Lol @ pats and eagles swapping 193/194 for nothing. I half-wonder if they did it in order to see if the league would approve it.
Printable View
Lol @ pats and eagles swapping 193/194 for nothing. I half-wonder if they did it in order to see if the league would approve it.
or maybe they really just did do it to fuck with everyone and/or keep their trading streak alive. who knows. It's yet another thing I could see myself doing, then laughing at how everyone got so damn confused about it
Pure strategy imo
find myself torn on the Texans draft
I think they filled some needs but I'm not exactly impressed by the players. However I think this draft sucked talent wise so I can't blame them too much.
wow, long ass response got eaten by internet goblins.
cliffnotes: big reasons for pats being so good at picking up future picks are 1) belichick's job security- he's one of the few coaches in the nfl who can afford to not be retardedly "now" sighted. the overreactive tendency in sports (esp. football) just doesn't lend to many organizations investing in the future properly. 2) the rich get richer, the poor get poor- once a team gets ahead of the game, they can perpetuate it by trading for next year frequently and still having their board look awesome (had a more thorough explanation of this in other post)
not that it should matter because i was simply making fun of the fact that we were stating HOW YOU GONNA STOP NATE BURLESON, which is funny to me, but i'm a cowboys fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roid_Rage
our third WR (roy williams) >>>>>>>> your third WR (burleson)
I agree with 1.. job security is definitely a big part of it. 2... maybe some people look at it that way; I certainly don't. Draft currency in the modern NFL is such current picks are ~= to a future pick, plus 1 round. So a current 2 equals next year's 1, current 3 equals next year's 2, etc. Of course that's not exact but it's approximate. That type of logic is severely flawed and invariably it leads to your team simply having less talent over time. I mean, the idea of a team trading their current 2 AND future 1st (which could be anywhere.. injuries.. letdown season, etc) for a LATE 1st in the current year is just stupid stupid stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by surviva316
As it relates to the Browns/Falcons trade.. look at it like this.. the Falcons got Julio Jones. The Browns got Phil Taylor (using a 3rd to move back up in the first), Greg Little, a 4th rounder this year, 1st next year, another 4th next year, AND could conveivably have all 5 of those players be paid less than the the massive contract Julio may get at #6 (depending on whether or not a rookie scale is in place for this season or not).
Even for a team that is so close and wanted another playmaker, how does that deal make any sense for Atlanta? At least they went up and got the type of prospect they might never see in Ryan's career. I still think it's rather short-sighted though. For a team like the Saints... I'll bet that there is a better RB prospect on the board when the Patriots or whoever uses the Saints 2012 draft pick than the one they got in Mark Ingram. And that's not even factoring in the 2nd round pick the Pats got this year (also used on a RB).
Uhh... we got rid of Roy Williams for a reason, we picked up Burleson for a reason. Not saying that Burleson > Williams, but I wasn't saying GOOD LUCK COVERING BURLESON LOLOL. I was putting up a list of ALL of Detroit's offensive weapons, which at this point is lolomfgjoygasm to any Lions fan out there. Any QB in the league would be ecstatic to play with a roster that jacked with playmakers.
You seriously think there will be a BETTER RB prospect next year in the 1st round than Mark Ingram? Especially considering the Saints will probably be drafting later than 15-20+?
Factoring in the 2nd pick, yea there might be, but I like Saints move up anyways to go and get the guy they want. Reggie Bush sure as shit isn't a 3 down back, Ingram is.
As for the Falcons, the trade is a bit excessive in terms of # of picks, probably could have away with not giving up the 4th next year, but mehhh. They obviously REALLY like Julio Jones, and if it ends up netting them a Super Bowl win, all you'll hear is the analysts clamoring about how much of a genius move it was. If they don't, you won't hear a peep until next year's draft. Meh.
When you are in the high end of a success cycle, your core group of players is going to lose a lot of value as a group in the span of just a single season. The NFL is rough and personnel turnover is amazing. Take any good team and their core 20-25 best players and a pretty good chunk of that group is going to be battered into ineffectiveness/retirement by next year. At the same time, young players who are not yet physically destroyed can improve significantly under good coaching/training with a year's experience as well as two seasons of minicamps/training camps/preseasons...you will in fact generally see last year's second-rounders outperform this year's first-rounders.
There's almost no way to get equal value for a true difference maker in terms of draft picks; it would take several high picks to equal, say, Larry Fitzgerald.
No there won't be, but next year's class is def. better. Here's a good thread from another forumQuote:
Originally Posted by Roid_Rage
Dissecting the top 5 RB prospects for the 2012 NFL Draft
So what was the overall grade for the Pats draft?
I didn't mean that to come off as dickish as it looks. I honestly don't follow college football that religiously, all I know is that Ingram is a beast and I'd like to think he will be a solid NFL running back for at least 3-5 years, give or take a year.
Bellisex is that nerd in the classroom that understands the foolishness of grades.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Most of the experts are slobbering all over the Texans' draft.
link?Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
.Quote:
Originally Posted by baudib
Didn't say it mattered but I was just curious. I saw on the boston ESPN we got a c+Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla