DeForest Buckner DL - Oregon

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9moon:
I am not gonna waste my time if I'm just making up stuff.. bottom line is, I saw about 6 games minimum of Oregon, this year, and last year .. Ive been outspoken of Armstead all of last year, and again, you will find out that Buckner doesnt deserve to be a TOP 10 pick..

The guy's value blew up after the season because of his imposing size, but he was not all dominating.. his 13 sacks or whatever that was, is what he supposed to get because Oregon was winning their and ahead most of their games.. and this is the complaint I have with Armstead..

Oregon 2 years ago was a better football team, and yet, Arik only had 2.5 sacks.. Buckner is a better player than Arik, but no doubt in my mind that he's not even better than Nkemdiche or those guys from Clemson.

but you did make stuff up about his "reps" paying off analysis to boost his stock lol...not only is this not true because they were talking him up before he even had reps, but it would totally ruin places like PFF's creditably to do something like that.

13 sacks for a 3-4 DE is stupid good! you talk about him not having a motor yet he played 100 snaps in two different games lol. You don't backup any of your BS on here...MadDog just stated he had 83 tackles in a span of 13 games! Yeah no motor there Face it you don't like him because you think he's the same player as AA and for some reason you don't like him. Maybe you don't like Oregon or hate the name Deforest I don't really know.

if you have no idea bout players and agents paying people to UP their status, then YOU ARE LOST, buddy!!

We'd be lucky to get him at #7.

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9moon:
I am not gonna waste my time if I'm just making up stuff.. bottom line is, I saw about 6 games minimum of Oregon, this year, and last year .. Ive been outspoken of Armstead all of last year, and again, you will find out that Buckner doesnt deserve to be a TOP 10 pick..

The guy's value blew up after the season because of his imposing size, but he was not all dominating.. his 13 sacks or whatever that was, is what he supposed to get because Oregon was winning their and ahead most of their games.. and this is the complaint I have with Armstead..

Oregon 2 years ago was a better football team, and yet, Arik only had 2.5 sacks.. Buckner is a better player than Arik, but no doubt in my mind that he's not even better than Nkemdiche or those guys from Clemson.

but you did make stuff up about his "reps" paying off analysis to boost his stock lol...not only is this not true because they were talking him up before he even had reps, but it would totally ruin places like PFF's creditably to do something like that.

13 sacks for a 3-4 DE is stupid good! you talk about him not having a motor yet he played 100 snaps in two different games lol. You don't backup any of your BS on here...MadDog just stated he had 83 tackles in a span of 13 games! Yeah no motor there Face it you don't like him because you think he's the same player as AA and for some reason you don't like him. Maybe you don't like Oregon or hate the name Deforest I don't really know.

if you have no idea bout players and agents paying people to UP their status, then YOU ARE LOST, buddy!!

The only person I have ever heard of receiving incentives to talk up a player is Todd McShay, nd that guy never reports data, simply opinions. It would be more work than it's worth for PFF to skew data to support one player, and doing so would destroy their reputation as unbiased analysts. It would be a tremendously foolish and short-sighted act on their part. Not sure where you thought you were going with all this, but I don't think you're getting there.

Originally posted by 9moon:

if you have no idea bout players and agents paying people to UP their status, then YOU ARE LOST, buddy!!

Buddy they were talking him up well before he had agents...how many times do I have to say that? And like I said PFF isn't gonna burn their rep to get a couple bucks, they'd be out of business if they did s**t like that.

Originally posted by WRATHman44:

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by 9moon:

I am not gonna waste my time if I'm just making up stuff.. bottom line is, I saw about 6 games minimum of Oregon, this year, and last year .. Ive been outspoken of Armstead all of last year, and again, you will find out that Buckner doesnt deserve to be a TOP 10 pick..

The guy's value blew up after the season because of his imposing size, but he was not all dominating.. his 13 sacks or whatever that was, is what he supposed to get because Oregon was winning their and ahead most of their games.. and this is the complaint I have with Armstead..

Oregon 2 years ago was a better football team, and yet, Arik only had 2.5 sacks.. Buckner is a better player than Arik, but no doubt in my mind that he's not even better than Nkemdiche or those guys from Clemson.

but you did make stuff up about his "reps" paying off analysis to boost his stock lol...not only is this not true because they were talking him up before he even had reps, but it would totally ruin places like PFF's creditably to do something like that.

