Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Jon Baldwin

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default Jon Baldwin


    0 Not allowed!
    I'm pumped about having someone on ye other side of Bowe. But reading this article, I hope it's a homerun and not a bust. What's your thoughts?

    http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/2/1/...-wr-pittsburgh

  2. #11
    Member Since
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Love him. Watched him play for Pitt. Hope it's nice come game time.................

  3. #12
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,123
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Well, I am disapointed that we seem to have made a major reach with our first round pick, and again opted to leave the undewhelming OTs as-is (pending the FA period).

    But there really is no questioning that it addresses a major need, and, in my opinion, our single biggest positional need at WR.

    And I REALLY liked the rest of our draft to this point.

    Not sure what the plan is for the DE. But the LB was a fabulous bargain in the third round. Just hope the character concerns are all under control, and/or over-rated.

    And I really like that we seem to have taken a serious stab at manning the C spot along the O-line. (At least I HOPE he plays C. We are already pretty heavy on OGs.)

    I would have preferred a guy to compete at both OT spots in the first.

    But this draft is the easiest to swallow since Vermiel and Roaf left us.

    I don't think there is anything that could go so wrong in the remaining couple of rounds to make me not like this draft.

  4. #13
    Member Since
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    10,594
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 3

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Well, I am disapointed that we seem to have made a major reach with our first round pick, and again opted to leave the undewhelming OTs as-is (pending the FA period).

    But there really is no questioning that it addresses a major need, and, in my opinion, our single biggest positional need at WR.

    And I REALLY liked the rest of our draft to this point.

    Not sure what the plan is for the DE. But the LB was a fabulous bargain in the third round. Just hope the character concerns are all under control, and/or over-rated.

    And I really like that we seem to have taken a serious stab at manning the C spot along the O-line. (At least I HOPE he plays C. We are already pretty heavy on OGs.)

    I would have preferred a guy to compete at both OT spots in the first.

    But this draft is the easiest to swallow since Vermiel and Roaf left us.

    I don't think there is anything that could go so wrong in the remaining couple of rounds to make me not like this draft.
    I Completely agree

  5. #14
    Member Since
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,064
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 78
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    I agree that Baldwin was a reach at the spot we took him. But reaching to fill our biggest area of need is somewhat acceptable. He wouldn't have been there when we picked again in the 2nd rd. Rumors are that the chiefs wanted to trade down but couldn't find any willing partners. I also think the frenzy of the ravens missing their pick impacted our ability to trade out of the spot.


  6. #15
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,871
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 104
    Given: 3

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Not sure about the reach comments. Rumor has it the Bears tried to trade up with Baltimore and had the deal done, in efforts pick Baldwin before the Chiefs did. The trade deal was a done deal but not given to the NFL in time so the 26th pick expired before a selections. The Chiefs supposedly turned their pick in immediately once this happened, to make sure they got Baldwin before that 26th confusion didn't get cleared up.

    He was projected to go 29th to the Bears, but the Chiefs trading back, complicated that for the Bears.

    While is a rumor and no one will ever confirm it to save face, but I believe he was going 26th either to the Bears or the Chiefs, so it wasn't a reach.

  7. #16
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,310
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    Not sure about the reach comments. Rumor has it the Bears tried to trade up with Baltimore and had the deal done, in efforts pick Baldwin before the Chiefs did. The trade deal was a done deal but not given to the NFL in time so the 26th pick expired before a selections. The Chiefs supposedly turned their pick in immediately once this happened, to make sure they got Baldwin before that 26th confusion didn't get cleared up.

    He was projected to go 29th to the Bears, but the Chiefs trading back, complicated that for the Bears.

    While is a rumor and no one will ever confirm it to save face, but I believe he was going 26th either to the Bears or the Chiefs, so it wasn't a reach.
    There's an insider story on ESPN about this that I'd be really curious to see. Does anyone have insider access? The headline is "Ravens-Bears trade snafu fallout" and the blurb says "Will league force second-round trade?". So I'd be really curious if that was what you were referring to.

  8. #17
    Member Since
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    794
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    Not sure about the reach comments. Rumor has it the Bears tried to trade up with Baltimore and had the deal done, in efforts pick Baldwin before the Chiefs did. The trade deal was a done deal but not given to the NFL in time so the 26th pick expired before a selections. The Chiefs supposedly turned their pick in immediately once this happened, to make sure they got Baldwin before that 26th confusion didn't get cleared up.

    He was projected to go 29th to the Bears, but the Chiefs trading back, complicated that for the Bears.

    While is a rumor and no one will ever confirm it to save face, but I believe he was going 26th either to the Bears or the Chiefs, so it wasn't a reach.
    Pretty sure this is right. Read a quote from Pioli saying that they acutally did have suitors calling to trade up, but when the whole Bears-Ravens fiasco went down, it made Pioli pull the trigger ASAP on him to ensure that we got him.

    You gotta realize too, he was projected as an early 2nd round pick 33-40, pick 26 was only 7 picks away from the 2nd round.... not much of a reach. Now if he was projected to be there for us in round 2 (which I never saw a mock that had him available a 55) then I would be more upset, but I think he's got alot of upside and it will be nasty if Haley gets the production out of him and Bowe that Haley has been known for.

  9. #18
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,932
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 58
    Given: 22

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Baldwin was pretty much the consensus 3rd best WR in the draft, so I don't think it's a huge reach. IMO he probably wouldn't have made it past Cleveland in round 2, if not sooner. I imagine the Packers might have thought about him too w/ Driver being a dinosaur and Jones an impending FA.
    Diehard Fan Living in Packer Territory

    Co-Founder: 2 Mugs Fantasy Football -- a site about and football!

  10. #19
    Member Since
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    794
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryfo18 View Post
    Baldwin was pretty much the consensus 3rd best WR in the draft, so I don't think it's a huge reach. IMO he probably wouldn't have made it past Cleveland in round 2, if not sooner. I imagine the Packers might have thought about him too w/ Driver being a dinosaur and Jones an impending FA.
    They actually did take Randall Cobb in round 2 I believe, so this was actually a possibility.

  11. #20
    Member Since
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,064
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 78
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by OPLookn View Post
    There's an insider story on ESPN about this that I'd be really curious to see. Does anyone have insider access? The headline is "Ravens-Bears trade snafu fallout" and the blurb says "Will league force second-round trade?". So I'd be really curious if that was what you were referring to.
    I went to the draft this year. Teams like Baltimore that took the entire 10 minutes and then didn't even make a trade were annoying as hell. Cowboys did the same thing, no surprise there. They need to shorten the clock in the 1st round. It was pretty funny to see Baltimore/KC scurrying to get the pick in. I really had no idea who they were going to take. Evryone they were targeting was still on the board at 21. By pick 26, 2-3 players on the Chiefs board were gone.

    All that said, this was the best draft on paper I have seen the Chiefs have in a long time. Better than last year's draft class on paper. Last year, I remember several people on this forum screaming about how bad the draft went. Last year's class turned out to be great, but it wasn't great on paper. It didn't fill many of our positions of need. This year's draft class seems to be better, let's hope they live up to the billing. If the 2011 class is as good as the '10 class, then there will be a new powerhouse in the AFC West.
    Last edited by Coach; 05-07-2011 at 08:24 AM.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •