PDA

View Full Version : Divisional Round Mock


Robcards
01-07-2013, 02:00 PM
I intend to do a more thorough 2-3 round mock after next week when we have the top 28 order set in stone and the underclassmen have all declared. This is just a quick one for now. Keeping the ARI and OAK trade in this mock since I don't like any of the prospects at 3 for Oakland.

1. KC - Geno Smith QB WVU
2. JAC - Bjoern Werner DE FSU
3. ARI (trade with OAK) - Luke Joeckel OT TAMU
4. PHI - Star Lotuleilei DT Utah
5. DET - Dee Milliner CB Bama
6. CLE - Jarvis Jones DE/OLB UGA
7. OAK (trade with ARI) - Manti Te'o ILB ND
8. BUF - Tyler Wilson QB Ark
9. NYJ - Damontre Moore OLB TAMU
10. TEN - Chance Warmack OG Bama
11. SD - Barkevious Mingo OLB LSU
12. MIA - Keenan Allen WR Cal
13. TB - Xavier Rhodes CB FSU
14. CAR - Johnathan Hankins DT OSU
15. NO - Ezekiel Ansah DE BYU
16. STL - Taylor Lewan OT Mich
17. PIT - John Jenkins NT UGA
18. DAL - Dion Jordan OLB Oreg
19. NYG - Eric Fisher OT CMU
20. CHI - Tyler Eifert TE ND
21. CIN - Sam Montgomery DE LSU
22. STL (from WAS) - Matt Elam S UF
23. MIN - Terrance Williams WR Baylor
24. IND - Jonathan Cooper OG UNC
25. BAL - Kevin Minter ILB LSU
26. SEA - Tavon Austin WR WVU
27. SF - Eric Reid S LSU
28. HOU - Robert Woods WR USC
29. NE - Cordarelle Patterson WR Tenn
30. ATL - Zach Ertz TE Stan
31. GB - Lane Johnson OT OU
32. DEN - Sharrif Floyd DT UF

Let me know what you think, I'll take comments into consideration when I do my more thorough mock next week. Thanks!

killxswitch
01-07-2013, 02:04 PM
Nothing wrong with Cooper to the Colts. I might prefer Travis Frederick. But interior OL is certainly a need and you gave away all the pass rushers before the 25th pick.

shylo3716
01-07-2013, 02:54 PM
Dee Milliner to Philly....Nnamdi is some cut!

shylo3716
01-07-2013, 03:04 PM
No Justin Hunter or DeAndre Hopkins?

Razor
01-07-2013, 03:18 PM
Great Patriots pick.

coordinator0
01-07-2013, 03:36 PM
I like Baltimore's pick in that situation. Richardson would be good too.

cfh128
01-07-2013, 03:46 PM
Love that Rams draft!

Don Vito
01-07-2013, 04:03 PM
Love the Pats pick

Robcards
01-07-2013, 06:59 PM
I like Baltimore's pick in that situation. Richardson would be good too.

Totally forgot Sheldon Richardson. For some reason I thought I gave him to the Saints. Whoops heh

nobodyinparticular
01-07-2013, 07:17 PM
I think every week that passes I will expect a trade down for the Raiders. Cards make sense. Rams make a ton of sense. They need a franchise LT, Raiders could trade down 15 spots and still be okay since they need so many players.

Heck Tampa Bay even makes sense if they want a QB to replace Freeman as its rumored.

CJSchneider
01-07-2013, 09:09 PM
I'd rather see NO take Monty.

Robcards
01-07-2013, 09:51 PM
I think every week that passes I will expect a trade down for the Raiders. Cards make sense. Rams make a ton of sense. They need a franchise LT, Raiders could trade down 15 spots and still be okay since they need so many players.

Heck Tampa Bay even makes sense if they want a QB to replace Freeman as its rumored.

I don't see Fisher giving up 2 1st rounders to get joeckel, doesn't seem like his style. Cardinals make the most sense at the moment as things stand.

Robcards
01-07-2013, 09:54 PM
No Justin Hunter or DeAndre Hopkins?

I don't think deandre is a top 5 wr and Hunters stock has been falling steadily due to his lack of ball skills, work ethic, and injury history. The other WRs in this class are much more desirable I feel. Still think deandre and hunter are early 2nd round picks, but the stock of Allen, Williams, woods, Austin, and Patterson are higher.

thebow305
01-08-2013, 10:12 PM
Allen works fine for me!

49erNation85
01-08-2013, 10:55 PM
solid pick for sf. nice work.

steelersrock151
01-14-2013, 09:11 PM
Don't see a NT in the first for Pittsburgh. Casey, Mcclendon, Ta'amu, and Fangupo all on the roster. Even if Casey is cut, they have depth there, unlike ILB, OLB, and safety.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 06:10 AM
Don't see a NT in the first for Pittsburgh. Casey, Mcclendon, Ta'amu, and Fangupo all on the roster. Even if Casey is cut, they have depth there, unlike ILB, OLB, and safety.

How unfamiliar with the steelers are you? Check Casey's contract again, he's a FA no need to cut him. Explained in the other thread why the other 3 are non-factors

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 06:30 AM
I don't think the Packers would go OT in the first round when we already have two 1st round offensive tackles.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 06:34 AM
I don't think the Packers would go OT in the first round when we already have two 1st round offensive tackles.

Are they performing like 1st rounders? I'd think that'd be more important.

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 06:35 AM
Are they performing like 1st rounders? I'd think that'd be more important.

It's hard to perform when you're injured...

Robcards
01-15-2013, 06:40 AM
It's hard to perform when you're injured...

So that's a no then. Don't see what you're getting at

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 06:44 AM
So that's a no then. Don't see what you're getting at

You do realize players come back from injuries, right? When a player gets an injury it doesn't mean he can never play again. In fact, most of the time players get back from injuries and continue to play football.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 06:49 AM
You do realize players come back from injuries, right? When a player gets an injury it doesn't mean he can never play again. In fact, most of the time players get back from injuries and continue to play football.

Wonderful. Let me know when Sherrod plays LT at a level high enough that it would inhibit the Packers from selecting one. You act as if Sherrod was a great LT and then got injured. He hasn't even played a game yet, that doesn't bode well for his future. Following your same logic, most of the time players that are out for the season their first 2 years in the nfl, aren't in the nfl very long.

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 06:57 AM
Wonderful. Let me know when Sherrod plays LT at a level high enough that it would inhibit the Packers from selecting one. You act as if Sherrod was a great LT and then got injured. He hasn't even played a game yet, that doesn't bode well for his future. Following your same logic, most of the time players that are out for the season their first 2 years in the nfl, aren't in the nfl very long.

Well I never said we couldn't pick an OT, but not in the first round. That would be stupid. It make would make sense to actually see how he played first, no? Following your logic, the Packers should've drafted a QB in the first round after Brett Favre retired. I mean, Aaron Rodgers hadn't even played any games. Oh and btw, he hasn't been out for his first two years, he got injured at the end of last season and was out for this season. He has only missed one season. Following this logic, the Chiefs should've moved on from Jamaal Charles after he was out for the whole of the 2011 season. I mean, how many players come back from season ending injuries? Oh wait, the majority of players. :njx:

Robcards
01-15-2013, 07:05 AM
Well I never said we couldn't pick an OT, but not in the first round. That would be stupid. It make would make sense to actually see how he played first, no? Following your logic, the Packers should've drafted a QB in the first round after Brett Favre retired. I mean, Aaron Rodgers hadn't even played any games. Oh and btw, he hasn't been out for his first two years, he got injured at the end of last season and was out for this season. He has only missed one season. Following this logic, the Chiefs should've moved on from Jamaal Charles after he was out for the whole of the 2011 season. I mean, how many players come back from season ending injuries? Oh wait, the majority of players. :njx:

How is that even remotely close to the same thing? Charles was an established RB before he got injured and Rodgers was never injured so how does that even come close to what I said?

Before Sherrod went down, was he a starting LT and showing promise? No. So how is it unreasonable for the packers take a LT in the first? Keeping in mind LTs aren't exactly easy to find in later rounds like the other 4 oline positions

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 07:11 AM
How is that even remotely close to the same thing? Charles was an established RB before he got injured and Rodgers was never injured so how does that even come close to what I said?

Before Sherrod went down, was he a starting LT and showing promise? No. So how is it unreasonable for the packers take a LT in the first? Keeping in mind LTs aren't exactly easy to find in later rounds like the other 4 oline positions

*sigh*

You're obviously incapable of understanding logic, so i'll just stop arguing this.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 07:13 AM
*sigh*

You're obviously incapable of understanding logic, so i'll just stop arguing this.

LOL I'm the one incapable of understanding logic? I say that it doesn't bode well for a player who struggles with injuries and get on the field the first 2 years of his career and you compare that to jamaal Charles and Aaron Rodgers. What the hell man at least use mikel leshoure or someone a little closer.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 07:17 AM
How about this argument. Sherrod is trash. How about that? Would you prefer to debate that than his injury? Come on man you can't be this obtuse. Teams don't say 'let's not draft this position in the first because we did that 2 years ago and he hasn't worked out yet but he could still'. I understand you're clinging on to hope that he's not a bust, but to say him being on the roster = no OT in the first for the pack is absurd.

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 07:34 AM
LOL I'm the one incapable of understanding logic? I say that it doesn't bode well for a player who struggles with injuries and get on the field the first 2 years of his career and you compare that to jamaal Charles and Aaron Rodgers. What the hell man at least use mikel leshoure or someone a little closer.

How about this argument. Sherrod is trash. How about that? Would you prefer to debate that than his injury? Come on man you can't be this obtuse. Teams don't say 'let's not draft this position in the first because we did that 2 years ago and he hasn't worked out yet but he could still'. I understand you're clinging on to hope that he's not a bust, but to say him being on the roster = no OT in the first for the pack is absurd.

He doesn't struggle with injuries. Wtf are you talking about? He's had one injury in his NFL career. That doesn't not mean he 'struggles with injuries'.

Well that argument would have no basis, as you haven't seen him play...

I'm not clinging onto the hope that he isn't a bust. He isn't. His first year he sat behind Chad Clifton, his second he was injured. He would be a bust if he has been constantly injured eg. Justin Harrell or has just played terrible. He hasn't done either.

Lets just say we drafted Sherrod last season, Clifton stayed another year and then Sherrod sat behind him for the whole year this season. Would you then be drafting an OT to the Packers? No, because we drafted him knowing he would be sat behind Clifton and then taking over once he retired. The only difference in that scenario is that he didn't get injured, but that shouldn't change anything, because players come back from injuries...

Robcards
01-15-2013, 07:42 AM
He doesn't struggle with injuries. Wtf are you talking about? He's had one injury in his NFL career. That doesn't not mean he 'struggles with injuries'.

Well that argument would have no basis, as you haven't seen him play...

I'm not clinging onto the hope that he isn't a bust. He isn't. His first year he sat behind Chad Clifton, his second he was injured. He would be a bust if he has been constantly injured eg. Justin Harrell or has just played terrible. He hasn't done either.

Lets just say we drafted Sherrod last season, Clifton stayed another year and then Sherrod sat behind him for the whole year this season. Would you then be drafting an OT to the Packers? No, because we drafted him knowing he would be sat behind Clifton and then taking over once he retired. The only difference in that scenario is that he didn't get injured, but that shouldn't change anything, because players come back from injuries...

Ok man everyone in the nfl is Adrian Peterson, especially 320 pound linemen I'm sure he'll be a stud next year and the packers don't need to address LT at all.

Sarcasm aside, in your mind what positions are feasible for the Packers to draft in the first round? Looking at their roster they have good young talent or big money vets at most positions, yet when I mock a position they don't have that in like G/C in my last mock (this isn't my most recent btw not sure who bumped this) I get told no.

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 07:54 AM
Ok man everyone in the nfl is Adrian Peterson, especially 320 pound linemen I'm sure he'll be a stud next year and the packers don't need to address LT at all.

Sarcasm aside, in your mind what positions are feasible for the Packers to draft in the first round? Looking at their roster they have good young talent or big money vets at most positions, yet when I mock a position they don't have that in like G/C in my last mock (this isn't my most recent btw not sure who bumped this) I get told no.

Tell me where I said he was going to be a stud. Please.

I never said anything like that, my point was that we should give him a chance to prove himself, which is kind of different too "Derek Sherrod is a stud".

Robcards
01-15-2013, 08:01 AM
Tell me where I said he was going to be a stud. Please.

I never said anything like that, my point was that we should give him a chance to prove himself, which is kind of different too "Derek Sherrod is a stud".

When you said the packers won't draft a LT first round.

You didn't answer my question about who the Packers will draft in the first

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 08:13 AM
When you said the packers won't draft a LT first round.

You didn't answer my question about who the Packers will draft in the first

Again, my reasoning for us not drafting a OT was that we should give Sherrod a chance, not that he is a stud.

If I knew the answer to that question I probably would've started with that, instead of telling you why I don't think we should draft an OT in the first round.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 08:55 AM
Again, my reasoning for us not drafting a OT was that we should give Sherrod a chance, not that he is a stud.

If I knew the answer to that question I probably would've started with that, instead of telling you why I don't think we should draft an OT in the first round.

Alright then. Well my logic is this. They went overboard drafting defense last year, so they have tons of young talent on that side of the ball, particularly Perry Worthy and Hayward, and to a lesser extent Daniels. There aren't really any RBs worthy of that late 1st round pick this year, although some may emerge through the evaluation process, and that is their one clear need. I also don't think its a stretch to assume that they will try to keep Aaron Rodgers happy and if he wants better protection they will address the o-line first and foremost this year, as that was a big weakness of theirs this season (I am aware some of that is injury related, but the point stands). Whether its interior or LT or both in the 1st 2 rounds, I just don't see how that isn't the focus of their early selections. The round a guy was selected shouldn't dictate how much of a chance he gets, and they have solid young talent pretty much everywhere. Aside from o-line, S and RB are really the only spots I could see them going in the 1st.

SuperPacker
01-15-2013, 09:22 AM
Alright then. Well my logic is this. They went overboard drafting defense last year, so they have tons of young talent on that side of the ball, particularly Perry Worthy and Hayward, and to a lesser extent Daniels. There aren't really any RBs worthy of that late 1st round pick this year, although some may emerge through the evaluation process, and that is their one clear need. I also don't think its a stretch to assume that they will try to keep Aaron Rodgers happy and if he wants better protection they will address the o-line first and foremost this year, as that was a big weakness of theirs this season (I am aware some of that is injury related, but the point stands). Whether its interior or LT or both in the 1st 2 rounds, I just don't see how that isn't the focus of their early selections. The round a guy was selected shouldn't dictate how much of a chance he gets, and they have solid young talent pretty much everywhere. Aside from o-line, S and RB are really the only spots I could see them going in the 1st.

If OT is a need, why is OLB not a need? We picked Perry in the first last year, he didn't play that well and then got injured for the year. Clearly you aren't using this 'logic' of yours very well.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 09:34 AM
If OT is a need, why is OLB not a need? We picked Perry in the first last year, he didn't play that well and then got injured for the year. Clearly you aren't using this 'logic' of yours very well.

It might very well be a need, next year. Don't see how that goes against what I've said. He also wasn't expected to be a star right away transitioning to a 3-4 OLB so it's quite a bit different in that regard as well.

steelersrock151
01-15-2013, 10:56 AM
How unfamiliar with the steelers are you? Check Casey's contract again, he's a FA no need to cut him. Explained in the other thread why the other 3 are non-factors

How unfamiliar? Guess not so much as you. Casey comes back if he wants to, you know that and I know that. McClendon is listed as 280, because thats what he was drafted at. He played this year at close to 330, and is the second strongest player on the team. And they love him.
Ta'amu could have been cut if they wanted to. They waived him, which means he's released if no one picks him up. The reason they waived him was because they needed another receiver on the team when almost the entire receiving corps was injured (see Plexico). Then they resigned him to the practice squad. Guess you didn't notice the Steelers' draft boards last year when they passed on him in the second, and then the third. They were going nuts.
Fangupo wasn't signed as camp fodder, he was signed off the Seahawks practice squad.
So, no, with ILB, OLB, Safety, Receiver, RB, and whatever, I don't see the Steelers taking the #3 nosetackle in the draft in the first, when they could almost definately get him in the second. If it was Hankins, then yes, maybe I could see it. But not Williams.

Robcards
01-15-2013, 12:28 PM
How unfamiliar? Guess not so much as you. Casey comes back if he wants to, you know that and I know that.

He almost certainly will not be back. Did you think getting rid of all the old guys was just a one year thing last season? Gonna let Hines ward, James farrior, and Aaron smith go but re-sign Casey Hampton the following year? That makes no sense to me. He's likely done

steelersrock151
01-15-2013, 02:21 PM
He almost certainly will not be back. Did you think getting rid of all the old guys was just a one year thing last season? Gonna let Hines ward, James farrior, and Aaron smith go but re-sign Casey Hampton the following year? That makes no sense to me. He's likely done

I'll agree that he's most likely done. Should have said if THEY want him back. But it will be at a vet minimum, or just a little more. Getting rid of him does nothing for the cap.
So, as I said, I don't see it as a majorly pressing need, since they always have that option. And I find it hard to believe the Williams will be the best player available at pick #17, especially with the many positions of need we have this year.

steelersrock151
01-15-2013, 02:23 PM
BTW, did you change it from Williams to Jenkins, or did I just misread the hell out of it the first time? I could almost get on board with Jenkins.
Sorry if I was a dumbarse there. It was Williams at 17 that I had the biggest problem with.