very possible Burns gets taken by the Panthers or the Giants. They both could use an edge. 

Feel the same way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Mocks have him going between 15-20. If hes there at 18, colts can move up and still keep both second round picks. Draft calcutor shows the 18th pick is worth our 1st 3rd and 4th round picks which is not too steep and we can always trade down from 34 to get back a pick if we want to.

last 4 or 5 mocks i saw from this week had him gong 6, 8, 11, and 14. CBSx2, SBN, SI, NFL.com

would like to have him, but i don't know if i'd part with a 3rd round pick + others. I just don't see it after picking Houston.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Irish YJ said:

last 4 or 5 mocks i saw from this week had him gong 6, 8, 11, and 14. CBSx2, SBN, SI, NFL.com

would like to have him, but i don't know if i'd part with a 3rd round pick + others. I just don't see it after picking Houston.

 

They also had Gary going in the twenties do you see that happening?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

They also had Gary going in the twenties do you see that happening?

 

 

I can see Gary dropping out of round 1 entirely, so yeah, 20s sounds good ;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PureLuck said:

 

I can see Gary dropping out of round 1 entirely, so yeah, 20s sounds good ;)

 

No way that happens. He has top 5 upside in this class...AND doesn't have any character or off-field red flags. Several teams will gamble on that.

 

If he does make it to #26...and Ballard passes on him...I would be shocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

They also had Gary going in the twenties do you see that happening?

 

i've only seen one mock of him outside the top 15. neither would shock me falling into the 20s, but i would be a bit surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Irish YJ said:

i've only seen one mock of him outside the top 15. neither would shock me falling into the 20s, but i would be a bit surprised.

 

You never know what happens in the draft. The draft we got Hooker, no one though he would drop to 15 because it was defense heavy draft and yet teams took offensive players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CR91 said:

 

You never know what happens in the draft. The draft we got Hooker, no one though he would drop to 15 because it was defense heavy draft and yet teams took offensive players

yup, there's always surprises. i do think gary and burns though have too high of upside, and too good of ratings, to fall far. i've seen Ferrell drop outside of 20 in a few too. 

 

every mock though has someone falling farther than you would think, and others shooting up. i just try to follow the trends across all of the different mock sources. one guy i've been raving about for a while is S Thornhill. Was a 4th round guy in early mock drafts, and now making his way into the 1st round in some mocks. CBs and Ss have been all over the place for the last month or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

You never know what happens in the draft. The draft we got Hooker, no one though he would drop to 15 because it was defense heavy draft and yet teams took offensive players

The only team that knows what could happen is the team with the #1 Pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PrincetonTiger said:

The only team that knows what could happen is the team with the #1 Pick

 

Very true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

I not use mocks to research players

 

Course not. I did my homework on Brian Burns before he was mentioned in the first round. Same with Darnell Savage who imo is the second best safety in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Course not. I did my homework on Brian Burns before he was mentioned in the first round. Same with Darnell Savage who imo is the second best safety in the draft.

Forgive me, but I am bit giddy over the latest WNBA Mock but meant to say that I only use Mocks to research players

 

  work working GIF by joonasjoonas

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PrincetonTiger said:

Forgive me, but I am bit giddy over the latest WNBA Mock but meant to say that I only use Mocks to research players

 

  new girl autocorrect GIF

 

I need to do my own research. I don't trust these so called "experts"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

I need to do my own research. I don't trust these so called "experts"

I revert back to coaching days and over prepare so use the mocks to narrow down the contenders

 

    I am doing the opposite right now to prepare for the WNBA Draft

       Instead of researching players I am researching teams that could draft Jackie Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure if this is true or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

Not sure if this is true or not

 

Makes sense. Surprised it hadn't happened sooner when there were reports of other RBs visiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are better off looking for a FA running back then one in the draft since we have 3 pretty good ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

I think we are better off looking for a FA running back then one in the draft since we have 3 pretty good ones.

Agree, Mack, Hines, Wilkins and Williams are solid. If they are looking for a short yardage bruiser they can definitely find one laying around in FA. 
Whats LeGarrette Blount up to? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RNGDShobby said:

Agree, Mack, Hines, Wilkins and Williams are solid. If they are looking for a short yardage bruiser they can definitely find one laying around in FA. 
Whats LeGarrette Blount up to? :D

Pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2019 at 4:17 PM, Chloe6124 said:

I think we are better off looking for a FA running back then one in the draft since we have 3 pretty good ones.

I also hope that they dont use an early 1 or 2 pick on a RB

 

However, if Montgomery is still on the board at round 3 (doubtful) I am grabbing him

If Snell is still on the board in round 4, I am grabbing him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

 

Can i borrow him next Saint Patricks day when i'm trying to get a beer from the bar?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 415

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • luckyBatistuta

      luckyBatistuta 109

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • el duderino

      el duderino 61

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • jmac_48

      jmac_48 400

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...