+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Bleacher report

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. G-Man View Post
    i'm still confused why they couldnt wait til the 2nd round for this guy. he didnt seem to be on anyone's radar
    Pugh shows up as 22nd on the Scouts Inc ranking, but i have seen Pugh ranked far lower (around 50), so who knows.

  2. #12
    Bench Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Chariton Iowa
    Posts
    47
    If a draft room full of coaches with 2 superbowl rings think he is their guy, I'm going to have to defer to their judgement. If a ranking service picked a team I have a feeling it would probably suck and be a conglomeration of A+ rated players who look good on paper ,but cannot play together as a TEAM. If A+ players (according to rankings) w
    ere all that mattered, why bother playing the games ,just use draft ratings

  3. #13
    All-Pro Eli TO Shockey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    6,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. G-Man View Post
    i'm still confused why they couldnt wait til the 2nd round for this guy. he didnt seem to be on anyone's radar
    It's been rumored that the bears had their sights set on him at 20.

  4. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,959
    I rather drink bleach then read the bleacher report

  5. #15
    Veteran G.I. Ants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bklyn, NY
    Posts
    722
    It may have been a reach, but it was the right call, period. The reason why he was low on so many boards mostly had to do with his arm length. Other than that, he was a great player for the Orange, solid pass protector for on of the nations top qb's, nasty run blocker and absolutely zero character issues. bleacher report has been wrong before, we will see.

  6. #16
    Veteran FishinTheSalt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lansdale, Pa
    Posts
    2,940
    Quote Originally Posted by americanmade View Post
    If a draft room full of coaches with 2 superbowl rings think he is their guy, I'm going to have to defer to their judgement. If a ranking service picked a team I have a feeling it would probably suck and be a conglomeration of A+ rated players who look good on paper ,but cannot play together as a TEAM. If A+ players (according to rankings) w
    ere all that mattered, why bother playing the games ,just use draft ratings
    How dare you throw logic out their?

  7. #17
    Veteran TroyArcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,546
    I wonder how many SB rings the Bleacher report has?

  8. #18
    All-Pro titwio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bronx NYC
    Posts
    9,318
    Quote Originally Posted by PBTimmons View Post
    To the Giants credit, there is no way he makes it out of the 1st round. The Bears and Cowboys picked Kyle Long and Travis Frederick for crying out loud. Both teams would probably rather had Pugh.

    I still would have much rather had Rhodes/Trufant/Floyd easily.
    Kyle Longs measurables are a lot better than Pugh's. He's faster (ran 4.9 something), more athletic, taller (6'6), longer arms. Everything about his make-up was prototypical in comparison to Pugh and he graded higher. Pugh translates better to guard than tackle at the next level. Long doesn't. Pugh is better technically but I seriously believe he would have been available in the 2nd and if he wasn't then they could have had Barrett Jones who's the same versatility wise.
    Last edited by titwio; 04-26-2013 at 12:58 PM.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by titwio View Post
    Kyle Longs measurables are a lot better than Pugh's. He's faster (ran 4.9 something), more athletic, taller (6'6), longer arms. Everything about his make-up was prototypical in comparison to Pugh and he graded higher. Pugh translates better to guard than tackle at the next level. Long doesn't. Pugh is better technically but I seriously believe he would have been available in the 2nd and if he wasn't then they could have had Barrett Jones who's the same versatility wise.
    Measurables yeah but not talent wise...Long is a project.

  10. #20
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,400
    Quote Originally Posted by titwio View Post
    Kyle Longs measurables are a lot better than Pugh's. He's faster (ran 4.9 something), more athletic, taller (6'6), longer arms. Everything about his make-up was prototypical in comparison to Pugh and he graded higher. Pugh translates better to guard than tackle at the next level. Long doesn't. Pugh is better technically but I seriously believe he would have been available in the 2nd and if he wasn't then they could have had Barrett Jones who's the same versatility wise.
    Combine numbers are one thing...game tape is another!!! Then you contradict yourself about wanting Long because he's more athletic than Pugh yet you'd take a guy like Jones who's knock is his athleticism!

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts