2016 NFL Draft Thread...

peplaw06 · Apr 15, 2016

IMO Elliott is the best player in the draft. He's just anchored by playing a position that is less and less of a premium pick. If you could redraft the 2007 draft he would be the number one overall.... possibly second to Revis.

The problem is you can't predict how Elliott will hold up being an NFL lead back. If other positions had the wear and tear that RBs do, then I don't doubt he would be the number one pick.

dbair1967 · Apr 15, 2016

I read some murmurs saying Myles Jack's recheck didn't go so well today

MrB · Apr 15, 2016

dbair1967 said:
I read some murmurs saying Myles Jack's recheck didn't go so well today

See that is why I wouldn't pick him. His entire game is built around his superior athletic ability. That's what separates him from all of the other LB's in this draft and the only reason he's being talked about as a top 5 pick. If he can't run he's no longer special. He's just another injured LB. I mean the guy tore his meniscus in September. It's now mid April and he STILL hasn't run. That's not a good sign at all.

Scot · Apr 15, 2016

Now there is talk about us moving up to the #2 overall pick to get the leftover QB

please lord don't let us give up the farm to get one of these guys!

I could see us doing something stupid like giving up both our 1st and 2nd this year (which is damn near giving up 2 first round picks at 4 and 34) along with other picks next year or something even worse

Sent from my two thumbs using Tapatalk

cmd34 · Apr 15, 2016

Scot said:
Now there is talk about us moving up to the #2 overall pick to get the leftover QB

please lord don't let us give up the farm to get one of these guys!

The difference on the trade chart between 2 (2600) and 4 (1800) is 800 points, which is equivalent to the 21st overall pick. Assume we gave them our 2nd round pick (560), we'd still need to give them our 3rd, or next year's 2nd.

I'd do it for Goff, but not Wentz.

This is also the wrong draft to trade up, we should be acquiring more 2nd and 3rd round picks. We tend to go against the grain so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

Scot · Apr 15, 2016

They are saying that we were in talks with the Titans to trade up for the #1 overall but that the Rams outbid us. Thank god

Can you imagine giving up everything the Rams did to get either Goff or Wentz? It's not like either of them are even close to being the next Aikman

Sent from my two thumbs using Tapatalk

dbair1967 · Apr 15, 2016

Where are you guys reading this stuff?

dbair1967 · Apr 15, 2016

cmd34 said:
This is also the wrong draft to trade up, we should be acquiring more 2nd and 3rd round picks. We tend to go against the grain so it wouldn't surprise me at all.

If they traded up for the QB and he becomes a 10 yr starter or even better, a true "franchise" QB, its absolutely the right move.

dbair1967 · Apr 15, 2016

Scot said:
They are saying that we were in talks with the Titans to trade up for the #1 overall but that the Rams outbid us. Thank god

Can you imagine giving up everything the Rams did to get either Goff or Wentz? It's not like either of them are even close to being the next Aikman

Neither is the caliber of an Aikman or Elway coming out, but they don't have to be. Not in todays NFL.

If they are quality starters or become probowl level players, its the absolute right move.

Or do we need to rehash that list of hot fucking garbage we trotted out there from 2001-until Romo took over? (Who we got INCREDIBLY lucky with)

Doomsday · Apr 15, 2016

dbair1967 said:
If they are quality starters or become probowl level players, its the absolute right move.

But like Obi-Drunk Jerry recently said, if their projection of 4-5 more years out of Romo comes about, you have a Osweiler situation and with still little clue he's the guy or not. His rookie contract is up and you're stuck.

If you take a QB in the top 5 picks of the draft, he is your guy NOW not potentially 4-5 years down the road.

cmd34 · Apr 15, 2016

dbair1967 said:
If they traded up for the QB and he becomes a 10 yr starter or even better, a true "franchise" QB, its absolutely the right move.

Goff yes. Wentz no.

Bob Sacamano · Apr 15, 2016

So it seems pretty clear that we're targeting Qb at #4 and Ramsey as plan B. Wonder what plan C is...

cmd34 · Apr 15, 2016

Bob Sacamano said:
So it seems pretty clear that we're targeting Qb at #4 and Ramsey as plan B. Wonder what plan C is...

Plan C needs to be workout a trade down ahead of time with a team that covets Tunsil.

Doomsday · Apr 15, 2016

Bob Sacamano said:
So it seems pretty clear that we're targeting Qb at #4

I haven't been able to find ANYTHING that verifies what was said here. It looks like just random scuttlebutt.

Doomsday · Apr 15, 2016

Scot said:
Now there is talk about us moving up to the #2 overall pick to get the leftover QB

Where? Link Please.

MrB · Apr 15, 2016

Doomsday said:
But like Obi-Drunk Jerry recently said, if their projection of 4-5 more years out of Romo comes about, you have a Osweiler situation and with still little clue he's the guy or not. His rookie contract is up and you're stuck.

If you take a QB in the top 5 picks of the draft, he is your guy NOW not potentially 4-5 years down the road.

Your young QB only walks if you let him walk. They had a choice, they could have paid Miller and franchised Osweiler but instead they chose to franchise Miller and let Osweiler walk. If Romo plays 5 more years (highly doubtful) then his contract will be completely off the books by the time the young QB hits free agency so franchising him for 1 year could be managed cap wise. It won't hurt you. The young QB would also be taking over while the OL is in their prime.

Doomsday · Apr 15, 2016

MrB said:
Your young QB only walks if you let him walk. They had a choice, they could have paid Miller and franchised Osweiler but instead they chose to franchise Miller and let Osweiler walk.

Because they weren't fully confident he's their guy, because he got to "sit and learn" instead of playing. Plus, do you really risk losing Von Miller over a 2nd round pick that hasn't played?

MrB said:
If Romo plays 5 more years (highly doubtful) then his contract will be completely off the books by the time the young QB hits free agency so franchising him for 1 year could be managed cap wise.

You really think they would use the tag on a guy they're not sure of? Denver didn't.

dbair1967 · Apr 15, 2016

cmd34 said:
Goff yes. Wentz no.

eh

dbair1967 · Apr 15, 2016

Doomsday said:
But like Obi-Drunk Jerry recently said, if their projection of 4-5 more years out of Romo comes about, you have a Osweiler situation and with still little clue he's the guy or not. His rookie contract is up and you're stuck.

If you take a QB in the top 5 picks of the draft, he is your guy NOW not potentially 4-5 years down the road.

Romo won't last 5 yrs, and even if he did I bet he misses at least a full season or more games total between now and then.

MrB · Apr 15, 2016

Doomsday said:
Because they weren't fully confident he's their guy, because he got to "sit and learn" instead of playing. Plus, do you really risk losing Von Miller over a 2nd round pick that hasn't played?
You really think they would use the tag on a guy they're not sure of? Denver didn't.

If they really like him they'll franchise him. He'll have been with the team for 5 years it's not like they'll be completely oblivious to who he is. With Osweiler I believe the Broncos had seen enough and knew he wasn't the guy. If he was they wouldn't have let him walk. They would have just paid Miller and franchised Osweiler.

2

Administrator

Draft Pick

Pro Bowler

Pro Bowler

Pro Bowler

Administrator

Administrator

Administrator

High Plains Drifter

Pro Bowler

All-Pro

Pro Bowler

High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter

Draft Pick

High Plains Drifter

Administrator

Administrator

Draft Pick