if we can't trade up for luck/rg3, maybe a legit plan B could be to draft Blackmon and sign Flynn. Blackmon and Marshall would be a potent WR combo, and Flynn has shown he can succeed with weapons around him, at least in the small sample size we have.

Surprisingly enough. I think you have a good idea there.

Love Justin Blackmon. Just don't see him falling to #8/9.

Best hands on an elite wr I've seen since Chris carter.

But Coby Fleener is going to be somewhere in there between 1 and 8 and if we don't get one, we can get the other.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But Coby Fleener is going to be somewhere in there
> between 1 and 8 and if we don't get one, we can
> get the other.


I like fleener a lot but he's not a 1st round pick let alone top 10.

Really?????????? I'm astounded!

Of course, assuming that his injury tonight is not serious.

Chyren I don't know if you are serious sometimes or playing the fool at other times. Fleener is a good tight end. I d not believe he warrants a top 10 pick maybe he is a 1st rounder if you believe he is the best pass catching tight end in the draft. Just remember what has Jimmy Graham done for Drew Brees this year as if he needs the help. Clearly Graham to the Saints was the best case for the rich getiing richer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2012 05:32AM by Finshady.

Finshady Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chyren I don't know if you are serious sometimes
> or playing the fool at other times. Fleener is a
> good tight end. I d not believe he warrants a top
> 10 pick maybe he is a 1st rounder if you believe
> he is the best pass catcxhing tight end in the
> draft. Just remember what has Jimmy Graham done
> for Drew Brees this year as if he needs the help.
> Clearly Graham to the Saints was the best case for
> the rich getiing richer.


I can count on one hand the number of tight ends that have been top 10 picks in the last 30 years.

It just doesnt happen unless you are a freak athlete like Vernon Davis.

Fleener isn't.

He may very well end up having the best career of any TE taken this year. He may even sneak into the late first round but he's not a top ten selection because he's a little one dimensional (receiver) at this stage.

Still, I'd love to have the guy on our team. He's exactly what we need in the 2nd or 3rd round.

I thought Kyle Rudolph was a top 10 pick!?

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Last year, I screamed for us to take Ryan Kerrigan
> although we had Wake.


I missed it. It probably happened when I was gone.

Can somebody please post a link to an article with the story of why Mark Ingram legally changed his name to Ryan Kerrigan?

Seems a little odd...no?

I mean there was already another guy named Ryan Kerrigan that was drafted by Washington.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Explanation. Later in the heat of the draft
> itself ON THE DAYS IT WAS HAPPENING, I advocated
> that we take Mark Ingram when it was obvious that
> we would NOT be following my original suggestion
> and taking Ryan Kerrigan but I did advocate taking
> him first...well, that's confusing. My first
> suggestion for a first round draft choice was
> Kerrigan.


So let me make sure I have this straight...

In NOVEMBER...before the season was over....before free agency and trades you were...how did you put it? oh yeah...."screaming" for us to take Ryan Kerrigan.

But once the draft rolled around you were driving the Mark Ingram bandwagon?

Thank you for demonstrating why "Hyperbole" is perhaps my favorite word in the English language.

Didn't you say that I NEVER ADVOCATED Kerrigan with all your cute little questions?

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Didn't you say that I NEVER ADVOCATED Kerrigan
> with all your cute little questions?


No I didn't. You imagined that...as usual.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Didn't you say that I NEVER ADVOCATED Kerrigan
> > with all your cute little questions?
>
>
> No I didn't. You imagined that...as usual.


It's there above for everybody to see.

Two things.

1. Leave me out of this.
2. I can tell this is going to end up as another one of those thread where only a few people are following.

Please don't interpret my future silence as implicit agreement to anything.

Nothing I said brought you into the issue, DolfanMike.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ChyrenB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Didn't you say that I NEVER ADVOCATED
> Kerrigan
> > > with all your cute little questions?
> >
> >
> > No I didn't. You imagined that...as usual.
>
>
> It's there above for everybody to see.


No CB. Its not. Because I simply didn't say that.

I questioned your description that you were "screaming" for us to take Kerrigan, not that you didn't like the guy or at some point suggest we should take him.

There's a difference between the two.

Its called : H-Y-P-E-R-B-O-L-E.

DolfanMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Two things.
>
> 1. Leave me out of this.
> 2. I can tell this is going to end up as another
> one of those thread where only a few people are
> following.
>
> Please don't interpret my future silence as
> implicit agreement to anything.


That post is going to be awfully hard to beat as "my Favorite post of the year"...despite the fact we are 3 days into the new year.



I think you should consider adding it as a signature...

And they accuse lawyers of distinguishing things out of existence.

I'd bet that quite of few posters would say that you were making the simple point that "Chyren, you said we should draft Mark Ingram first, not Ryan Kerrigan."

And BTW, I was screaming for us to draft Kerrigan up to days before the draft.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And they accuse lawyers of distinguishing things
> out of existence.

Yeah...you are proof that lawyers get a bad rap...


>
> I'd bet that quite of few posters would say that
> you were making the simple point that "Chyren, you
> said we should draft Mark Ingram first, not Ryan
> Kerrigan."


Only if they have the reading comprehensions skills of a 4th grader or the ability to misrepresent the written word of a Harvard Law school grad.


>
> And BTW, I was screaming for us to draft Kerrigan
> up to days before the draft.


I couldn't find any posts...until you prove otherwise I'll assume the only screaming going on was the voices in your head.

DolfanMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nothing I said brought you into the issue,
> > DolfanMike.
>
> Good, thanks for clarifying. When someone evokes
> a name of a third party in a debate, it usually
> means they either have a ton of respect for what
> the person said, or want to leverage that party as
> some type of proxy. It sounds like respect and
> not proxy, but as a lawyer I'm sure you understand
> I have to cover my basis.
>
> Thanks for the props! (Though, I think you may
> have misunderstood my original quote - I wouldn't
> apply it here.)
>
> Its all good,
> Go Phins

No, the circumstances just brought that phrase to mind and you were the one on the board to use that phrase.

But it's all good.

Go Phins

DolfanMike Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > > Please don't interpret my future silence as
> > > implicit agreement to anything.
> >
> >
> > That post is going to be awfully hard to beat
> as
> > "my Favorite post of the year"...despite the
> fact
> > we are 3 days into the new year.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think you should consider adding it as a
> > signature...
>
>
> Good idea, but I elaborated to make it more
> complete.

Awesome.