NFL Weekly Picks 2023

[Petethreeput]

12 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

...  I had always heard 20-1. From Money Watch:


"A Ford representative told CBS MoneyWatch that the UAW's claims are misleading, noting that since 2019 CEO Jim Farley's total compensation has risen 21%, not 40%, while his annual salary over that period is down 6%. Farley earned $21 million in total compensation last year, the Detroit News reported, which is 281 times more than typical workers at the company, according to Ford filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stellantis CEO Carlos Tavares made $24.8 million in 2022, according to the Detroit Free Press, roughly 365 times more than the average worker at Stellantis, SEC filings show. GM CEO Mary Barra earned nearly $29 million in 2022 pay, Automotive News reported, which is 362 times more than the typical GM worker.

While those ratios may seem staggering, they're not uncommon, according to Michael Dambra, an accounting and law professor at University at Buffalo. "It's right in line with what's been happening in the past three or four years," Dambra told CBS News.  

Triple-digit pay gaps between a CEOs and workers are also not unique to the auto industry, Dambra and other experts say. 

Back in the '60s and '70s, company executives earned "somewhere between 20 and 30 times" regular employees, but "that's massively increased, particularly in the 2000s," said Dambra."

 

I have to admit, my numbers are pulled from memory so they may not be spot on, but certainly close enough to paint the picture.  I think it's telling when the company reports vs the actual amount.  The stock certs are registered as the buy number, not the trade number, nor is that amount calculated to include growth and/or dividends.  On top of diluting the stock for the shareholders, these executives are also able to buy them on options at a fraction of the cost.

 

I don't follow this stuff too much anymore because in so many ways it is depressing.  As others have said, in no way do I besmirch a person for attaining and accruing wealth.  If you are good at something and it is able to monetized, I support the efforts 100%.  I am a dyed in the wool capitalist.  What I am not though is this.  Once you make it, it shouldn't be easier to continue on the path than for others.  And by that I am thinking capital gains, tax dodges, etc., these codes (and this isn't political BTW, this is societal) are clearly written to benefit these folks who really don't need it anymore.

 

 

[chisag]

1 hour ago, Petethreeput said:

I don't follow this stuff too much anymore because in so many ways it is depressing.  As others have said, in no way do I besmirch a person for attaining and accruing wealth.  If you are good at something and it is able to monetized, I support the efforts 100%.  I am a dyed in the wool capitalist.  What I am not though is this.  Once you make it, it shouldn't be easier to continue on the path than for others.  And by that I am thinking capital gains, tax dodges, etc., these codes (and this isn't political BTW, this is societal) are clearly written to benefit these folks who really don't need it anymore.

 

 

... Murica and all. I am not a fan of capitalism when it rewards greed. But like Democracy I admit it's the best we got. I just think there is something inherently wrong with manipulating money just to make more money, without actually working for a living. One of the reasons I appreciate Mrgreens posts of doing things with his hands and providing a service people actually need. Then there is the idea of doing things for the betterment of society vs doing things for your own betterment. The idea of closing down a plant and putting 1k hard working folks out of business because even though it is running at a small profit, they can make much more by selling and/or taking a write off for the stockholders is just pure evil to me. 

[Petethreeput]

OK, I think Jim Cramer is in many respects bigger on bark than bite, but I just watched a little blurb from Mad Money this morning.  Interesting take on the overall economy and the difference in consumer, not to mention all the vagaries of the larger economy.

 

He notes McDonald's is dropping because there is a large cadre of the country who can no longer purchase McD.  The average income for Dollar Tree is $125,000.  These are both quotes from the CEOs on earnings calls.  But, just as there are these individuals, roughly 60% of the population, there are also millions of folks who will shell out $35 for the new TayTay album on vinyl.

 

Anyway, the bifurcation of the American consumer is getting more and more stark, and this is why the Fed is flummoxed about inflation.  If on the one hand you have folks spending $35 on a record it will be difficult to reel in prices with interest rates.  On the other hand, wages haven't kept up with the increases in the staples.  And again, it isn't necessarily greed or politics making this a reality, it is the fact that McD has to increase prices to keep margins for it's investors so leadership can keep their jobs.

 

Years ago I was a reader.  Now?  Not so much.  But I do remember when I was teaching and realizing 60% of the kids I met were statistically likely to fall into the working poor category how I might be able to illustrate the pitfalls and gain an appreciation for it.  David Shipler's "Working Poor; Invisible in America" and Barbara Ehrenreich "Nickel and Dimed" are two good reads I remember.  She is a reporter and she decided to live on a poverty for a month and gives a strong first hand account, and I was struck how often she felt fortunate it was a for a book and not a lifestyle.

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

He notes McDonald's is dropping because there is a large cadre of the country who can no longer purchase McD.  The average income for Dollar Tree is $125,000.

 

"afford" McD ?

 

Dollar Tree customer ?

[Petethreeput]

8 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

"afford" McD ?

 

Dollar Tree customer ?

Don't shoot the messenger!  The CEO of McD's said the sales were down and the logical "competition" was eating at home.  The CEO of Dollar Tree said this was the average wage for shoppers (sorry I missed the definer of customer, you are correct).  Downright crazy.

 

Like I said, I don't love Cramer, but I thought it was an interesting assessment and certainly nothing I had heard before.  I can't speak to the veracity of his comments, but I do like to hear/read different ideas and then I like to share them here because I think of this as a spot where while we are all different, it doesn't feel like a place closed to different ideas.

Edited February 6 by Petethreeput

[Petethreeput]

@nsxguy I should add, which is why I even mentioned Cramer, I am a heavy consumer of written news.  For the past few years the reports seem to all indicate, and Larry Kudlow acknowledged, the economists have been wrong about the economy.  But no one I have read has ever really been able to explain (at least in my eyes) what could possibly be the driver of these miscalculations.  I used to watch Cramer years and years ago, and sort of felt like he was cartooning himself to keep eyeballs on him, so I thought this was a refreshing reminder that he is/was/could be very smart and a free thinker.

[nsxguy]

30 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

Don't shoot the messenger!  The CEO of McD's said the sales were down and the logical "competition" was eating at home.  The CEO of Dollar Tree said this was the average wage for shoppers (sorry I missed the definer of customer, you are correct).

 

Not shooting anybody, just seeking clarification.

 

I'd agree with the McD CEO, simply because everyone has to eat somewhere. Thins too expensive for McD, eat at home - makes perfect sense.

 

But there have ALWAYS been tiers of restaurants - and fast food is the lowest of them; other than maybe the hot dog carts in Manhattan (assuming they're still there).

 

So if the bottom rung is getting too expensive for (some of) the lesser incomes among us, McD will have to find a way - they have for some 65 years or so. And when the deli becomes too expensive for the next higher level, they will be coming to McDs.

 

As for the "dollar" stores, I can't find any way to believe the average income of their customers is $125,000. The dollar store is the least expensive place to buy pretty much ANYTHING. They ought to be called the "Close-out" stores.

 

 

[chisag]

54 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

On the other hand, wages haven't kept up with the increases in the staples.  And again, it isn't necessarily greed or politics making this a reality, it is the fact that McD has to increase prices to keep margins for it's investors so leadership can keep their jobs.

 

 

 

... Do they though?  If a CEO is making 20 times that of the average worker and the idea is providing food (kinda food) for the working class as well as employment for young and old, you don't need much profit. Such was the America I grew up in the 50's and 60's. By the 80's it was a different America and greed galloped unbridled. The focus shifted to profits for stockholders and the CEO/Board members. McDonalds CEO makes 21.5 million and goodness knows what the Board makes on top of that. If he had a salary of 1.5 million that would be 20 million going back into the restaurants. Reduce prices by 50 cents and that's 40 million meals that don't need a price increase. I know, I have a hippie economic view. 😜

... I had a car loan with my local bank when I was in high school and college. Always made my payments on time in high school but struggled to always make my payment by the due date in college. Talked to my banker about it and he completely understood. He gave me a 2 week grace period as long as I let him know my payment would be late and once allowed me to skip a month when I was between part time jobs. Never any charges or fees. If I tried that at my bank I would be laughed out of the office in 2024. 

[Petethreeput]

12 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not shooting anybody, just seeking clarification.

 

I'd agree with the McD CEO, simply because everyone has to eat somewhere. Thins too expensive for McD, eat at home - makes perfect sense.

