| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BucsFanTillDead
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 505
Location: Tampa
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
If we took Kalil our lien would be set for 5+ years. I mean the line is really good now, but it would be the best in the NFL with Kalil IMO. Thats something we have never had or probably are even used to seeing. With a quality back in rounds 2-3 we would be able to pound the ball, and protect Free to do as he pleases on defenses.
_________________
You might know me as Gdubbz on other Bucs fan community's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Seminolebuc
Joined: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 1084
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| bucsEST96 wrote: | | Seminolebuc wrote: | | bucsEST96 wrote: | | Its funny everyone on the Kuechly bandwagon now. I bring him up a month ago-"oh he's ruud2.0", "can't cover". "can't blitz" now that the scholar Claiborne won't be there you've ppl opened your eyes |
I still think he is Ruud 2.0 and i dont want the bucs to pick him. I watched the guy play for the last few years and hes very underwhelming. That BC system always funnels tackles right into that MLB and all he has to do is just square up well or just jump on the pile. |
Just stop talking please, you just showed your cards because I know for a fact you've never seen him play or his film. Dude is all over the damn field and you talking bout he got guys funneled to him lmaooooo |
False, I watch a ton of Boston College games due to them being in the ACC and i watch most of the teams in the ACC play their games. I've also been watching Montel Harris since his high school days so i've made even more of a point to watch the BC games since he started going there.
That 3-4 they run at BC has always lead to extremely high takcle stats by one of the LBs in the corp. Before Kuechly it was Herzlich.
Just please quit talking, you showed your character within the first few words. lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. 
Last edited by Seminolebuc on Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sandman2300
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Seminolebuc wrote: | | bucsEST96 wrote: | | Seminolebuc wrote: | | bucsEST96 wrote: | | Its funny everyone on the Kuechly bandwagon now. I bring him up a month ago-"oh he's ruud2.0", "can't cover". "can't blitz" now that the scholar Claiborne won't be there you've ppl opened your eyes |
I still think he is Ruud 2.0 and i dont want the bucs to pick him. I watched the guy play for the last few years and hes very underwhelming. That BC system always funnels tackles right into that MLB and all he has to do is just square up well or just jump on the pile. |
Just stop talking please, you just showed your cards because I know for a fact you've never seen him play or his film. Dude is all over the damn field and you talking bout he got guys funneled to him lmaooooo |
False, I watch a ton of Boston College games due to them being in the ACC and i watch most of the teams in the ACC play their games. I've also been watching Montell Harris since his high school days so i've made even more of a point to watch the BC games since he started going there.
That 3-4 they run at BC has always lead to extremely high takcle stats by one of the LBs in the corp. Before Kuechly it was Herzlich.
Just please quit talking, you showed your character within the first few words. lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. |
I'm going to agree with seminolebuc on this for the most part- although i think from a physical standpoint he's more athletic than Ruud- he's certainly not in the willis/beason mold either. A very instinctual player but If I'm picking a player with the 5th overall pick- I want to get a very good player with ELITE athletic ability that I can't get at pick 25 lets say. That's the difference between the 5th pick and the 20th pick- both players are probably very good at their position- but one of them is very good while also being an elite athlete- I don't see it from Luke |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
96BucsBallin
Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucstopshere
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 14302
Location: Las Vegas
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
I like that ALOT
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BBando
Joined: 18 Feb 2011
Posts: 7683
Location: Tampa Bay
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
LaMichael is going to get ripped a new one in the NFL. I just don't like him.
_________________
Adopt-A-Buc Mason Foster
garbage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
5nick5
Joined: 25 Jan 2011
Posts: 1258
Location: Florida
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BBando wrote: | | 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
LaMichael is going to get ripped a new one in the NFL. I just don't like him. |
I know, I'm fed up with people still thinking that he's a good fit here, or anywhere in the NFL. He doesn't have the durability.
_________________
Thanks to BGG on the sig.
Adopt a Buc: Alterraun Verner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
96BucsBallin
Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 5nick5 wrote: | | BBando wrote: | | 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
LaMichael is going to get ripped a new one in the NFL. I just don't like him. |
I know, I'm fed up with people still thinking that he's a good fit here, or anywhere in the NFL. He doesn't have the durability. |
LaMichael James - 5'9 195
Danny Woodhead - 5'8 195
Barry Sanders - 5'8 200
Darren Sproles - 5'6 190
Jacquizz Rodgers - 5'6 196
Here is Rodgers running over Mason Fostrer for his first NFL TD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xoy2ZDIZO0
So plenty of smaller RB that excel in the NFL in multi RB backfields. So size isn't an issue with Blount here.
What else am I missing? His freak arm injury that only happened because his College coach played starters deep into the 4th quarter because he liked to run the score up for a better chance at the BCS title? Are there any other major injuries?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Buccaneer4life
Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Posts: 3561
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
Would love that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Caaddy24
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 6029
Location: Houston
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 5nick5 wrote: | | BBando wrote: | | 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
LaMichael is going to get ripped a new one in the NFL. I just don't like him. |
I know, I'm fed up with people still thinking that he's a good fit here, or anywhere in the NFL. He doesn't have the durability. |
I bet he would be more durable than trent richardson. Think about the different running styles. Richardson is gonna be pounding it all day, that takes a tole on the body. James is small and elusive thus won't take those big hits[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sandman2300
Joined: 08 Apr 2012
Posts: 69
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Caaddy24 wrote: | | 5nick5 wrote: | | BBando wrote: | | 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
LaMichael is going to get ripped a new one in the NFL. I just don't like him. |
I know, I'm fed up with people still thinking that he's a good fit here, or anywhere in the NFL. He doesn't have the durability. |
I bet he would be more durable than trent richardson. Think about the different running styles. Richardson is gonna be pounding it all day, that takes a tole on the body. James is small and elusive thus won't take those big hits[/i] |
there's no point in trying to reason with them.
You don't draft James to be an every down back in the nfl because that's not what he is. If you want a true scat back to throw in there and wreak hell on defenses than he's exactly what you're looking for. He's a a durable guy with good hands and electric speed. He's a nice complement for Blount if he's there in the third but I have a feeling he's gone before the halfway point in round 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
YoungBucs15
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 3883
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
I would be fine with James but I think someone like Polk would fit better with what we need and should be available at that pick.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
96BucsBallin
Joined: 03 Jan 2012
Posts: 590
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| YoungBucs15 wrote: | | 96BucsBallin wrote: | Trade #5 to Buffalo for #10 and #71.
#10 Mark Barron
#36 Lavonte David
#68 Trumaine Johnson
#71 LaMichael James |
I would be fine with James but I think someone like Polk would fit better with what we need and should be available at that pick. |
Yeah it all comes down to that, personal preference, and I know Dom has said in the past that he likes big, bruising RB's so I doubt we get a scat back. And like Sandman said, he may be gone at that point so guys like Polk and Pead, both balanced rb's, could be available while Cyrus Gray and Ronnie Hillman are potential scat backs available.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tdfast
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 11202
Location: Edmonton
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I like the Buffalo trade down but you can't thumb your nose at an elite LT. If Kalil is there I doubt we trade down. Penn is 29 and his contract has paid all the guaranteed money. And there's no reason he can't play RT. It's not ideal but it's better than Trueblood and at #5 you have to take the best player. Kalil is the best player. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mfw096
Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 2926
Location: UNLV
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| BucsFanTillDead wrote: | | If we took Kalil our lien would be set for 5+ years. I mean the line is really good now, but it would be the best in the NFL with Kalil IMO. Thats something we have never had or probably are even used to seeing. With a quality back in rounds 2-3 we would be able to pound the ball, and protect Free to do as he pleases on defenses. |
Dude, that sig is sick! I want one lol
_________________
Adopt a Buc:
2012 - Doug Martin
2013 - Darrelle Revis
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
