KL2

Did I say that? Link to where I said that please? But, its beyond stupid to use your most valuable asset to pick the only position on the field that is dependent on someone else where you have literally nothing else. You've posted about WR and Landon a bunch. He's not calvin. Hell. most don't even have him as the No. 1 WR prospect. It's silly to take a WR when you have no one to get him the ball and higher rated defensive players available. Not to mention taking him would eliminate one of hte five years of control you have of him. There is zero reason to take a WR before pick 32 there are way too many other pressing needs on this team and too many teams win with WR who weren't taken above 15.

Cool. Clock starts on the WR'er, no QB and no defense.

Sorry tiredness. Good and pro bowler were being interchanged there. There are way mroe cases of top flight WR after the first round than top flight DEs thoughout history no? That was my point, that its way easier to find a Kenny Golladay in round 3, as there have been lots of them in history, than to find a Jared Allen. I mean the top five sack leaders last year, teh top four went in round 1. Compared to either the top receiving yards or TD leaders, where only two went in round one and two others went in round 2. I don't disagree that there are lots of DE in this class, I also think there's lots of good WR and the drop off from London to a Bell is small. Compared to what some believe what Tibs or Hutchinson could become compared to Ebiketie. If they made the case to take a LB, or another position sure. I just don't get the argument that you pass on one of the top rated players to take the same position 30 picks later for a WR that nobody thinks is a prospect on a Calvin or even the top three from last year level.

Isn't that whole idea based on a terrible permise? Like we're not in love with one of the top DEs and can get a good one later. But, isn't that also true for WR? Like is Landon that much better than the Arkansas guy or David Bell or whomever? And I think we can all agree its easier to find a good WR at the 30s than it is to find a pro-bowl level DE. Like I'd get the argument if it was one of the WR from last year, sure. But, Landon? really?

All the above. It's like saying why aren't the teamsters the same as the AFT. They are different and serve different purposes. The NBA players union can work on behalf of the G league because its owned by the NBA, players are on NBA contracts and pay union dues. The MLBPA is representative of the MLB players not the thousands of minor league players on affiliates who aren't paying dues. The sizes is because while same number of teams the NBA player pool is way more smaller than the MLB one. There is such as huge difference between rookie ball and the top of the major leagues that it wouldn't behoove players at the top to give up something to help those that will never ever reach their level, especially in an uncapped system. The nba with its cap and revenue sharing makes that easier because there is a finite resource available for the top players.

Cause the unions are different sizes and serve different purpsoes?

That trade would leave us stuck in the mud

Yes you could have. That's why I asked why what appeared to be a random 160.

Just curious why is 160 the cut off? Why not 150? 150 Mize did last, Skubal was 149.1 and Spencer was two innings below it in 2019. Eduardo has done it a couple times now.

You can never have too many iowa guys. And I agree with you on the WR. Too many positions that need fixing to add two in the top 100. Sure something like 2 and 232 is fine. But, you have Brown, a guy you take high and then one of like a million FA wr is fine for this year.

10-34 12-54 hut hut hike What are we just throwing out? Random numbers? or are those the wins and loses of some unspecified team without any context, any talk of playoff wins or any issues with their ownership? gonna need more info here. And will you please point out where I said Kahn was "good?"

Again, not once have I said he was a good owner. Not once. Unlike you who said Goff was good cause he's been to a superbowl and that was it. If you read the thread, you will see I asked about what constitutes best openings. I refuted that the Jags was one of the worst with Lawrence and cap space. I was told, in response, they were because of owner was terrible. I pointed out that Kahn has had more success than some of the other owners, and that off the field issues had hit others but were ignored. You guys took that as me saying Kahn is the greatest owner in the history of sports.

Link to where I said good?

"i was told jacksonville was fine because they won a playoff game 7 years ago." 2017 was four years ago. So, yes, math appears to be hard for you. So they had a bunch of losing season. Who cares? whether you win 7 or 2 they are not good years. But, no lets say a bunch of 8-8 jobs that are cap strapped with no young QBs and owners who are guilty of federal crimes and scandal that has fewer really good seasons is better. And I never once said his ownership has been "good" but its certainty not a disaster, at least compared to the other openings which was the discussion, as you and others make it out to be.

Got it. Regular seasons wins are all that counts and teams with less success are better jobs.

Math is hard 2017. That's four years. Teams that haven't won a playoff game in the last four years. Miami, LV, Giants, Bears, Dolphins, Broncos. Hey look at that every team that had an opening this year.

No better outcome for the Lions. Last pick (assuming) Stafford gets a ring We are extra terrible.

You mean the Jags owner flush with cash who has a championhsip game under his belt, same as the Vikings or Davis or a lot of other teams you listed? Or cause he mettles cause we all know Ross just sits on the sideliines quietly. And Wilf has been the bastion of good decisions you know with paying $32 million to settle a racketeering scheme. So many poeple can't look beyond 18 months its amazing. MCS fell vicitm to it, just like espn constantly does. Lot more to the pie.

What's the criteria for best? Most ready to win now. Most deserable. Are you looking at this like a fan or a coach/GM. Cause the Jags job is a heck of a lot more attractive than the vikins. Minnesota is over hte cap and kind of stuck they need to bottom out. jags have the no. 1 overall pick and a top of cap space. Similar concept for Saints and Raiders. If you're look at which is most deseriable you list is a bit inverted. Coaches like teams they can mold in thier image right away not someone else's scraps

You also thought they'd win 8 last year and Stafford and Goff are a wash. So....

There were some more as well those were just the two that made me go wait...

Wait do you think the packers were playing full speed/caring in the first half?

Possible. I just think some people forget that we are picking second. That means we were pretty bad. I mean we only beat the packers by 7 the last week. When they sat anybody worth a damn and played jordan love.

I think its probably more just alate in the cycle hire. Any decent candidate has been snatched up by this time. So its go with someone you don't know at all or at least the one you know. We'll call it the why people eat at olive garden effect.

They took trask in the second round last year. He costs like a penny, Goff does not.