Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mock Drafts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Bruce Campbell for sure, drafting a guy because he is 230 fast and strong aka workout warrior most often will bust def when you don't play like your a fast strong 230 saftey
    Last edited by RyanBraun8; 01-23-2010, 12:14 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by RyanBraun8 View Post
      Bruce Campbell for sure, drafting a guy because he is 230 fast and strong aka workout warrior most often def when you don't play like your a fast strong 230 saftey
      Definetly. Iupati is really growing on me though, which typically means that he'll get really hyped up before the draft and go before the Packers pick. Happens every year (Mario Williams, Marshawn Lynch, DRC).

      I really don't understand the love you guys have for Mays though. I don't see how drafting a big bodied safety which questionable ball skills, takes bad angles, and goes for a knockout hit instead of wrapping up is going to solve anything for the defense.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by cvv84 View Post
        Definetly. Iupati is really growing on me though, which typically means that he'll get really hyped up before the draft and go before the Packers pick. Happens every year (Mario Williams, Marshawn Lynch, DRC).

        I really don't understand the love you guys have for Mays though. I don't see how drafting a big bodied safety which questionable ball skills, takes bad angles, and goes for a knockout hit instead of wrapping up is going to solve anything for the defense.
        Yeah I don't get it at all, he has all the tangables but he doesn't have them all together. He doesn't at the level he should, I'd happy with taking Asante or Rolle later or even Church I think could be okay

        Comment


        • #49
          I think Iupati could be what Branden Albert was a couple of years ago, meaning he won't be available at 23


          Follow me on Twitter! http://twitter.com/#!/aMo_Captain

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by RyanBraun8 View Post
            Yeah I don't get it at all, he has all the tangables but he doesn't have them all together. He doesn't at the level he should, I'd happy with taking Asante or Rolle later or even Church I think could be okay
            I think anyone to really compete with Bigby would be ideal. Its not like he was completely horrible and needs to be replaced either. Not too mention that Woodson could be moved to safety in a year or 2.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by princefielder28 View Post
              I think Iupati could be what Branden Albert was a couple of years ago, meaning he won't be available at 23
              Definetly possible. The last time we saw a guard of this quality go high was Shawn Andrews at pick 16. That likely means though that one of top 5 tackles will be available when we pick. If Iupati gets past pick 15 I wouldn't be opposed to trading up and grabbing him. I think teams like the Steelers and Patriots would be our biggest competitors for an offensive lineman.

              Comment


              • #52
                I want Brandon Graham in this scenario simply because I think the guy is going to be a guy who gets to the QB for about 50 sacks over his first 5 seasons, and opposite Matthews, that would make our DB's look a lot better.

                Graham is a stud, plus solid citizen which you all know is important to this organization.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by J-Mike88 View Post
                  I want Brandon Graham in this scenario simply because I think the guy is going to be a guy who gets to the QB for about 50 sacks over his first 5 seasons, and opposite Matthews, that would make our DB's look a lot better.

                  Graham is a stud, plus solid citizen which you all know is important to this organization.
                  Alot is going to be dependant on how he messures. Jason Pierre-Paul would be another canidate as an OLB for us. I think his stock is going to start falling a bit.

                  Scott has us taking Clemson DE/OLB Ricky Sapp. I'm not a real fan of the Clemson program seeing the recent busts that they've produced. He's got the size and speed though.

                  I also think that Brandon Spikes might be a good option too. Hawk obviously has been a disapointment. Barnett is solid but doesn't have the strength inside. And Chillar could get more opportunites at OLB in combination with Jones.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I really don't see Chillar as a starting OLB in a 3-4 at all, Hawk had a good year and fits in great in the 34, can't hate on him for not being able to run with S. Holmes or V. Davis. Barnett is fine in the middle also. We had one of the best defense against the rush in a big part due to Hawk and Barnetts defense up the middle. On defense we need secondary depth, another OLB and depending on Prickett and Jolly possibly another DL.

                    I'm not sure about drafting a guard right away. We have two guys who are much more suited to play Guard than Tackle in Lang and Barbre. I know everyone here dislikes Barbre but truth is that he is one of our top Lineman in run blocking and I think he could handle fine against the rush inside. TT loves to draft tweeners that are interchangable on the line and think with an off-season of guard work he'd be fine. Lang I don't think is a franchise LT but could be a very solid good RT or G

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by RyanBraun8 View Post
                      I really don't see Chillar as a starting OLB in a 3-4 at all, Hawk had a good year and fits in great in the 34, can't hate on him for not being able to run with S. Holmes or V. Davis. Barnett is fine in the middle also. We had one of the best defense against the rush in a big part due to Hawk and Barnetts defense up the middle. On defense we need secondary depth, another OLB and depending on Prickett and Jolly possibly another DL.

