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
The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:23 pm
  • They keep harping about it on TV but, they don't have 14 roster spots available. The 49ers may end up cutting some real talent, unless of course they hit on a few more AJ Jenkins type players :P Carrying 2 kickers throughout the season is always a good idea too :D
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 9189
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 5:53 pm
  • But, they are in a good position to have all those to either package them to move up or to trade for picks down the road... a la the masterful job the Patriots have done through the draft. But, let's hope they blow it, of course. They should pick 2 kickers in the 1st round to compete for that job! THAT would be the difference maker right there.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 977
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 6:18 pm
  • Yeah well they lost Sopoaga,Walker and probably goin to lose Gholston so they lost main pieces of their team. Sopoaga logged major snaps for them and rarely came out of the game and Walker did alot of things great thats why i'm glad he won't be doing it in the NFC west anymore. Gholston was their Kam the enforcer that made big hits and set the tempo for their secondary so yeah they gonna need them 14 picks i think the hawks will gladly have a rookie or another vet on the market to take over for them this year.
    Lynch Mob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 551
    Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:30 am


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:23 pm
  • TeamoftheCentury wrote:But, they are in a good position to have all those to either package them to move up or to trade for picks down the road... a la the masterful job the Patriots have done through the draft. But, let's hope they blow it, of course. They should pick 2 kickers in the 1st round to compete for that job! THAT would be the difference maker right there.


    I hope the do draft like Belicheck. That means they'll draft 2 or 3 DBs that will soon be off the team. :th2thumbs:
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 9189
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:33 pm
  • I hope they send half of them to the jets for Revis and then they way overpay him and make for some crazy showdown between SEA and SF in the prime time games this year but next year SF completely crashes cause their team is too old.
    Image
    User avatar
    Wenhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2234
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 7:55 pm
  • They have a seriously old team though. They need those picks to get younger- even if most of those picks end up as backups this year.

    Plus, this draft is insanely deep. If there was ever a draft you wanted as many picks as possible for, it's this one.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11559
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 8:05 pm
  • ivotuk wrote:
    TeamoftheCentury wrote:But, they are in a good position to have all those to either package them to move up or to trade for picks down the road... a la the masterful job the Patriots have done through the draft. But, let's hope they blow it, of course. They should pick 2 kickers in the 1st round to compete for that job! THAT would be the difference maker right there.


    I hope the do draft like Belicheck. That means they'll draft 2 or 3 DBs that will soon be off the team. :th2thumbs:


    The Patriots trade and draft later approach is so overblown its comical. They actually draft fairly poorly.
    <A>
    <IMG></A>
    User avatar
    McGruff
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1646
    Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 6:14 am
    Location: Elma, WA


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Tue Mar 12, 2013 9:51 pm
  • The don't have that many roster spots available. My guess is they try and trade up for Austin.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1529
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:19 am
  • Wenhawk wrote:I hope they send half of them to the jets for Revis and then they way overpay him and make for some crazy showdown between SEA and SF in the prime time games this year but next year SF completely crashes cause their team is too old.


    That would be perfect. People seem to think cause of his name he can stop Harvin. Nope, couldn't do much matched up on him. Going to be Gilligan's Island if the SF FO bites on him specifically for Harvin.
    Last edited by Russell Wilson on Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:20 pm, edited 29-3 times in total.
    Last edited by NFC Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:14 pm, edited 23-17 times in total.
    Last edited by World Champion Russell Wilson on Sun Feb 2, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 43-8 times in total.
    User avatar
    Lady Talon
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 757
    Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 3:55 am


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:04 am
  • lukerguy wrote:The don't have that many roster spots available. My guess is they try and trade up for Austin.


    If Austin doesn't end up in SF, he probably will land in St. Louis.

    The arms race in the NFC west puts every other division to shame.
    two dog
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 719
    Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:45 pm
    Location: Yakima


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:29 am
  • AJ Jenkins was the whiners first round pick last year. What he did? Nothing!
    Talk about a reach. Where's Kiper on that?
    <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> GO SEAHAWKS <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
    User avatar
    CamanoIslandJQ
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 940
    Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 9:11 am
    Location: Camano Island, WA


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:47 am
  • kearly wrote:They have a seriously old team though. They need those picks to get younger- even if most of those picks end up as backups this year.

    Plus, this draft is insanely deep. If there was ever a draft you wanted as many picks as possible for, it's this one.


    The problem that they have is that they do not know if the players they are drafting are going to be suitable replacements because they play their starters 95% of the game.
    CurryStopstheRuns
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2410
    Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:52 pm


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:20 pm
  • They have a lot of work to do on their DL with the FA Losses, I'm not sure how Dorsey will do but I expect at least 2 of they first 5 picks to go towards DL.
    Image
    User avatar
    Wenhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2234
    Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:38 am
    Location: Graham, WA


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:59 pm
  • two dog wrote:
    lukerguy wrote:The don't have that many roster spots available. My guess is they try and trade up for Austin.


    If Austin doesn't end up in SF, he probably will land in St. Louis.

    The arms race in the NFC west puts every other division to shame.

    Man, this would not be good. I hope Austin is coveted enough by some team outside the NFC West to not land in our division. That would be a nightmare for years. I hope he goes to some team we really don't have to deal with.
    Sorry about mentioning the Patriots draft strategy and trading for picks down the road. But, overblown or not... they've done something right to put themselves in the position to have more picks later when they could use them rather than using excessive picks for teams with limited roster spots available. That was my point. I've personally felt envious of the Patriots number of picks in the draft (and while they're winning their division.) The Niners having the 14 picks is just wrong. That shouldn't be the case for a team in their position. They've done something right there. All we can hope for in the draft is that they don't make the most of this opportunity.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 977
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:31 am
  • Just as I thought all along. Tavon Austin rising up in 1st round projections and now being mentioned as a possible top 10 pick. I agree with this http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-draft/0ap ... op-10-pick He's been invited to the Draft - which is another indication that he is likely to be selected higher in the first round (not a guarantee, but there's not too many who are not labeling him the best offensive player in the draft.)

    For me, this draft is becoming not so much about who the Seahawks select... but, not seeing Tavon Austin go to an NFC West Opponent. Dollars to donuts the Niners are targeting him and may try to trade up.

    The teams I could see drafting him if all stays put (no trades)...
    4. Philly (Chip Kelly probably could draw up a thing or two to do with Tavon Austin)
    5. Detroit (though they just picked up Reggie Bush. They need to do something in an improving division and get a "new breed" of NFL player like this.)
    6. Cleveland (Terry Metcalf 2.0, only better? Chudzinski could get creative with a player of this caliber and make an immediate statement in the division)
    9. NYJ (Austin could pick up any butt fumbles and still make a positive play out of it)
    11. San Diego (Phillip Rivers would love an electric player similar to what he had in Darren Sproules and give his career a needed spark)
    13. Tampa Bay (too good to pass up for offensive help if he's still on the board. I don't think Austin makes it past Tampa or this 13 slot.)

    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.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 977
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:50 am
  • Another couple of reasons trading away all of the Seahawks picks (or even more) to trade up for Tavon Austin:

    1) perhaps they could concentrate more on new contracts for current players

    2) Kearly suggested that it could be possible that the Seahawks could draft very well and others wouldn't know it because there's a possibility that none of the drafted players may make the final roster. viewtopic.php?f=18&t=67024
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 977
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:29 am
  • There are a lot of spots on the roster that could be upgraded.

    But beyond upgrading, we are going to have to embrace the notion of reloading. While I think the deal will likely get done, the Kam Chancellor example should be an accurate foreshadowing of the difficulties this team is going to face and soon. We have Kam to resign and not much beyond that this year. When we try to extend 3-4 contracts at a time, that effort becomes exponentially more difficult.

    Just on offense, here are positions that could afford to have some competition or replacement contingency enacted this year and next:

    WR (Tate)
    WR (Rice)
    OT (Giacomini)
    LG (Carpenter)
    RB (Lynch/Turbin)
    TE (McCoy)

    Tate is going to be a difficult resign. It's unknown what Rice will command, but I suspect it'll be significantly less than what we're paying him on the open market. Getting a SE with size and skill is difficult as those are rare. I don't see us resigning both of these guys. Which means taking a WR this year or next to replace one of them. Schneider has said publicly that he likes the quality of the WR position in this draft. I'd take that to mean probably 2 wideouts are selected. Last year, he didn't like them and didn't take any. For a guy who admittedly likes taking a WR every year, I'd say that thus far he's been very transparent about how he regards these positions. WR is a prime candidate for a proactive reload of talent. And if we get lucky and score a replacement for both Rice and Tate -- that's probably going to be close to 14 million in combined 2014 salary that we aren't on the hook for.

    Carpenter is difficult to gauge. On the one hand, he looked extremely good at LG. On the other, that was for about 2 quarters until he gimped himself for the season again. If he gets healthy, he's going to be difficult for us to resign. He'll have a hefty price tag that others will pay (just like we paid for Rice even though Minnesota balked because of his extensive injury history with them). If he doesn't get healthy, then he needs to be replaced because he's never available. Either way, keeping him is going to be next to impossible.

    Giacomini. Well I can see Breno becoming this generation's Chris Gray. The guy that we annually try to replace for a decade and like Rasputin, he just won't die.

    Power running back. It's a core function on this team. I'm not convinced Turbin is up to taking 200 carries should Lynch go down. And he is going to go down at some point. This position should be three deep at all times. Now that Leon is gone, we can carry that.

    McCoy. He's been productive. But we need more. He can be more. Seems like a perfect position to infuse some competitive fire at.

    On defense:

    LDE (Bryant)
    1T (Mebane)
    LEO (Clemons)
    WLB (Smith)
    SLB (Wright)
    Nickel (Lane)
    SS (Chancellor)
    Backup FS (Maragos)

    Bryant and Mebane are getting towards the peak of their athletic primes. It's not time to put them out to pasture. But they've also been heavily abused. And their penchant for acquiring minor injuries that sap their effectiveness is now becoming a regular occurrence. We need to add depth there. We should add quality there for depth and for when it's time to let them go. Bryant's and Mebane's contracts expire after the 2014 season if memory serves. Which happens to coincide with the first year we can extend Wilson. If we have their replacements on the roster, that's money we can roll over.

    Clemons is getting along. And to be honest, I'm stunned he's been this reliable because his history before coming to Seattle was injury plagued. At any rate, this is a position we've shored up with short term UFA band-aids. This is the year we can take a project and hope he shows something by next season. I'd expect a 5th to 7th round pick to be used on just such a project player this year.

    WLB. Well the use of the term "USC Backup Crew" should tell us all we need to know. We have backups here. Quality backups. But they weren't trusted enough to supplant Hill. It's another position that could use another face.

    SLB. Wright is going to get expensive. He's a prototypical good player who is going to be too expensive to keep for what he does. He's a guy that I admire a lot -- but we are going to have to say goodbye to some of these fan favorites. I love Tate too. Big fan and I love how he struggled and came out the other side. But Tate and Wright are easier pieces to effectively replace than Okung or Thomas or Wilson. We need the next Tate and Wright so we can keep the core of the band together.

    There are a whole host of roster spots that should be considered in play. This is the year where the depth guys have to make their move. Scruggs, McDonald, Howard, Baldwin, Moffit, Sweezy, Turbin, Lane, Maragos, Maxwell, Smith etc. Either they need to challenge for starter positions or we need to replace them with prospects that will. Because there are going to be some starters that are going to have to roll off the payroll. That reload process starts this year. These guys' roster spots are imminently in jeopardy as it should be.

    I see a lot of opportunity for new players to make this team. I could see 6-7 of our draft picks sticking with the team.
    Attyla the Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 736
    Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:38 pm


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:48 am
  • I like how this went from 49er draft picks to Hawk draft picks.

    But they more than likely will package some of those for future picks after filling a lot of needs on defense.
    Hey Cardinals..........The FUN is OVER !!!
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 25606
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Mmmmm...Roasted Cardinal


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:55 pm
  • Largent80 wrote:I like how this went from 49er draft picks to Hawk draft picks.


    I thought the same thing and that was definitely a secondary intent of my 2 recent posts! The Hawks are a much better topic, of course.
    World Champion
    Image
    Seattle Seahawks
    User avatar
    TeamoftheCentury
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 977
    Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 11:54 am
    Location: Orlando, FL


Re: The thing about SF's 14 draft picks
Thu Mar 28, 2013 5:06 pm
  • 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.
    User avatar
    Erebus
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 791
    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 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: 977
    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: 791
    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: 977
    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: 791
    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: 977
    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: 977
    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: 977
    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: 1831
    Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 1:09 pm
    Location: Central Washington




It is currently Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:47 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE NCAA FOOTBALL & PRO DRAFT FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online