SuperKillerRobots
-
Posts
1,041 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SuperKillerRobots
-
-
Not a problem...
I agree, there isn't really anything to complain about as the Bills haven't even snapped the ball for real in a game...I guess that's just the point, that I am trying to "learn" after a tough decade to wipe the losermentality off our shoulders and try to think positive and feel positive about the future of the Bills. I coul've posted
about all the things that I thought the Bills did this off-season, that IMO were incorrect, but I am trying to concentrate on
the things they did right and try and look at it as "It's the managements job to build the Bills...and they must have
knowlege of the game...and know what their doing...So I should try and give them a chance to build the Bills in the image
of the team they want them to become.....before overanalyzing...and bashing their every move.
So what I'm saying is I agree....and I am also trying not to be a complainer...and your right, there very well may not be
nothing but praise due the Bills...Hopefully that will be the case.
Way to try and stay positive. One of the things that I think about in the football offseason is all the teams each year that do turn it around suddenly. For most of those teams, before the season, most fans were equally as skeptical as most Bills fans are now. Not to say that it's going to happen (the immediate turnaround), but it goes to show that it doesn't matter what people say now about any team because next year they'll all be busy rationalizing what actually did happen, which is what actually matters.
-
If this is the case you would think a team with a good QB in need of a perennial probowl WR might be willing to give up something the Bills need in exchange for a top WR that will continue not to get the ball on the current roster.
Maybe Chan will figure out how to get Evans the Ball with one of the 4 Arms on the Roster. If not you’d like to see them stop wasting Lee's time, the $9 million of salary Cap and the development opportunity for younger players.
That's assuming that the Bills would make the trade. Nix and Gailey both said that the team has a decent foundation, but no real stars. Why would you trade a potential star when you seem to be trying to pile them on at all costs (see Spiller in round 1)?
I think Lee is a star given the right environment.
-
81 Easley, Marcus WR 6-2 207 22 R Connecticut
83 Evans, Lee WR 5-10 197 29 7 Wisconsin
84 Hardy, James WR 6-5 220 24 2 Indiana
15 Huggins, Felton WR 6-2 186 27 1 Southeastern Louisia
17 Jackson, Chad WR 6-1 223 25 3 Florida
13 Johnson, Steve WR 6-2 202 23 3 Kentucky
19 Jones, Donald WR 6-0 214 22 R Youngstown State
86 Nelson, David WR 6-5 217 23 R Florida
11 Parrish, Roscoe WR 5-9 178 27 6 Miami
18 Roosevelt, Naaman WR 6-0 189 R UB
EDIT: I am taking evans, parrish, nelson, huggins, and easley on special teams. Thats right, huggins.
I'm going to say that they keep six of them:
Evans
Easley
Hardy
Johnson
Parish
Nelson
I want them to keep Roosevelt (and think he'll at least make the PS), but I can't see them keeping 3 small WRs. I think they are going to try to go big on the outside and small in the slot.
-
Im sure it is more of a problem most just have ways around getting busted
They're called prescriptions. All you have to do is carry the bottle with you. You'd think anyone playing football, with that much money and resources at their disposal, would be able to find a doctor/reason to get them prescribed.
-
I think it's dumb and I'm glad the Bills are against it. There are SB site selection rules that have been in place a long time. It must be indoors or in a city where the average high for early Feb is 50 or above. Rules are rules. I also think it's great that it's always in good weather. Would you really want to see the Super Bowl played in weather like in the Bills/Dolts game?
So if the do have it in NJ does that mean that the present rules are off? Does this open it up to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle? I might think it's OK if that's the case, but somehow I don't think it is.
So yeah, vote NO.
I agree with this completely. I think you vote no because you know this is an exception instead of the rule. On top of that, it's an exception for Giants/Jets charity. They're having trouble selling the seats for their new stadium because of the pricing and the economy, so the NFL is going to throw them a bone to juice up excitement. My question is, if you're giving out charity, then I think there are more deserving teams (i.e. Bills). This is like the Wall Street bailout - they overspent and weren't properly hedged against a turn in the economy and now they are in trouble unless the league does something about (by "in trouble" I mean relatively, not that they're going under).
-
Agreed. I think our offense is bound to be in shambles but we've brought in a LOT of solid additions to our run Defense. Plus our pass defense is already stellar...I think we'll be in a lot of very low scoring games this year.
Our run defense should definitely be better. After the combine, I started thinking about the draft and it occurred to me that easily our most overlooked issue was the run defense, if not also the most important. I think with how bang-your-head-against-the-wall-bad things were last year, people tend to forget how many games we were in late and lost and how much that was due to us not being able to stop the run. Not to say that we're going to win 10 games this year because all we needed were some fat guys, but I think it will go a long way to making the Bills more watchable than the past few years. I don't know about anyone else, but I can stand lower scoring games, but I can't stand watching a team run 6 times in a row for 4 first downs in the 4th quarter of a tight game.
You can make the QB/LT case boths ways on this too. One is saying that if you have a good QB/LT you need to get the ball to the offense one time in the fourth quarter, they score, team wins. On the flip side, if you don't have such a good QB, you have to get him the ball more than once in the 4th quarter to expect to come back. Since for the most part it's easier to find run defenders than a guaranteed good QB in the draft, I can see why they did what they did in the draft on defense.
-
Wow, that sounds eerily similar to a certain PSU DE who padded his stats against the likes of Coastal Carolina and Syracuse.
Great point JPS. And yet that same coach who was fighting for his job chose him. Stupid, huh?
This is what maeks me crazy about the Maybin pick. Why the hell don't you take the guy with better production? DJ needs to save his job by putting together at least a middling but competitive season. He needs more out of the pass rush. First everyone says Orakpo won't be there when we pick, so we're probably stuck with Maybin or one of the other guys that really didn't do anything. Orakpo falls into their laps, with solid college production, no major issues (outside of the quietly stated and possibly overrated work ethic issues) and they don't take him. In hindsight it seems typical of the entire DJ era - basically a blind squirrel looking for a nut.
-
Brian Orakpo played LINEBACKER last year on a team devoid of linebackers. Aaron Maybin's bosses put him at DEFENSIVE END on a team with veteran defensive ends. Orakpo probably would have had similar production on the Bills as the coach was trying to save his job.
Another interesting Orakpo stat: He had 8 or so of his 11 sacks against the likes of Oakland, Tampa, KC and Detroit with NO sacks and about 8 total tackles in 6 games against the NFC EAST. To compare Maybin's '09 season to Orakpo is like comparing Malcolm Jenkins to Jairus Byrd.
I partly agree with what you're saying, but none of the circumstancial evidence you cite makes the little Maybin did look any better. I do think it's a joke that people thought Orakpo deserved the DROY more than Byrd.
-
I don't understand why Thurman would criticize Marshawn. He himself had major issues with alcohol and marijuana, and now he's going after someone with the same issues?? What's the deal?
Just because Thurman's Bills team had success, it doesn't forgive his bad decisions in life. These former players need to either support this team and its success or just stop talking all together.
I think the point that TT is making is that when he played they won games and he was a huge part of it. I think that 95% of the people on this board would overlook any shortcoming of any player if we consistantly contended for the SB.
-
Thurman Thomas is and was no angel. Wasn't there a story about him rudely turning away a little boy asking for his autograph? Practice what you preach TT. Also...isn't TT a drunk? Give me a break.
I remember that story about TT. Wasn't it him and a few other players at Jim Kelly's restaurant?
I think TT is sober and has been for a few years now - maybe 6?
-
Apologies if this has been posted before...
http://www.buffalosportsdaily.com/2010/05/...s-dont-attract/
If only the 49ers hadn't taken Patrick Willis one spot before this guy...
The funny part is I remember a story that came out after that draft in which the 49ers offerred to flip picks with us for our 2nd round pick I think. I know it's hindsight, but that would have been a great move, with the exception of having to suffer through the A-Train for another season.
-
Wow.
Just....wow.
Coke can is used recreationally--never said otherwise (read my quote you copied). Crack cocaine and meth are rarely used except to maintain an addiction. They have the highest addictive potential. If you prefer to incorrectly state otherwise, you are free to do so.
Everything can be used recreationally. As you do more of it, you need more of it to get off. This puts more of it in your system and your body begins to adjust to the chemical. When you then stop taking it, you suffer withdrawl. Addiction is your body's need to avoid that withdrawl.
So you can keep it under control and not do it every day so your body doesn't get saturated with it and lead you into withdrawl and the potential for addiction.
-
People do not smoke crack or do meth recreationally--if you use these highly addictive drugs, you probably do not have "a good deal of willpower".
Torasol, ibuprofen and other NSAIDs do NOT have anything to do with "blocking pain receptors"---they are not narcotics. They block the inflammatory response. They cannot make anyone high.
So you know from your own experience? Maybe a few of your friends and family too? Do you work with addicts?
If you're speaking from experience with you or your family, then it's only a handful of people, which doesn't really mean anything. If you work with addicts, then you only see those that need help.
-
At first glance I would agree with you but in the back of my mind was a conversation I heard on a football show with about 3 or 4 ex-players. They were talking about how important the OL was and how a special a certain OL player (probably a LT but I don't recall) might turn out to be for some team. Then the moderater posed the question, "So if you had a chance to get a great LT or a great RB which would you select?". Immediately and unanimously the players said, "RB". The moderater, and me, was puzzled given the discussion preceding the question where it sounded like the OL was the crucial element for an offense (they all agreed prior that the QB was "IT" and went on). The players all said something to the effect, a great RB makes everybody better; by his very presence and a great play by him could result in points where as the great LT enables great 'skill' players opportunties. So, maybe the Bills see Spiller as the 'great' player that other teams will have to scheme for because he is dangerous with the ball.
I agree with that logic and hope to hell that it turns out to be correct.
Also, to bring the bolded question into the context of our Buffalo Bills, you have to have both the great LT and the great RB on the board to even have a chance to pose the question.
In case no one guessed it, I didn't like Bulaga at 9 leading up to the draft (still don't either - he's an RT) and am happy we didn't take him out of need.
-
The same folks who tell you that you don't use your high picks just to fill areas of need (McKelvin/Hardy/Maybin/McCargo) will also whine about the Bills not addressing needs until later rounds (Wang/Calloway/Brown).
This was a very solid draft, and people tend to forget that changing the defensive scheme created more holes than we already had. And then they get mad because the Bills didn't address the holes that they--the fan--deemed a higher priority, thus warranting a higher pick.
And round and round it goes.
You can't win with the post-draft press because everyone can get second-guessed, so the media gives the benefit of the doubt to historically successful teams, while questioning those that historically suck. This makes sense, but doesn't make anything these people say right or valid at this point in time. Most of the players that will end up not having careers will not have them for much different reasons than what people are saying now.
Also, I think you could argue that the biggest need on the team for the past few years has been to stop the run. Last year our QBs were terrible, but the year before they showed some life. The run defense hasn't been able to stop anyone since Fat Pat left. Even the offensive line, when considering the injuries, didn't do horribly. You can't say that the run defense hasn't been consistently horrible for the past three years. Hopefully some big guys on the d-line (most of whom came from strong college run defenses) will rectify this problem.
They reached when they took a RB in the first round. For a team with a half a dozen glaring holes, they chose to add a "playmaker" (who will play less than 60% of the offensive snaps) to the team's deepest position. A position where they already had not one, but TWO, 1,000 yard rushers. Also, RB is a position the Bills have time and time again wasted first round draft picks on over the past (playoff-less) decade. From Smith, to Henry (high 2nd), to Willis, to Lynch less than 3 years ago.In my opinion it was a terrible, terrible waste of a pick for a team who frankly can't afford to waste any more draft picks.
I don't think you're using the term "reach" as it's being discussed. A Reach has nothing to do with what needs your team has or doesn't. It is solely talking about where that player was projected to go vs where he actually went. What you're talking about is something more like poor asset management.
For what it's worth, I also hate the fact that we've taken so many RBs with high picks in the past decade. The question that I keep coming back to however is what if this guy (been thinking it since the McGahee pick) is the next Marshall Faulk, Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, etc? Passing on one of those players would hurt just as much as passing on any other player that pans out that well. I guess in the end, what I keep coming back to, is that when you have a chance to take a blue-chip prospect (maybe there are 5 in each draft), you have to take it regardless of what your team needs are. The potential that Spiller has is far more than that of Jackson and Lynch combined, so if everything goes according to plan this'll be a good pick and no one will care in a year or two. If not, then we'll all be pissed that we took another RB so early again instead of _________ (Derrick Morgan for instance, the possible next best defensive player in the game).
-
Contracts will be "fair", and operate like "real contracts" when/if the NFL teams have to operate like other businesses. That is,
1. a.No draft. Players are free to negotiate with any team they like.
b. Also, no salary cap, no minimum or maximum salary rules (other than the minimum wage laws).
c. Players could be signed directly from High School, or junior high, or jail. Can't Dell hire anyone over the legal age to work? Well, why can't the Bills?
2. If player X signs a 3-year contract you have to pay him for those 3 years. You can cut him, but you still have to pay him. (Of course there are some situations that would void the contract, but you couldn't simply cut him because his play isn't as good as it was previously.)
3. At the end of the contract a player is free to negotiate with any team. Just like you can go to any job after your contract with one company expires. There could be a non-compete clause, I suppose, that could keep you out of the division or conference. But that would be part of the initial negotiation.
In other words, the NFL will never have "fair" or "real" contracts. And if they did, it would likely mean the end of the NFL in Buffalo and many other cities. The contract rules you see today are totally biased toward the owners, and many of the rules that are in place (salary cap, restricted free agency, etc) were put there by the owners to protect themselves from themselves.
Do NFL players make too much money? Probably. Do the owners make too much money? You be the judge. But don't cry for the NFL owners, or blame the players for the current system. If an owner doesn't like the contract he just cuts the player. What is the player to do if HE doesn't like the contract? The only option he has is to sit out, and you want to take that away too?
I don't think you're first point has anything to do with players holding out at all. In fact I don't think the hiring rules are that stringent. They can hire pretty much any !@#$ off the street they want to, as long as their rights aren't owned by another team. For example, we could sign any player in the CFL to a contract right away without having to draft him. Just because they have a pre-disposed talent-dispersement program doesn't make them completely different than any other company; they still select from the talent pool. Maybe I'm missing something on this and if so, pelase fill me in.
I also don't think that having a system where players were basically FAs after 3 or 4 years as opposed to having no restrictions does anything to players holding out with the exception of not wanting to play for a particular organization.
I do think that your second point is valid. That will be the only way to stop players from holding out.
Also, I would agree that the owners did setup the rules to favor them, but without the expectations that costs would increase so rapidly. They made a huge error when thinking that they could (or would not have to) control costs at some point.
-
So, recently there has been a trend of players holding out for more money while still under contract with their team (Jason Peters is a prime example of this). And now I see Andre Johnson is unhappy with his $60 million deal and still has 5 years left on his contract. It's becoming an epidemic in the NFL full of players that "need to feed their families." While I believe certain players deserve to be paid top dollar, there is a problem with their negotiating tactics.
You can't ask for a big signing bonus and a nice multi-year contract for stability, and then come back 2 years later after playing pro bowl level football and ask for more money. I'm sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you want to be paid more as a player for better performance on the field, then you need to sign an INCENTIVE BASED CONTRACT. But players aren't willing to do that. They're getting the best of both worlds. They're signing contracts with HUGE guaranteed signing bonuses. And if their play on the field fails or they get injured, they still have their money. It's a win-win for the player. All the while, teams are being held hostage by star players with no choice but to pay the guy or lose him to some moronic team willing to pay a fortune for a diva and some marketing appeal.
When does the bubble burst?
It is ridiculous to a certain extent, but what you have to remember is that these players could be cut at any time and only are guaranteed part of the contract. On top of that, most players only get a very little amount of money (comparatively) in bonus vs actual wage. In light of that, it doe smake a little mroe sense because players want to maximize their good years and turn them into a big payday. If they play poorly, the team can just cut them. I think the biggest problem with this is that the team would get nothing in return for that player, which hurts especially if you drafted that player. I think one way to stop this would be to guarantee every contract written.
This would do two things. First it would take away the reason players hold out for more money - to maximize their earnings from a good season in thevent they get hurt. Second it would force team management to make realistics bets on how long a player is going to be able to play and if they are wrong, it'll hurt their bottom line (like hockey). I think the owners will definitely figure out a way to control costs better in the new CBA. If you as a player sign a market setting deal in 2006 for 7 years and then in 2009 another player gets nearly double what the first got in 06, that first player should have to honor that contract. Maybe they could just make it so that you cannot renegotiate a contract until it has one season left.
-
This smells a little like BS.
Nobody casually takes crack or meth. Also, Toradol is not a "powerful painkiller...that blocks pain receptors"---it's an NSAID like ibuprofen only stronger. And it doesn't get you high.
People do take drugs that we've all been lead to believe are super addictive in very casual ways. Not all people get addicted to substances in a way that they lose control. It's very easy to have a $500/week coke habit and still come into work every day. In many cases drug addictiveness is expressed in the most extreme ways for two reasons: 1. to scare you into not doing it and 2. to speak to the people who really are going to have a problem with it as opposed to those who will not have it take over their lives. People used heroin as a painkiller effectively for a l while before it was made illegal. Not everyone who uses it gets addicted, just a higher percentage of people than with morphine, which still has a high addiction rate. I'd bet most of these guys, having trained hard for sports fo rmost of their lives, are not huge addiction risks because believe it or not they probably have a good deal of will power to do things (or not) based on necessity.
Also, ibuprofen blocks pain receptors as does Toradol - not sure about getting you high though.
-
If Russ Brandon was still running the show at One Bills Drive, I feel we would have traded for Vick and resigned Terrell Owens. In the draft, I still feel we would have taken Spiller.
What do you think would have happened?
Brandon holds the same power and position as he did last year. Make what you want out of that.
-
ok then,i'll buy the "on further review" argument for nix but he and gailey were truly out of left field..at least as far as speculation on this board (i certainly anticipate a response to this statement) or even the major sports outlets are concerned. why do the bills so often have to look for the diamond in the rough and ignore conventional wisdom? statistically the herd is often right and if you don't buy into herd mentality then why not at least choose aggression over passivity. even cleveland was able to make some big (and yes speculative) deals. when you're on the bottom, gambling may be your best option. the status quo hasn't worked here. where's the wheelin, dealin bold moves? it would be nice if the bills would once go "all in" but this offseason is the antithesis of that. what's the worst that could happen, 0-16? many here have guessed a 4-5 win season as it is...why not bet the house on 4 games? and yeah, it aint my money but i'm not 92 with no trophy, staring the grim reaper in the face.
Starting at the bottom and going up, Ralph will live for another 20 years - rich people don't die.
I actually seem to remember someone ont his board posting that Nix might be the hire in November of last year, but that doesn't really matter one way or another because you are right that few people saw this coming or even saw it as a possibility. The point is that it doesn't matter what the fans and media think about the hire coming out of left field, but I'd be more interested to hear about what other teams thought about it. How high would he have been on the list for another team's GM spot? On top of that, I think you could argue that the hiring of Whaley as Assistant GM as a very "conventional wisdom" move. I think if you looked at GM/headcoach restuctures across the NFL historically, you'd see that in many cases one or both of the guys were not on anyone's radar going into the process. We, as primarily Bills fans, don't have the perspective to readily see that however.
-
Well with our well water we already add bleach prior to the system that we have that purifies our water...and our water is cleaner and more pure than municipal water or bottled water so I'm not as dillusional as you must be drinking your tainted water. 2011 Season you will get your wish more than likely as there probably won't be a season. Other than that what I stated is just the sad realities of the Bills. I am just a realist that won't put the blinders on just because I love the Bills.
It is what it is! Until there is a change in philosophy beginning with ownership we will likely remain a bottom 10 team! If you feel differently, good for you..eternal optimism is a good quality even when the situation dictates the opposite emotion.
No one cares about your (2tsps/gal) bleachwater.
I always find it interesting that people stake the claim that the philosophy change needs to come from ownership on down. I understand that a lot of people do this as a way to relate the rest of corporate America with an NFL team because let's face it, it's easier to fit everything into a matrix than it is to come up with a new model to use to understand something. I really don't think that ownership has to change it's philosophy (I assume you're advocating an ownership change) in order for this team to succeed. Don't you just need a new football guy to change the philosophy? I get the sentiment that "it all starts at the top", but isn't there a top to one portion of the organization and a top to the organization as a whole? Is Ralph really calling the players individually to set the tone? Is he cutting people himself?
I feel like the change from no GM to having a GM was a big philosophical change. For what it's worth I think what Gailey has been saying and doing thus far is a huge departure in philosophy from anything either of the last two headcoaches did.
-
Do you think our recent cutting of players is based on how well they mentally prepared themselves? Do you think Gailey thought those players couldn't handle the playbook?
What is your take on the switch up?
I'd like to know why we would cut a no name and sign a no name
I'll bet it has to do with positional numbers going into camp, the impending draft pick signings, and poor schematic fits where the team wants to give the player the best chance possible to catch on with another team. My guess is the last reason is the most prevalent.
-
I know it seems that I'm casting aspersions on the CJ Spiller pick seeing as I've made two posts about him in one day. In truth, I had to wait till well after the draft to really incubate some thoughts. I consider myself neither an optimist nor a pessimist when analyzing the Bills.
Besides the 15-18 touches per game issue, here's the other issue regarding the drafting of CJ Spiller at #9 (and surprisingly to me, no one here or in the media has brought up this issue, which I think is very real).
