This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Point taken, Agreed to an extent. Were just excited its finally done! obviously this wont be the norm.
I don't understand the problem. This guy is adding great stuff to the shark pool. Whether it's good stuff or not, it's good reading and the effort is well appreciated.
I don't see Kalil making it past 3 anyway...And i have the Rams taking Blackmon at 10 so i don't get question 3? I have yet to hear anything about them counting themselves out of trading up, and i have looked. Do you have any links to them saying so? And if so are they reliable? I think the Browns have the best odds to get RG3, but i just think a sleeper team will be the one to get RG3 that is why i am thinking outside the box instead of just throwing him to the Rams.
Thanks for the link
worst*
Hmmm one draft pick makes it the worse mock ever? I know the Griffin prediction was very bold, but how can you say its the worse mock you have seen? Some people still have Burfict going in the first round...I am sorry i didn't post the same mock as most people do.
I've seen much worse. You must not see many mocks if this is that bad, I thought it was fine. There is known that some sleeper teams may be looking at RG3 so Buffalo could be one of them.
Buffalo was 5-5 with Fred Jackson starting last year. They were 1-5 with Spiller. Why would they have confidence in Spiller?
Constructive criticism is more useful than insults.
Because correlation does not equal causation? Because Spiller was not the cause of the losses, nor was Jackson the reason for the wins? Because Spiller had over 5 yards per carry and looked good doing it?If Jackson is back, we are looking at a likely RBBC, he was excellent before his injury. But let's not pretend that a much-improved Spiller won't have a bigger role than he did in early 2011.
It may be bold but it's also a real possibility.
Couldn't one argue that Jackson was maybe not "THE reason" for the wins but the major reason. They controlled the offense through him and he produced before the injury. I don't think you're saying he wasn't but he seemed to be more of a factor then Spiller in producing wins , and I'm a Spiller fan.For the sake of this mock, I don't see why they couldnt include Spiller in a trade and then grab Wilson (or would he not make it back to them in the second?
Must have been too busy dreaming up trades for other teams to put any thought into the Packers' pick.
RB isn't a need for the packers? Ted Thompson takes BPA and the draft is very deep at interior lineman and an in the box safety doesn't exactly fit the defensive style they run.
Why would you think David Wilson is BPA here? Brockers, V Curry or Z Brown as an OLB. Konz of course. Why is Barron being labeled an in the box safety? I see nothing special about David Wilson whatsoever and unless RB is special (Richardson) I don't know if they're worth much to Ted Thompson.'Zimm said:RB isn't a need for the packers? Ted Thompson takes BPA and the draft is very deep at interior lineman and an in the box safety doesn't exactly fit the defensive style they run.'scrumptrulescent said:'Pipes said:
lol ima go ahead and quote you on this...and potentially put this in my signature after his rookie year. my thing is, are you the only one who thinks that or is that the common consensus? Even if you see nothing special, does it really matter if Ted Thompson does?Why would you think David Wilson is BPA here? Brockers, V Curry or Z Brown as an OLB. Konz of course. Why is Barron being labeled an in the box safety? I see nothing special about David Wilson whatsoever and unless RB is special (Richardson) I don't know if they're worth much to Ted Thompson.'Zimm said:RB isn't a need for the packers? Ted Thompson takes BPA and the draft is very deep at interior lineman and an in the box safety doesn't exactly fit the defensive style they run.'scrumptrulescent said:'Pipes said:
Why would you think David Wilson is BPA here? Brockers, V Curry or Z Brown as an OLB. Konz of course. Why is Barron being labeled an in the box safety? I thought about Konz going to GB but i choose Wilson. Barron is indeed an in the box SS and doesn't exactly fit the Packers scheme as i mentioned earlier, and i really had a hard time fitting Brockers into my 1st round. I looked for a trade/having him go to Denver instead of Stills but his very poor combine could knock him out of the first round, and why would GB take Brockers to back-up an elite DT like Raji? I don't see Brockers being able to play DE in a 3-4 (Yes Raji could).I see nothing special about David Wilson whatsoever and unless RB is special (Richardson) I don't know if they're worth much to Ted Thompson.'Zimm said:RB isn't a need for the packers? Ted Thompson takes BPA and the draft is very deep at interior lineman and an in the box safety doesn't exactly fit the defensive style they run.'scrumptrulescent said:'Pipes said:
