2014 NFL Draft thread (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

Vikings and Rams should trade 1st round picks. Rams could take Watkins at 8 and Vikings would not need to reach as much at 13. They could get Nix or a LB there.

Most people think Watkins may not be available at 8. Vikings fans may just need to accept another year of Ponder/Cassel/Freeman

I agree, maybe 1.4-1.6, but not feeling 1.8, especially after he blows up the combine, he will have far too much momentum. It is POSSIBLE, as a lot of teams in the top 10 need QBs, LTs, pass rushers like Clowney, Barr and Mack, but I think they risk losing him that way. I like the idea of trading down from 1.2 to 1.4 with CLE, taking him there, maybe trading up from 1.13 to 1.8 like Donnybrook suggested (flipping a high third they may get in the trade down, would about work out points-wise by the "chart") to get a LT like Greg Robinson if there (or maybe stand pat for another LT if not).

 

[Slapdash]

Teams don't miss because they pick the wrong position. They miss because they take bad players.

What position has a higher bust rate at the top of the draft though?

 

[Slapdash]

Vikings and Rams should trade 1st round picks. Rams could take Watkins at 8 and Vikings would not need to reach as much at 13. They could get Nix or a LB there.

Most people think Watkins may not be available at 8. Vikings fans may just need to accept another year of Ponder/Cassel/Freeman

I agree, maybe 1.4-1.6, but not feeling 1.8, especially after he blows up the combine, he will have far too much momentum. It is POSSIBLE, as a lot of teams in the top 10 need QBs, LTs, pass rushers like Clowney, Barr and Mack, but I think they risk losing him that way. I like the idea of trading down from 1.2 to 1.4 with CLE, taking him there, maybe trading up from 1.13 to 1.8 like Donnybrook suggested (flipping a high third they may get in the trade down, would about work out points-wise by the "chart") to get a LT like Greg Robinson if there (or maybe stand pat for another LT if not).

This momentum is better called hype. Are the Rams really going to fall for hype on the best WR of the class twice? Trade down or take the BPA, which won't be Watkins IMO.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Teams don't miss because they pick the wrong position. They miss because they take bad players.

What position has a higher bust rate at the top of the draft though?

I don't really know. Seems like all positions have busts.

 

[FUBAR]

Johnny Football is all business

http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/06/johnny-manziel-florida-state-national-championship-two-women-video/

So wait ..... a college kid, with a chance to hit 2 for 1, should just pass it up and go to church

This is certainly not a positive.

I think he is doing what we all wish we could have done at his age.. does he have a chance to be another Ryan Leaf?

At the same time, with the right coach and mentor, he could be the next Fran Tarkenton..

only time will tell and I still would Love to see him handing off to Peterson, throwing to Patterson, and causing the opposing defense headaches as he plays Roadrunner to their coyote .. beep.. beep

While I don't blame him for doing what most kids would if they could, I'm not paying millions to most kids. That he went home with two chicks means a lot less than taking off right after a game to party with drake.

 

[Slapdash]

Teams don't miss because they pick the wrong position. They miss because they take bad players.

What position has a higher bust rate at the top of the draft though?

I don't really know. Seems like all positions have busts.

Yeah, maybe it is just easier for me to think of high profile busts there. I think I've read something on it before, but not sure.

 

[Slapdash]

• David Terrell (Bears, No. 8, 2001)
• Koren Robinson (Seahawks, No. 9, 2001)
• Charles Rogers (Lions, No. 2, 2003)
• Andre Johnson (Texans, No. 3, 2003)
• Larry Fitzgerald (Cardinals, No. 3, 2004)
• Roy Williams (Lions, No. 7, 2004)
• Reggie Williams (Jaguars, No. 9, 2004)
• Braylon Edwards (Browns, No. 3, 2005)
• Troy Williamson (Vikings, No. 7, 2005)
• Mike Williams (Lions, No. 10, 2005)
• Calvin Johnson (Lions, No. 2, 2007)
• Ted Ginn Jr. (Dolphins, No. 9, 2007)
• Darrius Heyward-Bey (Raiders, No. 9, 2009)
• Michael Crabtree (49ers, No. 10, 2009)
• AJ Green (Bengals, No. 4, 2011)
• Julio Jones (Falcons, No. 6, 2011)
• Justin Blackmon (Jags, No. 5, 2012)
• Tavon Austin (Rams, No. 8, 2013)

Decent amount of hits and misses in this list. I like Watkins prospects and don't see why he would bust, but I don't think he is in the same category coming out as the studs in this list. He is smaller than anyone who really hit here by about 10-15 pounds. I just don't see him as the can't miss guy he is being hyped since the Orange Bowl. Top ten for sure.

There is some risk here guys and I think Rams have too many other problems with their offense to take him at #2, IMO. If they're going to shoot for the moon, grab a QB. Much bigger need, not nearly as deep of a class as WR.

 

[snogger]

Johnny Football is all business

http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/06/johnny-manziel-florida-state-national-championship-two-women-video/

So wait ..... a college kid, with a chance to hit 2 for 1, should just pass it up and go to church

This is certainly not a positive.

I think he is doing what we all wish we could have done at his age.. does he have a chance to be another Ryan Leaf?

At the same time, with the right coach and mentor, he could be the next Fran Tarkenton..

only time will tell and I still would Love to see him handing off to Peterson, throwing to Patterson, and causing the opposing defense headaches as he plays Roadrunner to their coyote .. beep.. beep

While I don't blame him for doing what most kids would if they could, I'm not paying millions to most kids. That he went home with two chicks means a lot less than taking off right after a game to party with drake.

On the last part.... why? Most schools are on winter break.. most kids probably headed home.. was he suppose to stick around just to stick around. He decided to celebrate a heck if a game.

Guess I'm in the minority who think he should enjoy this time he has, as long as it is legal, as true adulthood is about to smack them all in the face when they leave college.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Johnny Football is all business

http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/06/johnny-manziel-florida-state-national-championship-two-women-video/

So wait ..... a college kid, with a chance to hit 2 for 1, should just pass it up and go to church

Didnt we hear the same thing about Matt Leinart? Ryan Leaf? Kerry Collins I dont recall RG3 or Luck doing stuff like this. If you dont think its a red flag then we just disagree.

RG III waited for his wedding day, alledgedly.

http://fansided.com/2013/07/18/robert-griffin-iii-sext-messages-photos-being-shopped/

Robert Griffin III Sext Messages, Photos Being Shopped

 

[Soulfly3]

Haven't had a chance to speak with my buddy who works w the Browns organization to see if he's heard any inkling about them taking Watkins at no4.

