LT OR WR With The First Pick

[jrry32]

Frankly, if you want my opinion, I'd go OL much earlier than WR for a myriad of reasons if I were drafting.
#1 - I think the OL is more valuable
#2 - I think with the style of offense we run, we can have success with the WRs we currently have under contract...but not the OL
#3 - I have Matthews graded higher than Watkins...and Watkins and Robinson graded about equally
#4 - I am very good at identifying WR talent so it's easier for me to find a WR outside of Round 1 now and in the future
#5 - I want Bradford to be our guy and I think the OL is more important to his success than the WRs at this point

actually you're wrong dude - Kevin Demoff made these comments recently.

I respect the hell out of Kevin but he was mistaken. He said Alshon showed up 30 to 40 pounds overweight at the combine. Alshon checked into the combine at 213 pounds. Alshon was around 15-20 pounds heavier his junior season than what he's playing at now.

My Point is we don't need an LT - and I think it's a waste to spend a top 10 pick on any OL position but LT...

I'd like you to elaborate on this. Do the other positions on the OL not block? Do they not get on the field? Does the QB not get pressured by a LDE or LDT or RDT? Does the runningback not have to worry about defenders in any gap but the LT's?

So how is it a waste of a pick? Was Bruce Matthews a waste of a pick? Was John Hannah a waste of a pick?

 

[iced]

Frankly, if you want my opinion, I'd go OL much earlier than WR for a myriad of reasons if I were drafting.
#1 - I think the OL is more valuable
#2 - I think with the style of offense we run, we can have success with the WRs we currently have under contract...but not the OL
#3 - I have Matthews graded higher than Watkins...and Watkins and Robinson graded about equally
#4 - I am very good at identifying WR talent so it's easier for me to find a WR outside of Round 1 now and in the future
#5 - I want Bradford to be our guy and I think the OL is more important to his success than the WRs at this point



I respect the hell out of Kevin but he was mistaken. He said Alshon showed up 30 to 40 pounds overweight at the combine. Alshon checked into the combine at 213 pounds. Alshon was around 15-20 pounds heavier his junior season than what he's playing at now.



I'd like you to elaborate on this. Do the other positions on the OL not block? Do they not get on the field? Does the QB not get pressured by a LDE or LDT or RDT? Does the runningback not have to worry about defenders in any gap but the LT's?

So how is it a waste of a pick? Was Bruce Matthews a waste of a pick? Was John Hannah a waste of a pick?

It's not a premium pick - why take something earlier that you can get later?

Go look at where most of the "best guards" from each draft have gone. Majority of them have gone in the 15-28'ish area, not top 10 or top 5. G/C/RT is not a premium position in the NFL, like a LT, a #1 WR, a Franchise QB, etc.


That's cool with your grading - I have my own scale and of hits and misses... I had Keenan Allen and Hopkins as the two most pro ready from their drafts and was screaming for allen in the 3rd, or for a trade up in the 2nd... was right about Justin Smith, and especially Jimmy Clausen (only person that said he wasn't a first round pick prior to the draft and that he would probably be a bust.)

 

[BigRamFan]

Smart man. Bradford has a career QB rating of 79 (QBR of 40) in 49 games and has completed less than 60% of his passes. He has turned the ball over 56 times compared to 59 TDs and averages less than 6.3 yards per completion. Add in the fact he is under the old CBA and costs 17 million a year and has been hurt and mediocre for the good part of 4 seasons with spurts of good and you guys are primed to grab his replacement and move on.

Pretty easy to google "Sam Bradford Stats" and throw this nonsense out there. If you truly want to have this conversation dig a little deeper and once you have been able to ascertain the cause of this effect stop back by.

 

[Ramifications]

It's not a premium pick - why take something earlier that you can get later?

Go look at where most of the "best guards" from each draft have gone. Majority of them have gone in the 15-28'ish area, not top 10 or top 5. G/C/RT is not a premium position in the NFL, like a LT, a #1 WR, a Franchise QB, etc.


That's cool with your grading - I have my own scale and of hits and misses... I had Keenan Allen and Hopkins as the two most pro ready from their drafts and was screaming for allen in the 3rd, or for a trade up in the 2nd... was right about Justin Smith, and especially Jimmy Clausen (only person that said he wasn't a first round pick prior to the draft and that he would probably be a bust.)

You just answered your own question, you could get Jeffery in the mid-second. But maybe you weren't high on him because you thought he was an ILB-like 253 lbs. (213 lbs. + 40 lbs.)? Or did you think he gained 40 lbs. from 173 lbs. (213 lbs. - 40 lbs.)? That would have made former PHI stick figure Todd Pinkston look like circa blowed up David Boston in comparison. Where did you get the 40 lbs. from anyways, are you just repeating what somebody else said? If so, that may not be the best basis on which to correct somebody and say they are mistakenly employing "hindsight". If you did ever see him, hard to see how anybody could think he was ever either extreme of 253 lbs. or 173 lbs. (what he would have needed to weigh to be 40 lbs. away from 213 lbs. in either direction).

We all make mistakes, if you ever catch me saying Todd Pinkston is as big as a sumo wrestler, I'll fess up and say nice catch. Why not just concede the point, it won't send the rest of your argument crumbling to its foundations. At least not by itself, as a standalone point, if the pillars that it rests on are secure. Lets pound on them and test them a little more. It could be a public service, lest it fall on our heads at the first below (ie- Bradford injury due to inadequate blocking).

On some things, say a factual level, you were unambiguously wrong about Jeffery's Combine weight. On other matters, like was Patterson a good pick or not, that is more a matter of interpretation. Neither of us could really be "mistaken" in this case, we are speaking to our own subjective taste. You wanted a better route runner than Patterson for a late first pick, despite him having 9 TDs in just five starts. If he had started the whole season like Hopkins, he probably has 10-12 TDs. Again, what would it have taken to get your attention and concede he could be a future star. 15 TDs? 20 TDs? Randy Moss has the rookie record with 17.

You say guard isn't a premium position, and than concede LT is... which, oddly enough, happens to be Robinson's natural position. It's like saying Watkins isn't a good pick because he is a FB. Was Hall of Famer Jonathan Ogden a bad pick because he was a "guard". That is the position that he began his NFL career at, even though everybody knew he was a future OT. If you had followed the Ravens at the time, would you have said you don't want him, repeatedly stating like a mantra guard isn't a premium position.

Robinson straddles the twin misguided criticisms that he is "just a guard" or he won't play LT immediately. He isn't "just a guard", any more than Ogden was "just a guard". Do you think Ogden was "just a guard"? If not, why repeatly state something you know isn't the case? Like Ogden, he is an OT that could begin his career inside.

People who say he won't play LT immediately (though they implicitly grasp the point that, like Ogden, he isn't "just a guard") are "more right" by default for acknowledging his natural position (much better feet, athleticism and explosiveness for a big man than if he was "just a guard), but still missing the point he could be a Pro Bowl guard in the interim.

 

[iced]

You just answered your own question, you could get Jeffery in the mid-second. But maybe you weren't high on him because you thought he was an ILB-like 253 lbs. (213 lbs. + 40 lbs.)? Or did you think he gained 40 lbs. from 173 lbs. (213 lbs. - 40 lbs.)? That would have made former PHI stick figure Todd Pinkston look like circa blowed up David Boston in comparison. Where did you get the 40 lbs. from anyways, are you just repeating what somebody else said?

On some things, say a factual level, you were unambiguously wrong about Jeffery's Combine weight

Clearly you aren't reading all of my posts otherwise you would have never even asked this.

Person "I was repeating" happens to be in the Rams draft room - which is someone I'll give way more credence too vs someone on this board. Of course I'm going to go with the opinion of a Front office member over a speculator.

You say guard isn't a premium position, and than concede LT is... which, oddly enough, happens to be Robinson's natural position. It's like saying Watkins isn't a good pick because he is a FB. Was Hall of Famer Jonathan Ogden a bad pick because he was a "guard". That is the position that he began his NFL career at, even though everybody knew he was a future OT. If you had followed the Ravens at the time, would you have said you don't want him, repeatedly stating like a mantra guard isn't a premium position.

Lol so you take one of the few players that are exceptions to the rule and pass it off like the 'norm?

Hey, let's just only sign UDFA Qb's that were prior grocery store clerks - i mean cause you never know right?

To Patterson - you're twisting my words. I never said he was a bad pick or bad receiver - I'm just not blowing him up in the manner that you are based off a rookie year. Yea he's good play maker - but did he show the same skills as a receiver like a Keenan Allen? Hell no.... and I never gave an opinion on Jeffrey - not sure where why you guys are reaching for that.

We have a play maker with better route running skills in Tavon - now get him an actual receiver that an attract attention on the outside and we're set.

I don't care if we go after a guard/tackle toward the end of the 1st or even the later rounds (Which is where you predominantly find interior lineman) - I'm not just set for it at the top of the draft with better prospects (like watkins) available...especially since we have an LT and we're severely lacking a #1 WR, it's not the other way around.

 

[DR RAM]

I would go O line. To complete in the division the Rams are going to have to control the line of scrimmage. If they can't do that Wr won't matter.

I picked Robinson, because he could be a beast at guard, and then eventually be a very talented starter at tackle. He could even start at tackle if Long is not ready. Thinking long term.

 

[jrry32]

It's not a premium pick - why take something earlier that you can get later?

I can find any position later on. You take it earlier because it increases the likelihood you select a great player. I don't consider WR a premium pick either.

That's cool with your grading - I have my own scale and of hits and misses... I had Keenan Allen and Hopkins as the two most pro ready from their drafts and was screaming for allen in the 3rd, or for a trade up in the 2nd... was right about Justin Smith, and especially Jimmy Clausen (only person that said he wasn't a first round pick prior to the draft and that he would probably be a bust.)

I hated Clausen but I didn't go as far to say he'd bust. I believe the comparison I used was a Rex Grossman-Jay Cutler hybrid without the arm strength. But that was a while ago and I was only a young pup evaluator.

 

[DR RAM]

I can find any position later on. You take it earlier because it increases the likelihood you select a great player. I don't consider WR a premium pick either.



I hated Clausen but I didn't go as far to say he'd bust. I believe the comparison I used was a Rex Grossman-Jay Cutler hybrid without the arm strength. But that was a while ago and I was only a young pup evaluator.

I thought, said at the time, that he wouldn't be a very good player. He had too many tells in his game, and his 3rd down completion rate was one of the worst in college football. I'm not a stats guy, but that stat means a lot in my book. What does Clausen have to do with any of this?

 

[iced]

I can find any position later on. You take it earlier because it increases the likelihood you select a great player. I don't consider WR a premium pick either.

I think there's a group of "premium" positions - guys that are crucial to your team and you gotta have them on your roster, or atleast that is a common theme.. LT's, Qb's, WR's, DE, Rare Pass rushing DT (sapp, suh,ngata, etc.), MLB

I hated Clausen but I didn't go as far to say he'd bust. I believe the comparison I used was a Rex Grossman-Jay Cutler hybrid without the arm strength. But that was a while ago and I was only a young pup evaluator.

I don't know - for some reason with him I knew he'd flounder...kinda like when you're playing poker and before you even look at your cards, you just got this feeling you gotta hit somethin big... an instinct... That's how it was with Clausen - and oh man, do I remember some battles over that lol..Especially with Ramzee - good times lol

 

[Boffo97]

One of the main criticisms of Jason Smith back in the day was that he end up at RT and a RT should never go at #2 overall.

(Even though he was drafted to be LT after sitting for a year behind Barron, then Saffold performed well the next year when Smith got injured. I don't blame Devaney for Smith, since there was no one worthy of the pick that really panned out. The closest is Crabtree, and that pick would have been very scrutinized as a reach.)

Since our plans are to have Long be LT this next year, I would be hesitant to take an OT at #2. Later on, sure. But not #2.

They'll trade. And if they absolutely couldn't trade, I'd go with Watkins if they think he can be the #1 guy we're lacking. We'd have some dangerous weapons out there then.

 

[Ramifications]

One of the main criticisms of Jason Smith back in the day was that he end up at RT and a RT should never go at #2 overall.

(Even though he was drafted to be LT after sitting for a year behind Barron, then Saffold performed well the next year when Smith got injured. I don't blame Devaney for Smith, since there was no one worthy of the pick that really panned out. The closest is Crabtree, and that pick would have been very scrutinized as a reach.)

Since our plans are to have Long be LT this next year, I would be hesitant to take an OT at #2. Later on, sure. But not #2.

They'll trade. And if they absolutely couldn't trade, I'd go with Watkins if they think he can be the #1 guy we're lacking. We'd have some dangerous weapons out there then.

On paper than, the Ogden pick wouldn't make sense, because you don't take a guard that high (1.4).

Just saying we shouldn't categorically rule it out based on that kind of rationale.

I know you know this, but because Smith busted, doesn't mean Robinson will. I agree with you about the Crabtree bit.

Break it down this way. If we didn't have Long and Robinson was projected to start at LT immediately, and he busts, it is just as bad as if he was slated to play RT for a year.

If he plays guard for a year, maybe RT in 2015, Long breaks down earlier than we are accounting for, and he is a stud, it is a great pick.

What happened to Smith, and which position he may or may not be slated to play, could be independent of whether Robinson busts or not. Maybe you are referring to his lack of experience in pass pro due to scheme. My feeling about that, is if the STL scouts project him to be better at pass pro than Smith was and not likely to bust on that basis, and if he grades out similarly to Watkins, Matthews, etc., than I sign off on that pick. Wasn't Smith a TE conversion, and relatively new to the position. If so, it may be unfair to link Robinson with him, and his chances for busting. Also, he had multiple concussions I think, which couldn't have helped his career.

 

[Boffo97]

On paper than, the Ogden pick wouldn't make sense, because you don't take a guard that high (1.4).

