Quote:If he could bend around the corner and squeeze the pocket I would agree with you. He can't, at least not right now. He is more power than speed and he needs the size maintain the power
Oh wait, you don't actually know what you're talking about. Nevermind.
Quote:WingerDinger,
Trust the sources, Wiseman and I have pretty much heard the sames things outside of TB being in the top5. He heard top5, I have heard he is not in top 15.
But for the most part its most of the same stuff we are hearing. You will see at draft time.
My sources tell me Bridgewater isn't in their top 20. Our sources have some explaining to do...
Quote:My sources tell me Bridgewater isn't in their top 20. Our sources have some explaining to do...
I think you are a lil bit late to the party....
Read post 225 and 226, was just messing around to see if a certain someone would say he had heard the same or similar
Quote:I disagree on converting tackles to guards. Those are two different body types and skill sets. Guards are more squatty and have to be able to operate in small spaces.
Well,, I used to agree with your thinking that converting tackles to guards was difficult. But, I saw something this year that totally convinced me otherwise.
Bengal's LT Andrew Whitworth,, a very solid LT that is one of the better tackles in the league every season,, moved to Guard for a few games this past season. This move was NOT made because Whitworth was not performing well. It was made because of decimating injuries to their OL, and they had to insert a young tackle Collins, who could really only play tackle position.
Anyway, the few games Whitworth played Guard, he was an absolute beast. In the run game, he was pulling very well and was basically a stud "Road Grader." It actually looked like he really enjoyed playing that Guard position.
Pablo told me that last night he saw Bridgewater between 10-15 on Dave's big board.
Can't believe I read through this thread.
Quote:I think you are a lil bit late to the party....
Read post 225 and 226, was just messing around to see if a certain someone would say he had heard the same or similar
Yes, my source was late with information, but he is very reliable. Jags aren't touching Bridgewater unless they trade way down or move uup from their 2nd round pick.
Quote:I'd like this.
That makes little sense. If Bridgewater (or any QB for that matter) is truly worth getting at #3, you won't be needing to take any other QB at all. It would be a wasted pick. Instead, if we're drafting a QB with our second rounder or later, then it makes perfect sense to add extra competition and/or a developmental QB later, too since they won't be the caliber QB that's worth a #3 overall.
Quote:That makes little sense. If Bridgewater (or any QB for that matter) is truly worth getting at #3, you won't be needing to take any other QB at all. It would be a wasted pick.
Further proof of why you aren't an NFL GM....
It makes plenty of sense to grab another quality QB in later rounds, even if you take someone like Bridgewater with your first pick. First of all, the obvious reason - injury insurance....2nd of all, I guess you learned nothing from examples like Rob Johnson, Brunell, Hasselbeck, etc etc, that a team can develop another QB under their starter and later parlay that QB into better draft pick(s).
Quote:That makes little sense. If Bridgewater (or any QB for that matter) is truly worth getting at #3, you won't be needing to take any other QB at all. It would be a wasted pick. Instead, if we're drafting a QB with our second rounder or later, then it makes perfect sense to add extra competition and/or a developmental QB later, too since they won't be the caliber QB that's worth a #3 overall.
It makes perfect sense, actually. The Redskins took RGIII and then later picked up Kirk Cousins, and they traded away several picks to get RGIII. Let's not forget that RGIII was picked at #2 and not #3. You may point to the Redskins being unsuccessful... though they did make the playoffs the first year with RGIII.
Adding a developmental player means that you have insurance if your #3 pick doesn't pan out how you think he will or if he gets injured. If the guy you pick later develops to be something, and your #3 pick is something... you can trade the lesser of two for a better pick.
Heck the Colts drafted a 2nd QB when they took Luck #1. It was a 7th rounder, but surely the great Andrew Luck wouldn't have warranted even that.
Quote:Further proof of why you aren't an NFL GM....
It makes plenty of sense to grab another quality QB in later rounds, ).
what kind of quality QB do you expect to get in the later rounds?
I'm ok with getting a developmental QB later in the draft if the value is too good to pass on, but we have too many needs to waste a pick on a QB that will likely be a career backup or out of the league in a few years
Quote:Pablo told me that last night he saw Bridgewater between 10-15 on Dave's big board.
That means we're gonna draft him at #3, because Dave is only posting misinformation on his big board right now. At least, that's what I heard. From my source.
Quote:what kind of quality QB do you expect to get in the later rounds?
I'm ok with getting a developmental QB later in the draft if the value is too good to pass on, but we have too many needs to waste a pick on a QB that will likely be a career backup or out of the league in a few years
I think Aaron Murray will be a steal if he falls to the later rounds because of his ACL. He likely would have been a 2nd round pick had that not happened.
Quote:<div>
My sources tell me Bridgewater isn't in their top 20. Our sources have some explaining to do...
</div>
Quote:That means we're gonna draft him at #3, because Dave is only posting misinformation on his big board right now. At least, that's what I heard. From my source.
I think even the sources have sources at this point.
Quote:That means we're gonna draft him at #3, because Dave is only posting misinformation on his big board right now. At least, that's what I heard. From my source.
you have sources too? I must be the only one on here without sources
Quote:you have sources too? I must be the only one on here without sources
Here is a one for you
![[Image: Gandalf-from-Lord-of-the-Rings-has-cancer.jpg]](http://www.eb8y.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Gandalf-from-Lord-of-the-Rings-has-cancer.jpg)
Oh wait...."sources" ....not "sorcerer" .....
Sorry about that, sometimes I get my words up mixed......
Quote:Here is a one for you
Oh wait...."sources" ....not "sorcerer" .....
Sorry about that, sometimes I get my words up mixed......
I'll say, Gandalf is a wizard. Not a sorcerer
