hurney

Some of the picks have been good ones, I just don't see where any kind of long-term vision was in place.

 

We passed on some good players. Carlos Dunlap, Sean Lee, Terrence Cody to name a few. It would be nice to have Cody or Dunlap right now.

 

"or chaotic obsession with a particular player" sounds like a good enough catch-all to get yourself out of a jam, I guess. But, Brown was picked with two starters and a highly touted backup in place, so the need wasn't "now". Plenty of guys have been drafted to succeed other guys. I won't dare try to say anything positive like how much of the 2007 draft was at spots that weren't necessarily a need, and that those guys even worked out. But clearly the team hasn't always just gone down a list of needs, at the very least. For good or bad.

 

You're being ridiculous. Everyone here knows that Brown was picked to replace Peppers in the short-term, not many years down the line. It wasn't clear at the time if Julius was even going to be with the team in 2009 or if they were going to trade him.

What? Again, Beason was drafted specifically to replace Morgan that season and started all sixteen games. Jarrett was also drafted because of the team's ongoing struggles to find a starter opposite Steve, as the one at the time was Keary Colbert. Then Kalil wasn't intended to be an immediate starter, but they planned on him replacing Hartwig the very next season. There just haven't been many picks from Hurney where the goal was two or three seasons down the road, nor has there been any indication that he ever really has a coherent "long-term plan." That said, many of his first round picks have been good ones. I'm not dogging all his draft choices, just dismissing the notion that he does it with some kind of vision in mind since the evidence is against that and B&B also pointed out that Hurney's own comments dispute that idea.

edit:
Oh, I guess you were referring to Charles Johnson in the third round.

 

at the time, franchise free agency was over and the team's position seems to have always been that they weren't going to trade him. "not many years down the line" definitely sounds like "not 2009". At either rate, I chose Brown because he was a failure that fit my example, not because he was the best example.

They definitely intended on starting him so it doesn't really matter where, certainly this was both a good pick and an immediate contributor. Of course, you generally want your top pick to start anyway, so this isn't about #1s.

that would suggest there was a plan (as would Beason). This one suggesting that they had plans to replace a starter in the future.

Certainly, "haven't been many" is greater than none, then one, which was what you were putting out. I agree that there isn't necessarily a long term overall plan - by JR's own mouth, the decree was to keep things "together" through 09, and gut it after, and that's had, at most, varying levels of success. Some of which has come at the hands of duplication.

But, I don't think in retrospect that Cam's a guy you pass on because of Clausen. I've argued we've put too much into RB as well, and it'd be nice if what we put into DW was a good corner instead.

that was just good value, as were many other spots they've picked. Shit like that bails him out sometimes, I guess.

I don't know. And I kinda fucking hate having to defend this guy, as erratic the last few years have been, but saying he's never looked past one year when he's had a decade at this seems unrealistic at best, and blind on average.

 

I made this.

 

you seem proud like the dog when he shits places he shouldn't.

 

I think it's been a good discussion.

 

Do you really think Hurney wouldn't have traded him if he got offered a first round pick? They didn't know whether Peppers would be there or not in 2009, but regardless, Brown was still clearly taken for a short-term need at DE because they knew Peppers would be gone before long. He was actually an example showing the opposite of what you claimed.

But again, this proves the opposite of what you're claiming, as Hurney was drafting Beason to fill an immediate need, not as part of some long-term vision. Do you notice that you're the only person arguing that Hurney approaches the draft that way? Even Hurney has said otherwise. You're just off base on this one and need to let it go.

No, I never said there were "none." B&B said "Hurney seems to take a year-to-year approach to building a roster." You stupidly argued over that when B&B is clearly correct. Remember, you claimed that Hurney made long-term picks "plenty." Now you're getting all defensive, as usual, and making up excuses to justify something dumb you said instead of just letting it go. No one agrees with you, and we've presented abundant evidence proving you wrong. Let it drop, man.

 

For Peppers to be traded for a 1, he'd have to be gone before Brown was picked. They wouldn't trade him for a future 1, they may or may not have turned down 33 for him. I believe he was someone they wanted. Always have. No proof. But, dying for him or putting up with him, they didn't trade him during the 1st, so Brown's pick only exists in a world where Carolina had three ends. If you're saying he was a longer term, planned pick, cool.

I said that 1s start, so they don't really have much place in this discussion (you could argue DW was a future pick, maybe). Beason not starting would be far worse than other outcomes. Not sure why you skipped that part. Kalil wasn't an immediate need, they had the guys they intended to start. There are plenty of examples, only a percentage of which worked, but they definitely exist. Less so with all of the change since 2010 started, which isn't unexpected. Kudos for noticing after 2008 that things weren't what they seemed, FWIW.

leave this stupid fucking shit out of arguments. Either you want to argue the point, or you don't, but jesus christ at least control yourself.
And yes, I'm the only one arguing this side. You, and the guy who isn't arguing it, are on the other side. So what? Irrelevant. Are things decided by straw poll now?