 

But there have ALWAYS been tiers of restaurants - and fast food is the lowest of them; other than maybe the hot dog carts in Manhattan (assuming they're still there).

 

So if the bottom rung is getting too expensive for (some of) the lesser incomes among us, McD will have to find a way - they have for some 65 years or so. And when the deli becomes too expensive for the next higher level, they will be coming to McDs.

 

As for the "dollar" stores, I can't find any way to believe the average income of their customers is $125,000. The dollar store is the least expensive place to buy pretty much ANYTHING. They ought to be called the "Close-out" stores.

 

 

He actually referenced Chili's and how they are doing really well, so it really is the lowest priced goods that are not seeing anything positive.  And I was as surprised as you in regards to Dollar Tree.  

[Petethreeput]

7 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... Do they though?  If a CEO is making 20 times that of the average worker and the idea is providing food (kinda food) for the working class as well as employment for young and old, you don't need much profit. Such was the America I grew up in the 50's and 60's. By the 80's it was a different America and greed galloped unbridled. The focus shifted to profits for stockholders and the CEO/Board members. McDonalds CEO makes 21.5 million and goodness knows what the Board makes on top of that. If he had a salary of 1.5 million that would be 20 million going back into the restaurants. Reduce prices by 50 cents and that's 40 million meals that don't need a price increase. I know, I have a hippie economic view. 😜

... I had a car loan with my local bank when I was in high school and college. Always made my payments on time in high school but struggled to always make my payment by the due date in college. Talked to my banker about it and he completely understood. He gave me a 2 week grace period as long as I let him know my payment would be late and once allowed me to skip a month when I was between part time jobs. Never any charges or fees. If I tried that at my bank I would be laughed out of the office in 2024. 

Hear me out for a second.  McD's is a multi-billion dollar company spread out all over the globe.  Even then, we know they have a bunch of assets and a bunch of liabilities.  I don't know the CEO, but I am sure he has a short shelf life and probably isn't personally greedy (which is what I am thinking).  I rarely think a person is greedy just for greed's sake until they prove it to me and I tend to define greedy as someone who will bend ethics to make money.

 

The "greed" portion is they have to meet their margins or the assets they have based on stock prices and the money they receive for those shares can up and leave with no real punishment to the investors.  If they miss their margin and those folks go then their asset ledger drops a ton making money more expensive.  It is a vicious cycle.  So you are right, corporate greed is a thing but it is also essential to stay as a going concern in these massive companies.

 

I think I read recently, corporate greed accounts for almost 50% of inflation to date.  I can see that.  I can also see it as self-preservation.  But, I would love to go back to the 60 month LTCG and give some stability to companies.  I think it would go a long way to mitigating the disparity in most every aspect to the human condition in the US.

[chisag]

24 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

Hear me out for a second.  McD's is a multi-billion dollar company spread out all over the globe.  Even then, we know they have a bunch of assets and a bunch of liabilities.  I don't know the CEO, but I am sure he has a short shelf life and probably isn't personally greedy (which is what I am thinking).  I rarely think a person is greedy just for greed's sake until they prove it to me and I tend to define greedy as someone who will bend ethics to make money.

 

The "greed" portion is they have to meet their margins or the assets they have based on stock prices and the money they receive for those shares can up and leave with no real punishment to the investors.  If they miss their margin and those folks go then their asset ledger drops a ton making money more expensive.  It is a vicious cycle.  So you are right, corporate greed is a thing but it is also essential to stay as a going concern in these massive companies.

 

I think I read recently, corporate greed accounts for almost 50% of inflation to date.  I can see that.  I can also see it as self-preservation.  But, I would love to go back to the 60 month LTCG and give some stability to companies.  I think it would go a long way to mitigating the disparity in most every aspect to the human condition in the US.

 

 

... I am certainly not trying to change yours or anyone else's opinion. We just talkin' here. That said, we clearly view greed differently. I am of the opinion that a worker at McDonalds should have more influence than a stockholder. To me a business should provide a service and provide employment. Making profits is secondary or even irrelevant to the main goals. If they meet those goals AND make a profit then good for them! In a perfect world the CEO would make an appropriate salary, the workers would make enough money to afford a living, the franchise owner would make a salary commensurate with their work (if they work), they would offer and affordable product and in the end after everyone got what was coming to them they would break even. Win-Win for everyone other than some money manipulator sitting with their computer that owns stock and does nothing other than follow the market. And I own a fair amount of stock so I am advocating against my own interests. 

