NFL Draft Paxton Lynch - Page 50

O.city · 10-17-2015, 11:48 AM

Qb from Memphis, on ABC right now against Ole miss.

He's endorsed by Sacofbats so, take caution, but I'm intrigued

Sweet Daddy Hate · 05-04-2016, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Denver has the second best QB situation in the AFC West behind Oakland.

If we're judging on known quantities and not hope, I'd say it falls like this:

SD (Rivers, regardless of shitty team because "QB"#onlytruefranchiseQBindivision)

KC ( because team makes up for a metric shit-ton in this regard, and because KC has good depth )

OAK ( because Carr has proven he can win a game or three, and because OAK seems to be getting a little better )

DEN (because hope in one hand and butt-fumble in the other)

BleedingRed · 05-04-2016, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Denver has the second best QB situation in the AFC West behind Oakland.

Discuss Thrower · 05-04-2016, 05:30 PM

San Diego and KC are tied because while they have a starting QB they're both older than 30 and they don't have any a prospect that looks capable to take the reins in 3+ years from now.

In contrast, Oakland is set to lock down Carr for the rest of his twenties and have a guy that some argue has starter upside in Cook while Denver has a vet on a one year prove-it or lose-it deal with a prospect QB many thought as having starter upside two or three years down the line.

Basically, if Carr sucks, Oakland has competition in Cook or will suck bad enough to draft someone else should they so desire. If he's awesome they can lock him down.

If Sanchez sucks they can see what they have in Lynch. If he's good but not great then they can get him on another short deal or let him walk and sign another journeyman to hold the fort until Lynch is ready. If Lynch still isn't ready they'll probably suck and can draft a guy. If Lynch is awesome right off the bat then they've got a good backup for a year in Sanchez. If Lynch and Sanchez both suck they can be in a position to draft someone next year.

Kansas City has Smith and then garbage, San Diego has Rivers and then garbage.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 05-04-2016, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

San Diego and KC are tied because while they have a starting QB they're both older than 30 and they don't have any a prospect that looks capable to take the reins in 3+ years from now.

In contrast, Oakland is set to lock down Carr for the rest of his twenties and have a guy that some argue has starter upside in Cook while Denver has a vet on a one year prove-it or lose-it deal with a prospect QB many thought as having starter upside two or three years down the line.

Basically, if Carr sucks, Oakland has competition in Cook or will suck bad enough to draft someone else should they so desire. If he's awesome they can lock him down.

If Sanchez sucks they can see what they have in Lynch. If he's good but not great then they can get him on another short deal or let him walk and sign another journeyman to hold the fort until Lynch is ready. If Lynch still isn't ready they'll probably suck and can draft a guy. If Lynch is awesome right off the bat then they've got a good backup for a year in Sanchez. If Lynch and Sanchez both suck they can be in a position to draft someone next year.

Kansas City has Smith and then garbage, San Diego has Rivers and then garbage.

I was thinking in terms of QB's that can give you immediate gratification and wins.

As far as prospects behind the lead, the list falls like this:

Denver

OAK

KC

SD

BlackOp · 05-04-2016, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby Waller

bacon and women smoking cigarettes

Take a look at this video...it's just one sample of how 20-25 news outlets repeat the same EXACT phrase..,

This is pulse-programming...no conspiracy about it. It's happening.. It's getting the drone-bots to repeat tag lines and molding their reality.

Their world is what the media tells them it is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_Kx7UKndI

Toby Waller · 05-04-2016, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackOp

Take a look at this video...it's just one sample of how 20-25 news outlets repeat the same EXACT phrase..,

This is pulse-programming...no conspiracy about it. It's happening.. It's getting the drone-bots to repeat tag lines and molding their reality.

Their world is what the media tells them it is...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_Kx7UKndI

I've seen others on youtube do variations of that too

BlackOp · 05-04-2016, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby Waller

I've seen others on youtube do variations of that too

That wasn't necessarily for you...it's for the bots. I figured you already knew this. To see it repeated like that...which only is available, now, because of modern tech...should make others start to wake up.

Society has been duped...they view us as profit cattle.

JakeLV · 05-05-2016, 10:54 AM

Anybody see this:

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/05/01/n...nes-peter-king

I guess we were willing to trade back even before Paxton Lynch was taken.

staylor26 · 05-05-2016, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JakeLV

Anybody see this:

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/05/01/n...nes-peter-king

I guess we were willing to trade back even before Paxton Lynch was taken.

Yea it's pretty obvious we didn't want Lynch, but people will keep running with that narrative.

Quesadilla Joe · 05-05-2016, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26

Yea it's pretty obvious we didn't want Lynch, but people will keep running with that narrative.

The Chiefs could've had no idea who the Cowboys were going after. For all they knew they could've been trading up for Jack or some other defensive player. It's not like these teams tell each other who they're trading up for, the Cowboys almost traded down with the Ravens but were scared they were going after Elliot so they passed.

The Chiefs could've told the Cowboys that if their guy (Lynch) was gone then they'd be willing to trade down.

**BossChief** · 05-05-2016, 11:04 AM

We did want lynch. You don't send scouts to all of a players games unless you really want him.

Just watch Dorseys interview after the first round and read his body language.

When he says "then Denver did what they do"...he had the look of frustration on his face.

