New Mock Draft (Steuber)

[draftfan]

Hey Everyone:

Here is a mock draft by Chris Steuber that has us trading up with the Lions to take Calvin Johnson, but has us trading the 35th overall pick to the Lions in doing so. Then with the last pick in the second round he has us taking LaMarr Woodley... I think it's good, but I don't like giving up the 35th pick?

http://www.nfldraftpro.com/mockdraft.html

[no1bucsfan29]

You would think someone that does mock drafts as a part of his career would know that our 1 and 2a, won't be enough to move up.

[TBChucky]

If they could move up 2 spots with #35, I could live with that, I guess. I`m still hoping we stay put at #4 and have CJ fall to us. I think it`s highly unlikely. I`m starting to think that Atlanta may be after Okoye too. They wont give up all the picks they got from Houston to get CJ I dont think. I also think that Marinelli wont want to drop below 4 or 5 because he dont want to miss out on Gaines Adams. Shawn Taylor and Laron Landry would be a scary safety combination!! Fairly realistic mock I guess

[Q-man]

I don't like that possible trade of picks at all.
Giving away the 35th pick in the draft, a possible starter for
years for the Bucs, to move up two spots in the draft is beyond
STUPID in my opinion.

[cadillac willy]

You would think someone that does mock drafts as a part of his career would know that our 1 and 2a, won't be enough to move up.

Stueber = professional.

You = amatuer.

Steuber knows what he's talking about. It's his job.

You don't.

[Psykes]

You would think someone that does mock drafts as a part of his career would know that our 1 and 2a, won't be enough to move up.
Its because he's NOT an idiot and realizes that Rod is going to take Adams either way. So he might as well get another 2nd rounder for taking the same guy.

[Monty'sCircus]

You would think someone that does mock drafts as a part of his career would know that our 1 and 2a, won't be enough to move up.
PSSSTTTT.....The draft pick value chart, is a guide not a bible....And it should also be noted that not all teams use it.

[Monty'sCircus]

Stueber = professional.

You = amatuer.

Steuber knows what he's talking about. It's his job.

You don't.
Your giving this guy way too much credit

[Monty'sCircus]

Its because he's NOT an idiot and realizes that Rod is going to take Adams either way. So he might as well get another 2nd rounder for taking the same guy.
Bingo, we have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

#4 is the perfect spot for the Lions to trade back to in order to take adams. If the lions traded down any farther they would miss out on him.

[BearLandBucFan]

PSSSTTTT.....The draft pick value chart, is a guide not a bible....And it should also be noted that not all teams use it.


yep... and every year some picks are more valuable than others...

I have said it in other threads... after Pick 8 or 9 you had to reduce that chart value to even simulate the drop off in talent value

[no1bucsfan29]

PSSSTTTT.....The draft pick value chart, is a guide not a bible....And it should also be noted that not all teams use it.
Aww looky, my fish is back, and still biting at every post I make.

I know it's a guide. I have said it many times on this board, as a matter of fact, you are one of the ones that called me out in my 2nd mock about NOT using it. Why is it now that I am using it, you want to call me out on doing that? Make up your mind Monty. It's that grey mass that sits inside that thing you use as a hat rack.

[no1bucsfan29]

Its because he's NOT an idiot and realizes that Rod is going to take Adams either way. So he might as well get another 2nd rounder for taking the same guy.
My other little fishy. How cute that you found a partner. A couple more and I will have a school of little fishy's biting on my posts.


As I have explained in other threads. Detroit has White, and 5 other DE's on their roster. A couple of them are actually decent. What makes you think Detroit wants Adams when they can instantly improve their offense by taking the best player in the draft, which, also, would give them a solid receiving corps. They have one good receiver, one converted safety that has shown promise, and an overweight idiot with no work ethic. Why not stay at 2, hope oakland doesn't grab him, and draft CJ? Especially with the amount of one deminsional pass rushing DE's in this draft that are just as good as Adams.

[Monty'sCircus]

Aww looky, my fish is back, and still biting at every post I make.

I know it's a guide. I have said it many times on this board, as a matter of fact, you are one of the ones that called me out in my 2nd mock about NOT using it. Why is it now that I am using it, you want to call me out on doing that? Make up your mind Monty. It's that grey mass that sits inside that thing you use as a hat rack.

http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=138546&highlight=mock

http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=137987&highlight=mock

There are the links to your mocks...Nowhere in either one do I mention the importance of the pt system...
try again

[Psykes]

My other little fishy. How cute that you found a partner. A couple more and I will have a school of little fishy's biting on my posts.

Learned about fishies in school today, did ya? How many did ya count? :rolleyes:

As I have explained in other threads. Detroit has White, and 5 other DE's on their roster. A couple of them are actually decent.

Name them! And while you're at it, tell me how many sacks they combined to last season. Oh, and tell me since when being "decent" was sufficient to play d-line for Rod.
White is a good player, but by no means any sort of sack artist. He could produce 8 sacks under the right circumstances, but odds are very slim he'd ever get 10+.

What makes you think Detroit wants Adams when they can instantly improve their offense by taking the best player in the draft, which, also, would give them a solid receiving corps. They have one good receiver, one converted safety that has shown promise, and an overweight idiot with no work ethic.

Bashing Furrey for playing safety is just lame. St. Louis had an excellent WR corps, he had yet to prove himself, so he selflessly went to play at S where he was needed most. And he was originally a WR, and was converted to safety, not the other way around... but nice try.

Why not stay at 2, hope oakland doesn't grab him, and draft CJ? Especially with the amount of one deminsional pass rushing DE's in this draft that are just as good as Adams.
Because, they don't NEED CJ. But they do need much more help at defensive end and other positions (I.e. CB).