Just saying we shouldn't categorically rule it out based on that kind of rationale.

I know you know this, but because Smith busted, doesn't mean Robinson will. I agree with you about the Crabtree bit.

Break it down this way. If we didn't have Long and Robinson was projected to start at LT immediately, and he busts, it is just as bad as if he was slated to play RT for a year.

If he plays guard for a year, maybe RT in 2015, Long breaks down earlier than we are accounting for, and he is a stud, it is a great pick.

What happened to Smith, and which position he may or may not be slated to play, could be independent of whether Robinson busts or not. Maybe you are referring to his lack of experience in pass pro due to scheme. My feeling about that, is if the STL scouts project him to be better at pass pro than Smith was and not likely to bust on that basis, and if he grades out similarly to Watkins, Matthews, etc., than I sign off on that pick. Wasn't Smith a TE conversion, and relatively new to the position. If so, it may be unfair to link Robinson with him, and his chances for busting. Also, he had multiple concussions I think, which couldn't have helped his career.

I quite agree that a "Don't take Robinson because Smith busted" argument is just as silly as some of the "Don't take Brockers because Jimmy Kennedy busted" arguments I saw (thankfully rarely) out there. I was only referring to the idea that people said that having a #2 overall pick playing RT automatically made him a bust.

If the Rams think he's the best option available and they're not confident about Long long-term (pardon the pun), then I wouldn't go start a coup against Rams management for taking him.

I'm only saying that if those special circumstances don't exist, then you should only take a tackle that high if you're absolutely expecting him to be your LT of the future. The contract Long signed, while not as bad as it could have been, seems to indicate he's the LT of at least the immediate future. How Long's doing physically in May will also play into this decision.

 

[iced]

On paper than, the Ogden pick wouldn't make sense, because you don't take a guard that high (1.4).

Ogden was not a guard in college - he was a tackle. He played guard only his rookie year before moving to LT. The ravens clearly had a plan for him at LT; was there in his 2nd year - I sincerely doubt the Rams are going to draft a tackle and cut ties with Jake Long next year. That's not drafting a player to be a guard - that's breaking him slowly year 1 in to make sure he's ready for LT in year 2...

 

[Thordaddy]

I think a lot depends on whether your GM and coaches are good at evaluating the position. We've drafted some tackles in the first round who weren't worth the pick ,IMO we have coaches and FO people NOW who are the most competent we've had in a good while ,if they draft a tackle I'd expect it was a good move.
It's been a long dry spell since we had a franchise tackle like Pace ,it's time.

 

[Ramifications]

Clearly you aren't reading all of my posts otherwise you would have never even asked this.

Person "I was repeating" happens to be in the Rams draft room - which is someone I'll give way more credence too vs someone on this board. Of course I'm going to go with the opinion of a Front office member over a speculator.



Lol so you take one of the few players that are exceptions to the rule and pass it off like the 'norm?

Hey, let's just only sign UDFA Qb's that were prior grocery store clerks - i mean cause you never know right?

To Patterson - you're twisting my words. I never said he was a bad pick or bad receiver - I'm just not blowing him up in the manner that you are based off a rookie year. Yea he's good play maker - but did he show the same skills as a receiver like a Keenan Allen? Hell no.... and I never gave an opinion on Jeffrey - not sure where why you guys are reaching for that.

We have a play maker with better route running skills in Tavon - now get him an actual receiver that an attract attention on the outside and we're set.

I don't care if we go after a guard/tackle toward the end of the 1st or even the later rounds (Which is where you predominantly find interior lineman) - I'm not just set for it at the top of the draft with better prospects (like watkins) available...especially since we have an LT and we're severely lacking a #1 WR, it's not the other way around.

I have no idea why you are being so dense and obtuse on the Jeffery Combine weight point?

You said Demoff said he "showed up" 30-40 lbs. overweight. Showed up where? The Combine? I've mentioned this, and you didn't correct it, so I assume that is what you meant Demoff meant.

