FINAL MOCK

I’ll let people comment instead.

Dan Williams might give way to another pick. The board doesn’t favor him against McClain or Pouncey although the positional impact consideration does — but it still depends on who you like.

Haden is unavailable.

Ducasse is a poor man’s version of Iupati but both are raw. This pick is contingent on the first and we can’t take more than one of the three available 1st round players anyways. It’s definitely a long-term choice but it’s justified under BPA. You can argue with the Big Board but that’s a limitation with the exercise, and there’s always a limitation of this type since the players you like are often absent in the real draft, too.

I haven’t found a way of re-working the exercise that still gives pick discipline, and I strongly dislike wish lists. Opinions vary greatly on some of the mid-rounders you (apparently) dislike. Mayock rates Beadles in his top 5 OGs/OCs, and I give him some credence. MUG, a knowledgeable poster on BC, likes Verner, and he fits our profile for CBs so well that I have to believe McDaniels would be interested.

There’s indications that I get from running the exercise that we’ll be very open to moving. Picks often have positional logic behind them but I"m most sensitive to time of develop issue. I don’t know if they’ll be as concerned with immediate impact as you but agree that it’s an issue. My feeling on the Ducasse pick is any prospect may take time to develop, so it’s easy to exaggerate the differences. The desideratum on him was based on potential, but I could see them going a different route, too.

What’s so wrong with that? He got coached up by Monte Kiffin, and blossomed. Showed his ability. Besides, he weighed 357 when he was a freshman, and in the 340’s the next two years. Last year he played at 320 something.

I don’t view them as predictions, and there’s little chance of predicting much after minor alterations scramble later picks. It’s like predicting a rubber ducky race. And the interactive nature of picks makes for an indeterminate outcome. Teams’ beliefs about what other teams will do spur them to anticipate and take players earlier than they might normally. The draft might pattern more closely to the Big Board if only a few teams drafted but the infrequency of picks forces teams to reach or lose players. It’s a messy scenario.

Tate is the only big back at that range but I can understand why you would go with Gerhart. I can’t see going with either Hardesty or Gerhart in the 2nd, so it’s a lot like a real draft in that I didn’t know who would be available. I have to pick amongst available players. I wouldn’t say that I was stuck on him (as I say), but there’s justification for taking a power back this early if we like him.

I’ve meant to comment on Beadles since he’s received so much attention, and we missed him in the analysis here. Some people would think I’m nuts but the Big Board agrees with me (or me with it) and I explain that pick as a BPA pick for OC so people will know why it’s made and decide if they like the logic.

If all the late players are going earlier then I’ve done a good job. If I consistently beat the Big Board then I’ve shown that I’m better at predicting teams’ preferences, and their behavior is the gold standard (or most accurate opinion). It’s also important to measure the totality of my picks. My picks last year where consistently better than any Big Board, too (I examine the actual draft and compare my MOCKs to it).

I don’t think there’s any problem with moving him there, and many teams are viewing him as belonging on the inside. He clearly fits the ‘smart’ OC mold as an engineering major with a 3.52 GPA.

The issue at OG is remain unless we find another vet. Neither Iupati or Ducasse are ready, and I’m not sure about the fit for some of the other prospects. I’m comfortable with the idea of drafting John Jerry but I don’t see enough short-term advantage in deferring on Ducasse. I’d prefer getting the right player and waiting for him to develop, if necessary. Ducasse is very raw but he’s exactly the right kind of player.

I predicted we’d draft a TE but the story is just too few picks. I pondered adding a couple selections to this draft in the 5th and proposing that we would trade our 2nd from Miami. I decided against it but not because I dislike the idea.

TE is the first addition (or one of) that I would make. It’s a bumper crop and it’s hard to see us not finding one as our BPA at some point. I didn’t feel comfortable pulling the trigger in this MOCK because their attributes are so mixed. Late prospects look too rough and early prospects are often weak in blocking. I’ve stated that whoever it is should come out of the power forward mold, but it’s easier to say that than find values who fit that mold. I’m not comfortable drafting a TE early and passing on an OL in the impact/contributer range.

I could see Anthony McCoy falling so low that we’d take a chance on him..

Huh? All three USC LBs surpassed the pre-draft hype in 2009. Cushing and Matthews look like future All Pros. The WRs? not so much, but USC has placed some awesome NFL players in the last few years.

It was a good year to do so. He overcame a lot of doubt by performing at a high level with Barkley at QB

I got Rulon Davis right last year, but he didn’t make the board. LOL.
I try to seek the understanding of each pick, but you are absolutely right. Most of us are absurdly stunned that the coach passed up the player we KNEW should have been picked, crying “What was he thinking!”

I use different MOCKs to explore the range of alternative picks. McClain was the #1 in my first MOCK so I wasn’t going to repeat the pick. I went into this MOCK expecting to draft Earl Thomas, but I really didn’t know exactly who would be available.

Obviously, the rationale for picks is somewhat inconsistent if I’m making an alternative choice even though the same players are available, but there’s a virtue in exploring the reasoning behind selections, especially since a draft’s utility is based on the entirity of the draft rather than solely on one pick.

The choice of Dan Williams with the first pick was based on two key factors; 1) impact/value of NT, 2) developmental/grooming considerations. He was chosen over McClain, in part, because is a lower valued position and — therefore — there should be much cheaper substitutes who can perform the same ILB duties at a reasonably proficient level. Please note that I’m not saying McClain isn’t a good player. The rationale for the 1st pick in this MOCK is positional value/scarcity. NTs are hard to find and have a great impact in a 3-4 scheme. Moreover, the 1st round pick is slotted in salary so the salary for McClain would be higher than his value, as measured against the salary of veterans such as D. J. Williams.

By outlining the decisional rational behind a pick, I’m not attempting to conclude the issue. Nor am I attempting to argue against the decisional rationale I used to pick McClain in my first MOCK. An individual decision isn’t necessarily consistent/coherent (oddly) in itself but the main problem comes from attempting to optimize utility for a group of selections. Selecting a player in the draft changes the decision making criterion for the following teams, so clever teams look ahead and calculate the probability of meeting their needs given the needs of other teams and the shape of the draft.

In this MOCK, it was estimated that McClain’s talents could be found in later rounds. Furthermore, the value of a player who is primarily a run stopper wasn’t considered high enough to warrant a pick. And a premium was placed on any LB who provided pass coverage ability. Thus, selections such as Weatherspoon or Butler were preferred. LBs in the top half of the 1st were under a decisional criteria that required speed which McClain lacked. It was close, but the decision could be compared to last year when Curry went early but Maualuga and Laurinaitis did not. Few fans would have considered Clay Mathews superior to Maualuga before the draft but Mathews went at #26 whereas Maualuga went at #38. The main difference between the two is that Mathews can pass cover.

A final note — my strategy for addressing run-stopping is counter to what most people believe, and I think it needs explication. The primary emphasis is bolstering the DL but the attendant strategy is with increasing the pass coverage ability of the LBs — NOT, as many people would think, by necessarily increasing the run-stopping ability of the LBs. Prospects for the LB position had to be either competent in pass coverage or add high level pass rushing ability, in addition to providing run-stopping ability. Additions to ILB at a lower (and inexpensive) level were also permissible as long as their expected usage matched the outlay. In other words, a higher pick (2nd or 3rd, etc.) would be expected to pass cover or rush but a middle round ILB could be justifiable on run-stopping ability alone (and almost all of this type of prospect offers superior speed to what Andra Davis possessed).

I haven’t spoken much about the needs on offense V defense, but my feeling currently is that the offense needs more attention than the defense. The free agent crop is partly the reason, besides the fact that the defense performed better than the offense last year (AMAZINGLY).

It’s tough to diagram this stuff and make it readable. We have more potential needs than draft picks. And it really depends on the quality of the draftees so we can go with current members on the roster so I’m listing bubble players who may remain along with clear vacancies.

OL — openings for starters and backups at all three positions. I’d say a fuzzy 2.

WR & TE — room for 2.

RB — room for 1.

DL — additions would be nice but we’re at our target already. Call it a fuzzy 1.

ILB — 1.

OLB — Moss is one the bubble so it’s fuzzy 1.

CB & S — there’s essentially a vacancy at CB but there are 9 DBs already. I’d say a fuzzy 1.

The numbers are fairly even but they tip towards the offense. And the problem is more severe although we may not have immediate solutions, which points toward using more high picks on offense.

I don’t expect a big preponderance in either direction. I tried to even it out somewhat but it worked out the way it did partly by chance.

That was actually the choice, and it was a close one so I was torn. Chaney was my best example as a McClain substitute, and it’s hard to argue with the value at that range. Verner was picked because the CB project was considered more important.

What this pick did is convince me that the only thing that separated us from meeting our needs was a few late picks. I actually considered trading our #2 from Miami for 2 – 5th round picks. Two teams possessed twin 5th rounders and I originally composed a section at the end with added picks — #134(3rd in 5th) and #146(15th). but I quickly abandoned the idea when it occurred to me that a re-working of the late picks would also be in order.

Here’s a re-worked version of the late draft including the two new picks — #134, #137, #146 and #183.

~~#134 – Jamar Chaney – ILB – (reach 15) ALTERNATIVE — Roddrick Muckelroy – OLB

~~#137 – Joe Webb – WR – (reach 3) ALTERNATIVE — Ramone Harewood – OT

~~#146 – Nate Byham – TE — (reach 7) ALTERNATIVE — Joshua Moore – CB

~~#183 – A. J. Jefferson – CB/KR — (reach 12) ALTERNATIVE — Nolan Carrol – CB

I missed on OLB in this version but that’s how it goes. I was tempted to take Muckelroy but Chaney fit the criteria too well.

Here’s my suggestion for a UDFA recruit — Dexter Davis – OLB

Finally, I realize what kind of reaction the trade will receive. Trading our 2nd next year is short-sighted but finding some extra picks is a very good idea. I’m hoping that we can gain some picks through trading down at a prudent juncture.

The one-year wonder charge is frequently meaningless. College players in high profile programs frequently don’t play until their equally stellar predecessors leave, which often only provides one year to star. And many players take until the final year to mature. Dan Williams clearly matured late, which is very much like Ayers. It’s reassuring to have a longer productive period to measure them by but that’s what all the metrics, positional drills and film study are for.

I just came back to post my latest thought — I’m starting to believe a player such as Rob Gronkowski – TE – would be a better choice in the 2nd. I’d even take him instead of Damian Williams, although that won’t make some people happy. I won’t rework the rest of the draft at this point but it struck me that I very much like the idea of picking him over Damian Williams right now.