I Need Help Figuring This Out

[JeffGollin]

The original assumption of this thread was that we had needs at various positions and should pick of those needs in the draft.

If you believe Wiz and Rod G - both before and, most definitely after the draft - we went the BPA route - i.e. they wouldn't ignore a prospect who they rated clearly higher overall over another guy who might fill a roster-need.

That doesn't mean that many needs weren't eventually filled (because if you draft enough players, you're bound to fill some of them). It does mean, however, that the process involves (a) rolling the marbles on best athletes and then, after the fact, (b) seeing how it all came out needs-wise.

A good case could be made that - in the end - we didn't address the O-line, QB and that we only "kinda" addressed our need for one or two edge-rushers.

But that's the way it works - if you go the BPA route, sometimes you're going to whiff on a few positions of need. You seldom get to have it both ways.

Final note - the more I think about QB, the more I believe the Cards made a calculated move not to draft a QB in order to be more attractive to available FA's out there (the assumption being that teams who drafted rookies might be somewhat less attractive to the veteran QB's considering them).

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I was going to mention Terrelle Smith, as well. But scouting reports suggest our fullback draft pick is not a good run blocker, so it's not like we got Terrelle Smith, and guys like Terrelle Smith are available all over free agency and play forever.

I get the PBA idea for the first three picks. I'm not really mad about them except for the RB pick when we're not running the ball.

The long and short of it right now is that we now have a Top 5 WR, 2 3rd Round WRs (Doucet and Roberts), and a TE who can't play in-line and so must be flexed out. It's amazing that people still think we're going to commit to a run game.

I'm also concerned that we still don't have a legit SILB for the defense. We got gouged in the run game last year, and I see Quan projecting as a special teams player and Daryl Washington's backup more than competing with Paris Lenon. Unless we're going to have the lightest linebacking corps in the NFL (including 4-3 defenses), we're going to be looking for an SILB in free agency.

Graves insists that there's a plan for free agency and we're going to be aggressive. I'll believe it when I see it but until that happens we have to trust that one exists.

In Quan's own words, he's been told that he'll be competing on the strong side. And until we hear different, Hayes is still in the mix.

 

[Cardiac]

IMO, LG was a bigger problem than OC was last year. Sendlein is solid, and he's put on like 20 pounds since he's come out (He's listed over 300 when he came out at like 285). I worry that Sendlein isn't seeing the defenses that teams are attacking him with (thus why we so frequently have unblocked edge rushers and OTs who seemingly aren't bothered to put a hand on them), but apparently coaches are happy with him.

Not only is Faneca a UFA, but he wasn't that good when he was here. At his best, he was unremarkable. At his worst, he paired with Levi Brown for the least dependable pass blocking duo in the NFL.

Not sure that Rex Hadnot has the experience and mobility to play LG, and I think he's being overrated here slightly. But I continue to think that the offensive line problems aren't necessarily talent-related so much as scheme-related and the QB play didn't help them out at all last year.

No one is putting our O-line in the probowl, but 5 marshmellows?

We need a legit LT. Levi then slides to LG and Lutui re-signed and we are fine.

If you want an upgrade at C that's okay but it isn't vital.

It appears we agree.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Vonta Leach (HOU) is a pending free agent. John Kuhn is an RFA but wasn't drafted, so he possibly wouldn't have any compensatory pick. Jason Snelling. Lawrence Vickers. Tony Richardson. Heath Evans. Gimme a break, Joe.

Lindy's lists Sherman as the #7 overall fullback and listed him as a free agent possibility. The Sporting News doesn't even list him (although they feature like 5 FBs). Is there a draft pick that Mike Mayock doesn't like? He apparently loved every pick that we made. Were there any picks he disagreed with? He gets paid by the NFL; he's not going to take a dump on his employers on the day that he gets the most exposure.

Spend a bit more time listening to him, and you'll find that beyond the evaluations he has strong opinions. "Dump on his employers"? This is a silly non-sequitur.

 

[MrYeahBut]

Spend a bit more time listening to him, and you'll find that beyond the evaluations he has strong opinions. "Dump on his employers"? This is a silly non-sequitor.

Bim: sequitur

 

[kerouac9]

Spend a bit more time listening to him, and you'll find that beyond the evaluations he has strong opinions. "Dump on his employers"? This is a silly non-sequitur.

I'll ask again: Was there a single pick in the draft this weekend that he didn't like? Find me a quote. I don't mean about prospects; I mean about where the prospects were picked and to whom they went.

As for the second, of course it's not a non-sequitur. Guy works for the NFL Network, which is completely subsidized by NFL Owners (I believe that NFLN has yet to turn a profit from it's own programming, subscription, and advertising revenues). Of course he uses language tilted toward the enthusiastic when talking about his employers' decisions.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

It's sufficient for me, that Mayoch gives an evaluation of the player and what need, if any, that the player fits. When, in the end, he offers an opinion on who best met their objectives, one gets a sense of where he stands. As for an example of players he offered reservations on: Cam Newton, Ryan Mallett. He's an employee of NFL Films with, no doubt, a major stipend from the NFL Network, but I never got the impression that this limited in any way his views. Perhaps you can offer some examples of him kowtowing to the bosses.

 

[kerouac9]

It's sufficient for me, that Mayoch gives an evaluation of the player and what need, if any, that the player fits. When, in the end, he offers an opinion on who best met their objectives, one gets a sense of where he stands. As for an example of players he offered reservations on: Cam Newton, Ryan Mallett. He's an employee of NFL Films with, no doubt, a major stipend from the NFL Network, but I never got the impression that this limited in any way his views. Perhaps you can offer some examples of him kowtowing to the bosses.

So although Mayock has "reservations" on Cam Newton, he has this to say about the first overall pick in the draft:

The Panthers take the most electrifying player in college football to become the new face of their franchise. In a division with three legitimate quarterbacks, the Panthers had to select Newton to give them a chance to eventually become a serious player in the NFC South. Although he is far from polished as a quarterback, his pure talent and athleticism make him a worthwhile gamble as the top overall pick.

Apparently Mayock lives in a Panglossian world where each pick is the best possible pick and is the Garrison Kellior of football where every prospect is above-average. Look no further than his discussion of the Arizona Cardinals' 5th round pick

The Cardinals pick up a tough, hard-nosed lead blocker in Sherman. He has the skills to be whammer between the tackles, and his combination of size, strength and athleticism makes him an ideal special teams contributor.

All well and good, until you look at the analysis written before the pick was made:

Sherman is a stout fullback that does not have the strength to be a lead blocker at the next level.

One can't disprove a negative--you already know this. All I'm asking is for somebody to show me where Mayock criticizes a pick that a team has made. I've pointed you places where clearly Mayock's enthusiasm for a choice is in conflict with his earlier analysis. If you're satisfied that Mayock believed that every draft pick by every team was excellent, then that's on you.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Well, Mayoch has questioned whether Cam the entertainer and icon was willing to dedicate himself to do the task, but adding that if he does he could be all of what you quoted. Mayoch does not view his role as questioning a team's selection as he doesn't have initial access to the reasoning for a particular choice. And, as a former player, he's careful not to dismiss a player's chances of succeeding. That said... I generally trust his judgement as it is clear that he watches tape, speaks to scouts and coaches, and forms his own opinion.

 

[WildBB]

7. Sampson - Heard a blurb about him here in So Cal that he is a pretty good talent. He's old and slow, but has good hands. Understand, he is a 7th round compensatory pick so who really cares if he even makes the roster??

26 and 4.41/40

 

[Cardiac]

Mayock does not like being negative and I'm not sure that's a bad thing. He has developed a very impressive network amongst the GM's etc in the league and he doesn't want to burn any bridges by slamming their drafts.

Having said that I can tell when he isn't thrilled with a pick and when he actually does like it. He will focus on the players toughness or will to win or some other platitude if he doesn't like the pick. If he likes the pick he says I really like this pick.

 

[lobo]

I don't get it sometimes. People get angry when this team picks for need. So we go and pick for BPA and people still get angry. .[/quote]

The post of the year for me!!! I was just walking my dog and came back in, put the computer on and saw this post....it is exactly what I was thinking while out with the dog.

 

[TJ]

26 and 4.41/40

For a rookie, 26 is old

Thought he ran a 4.6 or something....