I did read your posts (not every post you have had in your history on the board, but in the thread). His weight is a matter of public record, that you can reference yourself. He was actually 213 lbs. at his Pro Day, 216 lbs. at the earlier Combine. It doesn't HAVE to be a matter of "giving way more credence to" a front office member vs. a mssg board poster. or taking their word as the Gospel truth and automatically disbelieving a "speculator" about. Just look it up. Since you refuse to, here ya go. Three different sources. Find a dozen. Find a hundred. It will be the same answer. Unless you think this is a secret Illuminati, Free Mason internet conspiracy to keep the front office member and you in the dark, than he is wrong, and you are for regurgitating back nonsense. It doesn't matter if the Pope or Obama said it, they are wrong. You can also use logic and reason to piece this together, especially when it is spelled out to you numerous times, that he LOST 15-20 lbs., didn't GAIN 30-40 lbs. To gain 40 lbs. to get to 216 lbs., he would have had to start at 176 lbs. That is about what Tavon Austin weighs, and he is close to a half foot shorter. He reportedly weighed around 230-235 lbs. as a junior. That is about 60 lbs. apart??? Or if you go in the other direction, add 40 lbs. to his listed Combine weight that yields 256 lbs. If you add 40 lbs. to 230-235 lbs. (his reported junior season weight), that would make 270-275 lbs. Was Jeffery ever 255 lbs or 275 lbs. at the Combine? If Demoff says the Earth is flat, or the moon landing didn't happen, or NORAD is actually a secret facility where the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, Elvis, JFK and Jimmy Hoffa make magical lollipops, jelly beans and rainbows, and it is scientifically proven and documented that they are the source of these things... he would be wrong, and so would anybody who repeats him.

http://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?f=Alshon&l=Jeffery&i=9781

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=89640&draftyear=2012&genpos=WR

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...results-alshon-jeffery-and-more-early-winners

You have a predictable, mechanistic, reflexive debate technique of answering questions with questions, refusing to anwer questions, changing the subject or distorting the original question to an unrecognizable straw man charicature and clumsy, ham handed, ill conceived parody of the original position. I asked if Ogden was a good move. I didn't say it was the norm. We can address that later. Or don't answer it, but don't misrepresent my position by saying I implied it was "the norm", that is a separate discussion. Obviously, anything having to do with a Hall of Famer likely won't fall into the "norm", we knew that already.

Perhaps you have a reading comprehension issue. This is the passage you were quoting from.

"On other matters, like was Patterson a good pick or not, that is more a matter of interpretation. Neither of us could really be "mistaken" in this case, we are speaking to our own subjective taste. You wanted a better route runner than Patterson for a late first pick, despite him having 9 TDs in just five starts. If he had started the whole season like Hopkins, he probably has 10-12 TDs. Again, what would it have taken to get your attention and concede he could be a future star. 15 TDs? 20 TDs? Randy Moss has the rookie record with 17."

Did I say you said he was a bad WR, I said you questioned his routes. Is that not your position, as well as you would not have picked him (see below)?

"I'm not saying he sucks or he's garbage - but for what he does as a first round receiver for the position he's supposed to fill, I'd want more of a route runner.."

So now you are twisting my words saying I twisted yours. That is meta-twisted dude, you are wrong, that is like an Escher landscape illustrating a Borges story.

You keep saying I'm blowing Patterson up. Yet you keep dodging the question. He had NINE TDs in five starts. If he starts 16, he probably gets 10-12 TDs. HOW MANY TDs WOULD IT TAKE TO OVERLOOK ROUTE CONCERNS? TWENTY TDs? THIRTY TDS? MORE? Keep in mind, Moss has the record with 17. He was a JUCO transfer that was one and done at Tennessee, of course he doesn't run masterful routes like a technician. You like a high floor guy in Hopkins, I acknowledge he has a high floor. But what is 10-12 TDs (if not starting five games) if not a pretty high floor. And his ceiling is much higher. But again, if you reread what I actually said, not your misrepresented grotesque, I said neither of us could be wrong. Let me repeat that. I said neither of us could be wrong, BECAUSE it was a matter of interpretation and subjective taste.

Most of what we have talked about Jeffery is how you are mistaken about his weight, and whether he GAINED OR LOST weight, and HOW MUCH. You said a few times I didn't say I didn't like him, I responded you haven't said anything other than be critical of weight (allusion to work ethic also, without looking it up or quoting verbatim), so that wasn't exactly a glowing apparaisal. I invited you to say something positive, you declined. We already went through that, I'm not reaching for anything, another misrepresentation.

You conclude with this... I'll quote you so I don't "twist your words." I wouldn't want to do that (eyes roll).

"I don't care if we go after a guard/tackle toward the end of the 1st or even the later rounds (Which is where you predominantly find interior lineman) - I'm not just set for it at the top of the draft with better prospects (like watkins) available...especially since we have an LT and we're severely lacking a #1 WR, it's not the other way around."

Again with the Jake Long will play LT for perpetuity, won't have injuries (even though he has more often than not in recent years), the miracle of modern medicine (maybe we can bionically rebuild him?) means Robinson won't play LT for many years. You just heckled me for not knowing how the boards are stacked in another thread. Which is it, Mr. Pot calling the kettle black, how can you know Watkins is a better prospect if I can't know Robinson is as good a prospect. We have to throw out all scouting information, right? Or you scouted Watkins? Well I scouted Robinson. We have a LT, if another body part doesn't explode, which means we don't know whether we do or not. We could use a RT in a year. We could use a guard now. That kind of versatility isn't a bad thing. I realize you aren't set for it. I'm not set for Bradford getting hurt, the front office and coaching staff giving up on him, and we have to hit the reset button on the position, setting us back another 2-3 years... unless the next QB gets hurt, too (so now are we set back 4-6 years?), behind an OL that is lousy because we didn't shore it up and plan for the future with an infusion of talent and youth, and which Jake Long may no longer even be a part of because he will at that time be in his 30s, and his recent injury history is alarming and disturbing.