Previously they were pretty gung ho on Kouandjio, but I think that's likely changed

 

[Bracie Smathers]

It's early, Bracie.

You have been saying that from the beginning. Bortles, Manziel or both absolutely will draw interest at the #2 slot. Just speculating, but I think STL would like to move down 2-3 spots (CLE might be perfect), add a pick or two (you are right, the top of the 2014 QB class won't fetch a king's ransom like 2012, but I think you have sold short what is possible, the truth is probably somewhere in between - maybe a first in 2015, which Snead already alluded to, or a second and third this year, on top of the 1.4 of course... don't forget that a 2015 first is probably only valued like a 2014 second), and still land Watkins, Matthews or maybe Greg Robinson.

Bob,

Its early and you have been saying the same thing and now you can say that Bortles or Manziel or both will ABSOLUTELY draw interest at the #2 pick?

No.

You don't know so you can't say ABSOLUTELY that Manziel and/or Bortles will absolutely draw interest with the #2 pick.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Vikings and Rams should trade 1st round picks. Rams could take Watkins at 8 and Vikings would not need to reach as much at 13. They could get Nix or a LB there.

Most people think Watkins may not be available at 8. Vikings fans may just need to accept another year of Ponder/Cassel/Freeman

I agree, maybe 1.4-1.6, but not feeling 1.8, especially after he blows up the combine, he will have far too much momentum. It is POSSIBLE, as a lot of teams in the top 10 need QBs, LTs, pass rushers like Clowney, Barr and Mack, but I think they risk losing him that way. I like the idea of trading down from 1.2 to 1.4 with CLE, taking him there, maybe trading up from 1.13 to 1.8 like Donnybrook suggested (flipping a high third they may get in the trade down, would about work out points-wise by the "chart") to get a LT like Greg Robinson if there (or maybe stand pat for another LT if not).

This momentum is better called hype. Are the Rams really going to fall for hype on the best WR of the class twice? Trade down or take the BPA, which won't be Watkins IMO.

I don't think it is a consensus that Watkins is the product of hype. I was talking about the combine (I do think he blows it up), but that hasn't happened yet. If we are talking about the present, he has momentum NOW from the bowl game, but nobody would say he just came onto the radar Friday night. He was the consensus top WR prospect BEFORE the bowl game. You and the thread can check me, but this time last year, I'm not sure the 2013 class had a consensus top WR? Austin did build momentum, but it was very late that the pundits were saying he could go in the top 10 (reportedly the Jets might have taken him if the Rams hadn't). Watkins isn't in an analogous position, he is being talked about as the top WR and a possible top five overall pick NOW. Again, the buzz didn't start Friday. If we move into the past, he is the only WR in NCAA history to be a first team All American as a true freshman. The only three other players that did that at any position were all historically good college/pro RBs - Walker, Faulk and Peterson. So while he did have the soph slump hiccup, he was creating momentum since bursting onto the NCAA scene as a true freshman.

If they trade down to the 1.4-1.6 range, Watkins very well could be the BPA (or you might have players like Barr that aren't a good scheme fit, do they want to add Mack if he is a two down player, etc.).

Ask yourself what it is you don't like about Austin, than ask yourself if that is relevant or applicable, IN THE SAME WAY, to Watkins. Presumably size, right? Austin is 5'8" 178 lbs. Size is a fair question, it would be remiss to not question that. Not much/any precedent for success at that size. From the Rams perspective, I'm guessing they may have thought there also wasn't a lot of precedent for putting up 344 rushing yards and 572 all purpose yards against Oklahoma, or any team, for that matter. And after the fact, not a lot of precedent for four 50+ yard TDs over a two game stretch (other than Gale Sayers and Jim Brown). Maybe that was a fluke, maybe he was misused to start the year (that is what virtually all observers of the team reported, but people can think what they want). I'm not prepared to shovel the dirt on his NFL grave just yet (not to suggest you are, either, but a lot have).

But I digressed. Does Watkins have the same KIND of size concerns as Austin. He is a lot bigger than 5'8" 178 at 6'1" 205. True, he isn't the ideal 6'3" plus and 220 plus. But it wouldn't be a shock if he put on five or more pounds as he physically matures and develops. There have been big WRs that have busted, and short WRs that have starred, fast WRs that have busted, "slow" WRs that have starred. I do think the first round is a kind of screen where bigger, faster WRs do tend to get pushed up, Austin being the exception that proves the rule (on the size part of the equation). The second and third round could in effect leave some very talented WRs after the physical specimens and workout warriors get picked over (Keeenan Allen good size but "slow", Terrance Williams, Stedman Bailey, Robert Woods, Justin Hunter is fast but skinny in 2013, Alshon Jeffery and Rueben Randle in 2012, many earlier players we could think of, maybe even later rounders, going sytematically through the league... like Brandon Marshall, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, Marques Colston, Vincent Jackson, Mike Williams, Steve Smith, Desean Jackson, Eric Decker, Hines Ward, Antonio Brown, Josh Gordon, TY Hilton, Derrick Mason, Mike Wallace, Stevie Johnson, etc.). I'm not trying to build a case that STL should wait on a WR as great ones can be found later, just that the 6'3"-6'5" 220-240 lb freaks like Calvin Johnson/Andre Johnson/Larry Fitzgerald that can go in the top three aren't the only way to succeed.

For a comp, think of Watkins as the approximate weight of AJ Green, the approximate height of Dez Bryant (who is 6'2"?), than fuse them into the dimensions/proportions of a slightly taller, thinner Roddy White... only not as strong as White or Bryant, but stronger than Green, and faster and more explosive than all of them.

There have been a lot of WRs that have succeeded that were around 6'0", like Torry Holt, Reggie Wayne, etc., etc., etc. Watkins size concerns aren't Austin's (more legit) size concerns.

 

[Bob Magaw]

It's early, Bracie.

You have been saying that from the beginning. Bortles, Manziel or both absolutely will draw interest at the #2 slot. Just speculating, but I think STL would like to move down 2-3 spots (CLE might be perfect), add a pick or two (you are right, the top of the 2014 QB class won't fetch a king's ransom like 2012, but I think you have sold short what is possible, the truth is probably somewhere in between - maybe a first in 2015, which Snead already alluded to, or a second and third this year, on top of the 1.4 of course... don't forget that a 2015 first is probably only valued like a 2014 second), and still land Watkins, Matthews or maybe Greg Robinson.

Bob,

Its early and you have been saying the same thing and now you can say that Bortles or Manziel or both will ABSOLUTELY draw interest at the #2 pick?

No.

You don't know so you can't say ABSOLUTELY that Manziel and/or Bortles will absolutely draw interest with the #2 pick.

You have been selling the slot and the QB class short from the beginning. I think you will be proven wrong. Does... "I am highly confident approaching a high nineties degree of probablility" work better for you? I don't really want to battle semantics, absolute was a strong word, but I'm not stating that the Rams will definitely make a trade or a QB will certainly go from that spot. JUST, that it will draw interest (which is a lower bar). Again, since you were down on the slot and the QB class from the beginning, your stance isn't a surprise. We will just have to wait. But if we polled the thread (I'm not, but say informally), I think you would find you are taking the contrarian/outlier position if you don't think it is highly likely that with four top five teams and as many as six top eight teams in need of a QB, and as many as three potential top three-five overall QBs in Bridgtewater, Bortles and Manziel, one or more teams will want to jump the others and therefore generate interest in the the 1.2 pick.

 

[ShaHBucks]

Landing Evans, Lee, or Benjamin could do Stl. wonders as well. None of those guys are as versatile as Watkins, but could be paired nicely with Tavon Austin. Stl. has plenty of options at WR.

something tells me when you start drafting receivers in the top 10 in back to back years that's a good way to set your franchise back. Especially considering you traded up for Austin last year and you oline is in shambles.

They do have an extra first round pick, which is kind of like found money, taking Watkins AND a LT aren't mutually exclusive propositions, and I would make a case the OL isn't in shambles, but I'll return to that point.

If Watkins grades higher than the LTs, than I don't like the idea of a positional reach, that isn't good either. STL took LT bust Jason Smith with a very high first rounder not too long ago. Though I did think Matthews (or Greg Robinson) would be very good selections, but again, there will be LT options with the second first round pick.

Snead came from ATL, where they already had Roddy White, one of the best WRs in the NFL, and paid a HUGE price to land Julio Jones (must be the second biggest trade after RGIII in the past half decade or so?). They had holes on OL, on defense, but they prioritized adding another playmaker to take their offense to the next level. I haven't heard anybody question that move, now that Jones looks like one of the top 3-5 WRs in the game. Many people think DET, even with Calvin Johnson, needs to upgrade the complementary WR (they have tried, spending second rounders on the Boise State WR that unfortunately is out of the league, as well as Broyles, who had his second ACL tear?), and that is the missing piece of the puzzle for the offense. The Rams added Holt when they had Bruce. Vikings added Moss when they had Carter. Colts added Wayne when they had Harrison. If the CLE doesn't draft a QB or the Rams don't beat them to it, they may add Watkins despite having Josh Gordon, the best WR in the league in 2014. The Bucs could add him, despite having Vincent Jackson and just re-signing Mike Williams to an extension. The league is trending in a passing direction. Like Quez noted, Austin* isn't a WR1-type, though he could be more dangerous and a terror with a weapon like Watkins that defenses are forced to account for and game plan around.

People say STL has spent a lot of high picks on WRs in recent years, but I don't think so. Givens was a fourth, Bailey and Pettis (who would likely be gone if they add Watkins) were thirds, Quick was a high second, but he looks like he was severely overdrafted in retrospect, is having a Jerome Simpson kind of career arc, had a disappointing 18 receptions in year two and was passed up by Bailey (who reminds me of Hines Ward and Derrick Mason and should start next year, even if they add Watkins, leap frogging Givens as well). Austin was a high pick, but the only first round WR in fifteen years since Holt. So you could say if they add Watkins, they are making up for lost time. Having Watkins, Bailey, Austin and Cook would put a lot of pressure on defenses. The NFC West is the equivalent of the wood chipper scene in Fargo , defenses like SEA and SF are ridiculous (not to mention ARI, close to three top five defenses in the division... and if STL, the youngest team in the league and about to get younger if players like Wells and Dahl go, matures and fulfills their potential, they can be a top 10 defense). STL ran at will the first time at home against SEA, but otherwise were throttled by SEA away and both games against SF. When they can't run, they are dead in the water. They need to have a more balanced offense, and Watkins makes everybody better... not only the receiving weapons, but he will even relive pressure on Stacy, a sobering thought for opposing defenses.

Back to the OL, Aaron is right, Jake Long did stabilize the OL. At this point he is probably a better run blocker than in pass protection, but Fisher wants a dominant running team, and that is another way to take pressure off the passing game, and put pass rushers back on their heels. Unfortunately he did have a torn ACL, but his 2014 money is essentially guaranteed, so he isn't going anywhere (2015-2016 could be different?). He won't be winning too many break dancing contests, but OL don't have to cut as hard as RBs and WRs, so maybe that will make for a more favorable prognosis. And again, hopefully they come out of the first round with Watkins AND Robinson/Lewan/Cujo/Erving. So a rookie LT could be Long insurance in the interim, a long term heir apparent, and slide to RT or guard initially. RT Barksdale played very well. He was a blue chip recruit for LSU that could have gone to a lot of schools, and was drafted in the third round by OAK. They made a mistake by letting him go, he could start for a lot of teams (though that said, STL OL positional coach Paul Boudreau seems to have a knack for coaching up these kind of hidden gems, and that has helped with his development). Saffold, who has been hurt a lot and was somewhat of a disappointment at LT and than shunted to RT with the addition of Long, was a revelation on the inside at RG, and that now looks like his most natural pro position. He may leave in free agency, especially if he can command a big contract as a LT, but he has been hurt a lot, so that is a big question mark in my eyes if a team will overpay. Hopefully they can re-sign him even if he tests the market, but rams beat reporter Jim Thomas gave it about a one in three chance? They could also draft a top interior OL like Baylor's Richardson or Stanford's Yankey. The Rams redshirted Outland Trophy winner and high fourth rounder Barret Jones after a foot injury, who played every position on the line for an Alabama team that won multiple championships, and he is viewed as a future starter at center or guard. This doesn't even account for starters Scott Wells (solid center played well this year, but missed like nine games in 2012 and four or so this year, is approaching his mid-thirties and they could recoup something like $4 million in cap money by cutting him... but he could be back?) and Harvey Dahl (also pretty solid, at RG, it was his injury that led to Saffold being moved to RG, also nearing mid-thirties, and could yield four million in cap savings if cut). IF saffold isn't retained, I could see the team bringing back one if not both of the interior OL vets. The weak link on the OL would be LG, where they employed a platoon or rotation (one guard was former first round bust Chris Williams, he wasn't terrible).

Once Stacy was inserted into the starting lineup, and the offense found its identity by committing to the run game, and especially when Saffold moved to RG, the OL was dominant at times (200 yards against SEA, 250+ against CHI), and were close to a top 5 rushing team, i think. So while they probably could be better in pass protection, a powerful running game takes pressure off the passing game, and that is why I would say the OL looks in good shape, is not in shambles, tatters or disarray. Though this presumes Long's knee injury isn't a career-ender (i think he is about 28, like chris long?), it would admittedly help if they can retain Saffold as he gives a lot of flexibility, though it won't be catastrophic or disastrous if they can't, expecially if Barrett Jones is as good as advertised (he actually has a longer reach than Saffold, and could definitely play guard as well as center, he did both in college, as well as LT, i think?)... and of course, they can draft a top five LT, and/or a top three interior OL.

* Austin. Was it a mistake to move up for him? If so, even more reason to take a true WR1-type like Watkins. I do think when surrounded by Watkins, Bailey and Cook he could present a nightmarish matchup problem. If given a do-over, i have to admit, they could have traded DOWN instead of up, scooped up extra pick/s, KEPT THEIR SECOND and used it on stud guard Larry Warford (their target in the trade down with ATL from 1.22 to 1.30 if Ogletree was gone) and STILL landed somebody like Patterson or ex-Tennessee teammate Hunter. But every team could drive themselves crazy with these kinds of do over scenarios (they could have had Alshon Jeffery instead of Quick with the 2012 second, Mike Williams instead of Mardy Gilyard with the 2010 fourth and Desean Jackson instead of Donnie Avery with the 2008 second?). I do think he was horrifically misused at the beginning of the season, and you got a taste of what he could do in the back-to-back IND and CHI games (i think only player besides Gale Sayers and Jim Brown to have four combined 50+ yard TDs in two consecutive games - which could be flukey, or maybe not... he looked like a pocket Barry Sanders in space against Oklahoma with 344 rushing yards and 572 all purpose yards in one of the best collegiate individual performances i've ever seen). If used properly, I think the jury is still very much out, we don't really know how good he can be, and I wouldn't write him off yet. He also had a long ST TD wiped out early by a penalty (STL was much better in the second half of the season), as well as a long receiving TD, and he also had a lot of drops (as did Cook) though seemed to have natural hands at West Virginia, with something like 115 receptions his last season. So he could have significant upside.

Jeez, you need a little stopwatch when you're typing. If I'm the Rams GM- I'm starting all over again at WR. Bailey, Givens, Quick, Pettis, Austin - they are all legit 3rd WRs for any NFL squad, but all 5 are battling to be #1.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

You have been selling the slot and the QB class short from the beginning. I think you will be proven wrong. Does... "I am highly confident approaching a high nineties degree of probablility" work better for you? I don't really want to battle semantics, absolute was a strong word, but I'm not stating that the Rams will definitely make a trade or a QB will certainly go from that spot. JUST, that it will draw interest (which is a lower bar). Again, since you were down on the slot and the QB class from the beginning, your stance isn't a surprise. We will just have to wait. But if we polled the thread (I'm not, but say informally), I think you would find you are taking the contrarian/outlier position if you don't think that with four top five teams and as many as six top eight teams in need of a QB, and as many as three potential top three-five overall QBs in Bridgtewater, Bortles and Manziel, that one or more teams won't want to jump the others and therefore generate interest in the the 1.2 pick.

You've been overhyping the quarterbacks from the get-go in order to try and concoct a trade for St. Louis.

Three days ago Rob Rang's big board had only one QB in his top 12 players. Bortles was ranked 22nd and Manziel was ranked 17th.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/big-board

17. Johnny Manziel*, QB, Texas A&M (5-11, 210): Manziel's vision, elusiveness and accuracy on the move make him a mesmerizing prospect who will almost surely be drafted earlier than I rank him. While dynamic throughout his career -- including in the Aggies' thrilling comeback over Duke in the Chick-fil-A Bowl -- red flags were raised in mediocre performances against LSU and Missouri to end the regular season. Bottled in the pocket by both, Manziel couldn't throw his receivers open and he struggled. The NFL rule books have never been more accommodating to dual-threat passers, but consistent accuracy from the pocket remains the most critical element to quarterback play at the next level.

22. Blake Bortles*, QB, Central Florida (6-3, 230): A prototypically built pocket passer with good awareness, athleticism and arm strength, Bortles looks the part of an NFL starting quarterback. He is methodical in his setup and delivery of the ball and is a bit inconsistent with his accuracy, but the mettle he showed in guiding UCF to several comeback victories in 2013 has scouts buzzing. Bortles isn't as polished as Bridgewater, Carr or Manziel, but should he enter the 2014 draft a top-10 selection is not out of the question.

 

[Bob Magaw]

You have been selling the slot and the QB class short from the beginning. I think you will be proven wrong. Does... "I am highly confident approaching a high nineties degree of probablility" work better for you? I don't really want to battle semantics, absolute was a strong word, but I'm not stating that the Rams will definitely make a trade or a QB will certainly go from that spot. JUST, that it will draw interest (which is a lower bar). Again, since you were down on the slot and the QB class from the beginning, your stance isn't a surprise. We will just have to wait. But if we polled the thread (I'm not, but say informally), I think you would find you are taking the contrarian/outlier position if you don't think that with four top five teams and as many as six top eight teams in need of a QB, and as many as three potential top three-five overall QBs in Bridgtewater, Bortles and Manziel, that one or more teams won't want to jump the others and therefore generate interest in the the 1.2 pick.

You've been overhyping the quarterbacks from the get-go in order to try and concoct a trade for St. Louis.

Three days ago Rob Rang's big board had only one QB in his top 12 players. Bortles was ranked 22nd and Manziel was ranked 17th.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/big-board

17. Johnny Manziel*, QB, Texas A&M (5-11, 210): Manziel's vision, elusiveness and accuracy on the move make him a mesmerizing prospect who will almost surely be drafted earlier than I rank him. While dynamic throughout his career -- including in the Aggies' thrilling comeback over Duke in the Chick-fil-A Bowl -- red flags were raised in mediocre performances against LSU and Missouri to end the regular season. Bottled in the pocket by both, Manziel couldn't throw his receivers open and he struggled. The NFL rule books have never been more accommodating to dual-threat passers, but consistent accuracy from the pocket remains the most critical element to quarterback play at the next level.

