MOCK 5 (DrafTek version 2)

by Colinski on Apr 23, 2009 6:17 PM MDT Comment 11 comments

I'll be keeping track of priorites and revising if inappropriate players appear -- such as Herman Johnson, who I've overruled as ZB inappropriate.

OFFENSE

QB = 4, RB-F = 5, RB-C = 9, WR-F - 6, WR-P = 0, WR-S = 4, OT = 9, OG = 6, OC = 4, FB = 9, TE = 6

I'll trying to get a Center this time. I'm purposely limiting the needs for positions such as WR and RB although they're still lower priorities. The real problem here is that categories are an unnecessarily limiting factor. I'll open the needs again later but keep the priorities low.

DEFENSE

DT43 = 9, DT34 = 3, DE43 = 0, DE34 = 2, OLB43 = 9, OLB34 = 4, ILB = 3, SS = 4, FS = 4, CB = 4, PK = 9

#12) - Maualuga - ILB ( -6)

#18) - Evander Hood - DE34 ( -14)

#48) - Freeman - QB ( +20)

#79) - Antoine Caldwell - OC ( -11)

#84) - Rashad Jennings - RB-F ( +1)

#114) - Keenan Lewis - CB ( +8)

#149) - Chris Baker - DT34 ( -56)

#185) - Quan Cosby - WR-F ( +14)

#225) - Bear Pascoe - TE ( +23)

#235) - Al Afalava - SS ( +4)

Not a lot of difference between this one and the last DT version, HERE.

I'll comment to replies.

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

huh. interesting.

i usually hate these things and i am not too crazy about this but it sure is interesting. i like the freeman pick and while the hood pick i don’t like at that point to maualuga pick would be cool.

"Hey Raiders fans!!! If you leave now you can beat traffic!"
-Rod Smith

by GarretBarnes on Apr 23, 2009 7:37 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks bro.

I’ve spent a lot of time on DraftTek and the ODS. It’s a great tool. I’ll be on the private server on draft day updating realtime as we go. Should be interesting.

Are you grabbing Stafford at 1? There Lions expert (who I’m sure is very sharp) continues to insist it ain’t Stafford, but the news is sure sounding different today. That makes some difference in the sims. I also made a number of priority changes on both sides of the ball to get some different results. (To be honest, I’m not crazy about the above draft.)

by NedBronco on Apr 23, 2009 7:56 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

yes, they haven't looked that good

The weird thing is that people are offended that it doesn’t turn out better when all you can do is add inputs + lockout and grab. I can’t help it if other teams are drafting the players we like. There’s an implication that somehow the draft should turn out better, but the point of a simulation is maximize with what you would realistically have the chance to draft; not whether we can come up with a wishlist of players who would be — for the most part — drafted by other teams in a real draft.

The best we can do is realistically describe our needs, and maybe take player now and then when the Board or the software are inadequate. All that I can say about say about some comments is that they reveal that the writer has unrealistic expectations.

by Colinski on Apr 23, 2009 11:00 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well put!

by NedBronco on Apr 24, 2009 7:52 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

Still like Mock 3 best

Do you really think Freeman will fall to 48?

Ok, Ski…who is your 2009 Sleeper pick? I am going with Quan Cosby – he consistantly improved throughout his college career and I like his upside.

In the Fiesta Bowl he had 14 catches for 171 and 2 TD’s – while Jenkins was covering the bigger Shipley, Cosby was killing em’! I like this kid.

Moreno in '09!

by Steve O' on Apr 23, 2009 10:30 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

NO

But who thought Brady Quinn or Rashard Mendenhall would fall so far?

Actually, we’d have to view that fall as very lucky for us, but I wasn’t looking to add a QB that early. We’d have a great find if he did.

by Colinski on Apr 23, 2009 11:05 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

re: sleepers

There are plenty of sleeper lists out there. We’ve mostly heard of them. I’ve talked of Henry Melton (DE) and Eron Riley (WR) lately. I’ve become aware of DeAngelo Willingham (FS) lately. I think Antone Smith (RB) has done himself well lately, and I should have listed him on the KR list. Toler is still new to most people (CB, St. Pauls).

I like Cosby a lot, because I don’t really care if he’s old. His previous experience as a professional baseball player makes him much more developed and mature. And I think he’s the kind of WR that could do well in McDaniels’ multiple receiver sets & plays. I’d like to see us get 2 WRs this year; one WR-S (speedy & small per DT) and a good route runner. I’m not looking for starters, just some WRs who would add something in the multiple sets.

by Colinski on Apr 23, 2009 11:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

I Like It.

I think I’d be pleased with this, but I’m not quite sure.

"The mystic chords of fandom, stretching from every trade and signing to every active account and guest all over this broadband, will yet swell the chorus of union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature". ~ Abraham Lincoln-ish

"The tree of victory must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of quarterbacks and coaches". ~ Thomas Jefferson-ish

by ejruiz on Apr 23, 2009 10:48 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs

try one of your own

I think I’m going to do one more with some different settings. I may even see if I can lockout the less likable picks and substitute my own using the grab function.

The problem that some people don’t realize is that so many of the players we want, particularly the 3-4 types, are being snatched much earlier than we expected. We won’t have many chances to get a NT or DE34; there’s just not enough of them and there aren’t many opportunities. We may even want to dip back into the FA market, and the CFA market is going to be important once again this year, so let’s hope they continue last year’s generous contracts for CFAs.

by Colinski on Apr 24, 2009 12:06 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

generous contracts

that has to beone of the smartest things that Shanny’s personnel dept. engaged in. I was always proud of the organization for not cutting corners on guys they believed to be quality.

Just because you are lucky enough to get a chance to take a guy as a CFA doesn’t mean you need to hoard the good vibes. The contracts are a pittance, and no place to be greedy.

There is no army so powerful as an idea whose time has come.

by Jeremy Bolander on Apr 24, 2009 12:18 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

generosity to FAs

I see that New England had a CFA on their practice squad at the NFL minimum, which is far higher than normal PS wages. it’s suggestive of how McDaniels might view a continuation of last year’s generosity to CFAs.

There’s been a carry over of attitudes towards from the ‘old days’ when undrafted meant something different than today. The reduction of rounds in the draft has meant that many of today’s CFAs would have been drafted in the past.

We’re in a position where CFA talent is quite important, and last year was exceptional in that regard, as Polumbus, Kern and Woodyard (and Alridge) came in through that route. The talent level is too high to ignore these players, and they’re not what we would have called “late rounders” in year’s past. We’re in a competition for the services of these players and going cheap won’t help.

There may be some reluctance to pay a player that’s likely to be cut and/or land on someone else’s practice squad, but I see a benefit to being the team that brings them into the league because we’re often rewarded with loyalty. There’s more to this issue than the quality of the players, however, since the process of stocking the 3-4 will be aided tremendously by an influx of 3-4 players, all of whom we can’t expect to draft, even with ten picks.

by Colinski on Apr 24, 2009 9:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs