MOCK IV - w/ new picks
I just had to see what the added picks could bring.
The procedure is the same as in the past; BPA rankings are a dominant consideration but positional need is equally important. Need picks will be explained, and alternate picks will be listed, especially when choices were considered ambiguous.
The Big Board is DrafTek's, and you may disagree with them, therefore it's partly an academic exercise to see what maximum utility would look like.
Disagreements with DT's Big Board are welcome but would be even more welcome if you can explain why your suggested alternate choice is better.
NEEDS:(I'll describe these loosely, input on this area is welcome)
Offense
OG(moderate), OC(moderate), RB(moderate), WR(moderate), TE(low), QB(low)
Defense
DT34(highest), DE34(highest), OLB34(moderate), ILB34(moderate), CB(high), S(high)
#12) - B. J. Raji (NT) ----------------------- REACH: ( + 7)
#18) - Tyson Jackson (L-DE34) -------- REACH: ( - 1 )
#48) - Patrick Chung (SS) ---------------- REACH: ( - 5)
#79) - Derrick Williams (WR-F) --------- REACH: ( - 2)
#84) - Jonathan Luigs (OC/G) ---------- REACH: ( - 1)
#114) - Kevin Barnes (CB) -------------- REACH: ( - 4)
#149) - Jasper Brinkley (ILB34) -------- REACH: ( - 7)
#185) -Tom Brandstater (QB) ---------- REACH: ( - 4)
#225) - Ian Johnson (RB-C) ------------ REACH: ( - 1)
#235) - Ra'Shon Harris (DT/DE34) --- REACH: ( 0 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
1a) - B. J. Raji (NT) is a controversial pick but this was a chance to try a new selection for the first pick. What became apparent when making this pick was the opportunity to consider 'pairs' of picks. In other words, the following pick played a small role in evaluating this pick. There were a number of players who could still be available when the next pick came six spots later -- such as Maualuga (ILB), Moreno (RB), Wells (RB), Cushing (OLB), Mathews (OLB), etc. -- so the opportunity the opportunity to fill a desired position such as LB or RB could arise again later. The feeling was the next pick was well positioned to find a 'falling value' at this point, as well as being able respond if there was a run on a position.
Surprisingly, there was no clear direction for this pick. Numerous alternatives occurred to me. Those names have already been discussed extensively. The dominant consideration was selecting a player who was able to become an immediate starter, along with filling a need. Raji should fall because of his positive drug test but I still consider him to be worth the risk at a lower range.
1b) - Tyson Jackson (DE34). Jackson's pick completed a 2/3rds rebuilding of the defensive line. At this point, the Broncos would have taken the top two defensive lineman in the draft -- a significant accomplishment. His choice was again guided by the principle of choosing a player who could be expected to start immediately or play a significant role as backup on day one. As with the Raji pick, ability to stop the run played a big role in his selection.
Possible Alternates -- Clay Mathews (OLB34) was nearly picked here. His BPA was only one point lower, and I believe he fits the profile of the type of player we'll be looking for. I'd even prefer him to Cushing at this point. Many alternatives occurred to me but none stood out. The only surprise consideration was Laurinaitis, who I've ignored since the news of the impending switch to the 3-4 but struck me as another player in the mold of Mathews, with versatility and pass coverage abilities that might make him surprising useful player despite not being considered a 3-4 type of player.
2) - Patrick Chung (SS). Chung struck me as the type of player they'll want to pursue -- i.e., team oriented and an overacheiver with a high football IQ. I was seeking a theme for this MOCK that would shift the emphasis from BPA and need, and all of the choices are considered solid citizens and good players who make others around them better.
Alternates. I gave strong consideration to Eric Wood (OC) again. I'm anticipating that the extra picks wil allow us to explore picking players at spots that we've previously ignored somewhat, because we now have picks in a different range, and because we can meet still meet our need though other picks and our strategy is less forced. Moore (SS), Jairus Byrd (CB/S) and Marcus Freeman (LB) were considered. The most notable thing about this pick is the group of desirable choices the go immediately before it. There could be a tremendous opportunity to select a falling value (e.g. Sintim (OLB), Delmas (FS), Sean Smith (CB/S), etc.).
3a) - Derrick Williams (WR). Williams was selected again despite my wanting to try to take this draft in a new direction and explore other possible picks. Speed, playmaking & KR ability and the chance to finally take someone on the offensive side made him impossible to ignore.
Alternates. Coye Francies (CB) and Sherrod Martin (FS/CB) were strongly considered. The proximity of the next pick (five picks later) was an issue again. Sidbury (OLB34) and Ellerbe (ILB) were considered among many others. The possibility of falling values -- Kruger (DE), Victor Harris (CB), etc., could be an issue in the actual draft.
3b) - Jonathan Luigs (OC/OG). I chose an OC again I think he'd fit well with the emerging theme. I would be very happy if we're able to get any of the top group of Centers (Mack, Unger, Wood or Luigs), a most of them are ZB appropriate and should be able to play guard. I think picking an OL by this point would be very wise, but there's value later, too.
Alternates. No new possibilities. Rhett Bomar (QB) could be a possibility, along with some mentioned for the last pick.
4) - Kevin Barnes (CB). I bypassed some others, such as Captain Munnerlyn (CB), Morgan Trent (CB), because I thought Barnes was the best despite the ranking. Read this to see why. It's a deep CB crop and I wanted to add at a reasonably high round. This pick was very fortunate but I don't know if we can get that lucky in the real draft. The standard of immediate starterg/significant backup was an important criterion for this draft but I didn't expect to find starter quality players after the 3rd round as a rule. Barnes is an exception to that rule.
Alternates. McKillop (ILB) and Frantz Joseph (ILB) were considered because ILB had not been addressed yet.
5) - Jasper Brinkley (ILB). Selecting Brinkley once again was both necessary and desirable. I've de-emphasized LB in some of the recent drafts, but the real Bronco draft might take a different course considering the Cushing, Mathews and Maualuga are all quite possible picks. The ILB position is actually so shallow that the fact that they're not coming up more is because there just aren't many of them. However, all of my mocks have been fairly successful at finding them so we should be able to fill the position if we target it.
Alternates. Terrance Taylor (NT) was available if NT was still not filled. John Parker Wilson (QB) could be an interesting choice. Jason Phillips (ILB) could be a fall back choice if Brinkley was unavailable.
6) - Tom Brandstater (QB). I thought Brandstater was an interesting possibility even though I'm not overly concerned about filling the QB position. There was no clear choice at this point and the most intriguing possibilities were at QB, such as Reilly and Cantwell.
Alternates. If Sammie Lee Stillman had fell one spot I could have taken him. TE was still under consideration and I think there's good value around this range but none were particularly close this time. The strongest alternative was Kevin Ellison (SS), who has everything we would want except speed (4.7-40yd.). I think we should consider him though.
7a) - Ian Johnson (RB-C). I didn't find many RBs within range throughout this MOCK. This is mostly the luck of the draw. I'd be happy to see them take Johnson in this range in the real draft because of all the qualities he offers. He probably won't make the transition to the next level but he's the kind of guy we want on our team, and I imagine he'd find a way to contribute at whatever he's asked to do -- a good team player.
Alternates. Roy Miller (NT), Everette Pedescleaux (DE34) and Antonio Appleby (ILB) are nearby and make this a choice that could be used on a number of needs. I could see changing this pick to shore up many other areas but I choose Johnson because I'd yet to select a RB.
7b) - Ra'shon Harris (DE34). I was happy to find a DE34 left because I wanted to add one more. I just looked up Harris again recently and he's been rising.
Alternates. Everyone that's left in the draft. I can see a great number of possibilities although none stand out. The strongest possibilities are probably the speedy WRs nearby -- Tiquan Underwood or Deon Butler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll skip the comments section for now and edit later.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
0 recs |
16 comments
Comments
Intersting
I too think Raji is still a good fit at #12, and had not thought of Brandstater. I say no on Johnson as I think the RB stable is full.
by topnation on Apr 2, 2009 11:44 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Johnson was the most changeable pick
Miller, Pedescleaux and Appleby were worthy choices. I wanted to throw in one RB for the sake of the exercise, and he was a higher BPA. In a real world situation I would take one of those three. I wasn’t sure of the roster numbers though and I already took them in previous MOCKs, so I went with a position I had yet to fill.
by Colinski on Apr 3, 2009 12:23 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good post. You did your homework.
It looks like Raji could well be there at #12 and Jackson at #18. As you say, filling 2/3 of the DL in one draft is pretty good. We’ll see how it turns out. I understand the Pats had 3 1st rounders one year and took 3 DL players.
by Blackknigh on Apr 3, 2009 12:12 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Hi Colinski...
I asked this question of Styg the other day.
How do you see our need for RB now that Cutler is gone. Do you see that, regardless of our strength in numbers, we now have a need for a ‘stud’ in order to take some pressure from a lesser QB?
(Disclaimer – Must admit I’m a bit of a Moreno fan)
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams
by orange&blue_aussie on Apr 3, 2009 12:18 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
My initial reactions
I like the idea of adding one RB, particularly now that we need the running game to be as strong as possible to take pressure off the QB. The logic is there but we’ve added quite a few already and still have leftover talent such as Torain. We could take a RB with a high pick, and it’s a luxury that we could afford now that we have 2- #1s, but the logic of waiting till later in the draft still holds. I could see us taking someone like Rashad Jennings in the 3rd, so I guess you could say I’ve moved the round up some (I was advocating a 4th round pick on a RB previously), but I don’t think we’re going to find an Adrian Peterson and be able to simply put the offense on his back.
Here’s the thing though — we’ve got 5 RBs and 2FBs (not including Larsen), and that’s about the limit to what we can carry. One new back could knock of an old back, say Selvin Young and/or Pinnock, and make us marginally better, but we could use that pick on some solid depth at another position. I like adding to RB on a regular basis but it would make more sense to me to add WRs and a good G/C. I like the idea of improving the running game to take pressure off the QB but adding backs doesn’t necessarily do that.
I’d like to see a 6 back rotation, which is about all we can carry without taking away from elsewhere, but that doesn’t leave us much room to add.
It’s something I’ll have to think about. I haven’t had the time yet to re-evaluate our needs considering Cutler’s trade and the new allotment of picks.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
FBs
Pinnock, Andrew
Hillis, Peyton
Larsen, Spencer
RBs
Buckhalter, Correll
Jordan, Lamont
Arrington, J. J.
Torrain, Ryan
Young, Selvin
by Colinski on Apr 3, 2009 1:21 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh - and also..
A different question related to the number of picks we have…
Do you see us shedding some of these picks for higher picks next year? Do the sheer number of picks we have this year make it difficult to picture all of them making the squad?
Nice position to be in, i suppose and i suppose the alternative is a few trade up scenarios?
Nice mock too. Be great to end up with those two on the front 3!
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams
by orange&blue_aussie on Apr 3, 2009 12:24 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I very much hope we trade picks to strengthen future drafts
The Patriots have long been known for this tactic. We’re in a very strong position to ensure flexibility for many drafts to come.
by CoastalBronco on Apr 3, 2009 12:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
trading away picks is a New England trick
Teams discount the future far too much, but we need to use our picks now. I wouldn’t mind it personally but it would create backlash at a time when they can’t afford to alienate fans. The draft is like Christmas to football fans and you don’t cancel Christmas to have a better Christmas next year.
We can retain a considerable portion of our draftees. Averages say that the late rounders have poor odds but we kept everyone (eventually) from last year’s draft, plus some college free agents — but that was unusual. We’re in a rebuilding mode and we can add depth to a lot of positions, so we should be able to keep an unusually high portion of draftees as long as we draft well.
We don’t really need to move up — actually. I said yesterday that we didn’t want Detroit’s #1 because it was too high, and it was. That’s why we didn’t make the trade with them. We could move up to take someone but I don’t know who’s really worth it. The truth is that the money gets so high near the top of the 1st that teams are better off with later picks. I was hoping for a boatload of 2s and 3s but no team has that many and a trade with 3rd parties involved is too hard to arrange.
We may take someone up on a trade but we’ll probably try to get more lower picks this year, and maybe defer some till next , but we need to bring in lots of talent now because of the defensive scheme change.
by Colinski on Apr 3, 2009 1:43 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess i should clarify
and say that i meant trading around in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds. I don’t really see the point of trading into the top 10 either. But maybe using a 6th or 7th to jump over a team or two to access someone they really like who has fallen may be something they can look at.
I take your point on having a lot of depth spots for filling. At the very least we’ll have some great competition in the spots.
It’s the end of my day so i gotta go but thanks for the great response. I’ll respond to your RB reply as soon as i get back online Colinski but at the very least thanks for such full replies big fella!
"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
"It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes" Douglas Adams
by orange&blue_aussie on Apr 3, 2009 3:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
having many picks allows movement
I don’t know who we’d be so interested in that we’d need to move, though. It’s quite possible, however. The one area that holds potential interest is the high to middle range of the 2nd.
42 Larry English-- Northern Illinois OLB43
43 Connor Barwin-Cincinnati DE43 OLB34
44 Sean Smith-Utah CB FS
45 Louis Delmas-Western Michigan FS
46 Clint Sintim-Virginia OLB43 OLB34
I’d say the 42 through 46 range should hold interest for us (we pick at #48). And it’s also why our falling to the bottom of the #12 – #16 rotation of tied teams in the 2nd is irritating. If we had lost one tiebreak we’d pick at #13 in the 1st round but #12 in the 2nd, and it would have improved our draft position — surprisingly. Losing one slot in the 1st appears to be less important in this draft than the five slots we drop in the 2nd.
I don’t expect the real draft to pattern after DrafTek’s Big Board but there’s a lot of value in the 2nd. Notice that New England has 3 – #2 picks.
by Colinski on Apr 3, 2009 9:45 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about taking a look at Brooks Bollinger as a ufa? I think he is worth a look.
by grumpa on Apr 3, 2009 12:45 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good work
I definitely think we need to go defense on our first 3 picks this year and not pick QB early in this year’s or next year’s draft.
This is the worst-case scenario.
by uziguzi on Apr 3, 2009 12:51 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
This was fun, nice to be able to look forward to the draft
I was impressed with the top 3 picks being for the D, that did a good job of addressing immediate needs.
I agree, Larsen shouldn’t get any bigger. I am getting tired of his bone crushing hits knocking the pixels off my TV, once they fall to the floor they are very hard to find.
by Arctic Bronco on Apr 3, 2009 1:04 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Good Mock.
Thanks for the work. I think nobody is shooting up the draft board faster than Clay Matthews. If we could get an impact DT like Raji or Jackson I would go for an impact and versatile LB before using the second pick on the line.
by swg777 on Apr 3, 2009 7:13 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
re: Mathews
I really liked the idea of picking him at #18. He’s a Safety in the body of large LB. Getting the second #1 makes him a prospect that we should strongly consider drafting.
If we don’t take Raji at #12 and take Jackson instead then Mathews should be one of the leaders at #18.
by Colinski on Apr 3, 2009 9:07 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 



























