Opposing Line Coach Says Poe 'Took Plays Off'

[CRA]

If you like a player it has to be playing the position he actually played in college. I don't know how you can accurately predict how a player will translate to a position he never played in college or high school. So once again Edwards is a bad example. If they were going to take a huge gamble like that it shouldn't have been a trade where we gave up a second the next year to get a third that year. Those are the type of gambles you make in the 5th round or lower at the pick you have.

Plus we were talking about a difference maker in the first round like a quarterback and not quibbling about 10 spots. Edwards was projected as third rounder as a quarterback not as a returner or receiver. If people were evaluating where to draft him as a receiver he would have gone undrafted.

You can make a case that converting someone from a corner to a safety is doable but this was a huge stretch and the example is surely not germaine to this conversation.

So if you like a player you can justify taking him anywhere but only if he plays the same position in the pros? That doesn't change anything for me...still disagree. You can't justify drafting certain guys early...if they are projected to be a 4th or 5th rounder then you can't snag him in the 2nd and get by with saying...but we really like him.

Doesn't matter who is used as an example...

[panthers55]

So if you like a player you can justify taking him anywhere but only if he plays the same position in the pros? That doesn't change anything for me...still disagree. You can't justify drafting certain guys early...if they are projected to be a 4th or 5th rounder then you can't snag him in the 2nd and get by with saying...but we really like him.

Doesn't matter who is used as an example...

Once again you are misconstruing the whole argument in order to try and prove your point. Lets review. You started off saying that Poe at 9 was a reach and at 20 might be a good value. I said that Pat Kirwin said that if you value a guy as your impact player in the first round it shouldn't matter if you pick him at 9 or 20. If you only have 1 first rounder and he will be gone before you pick again the number of the pick wasn't that important. If you try and trade down 10 spots you have to be willing for the 10 best potential guys on your board to be gone at those spots and if the guy you covet is gone, then trading down backfired unless you have other guys rated as highly at which point you pick them. Then I used the example of Tampa using the 17 pick on Freeman although some folks had him as a second rounder and that the GM said he would have taken Freeman at 17, or 7 or where ever given he was their franchise quarterback.

Then you come out of left field with Edwards as an example and I argued that he was totally irrelevant to the conversation and just gave the reasons why and you post the above.

Maybe it is me but somehow what you are discussing now has nothing to do with what we started with so forgive me if I appear confused with your logic.

[CRA]

Once again you are misconstruing the whole argument in order to try and prove your point. Lets review. You started off saying that Poe at 9 was a reach and at 20 might be a good value. I said that Pat Kirwin said that if you value a guy as your impact player in the first round it shouldn't matter if you pick him at 9 or 20. If you only have 1 first rounder and he will be gone before you pick again the number of the pick wasn't that important. If you try and trade down 10 spots you have to be willing for the 10 best potential guys on your board to be gone at those spots and if the guy you covet is gone, then trading down backfired unless you have other guys rated as highly at which point you pick them. Then I used the example of Tampa using the 17 pick on Freeman although some folks had him as a second rounder and that the GM said he would have taken Freeman at 17, or 7 or where ever given he was their franchise quarterback.

Then you come out of left field with Edwards as an example and I argued that he was totally irrelevant to the conversation and just gave the reasons why and you post the above.

Maybe it is me but somehow what you are discussing now has nothing to do with what we started with so forgive me if I appear confused with your logic.

I would disagree with Pat Kirwin then.

also, I don't put much stock into what a GM says he "would have done" after he has a guy. He didn't do it.

So now you are saying top of first round or bottom of first round? Shrinking the window there...I still disagree. You don't take someone at #5 you likely could get at#25.

[DaCityKats]

I would disagree with Pat Kirwin then.

also, I don't put much stock into what a GM says he "would have done" after he has a guy. He didn't do it.

So now you are saying top of first round or bottom of first round? Shrinking the window there...I still disagree. You don't take someone at #5 you likely could get at#25.

yes you do if he is your guy. you dont wait because you dont know what other teams big boards look like.