[Psykes]

Your giving this guy way too much credit
Yeah, just because he's got a neat looking website doesn't quite mean he knows more about football than the average fan.

[no1bucsfan29]

http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=138546&highlight=mock

http://bbs.buccaneers.com/showthread.php?t=137987&highlight=mock

There are the links to your mocks...Nowhere in either one do I mention the importance of the pt system...
try again
Oh, so you deleted those. Typical.

[no1bucsfan29]

Yeah, just because he's got a neat looking website doesn't quite mean he knows more about football than the average fan.
I have a website?

[Psykes]

I have a website?
Edit: Ahaha, he was talking about you... I was talking about Steuber.

[no1bucsfan29]

Learned about fishies in school today, did ya? How many did ya count? :rolleyes: What in the hell are you talking about? You do realize that a group of fish is called a school right? No, I guess you weren't, thank you for making yourself look like a moron...again.

Name them! And while you're at it, tell me how many sacks they combined to last season. Oh, and tell me since when being "decent" was sufficient to play d-line for Rod.
White is a good player, but by no means any sort of sack artist. He could produce 8 sacks under the right circumstances, but odds are very slim he'd ever get 10+.
You want to know their names, look them up. try nfl.com
You want sack numbers, look them up, try nfl.com
Since when has decent been enough for Rod? BOOGER
What in the hell makes you think Adam's will be any better than White? i'd love to see some proof since by this statement you are obviously saying Adam's is the answer and White isn't.

Bashing Furrey for playing safety is just lame. St. Louis had an excellent WR corps, he had yet to prove himself, so he selflessly went to play at S where he was needed most. And he was originally a WR, and was converted to safety, not the other way around... but nice try.
I never bashed Furrey, I'd like to see a link to where I bashed him. What I said he was a converted safety. That's what he was, I don't care what he started at, he played safety for the rams, and was converted to WR by Detroit.
I think he will end up being a damn good #3 receiver for Detroit, but not any higher than that.

Because, they don't NEED CJ. But they do need much more help at defensive end and other positions (I.e. CB).
Why don't they need CJ? They have one dominant receiver, a decent #3 guy, and an overweight lazy receiver who is better slotted at TE, except he is to lazy to do the work it takes to be a successfull TE.
Who would you put in at #2? Furrey? If so, who's in at 3?

[PiratePhil]

You would think someone that does mock drafts as a part of his career would know that our 1 and 2a, won't be enough to move up.
I'm not so sure about that. If Detroit believes they can get who they want at #4 thus paying him less than getting him at #2 AND get the #35 pick as a bonus to go with their #34 then why not?

Maybe they get a better offer elsewhere but moving down 2 spots, still getting who they want, and an additional early second rounder seems like a good deal for them.

[KiffininCanton]

no1bucsfan29, is right, this guy is a idiot. Any trade up we will do is going to be with the Raiders, not the Lions. Think about it. If the Raiders take CJ then trading up with the Lions is pointless, so we have to assume the Raiders take JR. Now the reason the Lions would trade down is they want Gaines Adams, thus they won't take CJ. And the Browns would take BQ, AP, and even JT before they would take CJ, meaning CJ would fall to us. So why would we trade with the Lions?

[PiratePhil]

no1bucsfan29, is right, this guy is a idiot. Any trade up we will do is going to be with the Raiders, not the Lions. Think about it. If the Raiders take CJ then trading up with the Lions is pointless, so we have to assume the Raiders take JR. Now the reason the Lions would trade down is they want Gaines Adams, thus they won't take CJ. And the Browns would take BQ, AP, and even JT before they would take CJ, meaning CJ would fall to us. So why would we trade with the Lions?
Assuming the Raiders don't take CJ, then we would trade up to eliminate the chance of another team doing so.

[no1bucsfan29]

Assuming the Raiders don't take CJ, then we would trade up to eliminate the chance of another team doing so.
Why? As was explained above. IF the Raiders don't take him, and Detroit decides they want him, they won't trade. IF detroit decides to pass on him, the Browns won't take him, they DO have bigger needs, which means he would fall to us at 4. If either of the first two teams in the draft want him, they won't be willing to trade the pick, if they don't why bother trading up at all?

[KiffininCanton]

Assuming the Raiders don't take CJ, then we would trade up to eliminate the chance of another team doing so.

But if the Lions want to trade with us it means they want Gaines Adams and CJ is low on Cleveland's list (reletivly speaking). We shouldn't start giving up high 2nd rounders if odds say we are going to get what we want anyways.

[PiratePhil]

But if the Lions want to trade with us it means they want Gaines Adams and CJ is low on Cleveland's list (reletivly speaking). We shouldn't start giving up high 2nd rounders if odds say we are going to get what we want anyways.
I agree with what you are saying but then we must assume that Detroit and Cleveland aren't going to trade down with another team that wants CJ. I really don't want us to trade our early second, I'd rather trade Indy's second if we are to trade up.

[KiffininCanton]

I agree with what you are saying but then we must assume that Detroit and Cleveland aren't going to trade down with another team that wants CJ. I really don't want us to trade our early second, I'd rather trade Indy's second if we are to trade up.

I see what you are saying with other teams trading up ahead of us. But with trading up into the top5 so tough to do I think at the end of the day, Allen and Gruden will take their chances, but I could be wrong, their is the element of them desperate to save their job and they almost need CJ.

[Psykes]

What in the hell are you talking about? You do realize that a group of fish is called a school right? No, I guess you weren't, thank you for making yourself look like a moron...again.

