Page 1 of 1
Who's better for Oakland?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:59 pm
by Pierce 4 3
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:42 pm
by treiz
I'd have to say Russell, basically because QB is a more important position than WR, Calvin Johnson would be the second option if they don't want Russell. Quinn wouldn't be a good choice since they need to fix that line, and he'd just get trampled compared to Russell, he can actually run.
Lastly, if they want to play it smart, I say draft Thomas, and draft someone like Edwards, or Stanton in the 2nd round, or trade for a QB.
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:00 pm
by lpsevier
Why isn't trade down an option?
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:09 pm
by Pierce 4 3
lpsevier wrote:Why isn't trade down an option?
Because I said who's better for Oakland, not what's better for Oakland
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:00 am
by FNQ
Calvin is best for us, so its a lock that we won't take him.
Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:00 am
by Gibbs
Really I think Thomas is. Before a QB they need an O-line to prtoect him. Trade down a couple picks and get him.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 3:57 pm
by lpsevier
Pierce 4 3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Because I said who's better for Oakland, not what's better for Oakland
Touche.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:36 pm
by bech01a1
I say take the best player in the draft, which would be Calvin Johnson. Then take Stanton in the second round. I am not completley sold on Russell.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 6:38 pm
by bech01a1
treiz wrote:I'd have to say Russell, basically because QB is a more important position than WR, Calvin Johnson would be the second option if they don't want Russell. Quinn wouldn't be a good choice since they need to fix that line, and he'd just get trampled compared to Russell, he can actually run.
Lastly, if they want to play it smart, I say draft Thomas, and draft someone like Edwards, or Stanton in the 2nd round, or trade for a QB.
Actually, Quinn has a better 40 time than Russell, also has a better shuttle time. Quinn is more mobile than people realize. He ran the exact same 40 time as troy smith, who many consider to be a pretty mobile qb.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 9:57 pm
by JoeyH
bech01a1 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Actually, Quinn has a better 40 time than Russell, also has a better shuttle time. Quinn is more mobile than people realize. He ran the exact same 40 time as troy smith, who many consider to be a pretty mobile qb.
but he is not near as mobile as JaMarcus. Plus it takes about three D-lineman to bring him down.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:45 pm
by gswhoops
bech01a1 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Actually, Quinn has a better 40 time than Russell, also has a better shuttle time. Quinn is more mobile than people realize. He ran the exact same 40 time as troy smith, who many consider to be a pretty mobile qb.
There's a difference between running 40 yards in a straight line and dodging defensive linemen in a game situation.
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:55 pm
by jumanji
gswhoops wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
There's a difference between running 40 yards in a straight line and dodging defensive linemen in a game situation.
Quinn is more mobile, the shuttle time would bear that out and the weak line at ND would make it unanimous.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:20 pm
by bech01a1
^^^ Thank you. Thats why I mentioned his shuttle time, which also measures lateral quickness. Quinn is the more mobile qb.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:21 pm
by bech01a1
JoeyH wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
but he is not near as mobile as JaMarcus. Plus it takes about three D-lineman to bring him down.
Also, yes JaMarcus is obviously huge, he is a freak of nature. But its not like Quinn is 6ft. tall and 200lbs either.
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:14 pm
by OAKTREE NYK1
Well if Chucky swaps picks with the Raiders then you are at number 4 then you are looking at OT Joe Thomas or any of the QB's that drop. Hell you could even trade back up with the Lions for Russell.