... I view every single player that went to LIV as greedy. They know where the money comes from. They know where some tournaments are played. They did it for one reason and one reason only. Mega Money. If they would have been offered the exact same amount of money as they made on the PGA Tour does anyone think LIV could have poached a single player because they could wear shorts and play music? The definition of greed in my hippie hand book. ☮️

[Petethreeput]

10 minutes ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I am certainly not trying to change yours or anyone else's opinion. We just talkin' here. That said, we clearly view greed differently. I am of the opinion that a worker at McDonalds should have more influence than a stockholder. To me a business should provide a service and provide employment. Making profits is secondary or even irrelevant to the main goals. If they meet those goals AND make a profit then good for them! In a perfect world the CEO would make an appropriate salary, the workers would make enough money to afford a living, the franchise owner would make a salary commensurate with their work (if they work), they would offer and affordable product and in the end after everyone got what was coming to them they would break even. Win-Win for everyone other than some money manipulator sitting with their computer that owns stock and does nothing other than follow the market. And I own a fair amount of stock so I am advocating against my own interests. 

... I view every single player that went to LIV as greedy. They know where the money comes from. They know where some tournaments are played. They did it for one reason and one reason only. Mega Money. If they would have been offered the exact same amount of money as they made on the PGA Tour does anyone think LIV could have poached a single player because they could wear shorts and play music? The definition of greed in my hippie hand book. ☮️

I know, and I am not trying to change yours either, it is just a perspective.  And we all have them and they are all correct.  I think all perspectives are built on past experience.  Most of my experience is post 1980, particularly in regards to trying to adult and caring about adult things.  Sometimes I wonder if I ever owned a business that was worth anything how I would manage it.  I want to think I would hold to your ideals, but I honestly can't say because I have never been in that position nor have I ever really understood much about accounting other than more needs to come in than go out.

 

And I agree 100% on LIV players.  I can't really question their motivation, but I certainly can put my read on it, and they are the classic folks willing to turn a blind eye for the dollar.  I remember Phil's first presser when he did some crazy verbal/mental gymnastics routine.  If he is happy I guess I am happy for him, but I don't love it.

 

I often take stances which are not to my benefit as well, but after years of mistakes and successes it's a luxury to have that ability.  I remember thinking my first business was going to fail and felt like I would have done anything to save it which might be the reason for the distorted views I take.

[chisag]

13 minutes ago, Petethreeput said:

I know, and I am not trying to change yours either, it is just a perspective.  And we all have them and they are all correct.  I think all perspectives are built on past experience.  Most of my experience is post 1980, particularly in regards to trying to adult and caring about adult things.  Sometimes I wonder if I ever owned a business that was worth anything how I would manage it.  I want to think I would hold to your ideals, but I honestly can't say because I have never been in that position nor have I ever really understood much about accounting other than more needs to come in than go out.

 

I often take stances which are not to my benefit as well, but after years of mistakes and successes it's a luxury to have that ability.  I remember thinking my first business was going to fail and felt like I would have done anything to save it which might be the reason for the distorted views I take.

 

 

... Pretty interesting how things change in life. When I was a struggling actor able to make ends meet, but just barely I had some views on what constituted being rich and how they should pay their fair share. Now that I am in a much higher tax bracket I view taxes as the man keeping me down. 😜  

 

[touch]

 Super Bowl Picks 

 

chisag                      KC                        OVER                55

imk                           San Fran              OVER                62

DKnight                    KC                        Under               26

P3P                           KC                       OVER                58

TL                             KC                        OVER                51

touch                        KC                       OVER                53

doc                          San Fran               Over                 51

QQQ                         KC                        Over                 66 

The above Picks were posted prior to 2-4-24

The Picks below were posted during the second week of the Super Bowl lead up. 

