Version 2024 - PATRICK MAHOMES & THE HUNT FOR THE THREEPEAT
Let's ****ing do this.
Originally Posted by : Rules for once the draft begins:
No spoiled picks in this thread, all weekend. This means that as tweets are leaking picks a few minutes before the selection is announced live, you don't post it in this thread (ex: embedded tweets), reference it in this thread (ex: Joe Slapdick says it's So and So to Green Bay) or hint at it (ex: "it's a RB!").
Don't be a dick.
Otherwise, have fun, talk shit, freak out and lose your goddamned minds. It's Draft Weekend. The hot takes in these threads are so funny. I'll also be starting player threads for each of our picks as they are made, with videos and notable stats/takes in the OP. These separate threads will be made as soon as the news breaks, outside of this thread. I will link the threads below. Pure knee-jerk gold to reference in the future.
Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19:
What if they decide fuck it, our LT is still on the board, and flip 64 + a 2025 3rd to pick in the early portion tonight
Take Sua or Paul.
This is what I want.
Worthy and Suamataia/Paul would be perfection. [Reply]
Because if they loved a WR they would have just grabbed one.
And AD Mitchell and McConk are totally different players. Teams not only want talent but fit. Why risk losing the WR you really like and fits what you need?
What I said was, they probably don't love anyone past Thomas, and couldn't swing a deal, therefore, accumulate more picks, either for dart throws or for trade comp. It's entirely possible they shit their pants, but I'm saying, right or wrong their strategy will become apparent after Rnd 2. Beane may be selling used cars at this time next year, but we won't know until late tonight or early Saturday when the 10 picks eihter burn a hole in his pocket or he fills the several holes with decent young players [Reply]
Originally Posted by Woogieman:
Do you think either could be a solid, full time starter by late November? Or do we need to dust off D Smith for one more year?
Paul has a better chance at starting year 1 than Kingsley IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
This is what I want.
Worthy and Suamataia/Paul would be perfection.
Same.
What's the compensation to give up to get there? Are you willing to give next year's second if that's what it takes? Is the potential with those guys THAT high?
I feel our roster going into '24 is pretty solid, and we addressed one of the two obvious needs yesterday. Next year's draft will be IOL heavy, so will it be worth it to sacrifice next year's choices to maybe solidify a position THIS year? I say yes, but I'd love to hear opinions on it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Woogieman: Because if they loved a WR they would have just grabbed one.
And AD Mitchell and McConk are totally different players. Teams not only want talent but fit. Why risk losing the WR you really like and fits what you need?
What I said was, they probably don't love anyone past Thomas, and couldn't swing a deal, therefore, accumulate more picks, either for dart throws or for trade comp. It's entirely possible they shit their pants, but I'm saying, right or wrong their strategy will become apparent after Rnd 2. Beane may be selling used cars at this time next year, but we won't know until late tonight or early Saturday when the 10 picks eihter burn a hole in his pocket or he fills the several holes with decent young players
McDermott was given total power by the owner and McDermott ran the draft when they traded us Mahomes. Beane is a front man/admin guy that sells their fans a vision that McD is just coaching. If you look at what Buffalo drafts they go for guys McDermott think are tough.
So while I am unsure what they are doing my best guess is someone for McDermott's defense is what they are grabbing next.
Originally Posted by jettio:
On You Tube today, I saw a clip from Pro Football Focus live show of the Chiefs pick moving up to #28.
Collinsworth was one of the four. There was this one PFF dumbass that thinks that Bills could make the Chiefs disclose who they would pick in order to agree to the trade. Teams do not do that. As if a GM would not bluff if that were the custom.
Same dumbass talked about the Chiefs grabbing the last remaining tackle. Chiefs stick with their draft board. No way would they panic and draft based on position. The only way they would take OT is if one graded very high by them happened to be available.
Oh they could ask. I've heard of teams doing that.
Honestly, I thought the Bills may have done exactly that. "Hey, if you don't tell us who you're taking, we're not making the deal with you..."
Now that was when I thought we were going with Guyton and we may have just volunteered to Buffalo "Hey, we're not going WR here - we want to get ahead of Dallas, not you..."
And I really don't think Worthy was going to Buffalo even if he slipped to 33. They want a bigger guy. Mitchell always seemed letter perfect for them, IMO. We'll see if the focus stuff has him off their draft board but if he's not, he's gotta be their pick. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Oh they could ask. I've heard of teams doing that.
Honestly, I thought the Bills may have done exactly that. "Hey, if you don't tell us who you're taking, we're not making the deal with you..."
Now that was when I thought we were going with Guyton and we may have just volunteered to Buffalo "Hey, we're not going WR here - we want to get ahead of Dallas, not you..."
And I really don't think Worthy was going to Buffalo even if he slipped to 33. They want a bigger guy. Mitchell always seemed letter perfect for them, IMO. We'll see if the focus stuff has him off their draft board but if he's not, he's gotta be their pick.
IDK, I never heard any ex-GM say that disclosing a pick was part of a trade up. The only way it would make sense would be if it were a trade like Vikings and Jets yesterday. I think even in that situation, it would be against custom to require disclosure.
I never heard of a team burning a bridge by drafting someone after a trade up that the trading team wanted.
It would be interesting to hear what the "rules" are, but I think the idea is any GM that required a disclosure would become a GM that got taught a lesson by a GM that bluffed and picked a different player and when the word got around, all the other teams would think the asshole who said name your player got what they deserved.
Seems like the easier custom to follow is for everyone to know to not ask, and if you do ask, expect to be bluffed and expect all the other GMs to laugh at you when you say burn your bridge to that team because they fib about who they said they would pick.
Better custom is to not create bridge burning situations. For instance, when Jets swapped 10 and 11 with Vikings yesterday. It is okay for Jets to say to Vikings that they have two offers without disclosing the teams. [Reply]
The player I think would really make an impact and help this team be even better is T'Vondre Sweat, a young nose with actual explosion, those guys are rare. [Reply]
