Top 10 funny names of animal groups
Now, we've all heard of a murder of crows or a plague of locusts, but I think it's time to compile a list of ridiculous and obscure animal group names: (note: these ARE all accurate, believe it or not...I couldn't make this up if I tried)
10. A parliament of owls
9. An ostentation of Peacocks
8. A tower of Giraffes
7. A gaze of raccoons
6. A romp of otters
5. A fall of woodcocks (wtf is a woodcock?)
4. A shrewdness of Apes
3. A business of ferrets
2. A bloat of hippopotamuses (hippopotomai?)
1. A Storytelling of Ravens
posted by Machiavelli | 5:07 PM
2 Comments:
Look at this post I totally wrote myself:
I don’t understand the obsession with DT. First of all, all a DT does in a 3-4 is fill gaps. That means he just needs to be big and work hard. We already have a big guy (Franklin) and decent backups (like Sopoaga). Why would we draft a guy like Branch who doesn’t work hard?
I’m also tired of the arguement that we were running a 4-3 last year because lack of depth at line…that just makes no sense. Why would we INCREASE the number of linemen on the field if we didn’t have enough?? We ran the 3-4 because Ulbrich and Smith were injured, Lawson was too experienced, and we didn’t have enough LBs. We were missing a true NT, but that’s why we went and got Franklin. A lot of these mock drafts have us taking Branch just because they can’t figure out what the Bills are going to do. If the Bills don’t take Willis, these analysts can’t figure out how the draft is going to turn out (trades?) so they make us take Branch despite the fact that we don’t need him. (That is a stupid way to run a mock draft, by the way).
Also, the phrase “in a draft you either take the BPA or the best fit” is also a load of BS. No franchise really thinks like that. You take the best player available at positions that you have roster space for improvement. For example, even if Russel or Quinn fall to #11, the 9ers are not going to take a QB, nor are they likely to spend a high pick on RBs, TEs, or CBs. Luckily (?) the 9ers have space at just about every position, which increases their chances of selecting the BPA.
With that understanding, I think Willis is the best choice, because he’s probably the best defensive player in the draft (possibly with the exception of Gaines Adams). Carriker is a good fit, but it’s not really worth it to take a non-pass rushing DE at number 11 and the 9ers have needs everywhere, so it’s not as if they need to find an area for a guy to make an impact. Branch is neither a good fit, nor an appropriate guy to take at #11. At #11 you want a guy at a value position, not a hole filling DT that has trouble playing a whole game or making an impact against offensive linemen. The other guy that I’m seeing on mock drafts is Ted Ginn, Jr. I don’t understand this AT ALL. #11 is way too high for basically a KR with poor route running skills. I should also point out that Ginn is no Devin Hester despite what the comparisons that analysts are making. If the 9ers want a receiver they should trade down or up into the late 1st round or just wait in the 2nd round for Sidney Rice or something. The value difference between Ginn and Gonzalez or Ginn and Bowe or Jarret is not significant enough to warrant taking him so early.
If Willis is gone, then I could see taking Carriker and even Branch (if the organization sees Branch as a better player), but if he’s available, I don’t see why they would pass on him.
In case you didn't get my joke go check out 49ers news. Someone reposted your post and pretended it was theirs. That is so awesome of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home