Revisionist History

htownbrown

@gunz41 said:

That is the thing that has ruffled my feathers a few times on here, and maybe it shouldn't, but people having revisionist history. Just like you said with Watson, there were people saying he was trash and then the obvious "we should have drafted him."

But what is even worse, and one of the reasons I brought up the trade rumors, is the ones who said how bad and dumb it was to trade last year. Trades NEVER work, look what the Browns get. Then some of those same people, "well we have an opportunity to get 2 TOP players." Well the Browns had that opportunity because of a TRADE. There was no Barkley, Chubb, Ward, Fitzpatrick discussion if not for a TRADE. But then again, the Browns should NEVER trade.

But the funniest of all is the Brock trade. People have said just how valuable these draft picks are, some say they wouldnt trade that great draft capital for a Pro Bowler, so that 2nd seems pretty valuable, but they want to get mad and say but we paid him 16 million. So that pick is SOOOOOOOOO valuable that you wouldnt trade it for a Pro Bowler, but youre upset because it cost the team with most cap in history 16 million? Yea doesnt make sense.

It is what it is, it just seems like some just want to whine about ANYTHING, just want to say EVERYTHING is bad. I KNEW when I looked last night after Ward pick that there would be those who would be saying he went too high and if the Browns were going to take him then they should have traded down. Same that said Browns shouldnt trade.

You see, maybe I just view things differently. But there are no definites. There should ALWAYS be a case for trading, whether you do it or not. But when you dont get the player you wanted to draft, you cant turn around and say they SHOULD have done something you were so against before that pick. They dont have an issue with not trading, they have an issue of not getting what they want, big difference

I would hate to be these kids' parents on Christmas day.

Tour2ma

I love the ignore feature... but it needs to include when the ignored is quoted.

LondonBrown

@the-gipper said:

I heard both of those as well. I wonder what the price was that the Bills thought was too high? Both 12 and 22 I suspect? Which Buff was not willing to do?

Rappaport said the Bills were set on not giving up both those picks

Suomi

Ignored troll is ignored.

hoorta

@gunz41 said:

The way he posts, and I do believe he is trolling most of the time, he deserves to be called out. When it is clear that he has said these things it needs to be called out. Because in a week, month, year he will say he was right about everything and he said it first.

So yes he is being fed, but he is getting fed his own ****. I think I have heard it can be quite nutritious

Yeah, I'm guiltier than most of feeding the troll. But there were a couple things so factually wrong (like Hue is calling the shots in the draft) he needed to be called out on.

FWIW, I was a Mayfield supporter from way back, and though I wanted Chubb, I see the logic of taking Ward. The secondary was a disaster last year.

Tour2ma

@londonbrown said:

Rappaport said the Bills were set on not giving up both those picks

Not for the #7, but reports were that both the Bills' 1sts were heading to Denver for the #5 overall. Deal was in place until Chubb fell to them.

So we surely were getting both ones and more, but wanted even more yet. Not hard to think that the "even more" we wanted was to insure we could move back up from #12 to land Ward.

Dutch Oven

@hoorta said:

Yeah, I'm guiltier than most of feeding the troll.

Yes you are.

And while you are correct that only the owner of this board can get rid of his account, moderators like you can get rid of his posts.

Dutch Oven

@tour2ma said:

Not for the #7, but reports were that both the Bills' 1sts were heading to Denver for the #5 overall. Deal was in place until Chubb fell to them.

So we surely were getting both ones and more, but wanted even more yet. Not hard to think that the "even more" we wanted was to insure we could move back up from #12 to land Ward.

Think they may have demanded the Bills #12, 22 AND next year's first rounder?

Gunz41

Since I already started this thread and it goes along with it:

I have seen all the meaning about Ward over Chubb. I get it he was rated higher, but I just wonder how many people would have been groaning had the Browns taken Chubb that there wasn't a corner, or even more that the Browns wasted another high pick since they got Ogbah replacement?

As for the Guard pick and wondering why. I dont have any inside knowledge, but maybe the thought process is moving one of the Guards to tackle.

Now as for the DE pick, not a fan of it. I would have taken Sam Hubbard or Griffin

TexasAg1969

@gunz41 said:

Since I already started this thread and it goes along with it:

I have seen all the meaning about Ward over Chubb. I get it he was rated higher, but I just wonder how many people would have been groaning had the Browns taken Chubb that there wasn't a corner, or even more that the Browns wasted another high pick since they got Ogbah replacement?

As for the Guard pick and wondering why. I dont have any inside knowledge, but maybe the thought process is moving one of the Guards to tackle.

Now as for the DE pick, not a fan of it. I would have taken Sam Hubbard or Griffin

Or just maybe they want him as the RT as they move Coleman to LT?

Gunz41

@texasag1969 said:

Or just maybe they want him as the RT as they move Coleman to LT?

Might be, just heard some talking about getting a G when they already have 2 good ones. It's about 14 hrs since the pick, no reason to say its terrible right now

Tour2ma

@gunz41 said:

Since I already started this thread and it goes along with it:

As for the Guard pick and wondering why. I dont have any inside knowledge, but maybe the thought process is moving one of the Guards to tackle.

Now as for the DE pick, not a fan of it. I would have taken Sam Hubbard or Griffin

I see competition at Center with a downside of a 5-position backup. Is that worth the spend of 2.01? Not in my book, but we shall see.
After adding about 10 lb I see Chad Thomas as a rotational 3-tech DT, not a DE. Hubbard and Griffin? Don't think they improved our DE rotation appreciably.

Gunz41

@tour2ma said:

I see competition at Center with a downside of a 5-position backup. Is that worth the spend of 2.01? Not in my book, but we shall see.

After adding about 10 lb I see Chad Thomas as a rotational 3-tech DT, not a DE. Hubbard and Griffin? Don't think they improved our DE rotation appreciably.

1. I wasnt advocating him there, my point was that at the time everyone saying it wasnt a great pick as the team already had 2 starting guards, but dont know what the teams plans are.

2. With where Thomas was taken, I think any of Hubbard, Hurst, or Griffin have more value. I dont see the resistance to the Ward over Chubb pick. 2 years ago the team invested 2.1 I believe in Ogbah, and the team needed DB help. This goes to the whole point of the thread, had the team taken Chubb there would have been those saying well there was another wasted high pick in Ogbah.

There are those that will complain no matter what the team does, not only just to complain but to not even look at what the idea/plan may be. A team could have JJ Watt and Joey Bosa at DE and Justin Gilbert at CB, and just as an example Myles Garrett may be a better/higher rated player, but Lattimore makes more sense for them. The team thinks that Ogbah can be a good player, no reason to call them stupid for passing Chubb.

Tour2ma

I did not take the Corbett question as advocating.
Hurst is a different matter as he's a proven inside disruptor.

Heard an interesting take yesterday. Williams being our DC effectively discounted the value of adding Chubb to Garrett. Williams has always generated Pass pressure via the schemed blitz, so he needs high quality, press coverage CBs more than he needs a DE.