Bradford was projecting for 33 TDs, closer to 40 without all the drops and penalties. DESPITE all the handicaps, not having Stacy the first month, Cook being new, Austin a rookie, not having an INTERIM guard as good as Robinson. You keep dodging this point, too. How many passing TDs do you need to have in order to acknowledge maybe our receiving weapons aren't as bad as you think (if I say bashing, you will say I didn't say that, so I phrased it that way)? It is like dodging the Patterson question (Would he have needed to get 20-30 TDs as a rookie before you would concede he might be better and have higher upside than Hopkins?). Does Bradford need to get 50 passing TDs? 60 TDs?

 

[jrry32]

I think there's a group of "premium" positions - guys that are crucial to your team and you gotta have them on your roster, or atleast that is a common theme.. LT's, Qb's, WR's, DE, Rare Pass rushing DT (sapp, suh,ngata, etc.), MLB

The only position I see as premium positions are QBs and pass rushers(counting interior DLs). LTs are given premium treatment due to scarcity. The rest, I don't consider them to be premium positions. Consider them all to be about equally important.(I'm talking about full time positions...obviously, part time positions like SLB, slot CB, FB, etc. are downgraded).

I don't know - for some reason with him I knew he'd flounder...kinda like when you're playing poker and before you even look at your cards, you just got this feeling you gotta hit somethin big... an instinct... That's how it was with Clausen - and oh man, do I remember some battles over that lol..Especially with Ramzee - good times lol

Oh yea, I remember. I had just joined RRF and was pretty new to evaluating and got into some heated arguments with PaRamfan, Dieter and Ramzee because I couldn't stand the thought of drafting Clausen. Wanted Bradford or a trade down or Suh.(Bradford most of all)

 

[jrry32]

I thought, said at the time, that he wouldn't be a very good player. He had too many tells in his game, and his 3rd down completion rate was one of the worst in college football. I'm not a stats guy, but that stat means a lot in my book. What does Clausen have to do with any of this?

No idea.

Ramifications, chill man, chill. You guys need to simmer down or things will get too heated.

 

[RamFan503]

Am I the only one who views draft position as somewhat of a side story now? I realize that if there are certain players that are going to go to a certain team then you may want to trade up or down to get him. But if you are sitting there at 13 for example, and a guard projected to go 25th but fills your criteria is sitting there while your phone remains silent, do you let him go to another team because you simply don't want to reach for him? Personally, I don't care that LTs are supposedly worth more than a guard for example. If the crossroads of BPA and need meet - they meet. And look at the bright side. You just got the best guard you could get for your team and his cap hit won't be as big as a LT on his next contract unless he is a super stud.

Get the most impactful players for your team.

 

[iced]

I have no idea why you are being so dense and obtuse on the Jeffery Combine weight point?

You said Demoff said he "showed up" 30-40 lbs. overweight. Showed up where? The Combine? I've mentioned this, and you didn't correct it, so I assume that is what you meant Demoff meant.

I did read your posts (not every post you have had in your history on the board, but in the thread). His weight is a matter of public record, that you can reference yourself. He was actually 213 lbs. at his Pro Day, 216 lbs. at the earlier Combine. It doesn't HAVE to be a matter of "giving way more credence to" a front office member vs. a mssg board poster. or taking their word as the Gospel truth and automatically disbelieving a "speculator" about. Just look it up. Since you refuse to, here ya go. Three different sources. Find a dozen. Find a hundred. It will be the same answer. Unless you think this is a secret Illuminati, Free Mason internet conspiracy to keep the front office member and you in the dark, than he is wrong, and you are for regurgitating back nonsense. It doesn't matter if the Pope or Obama said it, they are wrong. You can also use logic and reason to piece this together, especially when it is spelled out to you numerous times, that he LOST 15-20 lbs., didn't GAIN 30-40 lbs. To gain 40 lbs. to get to 216 lbs., he would have had to start at 176 lbs. That is about what Tavon Austin weighs, and he is close to a half foot shorter. He reportedly weighed around 230-235 lbs. as a junior. That is about 60 lbs. apart??? Or if you go in the other direction, add 40 lbs. to his listed Combine weight that yields 256 lbs. If you add 40 lbs. to 230-235 lbs. (his reported junior season weight), that would make 270-275 lbs. Was Jeffery ever 255 lbs or 275 lbs. at the Combine? If Demoff says the Earth is flat, or the moon landing didn't happen, or NORAD is actually a secret facility where the Loch Ness monster, Big Foot, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, tooth fairy, Elvis, JFK and Jimmy Hoffa make magical lollipops, jelly beans and rainbows, and it is scientifically proven and documented that they are the source of these things... he would be wrong, and so would anybody who repeats him.

http://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?f=Alshon&l=Jeffery&i=9781

http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=89640&draftyear=2012&genpos=WR

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...results-alshon-jeffery-and-more-early-winners

Lol - I don't get it. You claim I'm hung up on the weight thing but yet I'm just regurgitating why Demoff/Snead (whichever) said about him.. Work ethic, and weight.. They mentioned being overweight, and I don't know where/when/how/why he was overweight. But it ain't just coming from our front office.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1119115-2012-nfl-mock-daft-the-mystery-of-alshon-jeffery

http://www.garnetandblackattack.com...ery-making-sense-of-what-just-happened-to-him

All I have been saying about that - is stop playing the hindsight card. You've been doing it over and over - which is kind of funny because you act like I'm fixated on this one player while saying that I answer questions with questions?

I didn't realize "you're just playing the hindsight card" was a question - nor was stating that you can look up any player at any position and find one who had been drafted at a different round.

You have a predictable, mechanistic, reflexive debate technique of answering questions with questions, refusing to anwer questions, changing the subject or distorting the original question to an unrecognizable straw man charicature and clumsy, ham handed, ill conceived parody of the original position. I asked if Ogden was a good move. I didn't say it was the norm. We can address that later. Or don't answer it, but don't misrepresent my position by saying I implied it was "the norm", that is a separate discussion. Obviously, anything having to do with a Hall of Famer likely won't fall into the "norm", we knew that already.

Oh please - don't even act like you were trying to use him as an example ( and poor one at that. ) yes, he was a guard - you kept making it sound like it was known he was a guard only, and that the only plans the ravens for him were on the interior..and somehow, you're trying to make that connection with robinson and jake long.

Wow man, you're a trip. You don't need to get offensive and become a prick because I disagree with your poor analogy.

You talk about not answering questions or duck and dodging and I see you did just that with my last post.

"On other matters, like was Patterson a good pick or not, that is more a matter of interpretation. Neither of us could really be "mistaken" in this case, we are speaking to our own subjective taste. You wanted a better route runner than Patterson for a late first pick, despite him having 9 TDs in just five starts. If he had started the whole season like Hopkins, he probably has 10-12 TDs. Again, what would it have taken to get your attention and concede he could be a future star. 15 TDs? 20 TDs? Randy Moss has the rookie record with 17."

Did I say you said he was a bad WR, I said you questioned his routes. Is that not your position, as well as you would not have picked him (see below)?

"I'm not saying he sucks or he's garbage - but for what he does as a first round receiver for the position he's supposed to fill, I'd want more of a route runner.."

So now you are twisting my words saying I twisted yours. That is meta-twisted dude, you are wrong, that is like an Escher landscape illustrating a Borges story.

I didn't mean twisted as much as interpretation - look at what Patterson does as an actual receiver, that's what I'm talking about. he's a guy thats supposed to start outwide. I'd want a more polished product in route running but that's just my opinion.

You keep saying I'm blowing Patterson up. Yet you keep dodging the question. He had NINE TDs in five starts. If he starts 16, he probably gets 10-12 TDs. HOW MANY TDs WOULD IT TAKE TO OVERLOOK ROUTE CONCERNS? TWENTY TDs? THIRTY TDS? MORE? Keep in mind, Moss has the record with 17. He was a JUCO transfer that was one and done at Tennessee, of course he doesn't run masterful routes like a technician. You like a high floor guy in Hopkins, I acknowledge he has a high floor. But what is 10-12 TDs (if not starting five games) if not a pretty high floor. And his ceiling is much higher. But again, if you reread what I actually said, not your misrepresented grotesque, I said neither of us could be wrong. Let me repeat that. I said neither of us could be wrong, BECAUSE it was a matter of interpretation and subjective taste.

Most of what we have talked about Jeffery is how you are mistaken about his weight, and whether he GAINED OR LOST weight, and HOW MUCH. You said a few times I didn't say I didn't like him, I responded you haven't said anything other than be critical of weight (allusion to work ethic also, without looking it up or quoting verbatim), so that wasn't exactly a glowing apparaisal. I invited you to say something positive, you declined. We already went through that, I'm not reaching for anything, another misrepresentation.

