This is not negativity

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: This is not negativity

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    You're right. Sober analysis is essential so we don't kid ourselves.



    Sober analysis like trading up 20 spots for only a 3rd rounder?  I'll have what both of you are having.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: This is not negativity

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:



    Elaborate, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about.



    Read the OP (i.e. the same guy you said provided "sober analysis").

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: This is not negativity

    This trading up business takes actual draft capital, and the Pats assigned draft capital (because they always have good teams) is terrible - same boat with a few other teams that you never see moving up like Pitt and Balt. The draft value chart gives this stunning information - 

    Pick #10 has a value of 1300 points

    Pick #29 in each round (Pats assigned picks) - has a combined value of 1131.4 - yes that is for all 7 picks combined.

    So a team sitting at 10 would be within reason to ask for ALL SEVEN 29th PICKS plus next years 2nd and 3rd, rounders (using a standard discounting for future picks.) No GM would make that deal unless he works for Oakland, Washington, or Atlanta, and at least Oakland and Washington made the trades for 'franshise' QBs - what was Atlanta's excuse? Yet a bunch of fans wish BB would magically turn brass (#29) into gold by moving up 15-20 picks in the first round each year.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: This is not negativity

    In response to Rkarp1's comment:

    most experts, other than Rusty had Milner the best CB, Richardson the best DT and Smith the best QB...I didnt expect the Pats to move up 15-20 spots




    Dude your OP said you thought we should have moved up with a 1st and a 3rd to grab Richardson or Milliner. THAT IS 15-20 spots which is why you are being called out since you are complaining about an impossible hypothetical.  Second of all there is no way that most experts had Richardson as the best DT.  I have yet to find a single one that did.  Not Walter Football, not any of the guys on NFL.com or any of the guys at CBS sports.  I'm not saying the kid isn't a good prospect, but stop making crap up.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mia76. Show mia76's posts

    Re: This is not negativity

    In response to Rkarp1's comment:

    most experts, other than Rusty had Milner the best CB, Richardson the best DT and Smith the best QB...I didnt expect the Pats to move up 15-20 spots

    If I am the Pats, I move up 5 spots and grab Sly or Trufant...but thats me trying to get a playmaker on defense, and protect against the DL free agency and Talib most likely being one and done



    Well - that is more reasonable and it would cost a lot less to make that move if they could find a partner. Moving from 29 to 23-24 range would have cost the Pats at a minimum their 3rd rounder and probably a seventh rounder as well. (That is basically what it cost last year to make each of two similar moves.) SO ... you now pick a pretty good CB, or maybe you grab the stud DT who has dropped like a stone Floyd.

    And now we need to get a starting WR and a pass rusher and maybe some OL help, some speed at LB, and some more competition at safety ... anything else?

    AND you are fill the rest of these roster holes with what ... pick #59 and one or two glorified UDFAs at the back of round 7. Now that really is a miracle.

    And ... you have given this up for a decent CB or a highly rated LT that obviously had some serious behind the curtain problems since he was suppose to go up there around pick 5.

    Sorry, but glad you are not the GM for my favorite team.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: This is not negativity

    Oh so the Jets beat reporter is a draft expert now?  And he represents the opinions of "most experts"?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts