Mike Mayock's Mock Draft - Page 3

twiz · 04-25-2012, 08:02 PM

I'm good with Blackmon/Martin, big fan of both players. Would definitely still need to add a speedster WR later on though.

KCStud · 04-25-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

I don't like Barron for KC. S is like ILB for me. Kendrick Lewis and Jovan Belcher are "good enough" where they are. I think taking a safety that high would be a waste of great draft position.

Romeo plays a lot of subsets though in the nickel in dime. A LB comes off the field and a DB comes on. McGraw played a tone in 2010 in Romeo's defense even with Berry.

Barron would be on the field about 70% of the time. Love it.

DeCastro, Keuchly and Barron are immediate impact players. All the other guys available at the 11th pick should be projects or guys that have questions.

twiz · 04-25-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triumphdog

I personally think the Browns taking Trent Richardson at #4, then Stephen Hill at #22 would be a great thing for them.

Agreed. However, I'm good both ways. I don't want Wright, though. I don't like how his offseason has gone. Yes, you can look at the film, but how much is RG3 and how much is Wright? Hill's upside is just great too. I'm a big Blackmon fan as well. Yeah he's not fast, but his range is incredible and he plays strong. Love to have him with Little, then get a speedster for the slot.

PACKmanN · 04-25-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

So much nut hugging for Richardson. The dude is good no doubt but he's good at a position that has lost a lot of value. I'd rather spend that 1st on something better and use the 3rd on a serviceable RB. Its been proven you can win with a RB by committee set up.

Would you rather spend a 1st on a running back or a 2nd and 3rd on a running back by committee

twiz · 04-25-2012, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

Pete Prisco apparently has a lot of the same ideas at Mayock. Not sure if coincidence or if they know something we don't.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/f...aft-PetePrisco

Floyd at 22?! With Richardson?!

These two draft experts are making me very excited for tomorrow.

keylime_5 · 04-25-2012, 08:11 PM

he changed it. i think he had blackmon and martin earlier just like mayock.

twiz · 04-25-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keylime_5

he changed it. i think he had blackmon and martin earlier just like mayock.

He may have, not sure. He does have Wright going over Floyd. Interesting.

gpngc · 04-25-2012, 08:17 PM

So no one has anything to say about Mayock's extremely suspicious rationale for mocking Blackmon at No. 4?

keylime? Anyone? Any draftniks out there anymore?

LonghornsLegend · 04-25-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

You're right. They simply cannot afford to lose the 3rd round pick it would require to get the highest impact player in the entire draft at a position of GREAT need (Blount cannot play the most important down in football, fumbles too much, and they have literally no one else on the roster).

That 3rd round pick is FAR too valuable. By staying put and adding a CB AND using that third round pick, which mathematically has a 90% chance to yield a pro bowler, the Bucs will be in MUCH better shape.

/draft picks are SEVERELY overvalued when discussing trades for prospects like Trent Richardson.

You make it seem like there is some massive drop off after Trent Richardson. As if Claiborne is an average prospect. So what happens when Talib gets suspended and they don't have Claiborne? Is CB not important?

I'd rather have Claiborne and LaMichael James to pair with Blount over Richardson alone 100 times out of 100. Blount is terrible at a lot of things but he's very talented none the less and productive, you can find a back that does everything he can't, really well late in the draft. That, and you'd still get an elite player at a premium position before hand.

Monomach · 04-25-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmanN

Would you rather spend a 1st on a running back or a 2nd and 3rd on a running back by committee

Two fourths would be more like it for me.

All those other picks go to strengthening the line to open holes for them if it can't already.

keylime_5 · 04-25-2012, 08:22 PM

no idea. Mayock put Blackmon to the Browns at #4 and then in his commentary he says he doesn't agree with the pick (he would take Richardson). So he doesn't agree with his own pick, he must have heard something. IDK how reliable it is, but the guy has a great track record needless to say. Mary Kay Cabot has always thought Blackmon would be the pick at 4 (though she is pretty dumb - Tony Grossi and Terry Pluto are better than her and she's the beat writer for the Cleveland newspaper).

gpngc · 04-25-2012, 08:29 PM

There is a massive drop off after Trent Richardson.

LaMichael James would be yet another liability in pass pro. That would give them two backs that can't see the field on third down and put them at a gigantic disadvantage.

You 'can' find RBs later doesn't necessarily mean you WILL. TRich is as sure a thing as it gets.

Also, you don't know who's going to be there in the 3rd. You do know you're getting Trent Richardson.

Here comes the Julio Jones debate all over again.

PalmerToCJ · 04-25-2012, 08:33 PM

Always pumped to see his final mock. Especially happy with the Bengals picks. I can only hope it pans out that way. Marvin loves to go CB early and DeCastro is perfect with our 2nd #1.

Monomach · 04-25-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

There is a massive drop off after Trent Richardson.

LaMichael James would be yet another liability in pass pro. That would give them two backs that can't see the field on third down and put them at a gigantic disadvantage.

You 'can' find RBs later doesn't necessarily mean you WILL. TRich is as sure a thing as it gets.

Also, you don't know who's going to be there in the 3rd. You do know you're getting Trent Richardson.

Here comes the Julio Jones debate all over again.

No running back is a "sure thing." People looked at the way Ced Benson ran in college and said there was no way he wouldn't be worth a top 5 pick. Seriously, he was an absolute wrecking ball. he couldn't be stopped. He was pushing DTs on their asses at the line.

Meanwhile, any halfway decent RB can give you acceptable production if your line is at least average.

Good example for me is the Chiefs. They get solid run blocking from the center of their line. They stick a schmuck like Jackie Battle back there to shoot right up the gut and he gets 4 yards a carry.

Besides, I disagree with the huge drop off. I think anyone out of this list gives you a "feature" back: Richardson, Martin, Miller, Wilson, Polk, Turbin, Pierce.

The only guy some people love that I think will flat-out suck is Lamichael James.

Raiderz4Life · 04-25-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmanN

Would you rather spend a 1st on a running back or a 2nd and 3rd on a running back by committee

2nd or 3rd. If I have the choice of Richardson or someone of the like vs a system like the Saints and to some extent the Giants have, I'll take take the latter every time in this day in age.

gpngc · 04-25-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monomach

No running back is a "sure thing." People looked at the way Ced Benson ran in college and said there was no way he wouldn't be worth a top 5 pick. Seriously, he was an absolute wrecking ball. he couldn't be stopped. He was pushing DTs on their asses at the line.

Meanwhile, any halfway decent RB can give you acceptable production if your line is at least average.

Good example for me is the Chiefs. They get solid run blocking from the center of their line. They stick a schmuck like Jackie Battle back there to shoot right up the gut and he gets 4 yards a carry.

I'm going to have to disagree. Cedric Benson was a good prospect, but he wasn't close to what TRich is now. Not close. He didn't have anywhere near the passing game skills TRich has.

And why would I settle for 'acceptable production' when I could add a great back?

There isn't ONE way to win in today's NFL. The 49ers AND Ravens were a play away each from the Super Bowl with an offense based around a power running game.

You don't win with great RBs is the argument. You win with great QBs. But not every team has Rodgers. That's all the more reason to take the best available player to help out a team that's already at a disadvantage because they DON'T have a top-flight QB.

And Jackie Battle is a horrible example because he was not good last year. That's why they replaced him.

Brent · 04-25-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

2nd or 3rd. If I have the choice of Richardson or someone of the like vs a system like the Saints and to some extent the Giants have, I'll take take the latter every time in this day in age.

Are you serious? The play-action plays you could run with Richardson would be such a threat.

LonghornsLegend · 04-25-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

There is a massive drop off after Trent Richardson.

LaMichael James would be yet another liability in pass pro. That would give them two backs that can't see the field on third down and put them at a gigantic disadvantage.

You 'can' find RBs later doesn't necessarily mean you WILL. TRich is as sure a thing as it gets.

Also, you don't know who's going to be there in the 3rd. You do know you're getting Trent Richardson.

Here comes the Julio Jones debate all over again.

Give me a guy like LaMichael James, or Javhid Best more recently, and I'll put them on the field on 3rd down to run pass routes not block. They don't need to be Vonta Leach, but when called upon make a chip block to give the QB a lane, this isn't rocket science. There are a ton of very good 3rd down RB's who have blocking deficiencies but are tough as hell to cover in space thus presenting the mis match on the defense putting a LB on him, and not sitting on their ass and letting them get put in bad situations.

Your absolutely right you don't know who you will get in the 3rd. But you know it'll be a player that most teams feel can be a starter. I know the odds, but the point is that if you don't trade up you still get an elite player at a very big position of need.

Look at their CB's without Talib. Right now they have Blount who just needs to be apart of a committee. I certainly don't see that as a compelling reason to trade up and lose picks for a RB.

Monomach · 04-25-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

I'm going to have to disagree. Cedric Benson was a good prospect, but he wasn't close to what TRich is now. Not close. He didn't have anywhere near the passing game skills TRich has.

And why would I settle for 'acceptable production' when I could add a great back?

There isn't ONE way to win in today's NFL. The 49ers AND Ravens were a play away each from the Super Bowl with an offense based around a power running game.

You don't win with great RBs is the argument. You win with great QBs. But not every team has Rodgers. That's all the more reason to take the best available player to help out a team that's already at a disadvantage because they DON'T have a top-flight QB.

And Jackie Battle is a horrible example because he was not good last year. That's why they replaced him.

Jackie Battle got them 4 yards per carry. Pretty much everyone calls that acceptable. He was the 7th-best blocking back in the league last year. In 64 pass block snaps, he only allowed 2 pressures.

Jackie Battle is a fine back. They're replacing him not because he wasn't good but because he's a running back and it's stupid to pay running backs. They're disposable.

Does Mike Shanahan have to do this for another decade before people believe it?

Raiderz4Life · 04-25-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent

Are you serious? The play-action plays you could run with Richardson would be such a threat.

Why can't I run PA with other RBs? Besides that hasn't hindered NOLA or NYG. Hell even the Pats use several RBs, although not as well as they used to.

gpngc · 04-25-2012, 08:55 PM

They are replacing Battle by paying Hillis more than they'd have to pay Battle, not because they want to upgrade Battle, but because it's stupid to pay running backs?

........

gpngc · 04-25-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

Why can't I run PA with other RBs? Besides that hasn't hindered NOLA or NYG. Hell even the Pats use several RBs, although not as well as they used to.

Brady, Brees, and Eli.

Not every team has one of them.

Raiderz4Life · 04-25-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

Brady, Brees, and Eli.

Not every team has one of them.

so much guys like AP and CJ2k are doing for their teams right?

gpngc · 04-25-2012, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

so much guys like AP and CJ2k are doing for their teams right?

Ray Rice does not belong in this conversation, I see.

There isn't ONE way to win. There isn't ONE blueprint. That's the beauty of the game.

And if you don't have a top-flight QB, you better be able to run the damn ball.

Monomach · 04-25-2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gpngc

They are replacing Battle by paying Hillis more than they'd have to pay Battle, not because they want to upgrade Battle, but because it's stupid to pay running backs?

........

Hillis is only making 1.4 mil. Everything else is incentives. I'm guessing Battle asked for more. After all, he was a much better back last year.

Speaking of Peyton Hillis, Cleveland seems to think that he's perfectly replacable.

How about the Bears? Matt Forte cannot be replaced according to...well, everyone. The Bears running game looked much the same when he went down last season. That's why Bears fans bring up Cutler every time someone says Matt Forte is the best player on the offense.