You conclude with this... I'll quote you so I don't "twist your words." I wouldn't want to do that (eyes roll).

4 receiving td's, 3 rushing, 2 returning kicks. He was active for all 16 games and had atleast 1 catch in every game, so I don't know where this "If he starts 16" crap comes from.

And it seems no matter how many times I've said 'i like more of a route runner' , you treat as if i'm coming across that my opinion is all knowing and the only true right one. Get over yourself man - I haven't come close to anything like that all.

And actually, I did respond to the Jeffrey thing. If you had read the article I listed (as well as the other two in this post), you will find that they have links to a picture that stirred the controversy and other concerns - did you ever read it? I'm betting not.

I think you're just trying to make an argument that isn't there at this point. I've never said Patterson sucked as a receiver or anything in that regard - I just don't think nearly as highly as you do about him... guess that justifies you're misquoting me and coming back with a complete prick'ish attitude right?

"I don't care if we go after a guard/tackle toward the end of the 1st or even the later rounds (Which is where you predominantly find interior lineman) - I'm not just set for it at the top of the draft with better prospects (like watkins) available...especially since we have an LT and we're severely lacking a #1 WR, it's not the other way around."

Again with the Jake Long will play LT for perpetuity, won't have injuries (even though he has more often than not in recent years), the miracle of modern medicine (maybe we can bionically rebuild him?) means Robinson won't play LT for many years. You just heckled me for not knowing how the boards are stacked in another thread. Which is it, Mr. Pot calling the kettle black, how can you know Watkins is a better prospect if I can't know Robinson is as good a prospect. We have to throw out all scouting information, right? Or you scouted Watkins? Well I scouted Robinson. We have a LT, if another body part doesn't explode, which means we don't know whether we do or not. We could use a RT in a year. We could use a guard now. That kind of versatility isn't a bad thing. I realize you aren't set for it. I'm not set for Bradford getting hurt, the front office and coaching staff giving up on him, and we have to hit the reset button on the position, setting us back another 2-3 years... unless the next QB gets hurt, too (so now are we set back 4-6 years?), behind an OL that is lousy because we didn't shore it up and plan for the future with an infusion of talent and youth, and which Jake Long may no longer even be a part of because he will at that time be in his 30s, and his recent injury history is alarming and disturbing.

Lol what the hell. You're the one that said Watkins and Matthews graded out evenly - which I disagree with, but you say it as if it were matter of fact. Of course now you're going to reaching mode, trying to insinuate that I said Watkins is better or grades anywhere near robinson. Try not making this personal, and maybe you won't get so hostile over it.

But hey continue with your crazy what if scenario's - of course i'm being accused of ducking and dodging yet you ignored the adrian peterson remark..gee, wonder why... what were you saying about pot meeting kettle again?

Bradford was projecting for 33 TDs, closer to 40 without all the drops and penalties. DESPITE all the handicaps, not having Stacy the first month, Cook being new, Austin a rookie, not having an INTERIM guard as good as Robinson. You keep dodging this point, too. How many passing TDs do you need to have in order to acknowledge maybe our receiving weapons aren't as bad as you think (if I say bashing, you will say I didn't say that, so I phrased it that way)? It is like dodging the Patterson question (Would he have needed to get 20-30 TDs as a rookie before you would concede he might be better and have higher upside than Hopkins?). Does Bradford need to get 50 passing TDs? 60 TDs?

Lmao. I'm pretty sure our WR core is bad on it's own and Bradford made that very apparent with the constant drops. You do understand the team was LEADING THE NFL in DROPS through the first 5-7 games - And ended up still ranking #7 overall with a run first mind set..a tight end lead the team in receiving...

Bradford was doing a lot more with a little - and he had a great 1/2 year. I'd love to see him with an actual weapon that defenses will actually respect.

Since apparently reading comprehension is a struggle of yours, I bolded out the important part

 

[jrry32]

Am I the only one who views draft position as somewhat of a side story now? I realize that if there are certain players that are going to go to a certain team then you may want to trade up or down to get him. But if you are sitting there at 13 for example, and a guard projected to go 25th but fills your criteria is sitting there while your phone remains silent, do you let him go to another team because you simply don't want to reach for him? Personally, I don't care that LTs are supposedly worth more than a guard for example. If the crossroads of BPA and need meet - they meet. And look at the bright side. You just got the best guard you could get for your team and his cap hit won't be as big as a LT on his next contract unless he is a super stud.

Get the most impactful players for your team.

If that Guard is on the top of your board, you take him and you don't think twice about it. Gotta have confidence in your evaluations. Nobody will care in 3 years if you drafted a guard in the first round if the guy is a quality starter. The key to drafting is to come away with quality players...because around 40-60% of teams in the first round in any given year do not.