Ahaha, I wasn't even talking about your "school" comment. It was separate! :lol:
Aha, MORON!

You want to know their names, look them up. try nfl.com
You want sack numbers, look them up, try nfl.com

Oh ok, so you just can't defend your claim.

Well, then, considering I'm on the only one of us two who can do this properly, here are the DEs that the Lions had last year and their sacks:
DeVries, Jared 0
Edwards, Kalimba 3
Hall, James: 5, but he was traded to St. Louis, I wonder why :rolleyes: )
Harriott, Claude: Didn't play
Rice, Matthew: Didn't play
Smith, Corey: 2
Swancutt, Bill: Didn't play.

Since when has decent been enough for Rod? BOOGER
What in the hell makes you think Adam's will be any better than White? i'd love to see some proof since by this statement you are obviously saying Adam's is the answer and White isn't.

:rotf: Reflects how much you know about these NFL Prospects. His name is Gaines Adams, not Adam Gaines.
And oh yeah, hold on, let me dig his future NFL stats for you. White would be the starter at LE (which is where he backed up Spires for quite a while) and Adams would take over at RE.

I never bashed Furrey, I'd like to see a link to where I bashed him. What I said he was a converted safety. That's what he was, I don't care what he started at, he played safety for the rams, and was converted to WR by Detroit.
I think he will end up being a damn good #3 receiver for Detroit, but not any higher than that.

The bashing was a general statement, not about you. As for Furrey, he was always a WR to begin with, just spent some time at S. They didn't have to do any "converting" of him back to WR, because that's where he belonged to begin with.

Who would you put in at #2? Furrey? If so, who's in at 3?
Probably Shaun McDonald, brought over from St. Louis. He looked very promising in '05 as the #3 when Bruce and Holt went down for a few games.

[Psykes]

no1bucsfan29, is right, this guy is a idiot. Any trade up we will do is going to be with the Raiders, not the Lions. Think about it. If the Raiders take CJ then trading up with the Lions is pointless, so we have to assume the Raiders take JR.
That's why the trade would be made after Oakland picks, not earlier.

[PiratePhil]

I see what you are saying with other teams trading up ahead of us. But with trading up into the top5 so tough to do I think at the end of the day, Allen and Gruden will take their chances, but I could be wrong, their is the element of them desperate to save their job and they almost need CJ.
I don't see us trading up since most mock drafts have CJ falling to us. I hope that with Marinelli's history with the Bucs that he would give us a heads up on another team trying to trade up, just hoping not expecting. Then trading up wouldn't be such a bad idea.

[Psykes]

Why? As was explained above. IF the Raiders don't take him, and Detroit decides they want him, they won't trade. IF detroit decides to pass on him, the Browns won't take him, they DO have bigger needs, which means he would fall to us at 4. If either of the first two teams in the draft want him, they won't be willing to trade the pick, if they don't why bother trading up at all?
Forgetting about ALL those picks Atlanta has?

I've also thought it would be nice to believe what they said about not trading up, but don't count on it.

At the end of the day, I don't think we (or they) actually will trade up though, however I don't exactly hold the inside scoop in the NFL.

[cadillac willy]

no1bucsfan29, is right, this guy is a idiot. Any trade up we will do is going to be with the Raiders, not the Lions. Think about it. If the Raiders take CJ then trading up with the Lions is pointless, so we have to assume the Raiders take JR. Now the reason the Lions would trade down is they want Gaines Adams, thus they won't take CJ. And the Browns would take BQ, AP, and even JT before they would take CJ, meaning CJ would fall to us. So why would we trade with the Lions?

ironic.

[nhbucsfan]

A team willing to trade down, especially that high, is looking to get "rich" with any trade.

Even though it's only 2 slots, Detroit will want more than the value shown on any chart.
Just a 2nd round pick probably won't do it. Yes, the'll be able to pick the guy they want and be able to pay him less, being picked lower.

Every GM wants to be the next guy to do a Ricky Williams or Herschel Walker trade.

[cadillac willy]

If any player is worht a trade up this year, it's CJ.

Whether they trade up or stay put, I'll be happy either way (unless they pull a Mike Ditka and give up their whole draft on one player.)

[Psykes]

Every GM wants to be the next guy to do a Ricky Williams
You sure about that?

A team willing to trade down, especially that high, is looking to get "rich" with any trade.

I wouldn't say so about the Lions. They want Adams and a 2nd round pick would just be a cherry on top, they could easily stay where they are and draft him, much like they took Sims last year.

[Shh-DontWakeEm]

I don't like this mock! Woodley? :eek:

[KiffininCanton]

I wouldn't say so about the Lions. They want Adams and a 2nd round pick would just be a cherry on top, they could easily stay where they are and draft him, much like they took Sims last year.

If that's the case, than let's give them 2b, not 2a. We can go to them and say "We know Cleveland ain't going to take him, our only risk is if Cleveland trades their pick to someone else, and that's not likely. So take it or leave it, and if you leave it, 95% chance is we will get what we want anyways, it's yours to lose."

[Psykes]

If that's the case, than let's give them 2b, not 2a. We can go to them and say "We know Cleveland ain't going to take him, our only risk is if Cleveland trades their pick to someone else, and that's not likely. So take it or leave it, and if you leave it, 95% chance is we will get what we want anyways, it's yours to lose."
Lol, maybe we should, but keep in mind Detroit is witholding Josh McCown from Oakland, which is doing us a favour. Plus, Rod and the guys here are probably still close friends, so if we do end up giving them too much, I'd expect it to be evened out down the road.

[no1bucsfan29]

Lol, maybe we should, but keep in mind Detroit is witholding Josh McCown from Oakland, which is doing us a favour. Plus, Rod and the guys here are probably still close friends, so if we do end up giving them too much, I'd expect it to be evened out down the road.
You realize Rod isn't the one making the trades right? His relationship with the bucs has NOTHING to do with any trade. That's between Millen and Allen, the GM's, the owners also have a great deal of input. just because Rod and the Bucs has ties doesn't mean millen will give their #2 pick away for anything less than it's worth.

[no1bucsfan29]

Ahaha, I wasn't even talking about your "school" comment. It was separate! :lol:
Aha, MORON!
To late to attempt a back out now, you've proven your stupidity.


Oh ok, so you just can't defend your claim.

Well, then, considering I'm on the only one of us two who can do this properly, here are the DEs that the Lions had last year and their sacks:
DeVries, Jared 0
Edwards, Kalimba 3
Hall, James: 5, but he was traded to St. Louis, I wonder why :rolleyes: )
Harriott, Claude: Didn't play
Rice, Matthew: Didn't play
Smith, Corey: 2
Swancutt, Bill: Didn't play.
Good dog, now getch me the paper.


:rotf: Reflects how much you know about these NFL Prospects. His name is Gaines Adams, not Adam Gaines.
And oh yeah, hold on, let me dig his future NFL stats for you. White would be the starter at LE (which is where he backed up Spires for quite a while) and Adams would take over at RE.
I know his last name is Adams, would Adams's look better to you? No, I didnt think so. Again, nitpicking at spelling errors? It really shows your desperation.

The bashing was a general statement, not about you. As for Furrey, he was always a WR to begin with, just spent some time at S. They didn't have to do any "converting" of him back to WR, because that's where he belonged to begin with.
I dont recall anyone bashing Furrey, who was this general statement about? Or are you again attempting to back out of a statement you made, yeah, you were.
Yes, he was a receiver that was CONVERTED to safety. For him to be a receiver again in Detroit, that means they took him from his safety postiion, and moved him back to receiver, he was a WR, converted to S, then converted back to WR. Either way, he was converted back to WR from being a safety.

Probably Shaun McDonald, brought over from St. Louis. He looked very promising in '05 as the #3 when Bruce and Holt went down for a few games.
Yeah, he's a superstud alright. at 5'10 183 lbs. His best shot at making the team will be as a punt returner. He is nowhere near a legit #2. He's started a total of 3 whole games in his career, and you want to make him a go to guy in mike Martz system. WOW

[Q-man]

no1 connie is slowing becoming the board idiot.
The more he posts, the less sense he makes.

[no1bucsfan29]

no1 connie is slowing becoming the board idiot.
The more he posts, the less sense he makes.
Q, following a poster from thread to thread is called stalking on this board, and is a bannable offense. you should think about that, and please stop sending me those little heart shaped boxes of chocolate. it's starting to creep me out.

[Bucko40]

I don't like that possible trade of picks at all.
Giving away the 35th pick in the draft, a possible starter for
years for the Bucs, to move up two spots in the draft is beyond
STUPID in my opinion.

Agreed. No one player is worth giving up picks for. Not after losing so many quality picks over the past years.

[BUCjeff21]

I don't like that possible trade of picks at all.
Giving away the 35th pick in the draft, a possible starter for
years for the Bucs, to move up two spots in the draft is beyond
STUPID in my opinion.

exactly, no matter what we can get a great player at #4, as we can at 35, and still get good players at 64 and 68. trading away #35 could mean losing a potential long term starter

[no1bucsfan29]

exactly, no matter what we can get a great player at #4, as we can at 35, and still get good players at 64 and 68. trading away #35 could mean losing a potential long term starter
BINGO DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!

[BucJordan]

BINGO DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER!


The thing you don't seem to get is that I'm not advocating trading up for CJ. I'm simply saying it's possible for < full chart value or more.

Honestly I would rather sit and take what comes to us, or even better I'd rather trade down to the 6-10 range and get a defensive star.

[no1bucsfan29]

The thing you don't seem to get is that I'm not advocating trading up for CJ. I'm simply saying it's possible for < full chart value or more.

Honestly I would rather sit and take what comes to us, or even better I'd rather trade down to the 6-10 range and get a defensive star.
For more than full chart value. Of course it's possible to trade up if we are willing to give them more than the full chart value. I never said it wasn't.

[Monty'sCircus]

no1 connie is slowing becoming the board idiot.
The more he posts, the less sense he makes.
I have to diagree with you. The process of board idiot has already been completed by no1. Any idea on how much longer his plaque will take?

[no1bucsfan29]

I have to diagree with you. The process of board idiot has already been completed by no1. Any idea on how much longer his plaque will take?
Awww, my little fishy seems upset.

[Monty'sCircus]

Awww, my little fishy seems upset.
Sorry no1, I just don't like you that way...sorry

[no1bucsfan29]

Sorry no1, I just don't like you that way...sorry
Did I forget to drop some flakes into your bowl today?

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/images/turning_goldfish.jpg

[BucJordan]

For more than full chart value. Of course it's possible to trade up if we are willing to give them more than the full chart value. I never said it wasn't.


Your comprehension is terrible. < (full chart value or more)....did i really need parenthesis for you to understand or are you just trying to create mistakes where there are none because you have nothing better?

[no1bucsfan29]

Your comprehension is terrible. < (full chart value or more)....did i really need parenthesis for you to understand or are you just trying to create mistakes where there are none because you have nothing better?
Less than <Greater than.
< (full chart value or more) what you typed right there, says it would take greater than the full chart value. it's really not that hard to figure out, even you can do it, maybe...

[Take Five]

I think a trade up with Detriot for Gaines Adams is probably not going to happen because some of the more recently updated mocks have Joe Thomas going to Detroit instead of Gaines Adams and if that happens then if:
Oakland picks Russell, Cleveland picks Quinn then Calvin Johnson or Gaines Adams could possibly ( and this is a big possibly) could be there at #4. Now if Oakland does not pick Russell but picks Calvin Johnson instead then Detriot may be willing to trade down with a team that wants Russell. That would seem like a scenario generating greater interest since the Bucs may be reluctant to trade with Detroit after having had lost our 2nd round pick of 2003 in Dewayne White to them. That fact may, IMO, be causing the stock of other DE's in the first round to improve their stock, as for example Amobi Okoye, DE Louiseville in response to the Adams trade rumor.

[Slash]

Why not let the Lions take CJ and suffer another 10 years by not addressing their real needs. That would be what the 4th WR they've picked in the past 5 years? That would be the best case scenario if we don't get CJ. That or pick Adams for ourselves and let them come to us if they covet him that much. Either way, I think staying at the 4th pick or trading down a couple of spots (if possible) would make a heck of a lot more sense then selling your soul to move up 2 spots and lose on draft picks that we've sorely been lacking the past few years. We've got too many positions in need to sacrifice picks just to bolster one glamorous position. CJ at 4, or go for more!

On another note, the Lions wouldn't entertain trades from just any team. It would have to be with a team in the 4th-12th range. And the lower the other team is in the draft chart, the more that team would have to give up to get CJ in a trade. So, I kinda like our 4th position if we intended to play a little chess game with the Lions.

Bingo, we have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

#4 is the perfect spot for the Lions to trade back to in order to take adams. If the lions traded down any farther they would miss out on him.

[AcesHigh]

Steuber is a tool, this is my favorite part.

"I am still predicting two trades to happen within the top-ten selections. NOTE: These trades are a prediction and not an actual occurrence."



.................................................. ......................Really

[sgolan]

Steuber is a tool, this is my favorite part.

"I am still predicting two trades to happen within the top-ten selections. NOTE: These trades are a prediction and not an actual occurrence."



.................................................. ......................Really

For all the noise about all the trades that are going to happen in the top-10...I wouldn't be surprised if none did. The cost of moving up in the top-10 is just too high for most teams to stomach. A team has to have a SERIOUS need for a player to be willing to kill a whole draft for one guy. There are a couple of teams that have that need:
1. Green Bay = RB
2. Atlanta = WR
3. Buffalo = RB
4. Minnesota = QB
...but these teams would have to move up "many" spots to get the top guys at those positions. The cost to a team like Green Bay, Atlanta or Buffalo would be enormous. Minnesota [picking at 8, i think] would have a better shot of getting their QB [Quinn] by working with Cleveland or Detroit to trade down. But even that move of 5 or 6 spots would likely cost the Vikings their 1st and 2nd, and likely a 2nd or 3rd next year too...that might be more than they are willing to spend.

In summation...don't expect too many block-buster deals to go down. I think there will be more activity in the lower half of the 1st round. Expect a team like Tampa or Pittsburg to consider packaging a few later picks to get another 1st rounder in the late-20s.

[OnlyBucInID]

Less than <Greater than.
< (full chart value or more) what you typed right there, says it would take greater than the full chart value. it's really not that hard to figure out, even you can do it, maybe...

< = less than
> = greater than

..........he was saying less than.........go back to math class, *******...........

[no1bucsfan29]

< = less than
> = greater than..
No mini moron.

<greater
>less

[Monty'sCircus]

No mini moron.

<greater
>less

according to this you are wrong...go figure right? :confused:

http://www.gomath.com/htdocs/ToGoSheet/Algebra/mathsymbols.html

[OnlyBucInID]

according to this you are wrong...go figure right? :confused:

http://www.gomath.com/htdocs/ToGoSheet/Algebra/mathsymbols.html

:urowned:

Thanks Monty.......maybe he'll actually be able to admit he was wrong, but i doubt it.......what do i know, i'm just a "mini-moron".........

no1b29, apology accepted anytime sunshine..........

[BucFanFrom1976]

:urowned:

Thanks Monty.......maybe he'll actually be able to admit he was wrong, but i doubt it.......what do i know, i'm just a "mini-moron".........

no1b29, apology accepted anytime sunshine..........

Notice how he stopped posting in this thread..... :rotf: :rotf:

[no1bucsfan29]

Here geniuses, this is a link to elementary math. It will explain to you simpletons that the open side of the symbol is like a mouth, and always points to the bigger amount, or GREATER amount.

http://www.teachers.net/lessons/posts/2035.html

Apologies accepted, and surrenders noted.

[no1bucsfan29]

Notice how he stopped posting in this thread..... :rotf: :rotf:
Some of us have jobs. I never back down from a discussion, you don't have to when you are correct. Welcome to the club mini moron #2.

P.S. It's noce to see my pet fishy Monty is back.

[BridgeRepair]

No mini moron.

<greater
>less


2 < 4 is read as "2 is less than 4." That is why he put < = less than.
4 > 2 is read as "4 is greater than 2.? That is why he put > = greater than.

[OnlyBucInID]

Here geniuses, this is a link to elementary math. It will explain to you simpletons that the open side of the symbol is like a mouth, and always points to the bigger amount, or GREATER amount.

http://www.teachers.net/lessons/posts/2035.html

Apologies accepted, and surrenders noted.

Just because you like your math explained in Pac-Man terminology, doesn't mean you are getting it.........

If the symbol is in formula format, then yes, the "big end" points at the "big number"........If the symbols are in text format (as they previously were), then > is greater than and < is less than.

Its okay to admit you were wrong, it will actually make you seem like a bigger person..........sniveling does not..........

[tbaybee08]

My other little fishy. How cute that you found a partner. A couple more and I will have a school of little fishy's biting on my posts.


As I have explained in other threads. Detroit has White, and 5 other DE's on their roster. A couple of them are actually decent. What makes you think Detroit wants Adams when they can instantly improve their offense by taking the best player in the draft, which, also, would give them a solid receiving corps. They have one good receiver, one converted safety that has shown promise, and an overweight idiot with no work ethic. Why not stay at 2, hope oakland doesn't grab him, and draft CJ? Especially with the amount of one deminsional pass rushing DE's in this draft that are just as good as Adams.

Because they need a QB, bad.

[OnlyBucInID]

Some of us have jobs. I never back down from a discussion, you don't have to when you are correct. Welcome to the club mini moron #2.

P.S. It's noce to see my pet fishy Monty is back.

so does this mean that when you realize that you aren't correct, you won't come back anymore?? OOOHHHHHH!!! PRETTY, PRETTY PLEASE!??!?!?!

nevermind, none of us are that lucky..........

[no1bucsfan29]

so does this mean that when you realize that you aren't correct, you won't come back anymore?? OOOHHHHHH!!! PRETTY, PRETTY PLEASE!??!?!?!

nevermind, none of us are that lucky..........
Still waiting for you to prove me wrong little one.

And don't beg, it makes you look even dumber than you already do.

[no1bucsfan29]

Because they need a QB, bad.
Actually they have said repeatedly that they are happy with Kitna. Remember, they can grab a guy like Stanton with the 2nd rounder.

[no1bucsfan29]

Just because you like your math explained in Pac-Man terminology, doesn't mean you are getting it.........

If the symbol is in formula format, then yes, the "big end" points at the "big number"........If the symbols are in text format (as they previously were), then > is greater than and < is less than.

Its okay to admit you were wrong, it will actually make you seem like a bigger person..........sniveling does not..........
So, even after giving you a link that shows how it works, you either still don't get it, or refuse to admit you were wrong. It's ok, there's room in my tank for another little fishy.

[OnlyBucInID]

So, even after giving you a link that shows how it works, you either still don't get it, or refuse to admit you were wrong. It's ok, there's room in my tank for another little fishy.

You truly are a dolt.....my 10 year-old nephew understands the "greater than/less than" thing better than you already.........thats sad.........

Just because you provide a link doesn't mean it supports what you are saying. Need I say again:

"If the symbol is in formula format, then yes, the 'big end' points at the 'big number'........If the symbols are in text (i should explain apparently, that means 'in a sentence') format (as they previously were), then > is greater than and < is less than."

How many people need to tell you are wrong before you can actually realize it?? These arent' opinions, they're mathematical symbols!!

I truly am sad for America's youth if they have to deal with you on a daily basis.............

[no1bucsfan29]

greater>less.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

Or better yet, why have we been discussing < and > for 3 days now instead of talking about football?

because football > than non football

[OnlyBucInID]

Dolt...........truly sad.......poor kids.........

BTW - you were the one that started the nit-picking on the stupid symbol when you were getting on BucJordan's case about his comment regarding draft values.......since then you have had five (5!) people point out how much of a moron you look like..........and have not been able to prove any of us wrong.........just do us a favor, go look in the mirror and make it six people seeing what a true dingleberry looks like........

[no1bucsfan29]

My wife loves me though. :D

BTW, I have proven my point, in that link. Whether you agree or not is your opinion, I really couldn't care less about your opinion, but you do have a right to it, that's the great thing about being an American, you have a right to your opinion, even if it is wrong.

[OnlyBucInID]

too bad math isn't based on opinion..........

[OnlyBucInID]

greater>less.

Is it really that hard to figure out?

Or better yet, why have we been discussing < and > for 3 days now instead of talking about football?

because football > than non football

oh, and about that link........so by that rationale, then "less<greater", right?

the values should be able to be flip-flopped as long as the symbol is flip-flopped as well..........?? thats what your lesson taught anyways........

so that means BucJordan's original sentence of:

"I'm simply saying it's possible for < full chart value or more."

should be able to read as:

"Full chart value or more > I'm simply saying its possible for."

and make complete sense right?? OOOHHHH!! it doesn't?!?!? i guess that's because they didn't use the symbol in a math equation!!! crazy stuff.........just admit it slick, you are wrong.........this one isn't an "opinion".........so next time you decide to jump somebody's case, make sure you can understand the lesson plan first.........

[no1bucsfan29]

oh, and about that link........so by that rationale, then "less<greater", right?

the values should be able to be flip-flopped as long as the symbol is flip-flopped as well..........?? thats what your lesson taught anyways........

so that means BucJordan's original sentence of:

"I'm simply saying it's possible for < full chart value or more."

should be able to read as:

"Full chart value or more > I'm simply saying its possible for."

and make complete sense right?? OOOHHHH!! it doesn't?!?!? i guess that's because they didn't use the symbol in a math equation!!! crazy stuff.........just admit it slick, you are wrong.........this one isn't an "opinion".........so next time you decide to jump somebody's case, make sure you can understand the lesson plan first.........

Full value chart>less than full value chart.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[no1bucsfan29]

too bad math isn't based on opinion..........
Apparently yours is...

[OnlyBucInID]

Full value chart>less than full value chart.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

i understand..........you're right.........i now understand that trying to teach someone who is too unwilling to learn will never work.........and they will continue to try to breed their ignorance as much as they can........please don't breed........

try actually contradicting something and i may bother with a reply.........the usual reply of yours with no validity is just getting old.........please just stop trying to spread your stupidity.........i already had my vaccine........it won't work........nor will it work on the other 4 people that understand how </> works.........

"no1bf29 gray matter < sack of hammers"..........(did i get that right??)

[no1bucsfan29]

[QUOTE=OnlyBucInID]i understand..........you're right.........i now understand [QUOTE]

Surrender noted.

[OnlyBucInID]

[QUOTE=OnlyBucInID]i understand..........you're right.........i now understand [QUOTE]

Surrender noted.

in your dreams.......now go be a douche somewhere else and leave me alone....... :cool:

[no1bucsfan29]

noted twice, you don't have to beg, I have accepted your surrender, now go play hopscotch or hide n seek, whatever it is you kids play these days.

[Maverick720]

I don't see us trading up since most mock drafts have CJ falling to us. I hope that with Marinelli's history with the Bucs that he would give us a heads up on another team trying to trade up, just hoping not expecting. Then trading up wouldn't be such a bad idea.
If he's any kind of businessman he would tell EVERY team in the Top Ten that so-and-so is inquiring about trading up...Hello talk about create a competition to get the best deal...

[BucJordan]

noted twice, you don't have to beg, I have accepted your surrender, now go play hopscotch or hide n seek, whatever it is you kids play these days.


You're unforgivably moronic. As the person who made the initial comment CORRECTLY, I'll now proceed to prove you wrong. Everyone knows it already, but maybe you'll accept your idiocy. Then again, maybe not.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61562.html

3 < X The value of 3 is less than the value of X.

X < 3 The value of X is less than the value of 3.

3 > X The value of 3 is greater than the value of X.

X > 3 The value of X is greater than the value of 3.

You see, it depends on the position of what you're comparing. x > 3 and 3 < x mean the same thing, just one reads x is greater than three, and the other three is less than x. Therefore, as you can see, the open mouth always faces towards the greater thing, just as when I said (it is possible for) < (full trade chart value+), meaning that (full trade chart value+) is the greater of the two things, and the (possibility) is the lesser of the two. In addition to the fact that EVERY TIME a "<" symbol appears it reads LESS THAN, maybe you'll finally realize how dumb and stubborn you are.

Then again, maybe not, but the fact remains that you defeated yourself on this thread, you might do best by bowing out gracefully.

Math is my strong suit, I'm in AP Calc as a junior, and I know when I'm right.

Bad news for you is:

I'm right.

[no1bucsfan29]

You're unforgivably moronic. As the person who made the initial comment CORRECTLY, I'll now proceed to prove you wrong. Everyone knows it already, but maybe you'll accept your idiocy. Then again, maybe not.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61562.html

3 < X The value of 3 is less than the value of X.

X < 3 The value of X is less than the value of 3.

3 > X The value of 3 is greater than the value of X.

X > 3 The value of X is greater than the value of 3.

You see, it depends on the position of what you're comparing. x > 3 and 3 < x mean the same thing, just one reads x is greater than three, and the other three is less than x. Therefore, as you can see, the open mouth always faces towards the greater thing, just as when I said (it is possible for) < (full trade chart value+), meaning that (full trade chart value+) is the greater of the two things, and the (possibility) is the lesser of the two. In addition to the fact that EVERY TIME a "<" symbol appears it reads LESS THAN, maybe you'll finally realize how dumb and stubborn you are.

Then again, maybe not, but the fact remains that you defeated yourself on this thread, you might do best by bowing out gracefully.

Math is my strong suit, I'm in AP Calc as a junior, and I know when I'm right.

Bad news for you is:

I'm right.
Thank you for proving me right.
less<greater
greater>less

[BucJordan]

Thank you for proving me right.
less<greater
greater>less


Yes, less is less than greater, and greater is more than less. Congratulations, you might get it. Now do you see why saying < full draft chart value means "less than" full draft chart value, or are you still too thick to think that critically?

[BridgeRepair]

no1bucsfan29 please clear something up for me...

OnlyBucInID said:
"< = less than
> = greater than.."

Which is absolutely true.

Then you said:

"No mini moron.

<greater
>less"

Did you just not understand what he was saying, or do you truly believe he's incorrect? He wasn't.

EDIT: To clarify, it's obvious his intial post is supposed to be read as "< is to be read as less than. > is to be read as greater than." Did you just simply not understand that?

[BucJordan]

no1bucsfan29 please clear something up for me...

OnlyBucInID said:
"< = less than
> = greater than.."

Which is absolutely true.

Then you said:

"No mini moron.

<greater
>less"

Did you just not understand what he was saying, or do you truly believe he's incorrect? He wasn't.

EDIT: To clarify, it's obvious his intial post is supposed to be read as "< is to be read as less than. > is to be read as greater than." Did you just simply not understand that?

Exactly, in every usage of the symbols, "<" is the mathematical equivalent of saying "less than" and ">" is the mathematical equivalent of saying "more than."

EVERY SINGLE USAGE. Thus, < full draft chart value means LESS THAN full draft chart value.

Case closed, I'd just appreciate if people think before they try to point our errors that aren't even there.

[no1bucsfan29]

Exactly, in every usage of the symbols, "<" is the mathematical equivalent of saying "less than" and ">" is the mathematical equivalent of saying "more than."

EVERY SINGLE USAGE. Thus, < full draft chart value means LESS THAN full draft chart value.

Case closed, I'd just appreciate if people think before they try to point our errors that aren't even there.
< See that little open side of the figure. It always aims at the greater side. ALWAYS. the closed end points tot he smaller side. ALWAYS. So what you put when you used that little figure, in taking that little figure for what it literally is, is this. GREATER than the full draft value.

