Jump to content


Forum Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About chronob

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,460 profile views
  1. Wouldn't hate taking a QB in 2, but would rather get best RB available.
  2. The only rule change I cared about - changing the stupid 1 helmet rule so that we can have red helmets again - didn't make the list. I was really hoping when the new uniforms came around that our normal helmet color would change to red, but it looks like we still won't get to switch even occasionally.
  3. If players want to opt out of voluntary workouts there's nothing you can do about that. But can someone explain to me why Covid is an issue for showing up at OTAs now that all adults are eligible for the vaccine?
  4. Won't need him after we draft Harris or Etienne 😉
  5. If Pitts = Tony Gonzalez/Travis Kelce then you'd be totally justified in taking him at 4. But that's the big question, is he one of those guys?
  6. Ah, the scouts are putting skin color ahead of their evaluations, and owners/GMs are getting biased information as a result. Got it.
  7. So, if it is still an issue, I'll ask my question again. Which current/recent owners and GMs are passing on coaches or players because they are more concerned about skin color than who can best help them win a superbowl? Which coach or GM is putting players lower on their draft board based on skin color? Seriously, which ones are putting that over winning?
  8. Does anyone really think that there's a single owner or GM today that cares more about a player's skin color than whether he will help them win a super bowl? If so, which ones?
  9. I'm not going to question their smarts just because they don't pick Pitts. That said, if Fontenot and Smith think Pitts is the next Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce they would be stupid not to take him at 4 just because it is rare to take a TE that high. If he's their guy, they should get their guy. That is the smart move.
  10. Yes, that's what I meant. Honestly, I would love to snag Harris, but now that we have Mike Davis that's less of a concern to me. The question is this, is there a generational talent at 4? People seem to think Pitts is one, and that Sewell is another. If you knew ahead of time that Pitts would be Tony Gonzalez or Travis Kelce you'd never pass on him at 4, and he'd help you win his first season. And if you think Sewell is a day one starter on the line that will anchor left guard/ tackle that will keep Ryan off the ground right away and for the next 5 years you'd be hard pressed to pass on t
  11. Just that if you don't go QB at 4 you could get a player that would start and have an impact this season, like Pitts or Sewell.
  12. If you're not concerned with being competitive this season, or the idea that our future QB is available at 4, then this is a good scenario.
  13. Why believe anything anyone says at this point? It's all misdirection, anyway.
  14. I absolutely love this mock draft, but you're right, this is a dream scenario. Pitts will be gone by 11 and Harris will be gone by 35.
  • Create New...