22. Blake Bortles*, QB, Central Florida (6-3, 230): A prototypically built pocket passer with good awareness, athleticism and arm strength, Bortles looks the part of an NFL starting quarterback. He is methodical in his setup and delivery of the ball and is a bit inconsistent with his accuracy, but the mettle he showed in guiding UCF to several comeback victories in 2013 has scouts buzzing. Bortles isn't as polished as Bridgewater, Carr or Manziel, but should he enter the 2014 draft a top-10 selection is not out of the question.

I refute you with your own evidence. The operative phrase here is "...WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM."

"Manziel's vision, elusiveness and accuracy on the move make him a mesmerizing prospect who will almost surely be drafted earlier than I rank him."

You may be conflating a big board value chart with a mock draft? Where do Kiper and McShay have the QBs if they have done a mock draft (not sure they have)?

A big board does not account for the fact that there are four top five teams that need a QB and as many as six of the top eight.

I'm not trying to concoct anything, we aren't GMs, this is just for fun, right. you are advocating your position, I have mine. You used OAK as a guidleline, and because they got a second moving back from the 1.3, suggested STL might only get a third to move back less far from the 1.2 (lets say to the 1.4?). That seems ridiculously low ball, but again, we will find out (it isn't like there are thousands of historical precedents for dropping back from the 1.2, but if it has happened, I'd guess teams usually get more than a third). My recollection is, I wasn't building up the QB class necessarily, but I thought IN GENERAL, the 1.2 could have more value than your were assigning to it (so that might be a bit of revisionist history on your part). It was only when Andy might have linked something, or I read elsewhere that Rich Gosselin (who I respect a lot) was convinced from talks with league insiders that Manziel would be a top 12 pick, that I began to think of Manziel in this context. But than he had a monster close to his career, and with the way the final draft order shook out (we started the conversation long before that was finalized), I'm just doing the math as I see it. I didn't even know who Bortles was until recently, certainly not when we started talking, as far as "building him up", he has been a late riser. Earlier, I thought Carr might be the second graded QB prospect in the class, but he had a bad game in the early bowl contest against USC and appears to have lost momentum relative to his peers. You can just as easily google Bortles and verify for yourself reports/articles suggesting that he is surging up the board and could be in the running for the #1 overall pick, which is neglected in your one-sided take here.

Where do you think Manziel and Bortles will go? #17 and #22?

THREAD - INFORMAL POLL... how about you?

Back to Bracie. As you said before, you kind of hammered the Rams for not taking the Browns offer in 2012. You also mentioned that the Browns would have done better if they had RGIII in 2012, and the Redskins worse if they didn't have him, adding a proviso and caveat that made your intial point less clear cut (you were adamant that STL should have taken the CLE deal). You forgot to mention I brought that point up to you in the thread, as your original point had a gaping hole in it by not accounting for that (you initially pointed out the obvious that CLE had a worse record relative to WAS, completely overlooking that was WITHOUT RGIII, who they would have otherwise had IF THEY TRADED FOR HIM). But I think we can agree it worked out pretty well for STL, dealing with WAS. They didn't know RGIII would have a knee injury and the team would implode this season, but it proved a prescient (and maybe lucky, too) move to extend that first round pick out into a third season. We should give credit where credit is due. They knew what they were doing, contrary to what you thought when you vehemently insisted they blew it by not dealing withn CLE. You haven't always acknowledged how mistaken you were on that score. I think you are doubling down on the mistake, respectfully.

We all make mistakes, if I am here and in this case, I'll fess up in May, you have my word. This isn't life or death, its just a kids game. Some people get timid about going out on a limb. I had somebody I remember but won't name, criticize me for saying that I thought Miles Austin's emergence when he emerged was legit (he was good for a few years but ultimately disappointed due to injuries), and said he had to wait at least a year to confirm. My response was that was fine for him, but in our position at FBG, it doesn't help a lot to say, I'll get back to you in a year or two.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

I refute you with your own evidence. The operative phrase here is "...WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM."
"Manziel's vision, elusiveness and accuracy on the move make him a mesmerizing prospect who will almost surely be drafted earlier than I rank him."

You may be conflating a big board value chart with a mock draft? Where do Kiper and McShay have the QBs if they have done a mock draft (not sure they have)?

A big board does not account for the fact that there are four top five teams that need a QB and as many as six of the top eight.

I'm not trying to concoct anything, we aren't GMs, this is just for fun, right. you are advocating your position, I have mine. You used OAK as a guidleline, and because they got a second moving back from the 1.3, suggested STL might only get a third to move back less far from the 1.2 (lets say to the 1.4?). That seems ridiculously low ball, but again, we will find out. My recollection is, I wasn't building up the QB class necessarily, but I thought IN GENERAL, the 1.2 could have more value than your were assigning to it (so that might be a bit of revisionist history on your part). It was only when Andy might have linked something, or I read elsewhere that Rich Gosselin (who I respect a lot) was convinced from talks with league insiders that Manziel would be a top 12 pick. But than he had a monster close to his career, and with the way the final draft order shook out (we started the conversation long before that was finalized), I'm just doing the math as I see it. I didn't even know who Bortles was until recently, certainly not when we started talking, as far as "building him up", he has been a late riser. Earlier, I thought Carr might be the second graded QB prospect in the class, but he had a bad game in the early bowl contest against USC and appears to have lost momentum relative to his peers. You can just as easily google Bortles and verify for yourself reports/articles suggesting that he is surging up the board and could be in the running for the #1 overall pick, which is neglected in your take here.

Where do you think Manziel and Bortles will go? #17 and #22?

THREAD - INFORMAL POLL... how about you?

Back to Bracie. As you said before, you kind of hammered the Rams for not taking the Browns offer in 2012. You also mentioned that the Browns would have down better if they had RGIII in 2012, and the Redskins worse if they didn't have him, adding a proviso and caveat that made your intial point less clear cut (you were adamant that STL should have taken the CLE deal). You forgot to mention I brought that point up to you in the thread. But I think we can agree it worked out pretty well for STL, dealing with WAS. They didn't know RGIII would have a knee injury and the team would implode this season, but it proved a prescient (and maybe lucky, too) to extend that first round pick out into a third season. We should give credit where credit is due. They knew what they were doing, contrary to what you thought when you vehemently insisted that blew it by not dealing withn CLE. You haven't always acknowledged how mistaken you were on that score. I think you are doubling down on the mistake, respectfully.

We all make mistakes, Bracie, if I am here and in this case, I'll fess up in May, you have my word. This isn't life or death, its just a kids game. Some people get timid about going out on a limb. I had somebody I remember but won't name, criticize me for saying that I thought Miles Austin's emergence when he emerged was legit (he was good for a few years but ultimately disappointed), and said he had to wait at least a year to confirm. My response was that was fine for him, but in our position at FBG, it doesn't help a lot to say, I'll get back to you in a year or two.

You don't refute a ranking of the value of players with a mock that overstates the value.

You over-rate, inflate, and obsucate, as you have when you are desperate to try and inflate QBs who do NOT RANK highly in order to try and concoct a trade for St. Louis as you have been for months.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Landing Evans, Lee, or Benjamin could do Stl. wonders as well. None of those guys are as versatile as Watkins, but could be paired nicely with Tavon Austin. Stl. has plenty of options at WR.

something tells me when you start drafting receivers in the top 10 in back to back years that's a good way to set your franchise back. Especially considering you traded up for Austin last year and you oline is in shambles.

They do have an extra first round pick, which is kind of like found money, taking Watkins AND a LT aren't mutually exclusive propositions, and I would make a case the OL isn't in shambles, but I'll return to that point.

If Watkins grades higher than the LTs, than I don't like the idea of a positional reach, that isn't good either. STL took LT bust Jason Smith with a very high first rounder not too long ago. Though I did think Matthews (or Greg Robinson) would be very good selections, but again, there will be LT options with the second first round pick.

Snead came from ATL, where they already had Roddy White, one of the best WRs in the NFL, and paid a HUGE price to land Julio Jones (must be the second biggest trade after RGIII in the past half decade or so?). They had holes on OL, on defense, but they prioritized adding another playmaker to take their offense to the next level. I haven't heard anybody question that move, now that Jones looks like one of the top 3-5 WRs in the game. Many people think DET, even with Calvin Johnson, needs to upgrade the complementary WR (they have tried, spending second rounders on the Boise State WR that unfortunately is out of the league, as well as Broyles, who had his second ACL tear?), and that is the missing piece of the puzzle for the offense. The Rams added Holt when they had Bruce. Vikings added Moss when they had Carter. Colts added Wayne when they had Harrison. If the CLE doesn't draft a QB or the Rams don't beat them to it, they may add Watkins despite having Josh Gordon, the best WR in the league in 2014. The Bucs could add him, despite having Vincent Jackson and just re-signing Mike Williams to an extension. The league is trending in a passing direction. Like Quez noted, Austin* isn't a WR1-type, though he could be more dangerous and a terror with a weapon like Watkins that defenses are forced to account for and game plan around.

People say STL has spent a lot of high picks on WRs in recent years, but I don't think so. Givens was a fourth, Bailey and Pettis (who would likely be gone if they add Watkins) were thirds, Quick was a high second, but he looks like he was severely overdrafted in retrospect, is having a Jerome Simpson kind of career arc, had a disappointing 18 receptions in year two and was passed up by Bailey (who reminds me of Hines Ward and Derrick Mason and should start next year, even if they add Watkins, leap frogging Givens as well). Austin was a high pick, but the only first round WR in fifteen years since Holt. So you could say if they add Watkins, they are making up for lost time. Having Watkins, Bailey, Austin and Cook would put a lot of pressure on defenses. The NFC West is the equivalent of the wood chipper scene in Fargo , defenses like SEA and SF are ridiculous (not to mention ARI, close to three top five defenses in the division... and if STL, the youngest team in the league and about to get younger if players like Wells and Dahl go, matures and fulfills their potential, they can be a top 10 defense). STL ran at will the first time at home against SEA, but otherwise were throttled by SEA away and both games against SF. When they can't run, they are dead in the water. They need to have a more balanced offense, and Watkins makes everybody better... not only the receiving weapons, but he will even relive pressure on Stacy, a sobering thought for opposing defenses.

Back to the OL, Aaron is right, Jake Long did stabilize the OL. At this point he is probably a better run blocker than in pass protection, but Fisher wants a dominant running team, and that is another way to take pressure off the passing game, and put pass rushers back on their heels. Unfortunately he did have a torn ACL, but his 2014 money is essentially guaranteed, so he isn't going anywhere (2015-2016 could be different?). He won't be winning too many break dancing contests, but OL don't have to cut as hard as RBs and WRs, so maybe that will make for a more favorable prognosis. And again, hopefully they come out of the first round with Watkins AND Robinson/Lewan/Cujo/Erving. So a rookie LT could be Long insurance in the interim, a long term heir apparent, and slide to RT or guard initially. RT Barksdale played very well. He was a blue chip recruit for LSU that could have gone to a lot of schools, and was drafted in the third round by OAK. They made a mistake by letting him go, he could start for a lot of teams (though that said, STL OL positional coach Paul Boudreau seems to have a knack for coaching up these kind of hidden gems, and that has helped with his development). Saffold, who has been hurt a lot and was somewhat of a disappointment at LT and than shunted to RT with the addition of Long, was a revelation on the inside at RG, and that now looks like his most natural pro position. He may leave in free agency, especially if he can command a big contract as a LT, but he has been hurt a lot, so that is a big question mark in my eyes if a team will overpay. Hopefully they can re-sign him even if he tests the market, but rams beat reporter Jim Thomas gave it about a one in three chance? They could also draft a top interior OL like Baylor's Richardson or Stanford's Yankey. The Rams redshirted Outland Trophy winner and high fourth rounder Barret Jones after a foot injury, who played every position on the line for an Alabama team that won multiple championships, and he is viewed as a future starter at center or guard. This doesn't even account for starters Scott Wells (solid center played well this year, but missed like nine games in 2012 and four or so this year, is approaching his mid-thirties and they could recoup something like $4 million in cap money by cutting him... but he could be back?) and Harvey Dahl (also pretty solid, at RG, it was his injury that led to Saffold being moved to RG, also nearing mid-thirties, and could yield four million in cap savings if cut). IF saffold isn't retained, I could see the team bringing back one if not both of the interior OL vets. The weak link on the OL would be LG, where they employed a platoon or rotation (one guard was former first round bust Chris Williams, he wasn't terrible).

Once Stacy was inserted into the starting lineup, and the offense found its identity by committing to the run game, and especially when Saffold moved to RG, the OL was dominant at times (200 yards against SEA, 250+ against CHI), and were close to a top 5 rushing team, i think. So while they probably could be better in pass protection, a powerful running game takes pressure off the passing game, and that is why I would say the OL looks in good shape, is not in shambles, tatters or disarray. Though this presumes Long's knee injury isn't a career-ender (i think he is about 28, like chris long?), it would admittedly help if they can retain Saffold as he gives a lot of flexibility, though it won't be catastrophic or disastrous if they can't, expecially if Barrett Jones is as good as advertised (he actually has a longer reach than Saffold, and could definitely play guard as well as center, he did both in college, as well as LT, i think?)... and of course, they can draft a top five LT, and/or a top three interior OL.

* Austin. Was it a mistake to move up for him? If so, even more reason to take a true WR1-type like Watkins. I do think when surrounded by Watkins, Bailey and Cook he could present a nightmarish matchup problem. If given a do-over, i have to admit, they could have traded DOWN instead of up, scooped up extra pick/s, KEPT THEIR SECOND and used it on stud guard Larry Warford (their target in the trade down with ATL from 1.22 to 1.30 if Ogletree was gone) and STILL landed somebody like Patterson or ex-Tennessee teammate Hunter. But every team could drive themselves crazy with these kinds of do over scenarios (they could have had Alshon Jeffery instead of Quick with the 2012 second, Mike Williams instead of Mardy Gilyard with the 2010 fourth and Desean Jackson instead of Donnie Avery with the 2008 second?). I do think he was horrifically misused at the beginning of the season, and you got a taste of what he could do in the back-to-back IND and CHI games (i think only player besides Gale Sayers and Jim Brown to have four combined 50+ yard TDs in two consecutive games - which could be flukey, or maybe not... he looked like a pocket Barry Sanders in space against Oklahoma with 344 rushing yards and 572 all purpose yards in one of the best collegiate individual performances i've ever seen). If used properly, I think the jury is still very much out, we don't really know how good he can be, and I wouldn't write him off yet. He also had a long ST TD wiped out early by a penalty (STL was much better in the second half of the season), as well as a long receiving TD, and he also had a lot of drops (as did Cook) though seemed to have natural hands at West Virginia, with something like 115 receptions his last season. So he could have significant upside.

Jeez, you need a little stopwatch when you're typing.If I'm the Rams GM- I'm starting all over again at WR. Bailey, Givens, Quick, Pettis, Austin - they are all legit 3rd WRs for any NFL squad, but all 5 are battling to be #1.

Like I said.

* STL needs a WR1. Though specifically addressing your take... Pettis and Quick were passed by Bailey at the end of the season (I would have moved him ahead a lot earlier, but they didn't identify what they had in Stacy until week five). If they add Watkins, he will be the obvious WR1. If I am right and Bailey has some Hines Ward/Derrick Mason in him, he could be a WR2 with upside. I think Austin could have higher than WR3 upside. Givens and Quick regressed and I agree are more like WR3, possibly WR4 types.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I refute you with your own evidence. The operative phrase here is "...WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM."
"Manziel's vision, elusiveness and accuracy on the move make him a mesmerizing prospect who will almost surely be drafted earlier than I rank him."

You may be conflating a big board value chart with a mock draft? Where do Kiper and McShay have the QBs if they have done a mock draft (not sure they have)?

A big board does not account for the fact that there are four top five teams that need a QB and as many as six of the top eight.

I'm not trying to concoct anything, we aren't GMs, this is just for fun, right. you are advocating your position, I have mine. You used OAK as a guidleline, and because they got a second moving back from the 1.3, suggested STL might only get a third to move back less far from the 1.2 (lets say to the 1.4?). That seems ridiculously low ball, but again, we will find out. My recollection is, I wasn't building up the QB class necessarily, but I thought IN GENERAL, the 1.2 could have more value than your were assigning to it (so that might be a bit of revisionist history on your part). It was only when Andy might have linked something, or I read elsewhere that Rich Gosselin (who I respect a lot) was convinced from talks with league insiders that Manziel would be a top 12 pick. But than he had a monster close to his career, and with the way the final draft order shook out (we started the conversation long before that was finalized), I'm just doing the math as I see it. I didn't even know who Bortles was until recently, certainly not when we started talking, as far as "building him up", he has been a late riser. Earlier, I thought Carr might be the second graded QB prospect in the class, but he had a bad game in the early bowl contest against USC and appears to have lost momentum relative to his peers. You can just as easily google Bortles and verify for yourself reports/articles suggesting that he is surging up the board and could be in the running for the #1 overall pick, which is neglected in your take here.

Where do you think Manziel and Bortles will go? #17 and #22?

THREAD - INFORMAL POLL... how about you?

Back to Bracie. As you said before, you kind of hammered the Rams for not taking the Browns offer in 2012. You also mentioned that the Browns would have down better if they had RGIII in 2012, and the Redskins worse if they didn't have him, adding a proviso and caveat that made your intial point less clear cut (you were adamant that STL should have taken the CLE deal). You forgot to mention I brought that point up to you in the thread. But I think we can agree it worked out pretty well for STL, dealing with WAS. They didn't know RGIII would have a knee injury and the team would implode this season, but it proved a prescient (and maybe lucky, too) to extend that first round pick out into a third season. We should give credit where credit is due. They knew what they were doing, contrary to what you thought when you vehemently insisted that blew it by not dealing withn CLE. You haven't always acknowledged how mistaken you were on that score. I think you are doubling down on the mistake, respectfully.

We all make mistakes, Bracie, if I am here and in this case, I'll fess up in May, you have my word. This isn't life or death, its just a kids game. Some people get timid about going out on a limb. I had somebody I remember but won't name, criticize me for saying that I thought Miles Austin's emergence when he emerged was legit (he was good for a few years but ultimately disappointed), and said he had to wait at least a year to confirm. My response was that was fine for him, but in our position at FBG, it doesn't help a lot to say, I'll get back to you in a year or two.

You don't refute a ranking of the value of players with a mock that overstates the value.

You over-rate, inflate, and obsucate, as you have when you are desperate to try and inflate QBs who do NOT RANK highly in order to try and concoct a trade for St. Louis as you have been for months.

It isn't overrating or obfuscating. No need to get snippy. You are taking this process way too seriously. I don't need to ridicule you by questioning your motives or calling you desperate. Suffice it to say, I just think you are mistaken. I don't think you are desperate or concocting anything in thinking a move from 1.2 to 1.4 would fetch merely a third. Just that you are wrong. It is OK to think I am wrong or mistaken, but you don't make your point well by dodging questions about where Manziel and Bortles are likely to go, or what a several pick move down would fetch, those are some of the questions that you are leaving conspicuously unanswered. Earlier, I was just pointing out that a big board isn't a mock draft. The big board-type analysis COMPLETELY fails to account for the fact that QB is the most coveted position in football, and the dynamics of supply and demand vary from year to year. Some years QBs are needed more, some years less. Some years there are more QBs with a first round grade, some years less. This isn't a parallel processing super computing installation architecture, we don't need to draw a schematic.