If you meant to use the little figure in any other way than what it is literally meant for, then yes, I took it the wrong way. If you meant to use it leterally, then I took it the right way, and you aimed it the wrong way because literally spreaking, the open side, the "mouth" is greater.

[BridgeRepair]

I just can't understand how you'd mistake "< = less than" as anything other than "< is to be read as less than."

[no1bucsfan29]

I just can't understand how you'd mistake "< = less than" as anything other than "< is to be read as less than."
BR, Look at the man's own link and post.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61562.html

3 < X The value of 3 is less than the value of X.

X < 3 The value of X is less than the value of 3.

3 > X The value of 3 is greater than the value of X.

X > 3 The value of X is greater than the value of 3

Notice the bigger number is always at the open of the figure. less<greater>less.
Greater is always at the open side, less is always the smaller side. If he wanted to say less than the value, he should have said >the value.

[BridgeRepair]

That's great, but look at this:

< = less than

...

What did you think the equals sign meant? Did you just disregard it? It's absolutely okay to admit "I was in a rush and just didn't read it." You don't have to admit anything. You don't have to respond to this message, nor I.

I just can't comprehend how you took "< = less than" as incorrect, when to me it obviously read as "< is to be read as less than."

[no1bucsfan29]

That's great, but look at this:

< = less than

...

What did you think the equals sign meant? Did you just disregard it? It's absolutely okay to admit "I was in a rush and just didn't read it." You don't have to admit anything. You don't have to respond to this message, nor I.

I just can't comprehend how you took "< = less than" as incorrect, when to me it obviously read as "< is to be read as less than."
The thing you don't seem to get is that I'm not advocating trading up for CJ. I'm simply saying it's possible for < full chart value or more.

Honestly I would rather sit and take what comes to us, or even better I'd rather trade down to the 6-10 range and get a defensive star.

Show me this = sign that you saw in this post...
He is saying it's possible to move up for GREATER<full chart value or MORE. His words, not mine.

[OnlyBucInID]

guys - n01bucfan29 knows he is wrong..........he is just messing with you guys.........nobody can really be this obtuse..........

[Buccs99]

Steuber = eagles fan.

Someone show me his mock draft from last year and how he did. then I will believe it. until then, this is all his speculation.

[BucJordan]

The thing you don't seem to get is that I'm not advocating trading up for CJ. I'm simply saying it's possible for < full chart value or more.

Honestly I would rather sit and take what comes to us, or even better I'd rather trade down to the 6-10 range and get a defensive star.

Show me this = sign that you saw in this post...
He is saying it's possible to move up for GREATER<full chart value or MORE. His words, not mine.


Hey moron, if the bigger, open end is facing the "full chart value or more" that means the other side, what I'm proposing, is the LESSER.

[BucJordan]

guys - n01bucfan29 knows he is wrong..........he is just messing with you guys.........nobody can really be this obtuse..........


I really, really hope so. If i dumb myself down a whole lot, I can almost see how he could get confused.

Almost is the key word up there ^

[BucFanFrom1976]

BR, Look at the man's own link and post.

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/61562.html

3 < X The value of 3 is less than the value of X.

X < 3 The value of X is less than the value of 3.

3 > X The value of 3 is greater than the value of X.

X > 3 The value of X is greater than the value of 3

Notice the bigger number is always at the open of the figure. less<greater>less.
Greater is always at the open side, less is always the smaller side. If he wanted to say less than the value, he should have said >the value.

I'm a programmer for a living. I use the "<", "=", ">" signs every day.

Since we read from left to right, the 1st value is compared to the 2nd value so the "<" sign is always read as "less than". For the formula "X<Y", we always would say "X is less than Y", not "Y is greater than X", even though both are mathematically true. Conversely, if we wanted to say "X>Y" you would always say "X greater than Y". The "<" sign means "less than", the ">" sign means "greater than", always period. You can argue that the statement may be wrong, that X is not less than Y, but the "<" symbol stands for "less than" always.

Oh, If I'm a moron, you must be an complete idiot. You see moron > complete idiot.

More examples.

Me>You
no1bucsfan<BucFanFrom1976
You<5th grade math student

[Head173]

I'm a programmer for a living.

More power to ya! Dot Net programmer here! What is your main platform?¿

[no1bucsfan29]

I'm a programmer for a living. I use the "<", "=", ">" signs every day.

Since we read from left to right, the 1st value is compared to the 2nd value so the "<" sign is always read as "less than". For the formula "X<Y", we always would say "X is less than Y", not "Y is greater than X", even though both are mathematically true. Conversely, if we wanted to say "X>Y" you would always say "X greater than Y". The "<" sign means "less than", the ">" sign means "greater than", always period. You can argue that the statement may be wrong, that X is not less than Y, but the "<" symbol stands for "less than" always.

Oh, If I'm a moron, you must be an complete idiot. You see moron > complete idiot.

More examples.

Me>You
no1bucsfan<BucFanFrom1976
You<5th grade math student
SO, in his orignal, where he said, <full value chart or more. What he essintially said is if the trade was done, it would cost less than the value chart...or more than the value chart since he included the word "more" after.
Which really doesn't make much sense in terms of an intelligent post, therefor i'm sure you can see the confusion form my point of view as I was trying to give him credit enough not to make such a simpleton's post.

As for ther rest of your very insulting statement that I'm sure was meant to hurt my feelings, if you are a moron, it sounds like a personal problem, but since you can admit it, maybe you can find help for it. Is there a moron's anonomous?

BTW, making the little ball bounce accross the screen on your commodore 64 does not make you a programmer.