Mike Mayock's Mock Draft

[vidae]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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.

Trust me, I know the kind of defense RAC runs and I know what he demands out of his players. What we need from a third safety we can get in rounds three through five. We don't need to pick a safety in the top half of the first round to get the kind of production that is necessary for our defense. Period.

[gpngc]

Jackie Battle is not better than Peyton Hillis in any way shape or form. I'm not having that argument.

My primary argument is that for these Bucs

Taking Trent Richardson is a better move than taking Morris Claiborne and an unknown 3rd round pick.

My secondary argument is that just because great QBs win Super Bowls does not mean teams that feature great RBs cannot.

A tertiary argument is how good of a prospect Richardson really is. I believe he's the best RB since Adrian Peterson, and someone who is pretty much a sure thing to make a Ray-Rice-like impact for the team that drafts him.

I believe that investing in him is a wiser choice than hoping that a late round pick can do an 'acceptable' job at RB, ESPECIALLY for a team that lacks a dynamic passing game.

[Dallas357]

Originally Posted by SolidGold

How accurate has he been historically?

wow just wow. first day ever following the draft? Mayock is God fool.

[King Carls 5 Year Plan]

Originally Posted by KCStud

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.

my guess is Barron and Berry would be on the field damn near 100% of the time and Lewis would be the one that fills in when needed. i like the sound of Baron and Berry. this team would be full of the Killer B's. however, using a pick this high on another S seems like a stretch. if we are concerned about or nickle defense, then CB would be a better choice, IMO. maybe Gilmore is there (i avoid Kirkpatrick like the plague. just a gut feeling).

Originally Posted by Monomach

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.

i am with you on RBs being mostly disposable, but Jackie Battle isn't a fine RB. saying he is avg is a compliment to him. he is an ok bu that hopefully never has to get a majority of carries. i don't know if he asked for more than Hillis, but i'm sure we knew exactly what we had in Battle and Hillis at minimum is equal to or better than him. there is much more potential for greatness in Hillis

[vidae]

Yeah, Jackie Battle is just ok. Doesn't fumble much but also won't do more than 3-4 yards a carry. Solid blocker, but not amazing at it. Not a threat out of the backfield either. He's meh overall.

[SolidGold]

Originally Posted by Dallas357

wow just wow. first day ever following the draft? Mayock is God fool.

No its not fool. Just don't feel like going back through his past mocks and this forum is full of helpful members who can give an answer. FOOL

[Monomach]

You guys are weird. Last year, Battle was one of the best backs in the league from a pass blocking standpoint. He doesn't turn the ball over. He averaged 4 yards per carry. That was equal to or better than the following notable names: Chris Johnson, Mike Tolbert, Cedric Benson, Ahmad Bradshaw, Michael Bush, Tim Hightower, Brandon Jacobs, Steve Slaton, Marion Barber, Benjarvis Green-Ellis, Peyton Hillis, Daniel Thomas, and Thomas Jones. It's better than Matt Forte's first two years when people were already calling him an excellent back.

Jackie Battle is an average back with acceptable production. If you get yourself a Jackie Battle and pair him with another average back who trades the plus blocking for plus receiving, you've got all the running back you need for a perfectly good committee.

You don't get ahead by spending top five picks or top money on the position with the shortest lifespan and the greatest chance of injury.

re: Peyton Hillis- he was trash last year. there wasn't a single part of his game that was good.

[Brown Leader]

Originally Posted by gpngc

Jackie Battle is not better than Peyton Hillis in any way shape or form. I'm not having that argument.

My primary argument is that for these Bucs

Taking Trent Richardson is a better move than taking Morris Claiborne and an unknown 3rd round pick.

My secondary argument is that just because great QBs win Super Bowls does not mean teams that feature great RBs cannot.

A tertiary argument is how good of a prospect Richardson really is. I believe he's the best RB since Adrian Peterson, and someone who is pretty much a sure thing to make a Ray-Rice-like impact for the team that drafts him.

I believe that investing in him is a wiser choice than hoping that a late round pick can do an 'acceptable' job at RB, ESPECIALLY for a team that lacks a dynamic passing game.

Lagarrette Blount is really getting undervalued. He's the best young power back in the league and was the league's best in 10' once he started. He didn't step up this past season but the whole team was a disaster from mid season on. 4.2 a carry for a power back behind that line on a squad with that defense is noteworthy. Going into just his 3rd season, 4.6avg with 11 TDs is more than fine. Richardson, "pretty much a sure thing", Blount has already shown what he can do, and it's pretty good. RB is not a great need for them. Trading up is reaching for a luxury.

[Brown Leader]

Originally Posted by Monomach

re: Peyton Hillis- he was trash last year. there wasn't a single part of his game that was good.

Eh, not exactly. He was the same guy when he was healthy. The coaching staff just never seemed to be behind him.

[gpngc]

Just use a better running back to further your argument, Ahmad Bradshaw would be a great choice.

[gpngc]

Originally Posted by Brown Leader

Lagarrette Blount is really getting undervalued. He's the best young power back in the league and was the league's best in 10' once he started. He didn't step up this past season but the whole team was a disaster from mid season on. 4.2 a carry for a power back behind that line on a squad with that defense is noteworthy. Going into just his 3rd season, 4.6avg with 11 TDs is more than fine. Richardson, "pretty much a sure thing", Blount has already shown what he can do, and it's pretty good. RB is not a great need for them. Trading up is reaching for a luxury.

They have no back that can play third downs, the most important down in football. RB is a great need for them.

[Brown Leader]

Originally Posted by gpngc

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?

It's only extremely suspicious if you rate Richardson as highly as you do. It does seem like he's heard something about the Browns' gameplan. My biggest gripe is that I think Floyd will be a better player than Blackmon.

[Brown Leader]

Originally Posted by gpngc

They have no back that can play third downs, the most important down in football. RB is a great need for them.

A quality 3rd down back can literally be had anywhere in the draft or even an undrafted FA. It just seems as if their intent on divorcing Blount after this season. They lucked out on picking up a quality starting RB out of nowhere and now seem poised to throw him away and upgrade after 2 seasons. Doesn't make sense. Who knows, maby he's an even bigger headcase then has been reported.

[CashmoneyDrew]

If we were to pass on DeCastro, I'm going on a rampage.

[Monomach]

Originally Posted by gpngc

Just use a better running back to further your argument, Ahmad Bradshaw would be a great choice.

Bradshaw 2012:
171 attempts, 659 yards, 3.9 ypc

Battle 2012:
149 attempts. 597 yards, 4.0 ypc

Was Bradshaw better last year because he got a few more carries? Was it because he plays in New York and people recognize his name? He didn't do more on a per-snap basis.

In any case, why not make yourself a committee of Bradshaw and Battle? That's spending one 7th round pick. One of them gets hurt midseason? Cool. Throw him away and sign a Kahlil Bell or something off the street.

Use that top 5 pick on someone who opens holes AND protects your QB.

[Bucs147]

How useless will Richardson be with the awfulness of our defense? I mean, what's the point of having him while the D is still giving up points every single drive. How many times he is going to touch the ball when it's 31-14 for the opposite team ?

I wouldn't hate taking Richardson at 5. While I hate taking a RB in the top 5, Richardson is an elite talent so I'll be okay with him. I still prefer others prospects like Morris Claiborne or Matt Kalil there, but I'm not going to punch someone if Richardson is our pick. However, trading up for him would be freaking stupid. Plus, I highly doubt it will only cost a 3rd to move from 5 to 3.

Morris Claiborne is just as good of a prospect as Richardson is. He plays a position that is more important than RB and fills a bigger need. To me it's a no brainer.

[njx9]

outside of kirkpatrick sliding, that's my favorite denver draft pick i've seen in a mock all year. here's hoping.

[Nalej]

If the Pats and Packers need an OLB and the Pats pick first...
Why would the Pats grab the guy ranked 46 on his BB and the Packers grab the 19th ranked on the very next pick?

Doesn't make sense to me

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by Bucs147

How useless will Richardson be with the awfulness of our defense? I mean, what's the point of having him while the D is still giving up points every single drive. How many times he is going to touch the ball when it's 31-14 for the opposite team ?

I wouldn't hate taking Richardson at 5. While I hate taking a RB in the top 5, Richardson is an elite talent so I'll be okay with him. I still prefer others prospects like Morris Claiborne or Matt Kalil there, but I'm not going to punch someone if Richardson is our pick. However, trading up for him would be freaking stupid. Plus, I highly doubt it will only cost a 3rd to move from 5 to 3.

Morris Claiborne is just as good of a prospect as Richardson is. He plays a position that is more important than RB and fills a bigger need. To me it's a no brainer.

I think the Bucs have a successful pick either way in that scenario.

I'm not a fan of taking an RB high, but Richardson can do it all. He is fast and can catch the ball. Plus he's a bulldozer when need be.

I hope the Browns take him. I will flip my **** if they take Tannehill 4th.

[bigbuc]

You all need to understand that if the Bucs take Richardson its not just for his skills ( which are amazing ) but he's also a winner. And you can't teach that, you can't put a price on what he brings to the locker room, what he does to help our D mid week... He's a no give up type of kid and one that helps your team on many different levels not just on Sundays.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by bigbuc

You all need to understand that if the Bucs take Richardson its not just for his skills ( which are amazing ) but he's also a winner. And you can't teach that, you can't put a price on what he brings to the locker room, what he does to help our D mid week... He's a no give up type of kid and one that helps your team on many different levels not just on Sundays.

I agree with this perspective a lot. You need to get winners on your team. Not just athletes or players, but people that are driven to win and understand the concept of winning as a team.

[Monomach]

Originally Posted by bigbuc

You all need to understand that if the Bucs take Richardson its not just for his skills ( which are amazing ) but he's also a winner. And you can't teach that, you can't put a price on what he brings to the locker room, what he does to help our D mid week... He's a no give up type of kid and one that helps your team on many different levels not just on Sundays.

Ah. The David Eckstein argument.

[bigbuc]

Originally Posted by Monomach

Ah. The David Eckstein argument.

Big difference tho.... Richardson would eat Eckstein for breakfast.

[gpngc]

Originally Posted by Bucs147

How useless will Richardson be with the awfulness of our defense? I mean, what's the point of having him while the D is still giving up points every single drive. How many times he is going to touch the ball when it's 31-14 for the opposite team ?

I wouldn't hate taking Richardson at 5. While I hate taking a RB in the top 5, Richardson is an elite talent so I'll be okay with him. I still prefer others prospects like Morris Claiborne or Matt Kalil there, but I'm not going to punch someone if Richardson is our pick. However, trading up for him would be freaking stupid. Plus, I highly doubt it will only cost a 3rd to move from 5 to 3.

Morris Claiborne is just as good of a prospect as Richardson is. He plays a position that is more important than RB and fills a bigger need. To me it's a no brainer.

I do too. That's going to make it really difficult to defend the move.

I'll put it this way. There are very few sure things in the draft. It really is a total crapshoot. When you first start following the draft you LOVE every pick, you're optimistic, you think 1sts will be pro bowlers, 2nds and 3rds will be starters, about half of 4ths will work out, and there's a real chance to parlay a 5th or 6th into a player or at least depth.

Once you follow a bunch of drafts you'll see that even the very best GMs miss. A LOT. The success rate of draft picks in general is not as high as you would think. Even in the first. Even in the 2nd.

When you put a prospect like Trent Richardson (or Julio last year) in THAT perspective, you really don't give a **** about a 3rd or a 2nd. These prospects are too good. In historical context, Richardson is much more valuable than the future unknowns that statistically, even for the VERY BEST GMs, have only a slight chance to become a useful player, and a lottery-ticket chance to become a pro bowler.

[JoeJoeBrown]

Originally Posted by gpngc

I do too. That's going to make it really difficult to defend the move.

I'll put it this way. There are very few sure things in the draft. It really is a total crapshoot. When you first start following the draft you LOVE every pick, you're optimistic, you think 1sts will be pro bowlers, 2nds and 3rds will be starters, about half of 4ths will work out, and there's a real chance to parlay a 5th or 6th into a player or at least depth.

Once you follow a bunch of drafts you'll see that even the very best GMs miss. A LOT. The success rate of draft picks in general is not as high as you would think. Even in the first. Even in the 2nd.

When you put a prospect like Trent Richardson (or Julio last year) in THAT perspective, you really don't give a **** about a 3rd or a 2nd. These prospects are too good. In historical context, Richardson is much more valuable than the future unknowns that statistically, even for the VERY BEST GMs, have only a slight chance to become a useful player, and a lottery-ticket chance to become a pro bowler.

This this this. Except I don't think julio was in that cant miss range.