45catfan

Or we could use one of the 6th rounds on one and go really cheap.

I'm still looking for an OT in the 2nd. We just signed Fox and still have Larkin. There's some depth at DE. OT? We have Scott and Little. No thanks! I'm hoping that either Cosmi or Randunz will be there at #39.

For those wanting Neal, he signed with the Cowgirls. Besides, we really need to sign a DT to keep our options open during the draft and safety is merely on the wish list. If no FA DT is signed, we will have to spend a day 2 or early day 3 selection on DT.

For the record, I am 100% against moving up to #3 even at the risk of missing out on one of the 'big four' QBs. There's too much talent in the top 10 to say you HAVE to move up and likewise is dumb to mortgage future first rounders for one player.

Here's another one that's interesting:

I can't remember any team intentionally sitting a top 4 pick for 1-2 years. I'm sure it's happened, but that's a TON of draft capital to be sitting on the pine, especially for a new coaching staff. I know Atlanta hates us, but they would be better suited to trade out of #4 to a QB needy team (besides the Panthers) opposed to spiting us by sitting their #1 pick for up to two years. That's just bass ackwards.

Sewell isn't even the consensus #1 tackle. If Salter's arms were a few inches longer, he'd be the #1 LT more so than he is now various BBs. The Bengals have choices. If the Jets stick with Darold and take Sewell, we may not even have to trade up at all. That's one QB available that most people didn't expect to be there.

No need to trade up to #3. Cincy's #5 is all we to move up to get Lance or Fields. There is no chance QBs go 1,2,3,4...repeat ZERO. Actually little chance Detroit or Philly go QB either. However, I'm not sure we take the chance that someone trades into one of those spots though. That's where the real risk lies.

After running a 4.25, Stokes will not last until #73.

A little different one since we have added players in FA. No longer do I feel the need to draft a TE or 3 O-linemen. Seems odd, but it's still defense heavy even after last year's draft. In addition the the obvious QB and LT, I drafted: CB (outside), nickel CB, FS, 3-tech DT, NT, LB/S hybrid with Stevens and C/G with Meinerz. Solid overall!

It would have to be the 3rd, he won't make it until the 4th. Some team may even take him late 2nd. it weird to se a guard with such an impressive highlight film. It's fun to re-watch. I laugh through most of it as he straight punks so many defensive players. I've never seen so many guys get laid out by an O-lineman before.

Not worth #8; bigger needs in the second than safety and will be LONG gone by the 3rd round.

He's going to have to block some. The team isn't going to trot him on the field only in 3rd and long situations. Grated, he's a pass cathcing TE, but even those guys have to do some dirty work now and again.

Pretty productive actually. It's just odd seeing a TE that light outside of high school. Serioulsy, if the dude has a mean streak, he doesn't need to be 250 to be an effective blocker. Look at Smitty; for 5'9" and 180 pounds, he could block dudes much bigger than him.

Who would think a team needs two legit TEs? Pffft, not the Panthers.

Cool. I like it, but can we feed this man some spinach? Scratch that, a box of doughnuts...

If there is ZERO proof, then he either didn't do it or was smart enough to meet these women out one-on-one where proof would be be difficult demostrate. Unlike Robert Kraft who went to a message parlor (cameras, multiple witnesses etc...)

So he gets away with it is all you care about, not whether he actually did it or not. Cool, as long as your priorities are in order, bro.

You have heard what the 3rd complaint is, right? MUCH more than rubbing and exposing.

-Domestic dispute by no-name player -Sexual misconduct complaints filed by multiple women by a marquee player that's already been in the headlines for weeks. Which one is the news driver? Hmmmm

The life of an egotistical lawyer. Don't get it twisted, I am not defending this goober (I equate lawyers with pond scum) but trying to figure out what his angle in going this route could be. I'd much rather go back to the good old days of like--20 years ago--when you had to look in a phone book for a lawyer and not have them on TV commercials, billboards and radio ads. Crap, they are streaming commercials on SLING NOW!

Nine women and counting...I'd say the odds aren't in his favor.

I agree to an extent, but when you are trying to litigate against a VERY famous person, why not get your case as much exposure as possible? Maybe that's his rationale? If this was Joe Smoe with a sexual misconduct charge, I doubt he would trying this in the court of public opinion.

To me he comes across as a lawyer. So I guess you were right.

I guess 'alleged' at this point, but if true, calling him a womanizer is putting it mild. You do know the allegations...especially the one the came out today? If true, then Tepper would be 100% hypocritical to even think about signing Watson here, civil suit or not.