If we stay at 3 is there anyone else we'd probably take?

---

Matthews

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

Manzy

---

Well Clowney probably if he's there. 

---

If not Clowney. Give me Mack over Watkins.

---

Pretty sure that if we stay at #3, it'll be Mack or Watkins, whoever is there.  Clowney will be gone.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

If Clowney is gone than Mack. I'm fine with Watkins, but since the draft is WR heavy taking him wouldn't be the best plan. Mack/Clowney are instant playmakers on a defense.

---

Well its Mack or Sammy if you want to take pick 3 and flush it, well, sure....

 

I'd rather take Matthews. 

---

Well its Mack or Sammy if you want to take pick 3 and flush it, well, sure....

 

Coming from a guy who would take a RT at #3...You're clueless.

 

Sammy and Mack are much better prospects than Teddy Bridgewater and will make a much bigger impact than Matthews.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Well its Mack or Sammy if you want to take pick 3 and flush it, well, sure....

 

I'd rather take Matthews. 

Settin' up the schtick for a busy week.......

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

To be honest I don't really care. Manziel, Mack or Watkins would all be good.


Watkins probably my favourite.

---

Coming from a guy who would take a RT at #3...You're clueless.

 

Sammy and Mack are much better prospects than Teddy Bridgewater and will make a much bigger impact than Matthews.

 

Not only are we in a different era of the NFL that renders the need for not one but TWO quality Tackles, we are also in a division with the Texans, who, if they take Clowney, (or even if they don't) have very good edge rushers that will be neutralized by a combo of Joeckel/ Matthews. 

 

Matthews is going to be a top 3-5 Tackle for the next decade - and projects to be a natural ORT, given his strengths. The pick makes too much sense. 

 

Watkins is nothing more than another good WR in a deep WR draft. And Mack?....lol, just flip on the Baylor tape....I don't want that at THREE. 

 

 

That said, gimme Clowney, Bridge, Manziel OR Matthews at 3 and I'll be happy. 

 

Gimme a trade down and stockpiling more picks and still get one of those, and I'll be stoked. 

---

The Browns drafted Joe Thomas #3 overall in 2007.

 

He has been a perennial pro-bowler and has been one of the best players at his position.  

 

Their record?  37-75.  They just don't make a big difference, they really don't.  

 

Taking a tackle that high is stupid. We did it last year, let's not do it again this year.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Settin' up the schtick for a busy week.......

 

You were a better poster when you had a mind of your own. 

---

Even overdrafting a QB that is slightly better than Henne would be more impactful than getting Matthews.

 

Not only are we in a different era of the NFL that renders the need for not one but TWO quality Tackles, we are also in a division with the Texans, who, if they take Clowney, 

 

We have Joeckel to neutralize Clowney. 

 

We did just fine facing JJ Watt last year without Joeckel.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

The Browns drafted Joe Thomas #3 overall in 2007.

 

He has been a perennial pro-bowler and has been one of the best players at his position.  

 

Their record?  37-75.  They just don't make a big difference, they really don't.  

 

Taking a tackle that high is stupid. We did it last year, let's not do it again this year.

 

The Browns failed to get enough other players, thats why they haven't been successful. Not because they drafted Joe Thomas, lol. 

 

No one is saying the Jags draft must end at Jake Matthews,  

---

Even overdrafting a QB that is slightly better than Henne would be more impactful than getting Matthews.

 

 

We have Joeckel to neutralize Clowney. 

 

We did just fine facing JJ Watt last year without Joeckel.

 

The run game SUCKED last year, especially behind Pasztor. Matthews is quality in both pass and run blocking. 

 

If you are going to pass on Matthews because you think you are fine with Pasztor, well.....I don't know what to tell you. 

---

The Browns failed to get enough other players, thats why they haven't been successful. Not because they drafted Joe Thomas, lol. 

 

No one is saying the Jags draft must end at Jake Matthews,

 

Well that's a duh.

 

The point is you don't draft a tackle at 3.  

 

Even if you pick the right one, and he becomes as good as Joe Thomas, it still doesn't matter.

 

You're better off rolling the dice on a QB, a WR, or a passrusher because they actually make an impact in terms of Ws and Ls.

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Would love to have Watkins at 3, but the more I think about it the more I think Mathews is going to be the pick....

---

10 years ago we had Bob Hope, Johnny Cash, and Steve Jobs..... Please don't die, Kevin Bacon.

Well that's a duh.

 

The point is you don't draft a tackle at 3.  

 

Even if you pick the right one, and he becomes as good as Joe Thomas, it still doesn't matter.

 

You're better off rolling the dice on a QB, a WR, or a passrusher because they actually make an impact in terms of Ws and Ls.

 

I think if they took Matthews first they'll take Garoppolo with the 2nd rounder. 

---