There's no chance.Commander of Awesome;1106762 wrote:http://www.draftcountdown.com/sub/Mock-Draft-A.php
I will punch things if we draft Richardson and Cousins in the ****ing draft.
Not much. Still has Richardson at 4 with the "backup plan" being Tannehill? Decastro would be nice but I don't think he'll fall that far.Commander of Awesome;1106773 wrote:http://football.realgm.com/src_feature/434/20120301/post_combine_mock_draft/
Slightly more tolerable.
Agreed. I just don't see Richardson being that much better than the rest of the RBs in the draft to justify a 4th overall pick on him.IggyPride00;1106776 wrote:There's no chance.
If they opt to stay at 4 and don't move up for RGIII, I think Claiborne is going to be the play.
There is just too little value in drafting a RB at 4, and that is not something Heckert is going to do.
Claiborne is good and I guess I wouldn't be too upset, but damn I just really believe in a good front 7 will make your DBs look so much better.Commander of Awesome;1107002 wrote:If we don't go RG3 at #4 I'd want Claiborne.
If they don't go QB at 4 it's unfortunate that there isn't a LB or RDE worthy of that pick. Claiborne is the only one I could see taken there that would be "value."SportsAndLady;1107004 wrote:Claiborne is good and I guess I wouldn't be too upset, but damn I just really believe in a good front 7 will make your DBs look so much better.
I really wish there was a top 5 BEAST LB this year, sucks there isn't. Another monster D-lineman would make our d-line one of the best in the league next year, I really think that'd make the defense better than another shutdown corner.
yeah that's what I was trying to get at...there just isn't a pick at #4 with enough value outside of the obvious.BR1986FB;1107008 wrote:If they don't go QB at 4 it's unfortunate that there isn't a LB or RDE worthy of that pick. Claiborne is the only one I could see taken there that would be "value."
In hindsight, I am pretty happy with that draft.Commander of Awesome;1107038 wrote:This kind of feels like the 2010 draft where all Browns fans wanted Eric Berry (myself included) and if he didn't fall the Browns were sort of in no man's land. If RG3 doesn't fall, feels like Browns are in the same situation.
I don't think he'll fall but I'm really wondering if he does that they pass on him. For some effed up reason, they have a hard on for Tannehill.Commander of Awesome;1107038 wrote:This kind of feels like the 2010 draft where all Browns fans wanted Eric Berry (myself included) and if he didn't fall the Browns were sort of in no man's land. If RG3 doesn't fall, feels like Browns are in the same situation.
I think if they can trade down to just above Miami (if Miami doesn't already have a QB) he will be their 1st pick. They do love the guy because of the Mike Sherman connection.SportsAndLady;1107050 wrote:I don't think they have a hard on for Tannehill.
There's just no harm in simply saying "we like Tannehill"
And making other teams think you do. You have to realize that come draft time, GMs will say a lot of things simply to get others talking/thinking.
We don't know that for sure or not, everything that is said to us (the public) isn't always 100% true.BR1986FB;1107061 wrote:I think if they can trade down to just above Miami (if Miami doesn't already have a QB) he will be their 1st pick. They do love the guy because of the Mike Sherman connection.
BR1986FB;1107008 wrote:If they don't go QB at 4 it's unfortunate that there isn't a LB or RDE worthy of that pick. Claiborne is the only one I could see taken there that would be "value."
I understand that but "value" to me and you seem to be different things. Value to me is trading down, drafting them where they SHOULD be taken and grabbing a few extra picks...not what you pay them.lhslep134;1107118 wrote:The term "worthy of the pick" has lost significant value since the implementation of the rookie wage scale. Now you're not burdened anywhere as much as you used to be with a bad contract. It makes a lot more sense nowadays to draft for need as opposed to just "value".
I'm saying I really don't mind if we take a "reach" pick at #4. If that means we take Blackmon, Coples, Ingram so be it. We can make our team better without worrying about "pick value" like we used to have to.
I would absolutely agree, though Coples has major red flags. I wouldn't be happy with taking him in the top 15 let alone 4.lhslep134;1107126 wrote:AJ Green (4th pick last year) got a 4 year deal worth $20 mil. I'd gladly do that for Ingram or Coples if they can be a game changing DE.
That's very black and white though. So many variables that can ruin that plan. First and obvious one is you have to find a suitor to trade with you in that range. Second, you have no assurance your guy (coples or Ingram) will be there with your new position.BR1986FB;1107142 wrote:I understand that but "value" to me and you seem to be different things. Value to me is trading down, drafting them where they SHOULD be taken and grabbing a few extra picks...not what you pay them.
Not trying to be a smartass but in the case of Coples, why take him at 4 when you can probably get him at 8 or 10 plus another draft pick or two? Frankly, I wouldn't touch Coples with a 10 foot pole anyhow. Now Ingram is another story.
For what it's worth, on wknr they are debating the best QB since the return: Couch or DA.BR1986FB;1107058 wrote:Old article but this will make you sick...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1110992/index.htm
