DG Smokescreen vs. Lynch Smokescreens?

[t96]

2 minutes ago, RoaringRiot said:

But how sure is "pretty sure"? 

Surer than I am about us getting Garrett at 3.

[Lout]

5 minutes ago, d-dave said:

So if someone tells me 10 concerts they've been to, but one is a lie, do try to guess which one?  Or do I just unfriend those stupid a-holes? =)  (facebook poo).

Lie all you want, it only makes any statements of truth more like a lie.  Instead, you have to look at what benefits the liar the most: in this case, SF wants to trade down and get more picks.  Deep draft, lots of talent, more picks = brighter future.

What better way to drum up interest than to spread the rumors that you're going to draft or deal all the marquee players?  That works in a 4th grade trading card swap, but I could care less.  It just means what you have to offer is less desirable than me staying pat if you're that desperate to get out of it.

You have to admire what John Lynch has done with the perceived shroud over the pick.  Yes, he'd like to trade down, but it only takes one insecure GM to believe one of his many lies and trade up.  A for Effert.

[d-dave]

14 minutes ago, Lout said:

You have to admire what John Lynch has done with the perceived shroud over the pick.  Yes, he'd like to trade down, but it only takes one insecure GM to believe one of his many lies and trade up.  A for Effert.

I'm just not sure Lynch is going to get what he wants.  Much ado about nothing.

Then again, there are some itchy GMs who know they have a sgirt leash.  We'll see if it pans out.

[Sam Mills Fan]

If this was a smokescreen all along and they're not interested in McCaffrey at all, I would die laughing.

[t96]

2 minutes ago, Sam Mills Fan said:

If this was a smokescreen all along and they're not interested in McCaffrey at all, I would die laughing.

Not that unpredictable. I'm sure they'd be interested in him at 40, but this whole taking him at 8 thing being a consensus across the board the past few weeks made me very skeptical and it had the looks of a smokescreen all along. Maybe not, maybe it's a double smokescreen, the real smokescreen is making others think it's a smokescreen. But it appears that McC at 8 isn't in the cards. But as has been the case for every team this whole draft, who the fug knows.

[RoaringRiot]

3 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

Not that unpredictable. I'm sure they'd be interested in him at 40, but this whole taking him at 8 thing being a consensus across the board the past few weeks made me very skeptical and it had the looks of a smokescreen all along. Maybe not, maybe it's a double smokescreen, the real smokescreen is making others think it's a smokescreen. But it appears that McC at 8 isn't in the cards. But as has been the case for every team this whole draft, who the fug knows.

What if........wait for it............... the "report" saying it's a smokescreen is the real smokescreen. OMG!!!!!!!!!

[t96]

1 minute ago, RoaringRiot said:

What if........wait for it............... the "report" saying it's a smokescreen is the real smokescreen. OMG!!!!!!!!!

 

6 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

Maybe not, maybe it's a double smokescreen, the real smokescreen is making others think it's a smokescreen

Did you miss this in my post?

[RoaringRiot]

9 minutes ago, thomas96 said:

 

Did you miss this in my post?

No I saw it. I was agreeing with you and being sarcastic at the same time. Well, agreeing with you until you tossed this bad statement out "But it appears that McC at 8 isn't in the cards."

[t96]

1 minute ago, RoaringRiot said:

No I saw it. I was agreeing with you and being sarcastic at the same time. Well, agreeing with you until you tossed this bad statement out "But it appears that McC at 8 isn't in the cards."

We all know nothing.

[JawnyBlaze]

47 minutes ago, RoaringRiot said:

What if........wait for it............... the "report" saying it's a smokescreen is the real smokescreen. OMG!!!!!!!!!

You've been Gettleceptioned.