 

 

 

             

Lines for Picks

Kansas City       San Fran -2        47

 

 

 

Playoff Standing After Conference Championship

210 Pts - NJBF

205 Pts - Touch

185 Pts - Hickory

175 Pts - NSX

                QQQ

170 Pts - Chisag

                Triple Lindy

160 Pts - Tatertot

150 Pts - Doc

130 Pts - CHuntsman

120 Pts - Dark Knight

110 Pts - imKirby

 95 Pts - NCLancer

 75 Pts - P3P

Edited February 7 by touch

[touch]

 

 

 

 

[touch]

Annie is on the scene this week. 

 

[touch]

 

[touch]

Hickory is in Vegas this week. This is his first time there. 🍻
I've had a good time talking with him on the phone. I make a few don't miss recommendations. He has been to many Sportsbooks already and says the brand new Circa (downtown) can't be beat. (1st photo)

I am really anxious to see his Picks for the SB. 

Will he pick up on a vibe that only one that is near the stadium in person will be able to get? 

 

 

 

@aenemated    Are you playing at the Double Down this week? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 8 by touch

[dashanks]

7 hours ago, touch said:

Annie is on the scene this week. 

 

Bit of a Man-hands situation going on there, no?

[dashanks]

15 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... I am certainly not trying to change yours or anyone else's opinion. We just talkin' here. That said, we clearly view greed differently. I am of the opinion that a worker at McDonalds should have more influence than a stockholder. To me a business should provide a service and provide employment. Making profits is secondary or even irrelevant to the main goals. If they meet those goals AND make a profit then good for them! In a perfect world the CEO would make an appropriate salary, the workers would make enough money to afford a living, the franchise owner would make a salary commensurate with their work (if they work), they would offer and affordable product and in the end after everyone got what was coming to them they would break even. Win-Win for everyone other than some money manipulator sitting with their computer that owns stock and does nothing other than follow the market. And I own a fair amount of stock so I am advocating against my own interests. 

... I view every single player that went to LIV as greedy. They know where the money comes from. They know where some tournaments are played. They did it for one reason and one reason only. Mega Money. If they would have been offered the exact same amount of money as they made on the PGA Tour does anyone think LIV could have poached a single player because they could wear shorts and play music? The definition of greed in my hippie hand book. ☮️

Plenty of greed out there.  Amazon just notified me that they were going to start showing commercials unless I pony up for an extra charge.   Whatsamatta?  Is Jeff Bezos hurting?  Needs another bathroom on his rocket ship, maybe?   The guys jumping to LIV is more understandable to me.  As I said in another thread, anybody who plays golf is aware of the fleeting nature of success in this game.  They all know they could become the next Ian Baker Finch at any moment.  I don't blame them for grabbing the sure thing.  But yeah, it would be nice if they would just admit it instead of BSing about growing the game and spending more time with their families.  Harold Varner is the only guy I can remember who told it like it is.

[chisag]

5 hours ago, dashanks said:

Plenty of greed out there.  Amazon just notified me that they were going to start showing commercials unless I pony up for an extra charge.   Whatsamatta?  Is Jeff Bezos hurting?  Needs another bathroom on his rocket ship, maybe?   The guys jumping to LIV is more understandable to me.  As I said in another thread, anybody who plays golf is aware of the fleeting nature of success in this game.  They all know they could become the next Ian Baker Finch at any moment.  I don't blame them for grabbing the sure thing.  But yeah, it would be nice if they would just admit it instead of BSing about growing the game and spending more time with their families.  Harold Varner is the only guy I can remember who told it like it is.

... For some it is more than just the obscene amount of money. I am not naive enough to think a global economy doesn't have skeletons in many closets. J Epstein was in my own backyard. Still, most of us all draw a line somewhere. Saudi sports washing an evil regime is certainly over mine. I wonder were the line is for the LIV defectors? 

[chisag]

... No Draft talk for a few days. Soooooo much conflicting info out there and the pundits are out of control. Williams or Maye and now Daniels is in the mix. Switch picks with the Commanders to #2 because Kingsbury will sell his soul for Williams and take Maye with a boatload of lower round picks? Stick with Williams most call a generational talent? What about attitude? Again, I am glad I am not a GM for the Bears/Commanders whose future career will depend on this draft.  At least we know Fields will be gone. 🥳 

[Qqq123xx]

Five months away and I'm going out on a limb.

More like a small twig.

 

1/   Chicago       C. Williams

2/   Wash.          D. Maye

3/   N.E.             M. Harrison Jr. or distant second choice O. Fashanu.

 

That's about as far as I have gotten.

[chisag]

12 minutes ago, Qqq123xx said:

Five months away and I'm going out on a limb.

More like a small twig.

 

1/   Chicago       C. Williams

2/   Wash.          D. Maye

3/   N.E.             M. Harrison Jr. or distant second choice O. Fashanu.

 

That's about as far as I have gotten.

 

 

... As reasonable guess as any at this point. 👍  Hard to argue with Harrison but I will still be absolutely shocked if NE doesn't take Daniels or one of the other 2 if they are there. I know it's always a gamble drafting a QB but these 3 are the closest to safe picks as I have seen in years. And the teams picking 1-3 really need a franchise QB. I also think there is at least the possibility of some crazy trades in these first 3 spots. IF NE takes Harrison Jr the Cardinals will really be in the driver seat for a team needing a QB and they could get a boatload of picks in return. If I were Atlanta, Pittsburg, Las Vegas or the Bronco's I would consider 2 first round picks and several more, even a few 2nd rounders to trade up and take whichever QB is left. It should be interesting!!! 

[NJBigFish22]

1 hour ago, chisag said:

 

 

... As reasonable guess as any at this point. 👍  Hard to argue with Harrison but I will still be absolutely shocked if NE doesn't take Daniels or one of the other 2 if they are there. I know it's always a gamble drafting a QB but these 3 are the closest to safe picks as I have seen in years. And the teams picking 1-3 really need a franchise QB. I also think there is at least the possibility of some crazy trades in these first 3 spots. IF NE takes Harrison Jr the Cardinals will really be in the driver seat for a team needing a QB and they could get a boatload of picks in return. If I were Atlanta, Pittsburg, Las Vegas or the Bronco's I would consider 2 first round picks and several more, even a few 2nd rounders to trade up and take whichever QB is left. It should be interesting!!! 

I’m thinking Washington moves heaven and earth to draft CW.  The hiring of Kliff Kingsbury as OC makes this a strong possibility at this point.  Now a lot of this hinges on does CW tells the Bears not to draft him, they keep Fields or go for Drake Maye.  If NE doesn’t draft a QB, that is a failure to the rest of the team in my opinion, but I have heard Jerrod Mayo likes Mac, so drafting Harrison would make sense if that’s true.  If NE drafts Harrison, and the cardinals want to deal, I agree the Raiders and Falcons should move up, the Broncos don’t really have enough draft capital to move up (Russ trade) unless they are dealing current players.

[NCLancer]

NCLANCER SUPER BOWL PICK

 

SAN FRAN  -2

UNDER 47

27-19

 

CMC RUNS, CATCHES AND THROWS FOR A TOUCHDOWN IN AN EPIC MVP PERFORMANCE AS THE NINERS ROLL THE CHIEFS!!

 

 

[chisag]

1 minute ago, NJBigFish22 said:

I’m thinking Washington moves heaven and earth to draft CW.  The hiring of Kliff Kingsbury as OC makes this a strong possibility at this point.  Now a lot of this hinges on does CW tells the Bears not to draft him, they keep Fields or go for Drake Maye.  If NE doesn’t draft a QB, that is a failure to the rest of the team in my opinion, but I have heard Jerrod Mayo likes Mac, so drafting Harrison would make sense if that’s true.  If NE drafts Harrison, and the cardinals want to deal, I agree the Raiders and Falcons should move up

 

 

... The Bears have made it pretty clear they are not keeping Fields. But given Maye has no "personality" issues like Williams does (I don't know how Daniels figures in the picture because he is getting a ton of buzz) if Washington wants to give me heaven and earth and I am the Bears GM and even if I wanted Williams, I am all in but would really make them pay. I just don't think there is a huge gap between Wiliams and Maye. I have read and watched far too many comparisons and while quite a few think Williams is a unique and generational talent and maybe even better than Mahomes 🤣 others would take Maye with the first pick because he ran an NFL offense, has the size and is accurate at all 3 levels. Both have some footwork issues but I think are talented enough to improve that. 

