1. The Nuggets lost last night. That's unfortunate, but not a surprise. We're not the kind of team to beat San Antonio twice in a row at home. Game Three, at home Saturday, is huge. Glad the NBA is giving me several days to prepare. Wait, no I'm not. Both teams have had big wins now, with absolutely no chance to capitalize on momentum. If you didn't already know it: the NBA playoffs are way too long.
2. The Raiders should take Brady Quinn No. 1. Why? Because I hate the Raiders, and because I think Quinn's a bust you can see coming from a mile away. Of the major players, I like JaMarcus Russell the most, though he's not as NFL-ready as recent rookies like Ben Roethlisberger or Vince Young. Calvin Johnson's supposed to be a rare athlete, though it seems like there's at least one six-and-a-half foot giant who runs like a sprinter every year now. I probably wouldn't take a wide receiver at the very top of the draft most years, and most teams there have more pressing issues.
It will be interesting to see where Adrian Peterson goes. I don't know if he would have actually wanted to declare for the draft after his freshman year, but the fact that he wasn't allowed to may have cost him millions of dollars. I mean, he could have been the No. 1 pick two years ago.
All in all, I'm just not that excited about this year's draft, despite ESPN's coverage since at least February. (Hmmm, perhaps that even turned me off a little.) And I don't know what the Broncos will do but upset me. Any thoughts on their needs?
2. The Raiders should take Brady Quinn No. 1. Why? Because I hate the Raiders, and because I think Quinn's a bust you can see coming from a mile away. Of the major players, I like JaMarcus Russell the most, though he's not as NFL-ready as recent rookies like Ben Roethlisberger or Vince Young. Calvin Johnson's supposed to be a rare athlete, though it seems like there's at least one six-and-a-half foot giant who runs like a sprinter every year now. I probably wouldn't take a wide receiver at the very top of the draft most years, and most teams there have more pressing issues.
It will be interesting to see where Adrian Peterson goes. I don't know if he would have actually wanted to declare for the draft after his freshman year, but the fact that he wasn't allowed to may have cost him millions of dollars. I mean, he could have been the No. 1 pick two years ago.
All in all, I'm just not that excited about this year's draft, despite ESPN's coverage since at least February. (Hmmm, perhaps that even turned me off a little.) And I don't know what the Broncos will do but upset me. Any thoughts on their needs?
Comments
The Broncs have needs all over the place. I was thinking we needed to grab Aaron Ross (DB, Texas), but now that we signed Dre Bly we probably want to use the pick elsewhere. Rod Smith isn't getting any younger, so wide receiver is a need, although our first-round choices in that area have all been bigger busts than Tony Battie. So, if there is a legit pass rusher available, I would love to see us jump on that.
I agree that we need offensive line help, but given the fact that we use a totally different kind of lineman, we should be able to find some serviceable prospects in the later rounds.
(are you an insider mike? you must be, and i want to be some times... but then... that's what i've got hps for?)
they were saying that the biggest determining factor for a college qb's success in the pros, is the number of starts they had in college.. they've researched it back... and the guys who got the most snaps did better than those who didn't... general trend.
based on that assumption, they were saying quinn is the better guy.
they were also saying that russell peaked at the right time. had a big bowl game, and blammo, he's the draft darling.
also, he's a mammoth of a man, which is why people are interested in him.
i'm not saying I'D take quinn over russell, not a chance. i'm just reguritating the cud of ESPN's argument as to why quinn deserves another look.
as far as denver's needs. why not look for someone to fill the gaping hole wilson left?
williams and gold are good, but we could use another.
and how long will lynch be around?
i'm fine with our WR core, now that we have javon walker.
and HPS news alert, since when did we have sloth as our back up to cutler?
I am not an ESPN Insider. I find that logo very annoying at times. I used to really like Rob Neyer's baseball stuff-it was stats-heavy, but he had his own insightful take on things. (I actually liked the way he used numbers, though.) When ESPN made his work Insider a few years ago, I just stopped reading it. Sucks, but whatver.
That starts thing is pretty interesting. It's obviously not the only thing, but I'm sure no one said it was. I agree, Russell peaked at the absolute right time. I don't think he's as good as the No. 1 guy would be many other years, but he should be all right. (I'm pretty sure I saw Merrill Hoge a month or two ago say Russell was the kind of talent who comes along only once every several years. Not the guy whose praise I'd want if I were a quarterback.)
Lynch can't last much longer. We could use help pretty much throughout the middle of the defense, agreed.
I agree with John's take on our O-line-think I said the same thing here once. We could use a receiver, but with Brandon Marshall, Smith and Walker we should be okay. We don't use a lot of receiver-heavy sets, it seems.
if anything we can learn from the raiders, its to not do what they do.
robert gallery is kind of a waste.
didn't we drop a pretty high pick on george foster?
point being, never waste a high pick on a lineman (avg. career, 3 years right?)
unless the guy is seven feet tall, four hundred pounds, and can bench 225 70 times.
seriously, it'd be interesting, in some demented future world to see what genetic engineering could do to professional sports.
in the mean time, i say we look for a solid LB and maybe trade a draft pick for a decent back up.
Quinn-I don't know, I didn't watch much of the draft on TV. I have to ask: did anyone here watch the draft in high definition?
Technical tangent: because I'm wondering if any of the on-screen graphics are smaller. High-def stuff-like, say, the Xbox 360-can show menus and words on screen that are a lot smaller in real terms than their SD predecessors, but equally legible, thanks to better clarity. Well, it would be cool if you could watch the draft without picks from four hours ago taking up half the screen. I'm just curious if ESPN makes the borders more reasonable and lets the actual video highlights shine in HD, or if they're just lazy bastards who show a slightly crisper version of the same broadcast. Anyone know?
Tangent over; on to Pugs. I think O-line was a problem last year, but more because of injuries, so I agree that it didn't need to be targeted in the draft, though it was anyway. You're right, Gallery was a waste, and so was George Foster, who at least went around No. 20, rather than No. 2. Few linemen would be worth a first-rounder. Our best one, Tom Nalen, went in the seventh.
I think Patrick Ramsey's all right as a backup quarterback-at least, he's as good as we're going to try to do.