Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Why Ryan Shazier is the BPA.

99 posts in this topic

Posted

How can he be the BPA if the draft hasn't even started yet? Using this logic we should take Clowney because he is the best player available.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How can he be the BPA if the draft hasn't even started yet? Using this logic we should take Clowney because he is the best player available.

If he's there at 28 we very well could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If he's there at 28 we very well could.

 

 

Think we'd get our choice up to the podium faster or slower than we did with Star?  :P

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

How can he be the BPA if the draft hasn't even started yet? Using this logic we should take Clowney because he is the best player available.

 

Then maybe you should start a thread stating why Clowney is the BPA....oh wait.. no chance in hell he will be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

keep your strengths stron and ignore your weak spots.

 

makes sense.

 

need has to factor in if you aren't going to address it in FA.

 

LB is anything but a  need.

 

i don't care how good he is. we need OL. we need receivers/pass catchers. we need DBs. we might need DE. 

 

we need LB as much as we need DT and QB.

 

i wouldn't be happy with this pick, esp. if we did poo to address needs early.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did you miss the title. It says Best Player Available not biggest need.

Lol im not sure you quite understand BPA just because a player is at the top of your board doesnt mean you automatically pick that player. If a qb was the bpa on our board at 28 you really think we'll take him? What about a Dt? You do go BPA but its a mix between what you need and dont need and currently I just dont see a olb being the pick in the first round if we were talking about using a 2nd or 3rd on an olb then thats more justifiable in my opinion and yes I know shazier more than likely wont be in there 2nd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why anyone would be upset with this pick is beyond me.

There are four WR's (Watkins, Evans, Beckham, and Cooks) and four T's (Robinson, Matthews, Lewan, and Martin) that scream first round pick.

If one of those guys aren't there and you feel like Shazier is an impact player, then take him.

Also, let's not forget one of our LB's is still playing on a knee that has been surgically repaired three times. If for some awful reason TD went down, we would be in some deep poo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

keep your strengths stron and ignore your weak spots.

makes sense.

need has to factor in if you aren't going to address it in FA.

LB is anything but a need.

i don't care how good he is. we need OL. we need receivers/pass catchers. we need DBs. we might need DE.

we need LB as much as we need DT and QB.

i wouldn't be happy with this pick, esp. if we did poo to address needs early.

Disagree. That's the kind of thinking that would have not picked Kuechly.

I didn't even know about this guy until 10 minutes ago, but his highlights remind me a lot of Kuechly's college highlights. Looks like a mix of TD and Kuechly.

If you have the chance to draft a future star, you do it.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It doesn't matter because we are trading up to take Sammy Watkins anyways. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You people obviously want me to have a panic attack

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

we're in deep poo with the OL situation as it ia and we're pretty close to being in it in regards to WR and contractually we're in deep poo because of our two DEs that make it near impoasible to bring in good talent in the secondary and hurt our chances to sign other key players to long term deals.

deal with future potential needs after you've taken care of the needs on your plate right now.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Disagree. That's the kind of thinking that would have not picked Kuechly.

I didn't even know about this guy until 10 minutes ago, but his highlights remind me a lot of Kuechly's college highlights. Looks like a mix of TD and Kuechly.

If you have the chance to draft a future star, you do it.

No. Jon Beason was returning from a very serious injury and we did not know if Thomas Davis could play a full season healthy. Completely different scenario. Two different GM's.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites