Jump to content

45catfan

HUDDLER
  • Posts

    10,607
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

19,923 profile views

45catfan's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • Dedicated
  • Reacting Well
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post

Recent Badges

7.2k

Reputation

  1. Agreed on Hartman, but as you said, only if we acquire more picks. With only six selections, someone that will surely only be a backup and not even contribute is not worth it. At least other positions backups can rotate in or contribute on STs.
  2. I hope not. Lacking a first round pick and Dave "taking a step back" bodes well for him skipping this year.
  3. True and unfortunately this isn't the draft to try to replace him. It's Brock Bowers and a bunch of JAGS.
  4. Interesting, we have a lot of the same guys on our radars, TEs and RBs. I think we have to take an edge for Burns insurance. Agreed on DBs, there is plenty of depth there, but with all the other needs, i have put them on the back burner in terms of researching them too. Estime is going to be gone as I think 4th round is the highest we take a RB. I also like Allen as a pure slobber-knocker back. Dude's as big or bigger than LBs. Any RB under 220 is off the table for me. Wiley is a TE we can probably grab in the 6th round. I would like a 1-tech since we are staying with a 3-4. Not too many nose tackles in this draft. T'Vondre Sweat would be ideal, but I doubt we take a DT in the second round, let alone at #33.
  5. I'll be looking at skill position results. We need play makers in spades.
  6. I won't have time to watch it. You can sometimes get a glimpse of coaches/scouts/GMs chatting it up with guys. They don't speak to everyone, but often times it's just guys talking and not necessarily meaning serious interest in that player.
  7. A nice read about the tagging process and how little exclusive and transitional tags are used. Something was in the water int 2021 where 3 players got long-term deals, however that's the exception in the process normally. https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-franchise-tags-2024-values-deadlines/c5c7cd0cc95e017322eccbba
  8. With a week left, Burns is getting tagged. I don't see an eleventh hour deal getting done. The question is which tag and do they shop him? I think it would be dumb for the exclusive franchise tag to be applied and we lose out in the transitional tag. So the non-exclusive tag should be used and shop the dude. We might get lucky for some team to be desperate for an edge rusher.
  9. Yes, the Underwear Olympics are upon us. Tomorrow stats the checking-in process and then the weighing/measuring. Drills start on Thursday. Here's a link to look at the participants and keep up with the official recordings. https://www.nfl.com/combine/tracker/live-results/ Any particular players you guys are interesting in following during this process?
  10. Do you know if under the non-exclusive tag rules, the trading team HAS to give up two firsts or is that the cap or just a recommendation? I think we can find a partner, just not for two firsts.
  11. I'm not sure if we HAVE to get two first rounders, maybe we can negotiate. Why? Nobody is giving us that compensation for Burns. Possibly a first and some other lesser compensation or player swap Moore to Chicago. The non-exclusive tag is what I want (two first rounders), but am worried there will be no takers and we will have to play him under the tag which is VERY expensive.
  12. He ain't coming back east. That was my point. Yes, Colorado is much closer to the west coast than Charlotte the last time I checked.
  13. I did and he'll likely regress this season. Again, Moore has his moments, but isn't a consistent force.
  14. I like Worthy more than Mitchell although most big boards have Mitchell slightly higher. Legette is a one year wonder and as such is a boom or bust prospect.
  15. Hmmm....as a first round pick you can say he's been good, but not great. Smitty wasn't totally wrong on Moore, but there's been other first round WRs that have been completely dominant.
×
×
  • Create New...