FlyingGreg":3drq78ax said:
You seem to have something personal against them, so I can't help you there. But of course we have to take anything produced for Bleacher Report with a grain of salt.
Also, free agency and the draft are completely intertwined - you know that.
Rob, you seem to get really edgy/defensive/combative with people that don't fall lock step in with your assessments. Maybe it just comes across that way on the internet or something, but I've noticed you chafe pretty easily. Is WR such a reach in Round 1?? I don't think so...and I doubt Pete and John do either. It really depends on who is sitting there. You do great work on the draft, we all realize that - but don't let that make you so intransigent. :thirishdrinkers:
James Carpenter (2011) was a surprise pick, and at a position most people didn't expect they would draft. Bruce Irvin (2012) was a surprise pick.
Be prepared for a surprise, even though as armchair amateur draft experts think we know what their "needs" are.
I like the different angles, it keeps it fun.
1. I have a major issue with B******r R****t. I think that site is the devil incarnate. I think they're flooding the journalism market with irrelevant crap, sometimes written by people who can't even string a proper sentence together, because anyone can write for B/R. I usually wouldn't care, but there's no getting away from it. Anyone who uses google a lot will know how frustrating that web site is. Nothing personal against either of the two people in this video (I don't even know who the other guy is). But as a journalist who also blogs, I think B/R is pushing a lot of relevant professionals and well written articles into the background for "Top ten reasons why Tom Brady has nice hair".
2. I never argued free agency and the draft weren't intertwined. The suggestion was made that FA might change Seattle's needs. That angle was never brought to the table in this video. They are discussing Seattle's needs as of today and missed out the big old white elephant in the room. That's why I said it was rubbish.
3. I enjoy a joust. Who doesn't? I have strong views. I don't whine when people disagree with my take on a subject. Some people don't like that, but that's cool. I think this video misses out Seattle's biggest needs and therefore suggested it was rubbish. If that's 'chafing' then colour me chafed.
4. I never argued that receiver wasn't an option in R1. I do not think right tackle will be considered anywhere near this team's 'big needs' for the current off season.
5. Nearly all of Seattle's early picks have been predictable so far in terms of position. It's the names taken that are the surprise. Both me and Kip went LT/S in round one in 2010, and anyone visiting this forum probably would've done the same based on the info we all received from you know who. In 2011 Carroll banged on about needing to improve the #31 ranked rushing offense. He drafts two big OL's with the first two picks. No major shock there, but the name of James Carpenter was a surprise. In 2012, PC says speed in the front seven is a big need. We draft Irvin and Wagner with the first two picks. Irvin was the shock of the first round, but the fact Seattle drafted a pass rusher was not. Now he's saying we must get the defensive line sorted. So sure, it might be another wildcard (guy like Corey Lemonier for example) but based on Carroll/Schneider's up front honesty so far, we're likely to be taking a DLer early. No guarantees of course, but it's a fair old shout. In this video, it's not even among the top three team needs. Which again, is why I said it was rubish.