I hate to say it, but it was a look of "they jumped us again...feels like Emmanuwl Sanders all over again"

I'm a big Dorsey fan, but he needs to be more aggressive sometimes to get the big deals finalized.

staylor26 · 05-05-2016, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnowMo2724

The Chiefs could've had no idea who the Cowboys were going after. For all they knew they could've been trading up for Jack or some other defensive player. It's not like these teams tell each other who they're going after, the Cowboys almost traded down with the Ravens but were scared they were going after Elliot so they passed.

The Chiefs could've told the Cowboys that if their guy (Lynch) was gone then they'd be willing to trade down.

What does it matter who the Cowboys were taking (even though you're a ****ing idiot if you don't think Dorsey knew)? If we were willing to trade down and miss out on the opportunity to draft Lynch, that's all that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BossChief

We did want lynch. You don't send scouts to all of a players games unless you really want him.

Just watch Dorseys interview after the first round and read his body language.

When he says "then Denver did what they do"...he had the look of frustration on his face.

I hate to say it, but it was a look of "they jumped us again...feels like Emmanuwl Sanders all over again"

I'm a big Dorsey fan, but he needs to be more aggressive sometimes to get the big deals finalized.

Wow Boss, you read wayyyyy too much into these press conferences. That's pure speculation.

The fact is, whether they "liked" Lynch or not, they were willing to pass him up for a 3rd rounder.

Quesadilla Joe · 05-05-2016, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by staylor26

What does it matter who the Cowboys were taking (even though you're a ****ing idiot if you don't think Dorsey knew)? If we were willing to trade down and miss out on the opportunity to draft Lynch, that's all that matters.

Like I said, the Chiefs could've told the Cowboys that they'd trade down if their guy was gone.

staylor26 · 05-05-2016, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KnowMo2724

Like I said, the Chiefs could've told the Cowboys that they'd trade down if their guy was gone.

Ok, so the Cowboys were wasting their time talking trade with a team that would only trade if the guy the Cowboys wanted was gone?

Whatever you want to believe KnowMo....

saphojunkie · 05-05-2016, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby Waller

You disagreeing with me doesn't make what I say a conspiracy.
You've been taught to use that term to sweep away anything you don't understand. What I actually am is a skeptic.
I view sports as pro wrestling and you dont. My opinion doesn't harm you . I picked Denver to win a super bowl because I knew the league wanted it. You picked Denver to win because you root for them. I'll analyze sports the way I want and you can analyze the way you want. It has nothing to with conspiracy.
Or it could be said that you believe in the conspiracy that nothing is wrong.

People like you shouldn't be allowed access to the internet. It's unhealthy.

10-17-2015, 11:48 AM
O.city In Search of a Life Join Date: Jul 2009 Casino cash: $2484064	Paxton Lynch Qb from Memphis, on ABC right now against Ole miss. He's endorsed by Sacofbats so, take caution, but I'm intrigued
Posts: 81,444

05-04-2016, 05:30 PM	#738
Discuss Thrower "You like to drink?" Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: "I like to drink." Casino cash: $2936869	San Diego and KC are tied because while they have a starting QB they're both older than 30 and they don't have any a prospect that looks capable to take the reins in 3+ years from now. In contrast, Oakland is set to lock down Carr for the rest of his twenties and have a guy that some argue has starter upside in Cook while Denver has a vet on a one year prove-it or lose-it deal with a prospect QB many thought as having starter upside two or three years down the line. Basically, if Carr sucks, Oakland has competition in Cook or will suck bad enough to draft someone else should they so desire. If he's awesome they can lock him down. If Sanchez sucks they can see what they have in Lynch. If he's good but not great then they can get him on another short deal or let him walk and sign another journeyman to hold the fort until Lynch is ready. If Lynch still isn't ready they'll probably suck and can draft a guy. If Lynch is awesome right off the bat then they've got a good backup for a year in Sanchez. If Lynch and Sanchez both suck they can be in a position to draft someone next year. Kansas City has Smith and then garbage, San Diego has Rivers and then garbage. __________________ Chiefs 2016 Opponents: Home: JAX, TEN, NO, TB, NYJ. Away: HOU, IND, ATL, CAR, PIT Chiefs 2017 Opponents: Home: BUF, MIA, PHI, WSH, AFC North. Away: NE, NYJ, NYG, DAL, AFC South
Posts: 42,910

05-05-2016, 10:54 AM	#743
JakeLV Veteran Join Date: Nov 2013 Casino cash: $9976352	Anybody see this: http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/05/01/n...nes-peter-king I guess we were willing to trade back even before Paxton Lynch was taken.
Posts: 1,163

05-05-2016, 11:04 AM	#746
BossChief SuperBowl or bust Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: BF Iowa Casino cash: $1574088	We did want lynch. You don't send scouts to all of a players games unless you really want him. Just watch Dorseys interview after the first round and read his body language. When he says "then Denver did what they do"...he had the look of frustration on his face. I hate to say it, but it was a look of "they jumped us again...feels like Emmanuwl Sanders all over again" I'm a big Dorsey fan, but he needs to be more aggressive sometimes to get the big deals finalized. __________________ Dreams do come true... http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showp...postcount=1407
Posts: 47,174