- Thread starter
- #881
skinsdad62
US ARMY retired /mod.
he could be a good getYeah - if that torn pec at the combine knocks him down to the Skins 2nd rounder.
he could be a good getYeah - if that torn pec at the combine knocks him down to the Skins 2nd rounder.
So what are the most realistic options at 13...
Payne and Vea...
Who else?
Payne, Vea. Fitzpatrick (good player, and I would not mind having him if we have seriously addressed the D-line before the draft)
Trade down and take Guice.
Denzel Ward and Quenton Nelson seem like good options too but not sure if theyll be there.
And I hear that Lamar Jackson guy looks good. *ducks*
Yea Ward does look good actually. And if Nelson were there and they made the pick, I could not be mad about it.
Jackson.... actually for that I would break my diet and eat popcorn slathered in Butter and wash it down with PBR every Sunday. As we bailed on Cousins... I would love to see them draft Jackson now.
If we draft Jackson...I am getting drunk.
We could use wr or rbIm not sure how to feel about it. On the one hand, Im no Smith fan so we're gonna need a young QB at some point and Jacksons a solid prospect. But at the same time seat is getting warm and a backup QB doesnt help much. And then you have new coach coming into a rebuilding team with the young QB of the future already there and Jackson likely learning a new offense.
Either way, theres no way they take a QB in the first after the Smith trade so worry not. You'll get to see all the Alex Smith you want over the next couple years
Wouldn't signing Haskins be seriously addressing the D-line? If yes, why in the bleep did we have that discussion in the other thread if you're fine with taking Fitzpatrick?Payne, Vea. Fitzpatrick (good player, and I would not mind having him if we have seriously addressed the D-line before the draft)
Trade down and take Guice.
Wouldn't signing Haskins be seriously addressing the D-line? If yes, why in the bleep did we have that discussion in the other thread if you're fine with taking Fitzpatrick?
1. Excuse the f out of me.1. its Hankins, not Haskins.
2. NO it wouldnt be seriously addressing the D-line. It would be a half measure, which we seem to do alot. As Kiem put it, he would be a piece, but Hankins alone does not FIX the D-line. The D-line is two GOOD players away from being solid and having good depth.
1. Excuse the f out of me.
2. Then who in the flying f else - in addition to Hankins - should they sign in free agency to satisfy you that they've addressed the defensive line?
Payne, Vea. Fitzpatrick (good player, and I would not mind having him if we have seriously addressed the D-line before the draft)
Trade down and take Guice.
I feel like I'm caught in an Abbott and Costello loop here. You just said..."Fitzpatrick (good player, and I would not mind having him if we have seriously addressed the D-line before the draft)". So what does seriously addressing the D-line before the draft mean? I get that you're saying signing Hankins wouldn't be enough, so WHO else would they have to sign in order to have "seriously addressed the D-line before the draft"?How many times do I need to say, sign some one and draft the D-lineman as well.
I feel like I'm caught in an Abbott and Costello loop here. You just said..."Fitzpatrick (good player, and I would not mind having him if we have seriously addressed the D-line before the draft)". So what does seriously addressing the D-line before the draft mean? I get that you're saying signing Hankins wouldn't be enough, so WHO else would they have to sign in order to have "seriously addressed the D-line before the draft"?
IM not seeing two FA that would FIX the line AND be affordable.
Thus I feel the fix would be sign either Hankins or Logan, then draft the D-lineman.
Thanks for posting that on Guice. Hopefully he goes in the 1st round - if the Skins don't get him.