(03-11-2022, 09:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]I heard we just extended Wingard.
Please tell me this isn't true.
You don't think there's any function for Wingard somewhere on a 53 man roster?
(03-12-2022, 06:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (03-11-2022, 09:27 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]I heard we just extended Wingard.
Please tell me this isn't true.
You don't think there's any function for Wingard somewhere on a 53 man roster?
A gunner on special teams. That's it.
(03-12-2022, 11:24 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 06:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think there's any function for Wingard somewhere on a 53 man roster?
A gunner on special teams. That's it.
I have no problem retaining Wingard on the 53 man roster for special teams and emergency depth. He just shouldn't be starting.
He's a restricted free agent. We'll likely learn his fate no later than Wednesday. No big deal either way for me.
(03-12-2022, 03:16 PM)TheDuke007 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 11:24 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]A gunner on special teams. That's it.
I have no problem retaining Wingard on the 53 man roster for special teams and emergency depth. He just shouldn't be starting.
He's a restricted free agent. We'll likely learn his fate no later than Wednesday. No big deal either way for me.
Agreed. He just should never play Safety........ever.
(03-12-2022, 11:24 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 06:21 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You don't think there's any function for Wingard somewhere on a 53 man roster?
A gunner on special teams. That's it.
Unless he is elite as a gunner -like top 5-10 in the NFL- isn't that an expensive use for a roster spot?
I'm saying this, because I don't think he is.
Hahaha
Good lord. That’s atrocious. Just have Baalke call up Dave Caldwell to see which WRs he should draft.
(03-12-2022, 05:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha
Good lord. That’s atrocious. Just have Baalke call up Dave Caldwell to see which WRs he should draft.
I think this is the hardest WR draft I've seen too. We won't have a shot at what I think are the new big 4, and everyone after that has serious deficiencies one way or another. I would hate to be an all time bad drafting GM trying to hit on a WR in this class.
(03-12-2022, 05:12 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 05:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha
Good lord. That’s atrocious. Just have Baalke call up Dave Caldwell to see which WRs he should draft.
I think this is the hardest WR draft I've seen too. We won't have a shot at what I think are the new big 4, and everyone after that has serious deficiencies one way or another. I would hate to be an all time bad drafting GM trying to hit on a WR in this class.
Which is why we need to be dealing for one of the Seahawks receivers.
(03-12-2022, 05:12 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 05:06 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Hahaha
Good lord. That’s atrocious. Just have Baalke call up Dave Caldwell to see which WRs he should draft.
I think this is the hardest WR draft I've seen too. We won't have a shot at what I think are the new big 4, and everyone after that has serious deficiencies one way or another. I would hate to be an all time bad drafting GM trying to hit on a WR in this class.
Who's the new big 4? The same 4 has been at the top the whole time. London, Williams, Olave and Wilson
(03-12-2022, 06:54 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 06:30 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Who's the new big 4? The same 4 has been at the top the whole time. London, Williams, Olave and Wilson
Yep.
That's the mocks anyway. It doesn't mean that's how the NFL teams have them ranked
(03-12-2022, 06:30 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 05:12 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]I think this is the hardest WR draft I've seen too. We won't have a shot at what I think are the new big 4, and everyone after that has serious deficiencies one way or another. I would hate to be an all time bad drafting GM trying to hit on a WR in this class.
Who's the new big 4? The same 4 has been at the top the whole time. London, Williams, Olave and Wilson
Burks and Dotson were part of the big 6 but they have both fallen off sharply. I don't think I would take either of them at 33 anymore.
We need to try really hard to trade up to like 20 or 21 to get one of the big 4. I think that's pretty imperative at this point.
(03-12-2022, 08:46 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 06:30 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Who's the new big 4? The same 4 has been at the top the whole time. London, Williams, Olave and Wilson
Burks and Dotson were part of the big 6 but they have both fallen off sharply. I don't think I would take either of them at 33 anymore.
I understand Burks stock slipping after running a 4.55/40, but why would Dotson fall? He ran an impressive 4.43/40, posted a good 39" vertical and has been an effective route runner in college.
It was only a 36" vertical. He's very small and only moderately explosive. And as with everyone we need to shave a little time off the 40 since Indy was such a fast track.
I wouldn't haaate him at 33, but he's not going to be close to BAP there.
![[Image: FNA7DeyWQAwwnnf?format=png&name=900x900]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNA7DeyWQAwwnnf?format=png&name=900x900)
(03-12-2022, 08:46 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 06:30 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Who's the new big 4? The same 4 has been at the top the whole time. London, Williams, Olave and Wilson
Burks and Dotson were part of the big 6 but they have both fallen off sharply. I don't think I would take either of them at 33 anymore.
Meh, those 2 were always behind those 4. Dotson's stock hasn't dropped at all. Burks is who he is, nothing has really changed
(03-12-2022, 09:25 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]It was only a 36" vertical. He's very small and only moderately explosive. And as with everyone we need to shave a little time off the 40 since Indy was such a fast track.
I wouldn't haaate him at 33, but he's not going to be close to BAP there.
Really his size is the only thing, he's a little smaller than expected. These numbers change nothing for me and I don't think they will for GMs either. You have always put to much into combine numbers
(03-12-2022, 09:31 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 08:46 PM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]Burks and Dotson were part of the big 6 but they have both fallen off sharply. I don't think I would take either of them at 33 anymore.
Meh, those 2 were always behind those 4. Dotson's stock hasn't dropped at all. Burks is who he is, nothing has really changed
I think take a guy who can play. Remember when anquon boldin fell back in the day because of his 40 time? Look at these guys’ game speed. I think TE may be a better value at 33 though.
(03-12-2022, 09:31 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Really his size is the only thing, he's a little smaller than expected. These numbers change nothing for me and I don't think they will for GMs either. You have always put to much into combine numbers
I dunno, I expected him to jump out of the gym and be able to run a 3 cone better than a defensive tackle. I still like him some, but he's firmly behind a bunch of other guys at 33 for me now.
(03-12-2022, 09:33 PM)Newton Wrote: [ -> ] (03-12-2022, 09:31 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, those 2 were always behind those 4. Dotson's stock hasn't dropped at all. Burks is who he is, nothing has really changed
I think take a guy who can play. Remember when anquon boldin fell back in the day because of his 40 time? Look at these guys’ game speed. I think TE may be a better value at 33 though.
I agree, I look at the combine numbers just to add to the total package. It would have to be a crazy bad number on a drill to change my mind a bit. Game tape comes number 1 by far and it's not even close. Then of course the teams get to do what we can't and interview the players and talk to them and see where their heads at. If they have 2 players rated equal, it could come to an interview to be the tie breaker