Jump to content
Carolina Huddle
  • Hey There!

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

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Then it should be easy. Who that hadn’t already passed on him was trading up? 

The Rams could have stayed put at 45 (instead of trading to NE) to take Little to groom behind Whitworth for a year, since he’s old as hell and is a FA next season. Probably would have been an ideal situation to ease him into the starting position, after learning from one of the best.

The draft is such a fluid and complex process...every move causes ripple effects and impacts subsequent moves. It’s virtually impossible, even with hindsight, to predict how things would have unfolded even if you alter just one move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


7 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

The Rams could have stayed put at 45 (instead of trading to NE) to take Little to groom behind Whitworth for a year, since he’s old as hell and is a FA next season. Probably would have been an ideal situation to ease him into the starting position, after learning from one of the best.

The draft is such a fluid and complex process...every move causes ripple effects and impacts subsequent moves. It’s virtually impossible, even with hindsight, to predict how things would have unfolded even if you alter just one move.

So one team possibly, maybe might have. Even though that same team passed on Little 6 picks earlier. Sure why not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Toomers said:

So one team possibly, maybe might have. Even though that same team passed on Little 6 picks earlier. Sure why not? 

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? We don’t know teams draft boards the broncos took a tackle at 45 ish you think they would’ve passed on a better rated tackle to take the guy they drafted cone on now you’re arguing to make your point while leaving out obvious scenarios. He would have been drafted before 47 based on how it played out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? 

If you had watched the video, you will clearly see the Bills trying to trade up to get Ford. Then you will see them celebrate when we take Little instead of Ford. The Bills were not likely to take Little. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Toomers said:

So one team possibly, maybe might have. Even though that same team passed on Little 6 picks earlier. Sure why not? 

Lol why are you stating “possibly, maybe might have” as if to be dismissive. Are you really looking for absolute concrete empirical fact that a team would DEFINITELY beyond any doubt have taken Little before our pick? I wish I had known that’s where your bar was so I could have abstained from even engaging in the impossible. If you posit a hypothetical scenario, then generally you’re going to be met with an answer based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning.

-”Hey if you decided to major in Aerospace Engineering rather than Theater Arts, would you be making more money now?”

-“Well...the median salary for Aerospace Engineering is virtually double that of Theater Arts majors, so it is very likely...”

-“Psh okay maybe possibly....but do you KNOW though...?”

What kind of answer are you looking for?

And why would it be hard to believe if the Rams thought Little was worth a mid-second round pick but not a late first-round pick? There is a pretty drastic difference in value between the two. Generally if a team trades down at the end of the first (as they did), that’s because they don’t find as much value there and think they could get someone comparable with a later pick.

Also, refer to the second paragraph of my original post.

  • Poo 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, trucpfan said:

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? We don’t know teams draft boards the broncos took a tackle at 45 ish you think they would’ve passed on a better rated tackle to take the guy they drafted cone on now you’re arguing to make your point while leaving out obvious scenarios. He would have been drafted before 47 based on how it played out.

The Bills have a LT already. Why would they take Little as opposed to a more versatile RT/G. Little isn’t playing those positions. 

The Broncos took a player that plays everything BUT LT. Or is that not obvious enough?  

 I can just as easily show and back up that he would have been there at 47. No team needed a LT. They had all passed on him once. Those are the facts. Everything else is hypothetical. 

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Toomers said:

The Bills have a LT already. Why would they take Little as opposed to a more versatile RT/G. Little isn’t playing those positions. 

The Broncos took a player that plays everything BUT LT. Or is that not obvious enough?  

 I can just as easily show and back up that he would have been there at 47. No team needed a LT. They had all passed on him once. Those are the facts. Everything else is hypothetical. 

Assuming no team who liked Little wouldn't have traded up ahead of us or no team in between wouldn't have drafted Little is also a hypothetical.

Regardless, whether you agree with them or not, our FO had a first round grade on Little and may have even reached further to draft him at 16 if Burns wasn't there (thankfully that wasn't the case). So in their(FO) eyes, trading #47 and #77 for a top 20 guy is a no-brainer. Again, I am not saying you have to agree with that placed value, but you can see why to them the trade was justified. Of course I would have preferred to get him at 47 while keeping 77 to get another need, but it is hard to argue with their thinking either, knowing they valued Little that highly. They essentially got two guys they considered at #16 and that is a win.

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the videos posted in this thread. What I see is a smart LT. He's not physically imposing but he knows where and how he can give up leverage without giving up a play. This is huge since you'll inevitably lose on plays in the NFL, but it's important to minimize your loses. I guess that comes from playing the same position for an extended period of time - you understand the nuisances of the position. I wouldn't move him to Guard - ever. Let him play LT and adjust to the NFLs speed and physicality. He'll be fine. I hate when this team brings in Lineman and DBs to play a position they've never really played before. A CB is not a Safety, an OG is not an OT, and a DT is definitely not a damn starting RT in the NFL!

  • Pie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

If you had watched the video, you will clearly see the Bills trying to trade up to get Ford. Then you will see them celebrate when we take Little instead of Ford. The Bills were not likely to take Little. 

Just watched the video Beane’s putting in work I was happy to see that. But I as everyone keeps stating he was the only pure LT left what would we do with Ford is my question? They thought we were taking Ford and started pouting that was hilarious. We’ll definitely see how this plays out this year and years to come being  they were both coveted in the same manner but by two different teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

Lol why are you stating “possibly, maybe might have” as if to be dismissive. Are you really looking for absolute concrete empirical fact that a team would DEFINITELY beyond any doubt have taken Little before our pick? I wish I had known that’s where your bar was so I could have abstained from even engaging in the impossible. If you posit a hypothetical scenario, then generally you’re going to be met with an answer based on inductive rather than deductive reasoning.

-”Hey if you decided to major in Aerospace Engineering rather than Theater Arts, would you be making more money now?”

-“Well...the median salary for Aerospace Engineering is virtually double that of Theater Arts majors, so it is very likely...”

-“Psh okay maybe possibly....but do you KNOW though...?”

What kind of answer are you looking for?

And why would it be hard to believe if the Rams thought Little was worth a mid-second round pick but not a late first-round pick? There is a pretty drastic difference in value between the two. Generally if a team trades down at the end of the first (as they did), that’s because they don’t find as much value there and think they could get someone comparable with a later pick.

Also, refer to the second paragraph of my original post.

I’m Dismissive? Coming from someone who tries to dismiss any slightest issue with how this team is run. With almost every post. Or when you do that is it OK? Then when I question you about what these specific “hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty” were, poof you disappear. Instantly. 

  I posted a legit reason for your scenario not being likely. Why would LA pass on him at 31? But your made up hypothetical is much more valid...lol.

Maybe you could point me to the trade where LA traded DOWN in the 1st round. Or is this something else you made up to support your BS? Throw out another diatribe based on a lie. Rape a thesaurus? Rinse. Repeat. 

 

  • Poo 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt he has the talent and athleticism, will he put in the work it’s going to take to make him a really good OT is the question.

And of course there is the question about him being “soft”, that he doesn’t finish guys off. I think working with Matsko will do wonders for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Peppers90 NC said:

Assuming no team who liked Little wouldn't have traded up ahead of us or no team in between wouldn't have drafted Little is also a hypothetical.

Regardless, whether you agree with them or not, our FO had a first round grade on Little and may have even reached further to draft him at 16 if Burns wasn't there (thankfully that wasn't the case). So in their(FO) eyes, trading #47 and #77 for a top 20 guy is a no-brainer. Again, I am not saying you have to agree with that placed value, but you can see why to them the trade was justified. Of course I would have preferred to get him at 47 while keeping 77 to get another need, but it is hard to argue with their thinking either, knowing they valued Little that highly. They essentially got two guys they considered at #16 and that is a win.

   Them having a mid 1st round grade on Little is part of the problem, not the answer. 

  And if we don’t throw away our next pick, it would have been much easier to understand. But doing both, with holes still there, made no sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trucpfan said:

So the Bills trading up to take the best available tackle left means what to you? If Little was there you trying to say they would’ve traded up and passed on him? We don’t know teams draft boards the broncos took a tackle at 45 ish you think they would’ve passed on a better rated tackle to take the guy they drafted cone on now you’re arguing to make your point while leaving out obvious scenarios. He would have been drafted before 47 based on how it played out.

According to the draft room video put out by the Bills official YT channel, Cody Ford was their target the entire way. They thought that Carolina had traded up for Ford, and then immediately traded up to get him fearing a run on tackles once they heard that Little was the pick (though I suppose they saw the selection of Taylor by JAX two picks prior to signal the start of the run).

Broncos had also been rumoured to be targeting Risner for a hot minute now due to his flexibility on the line (Ja'Wuan James was inked to a $51M deal to hold down the RT position). Garrett Bolles was a 2nd rounder I believe a couple of seasons prior. Risner is likely coming in to start at center after Denver lost Paradis to Carolina.

I believe that Little would have likely been there at #47 and was not happy with the pick nor the trade up to make it happen. The pick is growing on me, and hopefully he turns out to be the franchise LT we've been missing since Jordan Gross. If he does, then #77 was a small price to pay to make sure that we got him.

I still would have preferred waiting until #47 to take either Little or Scharping so that we could get Deiter with #77 and have our OL set for the next three seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Toomers said:

I’m Dismissive? Coming from someone who tries to dismiss any slightest issue with how this team is run. With almost every post. Or when you do that is it OK? Then when I question you about what these specific “hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty” were, poof you disappear. Instantly. 

  I posted a legit reason for your scenario not being likely. Why would LA pass on him at 31? But your made up hypothetical is much more valid...lol.

Maybe you could point me to the trade where LA traded DOWN in the 1st round. Or is this something else you made up to support your BS? Throw out another diatribe based on a lie. Rape a thesaurus? Rinse. Repeat. 

 

Dang dawg...were you holding that in this whole time? I apologize for not answering your other question a week ago. I read it at the theater during the previews before Avengers and then it slipped my mind by the time the movie was done cause you know, it’s like 17 hours long. As an aside, I’m also generally no longer interested in engaging those people who I believe are legitimately close-minded, on every single point...cause then it’s just a back-and-forth unproductive mess that wastes both parties’ time and amounts to nothing. I don’t think you are one of those blatant dishonest actors, but just saying FYI I may disappear from more arguments in the future if I get that impression from someone...poof...instantly.

If you really wanna bring that up right now...in this thread...I can give you examples from that topic alone. The type of double standard I’m referring to is when people are debating Hurney vs. Gettleman for the 819382th time and that one guy brings up “Amini was a 2nd round pick....AMINI WAS A 2ND ROUND PICK...!!!” as some kind of mic drop, with complete disregard for the numerous failed high draft picks of Gettleman and every other GM in the league. And an example of intellectual dishonesty is trying to present an analogy, equating the expectation of Hurney improving the second time around, with the expectation of Jimmy Clausen being a better QB if we were to give him a second chance or whatever. I hope I don’t have to actually poke holes in that analogy and explain why that’s intellectually dishonest, but I’m not trying to derail this thread any further than I have to.

LA traded down from 31 to get the Falcons’ second and third round picks...I’m not sure what you are trying to dispute here. Hence I’m not sure why you’re suggesting them passing on Little at 31 means that they would have passed on him at 45. Is this some inconsequential semantics thing? Like they traded down FROM the first round instead of IN the first round? I said they traded down at the end of the first round...is that not a factual statement? This is an easy google search.

Do you know what a diatribe is? The only diatribe I see is your last heated post where you attack me. Maybe I will let you borrow that thesaurus that I rape before each post ;)

Also I didn’t say you ARE dismissive...I was stating that you were being dismissive in that instance, which you were. That’s the difference between us - I’m more interested in attacking a point rather than a person.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matsko is one of the best teachers out there and Wharton has a lot of experience in the trenches. I think you'll see him catch on quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,837
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Slapdad
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      144,652
    • Total Posts
      4,725,618
  • Posts

    • Since most people forget, Moton spent much of the preseason weeks at LT and started there week 1. He looked great at LT against a very good Dallas DL and he also looked great in the week 3 (the one where starters play almost the entire game) preseason game against New England, another solid DL. That said, he looked just as good at RT when Williams went down the second time. Moton’s got the ability to ply both tackle spots, which is good and bad. Good because it helps us have depth because he can switch if a backup is better at one or the other. Bad because I worry that they’ll continually move him instead of letting him become a possible Pro-Bowl tackle. I think he’s got that potential.
    • Because it’s actually an accredited news organization? 
    • Perfectly sums up the conservative relationship with AOC. What the hell is a "look at me moron?" What you're basically saying is you can't stop looking at her, so you need to find it a derogatory thing so you can make it mesh with your tribalistic political ethos. You're basically Lisa Simpson:   The sooner you Pubs reconcile with your confused boner, the sooner you'll be able to grow up. Maybe then you'll stop worrying about who other people marry, what women do with their bodies, and what bathroom someone wants to use.
×
×
  • Create New...