                      I'm not sure about drafting a guard right away. We have two guys who are much more suited to play Guard than Tackle in Lang and Barbre. I know everyone here dislikes Barbre but truth is that he is one of our top Lineman in run blocking and I think he could handle fine against the rush inside. TT loves to draft tweeners that are interchangable on the line and think with an off-season of guard work he'd be fine. Lang I don't think is a franchise LT but could be a very solid good RT or G
                      I disagree with SOOO much of this that it would take me too long to respond.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by cvv84 View Post
                        Scott has us taking Clemson DE/OLB Ricky Sapp. I'm not a real fan of the Clemson program seeing the recent busts that they've produced. He's got the size and speed though.

                        I also think that Brandon Spikes might be a good option too. Hawk obviously has been a disapointment. Barnett is solid but doesn't have the strength inside. And Chillar could get more opportunites at OLB in combination with Jones.
                        Cal/Tedford had produced a batch of recent QB busts too, and we bucked that trend.
                        I like Ricky Sapp.... didn't we once have a good LB from Clemson named Wayne Simmons, or was it a different school?
                        He was key to our Super Bowl teams... mean bastard. Took no s.... from anyone. I wonder if Sapp can bring that back. I just want sacks from that side though.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by J-Mike88 View Post
                          Cal/Tedford had produced a batch of recent QB busts too, and we bucked that trend.
                          I like Ricky Sapp.... didn't we once have a good LB from Clemson named Wayne Simmons, or was it a different school?
                          He was key to our Super Bowl teams... mean bastard. Took no s.... from anyone. I wonder if Sapp can bring that back. I just want sacks from that side though.
                          I think the Tedford busts were more due to terrible teams forcing a young QB into action way too early. We had the luxuary of sitting Rodgers and letting him develop.

                          So because we drafted a LB from Clemson over a decade ago its going to be the same result?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            if we take JPP i will probably be more disappointed then when we picked harrell. kids a one year wonder.

                            to whoever said hawk and nick fit great in this defense.. get ready to be torn a new one by someone on here. but i really like them both and am fine with having them as the two ILB.. are they the best fit.. no. i feel like there are other things to worry about for now though

                            Originally posted by CraigNall4MVP
                            biigest mistake packers ever make was geting rid of craig nall he beter then bret faver

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by cuzifelt1ikeit View Post
                              if we take JPP i will probably be more disappointed then when we picked harrell. kids a one year wonder.

                              to whoever said hawk and nick fit great in this defense.. get ready to be torn a new one by someone on here. but i really like them both and am fine with having them as the two ILB.. are they the best fit.. no. i feel like there are other things to worry about for now though
                              Yeah I kind of expect it but its true it is not a need, we are 4 deep with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar, Bishop. I really don't see any reason to add a 5th. Def waste a 1st on one.

                              CVV84, so do you really think Lang and Barbre are best at OT? Or that Lang could actually be are future LT? I think Lang could be an average or good RT but he profiles much better at guard. Same goes for Barbre. Last year was his first full-year at OT and he actually did a great job in the run game. The worse thing for him by far was his pass rush technique and foot work. It is much easier to pass protect inside than outside. The guy is strong as hell and physical which is big when it comes to pass blocking at guard. It is not as much foot work as it is physicality . You aren't dropping straight back and trying to ride a much faster guy off the edge but rather taking a drop step and getting right into a guy. He could be a really good guard. Just because a player struggled at OT doesn't mean he can't be a good OG. Look at Robert Gallery....God aweful at tackle, just brutal....gets moved inside and now he is a pro-bowl caliber LG. I hated Barbre as much as anyone during the season at RT but he is still a good young player who was just playing out of position.

                              Our needs on defense are to add more DB depth another OLB and possibly a DL if we lose Prickett to FA or Jolly to RFA. Those are our needs. IMO I truely don't see Chillar as the answer at OLB.

                              The fact is we had a great defense and were excellent against the run. When we got beat it wasn't on the ground and from Barnett being to weak and Hawk not doing a good job but in our secondary. We could use a guy like Graham or Kindle to add more pressure on the other side of Clay and really could give our best blitzing ILB more PT in Bishop but we not need to waste picks on a guy like Spikes.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by cvv84 View Post
                                I think the Tedford busts were more due to terrible teams forcing a young QB into action way too early. We had the luxuary of sitting Rodgers and letting him develop.

                                So because we drafted a LB from Clemson over a decade ago its going to be the same result?
                                Of course not.
                                But past results with Cal QB's are as indicative as they are with Clemson LB's.
                                In other words, each case is their own going forward.....I was just responding to someone's question about Sapp because some other guys before him from Clemson didn't pan out. Those guys are their own men, as Wayne Simmons was. None of it matters. All that matters is Ricky Sapp.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X

                                Debug Information