Who do you think is going in the First to the Birds?

MURP · April 25, 2006, 04:47:47 PM

read on Igglephans that Vai called into WIP and spoke about Reid attempting to help recruit NGata to BYU. anyone else got the word on that?

Feva · April 25, 2006, 04:48:46 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on April 25, 2006, 04:18:06 PM
Oakland might actually be trading up for Hawk.

That would make some sense. Otherwise, I can't see Oakland's motivation for moving up... since they've had a hard on for Vince Young for months now. Because if Young is there at #4... he'll be there at #7 since GB or SF don't seem interested. Makes no sense to give up extra picks to move up to get someone who will likely fall to you anyway.

ice grillin you · April 25, 2006, 04:50:52 PM

if the birds move to 8 it better be for huff

SunMo · April 25, 2006, 04:52:09 PM

werd

PoopyfaceMcGee · April 25, 2006, 04:54:35 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 25, 2006, 04:50:52 PM
if the birds move to 8 it better be for huff

Couldn't agree more. The value isn't there for anyone else.

PhillyPhreak54 · April 25, 2006, 07:42:59 PM

Ngata at 8 would be good.

And as much as I love Bunkley, I think I would prefer Ngata first.

Rome · April 25, 2006, 08:04:03 PM

I agree, Jay. "8" for Ngata would be as far as I'd go considering what they'd have to give up to get him.

The BIGSTUD · April 25, 2006, 08:13:08 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on April 25, 2006, 04:54:35 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 25, 2006, 04:50:52 PM
if the birds move to 8 it better be for huff

Couldn't agree more. The value isn't there for anyone else.

You are way too caught up in value IMO. Bunkley or Ngata at 8 is fine value. They are very good DTs. Is Bunkley ideal for around 12? Probably, but you don't trade up to take a player you don't need just because his value is better. We need a DT. If we trade up it better be for a DT.

Brian Dawkins will be re-signed along with Lewis anyway. We have little need for Huff.

PhillyPhanInDC · April 25, 2006, 08:25:31 PM

Quote from: Philly Forever on April 25, 2006, 08:13:08 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on April 25, 2006, 04:54:35 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 25, 2006, 04:50:52 PM
if the birds move to 8 it better be for huff

Couldn't agree more. The value isn't there for anyone else.

You are way too caught up in value IMO. Bunkley or Ngata at 8 is fine value. They are very good DTs. Is Bunkley ideal for around 12? Probably, but you don't trade up to take a player you don't need just because his value is better. We need a DT. If we trade up it better be for a DT.

Brian Dawkins will be re-signed along with Lewis anyway. We have little need for Huff.

Drivel. 100%, pure drivel.

ice grillin you · April 25, 2006, 08:29:38 PM

not only do they need huff to one day take over for dawk...but he also would be the third corner next year...hell he might be that this year

its not about value at 8...its about having to give up multiple draft picks to get there...no dt in this draft is that good

PhillyPhreak54 · April 25, 2006, 08:36:16 PM

Huff is a stud. If they got him, I'd be happy/sad.

Sad because Dawk would likely be done, unless Huff plays SS. And that means Mike would be gone.

But happy because he'd be a stud.

But, and I'll break out IGY's favorite term here because I know he'll love it, they have to get better at the POINT OF ATTACK

and need another stud DT.

The BIGSTUD · April 25, 2006, 11:24:16 PM

Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on April 25, 2006, 08:25:31 PM
Quote from: Philly Forever on April 25, 2006, 08:13:08 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on April 25, 2006, 04:54:35 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on April 25, 2006, 04:50:52 PM
if the birds move to 8 it better be for huff

Couldn't agree more. The value isn't there for anyone else.

You are way too caught up in value IMO. Bunkley or Ngata at 8 is fine value. They are very good DTs. Is Bunkley ideal for around 12? Probably, but you don't trade up to take a player you don't need just because his value is better. We need a DT. If we trade up it better be for a DT.

Brian Dawkins will be re-signed along with Lewis anyway. We have little need for Huff.

Drivel. 100%, pure drivel.

Then let's trade up for Cutler if he falls. It would be a rgeat value pick. Because we have as much need for Cutler as we do Huff, considering the secondary is the biggest strength on the team.

Drunkmasterflex · April 25, 2006, 11:28:30 PM

The difference is that Huff would actually contribute this season and QB is not a position you want to tie that much money in.

The BIGSTUD · April 25, 2006, 11:35:05 PM

Wouldn't contribute a lot this year. He'd be at safety and would be behind Dawk and Lewis.

The Eagles are plenty deep in the secondary. Huff would just be a bad pick. Great player, but we don't need him.

Drunkmasterflex · April 25, 2006, 11:40:10 PM

Quote from: Philly Forever on April 25, 2006, 11:35:05 PM
Wouldn't contribute a lot this year. He'd be at safety and would be behind Dawk and Lewis.

The Eagles are plenty deep in the secondary. Huff would just be a bad pick. Great player, but we don't need him.

Well, he also can play corner which would make him a valuable nickle/dime back. Also in case you haven't noticed AR and company like to draft with an eye toward the future and Dawk is not getting any younger and both Lewis and Hood could be UFAs after next season. I don't think they would trade up for Huff but if they did I would be very happy he is an impact player. Also don't forget he would immediately help on special teams.