WhitewalkerInPhilly

Shhhh, keep it down! You'll awaken the trolls! Allen is, to be blunt, a very polarizing figure, but he's ours. But we really like Edmunds (possible captain of our defense for the next 10 years), Phillips (Kyle William's successor) and Teller (no idea how he dropped that far). The Packers are always classy when they face us. I want to kick your ass, but in the best possible way man. Good luck (other than playing vs Philly and Buffalo!)

I am going under. I think this is the year that we really feel out our weaknesses and bloody a bunch of rookies. I think 2019 is when they free up a ton of cap space, and can hit the ground running.

IIRC Beckham is due for free agency, right? I mean, not that I particularly want him, but he would likely be a market setter.

Jeff, is that you?

At this point, I am accepting Mills at RT. At this point, I think the best we can hope for is Teller-Groy-Miller

Tip of the cap sir. You are one of my favorite posters here. That looks like a pretty dang solid base D. I think that for the nickel, LorAx might drop into DE in place of Shaq. We also have decent depth in the secondary with Johnson and Neal.

I am also keeping an keen eye on the salary cap. We should have plenty of money and some great WRs potentially hitting free agency. My biggest worry is that we push Allen out too fast before he is ready, and he gets the EJ treatment: a freak physical talent who needs to ride the bench for a while getting shoved into a situation with few WR targets and a poor O-line.

I agree. I just wish that we had a bit more talent in the trenches on O-line

I am not the biggest fan of the Allen pick, but now that he's here, I want the best chance for him to succeed. To me, that makes the first, second and third priority for the rest of this draft to rebuild the O-line. A line of Dawkins-Ducasse-Groy-Miller-Mills scares the piss out of me. If you want a rookie to succeed, it helps to: A) Protect him as well as possible to give him time as he acclimates to the game and B) Have a strong running game so defenders don't pin their ears back In both situations, we drastically need to bolster the interior and RT IMHO.

NFL.com profile compares him to Brian Urlacher. I would be thrilled to have that in the middle of the defense

Legit question, I don't know if it was answered anywhere else in the thread: What position LB does he play? I know we are weak at both MLB and SLB, does he play a hybrid of those?

OK. I have moved from dissapointment to acceptance. Months ago, I wrote up my plan for the 2018 offseason. That plan included Tyrod hanging around after this point, but I said words to the effect of "I want the rookie with the most long term upside, even if you have to sit him for a year" McCarron isn't so terrible that I mind him starting the season. If Allen wins the job from him fair and square, all the better. This is a rebuilding year any way you cut it gents. It would have been with Tyrod or any other rookie we took. This year, we see our gaps, bloody our rookie QB and go into 2019 with a boat load of cap space.

Ugggghhh. Rosen was there for the taking.

Josh Rosen's sisters were cute too

Well, if he was partying with Irsay last night, there is a decent chance that there's vomit on his sweater already.

Whew. If Kiper and McShay are predicting it, it almost certainly won't come to pass. It's a mockery I tell you!

Music to my earholes.

That's a bold move Cotton, let's see if it pays off for them.

...what? The "dude" asked when people had previously taken his guns away. If you want to press a constitutional issue, that's a deeper question, but let us at least state for the record that with the current laws, a man who, upon multiple occasions, had shown violent aberrant behavior, had his guns returned to him I can did deep and debate the constituionality until I am blue in the face. We can circle on the role of government, and what force it can take and form all types of syllogisms But lets get down to brass tacks. No BS This is a man who a blind deaf and dumb moron could tell was dangerous. And with the laws, as they are, he was returned weapons of deadly force. Multiple times. And then, he went on a rampage. He bought his weapons legally. They were returned to him, legally. Everything was legal until he walked up and shot a whole bunch of people. If you think this is ok, I don't know how to debate with you, because you live in a fantasy world where that is ok. Nice snow job. You asked for evidence that the defendant had his weapons seized and returned to him. I have provided it. Not only are you ignoring that I have provided evidence that supports that the assailant had his weapons seized and returned to him, you change the subject to trying to attack my grammar. You try to seize upon one flaw to ignore the multitude of flaws in your argument. Shame. Shame on you.

the read the !@#$ing article

That...the dude was asking for my sources that the defendant had his guns revoked before the incident... That...I was asked for evidence to my claim and provided it?

Ahhh, my favorite subversive Ruskie. As you are clearly unfamiliar in the American Constituion and its amendments, you would not know that the there are limits. You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Free speech does not extend to telling an accomplice to murder someone. So, am I ok with banning certain weapons outside of a well regulated militia? Yes. If someone is a clear and present danger, is there an overwhelming public good to prevent immanent disaster? I am ok with it. But let's have some common sense **** here gentlemen. Or, maybe, or, if he is clearly an imminent risk, we, oh I don't know MAKE IT HARDER FOR HIM TO GET AN AR-15 And again, his lack of an extended magazine saved lives. So how are we even debating this part? Oh, right, you didn't because you have no leg to stand on.

WOW. Way to sidestep the issue. You 2nd amendment wonks love the "right to bear arms" part while ignoring the "well regulated militia" part. Let's compromise and say "You want these guns? You have to sign up for proper regulation and training, solely for the purpose of functioning in your militia unit" There, constitutional problem solved. Or do you just want to be a man baby?

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized

Libcuck? Nice. Did you type that out while vaping and oiling your neckbeard? Except here's the part you are glossing over: a big reason that the government failed to save lives, is that with laws as written law enforcement had no ability to permanently take them away: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/23/605044996/why-the-waffle-house-shooting-suspect-had-access-to-guns-after-his-were-seized I think there's a reasonable debate to be had whether citizens should have some form of compulsory military training to act as a militia in case of invasion, but there's a lot of untrained people out there with guns and none of the training to use them safely. Assuming that everybody packing in that Waffle House would have made things safer is crazy. I have BEEN to my share of Waffle Houses, and no one makes good decisions in them.