13 sacks for a 3-4 DE is stupid good! you talk about him not having a motor yet he played 100 snaps in two different games lol. You don't backup any of your BS on here...MadDog just stated he had 83 tackles in a span of 13 games! Yeah no motor there Face it you don't like him because you think he's the same player as AA and for some reason you don't like him. Maybe you don't like Oregon or hate the name Deforest I don't really know.

if you have no idea bout players and agents paying people to UP their status, then YOU ARE LOST, buddy!!

The only person I have ever heard of receiving incentives to talk up a player is Todd McShay, nd that guy never reports data, simply opinions. It would be more work than it's worth for PFF to skew data to support one player, and doing so would destroy their reputation as unbiased analysts. It would be a tremendously foolish and short-sighted act on their part. Not sure where you thought you were going with all this, but I don't think you're getting there.

Right? its mind blowing some stuff he comes up with...

Im starting to think there's no way he'll be there. I'm starting to think that if there are no trades before us, the three players that could conceivably be there are

A. Joey Bosa
B. Jared Goff
C Ronnie Stanley

And at that point I really have no idea what to do. It's a hard one. Take bosa? Keep Kap and trade down, skipping Goff. Or take Goff, and deal with the QB controversy/circus all year long? Or just pick your LT tackle of the future in Stanley?

Originally posted by ivanm05:

Im starting to think there's no way he'll be there. I'm starting to think that if there are no trades before us, the three players that could conceivably be there are

A. Joey Bosa
B. Jared Goff
C Ronnie Stanley

And at that point I really have no idea what to do. It's a hard one. Take bosa? Keep Kap and trade down, skipping Goff. Or take Goff, and deal with the QB controversy/circus all year long? Or just pick your LT tackle of the future in Stanley?

I see the Cowboys taking Bosa. He fits in their scheme really well.

Originally posted by Alfienator:
I see the Cowboys taking Bosa. He fits in their scheme really well.

I had Jack penciled to them, but yeah they can go bosa too. It would look something like this (barring any trades)

I. Tennessee - Tunsil
2. Cleveland - Wentz
3. San Diego - Buckner
4. Dallas - Bosa
5. Jacksonville - Jack
6. Baltimore - Ramsey

Leaving us with Goff or Stanley . Hargreaves III will definitely be there too if you want to go that route.

In this case i would take Goff or trade back into the teens to the Jets or whoever wants a QB and pick up their second rounder. Then I would take Darron Lee or Billings, Spence, possibly Treadwell or Doctson. Then go Bullard and Burns with the two second rounders.

Originally posted by ivanm05:

Originally posted by Alfienator:
I see the Cowboys taking Bosa. He fits in their scheme really well.

I had Jack penciled to them, but yeah they can go bosa too. It would look something like this (barring any trades)

I. Tennessee - Tunsil
2. Cleveland - Wentz
3. San Diego - Buckner
4. Dallas - Bosa
5. Jacksonville - Jack
6. Baltimore - Ramsey

Leaving us with Goff or Stanley . Hargreaves III will definitely be there too if you want to go that route.

In this case i would take Goff or trade back into the teens to the Jets or whoever wants a QB and pick up their second rounder. Then I would take Darron Lee or Billings, Spence, possibly Treadwell or Doctson. Then go Bullard and Burns with the two second rounders.

I wouldn't expect to see Bullard make it out of the 1st.

Originally posted by WRATHman44:
I wouldn't expect to see Bullard make it out of the 1st.

Not after his Pro Day. Stud!

Originally posted by ivanm05:

Originally posted by Alfienator:

I see the Cowboys taking Bosa. He fits in their scheme really well.

I had Jack penciled to them, but yeah they can go bosa too. It would look something like this (barring any trades)

I. Tennessee - Tunsil
2. Cleveland - Wentz
3. San Diego - Buckner
4. Dallas - Bosa
5. Jacksonville - Jack
6. Baltimore - Ramsey

Leaving us with Goff or Stanley . Hargreaves III will definitely be there too if you want to go that route.

In this case i would take Goff or trade back into the teens to the Jets or whoever wants a QB and pick up their second rounder. Then I would take Darron Lee or Billings, Spence, possibly Treadwell or Doctson. Then go Bullard and Burns with the two second rounders.

I can't see Ramsey making it past Dallas IMO and Stanley to the Ravens makes a ton of sense.

1. Tunsil
2. Wentz
3. Ramsey
4. Bosa
5. Jack
6. Stanley
7. Choice between Goff and buncker

Unless there's some wild trade is how I see it going.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
I can't see Ramsey making it past Dallas IMO and Stanley to the Ravens makes a ton of sense.

1. Tunsil
2. Wentz
3. Ramsey
4. Bosa
5. Jack
6. Stanley
7. Choice between Goff and buncker

Unless there's some wild trade is how I see it going.

I think Buckner is starting to be regarded as a better prospect than Bosa. I think he'll be off the board before Bosa is. And Dallas did take Byron Jones with their first last year. And while Ravens do need help along their OLine, if Bosa or Buckner are there, i would think Ozzie would be smart to go with BPA over need.

Originally posted by ivanm05:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

I can't see Ramsey making it past Dallas IMO and Stanley to the Ravens makes a ton of sense.

1. Tunsil
2. Wentz
3. Ramsey
4. Bosa
5. Jack
6. Stanley
7. Choice between Goff and buncker

Unless there's some wild trade is how I see it going.

I think Buckner is starting to be regarded as a better prospect than Bosa. I think he'll be off the board before Bosa is. And Dallas did take Byron Jones with their first last year. And while Ravens do need help along their OLine, if Bosa or Buckner are there, i would think Ozzie would be smart to go with BPA over need.

Ehhh I think bosa is much better fit for that Dallas D then Buckner. I don't really think bosa's stock has dropped and buckners has risen either way too be honest.

I think Ravens need help all over but that OL and secondary are hurting bad. Most mocks have them taking Stanley and I really haven't seen Dallas projected to take Buckner anywhere.

Regardless between Goff, Buckner, and Jack one should be there

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by ivanm05:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

I can't see Ramsey making it past Dallas IMO and Stanley to the Ravens makes a ton of sense.

1. Tunsil
2. Wentz
3. Ramsey
4. Bosa
5. Jack
6. Stanley
7. Choice between Goff and buncker

Unless there's some wild trade is how I see it going.

I think Buckner is starting to be regarded as a better prospect than Bosa. I think he'll be off the board before Bosa is. And Dallas did take Byron Jones with their first last year. And while Ravens do need help along their OLine, if Bosa or Buckner are there, i would think Ozzie would be smart to go with BPA over need.

Ehhh I think bosa is much better fit for that Dallas D then Buckner. I don't really think bosa's stock has dropped and buckners has risen either way too be honest.

I think Ravens need help all over but that OL and secondary are hurting bad. Most mocks have them taking Stanley and I really haven't seen Dallas projected to take Buckner anywhere.

Regardless between Goff, Buckner, and Jack one should be there

I would like us to pick in this order of availability Jack, Buckner then Goff

Originally posted by Alfienator:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by ivanm05:

Originally posted by NYniner85:

I can't see Ramsey making it past Dallas IMO and Stanley to the Ravens makes a ton of sense.

1. Tunsil
2. Wentz
3. Ramsey
4. Bosa
5. Jack
6. Stanley
7. Choice between Goff and buncker

Unless there's some wild trade is how I see it going.

I think Buckner is starting to be regarded as a better prospect than Bosa. I think he'll be off the board before Bosa is. And Dallas did take Byron Jones with their first last year. And while Ravens do need help along their OLine, if Bosa or Buckner are there, i would think Ozzie would be smart to go with BPA over need.

Ehhh I think bosa is much better fit for that Dallas D then Buckner. I don't really think bosa's stock has dropped and buckners has risen either way too be honest.

I think Ravens need help all over but that OL and secondary are hurting bad. Most mocks have them taking Stanley and I really haven't seen Dallas projected to take Buckner anywhere.

Regardless between Goff, Buckner, and Jack one should be there

I would like us to pick in this order of availability Jack, Buckner then Goff

I think there's a good chance one will be there too