Mock two

[mdb1958]

Then pick Herron and Iosefa.

[Bootz2004]

But I'm guessing that you do believe we'll add 4 combined draft picks and UDFAs? Given the current roster/depth chart along the Dline

Maybe, but that is irrelevent since adding UDFA's just something you're arguing with yourself on. Here are the 12 Dlinemen the Bucs currently have on the roster. There is still room to add 21 more players until we reach 90.

94 Clarke, Will DE 6-6 275 26 5 West Virginia
97 Curry, Vinny DE 6-3 279 29 7 Marshall
92 Gholston, William DE 6-6 281 26 6 Michigan State
79 O'Connor, Patrick DE 6-4 270 24 1 Eastern Michigan
90 Pierre-Paul, Jason DE 6-5 275 29 9 South Florida
57 Spence, Noah DE 6-2 251 24 3 Eastern Kentucky
71 Ward, Channing DE 6-4 279 25 2 Mississippi
75 Lambert, DaVonte DL 6-2 282 23 3 Auburn
91 Allen, Beau DT 6-3 327 26 5 Wisconsin
93 McCoy, Gerald DT 6-4 300 30 9 Oklahoma
96 Tu'ikolovatu, Stevie DT 6-1 320 26 2 Southern California
98 Unrein, Mitch DT 6-4 301 31 8 Wyoming

Let's say the Bucs draft Chubb at 7, then Hurst is also sitting there as the clear BPA at 38 so we draft him also (which NOBODY is arguing against). Why on earth would we spend two more draft picks on Dlinemen in the late rounds at that point while ignoring CB, RB, S, OL? Any Dlinemen we would draft AFTER already taking Chubb and Hurst would have almost zero chance of making the 53 man roster. Which is MY point about why the Bucs won't be drafted FOUR Dlinemen.

So your position is we should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA? Right? It's not irrelevant at all. It's something we'll be faced with next week.

[Deuce]

The incompetence (bootz and mdb) in this thread is astounding.

[terrytate]

This escalated quickly. We certainly dont need to draft 4 dlinemen as Cheb explained. The whole point behind the moves we made was that we were no so desperate for DL that we had to spend the whole draft on it. We could certainly stand to get a guy though, as the new faces are all older. I most certainly wouldn't pass on Chubb at 7, not would I ignore Hurst or Bryan in the second if they were there.

Let's not forget that we have other needs too, some even more important than DL. OL is certainly not an elite, world beating unit. We have an absurd need for a RB. We have needs all over in the secondary. Ignoring all of that to spam picks a deep DL Corp is foolish at best.

[Cheb]

This escalated quickly. We certainly dont need to draft 4 dlinemen as Cheb explained. The whole point behind the moves we made was that we were no so desperate for DL that we had to spend the whole draft on it. We could certainly stand to get a guy though, as the new faces are all older. I most certainly wouldn't pass on Chubb at 7, not would I ignore Hurst or Bryan in the second if they were there.

Let's not forget that we have other needs too, some even more important than DL. OL is certainly not an elite, world beating unit. We have an absurd need for a RB. We have needs all over in the secondary. Ignoring all of that to spam picks a deep DL Corp is foolish at best.

Exactly.

[DreadNaught]

Let's say the Bucs draft Chubb at 7, then Hurst is also sitting there as the clear BPA at 38 so we draft him also (which NOBODY is arguing against). Why on earth would we spend two more draft picks on Dlinemen in the late rounds at that point while ignoring CB, RB, S, OL? Any Dlinemen we would draft AFTER already taking Chubb and Hurst would have almost zero chance of making the 53 man roster. Which is MY point about why the Bucs won't be drafted FOUR Dlinemen.

So your position is we should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA? Right?

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

We aren't drafting 4 Dlinemen just like we won't be drafting 4 defensive backs, or 4 Olinemen even though we're even thinner at DB and OL than we are currently at Dline due to the offseason moves.

[Bootz2004]

So your position is we should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA? Right?

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

We aren't drafting 4 Dlinemen just like we won't be drafting 4 defensive backs, or 4 Olinemen even though we're even thinner at DB and OL than we are currently at Dline due to the offseason moves.

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

[Cheb]

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

We aren't drafting 4 Dlinemen just like we won't be drafting 4 defensive backs, or 4 Olinemen even though we're even thinner at DB and OL than we are currently at Dline due to the offseason moves.

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

I'll have to remember "I've moved past your point" the next time I disagree with my wife. I'm sure that'll go over well.

[Bootz2004]

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

I'll have to remember "I've moved past your point" the next time I disagree with my wife. I'm sure that'll go over well.

I'm sure you deflect and beat around the bush with her more than you do on here.

[DreadNaught]

You have serious reading comprehension issues.

We aren't drafting 4 Dlinemen just like we won't be drafting 4 defensive backs, or 4 Olinemen even though we're even thinner at DB and OL than we are currently at Dline due to the offseason moves.

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

It's not dodging if it's already been addressed *****. Once again Bootz nobody here has stated we should "pass on drafting Dlinemen" completely. You conjured up that strawman and are trying to get someone to argue it with you.

Chubb is the #1 player for me and I'd love if we got him at 7. I also think Hurst or Bryan would be steals at 38 even if we already drafted Chubb since our roster could use young and talented 3-tech DT. But if we went that route early in the draft it would be dumb imo to use TWO more additional picks on more Dlinemen who would have virtually no chance at making the 53 at that point given what we have and just drafted in rounds 1-2. Those remaining picks would be WAY better served providing some depth at CB, S, RB, OL where we are much thinner at.

[DreadNaught]

I'll have to remember "I've moved past your point" the next time I disagree with my wife. I'm sure that'll go over well.

I'm sure you deflect and beat around the bush with her more than you do on here.

That's rich. You move past points you can't ague with and conjure up strawmans then proceed to accuse others of deflecting.

Never change *****...

[Buc2]

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

It's not dodging if it's already been addressed *****. Once again Bootz nobody here has stated we should "pass on drafting Dlinemen" completely. You conjured up that strawman and are trying to get someone to argue it with you.

Chubb is the #1 player for me and I'd love if we got him at 7. I also think Hurst or Bryan would be steals at 38 even if we already drafted Chubb since our roster could use young and talented 3-tech DT. But if we went that route early in the draft it would be dumb imo to use TWO more additional picks on more Dlinemen who would have virtually no chance at making the 53 at that point given what we have and just drafted in rounds 1-2. Those remaining picks would be WAY better served providing some depth at CB, S, RB, OL where we are much thinner at.

You already said this and letting Bootz make you say it again was unnecessary.

[Bootz2004]

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

It's not dodging if it's already been addressed *****. Once again Bootz nobody here has stated we should "pass on drafting Dlinemen" completely. You conjured up that strawman and are trying to get someone to argue it with you.

Chubb is the #1 player for me and I'd love if we got him at 7. I also think Hurst or Bryan would be steals at 38 even if we already drafted Chubb since our roster could use young and talented 3-tech DT. But if we went that route early in the draft it would be dumb imo to use TWO more additional picks on more Dlinemen who would have virtually no chance at making the 53 at that point given what we have and just drafted in rounds 1-2. Those remaining picks would be WAY better served providing some depth at CB, S, RB, OL where we are much thinner at.

Okay so I'll ask it this way so you can understand. Say we do draft Chubb and Hurst/Settle/Bryan 2nd round. Is it your position that we won't add anymore Dlinemen via the draft or UDFA?

[Bootz2004]

I'm sure you deflect and beat around the bush with her more than you do on here.

That's rich. You move past points you can't ague with and conjure up strawmans then proceed to accuse others of deflecting.

Never change *****...

You haven't made any points. You're pulling an RBF now, standing there holding your breath saying "we won't draft X number of dlinemen and that's that". Mark of petulant children who have nothing else to say.

[Buc2]

That's rich. You move past points you can't ague with and conjure up strawmans then proceed to accuse others of deflecting.

Never change *****...

You haven't made any points. You're pulling an RBF now, standing there holding your breath saying "we won't draft X number of dlinemen and that's that". Mark of petulant children who have nothing else to say.

Nice come back, Ghostrap.

[Bootz2004]

You haven't made any points. You're pulling an RBF now, standing there holding your breath saying "we won't draft X number of dlinemen and that's that". Mark of petulant children who have nothing else to say.

Nice come back, Ghostrap.

Bootz ain't blocking people, kyddo. I want you to see this come up!

[terrytate]

That's rich. You move past points you can't ague with and conjure up strawmans then proceed to accuse others of deflecting.

Never change *****...

You haven't made any points. You're pulling an RBF now, standing there holding your breath saying "we won't draft X number of dlinemen and that's that". Mark of petulant children who have nothing else to say.

Meanwhile, in this thread....

[DreadNaught]

That's rich. You move past points you can't ague with and conjure up strawmans then proceed to accuse others of deflecting.

