DraftTek is at the mercy of their sources, and it looks like a number of them are slow on the uptick this year. Scott Wright’s November 6th MOCK places Haden as the 16th pick. CBS, formerly Frank Cooney’s DraftScout, has him as a middling 1st. Both those sites are quite accurate, which part of why I use them. DraftTek combines the the underclassmen with the seniors, which is what will eventually happen, so I use them for that reason. Wright only ranks seniors in his rankings at this point. And CBS doesn’t combine the classes even though they suggest the round and part of round that draftees will be drafted. I couldn’t do the same type of MOCK exercise using Countdown or CBS. And no one else has a comprehensive Big Board.

One of the problems I see is that the focus is still on seniors, even though a number of the underclassmen are highly regarded. Many of the evaluations are ranking between players of the same class, and underclassmen aren’t always evaluated alongside the seniors until they’ve declared. Actual membership in the draft class remains uncertain until January 15, when the underclassmen have to declare.

They have Haden going to us at #10! And it’s not a bad choice actually.

Hard to sort out the double- and triple-negatives there.

I think you mean he will go much higher than the end of the first, due to the hype? I certainly agree. Plus, this year’s CB class is fairly underwhelming, leading to short supply.

So much of this is merely the opinions of other people. The Combine and the post-season all-star bowls put these athletes together and have them compete. It’s more objective than hearing hearsay pontifications about where someone should rank. I trust some of these sources, but it’s good to remember that much of what we’re hearing is partly BS.

Re: OCs. One thing that became apparent is that a six round draft makes it a lot harder to fill all the objectives. We can fill OC under many scenarios but it’s hard to accomplish much more than some basic goals. There’s really only 4 rounds to find help in, and the last 2 rounds are for niche-role players who have some skill that makes them a legitimate prospect to make the team. Last year’s bounty of picks spoiled me.

I digressed a little on the last comment.

I recall players such as Aaron Curry zooming up the board around this time last year. Tyson Jackson was a late 1st rounder to early 2nd for most of 2008. His stock took off despite the lack of an on-the-field event that would explain his rise. Essentially, his position as a DE34 who could stop the run turned him into a valuable property in a year when many teams were switching to 3-4 schemes. It was a fairly obvious and predictable outcome. His ability to stop the run and handle double teams impressed team employing 3-4s. Criticism of him or his selection seems to have stemmed from people who were evaluating him as a DE43. Those who didn’t understand how a DE34 differed from a DE43 couldn’t see his value. And I’m not saying he deserved to go as high as #3, just that there were reasons for his rise.

Much of the movement in ratings is the product of ‘who’ and ‘when." The opinion of draftniks are taken as authoritative in the earlier ratings, but they’re merely informed amateurs who are offering us their opinions. Another factor is the reputation that some players gain through their association with a name school. Having a large fan base helps, but many programs consider it their duty (besides being in the interest of the program) to promote that player. We see some of that early reputation decline as scouts begin to seriously evaluate the players and puncture a hole in some of the reputation. Another factor in ratings is the lateness of evaluations of underclassmen. It takes until the point when it’s known that they’re entering before the scouts put them under the microscope. Information about these underclassmen begins to circulate at a later point in time and their projected ranking often skies at that point. The last factor is the common arena of the Combine & all star bowls. Putting them side by side and measuring them, rather than relying on athletic department propaganda, really helps in evaluations. There’s always a big element of “apples and oranges” to evaluations, as well as team success versus individual success, so a common measurement framework really helps.

I didn’t see a “big impact” in the sense that he got a ton of tackles or a few INTs or a sack or two. My focus this year is shifting much more to playing a role/doing one’s job. McClain did that to near-perfection.

Cody is highly unlikely to fall outside the first round, as he is one of only 3-5 true NT prospects and the only one worth first-round consideration.

I wish I could understand the mentality that says: “I want to see our first pick be in this area of the field, end of discussion.” That’s way outside of my radar. I want good football players who can play a significant role on our team and give us the best chance to win when they’re on the field. I want to keep an eye on areas of need, but 1) last year’s draft showed that this is not very high on McD’s priority list, 2) you can really put yourself in a corner drafting like that, and 3) there’s so much we don’t know now about resignings, free agency, underclassmen, etc. that focusing on need becomes an exercise in futility at this point.

Finally, if one sets in one’s mind right now that one wants to see a pick at such-and-such-a-spot, it can develop a prejudice which can limit one when all the information is in and the variables are counted… and then the team goes in a different direction. What the?! Why didn’t they go with such-and-such-a-spot?! Bollocks!

For me, I’m favoring the filet ever so slightly. :)

Cody’s reputation vaulted him above where scouts probably view him. It’s not that he doesn’t have value but I think it’s best not to get caught up in the hype, especially in a year when there are so many 3-4 candidates.

There are some other NTs, too.

JERREL POWE

KENDRICK ELLIS

PHIL TAYLOR

I make no claims for any of them, but taking a developmental project instead might be the best way of mitigating the risk associated with taking a part-time NT in the 1st. Cody has risks, which I don’t like for #1 picks. He also has limitations, as the part-time comment indicates.

His rise is merited but he’s probably above where he’ll go.

MIKE IUPATI

Guards rarely go that high so I’d take DrafTek’s projection with a grain of salt. However, he’ll probably still make the 1st round. Teams looking for more ‘road-graderish’ types will value him highly. And he’s not merely a one-dimensional run blocking type, so we’d like him, too.

