FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Seen it all over different websites. Read where execs think his accuracy is spotty enough to push him down between the 2nd and 4th Rounds of the draft. The 4th Round projection is obviously the lowest floor for the guy. Guess that was the unintelligent NFL personnel who said they viewed him as a prospect of that caliber?Watson's receivers bailed him out a lot. Just because you all watched the championship game that he won doesn't take away from the facts about his game. Is he a winner? Yes. Does he rise to the occasion? Yes. Is he flawed? Yes. Is he worthy of the #1 overall selection? Not imo. Is he worthy of #10? Not imo and I hope we don't make that mistake. Of course your opinions are different. My Pop used to tell me, "Son, opinions are like *$$holes. Everybody's got one." This is true so you carry yours and I will carry mine. I'd love to see multiple websites that had Watson in the 4th ever. It's fine if that's your opinion. The championship game remark is just incorrect and delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'd love to see multiple websites that had Watson in the 4th ever. It's fine if that's your opinion. The championship game remark is just incorrect and delusional. The only thing incorrect or delusional is your disregard for the significant question marks and concern of his ability to throw at the next level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimer1960 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 would you guys trade 10, next years 1 and 2019 2nd for the 2 pick to get watson? I would not. I would have a difficult time picking at 10. I am not saying that he can't be good, but there seem to be too many errant passes for me to feel really comfortable. I think that his floor is not too low - that is, I think his attitude, work ethic and athleticism will mean that he will be at least "ok", but I don't know that he will be better than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 But I thought you said "if you think he's the guy and his 30th, take him at 12." Doesn't taking Hunter fly in the face of that? Ragland is Brandon Spikes lite. I won't hold my breath. It was a good example because Ragland didn't even play. So we would've felt no loss if Hack was a bust. Zero chance Trubisky makes it to the second. Yeah it would be a good example if Ragland never plays again but thats not true in the long term. Ragland will produce for us the next 2-3 years. Gonna be a decent to good MLB. Ill take that over a bust QB. Deion Jones should have been the pick not Ragland or Hackenbum. Instead of evolving with the NFL Whaley and Rex traded up for a throw back thumping ILB who is a liability with the modern day pinball scores. Have you seen his college tape? Dude is a beast might not be the fastest but he is a football player. Some of the prospects people draft are great athletes that can play football. Theres a difference. See: Jets 1st round 2016 pick Darron lee. Being that Ive actually seen Ragland play Im not gonna put limitations on him yet, Its gonna be fun to watch how he does this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) But I thought you said "if you think he's the guy and his 30th, take him at 12." Doesn't taking Hunter fly in the face of that? I said I had no problem taking the guy who is 30 on your board overall at 10 if you believe he is the guy. QBs get bumped up because of the importance of the position. If a QB is 30 on your big board, it's highly unlikely he will be there at pick 30. I'm not sure what that has to do with Kelly going 2 picks after Hunter? The goal is to assemble the best roster. You can draft a QB above where you have them on your board because of the importance of the position. If you believe a guy can be a franchise QB and you have a chance to take him, take him. The Kelly example doesn't go against that at all. If they thought Kelly and Marino were franchise guys they were guaranteed that they would get 1. You have to look at, and trust your draft board. Where do you have guys ranked? What is the gap between them and others? All of those factors determine how you draft. Positions of need break ties but don't drive decisions. Edited January 25, 2017 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'd love to see multiple websites that had Watson in the 4th ever. It's fine if that's your opinion. The championship game remark is just incorrect and delusional. I'd have to say, from reading your responses or posts, that you are one of THE MOST delusional posters I have ever seen on this board in the 11 years I have been on here. So maybe we are birds of a feather........ Then again.... Probably not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I'd see how slow his eyes are before burning a #1 on Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianFan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 2018! 2018 all the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Yeah it would be a good example if Ragland never plays again but thats not true in the long term. Ragland will produce for us the next 2-3 years. Gonna be a decent to good MLB. Ill take that over a bust QB. Have you seen his college tape? Dude is a beast might not be the fastest but he is a football player. Some of the prospects people draft are great athletes that can play football. Theres a difference. See: Jets 1st round 2016 pick Darron lee. Being that Ive actually seen Ragland play Im not gonna put limitations on him yet, Its gonna be fun to watch how he does this season. Are you implying that I haven't seen Ragland play? Go watch him huffing and puffing on the sidelines in the NCG or watch him take bad angles on the 6'4 240 pound Jalen Hurd. I have seen plenty of Ragland. If you want to beat the Patriots you simply don't draft this type of player. He will be exposed time and time again. I hope he proves me wrong but I'm not second guessing myself. He looked fat in the pictures I saw from camp shortly before he tore his knee up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Are you implying that I haven't seen Ragland play? Go watch him huffing and puffing on the sidelines in the NCG or watch him take bad angles on the 6'4 240 pound Jalen Hurd. I have seen plenty of Ragland. If you want to beat the Patriots you simply don't draft this type of player. He will be exposed time and time again. I hope he proves me wrong but I'm not second guessing myself. He looked fat in the pictures I saw from camp shortly before he tore his knee up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I'd have to say, from reading your responses or posts, that you are one of THE MOST delusional posters I have ever seen on this board in the 11 years I have been on here. So maybe we are birds of a feather........ Then again.... Probably not The legend of FireChan grows I see. Hahahaha, welcome to the club H2o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Funny cuz he's fat? Funny like how!? https://www.google.com/amp/www.al.com/articles/19062949/reggie_ragland_dealing_with_kn.amp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiragandhi'sthong Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 There are plenty of Deshaun threads out there.... so what if there are? For the life of me, I can't understand why other posters or board mods get their panties in a bunch ... If it's not of interest to anyone, no one will comment. Big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Ryan Nassib was a bargain at 8. That was only for Marrone. The rest of the league he was rated very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wecknwings Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I don't get the thinking that Watson is a top 10 pick, and even one worth trading up for (and giving away the farm in other picks). There are QB prospects worth all that, but I don't see them in this year's draft class - and few pro or media scouts seem to either base on what I've seen in the preponderance of reports and analysis. No question Watson is a worker and has been a winner at the college level. Can't argue with that. But his measurables are essentially that of Tyrod - the latter is 6-1, 215; Watson is 6-2, 210 or so. (A couple of sites have him at 6-3 but this is likely generous - we'll see for sure at the combine). He has had issues with accuracy and decision-making, and his field vision may be no better than Tyrod's when he gets to the NFL. Let's not get suckered by the splash or "next big thing" - the grass is not always greener as we well know. And, then to throw him as a day 1 starter onto a team with few reliable receiving weapons, issues at pass protection, and a porous defense, and it is not a good recipe for success for a young QB (the running game is a positive but not enough). Like most or maybe all of the QB's in this year's draft, he would best sit behind another guy to learn the game (running a huddle, going under center, footwork, etc.). Teams need to be built as much FOR a future quarterback as AROUND a current or new one. Somebody like Prescott - as surprisingly good as he is or may be - was able to step in because he had so much built for him (or Romo, really) already. He was very fortunate in that regard. I think going QB at 10 in this draft class would be foolish (which of course means that is exactly what the Bills will do). Improve the defensive secondary, the receiving corps, even the linebackers, that's where the plums are in this draft class. Take a QB like Peterman (who btw beat Clemson this past year), or even Kelly in a later round, keep Tyrod, and begin building a team FOR the success of a better, future QB. Thanks for listening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prickly Pete Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) Why not at least wait until after the combine to commit (or dismiss) to Watson, where some of his skills, and measurables can be evaluated against standards? Edited January 26, 2017 by HoF Watkins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 So is it fair to say that the Bills in 83 and that the Raiders in 2014 did not follow the what you'd consider the correct process to finding their franchise guys? FWIW , the Bills GM at the time was interviewed for a 30 for 30. He said they knew if they took Tony Hunter at 12 , they were guaranteed to get either Kelly or Marino at 14. That was the reason for selecting the TE at 12 instead of the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Problem is the Bills have been known to turn clay into a turd. Clay dries out after a year or two and then you can't do **** with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty McFly Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Funny cuz he's fat? Funny like how!? https://www.google.com/amp/www.al.com/articles/19062949/reggie_ragland_dealing_with_kn.amp Funny cuz it made me laugh at this. So exaggerated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I said I had no problem taking the guy who is 30 on your board overall at 10 if you believe he is the guy. QBs get bumped up because of the importance of the position. If a QB is 30 on your big board, it's highly unlikely he will be there at pick 30. I'm not sure what that has to do with Kelly going 2 picks after Hunter? The goal is to assemble the best roster. You can draft a QB above where you have them on your board because of the importance of the position. If you believe a guy can be a franchise QB and you have a chance to take him, take him. The Kelly example doesn't go against that at all. If they thought Kelly and Marino were franchise guys they were guaranteed that they would get 1. You have to look at, and trust your draft board. Where do you have guys ranked? What is the gap between them and others? All of those factors determine how you draft. Positions of need break ties but don't drive decisions. I've read articles about teams (I believe it was centered on NE) combining need with value by clustering guys by perceived value much like you might say the bills did with Marino/Kelly. Essentially pick the holes you want to fill corresponding to where you think the draft will have talent available and then find pockets to target. If there's only 1 qb, you go get him. If you have 3 WRs that are interchangeable you keep trading back until the 2nd is picked then aggressively target the 3rd. You find where the cliffs are and get the last guy before a real drop to the next tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts