| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tatupu_64
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 17031
Location: Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
|
 Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| jrry32 wrote: | | Tatupu_64 wrote: | | jrry32 wrote: | | Tatupu_64 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | Tatupu_64 wrote: | | People are clueless if they rank Wagner as a below average pick. Legitimately clueless. |
He was PROBABLY their BEST pick in this draft. Does that help the healing process?  |
No healing process needed. People just didn't watch any film if they didn't think Wagner was a 2nd round prospect. |
"People don't agree with me, that means they didn't watch him play." |
Where'd you have him ranked jrry. |
Top 50 pick |
Precisely. Pretty much everyone accept Kiper liked him.
_________________
Props to the Ramster
Seattle's Original Bruce Irvin Supporter
ET and Mebane's Biggest Supporter
FFMD2 13 GM |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| adam9 wrote: | I still don't know how you could have the 3 teams with the least amount of picks last. You can't go by number of picks, but rather quality of the picks they do have. I know you said incomplete, but you then proceeded to insult the players taken, which is really unfair. ATL got 2 starters with those picks, with the Hughes getting a chance as well so maybe 3. The Saints did have a sub-par draft, so I can't complain about that. The Raiders got Criner and Crawford in the mid-rounds which is solid for them. They also like Bergstrom, so he might have a chance to start although I don't like him a whole lot.
Also having Washington that low means you HAVE to be stupid. LeRibeus was a 3rd round prospect. I can name 5 worse picks in that round off the top of my head not named Anger.. (Akiem Hicks, Brandon Hardin, John Hughes, Tony Bergstrom, and my team's Lamar Hughes).
Also as it has been pointed out before San Francisco's draft was definitely not that bad. Those 2nd-3rd round receivers had many different rankings depending on the team you talked to. Also they had 2 late-round steals with Cam Johnson and Trent Robinson. Looney will start for them and Lamichael will get good playing time year one as well. 2 starters year 1, 2-3 with potential/contributors off the bench out of 7 picks, with the other 2 being unsure at this point. How is that in the worst 5 in the league?
Don't seem to understand your reasoning very well. |
I "HAVE" to be "stupid", huh? Do you REALLY want to go for the personal attack/insult game, here? I WILL win that battle.
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OakRaiders3828
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 9140
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. Maybe do some research before you call something hideous or repugnant. Sorry they didn't take guys on mel kipers top 50 which are the only players most know anyway.
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Joe_is_the_best on the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Estonianzulu
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 19755
Location: Middle of Nowhere VA
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Suffering_Bills wrote: | | adam9 wrote: | I still don't know how you could have the 3 teams with the least amount of picks last. You can't go by number of picks, but rather quality of the picks they do have. I know you said incomplete, but you then proceeded to insult the players taken, which is really unfair. ATL got 2 starters with those picks, with the Hughes getting a chance as well so maybe 3. The Saints did have a sub-par draft, so I can't complain about that. The Raiders got Criner and Crawford in the mid-rounds which is solid for them. They also like Bergstrom, so he might have a chance to start although I don't like him a whole lot.
Also having Washington that low means you HAVE to be stupid. LeRibeus was a 3rd round prospect. I can name 5 worse picks in that round off the top of my head not named Anger.. (Akiem Hicks, Brandon Hardin, John Hughes, Tony Bergstrom, and my team's Lamar Hughes).
Also as it has been pointed out before San Francisco's draft was definitely not that bad. Those 2nd-3rd round receivers had many different rankings depending on the team you talked to. Also they had 2 late-round steals with Cam Johnson and Trent Robinson. Looney will start for them and Lamichael will get good playing time year one as well. 2 starters year 1, 2-3 with potential/contributors off the bench out of 7 picks, with the other 2 being unsure at this point. How is that in the worst 5 in the league?
Don't seem to understand your reasoning very well. |
I "HAVE" to be "stupid", huh? Do you REALLY want to go for the personal attack/insult game, here? I WILL win that battle. |
In fact, Only I get to win a personal attack/insult game because I love locking threads.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. 
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OakRaiders3828
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 9140
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Joe_is_the_best on the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Estonianzulu wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | adam9 wrote: | I still don't know how you could have the 3 teams with the least amount of picks last. You can't go by number of picks, but rather quality of the picks they do have. I know you said incomplete, but you then proceeded to insult the players taken, which is really unfair. ATL got 2 starters with those picks, with the Hughes getting a chance as well so maybe 3. The Saints did have a sub-par draft, so I can't complain about that. The Raiders got Criner and Crawford in the mid-rounds which is solid for them. They also like Bergstrom, so he might have a chance to start although I don't like him a whole lot.
Also having Washington that low means you HAVE to be stupid. LeRibeus was a 3rd round prospect. I can name 5 worse picks in that round off the top of my head not named Anger.. (Akiem Hicks, Brandon Hardin, John Hughes, Tony Bergstrom, and my team's Lamar Hughes).
