2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I already been through this,if our pick is 4 and Stroud is there he is far and away the BPA,do you take the QB there if he is the BPA(now that you know who he is)? Noone else would come close to being the BPA at pick 4 or do you draft a player that you actually need?

If he is there at 4... my assumption is we get a nice trade package.

QB , punter, kicker, long snapper.. those are separate for me...  for QB ,you either have one or you don't.  The answer depends on the feeling on Hurts.  

Ohhhh.   I get it...you are trying to bring up the old discussion of BPA to the extreme where you keep taking same position. 

I thought we were talking about the recent Eagles drafts where they had bad ones when they forced need. .and then had 2 we liked because they didn't force the need at DB and LB, but instead took their target BPA.  

My bad 

 

 

1 hour ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Best we’ve ever had is a whole different discussion. Interesting one to undertake. But just too early for all that. He needs to win a playoff game first …at least.

No wait,you said he was "unique",no other QB in the history of football brings more "everything"to the table. That was what you said.  And I'm asking you again(if you cna comprehend) what unique abilities(aka everything) has be brought to the table that noone else has? Stop the name calling and answer the question

4 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

If you trade back,then I would assume QB was not a NEED even though he is the BPA at pick 4.

Right...isn't that what we have been hoping for all offseason for a QB to drop so a team can overpay us to jump in front of some of the other QB needy teams?

I don't get what your issue is with me?

Just now, joemas6 said:

If he is there at 4... my assumption is we get a nice trade package.

QB , punter, kicker, long snapper.. those are separate for me...  for QB ,you either have one or you don't.  The answer depends on the feeling on Hurts.  

Ohhhh.   I get it...you are trying to bring up the old discussion of BPA to the extreme where you keep taking same position. 

I thought we were talking about the recent Eagles drafts where they had bad ones when they forced need. .and then had 2 we liked because they didn't force the need at DB and LB, but instead took their target BPA.  

My bad 

 

 

LOL OK yeah,we are like ships passing in the night. We' re just on a little different page. I get your point now. All good,a simple misunderstanding 

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Right...isn't that what we have been hoping for all offseason for a QB to drop so a team can overpay us to jump in front of some of the other QB needy teams?

I don't get what your issue is with me?

Right,that was my argument, QB is not a need,trade it back. So I believe we still draft for need,that's all i was saying. I make a board of guys we need,the take the BPA at those spots(unless I get an unreal guy dropped in my lap). You move up and down the board to get players you need. Sometimes you bypass better players because that is not a need at the time(such as skipping Stroud at pick 4)

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

LOL OK yeah,we are like ships passing in the night. We' re just on a little different page. I get your point now. All good,a simple misunderstanding 

So you want my ideal scenario.  4 weeks of the Saints losing.    Pick goes up to 3 or 4. 

We get offered a monster trade package to move down to say 5, 6 or 7.  then if the QBs get drafted... we can move up again giving up say less than half what we got in the first trade...and we get our target. 

Get the target and the extra draft haul... to me that would be 3 years in a row doing so.    Smith plus Miami pick....Davis, AJ plus Saints package...and hopefully this next one.

I like they got their target player the last 2 years..and one can easily argue neither player filled their BIGGEST need, they did fill a need, but the idea was they were the target player more than anything. 

This year a stud DL...could be both target and biggest need.  You get that plus more picks... even Ham would have to approve.

11 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

If he is there at 4... my assumption is we get a nice trade package.

QB , punter, kicker, long snapper.. those are separate for me...  for QB ,you either have one or you don't.  The answer depends on the feeling on Hurts.  

Ohhhh.   I get it...you are trying to bring up the old discussion of BPA to the extreme where you keep taking same position. 

I thought we were talking about the recent Eagles drafts where they had bad ones when they forced need. .and then had 2 we liked because they didn't force the need at DB and LB, but instead took their target BPA.  

My bad 

 

 

Agreed

5 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Right,that was my argument, QB is not a need,trade it back. So I believe we still draft for need,that's all i was saying. I make a board of guys we need,the take the BPA at those spots(unless I get an unreal guy dropped in my lap). You move up and down the board to get players you need. Sometimes you bypass better players because that is not a need at the time(such as skipping Stroud at pick 4)

I think this year the need will match with the draft spot.   Seeing DL all over the top of the draft board.

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

So you want my ideal scenario.  4 weeks of the Saints losing.    Pick goes up to 3 or 4. 

We get offered a monster trade package to move down to say 5, 6 or 7.  then if the QBs get drafted... we can move up again giving up say less than half what we got in the first trade...and we get our target. 

Get the target and the extra draft haul... to me that would be 3 years in a row doing so.    Smith plus Miami pick....Davis, AJ plus Saints package...and hopefully this next one.

I like they got their target player the last 2 years..and one can easily argue neither player filled their BIGGEST need, they did fill a need, but the idea was they were the target player more than anything. 

This year a stud DL...could be both target and biggest need.  You get that plus more picks... even Ham would have to approve.

Great plan, thats the plan I want to see

Just now, joemas6 said:

I think this year the need will match with the draft spot.   Seeing DL all over the top of the draft board.

OH that's exactly what I see too,they are like the stars aligning

2 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Great plan, thats the plan I want to see

OH that's exactly what I see too,they are like the stars aligning

It happens every so often.

Last pick(lol) round 1 lots of DB's there. It's close enough  to round 2 Howie just may break tradition since he is aware we can''t keep all 3 we have now. I think Howies is seeing the value of DB's and LB's like he hasn't in the past

Still some excellent round 2 picks at spots we need. I'm really hoping for that 4,5 pick. If we get there then we could have 2,3 more picks with comps and maybe another carry over as you said

Tired,going to call it a night. Nice chat Joe

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

Last pick(lol) round 1 lots of DB's there. It's close enough  to round 2 Howie just may break tradition since he is aware we can''t keep all 3 we have now. I think Howies is seeing the value of DB's and LB's like he hasn't in the past

Right...that was my point with Dickerson, Jurgens, etc.    See how you are going right to DB.  We did this the last 2 or 3 years.   

They took Hurts, Dickerson,  Jurgens instead of DB or LB... both bigger needs all 3 times.    Those picks we made to me....were them saying these guys are my BPA.  Otherwise I believe they force need and go DB or LB. 

That's all I was saying.   Sure wrong picks Reagor and JJAW...but to me, a huge part of that was forcing need.  

They took a risk going Smith and investing high in WR again... this time we know it was they liked him..  passing up Parsons or the deal Chicago gave NY... they obviously liked Smith that much.

Reagor or JJAW... I say 51% at least was just wanting to solve the WR problem.  I don't think they pass up a Parsons or a trade package for those guys. 

IDK how they are going to play in Buffalo. I doubt the frozen Fins player will even be able to move

Go Colts and Browns !!!!

16 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Go Colts and Browns !!!!

Vikes giving up boatloads on the ground. I have Taylor in Fantasy

Can't watch but saw the score - is Minn laying down?

Vikes look AWFUL

5 minutes ago, mjkline1958 said:

Can't watch but saw the score - is Minn laying down?

OH it's bad LOL. 2 turnovers right off the bat and they can do nuttin. Like us, colts have JJ and Cook on lock down. Colts aren't great. alot of FG's but the vikes can't even answer those

12 minutes ago, mjkline1958 said:

Can't watch but saw the score - is Minn laying down?

Somebody needs to tell the Vikings they have a game going on and they are SUPPOSED to be playing in it. Holy crap they are sucking!

2 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Vikes giving up boatloads on the ground. I have Taylor in Fantasy

Taylor is out….and they are winning 33-0. What the?

9 minutes ago, Senhorcook said:

Taylor is out….and they are winning 33-0. What the?

Vikes are at home too lol

At least Ham got a TD for the Vikes( no really)