My opinions of our weekend

big dog cowboy · Apr 26, 2009

Bach;2751369 said:
Bottomline, the Eagles and Giants had vastly superior drafts compared to us. We couldn't afford to have a poor draft and this is below average at best.

At least you are consistent. Just as sure as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, Bach will be negative.

BTW we used a first on Roy Williams.

dbair1967 · Apr 26, 2009

big dog cowboy;2751387 said:
Great post David. Right on the money!

I especially the effort made by Stephen and Jerry to concentrate on drafting solid football players (not projects!), players who love the game, have a strong work ethic and high character.

Training camp bettle for roster spots will be great to watch this summer.

The other thing that stands out is they all were PRODUCTIVE players. The LB's and DB's especially were guys that could and did make alot of plays. They werent workout warriors overdrafted based on computer numbers and the hope they could eventually figure out how to find the QB, ball carrier or ball in the air.

Chocolate Lab · Apr 26, 2009

I bet the same people were saying Sinorice Moss and Mario Manningham were great first day picks, too. Now just a couple years later, the great Giants are drafting two more WRs to replace them.

Bach · Apr 26, 2009

dbair1967;2751400 said:
So you are assuming all (or most of) the guys they drafted will be good and the guys we drafted wont. The Giants dont look so mart if Nicks doesnt develop quickly or busts. If Jason Peters plays the way he did last yr the Eagles dont look so smart. Macklin is far from a sure thing.

And we didnt have a 1st because we traded for a bigtime WR last yr. Had the Eagles or Giants traded a 1st for Edwards or Boldin, everyone would give them credit for that. You need to do the same for us.

One, Williams was just ok at a #2 WR last year. Giving up a 1st, 3rd and late round pick for him was too much. I don't see him as a true #1 WR, but now he'll have to be for the trade to be warranted.

Second, there's a better chance the guys the Eagles and Giants took in the first and second will turn out better than guys taken in the 3rd-5th. And it doesn't help matters that we reached for a few of them on top of that.

Bach · Apr 26, 2009

big dog cowboy;2751408 said:
At least you are consistent. Just as sure as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, Bach will be negative.

BTW we used a first on Roy Williams.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I thought last years draft was very good. One of the best we've had since the days of Jimmy.

Can you seriously tell me though that you think we did better than the Giants and Eagles?

dbair1967 · Apr 26, 2009

Bach;2751427 said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I thought last years draft was very good. One of the best we've had since the days of Jimmy.

Can you seriously tell me though that you think we did better than the Giants and Eagles?

They both had more early, premium picks than we did, they should (on paper) look better than ours right now.

That doesnt mean jack though once the games begin. Philly jacks up early draft picks all the time however. I really liked Hakeem Nicks, but he isnt a sure thing. Macklin definitely isnt a sure thing.

SMCowboy · Apr 26, 2009

Bach;2751419 said:
One, Williams was just ok at a #2 WR last year. Giving up a 1st, 3rd and late round pick for him was too much. I don't see him as a true #1 WR, but now he'll have to be for the trade to be warranted.

Second, there's a better chance the guys the Eagles and Giants took in the first and second will turn out better than guys taken in the 3rd-5th. And it doesn't help matters that we reached for a few of them on top of that.

How many NFL draft boards did you have the privledge to see, to know that we reached for a player.

Or do we decide if we reached for a guy because the genius's at internet sites who are not good enough to be NFL scouts didn't have them projected to go in the round that they did.

Did we ever consider that the reason that these guys who run the internet sites that give profiles on guys run the sites is because they were not good enough to be NFL scouts. Yet we use their projects and rankings to determine if a draft was a good draft.....

WOW, I no wonder our rants ALWAYS seem to be wrong.... It would be like judging a draft based on what Larry Lancewell though of a draft prospect. Now does THAT sounds like a very smart idea to you???

dstew60105 · Apr 26, 2009

Bach;2751419 said:
One, Williams was just ok at a #2 WR last year. Giving up a 1st, 3rd and late round pick for him was too much. I don't see him as a true #1 WR, but now he'll have to be for the trade to be warranted.

Second, there's a better chance the guys the Eagles and Giants took in the first and second will turn out better than guys taken in the 3rd-5th. And it doesn't help matters that we reached for a few of them on top of that.

Williams is better then anything we could have picked @ #20.

Bach · Apr 26, 2009

SMCowboy;2751452 said:
How many NFL draft boards did you have the privledge to see, to know that we reached for a player.

Or do we decide if we reached for a guy because the genius's at internet sites who are not good enough to be NFL scouts didn't have them projected to go in the round that they did.

Did we ever consider that the reason that these guys who run the internet sites that give profiles on guys run the sites is because they were not good enough to be NFL scouts. Yet we use their projects and rankings to determine if a draft was a good draft.....

WOW, I no wonder our rants ALWAYS seem to be wrong.... It would be like judging a draft based on what Larry Lancewell though of a draft prospect. Now does THAT sounds like a very smart idea to you???

What's funny is your little rant about NFL scouts knowing more than draft sites is the same stuff I read from homers when Lacewell and Jerry were drafting bust after bust and reach after reach. I can still hear the homers claim how Jerry and Lacewell are in the NFL and know more than these draft sites. Gee, how'd that work out?

Monster Heel · Apr 26, 2009

Chocolate Lab;2751414 said:
I bet the same people were saying Sinorice Moss and Mario Manningham were great first day picks, too. Now just a couple years later, the great Giants are drafting two more WRs to replace them.

They probably got it right with Nicks. At times he destroyed college DBs the way you'd like to see a potential pro do. Barden looks like trash though. He was playing against sub D-1 DBs that looked to be about 5'5" getting no separation and plucking down balls just because of his size.

DFWJC · Apr 26, 2009

Nice synopsis.
It was a workman-like draft. I still think given the picks we had we could have done much better....but I'm not arrogant enough to say I really know that answer. Really, none of us do...but it's fun to guess.

Instead of trading down in Rd2, I amy have gone to grab an impact guy. Stintum, Barwin, Unger and others seemd worthy to me.

It's the whole draft that counts--and how it fits what we are planning to do. Maybe the fron offcie got just what they wanted.

sbark · Apr 26, 2009

Will put a stress test on BP's 3 year rule...........

AmishCowboy · Apr 26, 2009

I would have like to seen us trade up Two spots for Unger, but that's really my only beef with this draft.

Rogerthat12 · Apr 26, 2009

I concur, not the attention getting draft selections but a lunch pale crew that will work hard to the end..good football players is all that matters to me. :starspin

big dog cowboy · Apr 26, 2009

Bach;2751427 said:
Can you seriously tell me though that you think we did better than the Giants and Eagles?

Ask me again in three years. Seriously.

bayeslife · Apr 26, 2009

Buncha hard workers on this team that were great value when we picked.

Idk, sounds solid to me.

RainMan · Apr 26, 2009

I'm not going to bog down this thread with a negative opinion, but I do have to chime in with this: I can't imagine, in any shape or form, how all 12 of these picks makes this team. I think pining for 9 is even highly, highly optimistic.

I'd be curious to know what the recent team record is for most rookies to make the team in a single season. I'm thinking salary-cap era specifically.

NeonNinja · Apr 26, 2009

big dog cowboy;2751568 said:
Ask me again in three years. Seriously.

I agree

Idgit · Apr 27, 2009

It was interesting that with a dozen picks, we didn't look at OT. Either the opportunity really didn't present itself, or the coaches are happier with Free/McQuistan than most of us had assumed.

28 Joker · Apr 27, 2009

I just got a chance to look at these guys a little closer, and I'm even more pleased with all these picks.

11 of these guys will make this team with ease. The WR might have a battle, but he can win a spot for sure.

These are the type of guys that put you over the top.

These guys are hungry, and some of them were passed over for some reasons. That is what this team needs. They need hungry, young football players who have that "I've got someting to prove" attitude.

Dallas just drafted 12 of them. I see a lot of potential.

Remember this too, Felix Jones is coming back, and he's going off. Mark my words.

Edit: Roy Williams will have a say in this draft. He was Dallas' first pick.

My opinions of our weekend

THE BIG DOG

Arch Defender

Run-loving Dino

Benched

Benched

Arch Defender

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Benched

Benched

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

if you ain't first, you're last

DWAREZ

THE BIG DOG

187beatdown

Makin' It Rain

Dash28

Fattening up

28 Joker