Jump to content

TD alt

HUDDLER
  • Posts

    927
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TD alt

  1. According to what I've read, any "talent" at edge outside of like three guys is highly speculative. So there may be guys there, but they're not exactly grading out as guys that can come in and make an immediate impact; It's more like any draft.
  2. It's not even really a Huddle thing, even analysts think that we need to get Bryce another legit weapon. Losing to the Chiefs and Eagles still equals two losses at the end of the day. Beating the Falcons the second time around was great, but our record was not. We made strides, but hooking our bandwagon to an old guy is not ideal. I say just draft the BPA, if that happens to be McMillan if he's still on the board, it is what it is. If it's Malaki Starks (or possibly Carter or Graham, both if whom I think will be gone), I'm good with that too. FA will go a long way towards determining what's what.
  3. I like McMillan as well, but it's not a surety that he's a WR1 (and there's no surety that he's destined to be the best WR in this class). That being said, at the moment I'd say he'd be a good bet.
  4. Best player available. If that's a WR, then it is what it is. Sorry (not sorry). You don't reach for a player at a position of need because you feel like it. Reaching is arguably how we ended up where we are today. Thielen is not a WR1, it doesn't look like Legette is either. Coker isn't a WR1. We arguably have three guys with WR2 upside (if we're lucky...which we're not). WR is on our list of needs, whether you like it or not. You look at what you're in the market for, choose the player with the highest grade, and put in your card. If you can trade down to gain value, then you can consider that as well. This is how this works.
  5. I remember when some people were complaining that we overpaid. Remember that?
  6. Dude, there were questionable calls both ways. At the end of the day, Josh missed it by a hair. All of you conspiracy theorists are just going to have to deal with the fact that the Chiefs simply own the Bills, and it's going to take something spectacular for them to break out of jail. But their in the jail cell with everyone else in the AFC.
  7. OK, I am wrong on that if that's true, but it's still meant to elicit some type of reaction to mention him and Megatron in the same breath, as Megatron was mainly known for his size-speed combination than his actual catch radius. Hell, there have been plenty of guys with arguably a better catch radius than Megatron, two that we should be very familiar with in the aforementioned Mike Evans, and Julio Jones. Julio may have been the greatest of them all. Megatron may be somewhere down the list, but Jones and Evans are probably more closer to the gold standard as far as catch radius is concerned.
  8. @tukafan21 is admittedly biased, and I'm gonna admit that I kinda laugh and purse my lips and raise my eyebrows simultaneously when he says that Tet is going to be the next Megatron, but even if Tet can give you 75 percent of what Mike Evans has given the Bucs, then I'd take that in a heartbeat. The thing is, just from the eye test, I think that Tet may be a tad more fluid and a tad faster than Evans. He may be somewhere between Evans and CJ in regards to speed and athleticism, but even if his potential is that of Evans, that's great because Mike Evans has been one of the most productive receivers of a generation. Even with 4.5 speed, Evans has been generational. So, I don't care if Tet runs a sub 4.5 40 or not. Hell, Keenan Allen was a 4.6 guy. The same for Cooper Kupp. Tee Higgins is damned near a 4.6 guy. I say this to say that sometimes speed is overrated. One thing that we can say is that Tet absolutely has flypaper hands, and he looks to be a matchup nightmare due to his ability to make catches and his catch radius alone.
  9. That's a pretty substantial difference, and to be honest I don't know what metric the writer is using. The question would be if there is a similar ratio within the context of PFF's numbers though the numbers are different. Though the PFF numbers are elevated, do they follow a similar path, and can we draw the same conclusions? That's really the point, and I am no stats guy (and don't have a PFF subscription) so I don't know the answer. It would be interesting to see if there is any correlation however, in regards to pressure win-rates in college being predictive of success in the pros.
  10. Not necessarily. Everyone has their opinion, so take the following with a grain of salt. "But for those EDGEs with a 14% pressure rate or lower, only 1 in 8 turn out to be good pros with almost half being busts." https://phillycovercorner.com/2024/12/projecting-edges-to-the-nfl-and-a-look-at-the-2025-draft-class/ Now I'm not saying this guy's mouth is a prayer book, because it's an opinion based on either his own big board (or someone else's), but the stats that he has informed readers about, in regards to the success rates of past drafted EDGEs in the NFL, is not something that's really arguable (presuming his stats are correct). What we must determine is if it's worth drafting an EDGE at a certain position within those parameters, or just buck the correlation (if it comes down to that). But within the context of the article, there are really only three guys worth taking in the first round.
  11. It's all about value. Passing up superior players to reach for a need is not necessarily going to lead to desired results. You do that too many times, and you have what we have now.
  12. I mean, no one is right. You just have to make it interesting, and Kiper is a fast talker with a smooth delivery that knows a lot about the players and team needs.
  13. Well, Thomas Davis... But, yeah, when I was reading all that, I couldn't help but think to myself, "This may end in an injury settlement."
  14. He doesn't need to play in 2025. And maybe not 2026 either from what I've read. This is but one peer-reviewed selection: "A devastating complication of returning to sport following ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is a second ACL injury. Strong evidence now indicates that younger, more active athletes are at particularly high risk for a second ACL injury and this risk is greatest within the first two years following ACLR." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5226931/ Regarding your first question... "The optimal timing of ACLR is an important clinical decision that affects patient outcomes significantly. Even though there is no consensus in the literature, there are some trends regarding timing of ACLR. Various authors suggest that ACLR be performed at least 3 weeks after injury in order to avoid arthrofibrosis. More important than time alone, objective criteria including perioperative swelling, edema, hyperthermia, and ROM are important indicators of when surgery should be performed." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4004131/#:~:text=The optimal timing of ACLR is an important clinical decision,in order to avoid arthrofibrosis.
  15. Not really. It's a team sport. You win as a team and lose as a team. The QB pretty much is the most important player on the field, and affects and effects the game positively or negatively. If Daniels plays out of his mind, that doesn't cast a negative light on Barkley or his acquisition by the Eagles.
  16. You keep saying that, but the fact is is that RBs are still very valuable on the field. But, yes, where you draft one does depend upon whether you need one. For example, if Jeanty is still on the board when the Cowboys pick, it might behoove them to take him.
  17. It depends upon what stats you're looking at, and what supports your narrative. Teams with RBs drafted in the first round are not only represented in the playoffs, but the Super Bowl over the last decade. If you're going to say, "Well they didn't win," I will ask you, "Why didn't they win?" Hell, we didn't lose the Super Bowl due to J-Stew. The 49ers didn't lose the Super Bowl due to CMC (hell, they almost won because of him). Did the Ravens really lose the game yesterday because of King Henry? Stats can make something look black and white that's not. There are a multitude of reasons why teams don't win championships (not that the inability to win rings is necessarily a sign of a failed season). It's almost a certainty that you'd rather have one than not. Of course it's always better to find a first round talent on day 3 (but that can be said for any position). It's not necessarily a good strategy to go into the draft saying you're going to draft this position or that position on this day or that day, you should always let the draft come to you. It's about value and knowing when to strike.
×
×
  • Create New...