Also as it has been pointed out before San Francisco's draft was definitely not that bad. Those 2nd-3rd round receivers had many different rankings depending on the team you talked to. Also they had 2 late-round steals with Cam Johnson and Trent Robinson. Looney will start for them and Lamichael will get good playing time year one as well. 2 starters year 1, 2-3 with potential/contributors off the bench out of 7 picks, with the other 2 being unsure at this point. How is that in the worst 5 in the league?
Don't seem to understand your reasoning very well. |
I "HAVE" to be "stupid", huh? Do you REALLY want to go for the personal attack/insult game, here? I WILL win that battle. |
In fact, Only I get to win a personal attack/insult game because I love locking threads. |
Fantastic, mod. Now, please get on that guy's case for STARTING it. Thanks.
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously...
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OakRaiders3828
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 9140
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously... |
You're right
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Joe_is_the_best on the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously... |
You're right |
I know.
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OakRaiders3828
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 9140
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously... |
You're right |
I know. |
Congrats
Curious though. Can you give me you're reasoning as to why they're "scrubs"?
Same with new Orleans and Atlanta maybe
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Joe_is_the_best on the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously... |
You're right |
I know. |
Congrats
Curious though. Can you give me you're reasoning as to why they're "scrubs"?
Same with new Orleans and Atlanta maybe |
Appreciate the dose of civility! Basically, without 1st and 2nd-round picks, ANY team's draft is going to be sub-standard. It's a given, y'know? In Atlanta's case, they actually HAD a 2nd-rounder, and did pretty well with it, by selecting Konz. That's about as far as I'll go with commentary on individual picks for any of those three teams. I just don't consider it as being really worth the effort; call it what you will.
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OakRaiders3828
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 9140
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously... |
You're right |
I know. |
Congrats
Curious though. Can you give me you're reasoning as to why they're "scrubs"?
Same with new Orleans and Atlanta maybe |
Appreciate the dose of civility! Basically, without 1st and 2nd-round picks, ANY team's draft is going to be sub-standard. It's a given, y'know? In Atlanta's case, they actually HAD a 2nd-rounder, and did pretty well with it, by selecting Konz. That's about as far as I'll go with commentary on individual picks for any of those three teams. I just don't consider it as being really worth the effort; call it what you will. |
Fair enough, but do you really know enough about them to call them scrubs or repugnant? Because the lack of picks, I understand your ratings, but is it fair to declare anyone a scrub if 1. You don't know that much about them and 2. They haven't even played a down yet?
_________________
O A K L A N D R A I D E R S
Joe_is_the_best on the sig! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Suffering_Bills
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 3319
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Suffering_Bills wrote: | | OakRaiders3828 wrote: | | Raiders #32 and repugnant? I understand 32, but repugnant? Yeah means so much coming from a Guy who doesn't even know the names of our draft picks let alone anything about them. |
I could name EVERY single scrub pick your team made. What difference would THAT make? And, how would it change, in any way, shape or form, the fact that your boys had a sucky draft? Enlighten me. |
Not wasting my time |
You wasted your time commenting in the first place, obviously... |
You're right |
I know. |
Congrats
Curious though. Can you give me you're reasoning as to why they're "scrubs"?
Same with new Orleans and Atlanta maybe |
Appreciate the dose of civility! Basically, without 1st and 2nd-round picks, ANY team's draft is going to be sub-standard. It's a given, y'know? In Atlanta's case, they actually HAD a 2nd-rounder, and did pretty well with it, by selecting Konz. That's about as far as I'll go with commentary on individual picks for any of those three teams. I just don't consider it as being really worth the effort; call it what you will. |
Fair enough, but do you really know enough about them to call them scrubs or repugnant? Because the lack of picks, I understand your ratings, but is it fair to declare anyone a scrub if 1. You don't know that much about them and 2. They haven't even played a down yet? |
I could review/critique EVERY single pick, easily. NOT a problem. Oh, and not to sound redundant, but EVERY player DRAFTED could flop or be great, and we haven't seen ANY of them play yet, of COURSE. Some just have a pretty blatant chance of being flops more than others. I thought you guys got a decent potential late-round steal in Criner, even though WR wasn't your biggest need. Does this help some?
_________________
Why have a signature? I don't need to be famous................................................. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Estonianzulu
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 19755
Location: Middle of Nowhere VA
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Suffering_Bills wrote: |
Fantastic, mod. Now, please get on that guy's case for STARTING it. Thanks. |
My intent was not to get on anyone's case merely to give a friendly and somewhat comical reminder to stay on topic.
~~
This is a reminder to everyone, if someone posts something you feel is insulting or a personal attack, do not respond in kind and do not provoke it. Either A. Ignore it, it will go away or B. Tell a mod via pm. Getting into a flame war helps no one.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
