Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

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

h0llywood

Gil Brandt: Luke Kuechly Next Great LB

Recommended Posts

Was there any poster that wanted a receiver instead of Star? Please name them so we can point and laugh.

There is that one guy, I forget his name, in another thread that was pretty adamantly arguing we should have drafted Hopkins instead of Star....

But most of the WR crowd are saying we should have taken one of the WRs that were available in the 2nd instead of Short.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


There is that one guy, I forget his name, in another thread that was pretty adamantly arguing we should have drafted Hopkins instead of Star....

But most of the WR crowd are saying we should have taken one of the WRs that were available in the 2nd instead of Short.

I would have liked Escobar in the second that's just me though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is that one guy, I forget his name, in another thread that was pretty adamantly arguing we should have drafted Hopkins instead of Star....

But most of the WR crowd are saying we should have taken one of the WRs that were available in the 2nd instead of Short.

The Hopkins supporters generally backed him or the TE as potential picks if Gettlemen was locked in on Short. All goes back to being against the double down.

and Gettlemen, already acknowledged they debated between Star, and TE, and an unnamed player. Could of been Hopkins who they brought in a couple times.

I like Star personally...so I think they should of gone DT and then not DT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if Gettleman had drafted a WR/TE in the first BANKING on Short being there in the second, that would have been incompetence of the greatest magnitude. If a guy like Star is there, you don't pass because you were planning on addressing that position later. Not only are you taking an inferior football player in the first (like any WR or TE in this year's draft would have been) but you run the risk of getting neither if your planned target is gone when you pick.

I can understand the disagreement on doubling down (though I agree with it because Short is a better prospect than any of the available pass catchers) but any idea of taking someone other than Star in the first ate ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I believe it's been said the third player was Rhodes. I dunno if that's just speculation or confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Said last season, if Keek were to supplant Beason, he'd have to be the Messiah of LBs. Well he did... Def think he will end up being one of the best all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luke definitely will be one of the best of All Time if he can stay healthy. Which seems to be the problem with all of are LB. Beason used to be a beast,Davis was on his way to being the best OLB in the game. Morgan would have been mentioned right up their with Lewis & Urlacher. Mark Fields, Sam Mills I mean we've had some great LB, but injuries.

 

Luke 2 weaknesses  are getting off blocks & its not that bad honestly. Rushing the QB all that will improve to go with his already impressive attributes. I love seeing how mad San Fran fans got over this article. Willis is the truth don't get me wrong, but Luke will be better very confident in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×