In order to prevent us wasting precious years of Patrick Mahomes' career, Veach needs to work some magic this offseason. What's your advice for him? [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
How? YOU said picking A LINEBACKER would be a terrible pick...now you're trying to move the sticks? Lol again OK BUDDY!!.
You need to learn to read, bro. Not even halfway down the page even...
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
A RB is more valuable than a LB at #31.
A LB is more valuable than a RB at #11.
I would never draft a RB top 15. Vice versa, I would draft a LB there because that's where the blue chippers go. After that though, there's a HUGE drop off in both performance and value.
No, I wouldn't like taking Collins at #31. I think that's a terrible use of resources. That being said, I will be the least of the board's worries if this team takes ANYTHING other than OL with that pick.
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
How? YOU said picking A LINEBACKER would be a terrible pick...now you're trying to move the sticks? Lol again OK BUDDY!!.
Pretty sure he said picking a LB outside of the top 10 in the first round was a wasted pick for THIS team.
Originally Posted by penguinz:
Pretty sure he said picking a LB outside of the top 10 in the first round was a wasted pick for THIS team.
LB's don't cover =>good TE's.
We need DLine and Secondary.
That's EXACLTY what I said. He just didn't see it or read it.
Pick a LB in the top 15. That's good value. Otherwise wait until the 2nd or 3rd. There's little value in LB's in the late first. You're likely getting a developmental player there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
You need to learn to read, bro. Not even halfway down the page even...
Your point remains futile because we're obviously NOT picking top ten...so suggesting you'd "pick one there but not 31" is kind of silly and worthless because we're not likely to pick there in the Mahomes era anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
Your point remains futile because we're obviously NOT picking top ten...so suggesting you'd "pick one there but not 31" is kind of silly and worthless because we're not likely to pick there in the Mahomes era anyway.
So mentioning Luke Kuechly is completely irrelevant, since he was the 9th overall pick.
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
So mentioning Luke Kuechly is completely irrelevant, since he was the 9th overall pick.
Good to know.
Er I said IF A GUY LIKE KURCHLY or Wagner was there (at 31) are you telling me you wouldn't pick them because of your futile notion? That's the point I was making but you clearly couldn't comprehend it. The bottom line is your point was frivolous from the start...period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UChieffyBugger:
Er I said IF A GUY LIKE KURCHLY or Wagner was there (at 31) are you telling me you wouldn't pick them because of your futile notion? That's the point I was making but you clearly couldn't comprehend it. The bottom line is your point was frivolous from the start...period.
Luke Kuechly wouldn't be there at 31. Guys like him don't fall to 31. JFC dude, you're being ridiculous. [Reply]
I totally agree that if all things are equal and we can choose between a game changing WR, OL, DE or LB @31, we should probably wait to take a LB and trading down would likely be very wise.
Where I disagree is that LB isn’t a valued position because we only use 2 linebackers the majority of the time.
Like...haven’t you guys seen that glaring weakness against teams with balanced attacks? Spags saw Neimann as our best option in those sets.
Think about that for a moment.
Spags saw a complete liability as our best option for a set we use frequently and some of you don’t see that upgrade as a need worthy of the 31st or even our pick in the second. [Reply]