8 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

The Missouri LB looks incredible! He could be there at our second pick. LSU LB could be there in the third round. So that stuff can be worked both ways. Not much for TE. So your logic would work for taking Pitts at six.

But I wouldn’t pass on a Julio Jones because there are some decent selections possibly at the position in the third round.

  I understand your point Ham, but this side of the ball has been largely ignored for a long time. I mean, when can we say we actually had a stud at LB? Last one I can remember was Seth Joyner. TE would be nice, but is it really a position of need? As much as LB CB or S? if you can take care of 2 of those needs in round 1 I say do it. What we want and what HR does will be two entirely different things though. So I guess we should just hope he doesn't screw up......

1 hour ago, stine said:

GBNC- Did you hold that PURA Stock you bought a while back? Reason I am asking is it tripled in the past week. I own 150,000 shares and was in the red for the longest time. Now in the black and hoping the trend continues up....

LOL no sold it, ,held SCNNF, but that's basically not going anywhere either. I like my divvys anyway and some are on DRIP,so mostly on 'set it and forget it" I did make an initial entry into  DXD to see where that goes

1 hour ago, Asg 15 said:

I don't get excited over ACC receivers. Too many weak teams that wind up being stat stuffers for the better players.

I should clarify that i don't get excited based on their stats. 

Doesn't hurt either that you have the #1 QB in the next draft. If we had a 1/2 way coherent QB,I would expect similar results. IDK bro,you make the catches or you don't. Most of those teams(sans Clemson) have less than top rate QB's, so how are they making stats if they plays aren't there?. Lots of nice players in this league. S from UCF was in the top 3 defensive players in the country,so how are opposing WR's getting stats off him? One of my late round 7 CB's is from the canes(Blades). it's a really nice league to find those LATER round pick-ups, the guys with potential you can groom. I'll take Grimes or Rodgers in round 5 and beat you senseless with them 2 years from now.I'm not suggesting Rodgers is a 1,2,3 rounder,but if he(or Grimes) falls to me in 5, I pull that trigger. Great league for those types and BU's you can "bring along" over time

1 hour ago, stine said:

If there is a large group of WR's in this draft class. seems to me that drafting one in the first round is not the thing to do. We would be much better served taking either Parsons or a CB, no?

Maybe wait until Day 2 or 3 for a WR? Plus, the way we keep swinging and missing on WR's I would much rather we grab a stud for the defense. So many holes there IMO....

  If Chicago gives us their 1st round pick, you can take Parsons and a CB round 1. WR round 2. I would think that really changes the look of this team....

Pitts, Moehrig(S), Cox(LB), Weaver(DT3t), Grimes/Rodgers(WR), Bynum(CB), Blades(CB).if I get a Wentz trade(and another round 1) I would go either CB or WR with that pick if we're already dead set on Hurts. Pick up Mack in FA  UDFA- Vasher(WR),Taylor(DL) White(QB-Memphis) Boyd(RB-Arkansas)

 

31 minutes ago, stine said:

  I understand your point Ham, but this side of the ball has been largely ignored for a long time. I mean, when can we say we actually had a stud at LB? Last one I can remember was Seth Joyner. TE would be nice, but is it really a position of need? As much as LB CB or S? if you can take care of 2 of those needs in round 1 I say do it. What we want and what HR does will be two entirely different things though. So I guess we should just hope he doesn't screw up......

If we traded Ertz, I believe it would be a position of need, and Pitts is a BEAST/stud. Him and Geodert would be match-up nightmares. This "stud" type TE' doesn't come around often and I'm taking that talent if it's presented to me. You also know I was/am a big fan of Smith,so it took alot for me to pull him from my #1 pick

So-STUD TE and a nice enough bookend WR to Reagor on O, the rest on D and before you bash my round 6,7 CB's check them both out

GBNC, I heard a bunch of people in NC are without power?

1 hour ago, Asg 15 said:

I don't get excited over ACC receivers. Too many weak teams that wind up being stat stuffers for the better players.

I should clarify that i don't get excited based on their stats. 

BTW,I posted this not looking at stats, I posted this to find guys that can make plays, have good hands,can retrieve those less than perfect passes, a guy who can fight for an extra yard. I don;t think we need a "star",I think we need a teammate that can play

3 minutes ago, stine said:

GBNC, I heard a bunch of people in NC are without power?

IDK not awake yet lol. Power is on here so IDK. Maybe out up in the mountains?

https://poweroutage.us/area/state/north carolina   Looks like the county just west of me. Weird.It's nice here. I am in Harnett

24 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

BTW,I posted this not looking at stats, I posted this to find guys that can make plays, have good hands,can retrieve those less than perfect passes, a guy who can fight for an extra yard. I don;t think we need a "star",I think we need a teammate that can play

IDK not awake yet lol. Power is on here so IDK. Maybe out up in the mountains?

I read the title of the video which said "statictical monster"

2 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

I read the title of the video which said "statictical monster"

IDK what's wrong with WR's putting up stats lol.. NP I will take 1/2 a stat monster, which would be twice as good as what ours put up

2 hours ago, stine said:

  I understand your point Ham, but this side of the ball has been largely ignored for a long time. I mean, when can we say we actually had a stud at LB? Last one I can remember was Seth Joyner. TE would be nice, but is it really a position of need? As much as LB CB or S? if you can take care of 2 of those needs in round 1 I say do it. What we want and what HR does will be two entirely different things though. So I guess we should just hope he doesn't screw up......

Not a stud but Hicks was a good LB (although injured too often here).  And when paired with Bradham when first signed that was a pretty decent group with Kendricks.  

1 hour ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

IDK what's wrong with WR's putting up stats lol.. NP I will take 1/2 a stat monster, which would be twice as good as what ours put up

I think you miss my point.

Stats mean nothing if you're up against inferior competition, AKA most of the ACC. You have to look at his physical measurables and try to determine his attitude.

Hell, I can put up good stats as long as the guy guarding me is in a wheelchair.

Well, maybe not yet. I'm still hobbling around on a cane

4 hours ago, stine said:

  I understand your point Ham, but this side of the ball has been largely ignored for a long time. I mean, when can we say we actually had a stud at LB? Last one I can remember was Seth Joyner. TE would be nice, but is it really a position of need? As much as LB CB or S? if you can take care of 2 of those needs in round 1 I say do it. What we want and what HR does will be two entirely different things though. So I guess we should just hope he doesn't screw up......

It’s expected that Siri wants to ru two TE sets. It’s also expected Ertz is gone. So we need more than one TE to run the offense. So yes....I do think it’s a need. I also think getting a dynamic stud like Pitts would be huge!  Guy lines up inline, slot and even all the way out wide. He can’t be stopped. Triple teams with everybody knowing it’s going to him....he still comes down with it. Pitts is clearly one of the best players in this draft. I think I can make a good case for he’s the best.

2 hours ago, time2rock said:

Not a stud but Hicks was a good LB (although injured too often here).  And when paired with Bradham when first signed that was a pretty decent group with Kendricks.  

Hicks was a stud. Just not durable. Bradham transformed our D for a couple seasons. Singleton just had a monster season.

56 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

I think you miss my point.

Stats mean nothing if you're up against inferior competition, AKA most of the ACC. You have to look at his physical measurables and try to determine his attitude.

Hell, I can put up good stats as long as the guy guarding me is in a wheelchair.

Well, maybe not yet. I'm still hobbling around on a cane

I think the ACC is arguably the second toughest conference. So I don’t know what you are talking about.

3 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Hicks was a stud. Just not durable. Bradham transformed our D for a couple seasons. Singleton just had a monster season.

I think the ACC is arguably the second toughest conference. So I don’t know what you are talking about.