As you say later in your post, the lower demand for interior-OLs is a blessing for us, since most of the top prospects will still be available in the 2nd, and later.

I like the DE34s and OC/OGs in this draft (assuming we have a fairly good crop of underclassmen declaring at OL). The 1st round still scares me though, because there aren’t either of the interior-OLs or DE34s who project for where we’ll pick. That means we HAVE to hit in the 2nd or 3rd. The suggestion that we trade our 1st for later picks is motivated — in great part — by the desire to spread our chances in a range where DE34s and OC/OGs are easier to find. We’re playing without a net if we miss, otherwise.

Although one should also probably keep an eye open for nepotism

The first MOCKs tell me something about how many goal can realistically be achieved. I already did a rough estimate when I composed a list of draft objectives.

They are:

1) DL (preferably DE34s, partly because of availability) number: at least one
2) LB
3) CB

This could be re-stated as addressing all 3 areas of defense. My feeling was that over half of our draft should go to defense, and we could let the draft itself determine (largely) which picks to make.

4) interior – OL, number: at least one
5) playmaker, RB or WR, KR if possible
5*) OT (I’ve tried to combine this into a OT/OG hybrid)

These goals didn’t allow for filling all these positions, so something is always left out. And that the point — 6 picks (2 of them late) doesn’t allow for much.

My level of familiarity made it hard for me to take a CB late. I’d prefer finding a CB who is also a KR, because it would fill two needs with one pick. Re-evaluations should shuffle the ranking and make that more likely in later MOCKs.

Here’s a name that I’ve been hearing a lot:

ALTERRAUN VERNER

My only contribution to this subject is that the Guard position appears to be a key area in the McDaniels offense. As I aways say, I’m no ‘Xs and Os’ guy, but McDaniels’ comments before the season seemed to indicate that we need someone who can pull more often. My understanding of this idea is that we need a little bigger sized OG who can still move. There’s some similarity to ZB but it’s a man block rather than a zone-block.

Kuper is still a good candidate for this system, but I think it would work best if moved him to the left side and found a big but nifty OG as the answer. And a RT/RG type could bolster depth at OT while also starting at RG.

There’s 2 aspects to my suggestion — one, to find more scheme-appropriate OGs to expedite the changeover on offense; two, to increase our toughness/size on the OL. An additional aspect is using talented, big OLs to bolster our depth at OT while building our talent at OG. It’s often easier to find talent at OT and then park it inside. Kuper was an OT, as were many other OGs. There’s actually a mathematic principle involved in this idea. It’s an attempt to optimize the talent utilization while storing adequate emergency backups. You need at least 7 quality OLs (ideally, IMO), and that means that 2 have to cover the other 5 OL positions. There’s more to the idea than I can explain at this point, but the bottom line is that injuries reveal the weakest link on your line at some, or many points in the season, so you need enough depth but you have to minimize OL roster spots as much as possible.

Re: KRs. I’m still trying to find a better answer than we currently have. CB was my preference because we’re the only team in the NFL to carry so few CBs. I’m open to the idea of finding a KR at RB or WR, too, since they’re positions that require depth so it’s easier to justify a niche pick later in the draft. The choice of Riley Cooper is an ode to this logic even though he’s not a KR (that I know of).

I should also mention that CFAs are still a resource that we shouldn’t dismiss. There’s a cognitive tendency to view the draft as the only place to find prospects. UFAs are also an important resource, although I’ve suggested we target C/G primarily, which isn’t a big splash like last year. Our numbers will never be high enough to fill everything through the draft so CFAs could make the upcoming crop. We only need to remind ourselves of how important Polumbus has become to realize their importance.

It’s a tough call.

I have to admit that there is some logic to building a team that’s better suited to the McDaniels offense, and one way of accomplishing that is to trade under-utilized pieces who hold more value to other teams.

It’s still a tough call because one season doesn’t provide sufficient opportunity to demonstrate their worth in the new scheme. Still, my feeling is that the McDaniels scheme needs more personnel before it will reach efficiency. Youth isn’t necessarily the answer but there’s no alternative method of acquiring enough of the necessary personnel.

We’re going to be entering the second year of a 2-year rebuilding project, and that’s a project that includes both the offense and defense. Even though trading a talent such as Scheffler pains me, I’m willing to embrace the idea because I believe added personnel will spur this offense to a new level. And I can’t fault McDaniels for simply having a different mindset than Shanahan when it comes to offense. It would make great sense to provide him with the talent he needs. His offenses have demonstrated the wisdom of his methods in the past, so the greater crime would be to cling to talent because it worked well in Shanahan’s offense.

All (or nearly all) of McDaniels ideas are in-line with what I’ve advocated in the past — before he arrived. The reduction in individual statistics is more the result of emphasis than a loss of overall efficiency. Spreading the burden around is what I advocated before Shanahan left, but it has the effect of limiting the individual production of some players on offense, who were also favorite targets of Cutler. Given that we’re still learning to gel in the new offense, I can only expect that it’s where we will see the biggest improvement next year. I’d like to see McDaniels get the pieces he needs to realize that 2nd year improvement, even if it means parting ways with some players. It’s better to provide adequate resources to make his ‘ideas’ work (scheme, etc.) than go without and attempt to judge their merit — i.e., the fallacy of insufficiency. The only idea that can’t work is the one you don’t actually try. We see this principle demonstrated in the real world and it’s often accompanied by the lament — “it can’t be done.”