Archived

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

jarhead

Gettlemen continues to get criticism for not bringing in a WR

649 posts in this topic

Not completely true.

 

Teams will reach for players based on need....bad strategy.

 

Same reason that guys like Gabbert win in the first.  He was NOT a first round talent, but teams reached because they needed a QB.

 

there is an exception to everything, and that example is a prime example of you ignoring the facts which was the tape. his tape never showed first rounder material, and somebody obviously fell in love with some aspect of his game which lead to him to being over drafted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point.  The talent wasn't there.  My talking about different drafts was just comparing the talent.  Which wasn't there this year.  Austin and Patterson don't compare at all to the guys I mentioned, who were polished, good WRs.  Not "playmakers AFTER they get the ball in their hands".  The trick in the NFL for a WR is GETTING the ball in their hands.  What they can do after is just icing on the cake.  Sometimes those guys work out (Harvin), more often than not as far as I've seen they don't (Ginn, Heyward-Bey).

 

the talent was there. comparing to other drafts of course one can make the argument that they would have not been 1st rounders because of team needs or what not. in reality we do not know that. 3 guys you name where not considered polished WRs, and where also YAC guys who could translate into becoming top tier WRs. Dez, Bay-Bay, Justin were not known for being good route runners and most WRs making that move to the league are not the most polished route runners.

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This belief that those of us that didn't want to settle for sub-par talent at WR in the 1st this year over elite talent at DT or some other positions because we believe there has to be Green/Jones talent has become a popular angle for the WR pushers.  I can only speak for myself, but I would guess some of the others have a similar stance to mine. 

 

For me, it isn't "Green/Jones talent or nothing".  For me it's "if I'm taking a WR in the middle of the 1st, I want a couple things.  First he has to be one of the BPA at an area of need (none this year were even close).  Second, if we're comparing to past draft classes and whathaveyou, I want a guy that compares to other WRs taken in the same area.  If we're thinking about taking a WR at 14, I don't want a guy that wouldn't be drafted in the 1st in most years."

 

This year not only didn't have any Greens or Joneses.  It didn't have many Blackmons, Crabtrees, Demaryius Thomases, Michael Floyds or Dez Bryants.  The only guys I'd put in that category were Hunter and Hopkins.  Hopkins just barely squeaks into that category, but could easily be labelled a tier lower.  Hunter had the injury issues, otherwise he'd solidly be in that category, sniffing the one above.

 

So the "not every draft has a Green/Jones to take" mantra can stop.  I think the "Green/Jones or nothing" opinion is a lot less popular than it's made out to be.

i disagree because the argument was consistently made that since there was no green/julio/megatron that it was a bad class and it was intimated often that we shouldn't draft one because there wasn't one of that caliber and we shouldn't draft one in the rounds after that because there was no one who they (those arguing against it) believed would be a starter.

 

it was don't draft one in the first unless it was green/julio caliber (and those were the names that were brought up by those arguing against it) and none in the next couple rounds unless they were guaranteed to be starters.

 

that may not have been your view, but it most certainly was prevalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i disagree because the argument was consistently made that since there was no green/julio/megatron that it was a bad class and it was intimated often that we shouldn't draft one because there wasn't one of that caliber and we shouldn't draft one in the rounds after that because there was no one who they (those arguing against it) believed would be a starter.

 

it was don't draft one in the first unless it was green/julio caliber (and those were the names that were brought up by those arguing against it) and none in the next couple rounds unless they were guaranteed to be starters.

 

that may not have been your view, but it most certainly was prevalent.

 

The arguement was consistently that there is not a Green/Julio type of WR in this draft....and that is what it would take to make WR a better pick than Star at #14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguement was consistently that there is not a Green/Julio type of WR in this draft....and that is what it would take to make WR a better pick than Star at #14.

I think that Hopkins/Short makes us a better team now and down the road than Star/Short

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arguement was consistently that there is not a Green/Julio type of WR in this draft....and that is what it would take to make WR a better pick than Star at #14.

 

we didn't know that star would be there.

 

if star wasn't there, imo, it was a lot more wide open. people eliminated WRs from the discussion when they absolutely should have been there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Hopkins/Short makes us a better team now and down the road than Star/Short

i would rather have had star in the first and a WR in the second.

 

i wouldn't have liked passing on star at all. he was way too good an opportunity to pass up.

 

it's the lack of attention after the first that gets me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This belief that those of us that didn't want to settle for sub-par talent at WR in the 1st this year over elite talent at DT or some other positions because we believe there has to be Green/Jones talent has become a popular angle for the WR pushers. I can only speak for myself, but I would guess some of the others have a similar stance to mine.

For me, it isn't "Green/Jones talent or nothing". For me it's "if I'm taking a WR in the middle of the 1st, I want a couple things. First he has to be one of the BPA at an area of need (none this year were even close). Second, if we're comparing to past draft classes and whathaveyou, I want a guy that compares to other WRs taken in the same area. If we're thinking about taking a WR at 14, I don't want a guy that wouldn't be drafted in the 1st in most years."

This year not only didn't have any Greens or Joneses. It didn't have many Blackmons, Crabtrees, Demaryius Thomases, Michael Floyds or Dez Bryants. The only guys I'd put in that category were Hunter and Hopkins. Hopkins just barely squeaks into that category, but could easily be labelled a tier lower. Hunter had the injury issues, otherwise he'd solidly be in that category, sniffing the one above.

So the "not every draft has a Green/Jones to take" mantra can stop. I think the "Green/Jones or nothing" opinion is a lot less popular than it's made out to be.

I guess we should look for a Braylon Edwards since he went 3rd overall while Roddy White went 27th. The same draft where Alex Smith went #1 and Aaron Rodgers went 24th.

Nobody knows how these players are going to turn out teams miss out on talent all the time. Just because a player is projected high and goes high doesn't mean he's going to be elite.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would rather have had star in the first and a WR in the second.

i wouldn't have liked passing on star at all. he was way too good an opportunity to pass up.

it's the lack of attention after the first that gets me.

See that's where it gets difficult at that point a sacrifice was going to be made. If we didn't pick a WR at 14 or trade down to get one at the end of the round then there wasnt going to be one at 44.

I know we both wanted a WR taken so I'm interested to know what you would have done with the 44th pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is like a figure 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Hopkins/Short makes us a better team now and down the road than Star/Short

 

No way....you don't pass on Star.  Hopkins should be a good WR, but Star is a stud.

 

If anything, you take Keenan Allen in the 2nd.  But, we spent a lot of time with him and there was a reason we passed on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See that's where it gets difficult at that point a sacrifice was going to be made. If we didn't pick a WR at 14 or trade down to get one at the end of the round then there wasnt going to be one at 44.

I know we both wanted a WR taken so I'm interested to know what you would have done with the 44th pick.

 

gavin escobar, allen, or patton.

 

if not one of those three i would have tried to move into the 3rd round and pick up either one of those guys (if still available) or bailey.

 

as much as i like kugbilla, seeing as how patton was still available at that point kind of gets me upset.

 

the thing is, we had options. there are things we could have done to improve an area that needs improving and we didn't do it and it only makes it more of a desperate situation for us down the road. we had options that would have been legit and respectable and would have at the very least competed for a starting gig but we didn't take it. now we have an old stud WR who plays hard and gets hurt often and 3 ok guys on one year deals (and i consider lafell to be on a one year deal at this point).

 

sure, it would have been a gamble to take a WR at any point this year, but can anyone say that taking the route that we are currently on isn't gambling as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites