Is Haden on His Way?
-
why grab haden when we just traded for Sheldon Brown, i think we should draft a position of need before we add to cb that we're set at for at least this year.
-
why grab haden when we just traded for Sheldon Brown, i think we should draft a position of need before we add to cb that we're set at for at least this year.
why grab haden when we just traded for Sheldon Brown, i think we should draft a position of need before we add to cb that we're set at for at least this year.
i still think it's a position of need. haden if berry is gone ONLY if one of the top OL aren't there or had dropped. imagine our OL if we can pick up one of the top 3 or 4? in the afc north you gotta have the run game in december and we all know mangini built a pretty good one in ny.
-
I would rather us trade down in the first then take haden. Im not impressed as some are. He seemed to get burnt alot which reminds me alot of Fuller.
I would rather us trade down in the first then take haden. Im not impressed as some are. He seemed to get burnt alot which reminds me alot of Fuller.
If we can trade down with Buffalo (because they want Clausen) and get Haden at #9, I say we do it. Even with Berry on the board.
-
why grab haden when we just traded for Sheldon Brown, i think we should draft a position of need before we add to cb that we're set at for at least this year.
why grab haden when we just traded for Sheldon Brown, i think we should draft a position of need before we add to cb that we're set at for at least this year.
Heckert and Holmgren already said this is not how they are going to draft.
They are going to draft what they consider to be the best player available. No reaching for position of need.
-
why grab haden when we just traded for Sheldon Brown, i think we should draft a position of need before we add to cb that we're set at for at least this year.
Heckert and Holmgren already said this is not how they are going to draft.
They are going to draft what they consider to be the best player available. No reaching for position of need.
Heckert and Holmgren already said this is not how they are going to draft.
They are going to draft what they consider to be the best player available. No reaching for position of need.
I think thats a smoke screen saying all gms say so they don't tip there hand and hopefully a players they want fall to them. If a pure left tackle ( can only play that position ) is the best player available they would not grab just for the sake of taking the best available player, especially in the first round. That would set your team back, not help it.
-
Heckert and Holmgren already said this is not how they are going to draft.
They are going to draft what they consider to be the best player available. No reaching for position of need.
I think thats a smoke screen saying all gms say so they don't tip there hand and hopefully a players they want fall to them. If a pure left tackle ( can only play that position ) is the best player available they would not grab just for the sake of taking the best available player, especially in the first round. That would set your team back, not help it.
I think thats a smoke screen saying all gms say so they don't tip there hand and hopefully a players they want fall to them. If a pure left tackle ( can only play that position ) is the best player available they would not grab just for the sake of taking the best available player, especially in the first round. That would set your team back, not help it.
I need to clear up this 'smokescreen' misunderstanding once and for all. Here is how a 'smokescreen' works.
You don't say you're not taking a guy in order to confuse teams, that works against you and you have nothing to gain. So say if SF wants Haden and you say you're not taking him, well then, SF isn't going to worry about trading up if you're the only team that may need Haden. Afterall, you're not taking him right? Teams will then offer SF trades instead of you because you're not taking him anyways right? If you do end up taking him well then what's the point of lying about it? You gain nothing by saying you're not taking a guy.
However, if you express interest in say, Jimmy Clausen even thought you know you're not taking him (see Mike's recent backtrack on clausen) and SF may really like him. And if they think you want him and he may not be there for them, then they will start making offers to move up. That, is how it works. I think some people call it a 'smokescreen' whenever they don't agree with the statement.
"Chances are, if you think Jay Leno is funny, I don't care for you as a person" - Peter Griffin -
Drafting the best player available is the absolute best formula for winning. How many times have the Pats, Eagles, or Indy taken a position that they don't really need? That's how you flood your team with talent and avoid blowing draft picks. Drafting by need can cause a team to reach for somebody and narrow down your options which mathematically lowers your chances of getting a good player. That's not to say we'll take a LT because he's the best but it does mean we can take the best LB, CB, S, RB, G, or WR instead of looking for the best DB, we can now choose from the best out of multiple positions. Once you identify the best available, then you can decide whether or not the team can use him and make a sound decision.
"Chances are, if you think Jay Leno is funny, I don't care for you as a person" - Peter Griffin -
Drafting the best player available is the absolute best formula for winning. How many times have the Pats, Eagles, or Indy taken a position that they don't really need? That's how you flood your team with talent and avoid blowing draft picks. Drafting by need can cause a team to reach for somebody and narrow down your options which mathematically lowers your chances of getting a good player. That's not to say we'll take a LT because he's the best but it does mean we can take the best LB, CB, S, RB, G, or WR instead of looking for the best DB, we can now choose from the best out of multiple positions. Once you identify the best available, then you can decide whether or not the team can use him and make a sound decision.
Drafting the best player available is the absolute best formula for winning. How many times have the Pats, Eagles, or Indy taken a position that they don't really need? That's how you flood your team with talent and avoid blowing draft picks. Drafting by need can cause a team to reach for somebody and narrow down your options which mathematically lowers your chances of getting a good player. That's not to say we'll take a LT because he's the best but it does mean we can take the best LB, CB, S, RB, G, or WR instead of looking for the best DB, we can now choose from the best out of multiple positions. Once you identify the best available, then you can decide whether or not the team can use him and make a sound decision.
I agree, we have so many holes that we don't have to reach for one two position of needs.
-
mopaji I'm saying its a smoke screen, because scouts and reports are saying they're really interested in a couple players and there back tracking by saying ow we're not going to take that player our plan is to take the best available player. It could be that they're trying to rope in teams to move up and trade with them.
-
why do we have to indulge i smoke screen to get Haden, given our high draft number we are going to get him for sure. The only way we dont get him if the ones ahead decide to take him but that frees some other talent for us - like Suh, McCoy or Berry.
-
why do we have to indulge i smoke screen to get Haden, given our high draft number we are going to get him for sure. The only way we dont get him if the ones ahead decide to take him but that frees some other talent for us - like Suh, McCoy or Berry.
why do we have to indulge i smoke screen to get Haden, given our high draft number we are going to get him for sure. The only way we dont get him if the ones ahead decide to take him but that frees some other talent for us - like Suh, McCoy or Berry.
Because we do, thats called being a fan.
-
-
I think thats a smoke screen saying all gms say so they don't tip there hand and hopefully a players they want fall to them. If a pure left tackle ( can only play that position ) is the best player available they would not grab just for the sake of taking the best available player, especially in the first round. That would set your team back, not help it.
I need to clear up this 'smokescreen' misunderstanding once and for all. Here is how a 'smokescreen' works.
You don't say you're not taking a guy in order to confuse teams, that works against you and you have nothing to gain. So say if SF wants Haden and you say you're not taking him, well then, SF isn't going to worry about trading up if you're the only team that may need Haden. Afterall, you're not taking him right? Teams will then offer SF trades instead of you because you're not taking him anyways right? If you do end up taking him well then what's the point of lying about it? You gain nothing by saying you're not taking a guy.
However, if you express interest in say, Jimmy Clausen even thought you know you're not taking him (see Mike's recent backtrack on clausen) and SF may really like him. And if they think you want him and he may not be there for them, then they will start making offers to move up. That, is how it works. I think some people call it a 'smokescreen' whenever they don't agree with the statement.
I need to clear up this 'smokescreen' misunderstanding once and for all. Here is how a 'smokescreen' works.
You don't say you're not taking a guy in order to confuse teams, that works against you and you have nothing to gain. So say if SF wants Haden and you say you're not taking him, well then, SF isn't going to worry about trading up if you're the only team that may need Haden. Afterall, you're not taking him right? Teams will then offer SF trades instead of you because you're not taking him anyways right? If you do end up taking him well then what's the point of lying about it? You gain nothing by saying you're not taking a guy.
However, if you express interest in say, Jimmy Clausen even thought you know you're not taking him (see Mike's recent backtrack on clausen) and SF may really like him. And if they think you want him and he may not be there for them, then they will start making offers to move up. That, is how it works. I think some people call it a 'smokescreen' whenever they don't agree with the statement.
A smokescreen could actually work the other way around as well. I am not saying that the Browns are doing this, but by saying you dont particularly like a player or saying you wont take him may make teams not trade a spot ahead of you and pick the guy. For example, HYPOTHETICALLY (I DONT think we're actually doing this), we could say we arent interested in Clausen so that SF or Buffalo wont trade to the #6 slot to pick Clausen, thats a smokescreen as well.
I dont think saying we are picking the BPA is a smokescreen, we need help everywhere (except LT and C, maybe TE) and we should pick the most talented player that would best help out team
-
So you think we are deep are corner? Have you checked the roster lately?
Brown and Wright...and brown is out of his prime. Nothing after that....
Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?
-
So you think we are deep are corner? Have you checked the roster lately?
Brown and Wright...and brown is out of his prime. Nothing after that....
Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?
So you think we are deep are corner? Have you checked the roster lately?
Brown and Wright...and brown is out of his prime. Nothing after that....
Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?
C is center (Alex Mack), CB is corner. and no I dont think we are deep at the corner position
-
I need to clear up this 'smokescreen' misunderstanding once and for all. Here is how a 'smokescreen' works.
You don't say you're not taking a guy in order to confuse teams, that works against you and you have nothing to gain. So say if SF wants Haden and you say you're not taking him, well then, SF isn't going to worry about trading up if you're the only team that may need Haden. Afterall, you're not taking him right? Teams will then offer SF trades instead of you because you're not taking him anyways right? If you do end up taking him well then what's the point of lying about it? You gain nothing by saying you're not taking a guy.
However, if you express interest in say, Jimmy Clausen even thought you know you're not taking him (see Mike's recent backtrack on clausen) and SF may really like him. And if they think you want him and he may not be there for them, then they will start making offers to move up. That, is how it works. I think some people call it a 'smokescreen' whenever they don't agree with the statement.
A smokescreen could actually work the other way around as well. I am not saying that the Browns are doing this, but by saying you dont particularly like a player or saying you wont take him may make teams not trade a spot ahead of you and pick the guy. For example, HYPOTHETICALLY (I DONT think we're actually doing this), we could say we arent interested in Clausen so that SF or Buffalo wont trade to the #6 slot to pick Clausen, thats a smokescreen as well.
I dont think saying we are picking the BPA is a smokescreen, we need help everywhere (except LT and C, maybe TE) and we should pick the most talented player that would best help out team
A smokescreen could actually work the other way around as well. I am not saying that the Browns are doing this, but by saying you dont particularly like a player or saying you wont take him may make teams not trade a spot ahead of you and pick the guy. For example, HYPOTHETICALLY (I DONT think we're actually doing this), we could say we arent interested in Clausen so that SF or Buffalo wont trade to the #6 slot to pick Clausen, thats a smokescreen as well.
I dont think saying we are picking the BPA is a smokescreen, we need help everywhere (except LT and C, maybe TE) and we should pick the most talented player that would best help out team
That's one of the points i was trying to make, thanks for explaining it for me.
-
So you think we are deep are corner? Have you checked the roster lately?
Brown and Wright...and brown is out of his prime. Nothing after that....
Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?
Edit: did san diego suffer a setback taking eli?
That was a pre draft trade agreement. Eli still wanted to be #1 overall like his brother but would not sign with San Diego. About our corners good enough for this year that you can grab another one in the 2nd or 3rd. Right now we don't have a starting fs, unless you think Sorenson is the answer.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login