The thing about SF's 14 draft picks

Discuss your thoughts about anything draft related. Mocks, College and Pro. Knock yourselves out!!! RATING: PG-13
Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:41 pm
  • Erebus:
    Since I can't attack the poster and call you a certified lunatic, I'll attack the post and call it certified lunacy. I think you're seriously overvaluing Tavon Austin. To give up that much draft capital, you better be getting an elite player that fills a huge need.


    Pretty much the same thing if you're going to put it that way. You intended a personal attack because of the very way you put it. But, I can take it b/c I meant to make a bold enough statement to make a point even if it meant getting insulted.

    I'll comment on what you have to say just briefly. The point of the post was that Tavon Austin could very well be a major difference maker for a team like the 49ers. So, it absolutely should be a factor when considering Tavon Austin wouldn't be a wasted pick on a team where even guys like Kearly are saying that none of our draft picks may even make the final cut roster. If that is the case... who would you rather have? An elite talent like Tavon Austin, or a bunch of guys who may get cut? (I don't necessarily think that would be the case, but just referenced that thread b/c it was said to further make my point.) The Seahawks roster has been listed lately as the toughest roster to make for an incoming player. So, how much "draft capital" really are we talking about? I was purposefully exaggerating a bit so say make the point that certainly WOULD be key to keep Austin off of other NFC West rosters. I would usually agree with what you said about not drafting against other teams. But, the Hawks are in a championship contention fight and that takes this to another level. I think this team is beyond simply filling "needs" and simply acquiring best player available. "Needs" players to improve competition... sure. Adding components that are going to make every bit of difference? Absolutely. Seems to me that a high percentage of posters on here might have scoffed at acquiring Percy Harvin before the deal went down. I like the way this front office is thinking in terms of adding championship pieces. Tavon Austin could still be yet another championship piece. Now... I don't think it's going to happen and more the purpose of my post was to say that I don't like how this could be headed with Austin possibly landing in SF or STL. Most of the rest was for dramatic effect. I was stating the lunacy b/c I knew there would be howls of protest to such a suggestion. Take a look at any draft and how many players don't work out. The Seahawks have done well... but that's no guarantee that they would find as much talent as they have in previous drafts. THAT right there is an assumption (but, granted, also a compliment to the scouting department.) Still, the draft would have to fall to them to get the players they really are targeting (and none of us really find out those sorts of details.) They just praise whoever they get and say they were the players they wanted all along. I don't need to elaborate any further there. Anyway... if there was a way to get the best offensive weapon available in this draft... I would contend that it would be greater lunacy to not do so.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:53 pm
  • TeamoftheCentury wrote:Erebus:
    Since I can't attack the poster and call you a certified lunatic, I'll attack the post and call it certified lunacy. I think you're seriously overvaluing Tavon Austin. To give up that much draft capital, you better be getting an elite player that fills a huge need.


    Pretty much the same thing if you're going to put it that way. You intended a personal attack because of the very way you put it. But, I can take it b/c I meant to make a bold enough statement to make a point even if it meant getting insulted.


    Actually I didn't intend a personal attack. You suggested that you would get called a certified lunatic. I was trying to validate that just to humor you without actually breaking any rules.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 696
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm
    Location: Ft. Meade, MD


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:00 pm
  • Erebus wrote:
    TeamoftheCentury wrote:This is going to get some howls of protest and get me labeled as a certified lunatic, but I would actually be ok with trading away all the Seahawks picks (though, I don't know if that would be enough - maybe even a pick next year) to trade up for Tavon Austin - just to keep him away from other NFC West Teams. Percy Harvin Insurance or even better. Still could sign a bunch of UDFA's. There will be more cuts in June and there's always players that come available who could fill in or upgrade any perceived position of need. Even on final cuts or other teams' practice squads once set. I don't think there are any actual glaring weaknesses that couldn't be addressed later.

    Not panicked, but I don't like hearing of the 49ers and Rams interest in Tavon Austin one bit.


    Since I can't attack the poster and call you a certified lunatic, I'll attack the post and call it certified lunacy. I think you're seriously overvaluing Tavon Austin. To give up that much draft capital, you better be getting an elite player that fills a huge need.

    No team should ever draft someone just to keep him away from their rivals, and especially not trade up to do so. You draft to make your team better, not to keep your opponent from getting better. The 49ers and Rams will draft good players no matter what we do.

    We also don't need him. We have one of the best playmaking WRs in the game. I would much rather have a diversified skill set in the WR corps than insurance for Percy Harvin. We already have 3 or 4 good WRs (depending on how you value Baldwin). I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a WR if a good one fell to us, such as Robert Woods, but there's no need to trade up for any WR.

    Oh, I see you may have taken umbrage. You were the OP of the thread I referenced. Sorry if that somehow came across in an unintended way. I meant no objection, necessarily, to your OP in that thread by referencing Kearly's comment.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:26 pm
  • Nope, no offense taken here. I just fundamentally disagree with trading an entire draft, and think there's so much value to be had later in the draft. We have the right coach and GM to identify that talent.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 696
    Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:53 pm
    Location: Ft. Meade, MD


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:47 pm
  • Erebus wrote:Nope, no offense taken here. I just fundamentally disagree with trading an entire draft, and think there's so much value to be had later in the draft. We have the right coach and GM to identify that talent.

    Well, if they can identify talent in later rounds... does that not extend into UDFAgency? Listen, I'm not stating emphatically that the Hawks should trade their entire draft. I was just stating that, to me, I could see it being worthwhile. You disagree and, again, it's not like I think the Hawks are blowing it by not offering their entire draft. There's plenty of other things to potentially base lunacy on rather than that. Wait...
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:50 pm
  • Erebus wrote:
    TeamoftheCentury wrote:Erebus:
    Since I can't attack the poster and call you a certified lunatic, I'll attack the post and call it certified lunacy. I think you're seriously overvaluing Tavon Austin. To give up that much draft capital, you better be getting an elite player that fills a huge need.


    Pretty much the same thing if you're going to put it that way. You intended a personal attack because of the very way you put it. But, I can take it b/c I meant to make a bold enough statement to make a point even if it meant getting insulted.


    Actually I didn't intend a personal attack. You suggested that you would get called a certified lunatic. I was trying to validate that just to humor you without actually breaking any rules.

    Humor taken and validated on this end as well. There are definitely 16+ weeks a year my entire family sees ample evidence of this very thing.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 6:51 pm
  • Go Hawks!!!
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 941
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:07 pm
  • [quote="CamanoIslandJQ"]AJ Jenkins was the whiners first round pick last year. What he did? Nothing!
    Talk about a reach. Where's Kiper on that?[/quote]

    My uneducated guess would be a gay bathhouse.

    Carry on.
    User avatar
    400WattHPSHawk
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
    *SILVER SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 1812
    Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:09 pm
    Location: Central Washington




It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:32 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online