diego1115 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 If Gibbs wants to win NOW...why would we trade down to get players later in the draft that wont be anything but special teams players for the forseeable future?? If we do get an additional, lets say a 3rd and 4th rder....who in those positions do you REALLY think could come into camp and actually earn a starting nod position besides maybe fullback...which i doubt very seriously because Rock Cartwright/Bryan Johnson are very capable backs With TAYLOR...he's GONNA START DAY 1....and remember....GIBBS WANTS TO WIN NOW..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Actually Gibbs has said a few times he's looking to build a team that can stay together for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diego1115 Posted March 10, 2004 Author Share Posted March 10, 2004 so your gonna build your team around some 4th & 5th rders??? I dont get it....it isnt like our late rders have been worthwhile the last 10 years anyway....:doh1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATCRedskin82 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 If you think about it we havent exactly done much in the draft the last few years. So i sorta agree with keeping the pick to get Taylor..but we need a lot of help on the line. How can we keep ignoring this!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11Arrington56 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I have no doubt that is the plan, but no one will hear confirmation on that until we draft him. I think Williams has probably known all along that pick was his and it is for defense. Taylor is a difference maker, plain and simple. Anyone who saw him play against FSU knows the guy plays big time football. I'll be shocked if we don't draft him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I'm still on the S Taylor bandwagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdaddy Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Brian Dawkins. Darren Woodson. Sean Taylor. Those are 3 good safeties on 3 good defenses. It shall be Taylor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WM_Marylander Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I'm not a full fledged Taylor supporter. I feel that a Dlineman would be the better, smarter pick. Taylor does have talent, but I wish this was another draft year where a player playing DT/DE would be worthy of the 5th pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I have to agree that we need to keep and use the 5th pick on defense. Either a d-linemen or Taylor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 I agree with you jrfriedm...I think Taylor would be a solid pick...if we got only one pick (who knows if we're going to have a 5th rounder after trying to sign Butler)then we better make it a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mufumonk Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by kingdaddy Brian Dawkins. Darren Woodson. Sean Taylor. Those are 3 good safeties on 3 good defenses. It shall be Taylor. Don't forget Ed Reed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmwills1 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Sean Taylor should be our pick. I agree with alot of you that are saying if there was a dominant DT or De that we should take them, but there is not. Plus look at what some of the early drafted Dlineman have done recently. It is hard to gauge who will be a stud and who will be a chump. Taylor is a star who will win games with his great range. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Here is my point of view. We don't have Champ taking away that side of the field anymore. We got Springs who while healthy is decent and won't be a weak spot. But now we need to scare the other team in another way. Taylor back there is a game changer. We let go of Champ but add Taylor, I believe overall our DB's are better with Smoot, Springs, Taylor and Bowen over Smoot, Bailey, Bowen and Iffy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Anouther point is that we will need some one in the secondary to help with Meshawn Johnson, and if the cry baby gets his way T.O. Taylor will help ease the loss of Bailey. I don't feel comfortable with Smoot, or Springs matched up man to man with either of those two, and no great safties for help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Mike Minter is a good S too but before they got their line and Dan Morgan together they stunk on D. Good defenses make safeties look good. Please tell me no one thinks Rodney Harrison wasn't washed up but made good by the scheme and having Ty Law and a good team D front 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECU-ALUM Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 >>if the cry baby gets his way T.O.<< It would rank as one of the most shocking events of the year...and if he does get his free agency I do believe that the Eagles play Baltimore this year...oh tell me that Ray Lewis wouldn't be licking his lips over the prospect of nailing T-O coming across the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidPennSkin Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 If we trade with Houston, we would get their #10 and #40 for our #5. There will be a lot of good players available at the #40 slot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorditoShawn Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Williams will make sure that the there will be pressure on the QB, I think it is smart to sure up the secondary so we can send a 5th guy after the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of LeBuster Jenkins Mike Minter is a good S too but before they got their line and Dan Morgan together they stunk on D. Good defenses make safeties look good. Please tell me no one thinks Rodney Harrison wasn't washed up but made good by the scheme and having Ty Law and a good team D front 7. if you are going to argue about schemes than you have to look at greg williams' schemes which center around the play of his safty. taylor is the right guy for williams' d, not udezi or harris or another dline man right now (not to say we don't need to upgrade). but taylor is the player that williams can build his d around and who williams needs to run his d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedUpField Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by diego1115 so your gonna build your team around some 4th & 5th rders??? I dont get it....it isnt like our late rders have been worthwhile the last 10 years anyway....:doh1: There's no way in hell we'd only get a later 1st + a 4th or 5th rounder for the 5th overall....even though we've been giving away picks like halloween candy.....it'd have to be a mid-round 1st PLUS a 2nd PLUS a later round, or nothing at all. Not worth it any other way.....Another option is to do what we did 2002, trade down twice in the 1st round, we were able to secure the 32nd overall, a 2nd and two thirds after the dust cleared, if I'm not mistaken.... - FUF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Problem is, Williams said himself he needs explosiveness from the ends and corners. He never mentioned safety.(at first) Yeah he's had good safeties--you think Blaine Bishop is a Sean Taylor? Come on. You don't need to be great back there, just competent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrfriedm Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 IF we get Taylor we can get him to contract for about five years and not have to worry about him that spot, then we can really work on the D-line when there is a better draft class for the d-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissarmy47 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by MidPennSkin If we trade with Houston, we would get their #10 and #40 for our #5. There will be a lot of good players available at the #40 slot. I'm not so convinced Houston would give up a reasonably early 2nd rounder to move up 5 spots. Def. a 3rd rounder though. Have we heard them say anything about this? The first two rounds should really produce guys that start very soon. Rounds 3 and 4 produce some starters and some decent backups. Later rounds is where you're hoping to take a gamble on a guy or maybe just fill special teams spots and such... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nace14 Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of LeBuster Jenkins Problem is, Williams said himself he needs explosiveness from the ends and corners. He never mentioned safety.(at first) Yeah he's had good safeties--you think Blaine Bishop is a Sean Taylor? Come on. You don't need to be great back there, just competent. did you really just say, "you don't need to be great back there, just competent"? wow, i'll let you rephrase yourself before i dive into that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidPennSkin Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by swissarmy47 I'm not so convinced Houston would give up a reasonably early 2nd rounder to move up 5 spots. If they won't, then Gibbs won't do the trade. #5 for #10 and #40 is an even trade according to the draft value chart. And Gibbs has said that he isn't going to trade unless someone makes an irresistable offer, which means something better than the value chart calls for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.