NFL 2012 Draft Thread

Pages

Let me throw some random draft thoughts out there:

* I wouldn't spend a 1st round pick on Dontari Poe. The league has seen too many physically dominant "Tarzan" interior D-linemen wash out from "playing like Jane". These are the guys who'll give you an awesome year and then disappoint you forever. Sean Gilbert? Dan Wilkinson?

* I think I like Stephon Gilmore nearly as much as Morris Claiborne, much like I felt Prince Amukamara was just as worthy as Patrick Peterson a season ago. I like fast, natural cover corners with fluid hips. I certainly wouldn't turn down either of the LSU guys, but Gilmore (as did Amukamara) fits my "mold" of cornerback.

* Justin Blackmon doesn't belong in the top 10. He's not a dominating presence. At the same time, I would have a hard time naming 10 guys that deserve to go in the top 10 this year. The top end gets real lean, real fast. The bottom half of the top 10 is kind of a sh*tty place to draft right now.

* Let's talk about Ryan Tannehill and Brandon Weeden this way: if they were in last year's draft, I wouldn't select either of them before the 2nd and 3rd round QBs in that draft: Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, Ryan Mallett. In fact, there's a good chance a team on draft day trades for Ryan Mallett instead of chasing one of these guys. New England only needs to keep one out of Mallett and Brian Hoyer.

* I don't see what makes Kendall Wright not belong in the pack of receivers destined for round 2. He looks to me like a guy where the spread offense got all the separation for him. I worry taking him early would be spending a 1st round pick on the kind of slot receiver that is plentiful later in drafts.

* In the latter half of the top 10, I would absolutely be willing to spend a pick on David DeCastro.

* If there's someone in this year's group that's going to emerge and be a legitimate pass rushing DE, I don't know who it is. Nor would I be interested in spending my 1st round pick to try and find out.

* I saw one draft site compare Fletcher Cox to Kevin Williams and that's a great comparison.

I've seen Poe on some draft boards going to the Chiefs at #11. I want them to go with David DeCastro. They are finally getting to the point where the OL might be a strength, and locking down their LG spot would be awesome.

Like you, I'm tired of DL washing out out so often. DeCastro seems like a smart and safe pick.

Jayhawker wrote:

I've seen Poe on some draft boards going to the Chiefs at #11 (...) Like you, I'm tired of DL washing out out so often.

I've no problem with drafting DTs high (far from it, really), but it's this particular kind of DT - the guy who looks like a monster and has a game reel full of laziness.

The Chiefs have already drafted that guy once, and his name was Ryan Sims.

KC needs a nose tackle but they don't have to go throwing around the #11 pick to get one. Alameda Ta'amu will probably be sitting there in round 2. The Steelers are likely hoping he slides further down round 2 to them.

I'm going to repost this here because I thought it was interesting.

Interesting discussion on draft pick value.

IMAGE(http://fantasydouche.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image_thumb5.png)

In terms of the NFL, I prefer the Poly line that has been presented. I believe the Harvard model overemphasizes later picks (as 6th and 7th rounders rarely are given chances to grow, though this might change with the way draft picks are paid), but here we have a more gradual decline than the JJ model.

The Redskins paid for 1.2 with the JJ model, which fits their way of thinking (I believe), but I firmly believe they overpaid for it. In the end it might pan out, but outside of some savvy drafting, FA pickups and perhaps a trade or two, the Redskins shouldn't be competitive for a number of years.

Then again, Cam Newton came in and made the Panthers look a hell of a lot better than anyone expected. Thing is, Carolina earned Newton and have picks to fortify their defense, while the Redskins cupboard is pretty bare in the coming years in terms of drafting.

Regardless, this article present three different ways to look at the value of draft picks and for that I am glad as the JJ model has been outdated for a while now, imho.

Tagging for now.

garion333 wrote:

I'm going to repost this here because I thought it was interesting.

Interesting discussion on draft pick value.

From the article:

sh*tty teams are almost never just one player away. If they were just one player away, they would be 8-8, not 2-14.

A couple of impact players is often what separates a 2-14 team from an 8-8 one from a playoff team. Teams with poor records are often not as bad across the board as their record may indicate.