Never change *****...

You haven't made any points. You're pulling an RBF now, standing there holding your breath saying "we won't draft X number of dlinemen and that's that". Mark of petulant children who have nothing else to say.

My only point in this discussion has been in response to the nonsensical idea that the Bucs would spend four draft picks on Dlinemen that had been previously brought up already.

But since you want to be stuborn let's make a bet. If the Bucs draft four Dlinemen I'll accept whatever terms you want, but if they don't spend four draft picks on Dlinemen than you can't disagree with anyones post here for 1 month. All you can do is start topics or agree with people.

Deal?

[mdb1958]

If I had to, I'd rather pass on Davenport more than the other three. We have already shown an interest in Hall, we would be stupid to pass on Shepherd, and Sieler will be Gholston who CAN get sacks.

13 players played on our d-line last year.

Curry 9 sacks last three years
Unrein 4.5 career sacks
Allen 2 career sacks

[mdb1958]

You haven't made any points. You're pulling an RBF now, standing there holding your breath saying "we won't draft X number of dlinemen and that's that". Mark of petulant children who have nothing else to say.

My only point in this discussion has been in response to the nonsensical idea that the Bucs would spend four draft picks on Dlinemen that had been previously brought up already.

But since you want to be stuborn let's make a bet. If the Bucs draft four Dlinemen I'll accept whatever terms you want, but if they don't spend four draft picks on Dlinemen than you can't disagree with anyones post here for 1 month. All you can do is start topics or agree with people.

Deal?

Read his first post, it sounds childish.

[LavonteDavid54]

I've moved past your point and now I'm asking you a new question. One you're dodging. I'll ask again: So your position is should pass on adding Dlinemen in the draft and should wait until UDFA?

It's not dodging if it's already been addressed *****. Once again Bootz nobody here has stated we should "pass on drafting Dlinemen" completely. You conjured up that strawman and are trying to get someone to argue it with you.

Chubb is the #1 player for me and I'd love if we got him at 7. I also think Hurst or Bryan would be steals at 38 even if we already drafted Chubb since our roster could use young and talented 3-tech DT. But if we went that route early in the draft it would be dumb imo to use TWO more additional picks on more Dlinemen who would have virtually no chance at making the 53 at that point given what we have and just drafted in rounds 1-2. Those remaining picks would be WAY better served providing some depth at CB, S, RB, OL where we are much thinner at.

I agree, best player available. I think Hurst is a steal and in 2,3 years teams will kick themselves. Also in the CB thread there's a handful of quality cbs we could load up in later rds that could have higher % of making team and even beyond. It's a deep cb draft and a ball hawk who's fast and an aggressive tackler has a greater chance of being a successful late pick than other positions where the drop off is much easier to see. I think it's why OL , WR and DB have best chances as late picks in the NFL.So getting an above avg DT to our line doesn't mean we still can't find a starting caliber cb later? Cruikshank could be there with 2nd pick day 3. Which is only 2 players away from being a 3rd rd talent.Or Dan Johnson, Perry Nickerson etc. I'd be psyched if we built DT because we didn't sign Randy White guys. It also doesn't mean we ignored CB if we grab 2,3 late with real good potential.(Norman, Sherman, Al Harris)

[mdb1958]

Every year its the same at draft time, talk about number one, then three, then five. Wouldnt do this wouldnt do that, we'd be foolish to pick someone at 7 down in the 15 to 20 range, then the playoff teams pick and suddenly they got a great player.

We got 3 players we can get right now in the top 143 players by whatever means that those numbers are put into order. If you dont trade down in the first, that leaves you with 2 more tries to change this outcome. Our history in the late rounds is pathetic and its always the same thought process, just pick a bunch of different position groups and let them compete with our depth.

In the end its - they put out some really great work and maybe some team will pick them up.

Like I said we played 13 players on the d-line last year and yes 4 of them got very few snaps. Well guess what 9 players didnt make us very happy. Things will be changing drastically soon on our d-line, how soon? I dont know but its coming and I still say if there is an investment to protect for one year that would actually bring something to this roster ------------- I say go for it.

Or like I said ----- pick a couple Iosefa's and let someone grab them off our practice squad so we can say darn, I really liked that guy.

LD54, I like your thought process to a degree especially with the later CB's. Much will depend on if we get more picks.

We will see what 144,180,202, and 255 gets us.

The New York Giants knew it was time to make a change, I just wonder how long it takes us to do it.