MINI-MOCK

The playmaker/RBC/KR is the only position on offense that we have to (so to speak) address. There are no breakaway threats on our roster and I think it’s time that we addressed this situation. An easier way of fixing the problem would be to sign Darren Sproles. SD appears to be resigned to letting him go but it would uneconomical to keep him at his franchised salary let alone lure him here with more. Growing our own RBC is still the most appealing solution in many ways.

BTW — do check out Hunter. I was surprised how well he fit the criteria I’d established. I also mention LaMichael James, whose stock has risen to an unfortunately high point.

Paea’s selection represents a departure from the F.B.3-4’s positional specification of a mammoth NT. The question we should ask is — is he capable of anchoring in the middle even though he’s relatively undersized? Strength is certainly not a problem for Paea but he would be outweighed by many O-linemen, so it’s a question of whether he can compensate for this disadvantage through quickness, strength and out-leveraging them with his short stature.

My feeling is that we need to re-assess these positional specifications. There are NTs around the league who have thrived despite being undersized, and many of those undersized NT — such as Jay Ratliff — have done more than thrive (although he is taller). I’ve seen enough of Paea to know he’s a player but questions of basic physics shouldn’t be dismissed. Moreover, there are questions about his explosiveness that suggest that he may not be the answer by himself. An additional FA signing such as Paul Soliai might help but there are many questions about his work ethic.

It looks like NT is a work in progress no matter what. Even the Paea/Soliai solution wouldn’t necessarily eliminate the need to keep Jamal Williams for a little longer, but it’s a somewhat large investment. An alternate solution might be to select someone such as Phil Taylor later on. but it’s hard to see them taking both Paea and Taylor. There are no simple solutions at NT, however you look at it.

I truncated the discussion (it was late) but I decided to revisit the issue of finding picks at certain critical junctures to use to take a few extra players. Black clearly fit into this ‘I wish I had an extra pick around now’ scenario.

The Safety position begs for an extra pick. I have no problem with the Jimmy Smith pick but it hurt to address CB at the expense of Safety, and vice versa. The other position that it hurt to ignore was LB, and mainly ILB since I think we could still address OLB later even though it would also require finding another ‘highish’ pick. My feeling is that a quality ILB such as Martez Wilson could help us greatly in both pass coverage and run defense. A David Harris signing would be even better but harder to accomplish — obviously.

I include reach/value numbers so you can see whether I reached (according to the BPA Big Board values). The point is that the football gods were kind to me.

The point of MOCKs (IMO) is to successfully implement a strategy, which is based on your needs/wants, draft shape, and the vicissitudes of the draft. Getting lucky isn’t impressive but what is impressive is rarely recognized. I see a good year to find DE34s and CBs and I’ll be impressed if we find a way of taking advantage of that while also filling some other needs.

Doom has proven he is best in the 3-4. If you mean by a hand in the dirt that he is a 4-3 DE, then I respectfully disagree. He might have his hand in the dirt in a 3-4 as an edge rusher if that’s what you mean.

Past results prove this to be correct.

They would ignore the test question and supply a commentary instead. It didn’t work, despite the oft-repeated maxim about answering the question with the answer you know when you can’t answer the question asked.

I should have clarified that it was a 3-4 draft but I but I prefer not to bulk up FanPosts with miscellaneous information. The use of 3-4 terminology, such as the alternate choice of an OLB34 — Justin Houston — provides an indication of where I was going with it.

It occurred to me that a 4-3 draft might be appropriate for one of the later editions. However, it makes little sense to do this in the first MOCK, unless the point is to be contentious. I have given some thought to scheme diversity regarding Fairley, etc., and I’ve suggested that judicious additions of speed would be appropriate, so I’ve backed away from the McDaniels/F.B.3-4 positional specifications somewhat. These are all interesting topics that deserve a topic all to themselves. I’d be interested in hearing the arguments for switching to a 4-3 but complaints about a 3-4 MOCK being flawed because it’s not a 4-3 MOCK are fatuous.

I treat the comment about drafting Bowers as serious but the problem was that Bowers has fit problems for a 3-4 MOCK and was ranked lower. I won’t slavishly obey the DT BB values but I’m not completely on-board with Bowers at this point. He’s definitely part of the mix but any decision regarding him has to wait till after the scheme questions are answered. He’s hardly a bad choice but he’s not yet a good choice until they’re answered.

This was a 3-4 draft. We may know who the new HC is by the end of this month and therefore something about his choices regarding scheme, but I’m treating the 3-4 as our default scheme until then.

I should have including a paragraph declaring that point — since I had thought of it while composing the MOCK — but it must of slipped my mind. I had intended to use 3-4 designations to make this clear but I see I used DT/DE instead of what I often use instead — DE34.

Re: the declarees. It’s always speculative at this point. We’ll know on Jan. 20. We’ll also know the compensatory picks and thus the final draft order after the annual league meeting. A bigger source of uncertainty (besides the new CBA) is Free Agency. I’ve attempted to map out a draft strategy but it’s still contingent on FAs.

Finally, MOCKs are an exercise in planning, by which I mean that they’re trial runs. The most noticeable thing for me was the need for more picks. I could be accused of hypocrisy since I appear to have succumbed to the ‘draftee as savior’ belief but it was apparent that needed more picks for the following positions. — S, ILB, OLB.

I’m happy with the mix of DE34, NT, CB & RBC but I had dearly hoped to add at least one LB and a S. These would be future starter/upgrade picks so 2 – 2nd round picks (more or less) would be required. The most obvious way of obtaining those picks would be by trading Orton and D. J. I’m not completely sold on the idea (of either) but I could get used to it if we can obtain picks that high. The MOCK exercise revealed to me that — ideally speaking — we need more picks in the upper (~2nd) range. There’s too many positions in need of upgrades to address them all with our current allotment. And, admittedly, this is under ideal conditions and a long-term view so it’s a very tentative conclusion.

I had some more thoughts — I’m still in flux regarding how to proceed with the defense. Like you, I don’t have a problem with Fairley or Paea as DT43s and I’ve already addressed the issue of their scheme diversity (and value because of it) elsewhere. And — oddly — fixing DT is a very good idea even if we go to the 4-3. I think we can also go the trade-down route, too, since the addition of any of the lesser ranked DEs (I’ve mentioned Watt & Jordan as examples of what a trade-down scenario could look like) could cement the DL in the 4-3 scenario. The main idea is that it would be easier to use players such as Watt & Jordan as DE43s because they’re undersized besides being relatively plentiful in the 2nd tier (~ outside top ten to later) to third tier (~ late 1st to 2nd or so).

The point is that it could be even easier to fill out a 4-3 this year (although it shouldn’t be) because there’s a number of 2nd tier (~after the top ten) DLs. We could still go the route of building up the DL but the eventual product would look a little different. I admit to liking the idea of size but not slow. One way of accomplishing this could be 4-3 with a NT and under tackle (a typical arrangement) and DE draftees such as Watt, Jordan, etc. I also like the idea of hybrid scheme so one way we could go would be to a flex-like arrangement and blend some of existing element in with newer, fast players while still preserving the old elements as a distinct unit to a degree. I think the 3-4 versus 4-3 is too rigid in it’s thinking. A base scheme is only what you look like much of the time, and not even necessarily most of it. I can see value in adopting parts of the 4-3 scheme but also in keeping many of the parts of 3-4. My suggestion is more a long the lines of adding wrinkles along with personnel rather than blowing the defense up. I strongly reject the idea of the scheme alone as the problem and I suggest that anyone who believes otherwise needs to go back and read Steve Nichols on this subject. Our main problem is lack of continuity which overlaps and coincides with the personnel problems and the problem of having a defensive coaching turnstile. The problem on defensive is what many people call the solution.