- 3,176
- 1,332
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
LOL.
The Invincible Thread
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by 651akathepaul,
- Start date
- Status
LOL.
- 68,176
- 24,538
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
but who gives a ****? in the end they gave up ONE draft pick but that goes against your argument so it's "meaningless"
maybachmarciano
Banned
- 12
- 13
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2016
That sounds like a rg3 type boat load deal in the 2012 draft....
Unless he's Andrew Luck...why give all that up
What post did you read that says that Cody Kessler would be a better pick? Are you lost, confused, what're we doin here?
Philly gave up a bunch of stuff to get Wentz, a bunch. Cleveland, accepted all those picks, made even more, took a much lower rated QB and is getting similar production. (with extra picks to boot)
You read this as, the Eagles should have taken Kessler? Is that how you're interpreting the message?
Logical reasoning makes it clear to see that you think guys like Dak and Kessler would've been better picks when factoring in the cost to get him no ?
Hot Takes saying that this or that guy would've been a better pick is dumb as hell ..especially since I see you in the Laker thread going at dudes necks who say that Dlo or Ingram are bad picks
We are TEN games into the season
No, logical reasoning is they should have (in theory) taken the second best player in college football, with the 2nd pick. (that would have become best player, since the Rams took Goff)
That's logical reasoning.
I said not to trade multiple picks (over multiple drafts) to take a player that wasn't the clear cut 2nd best player in the draft. I've said that 152 times now. Do you still need clarification or we good?
One pick........you're losin me, one pick? I see 5, did I mistype or something?
You guys are complaining about lack of receivers, lack of Olineman, lack of playmakers.........would you not be able to add some of those positions with a 3rd and 4th round pick?
Could you not have traded DOWN, with those picks, and added pieces?
Could you not have surrounded Bradford with those parts, and had your future first and second round picks? Or was that not possible, at all? I'm not saying right or wrong, I'm asking you if it was possible.
- 23,316
- 11,740
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2012
- 147,055
- 193,955
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
ummmmmm.. I never actually said "nothing else".. you used the word "another" I was seeking to clarify that, unless we have different definitions of the word..
and if the picks we gave up to get wentz are relevant to your point, why don't our "other picks" matter in this the discussion?
Last edited:
Do Elliott and Dak die before this redraft? Bosa?
- 6,244
- 2,028
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
Question for you guys who believe the "Eagles gave all that up when they could have took Dak late....etc" narrative: Do you truly believe that Dak would be putting up similar numbers in Philly compared to what he's doing in Dallas? Be honest.
- 147,055
- 193,955
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
- 23,316
- 11,740
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2012
No way an RB or DE is going #1 with two legitimate QB prospects on the board, it's going to be a QB. So it's between Dak and Wentz.
Many GMs will make the argument that we only know Dak has thrived behind this line and with the tools around him.
Everything else we knew prior to the draft being taken into consideration (measurables, future projections etc.) , it's still likely Wentz goes #1.
Last edited:
shatterkneesinc
Banned
- 22,524
- 2,383
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
I don't know, honestly. Would you use your first, second, and third round picks to bolster the offense around Dak? If so, then why couldn't he? The coaching staff is doing great work with Wentz, could they not do great work with Dak, but with more weapons/Oline on the team?
Only QB's are allowed to go #1?
"many GM's"
You know some of the GM's that still have jobs in the NFL, right?
- 29,120
- 27,518
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
can someone @ me when we start talking about thanksgiving again
- 23,316
- 11,740
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2012
You really see a RB or DE going #1 in 2016 when there's a good chance there are two franchise QBs on the board?Only QB's are allowed to go #1?
"many GM's"You know some of the GM's that still have jobs in the NFL, right?
I don't think every GM that passed on Dak will have put him above Wentz after 10 games, no.
Last edited:
Trey Bantz
formerly trey ohh five
- 19,602
- 10,574
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
This is the classic gambler's rationalization, "I was playing with house money so it doesn't matter that I lost it." Well, technically at one point you had all that money and could've walked away.
Last edited:
District of Columbia
formerly dcmade
- 8,220
- 3,920
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2013
***** ain't **** logical about that
You locate your guy and do wat it takes to get him. Period.
Maybe the Lakers should've took Okafor since he was clearly the 2nd best player in CBB.
- 6,523
- 1,037
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
Nevermind
Last edited:
- 68,176
- 24,538
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
but it doesn't matter, in the end it worked out that way
EddieDoyers
formerly eddiengambino
- 46,208
- 23,878
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2012
I will post my thanksgiving food power rankings tomorrow
- 24,015
- 3,122
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2001
- 147,055
- 193,955
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2007
please explain how this analogy works to the NFL draft where you have to use the draft picks in some manner..
you either walk away with player(s) and/or future draft pick(s).. there is no "you had all that money and could've walked away"
- 6,244
- 2,028
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
So you're basically saying that if the Eagles took Dak in the 4th, an o-linemen, and a couple receivers in the earlier rounds, that he would be lighting it up like he's doing in Dallas, right?
That those rookie receivers/O-linemen would be able to produce at the level of a veteran o-line with multiple all-pros, a receiving corps that boasts a perennial pro bowler at WR, and a HOF TE (not to mention Beasley and Terrance Williams, who aren't exactly scrubs themselves).
Hell, IDK. But I do know that there's way too many hypothetical situations to consider when trying to use that narrative.
Last edited:
- Status