There were at least two other "scatbacks" that the Bills could have taken later in the draft…although one might have required a trade down in the first round.
Specifically, Jahvid Best (5'9" 195 lbs) is a player VERY close to Spiller (5'11" 195 lbs) in terms of talent, style, and impact. He ended up going to Detroit with the 30th pick overall after the Lions traded up four spots to select him. Another highly regarded scatback in this draft was Dexter McCluster (5'9" 172 lbs) who went 36th overall to the Chiefs.
In actuality, one can make the argument that Best is a better player than Spiller.
For starters, several player rankings had Best ranked higher than Spiller.
Best also had the fastest 40-time of all running backs at the NFL Combine.
Playing 3 years for Cal in the Pac Ten, Best totaled 3635 yards, averaging 7.3 yards per rush, 8.6 yards per reception, and 25.6 yards per kick return.
Playing 4 years for Clemson in the ACC, Spiller totaled 7588 yards, averaging 5.9 yards per rush, 11.5 yards per reception, and 27.7 yards per kick return.
I'm not saying that Best is better than Spiller. Spiller was certainly more of a workhorse for Clemson (but does that not also mean that he has higher mileage?) and had very few injuries while Best was nagged by injuries during his college career. I'm merely pointing out that the player who many thought was the most explosive player in college football, Jahvid Best, is nearly as good as Spiller and went 21 picks later. I would also argue that if a player is going to get limited touches, it matters less how much of a load he can carry.
As for Dexter McCluster, he played 4 years for Ole Miss in the SEC, totaling 4089 yards, averaging 6.4 yards per rush, 13.1 yards per reception, and 19.7 yards per kick return.
Again, Spiller might be the best of this group.
But in all the oversimplified criticism of Spiller being a "luxury pick," everyone who makes that argument points to the usual crap about building through the trenches, already being strong at running back, passing up needs at OT and QB, etc.
But one of the main things that makes CJ Spiller a luxury pick, if indeed he is one, is that there were similar players that the Bills could have possibly traded down to get later…picking up extra picks along the way.
As a corollary to that point, the ONLY criticism I have of the Bills draft is Buddy Nix's quick, decisive, selection of CJ Spiller. He was admittedly dismissive of the idea of trading down but he may have been too hasty.The Bills made their pick very quickly (I can't recall exactly how quickly). Who's to say that a team might not have come calling with a trade offer if Nix had simply waited to use his complete allotted ten minutes. Who knows how many picks the Bills could have stockpiled had they simply listened to offers. It's within the realm of possibility that they could have come out of the draft with more players who they liked, AND gotten the coveted scatback.
I hear what you're saying and agree to a certain extent, but two things come to mind. First was Buddy's assessment after the draft saying, "there's only one Spiller". The second is that there are legitimate questions surrounding the other two guys you mention. Primarily concerning their durability, as that argument goes both ways. Do you really want to take a chance on a guy who couldn't stay healthy in college and is a smaller player. It may just be me, but I'd want a guy who was an injury risk as opposed to taking one that was, if I had the opportunity. Trent Edwards comes to mind in this scenario.
As far as trying to trade down and take a similiar player, last year's draft comes to mind. We had our choice between two similar players - Maybin and Orakpo - and we chose the one that did less last year. These are two similar players with a huge difference between their production. So why not trade down and take a player that looks similar at first glance? Because a similar player might not get you what you are looking for.
If either of the other two guys are better than Spiller, then this will be a major point of emphasis going forward for the fan base and if not, no one will mention it past this offseason.
-
I voted Brohm because if he doesn't come out looking real good, they'll cut him for Fitzy. If he does play well, I think Fitzy goes.
Clausen was the pick?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I didn't (and still don't) like Clausen, but I do think he was pretty low risk at #41. That being said, if they don't take Troup, we probably don't end up with a solid-looking NT prospect in this draft (there was a run on them after we took Troup). I've said this before, but I think there were three critical neesds on this team that all were nearly equally important: QB, LT, run defense. The run defense looks like it will be a lot better now than it was the past few years and is a tough one to fill especially given that we just switched defenses. If they are better against the run, that will go a long way towards making the team better. Maybe even moreso in year one than taking a QB (or at least one of those QBs).
By the way, I had not only heard of Troup before the draft, but also remember Modrak/Nix talking about him during the combine and how impressed they were with him.