- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 76,883
- Reaction score
- 66,866
Again, not to belabor my point, but you have no idea what kind of players the Eagles got yet.
Ellis Hobbs says hello
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Again, not to belabor my point, but you have no idea what kind of players the Eagles got yet.
That probably explains why the results of the trades left the Patriots two extra picks in the top 65, as opposed to four extra picks in the next 200.
This assumes that Oher was a target going in. I'd be interested to know how you discovered this was a priority for them. Or maybe you're just going with your feeling, as opposed to anything concrete.
All assumptions about the draft (including yours regarding what they could have gotten, or even if Oher was someone they wanted), is pure speculation. There is no such thing as draft facts when it comes to who made the best moves until about three years after the draft was completed.
I think your arguments would be a whole lot less abrasive if you changed the wording from "King's right on this and Allen is wrong" to something like "I lean closer to King than I do Allen." That at least implies a recognized opinion, as opposed to a claim of fact.
King's response/defense doesn't even make sense:
[Though in principle you might be right, Bruce, it wasn’t the same thing. The Patriots didn’t have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did...]
Allen isn't arguing about which team did better. Allen is calling out King for bashing one team and praising another for different degrees of the same smart behavior/strategy.
Of course it "wasn't the same thing", King you moron. King is so dumb he doesn't even know what Allen is arguing about. Perhaps that's why Allen ended with, "I guess that’s all we can do right now", after realizing he was trying to argue with a pea brain.
Ellis Hobbs says hello
In the draft itself I mean, come on now. My point is that, if you accept that the strategies for the two teams were the same (trade down, get additional picks this year and next while still getting the guy you want), then the only case that can be made for the Eagles is that they got better players in the draft. Aside from Hobbs, every single player both teams got is an unknown until proven otherwise.
The Patriots didn’t have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did, though they did acquire two second-round picks in 2010 in their wheeling-and-dealing. Philadelphia traded down six spots late in the third round and got one of the top guys they would have taken at 85 (Cornelius Ingram), half the value of a starting corner (Ellis Hobbs), a seventh-round pick this year and third-, fifth- and sixth-round picks next year … and still exited the draft with three potential impact players in 2009 — Jason Peters, Jeremy Maclin and LeSean McCoy.
I think we're arguing over semantics at that point. Again, who's right or wrong isn't the issue, and I think Bruce just admitted that. I think the bigger issue (and as I said I agree with Bruce) is that if King felt that the Eagles did better than New England, the simple fact is he could have put it far more eloquently than calling what New England did "mystifying" and saying they were "drunk with power."
I'm not sure how you figure that Oher wasn't a higher ranked player. He clearly was. He was considered one of the 4 top tackles. What BB has on his board doesn't matter. This is a draft evaluation and the reporters/analysts/columnists base everything off of their baselines, not the baselines of specific teams.
But Hobbs is part of the point King was making. Dismissing it is like dismissing Welker and Moss.
Here's what King's saying:
The general draft evaluation, an amalgamation of people who are guessing at the evaluations of the teams, is useless to everybody except for entertainment purposes. It isn't used by a single team to draft a single player.
So basically, you and King assign Oher to the Patriots based on your "baselines" - and not, by the way, on anything beyond your own speculation - and then criticize them after for not choosing him, even going so far as to say what the particular organization values in a player "doesn't matter".I'm not sure how you figure that Oher wasn't a higher ranked player. He clearly was. He was considered one of the 4 top tackles. What BB has on his board doesn't matter. This is a draft evaluation and the reporters/analysts/columnists base everything off of their baselines, not the baselines of specific teams.
So basically, you and King assign Oher to the Patriots based on your "baselines" - and not, by the way, on anything beyond your own speculation - and then criticize them after for not choosing him, even going so far as to say what the particular organization values in a player "doesn't matter".
Nice racket you got there.
It doesn't matter where BB had Oher rated, or where he had anyone else rated. This isn't the BB draft grades. Maybe when people start actually thinking about what they respond to rather than waiting to attack every media person who isn't blowing 100% sunshine up the Patriots' skirts we can have a more rational discussion.
As betterthanthealternative... noted above,
It's not my baseline.
No kidding. Your baseline keeps moving.
So basically, you and King assign Oher to the Patriots based on your "baselines" - and not, by the way, on anything beyond your own speculation - and then criticize them after for not choosing him, even going so far as to say what the particular organization values in a player "doesn't matter".
Nice racket you got there.
I'm sure there are some who are attacking King just because he's not bowing to the Pats, but honestly, do you think so little of us?
So now, one can't even defend his hometown team without automatically being a homer?
When I look at Allen's argument, which has nothing to do with the caliber of players drafted and simply points out an inconsistency in King's evaluations from team to team, I see someone making a good point. If you feel the players the Eagles got were better, that's fine, that's your opinion. If you think the Eagles and Patriots approaches were as vastly different as King's comments on them make them out to be, I wholeheartedly disagree.