Aside from Clemson ACC teams would be bottom dwellers in the SEC  and Big 10.  They might be on par with PAC 12  and the lower half of the Big 12 and above MWC

4 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Aside from Clemson ACC teams would be bottom dwellers in the SEC  and Big 10.  They might be on par with PAC 12  and the lower half of the Big 12 and above MWC

Notre Dame plays against the ACC. But yeah...I don’t agree with that at all.

Vanderbilt and Tennessee are soo much better than Florida St and Miami? Northwestern and Iowa?

Maryland was one of the weaker football teams in the ACC. The went to the Big Ten

Miss St, Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Vanderbilt, Tennessee and Kentucky haven’t  been doing anything of note. Really weak programs.

Here are some thoughts on the Wentz trade situation.

1. I count 11 teams who need a qb. Jets, Patriots, Texans, Colts, Jaguars, Broncos, WFT, Bears, Lions, Panthers, 49ers. (Assuming Dallas, NYG, Raiders, Vikings, Saints are not looking at a change.)

2. Watson will fill one spot.

2. There are four top prospects and two fringe ones.

3. Darnold, Garoppolo, Goff and Bridgewater can be stopgaps. The Lions may as well roll with Goff for two years. The Panthers are in the same boat with Bridgewater for a year. A team might take a flyer on Darnold, who will be really cheap for one year and could pull a Tannehill. Garoppolo's problem is his contract. He is certain to get cut, and a team could pick him up on a cheap deal.

So there just isn't any urgency for a team to trade for Wentz until some of these other dominoes start falling, which may not happen until after the draft. Now that the Colts and Bears haven't jumped at Carson, I don't see anybody with any reason to panic. It's a game of musical chairs where there will be some chairs left over.

What should happen is that he agrees to delay his roster bonus, and stays with the team through the preseason, and then gets traded if he plays well. If he really does want to leave that badly, he can give back his bonus money and look to go somewhere on a prove it deal. I am sure the Eagles will trade him for much less than the current asking price if his dead cap hit goes to $10 million as opposed to $34 million.

18 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Vanderbilt and Tennessee are soo much better than Florida St and Miami? Northwestern and Iowa?

If you're gonna go down that road i give you Duke, Wake, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville Not to mention Fla State was 3-9 overall

In non-pandemic seasons, Notre Dame does play a five- or six-game ACC schedule as part of its arrangement with the league, and is part of the bowl lineup. It will go back to having five ACC games in the 2021 season, provided things have returned to normal.Dec 17, 2020

So ND plays ACC when it suits them. Got it

7 hours ago, stine said:

If Chicago gives us their 1st round pick, you can take Parsons and a CB round 1. WR round 2. I would think that really changes the look of this team....

Maybe I think differently but wouldn’t you rather have the best WR in a strong class then just the top CB because it’s weak????

Think round 2 is the money spot for a CB.

Though I can’t foresee going into the year with Hurts and reports are so conflicting on who wants what. Doug wanted Hurts FO wanted Wentz then it’s Howie wanted Hurts and Lurie/Doug wanted Wentz.

id still say if we trade Wentz you gotta go QB top 10 

47 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Maybe I think differently but wouldn’t you rather have the best WR in a strong class then just the top CB because it’s weak????

Think round 2 is the money spot for a CB.

That's where I'm at. If it's a choice between Chase or Smith and the top CB prospect in this draft then I'm going WR without doubt. BPA end of. 

Smith's 175, got separation in college but we've all seen it far too often when they get their welcome to the NFL. Losing Ertz, Goedert up for an extension in a bad cap yr, Pitts could be a great weapon, esp if what we hear what Siri wants to do on O is true. If not and Farley is there I'd go D. Would be more than happy w/ either and both positions are harder to fill than WR in this draft. 

Then again if Wentz goes it all changes.

4 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

I think you miss my point.

Stats mean nothing if you're up against inferior competition, AKA most of the ACC. You have to look at his physical measurables and try to determine his attitude.

Hell, I can put up good stats as long as the guy guarding me is in a wheelchair.

Well, maybe not yet. I'm still hobbling around on a cane

Thats why I have him in round 5 and not 2 lol