re: Malik v Ramczyk melt thread

quote:

---

Amazing how people who never come to this board

---

You serious clark?

quote:

---

worst pick of the 1st round, easily...

---

KC and Chicago by far...

quote:

---

KC has probably a starter in Mahomes

---

wow you really are an idiot..Our LT has no shot at starting but malhomes is starting over alex smith lmao. loser. Go away

quote:

---

wow you really are an idiot..Our LT has no shot at starting but malhomes is starting over alex smith lmao. loser. Go away

---

You mean the Alex Smith who got beat out by Kapernick and who has been below average to average in KC? Sorry I didn't know he was a good QB. If he was such a great QB they wouldn't have "reached" to get Mahomes.

quote:

---

Oh but our tackle we got doesnt get that benefit lmao. what a joke. Your argument is we should always draft starter in first round. Mahomes definitely is not that. You cant make up your mind in these threads.

---

We just differ on player evaluations, man. I see Mahomes as a probable starter. It may not be game one but he will take over from Alex Smith at some point. I don't see Ramcyzk beating Streif at any point. It just comes down to what you think of a certain player. Everyone is going to have a different opinion.


ETA: and let me make this clear, everything I say is focused on individual players. I don't look at a draft and say "will rookie QB1 beat veteran QB2" or should we draft "OT1" over "OT5"

I think about the individual players and how they fit on the team.

Would I rather Jordan Willis at RE opposite of Cam Jordan so that we have a consistent pass rush so that our corners don't have to cover as long to improve our defense... Or do I pick a tackle who may or may not start (probably won't) just because the number next to his position was 1 instead of 2 or 5.

OT1 may not be better for the team than WLB3

QB1 may not help the team as much as DE1 will.

Look at the Browns. They have Osweiler. They could've grabbed a QB multiple times but went against it. They built up their team instead of picking a rookie who may or may not beat him out (Kizer, Kaaya, etc)

ETA2: the best way I can present my theory/idea towards drafting is this:

If the saints had picked a CB, LB, DE, or S, would you be mad that they didn't pick Ramcyzk?

What if they had picked Kizer at 32?

Sure, you have other picks, but you can't guarantee that DE5 will be there. Picking OT1/2 when you don't necessarily need him just because you have him higher than DE5 is asinine. What happens when DE5 is gone? Do they then go to RB3? Or will they pull the trigger on LB5?


My gripes over this are simple:

I think that the talent at DE that the saints DID NOT pick at 32 won't be there at 42.

I also think that the DEs that won't be there would have benefitted the team more than the guy they picked at 32.

I also believe that this is a slap in the face to the current state of the team. IF this is a move to build towards the future, why not go defense? Streif may be gone next year but so could your QB. Defense wins championships. Build the team up at necessary positions before adding luxuries.

We just solidified one of the now best lines in the league. If we can finally be consistentl running the ball, it keeps the defense off the field.

quote:

---

KC has probably a starter in Mahomes

Chicago has a starter in Trubisky

How are those horrible? Sure, they had to move up, but they're not bad picks until they're proven to be horrible.

---

quote:

---

rmnldr melt thread

---

quote:

---

rmnldr

---

Worst poster on Saints Talk.

quote:

---

Lattimore? Bush? Kikaha being healthy?

---

I'm not melting about this pick at all and I actually like it... but just playing devils advocate here... I don't think we can rely on "kikaha being healthy" at all. Dude is likely done. And I also don't believe that Rafael Bush is going to be a difference maker on any defense. He's a solid depth player no doubt, but don't mention him in giving evidence for revamping a defense