I also think the idea of valuing players by starts fails to recognize the fact that specialization in the modern NFL means plenty of players contribute without recording starts to their name. I think that's why every GM in the league values late picks much more than the article's author.

IMAGE(http://fantasydouche.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/image_thumb6.png)

If there was a combination of his graph and the Harvard one, I'd be happier, but as he said "this doesn’t have to be a one size fits all theory of drafting."

I'm surprised he hasn't tried a hybrid model based of piece-wise functions that intersect so as to be continuous (switches from one curve to another at the intersect).
I feel like this draft will be interesting because of a.) the rookie salary cap and b.) the fact that after the top 6 or so players it gets a little thin in terms of standout top 10-15 players. I think there is where we see a team make a move and use some late picks to jump up. I'm just not sure for what.

The word out there on Wonderlic scores it that Luck got a 37, Tannehill got a 34, and Griffin got a 24. Not sure how much teams really care about those scores; obviously it varies from one to another.

Tannehill's fallback plan for if he didn't get drafted was medical school, btw.

I think I am more interested in this draft than any of the others in the past several years. My team has needs everywhere and 9 picks after the obvious pick of Luck. Since our roster has needs all over the place, there will be little to no pressure to draft for any specific need. So we should be able to hit BPA each round. However, BPA is often in the eyes of the beholder, and it will be interesting to see how Grigson values different players and positions.

On the bright side our team really has no where to go but up, and we have cut a number of popular but oft-injured underperformers. I think the fact that most of them haven't found another team that will pick them up yet has made some of the more casual fans realize that some of them were not necessarily as big a loss many first thought.

Like fans of probably every team this time of year, I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of the franchise and ready for the games to begin.

Tagging.

Xeknos wrote:

Tagging.

*eyes the "add to favorites" link meaningfully*

Phishposer wrote:
Xeknos wrote:

Tagging.

*eyes the "add to favorites" link meaningfully*

While still in effect tagging.

boogle wrote:
Phishposer wrote:
Xeknos wrote:

Tagging.

*eyes the "add to favorites" link meaningfully*

While still in effect tagging.

That and I'm not a big fan of how the favorites link works, but that's all right.

I don't care at all for college ball, so most of my impressions of players come from the analysis in between the season and the draft. That said, it seems pretty obvious that a player with Poe's amazing measurables and zero production shows that the guy has no brains and/or doesn't care about football on any level. He's a guy that looks so good that someone will bite, even though they know that he's almost certain to bust.

I'm hoping that the Browns pick up an OL in the first round. It's almost mandatory. A CB or WR/HB would be nice for the other one. Richardson wouldn't break my heart if he's the once in every five years talent a few have called him, though I hate taking a HB/WR that high and would take either Kalil or Claiborne if there's no trade. Peter King has them trading up at the end of the 1st for Weeden. Don't know much about the guy other than the fact that he's old and pretty good.

boogle wrote:

I feel like this draft will be interesting because of a.) the rookie salary cap and b.) the fact that after the top 6 or so players it gets a little thin in terms of standout top 10-15 players. I think there is where we see a team make a move and use some late picks to jump up. I'm just not sure for what.

Jacksonville at #7 is ground zero for dancing the trade dance with any interested trade-up parties.

There's only a couple of players I see someone trading up for. Tannehill, obviously, if a team is hot to get a QB. And the other guy I see is Melvin Ingram. Ingram's of questionable value to a 4-3 team like the Jaguars, but a very desirable pass rusher for a 3-4 team. Lots of talk that the Jets want to move up for Ingram. I could see that.

To me, even leaving aside the fact that it's Jacksonville, the draft officially gets interesting at pick #7. It's either going to be a trade (in which case, the intrigue is, who's trading up and for whom?), or the question of who gets taken after the top 6 fall gets answered with a potential out-of-right-field Gene Smith selection.

Xeknos wrote:
boogle wrote:
Phishposer wrote:
Xeknos wrote:

Tagging.

*eyes the "add to favorites" link meaningfully*

While still in effect tagging.

That and I'm not a big fan of how the favorites link works, but that's all right.

Having just added this to my favorites, I fail to see how it's different in any meaningful way from posting a spammy post in the thread.

That out of the way, Legion, if you were Harbaugh-Baltimore, who would you be taking in the first round?

Depends on who's still on the board.

The bottom third of the 1st round is completely wide open. There's a lot of players who could fall into either the late 1st or early 2nd.

Ozzie Newsome's draft history is as good as any GM's in the league's. The record's been slightly chillier as of late (Sergio Kindle being the main boat anchor to this point, and Michael Oher underperforming to date but not written off yet), but that's one team whose front office deserves the fanbase's faith.

In general terms, the Ravens need to draft impact defensive players to start stepping in for the fading old guard. Whomever with the most potential on draft day falls down to #29, take that guy. Lots of mocks have the Ravens taking Dont'a Hightower, but others have Hightower not making it that far down in round 1.

If a LB they like isn't there, the Ravens will probably drop down (presumably to the top of the 2nd based on their low 1st pick) and get a C/G. I would be somewhat surprised to see them take a G/C in the 1st.

Safety is also an issue, but unless some real talent falls pretty damn far, they're more likely to snag a more developmental safety in later rounds. They're old at safety, but they have them.

RB and WR depth are also slightly an issue. I think RB is more important of the two since I expect the Ravens to keep playing two TE sets with Pitta and Dickson. Perhaps they'll pick up another older RB once the draft is over.

Back the LB position. It should be interesting to see if they'll ever let Kindle on the field other than through special teams and with Jarret Johnson now gone it looks as if Paul Kruger (converted DE) will be given a chance to start. Depending on how they see the talent they have, it's entirely possible for the Ravens to fortify their OL before adding pieces to the defense. I don't actually want to see that, but it could happen as they do pick so late in the round. Birk definitely needs to be replaced. I was shocked when he signed a multi-year deal, but he's a great player to have on a team, so for that I was glad.

*Legion* wrote:

* I wouldn't spend a 1st round pick on Dontari Poe. The league has seen too many physically dominant "Tarzan" interior D-linemen wash out from "playing like Jane". These are the guys who'll give you an awesome year and then disappoint you forever. Sean Gilbert? Dan Wilkinson?

* I think I like Stephon Gilmore nearly as much as Morris Claiborne, much like I felt Prince Amukamara was just as worthy as Patrick Peterson a season ago. I like fast, natural cover corners with fluid hips. I certainly wouldn't turn down either of the LSU guys, but Gilmore (as did Amukamara) fits my "mold" of cornerback.

Poe and Gilmore are a couple of guys who show up in Carolina's mocks.

Fletcher Cox (DL/Miss St.) and Luke Kuechly (LB/Boston College) are the other two.

Cox seems to be the consensus pick, as the Panthers need some (OK, a ton) help on D-line.

However, both rookies from last year have a season under their belts, and Ron Edwards comes back off of IR. So Carolina might decide that D-line is adequate for now, especially if they dig up a free agent who can help for a year. (That was how they got Edwards.)

I could see the Panthers taking Gilmore (you need CBs if you're going against Brees and Ryan twice each). Carolina's secondary, other than Chris Gamble, is pretty sorry, and even he's not all that hot).

I could also see Carolina taking Kuechly. Carolina likes character guys, and he's got enough for the entire D. The Panthers also have some history with cancer (Sam Mills). Looking at the nuts and bolts, Jon Beason is coming back off of injury, and Thomas Davis probably won't make it through a game. James Anderson developed into a pretty good player last season. Give Carolina three solid LBs, and maybe you've got something there.

I'm a huge fan of every mock draft that has Trent Richardson going to Cleveland, which prevents him from going to Tampa one slot later. People have been grumbling for years that Cleveland passed over Adrian Peterson when he was drafted, and this is their chance to fix that mistake. So Tampa doesn't have to.

If the Browns draft Richardson I see four or five years of 7-9 to 9-7 finishes, which is an improvement over recent history, but not really the rut you want to get into. Heckert and Holmgren have been good at hiding what they're doing, so with most seeming to predict a Richardson pick I'm guessing that there's a good chance he'll be there for TB to slurp up.

Pete Prisco writes a better Blaine Gabbert defense than I could ever do.

One factoid I wasn't aware of: Gabbert was the youngest 14+ game starter in NFL history.

Another factoid I did read recently: he had a broken toe on his plant foot for most of the year.

Gumbie wrote:

Saints GM apparently tapped phone conversations of visiting coaches the last three seasons.

It was three seasons, but 2002-2004, not the last three.

Saints GM apparently tapped phone conversations of visiting coaches during three seasons.

The whole Loomis story doesn't even vaguely add up. What good would that do? Who would even want to hear that stuff?

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The whole Loomis story doesn't even vaguely add up. What good would that do? Who would even want to hear that stuff?

This. It stretches the bounds of believability, with little obvious benefit to doing it. How Loomis, a guy who spends his days dealing with contracts and the like, would do anything with the information he heard in a timely enough manner to matter (were he even able to decipher the terminology of the other team), is a big question mark.

Loomis would get far more out of being able to eavesdrop on calls between Saints players and their agents.

*Legion* wrote:

Pete Prisco writes a better Blaine Gabbert defense than I could ever do.

I thought Gabbert's response to the Lombardi response was telling.

The right way: "Yeah, I have to agree with a lot of what he wrote. I had a tough rookie season, no doubt. But I've been working hard in the offseason with my teammates and coaches to correct those mistakes and improve my play, and I'll be a lot better in 2012."

The wrong way: What he said.

Cam Newton and Andy Dalton missed the same OTAs and training camp Gabbert did. That's lame. Also, Newton is only 5 months older than Gabbert, and he had half as many seasons of D1 ball before he went pro.

Also, no one's questioning Gabbert's toughness. We're all wondering if he's able to play QB in the NFL. All signs so far point to no.

*Legion* wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

The whole Loomis story doesn't even vaguely add up. What good would that do? Who would even want to hear that stuff?

This. It stretches the bounds of believability ...

If the Saints were recording the feed and matching up with the game tape ... OK, that I get. But that's not alleged here. So why? It's not like he's calling plays from up there.

The wiretapping charge, though, could be serious if the feds choose to pursue it. The last thing the Saints want is the Feebs to be poking around in their business. They've got enough headaches with the league office.

Enix wrote:

Cam Newton and Andy Dalton missed the same OTAs and training camp Gabbert did. That's lame. Also, Newton is only 5 months older than Gabbert, and he had half as many seasons of D1 ball before he went pro.

Both Newton and Dalton were installed as starters for the training camp that they did have. Gabbert took no first team snaps before the season.

This was, of course, mismanagement on the part of the team. Newton and Dalton were fast-tracked to start. Gabbert got none of that preparation but was thrown into the job anyway come week 3.

I agree that neither Tannehilll, nor Weeden should go in the first round.

Tannehill is very talented, but raw kid. I love the reports of his work ethic, and the idea of a Quarterback who has an in-depth understanding of the nuances of running routes could prove beneficial down the line. Once you are looking down the line, does Tannehill even stay in front of a guy like Brock Osweiler or Nick Foles? It's accepted that those 2 will need to sit and learn, I think Tannehill is likely in the same boat.

Weeden is a guy that I like, but with his age, is has to be a team who can give him his shot now. The Arizona Cardinals seem like a good spot for him to potentially land in the second or third round. He can make the throws and is used to working with a stud receiver, but it's got to be sooner than later. Which is not a news flash, but I would have put him ahead of Dalton and Kaepernick last year. As for Mallett, I would have taken him in the first round last year if I needed a QB. Probably ahead of Gabbert, and that is not a shot at Gabbert so much as it is an endorsement of Mallett.

Re: Blackmon, there is something to be said about him being in the top 10. I do not agree on your assessment of his talent after he won his second Biletnikoff and put 221 and 3000+ in 2 years while being the focus of every defense they played. That said, with the depth at receiver in this draft, it may be better for teams like the Rams to focus on other needs or try to trade down again. When you have guys like DeVier Posey and Jermaine Kearse who are barely on teams' radar, there is talent to be had. I picked those 2 as they have comparable measurables to Blackmon.

Pages