... Shane Waldron likes a lot of motion and likes to push the ball downfield. That is a perfect match for Maye and exactly what he did in college. He makes quick reads, manipulates the safeties and gets rid of the ball quickly. Williams didn't have to read defenses in Lincoln Riley offense so that is a big question mark. But nobody is as dazzling outside the pocket as Williams. I really envision both of them doing very well in the NFL. That said, I am not a Kinsbury fan after watching him try and run a college offense in the NFL with the Cardinals. If he couldn't do it with Kyler I don't see Williams being much different. 

... I never liked Mac and always thought he would be a mediocre NFL QB at best and a journeyman at worst. I just can't see NE passing on a QB. But of course anything is possible. I keep hearing sooooo many pundits talk about what a game changer Harrison Jr is and have him ranked #1 on their board, but if you don't have a QB that can get him the ball it really doesn't matter how good he is. 

[Qqq123xx]

2 hours ago, chisag said:

 

 

... As reasonable guess as any at this point. 👍  Hard to argue with Harrison but I will still be absolutely shocked if NE doesn't take Daniels or one of the other 2 if they are there. I know it's always a gamble drafting a QB but these 3 are the closest to safe picks as I have seen in years. And the teams picking 1-3 really need a franchise QB. I also think there is at least the possibility of some crazy trades in these first 3 spots. IF NE takes Harrison Jr the Cardinals will really be in the driver seat for a team needing a QB and they could get a boatload of picks in return. If I were Atlanta, Pittsburg, Las Vegas or the Bronco's I would consider 2 first round picks and several more, even a few 2nd rounders to trade up and take whichever QB is left. It should be interesting!!! 

I just don't see or want the Pats to draft a QB. Every year there is a can't miss QB or two. They have not had a deep threat or all around talent like Harrison Jr. since R. Moss. Plus Pats have serious OL issues. Their two best line players are FA's and could walk. N.E. does have 66+ million in salary cap to spend and they have already said they are going to be buyers. Also think Wash. is going to move mountains to get Williams. Bears are definitely the prom queen this year. Cardinals want Harrison Jr., hopefully won't get him, and if they don't will seriously listen to trade offers. At least for the first few picks this draft is shaping up to be the most fun in a while. 

[touch]

Annie inside the Stadium.

 

Why does there always have to be sh*t music in the background of most young peoples posts today? UGH 

 

 

 

Edited February 7 by touch

[chisag]

19 hours ago, Qqq123xx said:

I just don't see or want the Pats to draft a QB. Every year there is a can't miss QB or two. They have not had a deep threat or all around talent like Harrison Jr. since R. Moss. Plus Pats have serious OL issues. Their two best line players are FA's and could walk. N.E. does have 66+ million in salary cap to spend and they have already said they are going to be buyers. Also think Wash. is going to move mountains to get Williams. Bears are definitely the prom queen this year. Cardinals want Harrison Jr., hopefully won't get him, and if they don't will seriously listen to trade offers. At least for the first few picks this draft is shaping up to be the most fun in a while. 

 

 

... Most fun for sure! But I would argue that there have not been many "can't miss" QB's in recent years. Last year many questioned drafting any of the QB's and exactly why the Bears traded their #1 pick. But if you really need a QB, you have to take a shot and hope you get the next Mr Irrelevant/Stroud Sitten' Purdy and not the next Wilson/Pickett Sittin' on the Bench of the Bay. I doubt the Bengals, Chargers or Packers are disappointed in their 2020 QB selections. While the Bears, Jets and 49ers all rue their 2021 picks. You have a better handle on the Pats than I do and stud LT's are also hard to find so hope you get the WR or LT you want. 


Fwiw, here are the 1st Round QB's taken in the last 10 years and yes the chances of missing are much greater than hitting: 

The Good:
Jared Goff*
Patrick Mahomes
Josh Allen
Justin Herbert
Lamar Jackson
Joe Burrow
Jordan Love
CJ Stroud

The Bad:  
Geno Smith
Baker Mayfield
Daniel Jones
Kyler Murray

Tua Tagovailoa
Trevor Lawrence

The Ugly:

EJ Manuel
Johnny Manziel
Blake Bortles
Jameis Winston
Paxton Lynch
Carson Wentz
Mitch Trubisky
Josh Rosen
Sam Darnold
Dwayne Haskins
Mac Jones
Justin Fields
Trey Lance
Zach Wilson
Kenny Picket
Bryce Young

Edited February 8 by chisag