Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: the argument against taking a CB at 5 « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 10

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17100
Offline
#15 : March 31, 2012, 11:09:51 AM

S&B  you make some great points , but is there any reason you can't condense a lot of these comments into the same post ? LOL.



What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

Tampa-Two

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3316
Offline
#16 : March 31, 2012, 11:12:29 AM

S&B  you make some great points , but is there any reason you can't condense a lot of these comments into the same post ? LOL.
+1 lol.

S&B overload man.


XFactor

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2342
Offline
#17 : March 31, 2012, 11:16:01 AM

Valid point but that just tells you that offenses now dictate how the games are played.  Maybe all first round picks should be on that side.

Agreed. But that does not mean all 1st round picks should be on the offensive side. Like you already said, all those teams had a good turn over ratio. Still need great pass rushers and have good DB's to get those turnovers.
I don't think anyone would argue that QB is the most important position on the field, that a LT and legit number #1 WR are almost as important. Whether you like it or not, we have those 3 positions filled.


bashear

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2434
Offline
#18 : March 31, 2012, 11:30:36 AM

Valid point but that just tells you that offenses now dictate how the games are played.  Maybe all first round picks should be on that side.

Agreed. But that does not mean all 1st round picks should be on the offensive side. Like you already said, all those teams had a good turn over ratio. Still need great pass rushers and have good DB's to get those turnovers.
I don't think anyone would argue that QB is the most important position on the field, that a LT and legit number #1 WR are almost as important. Whether you like it or not, we have those 3 positions filled.
An interesting point. A couple years ago, there was a former Cleveland scout who said that the positions that can lose (or win) games for you in a hurry are QB, LT, RDE, and CB. Obviously, the Bucs look to be flirting with disaster at the CB position, and that's why I hope the Bucs, should they like Claiborne, get a chance to draft him.

In the end, I just want to see the Bucs get a guy who becomes a pro-bowl, or even better, an All-Pro player. Let's get a few of those guys on the Bucs and see how we do. Draft some guys who we don't look at three years down the road and question if we can apply the bust tag to them. Easier said than done.

bradentonian

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27669
Offline
#19 : March 31, 2012, 11:36:16 AM

1. 6 out of the top ten passing defenses didn't even make the playoffs.
2. NY Giants (29th), NO Saints (30th), NE Pats (31st), GB Packers (32nd) were at least 4 out of the 5 best teams in the NFL and they were the worst pass defense teams.

We don't need to pick a top CB because it would give us a top pass defense, we need to pick a top CB just to help our pass defense become non-horrible




Guest
#20 : March 31, 2012, 11:52:47 AM

Nothing convincing so far S & B, sorry.

But look at the bright side...you're running your post count up.  ::)

TheChronicHotAir

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6141
Offline
#21 : March 31, 2012, 12:01:44 PM

We should just STAY HOME and not draft anybody.

Only about 10% of the guys drafted even play for your team for more than 4 years...


:-)


leeroybuc93

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 4436
Offline
#22 : March 31, 2012, 12:29:49 PM

1. 6 out of the top ten passing defenses didn't even make the playoffs.
2. NY Giants (29th), NO Saints (30th), NE Pats (31st), GB Packers (32nd) were at least 4 out of the 5 best teams in the NFL and they were the worst pass defense teams.

We don't need to pick a top CB because it would give us a top pass defense, we need to pick a top CB just to help our pass defense become non-horrible

This is probably the best argument I have seen for Claiborne.

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#23 : March 31, 2012, 01:03:03 PM

1. 6 out of the top ten passing defenses didn't even make the playoffs.
2. NY Giants (29th), NO Saints (30th), NE Pats (31st), GB Packers (32nd) were at least 4 out of the 5 best teams in the NFL and they were the worst pass defense teams.

NYG were 25th in passing TDs allowed and 6th in INTs. So they allowed a lot of passing yrds but got a ton of TOs

NO was was 16th in passing TDs allowed, so again a lot of yrds but those yrds didn't lead to a lot of points

NE was 22nd in passing TDs allowed but more importantly 2nd in INTs. Getting TOs win games, not yrds before turning it over.

GB was 29th in TDs allowed, but no 1 in INTs with 31. When you know you will get 2 turnovers a games, who cares how many yrds you give up?

So of those 4 teams, all had elite high scoring Os and 3 of the 4 ranked in the top 6 for INTs. Moral of the story, score a lot of points and then take the ball away.


Lord Jenkins

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5254
Offline
#24 : March 31, 2012, 01:17:17 PM

A quadruple post, on purpose. S&B has finally lost it in his attempts to try and convince message board members to share his opinion.


S.A.N.T.A.N.A.

****
Starter

Posts : 750
Online
#25 : March 31, 2012, 01:20:54 PM

S&B, I've literally stayed away from this board because of Java and your annoying sig pic :/

TheChronicHotAir

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6141
Offline
#26 : March 31, 2012, 01:32:45 PM

yeah, that sig pic has GOT to go...


yuccaneers

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2385
Offline
#27 : March 31, 2012, 03:52:37 PM

The problem comes in when projecting talent from round to round. How much of a drop off is there within the position? All the running backs are closely grouped with Richardson having the edge - but is that edge so substantial over players like Martin, Miller & Wilson that a team could not get just as much production out of those guys and draft them in the second over drafting Richardson in the first? Further more the drop off over Claiborne and other corners is large. Not taking Claiborne if he's on the board over some of the rumored second round candidates with such a large disparity with talent gap between Claiborne over those expected to be drafted is huge.

So for me the better option is the corner with a longer shelf life - than that of a running back and what you could get in the second round at running back talent.

In Football, RESPECT is never given freely by your opponent. It must be TAKEN from them...VIOLENTLY

Great players cost a lot of money but help win games. High-priced players - a byproduct of poorly run front offices with bad scouting departments - only cost a lot of money.
"Our greatest glory consists not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall."
Oliver Goldsmith



Guest
#28 : March 31, 2012, 03:54:34 PM

The problem comes in when projecting talent from round to round. How much of a drop off is there within the position? All the running backs are closely grouped with Richardson having the edge - but is that edge so substantial over players like Martin, Miller & Wilson that a team could not get just as much production out of those guys and draft them in the second over drafting Richardson in the first? Further more the drop off over Claiborne and other corners is large. Not taking Claiborne if he's on the board over some of the rumored second round candidates with such a large disparity with talent gap between Claiborne over those expected to be drafted is huge.

So for me the better option is the corner with a longer shelf life - than that of a running back and what you could get in the second round at running back talent.

Great point's.

BucBalla85

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 18443
Offline
#29 : March 31, 2012, 03:55:44 PM

The problem comes in when projecting talent from round to round. How much of a drop off is there within the position? All the running backs are closely grouped with Richardson having the edge - but is that edge so substantial over players like Martin, Miller & Wilson that a team could not get just as much production out of those guys and draft them in the second over drafting Richardson in the first? Further more the drop off over Claiborne and other corners is large. Not taking Claiborne if he's on the board over some of the rumored second round candidates with such a large disparity with talent gap between Claiborne over those expected to be drafted is huge.

So for me the better option is the corner with a longer shelf life - than that of a running back and what you could get in the second round at running back talent.

Agree. CB is just such a large need for this team going forward. RB is too but it's not like we can't draft Martin, Wilson, LMJ, Pead or somebody to play with Blount. Who is already a pretty good runner.
Page: 1 2 3 4 ... 10
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: the argument against taking a CB at 5 « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools