Jump to content

ESPN Insider? Kiper/McShay 3rd Mock

Alphadawg7

By Alphadawg7
in The Stadium Wall Archives

 Share

Recommended Posts

Thurman#1 Hall of Famer

Thurman#1

Posted
Posted

 

wouldn't any QB you take at that pick need a year or two. or more ??? I would rather see a good (the best available) o-lineman.

 

 

Five or ten years from now, when you look back at this draft, you won't care whether a guy had to sit a year or two. You'll care if he was a good player or not. That should always be the perspective taken. The short term doesn't matter nearly as much as the long term.

 

And we'll really really care five or ten years from now if we're still saying, "Jeez we still haven't had a good QB since Kelly."

 

My guess is we go OL because there seem to be a number of good value guards who will likely be available at #50. But if they see a QB they really like, they should grab him.

Ignore kiper and mcshay. They have no more qualifications than any of you on this board

 

 

Really? So we all spend eight or ten hours a day looking at film? We all have team insiders on our rolodexes?

 

Come on, this isn't even close to being true. These guys are paid to grind though this process. We aren't. They talk to team officials. We don't.

 

And more, year in and year out, Kiper is one of the best in terms of mock draft accuracy. Over the last five years he's the sixth most accurate.

 

http://www.thehuddlereport.com/scoring/mockdrafts.shtml

There is a 99% chance that any qb draft past the 1st round won't ever develop into a franchise qb. They are so rare to begin with and this isn't a great class. It would be a wasted pick this year.

 

 

That stat is nonsense. There's a hit every year or two, and if 99% were failures that would mean that 50 - 100 QBs would have to be drafted every year.

 

What's closer to reality is that second rounders prove out at roughly 20%, thirds at 10% and it goes down from there, but that every once in a while you hit.

 

And the same, with slightly altered stats but the same overall big picture, is true of all the other positions. People making this argument act like if you get an OL in the second he's a sure thing. They're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuck Wagon Veteran

Chuck Wagon

Posted
Posted

We could have had Bernardrick McKinney in the 2nd and Brett Hundley in the 3rd in their mock. Instead they gave us a DE/OLB and said that's a big need.

 

 

Marpet looks like a good prospect, but I'm curious how much of the board's interest is driven from his school. If he went to New Mexico St would he still be at the top of so many people's wish list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Formerly Allan in MD Veteran

Formerly Allan in MD

Posted
Posted

 

Shouldn't Ali Marpet be the prediction for the Bills at #50? I see people here talking about the Bills taking him in the 3rd round but he isn't lasting till their pick there.

 

The guy can play all the positions on the line. Our Guard position needs shoring up. What happens if Woods goes down or his level of his play starts getting worse than the average level he is now? Having a guy who can play OT if a starter gets injured is very crucial.

He won't last until the third round. If he hadn't played in the Senior Bowl, perhaps he would have. Too much exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
T master All Pro

T master

Posted
Posted

I'm not a Hundley fan but I have a feeling Whaley is

 

 

Who ever Whaley & crew decide on from their past performance i believe they will get a good player !!

 

This crew could be as good as the Polian crew of the glory days . Time will tell ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevestojan Hall of Famer

stevestojan

Posted
Posted (edited)

I would not be against going OG then OT....or vice versa...in this draft

 

We need both

Or that.

 

But having 6 QBs isn't the answer.

 

One of the guys on this current roster (spoiler: Matt Cassel) just needs to be average. And needs time behind a line to be able to be average.

Edited by stevestojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurker All Pro

Lurker

Posted
Posted

I would not be against going OG then OT....or vice versa...in this draft

 

We need both

I think an OT who could also slide inside would be ideal. Guys like Jake Fisher, Donovan Smith or Daryl Williams (the name alone makes him a natural fit). Pure OT's like Clemmings or Ogbuehi would have less positional flexibility and more bust factor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John from Riverside Hall of Famer

John from Riverside

Posted
Posted

Or that.

 

But having 6 QBs isn't the answer.

 

One of the guys on this current roster (spoiler: Matt Cassel) just needs to be average. And needs time behind a line to be able to be average.

I just think that overall we need to recognize what we have in an OC....what Roman is gonna want to do on offense.....and stock accordingly

 

This guy runs like a zillion different running plays out of the same offensive sets......word is he is pretty much a genious in this area

 

but

 

He also had a O line that is better then what our is as present......Glenn, Cog, Woods, and MAYBE Henderson might be able to produce in it.....but we need starters and depth inside to compete and back up......

 

We made NO free agent moves in the offseason besides Cog.....Kujo is a complete unknown.....Chris WIllaims has back injuries.....Urbik is average

 

To me this this is the single biggest area that scares me....even more then QB....because

 

a. This is an area that we can actually address....unlike QB\

 

and

 

b. O Line is the key cog in all of this.....cant throw to Watkins with no time.....cant run the ball between the tackles with Shady with sub par blocking

 

We MUST address this

 

Then......if we are still not happy with our QBs next year.....we once again have our 1st round pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ctk232 RFA

ctk232

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

Five or ten years from now, when you look back at this draft, you won't care whether a guy had to sit a year or two. You'll care if he was a good player or not. That should always be the perspective taken. The short term doesn't matter nearly as much as the long term.

 

And we'll really really care five or ten years from now if we're still saying, "Jeez we still haven't had a good QB since Kelly."

 

My guess is we go OL because there seem to be a number of good value guards who will likely be available at #50. But if they see a QB they really like, they should grab him.

 

 

Really? So we all spend eight or ten hours a day looking at film? We all have team insiders on our rolodexes?

 

Come on, this isn't even close to being true. These guys are paid to grind though this process. We aren't. They talk to team officials. We don't.

 

And more, year in and year out, Kiper is one of the best in terms of mock draft accuracy. Over the last five years he's the sixth most accurate.

 

http://www.thehuddlereport.com/scoring/mockdrafts.shtml

 

 

That stat is nonsense. There's a hit every year or two, and if 99% were failures that would mean that 50 - 100 QBs would have to be drafted every year.

 

What's closer to reality is that second rounders prove out at roughly 20%, thirds at 10% and it goes down from there, but that every once in a while you hit.

 

And the same, with slightly altered stats but the same overall big picture, is true of all the other positions. People making this argument act like if you get an OL in the second he's a sure thing. They're not.

Fantastic points here to keep things in perspective - my only added commentary to this would be considering the current QB roster, a potential drafted QB might not be coming into the best learning environment. 5 QBs on the roster going into camp means very limited snaps for everyone, not just some. It will already be difficult if we retain all four QBs currently to discern who is our best suited starter for week 1. We all have suspicions and hunches here, but add more competition to the mix and they may just sink to the bottom.

 

I'd rather see them go for value OL in the 2nd round (and potentially 3rd as well) as there will certainly be depth when our pick comes up and focus on finding a QB next year that we can develop. That being said, if we address OL with our second, I'm not opposed to a QB in the 3rd if a solid option is still available.

Edited by ctk232
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...