I don't think Yeldon is a boom or bust pick.  In the least, he is a solid upgrade to our running game.  May not be a star, but solid.  That may or may not be worth the 36th pick.  I think he's got upside to be a star though.  

 

denard is solid

gerhart is solid

pierce could be solid

maybe storm is solid

 

4 guys we already had and storm was what? a seventh rounder?

 

so if a solid running back at in Rd 2 vs a solid running back in Rd 7, you wouldnt consider the rd 2 pick a bust?

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

Except they said a main reason they took yeldon was because he is great for the zbs

 

Lies.  Where did they say that's the main reason?  

 

From their news conference, the main reasons they listed was his size, his vision, instincts, ability to catch the ball, be a 3rd down back.  

---

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

Lies.  Where did they say that's the main reason?  

 

From their news conference, the main reasons they listed was his size, his vision, instincts, ability to catch the ball, be a 3rd down back.  

 

there is a quote somewhere on here that im not going to track down right now, but either caldwell or gus said they that yeldon is a great back for ZBS.

 

not sure of the exact wording. maybe someone else can help me out and knows where it is or exactly what was said. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

denard is solid

gerhart is solid

pierce could be solid

maybe storm is solid

 

4 guys we already had and storm was what? a seventh rounder?

 

so if a solid running back at in Rd 2 vs a solid running back in Rd 7, you wouldnt consider the rd 2 pick a bust?

 

Gerhart is not solid.  

Denard was solid for like 3 weeks in 2 years, and offers nothing in the pass protection game.

Storm hasn't shown anything - could he develop to be solid?  Sure, maybe.

 

Pierce was solid for 1 year and sucked the rest of the time.  

 

Yeldon is the best runner, with the best vision, with the best hands, and the most versatility out of all of them.  He alone can do what all of them can combined.

---

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

Gerhart is not solid.  

Denard was solid for like 3 weeks in 2 years, and offers nothing in the pass protection game.

Storm hasn't shown anything - could he develop to be solid?  Sure, maybe.

 

Pierce was solid for 1 year and sucked the rest of the time.  

 

Yeldon is the best runner, with the best vision, with the best hands, and the most versatility out of all of them.  He alone can do what all of them can combined.

 

yeldon hasnt played a single down in the NFL. 

 

we disagree on denard. 

 

the question was hypothetical. if a player picked in rd 2 winds up having a similar career to a player we have on the team already we got in round 7, would you consider the pick at rd 2 a bust?

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...r-lockett/

Holy crap why didnt seattle give us this deal

 

The Seahawks must love receiver <a class="" href='http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/10408/tyler-lockett'>Tyler Lockett</a>because they paid a fortune to move up in the draft and get him.

 

In the deal, the Seahawks got the 69th overall pick (which is worth 245 points, according to the chart) for No. 95 (120 points), 112 (70 points) 167 (24.6 points) and 181 (19 points). So Seattle gave up picks worth a total of 275.6 points for a pick worth 245 points.

---

<B><FONT color=cyan>Jags this is your year</FONT></B>

there is a quote somewhere on here that im not going to track down right now, but either caldwell or gus said they that yeldon is a great back for ZBS.

 

not sure of the exact wording. maybe someone else can help me out and knows where it is or exactly what was said. 

 

saying he's a good back in a ZBS doesn't mean that's the main reason they drafted him, like you implied.  

 

Like I said - the writing is on the walls.  All the players are getting bigger.  Even Beadles was asked to get big.  Wonder why?  Is it maybe because their new offensive line coach basically said "you guys are too light to play in my new scheme"?  Marrone likes the gap/power scheme more, and the evidence is there.  The players are getting heavier, we drafted a power guard in Cann, signed a power player in Parnell.  Sure, there will be zone concepts in our offense, like there are in everyones, but there is a shift towards the gap/power blocking scheme and it's pretty apparent.  

---

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

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...r-lockett/

Holy crap why didnt seattle give us this deal

 

The Seahawks must love receiver Tyler Lockettbecause they paid a fortune to move up in the draft and get him.

 

In the deal, the Seahawks got the 69th overall pick (which is worth 245 points, according to the chart) for No. 95 (120 points), 112 (70 points) 167 (24.6 points) and 181 (19 points). So Seattle gave up picks worth a total of 275.6 points for a pick worth 245 points.

 

i really liked lockett, seattle had more ability to take the luxury pick than we did. we went with the big man to shore up the OL. 

 

cant really be mad about it. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

saying he's a good back in a ZBS doesn't mean that's the main reason they drafted him, like you implied.  

 

Like I said - the writing is on the walls.  All the players are getting bigger.  Even Beadles was asked to get big.  Wonder why?  Is it maybe because their new offensive line coach basically said "you guys are too light to play in my new scheme"?  Marrone likes the gap/power scheme more, and the evidence is there.  The players are getting heavier, we drafted a power guard in Cann, signed a power player in Parnell.  Sure, there will be zone concepts in our offense, like there are in everyones, but there is a shift towards the gap/power blocking scheme and it's pretty apparent.  

 

i mean.....there are also quotes all over saying that we are not abandoning the ZBS

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

yeldon hasnt played a single down in the NFL. 

 

we disagree on denard. 

 

the question was hypothetical. if a player picked in rd 2 winds up having a similar career to a player we have on the team already we got in round 7, would you consider the pick at rd 2 a bust?

 

of course he would be a bust.  I'm confident he won't be like Storm.  

 

I'm confident he'll be our starter and will finally give us a formidable rushing attack.  If we get in the redzone, I am confident he will score a lot of touchdowns for us.  

 

Is there a possibility that Storm Johnson turns out better?  I guess, but that possibility is miniscule and not something I'm worried about.

---

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

i really liked lockett, seattle had more ability to take the luxury pick than we did. we went with the big man to shore up the OL. 

 

cant really be mad about it. 

 

that's how I see it, too.  You can't go wrong signing a buy guy over a small, skill guy.  Cann is a pick I really like.  That's the way to build your offensive line.

---

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

of course he would be a bust.  I'm confident he won't be like Storm.  

 

I'm confident he'll be our starter and will finally give us a formidable rushing attack.  If we get in the redzone, I am confident he will score a lot of touchdowns for us.  

 

Is there a possibility that Storm Johnson turns out better?  I guess, but that possibility is miniscule and not something I'm worried about.

 

i personally think yeldon winds up being very good too. 

 

but in my line of thinking, i think its a boom or bust pick, and i feel like you just confirmed it. 

 

if you dont follow that or disagree then we can just agree to disagree. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

i mean.....there are also quotes all over saying that we are not abandoning the ZBS

 

yeah, but there are also quotes saying that we are evaluating lineman differently now that Marrone is coaching for us.

 

The FO isn't going to just announce "well, our first 2 years trying to have a ZBS was a catastrophe.  We will try to salvage the players that we have, but will look for different kind of players now.  Coach Marrone doesn't like our ZBS and our players' skillset that we've been developing for 2 years."

 

 

I think it'll be a gradual change from all ZBS to gap/ZBS and eventually to a traditional gap/power blocking scheme, with guys like Parnell, Linder, Cann on our roster.  The only true zone player we had that couldn't do the gap scheme, IMO, is Bowanko - and he was just a 6th round investment so it's OK to move on if he can't get strong enough.

---

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

i personally think yeldon winds up being very good too. 

 

but in my line of thinking, i think its a boom or bust pick, and i feel like you just confirmed it. 

 

if you dont follow that or disagree then we can just agree to disagree. 

 

yeah, we disagree because in your mind you already think we have solid RBs on our roster.  I don't think we do.

I think our running backs are among the worst in the entire league.  Denard had 3-4 weeks where he played well - but that's about it (among multiple other weeks where he was terrible).  I like Denard on the roster and think he will continue to improve, but he's not on Yeldon's level.

 

Gerhart to me is completely pointless.  I've seen enough.  Worst RB in the league at one point last year.  Storm is as average as grits and doesn't have any qualities that make me think he can be a solid, starting RB.

 

So I think if Yeldon is at least solid (and I'm very confident he will be), you're looking at a RB much more successful than what we already have.  I don't think he will play like Gerhart or Pierce - that would make him a bust.

---

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

yeah, but there are also quotes saying that we are evaluating lineman differently now that Marrone is coaching for us.

 

The FO isn't going to just announce "well, our first 2 years trying to have a ZBS was a catastrophe.  We will try to salvage the players that we have, but will look for different kind of players now.  Coach Marrone doesn't like our ZBS and our players' skillset that we've been developing for 2 years."

 

 

I think it'll be a gradual change from all ZBS to gap/ZBS and eventually to a traditional gap/power blocking scheme, with guys like Parnell, Linder, Cann on our roster.  The only true zone player we had that couldn't do the gap scheme, IMO, is Bowanko - and he was just a 6th round investment so it's OK to move on if he can't get strong enough.

 

different evaluations dont mean different scheme though, just means theyre looking at guys differently and i really trust marrone's opinion so whatever the case is, hoping to see vast improvement. 

---

Coughlin when asked if winning will be a focus: "What the hell else is there? This is nice and dandy, but winning is what all this is about."

different evaluations dont mean different scheme though, just means theyre looking at guys differently and i really trust marrone's opinion so whatever the case is, hoping to see vast improvement. 

 

Agreed.  Frankly I don't care what they run as long  we become a good running team and give Blake time to throw the ball.  Getting sacked 70 times is ridiculous.

---

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

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer  3m3 minutes ago
<p style="color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">If Collins goes undrafted, a team could get creative, this year or next, with roster bonuses, etc. But rookie pool restricts that spending.

<p style="color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;"> 

<a class="" href='https://twitter.com/RobRang'>Rob Rang ‏@RobRang </a> <a class="" href='https://twitter.com/RobRang/status/594531174451646464' title="11:57 AM - 2 May 2015">2m2 minutes ago</a>
<p class="" style="color:rgb(41,47,51);font-family:Arial, sans-serif;">Spoke to multiple teams in last 24 hours re: La'el Collins. Expectation is he's selected today but no one committing to him for their club.

---

<B><FONT color=cyan>Jags this is your year</FONT></B>

denard is solid

gerhart is solid

pierce could be solid

maybe storm is solid

 

4 guys we already had and storm was what? a seventh rounder?

 

so if a solid running back at in Rd 2 vs a solid running back in Rd 7, you wouldnt consider the rd 2 pick a bust?

 

I think we have different definitions of the word solid.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Lies.  Where did they say that's the main reason?  

 

From their news conference, the main reasons they listed was his size, his vision, instincts, ability to catch the ball, be a 3rd down back.  

 

Three down back.

 

They did NOT say "third down back."

 

Huge difference.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Three down back.


They did NOT say "third down back."


Huge difference.

Yes, whoops. My bad.

Three down back.

---

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