Early on, you in several cases misrepresented my position that I was saying STL would get a kings ransom for the 1.2 like they did in 2012, when I repeatedly and specifically took pains to distance myself from your misrepresentations (plural), and made explicitly clear that there are no Lucks or RGIIIs in this class (let me repeat my stance for you, since after several attempts it didn't sink in earlier - I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY PROSPECTS AS HIGHLY GRADED AS LUCK OR RGIII IN THIS DRAFT). I don't think you ever acknowledged the earlier misrepresentations, either, you just stopped after I brought it up two or three times. Do you remember that? Is it possible that you are confused about my hyping the value of the pick by your own muddled memories of what you mistakenly thought I said, in your unacknowledged misrepresentations?

Again, if you think Manziel and Bortles are likely to go at #17 and #22, imo, you are in the minority. If you say higher, than you are admitting Rang's big board may not be that relevant to a mock draft, the higher you push them up, in which case, why cite something that is lower than what you believe to make a point and "win the debate"? I didn't cite a specific mock, I asked you where you would put them, and alluded to Kiper and Mcshay, wasn't making a definitive claim. You seem to have misunderstood that the authority stated IN THE VERY BLURB YOU CITED (I can't make this stuff up ) MANZIEL WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM. What do you not understand about that being self-refuting?

Not name calling, just stating facts about your history of being mistaken and failing to acknowledge it in the case of the the initial trade with WAS (insisting they should have dealt with CLE). If I am wrong here in May, I will acknowledge it (which you haven't always).

There is nothing else I can really add on this matter.

 

[IHEARTFF]

rams should pick a qb but they won't

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

rams should pick a qb but they won't

I think I agree with this but trading down makes a lot of sense if they can get a team to overpay.

 

[Bob Magaw]

• David Terrell (Bears, No. 8, 2001)
• Koren Robinson (Seahawks, No. 9, 2001)
• Charles Rogers (Lions, No. 2, 2003)
• Andre Johnson (Texans, No. 3, 2003)
• Larry Fitzgerald (Cardinals, No. 3, 2004)
• Roy Williams (Lions, No. 7, 2004)
• Reggie Williams (Jaguars, No. 9, 2004)
• Braylon Edwards (Browns, No. 3, 2005)
• Troy Williamson (Vikings, No. 7, 2005)
• Mike Williams (Lions, No. 10, 2005)
• Calvin Johnson (Lions, No. 2, 2007)
• Ted Ginn Jr. (Dolphins, No. 9, 2007)
• Darrius Heyward-Bey (Raiders, No. 9, 2009)
• Michael Crabtree (49ers, No. 10, 2009)
• AJ Green (Bengals, No. 4, 2011)
• Julio Jones (Falcons, No. 6, 2011)
• Justin Blackmon (Jags, No. 5, 2012)
• Tavon Austin (Rams, No. 8, 2013)

Decent amount of hits and misses in this list. I like Watkins prospects and don't see why he would bust, but I don't think he is in the same category coming out as the studs in this list. He is smaller than anyone who really hit here by about 10-15 pounds. I just don't see him as the can't miss guy he is being hyped since the Orange Bowl. Top ten for sure.There is some risk here guys and I think Rams have too many other problems with their offense to take him at #2, IMO. If they're going to shoot for the moon, grab a QB. Much bigger need, not nearly as deep of a class as WR.

Good list. I think with anything as complicated as why as diverse a set of WRs as this, sorted by pedigree, sometimes leads to success and sometimes failure, it would be hard to reduce it to one variable, even one as important as size. It may be as simple as that in some cases, but probably not all. I'll try and break the list down in a little more detail, but make it snappy.The further back we go, the fuzzier my recollection is.

David Terrell - From seeing him in Chicago, I don't remember him looking as naturally skilled a WR as Warkins?

Koren Robinson - Great start, had an alcohol (not sure about substance abuse?) problem. Had a lot of talent. Watkins did have a pot bust, seems to have put it behind him, but will have to answer for that in interviews.

Charles Rogers - Broke clavicle in sixth game as rookie. Again at start of second season. Three substance abuse violations first three years.

Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald - Point taken, size component hard to overlook as at least a key part of their success. Than again, hard to say if they were around 6'1" or 6'2" and 205 to 210 lbs, but everything else was the same, would they have completely face planted and been nobodies?

Roy Williams - Great athlete (one of top long jumpers as Texas prep?). The sum of the parts inexplicably never added up to the whole his athleticism would seem to have suggested. Was he lazy, or lacked toughness, or some other intangible? Tough to talk about intangibles, but Watkins seems to not lack for a work ethic, and appears driven to succeed?

Reggie Williams - Plodder. Ponderous. Lumbering. Painfully slow. Made sleestaks look like they have quick twitch burst and explosiveness.

Braylon Edwards - Tremendous athlete. One great year flashed his potential but was doomed to be a perennial tease. Maybe something wasn't entirely right upstairs or in the intangibles department, Watkins seems wired differently, but that could be me reading into this too much and speculating.

Troy Williamson - Was he kind of a workout wonder, tested well for speed (Mike Mamula of WRs?). Didn't have an extensive body of work to draw from as I recall. Later was found to have frying pans grafted on to his wrists where normal humans would have hands, an impediment to catching the ball, which doesn't describe Watkins.

BMW - See Reggie above, the man who makes sleestaks look like Usain Bolt.

Calvin Johnson - Point taken.

Ted Ginn, Jr. - Overdrafted return specialist. Smurf. Not a whole lot in common with Watkins.

DHB - See Williamson above, almost carbon copy description. Al Davis special.

Michael Crabtree - Might be one the closer comps on the list, size-wise, at 6'1" 215. Before the ruptured achilles tendon, looked like an emerging star once Kaepernick became the starter. Watkins ran a 10.4 100 m. as a prep. How much higher would Crabtree be graded if he had that kind of speed, and would it be worth trading off 10 lbs, for Percy Harvin-like burst, acceleration, explosiveness and suddenness?

AJ Green and Julio Jones - Point taken, though while tall, Green is wraith-like skinny, so doesn't fit the prototypical mold, though he has had Hall of Fame production in his first three years, and Jones has been brittle and fragile at times (didn't he have a broken foot during his combine, and maybe tore a screw loose from the same foot after five games... is he too big, strong and fast for his own frame to withstand the freakish torque and internal physics of the impacts he causes himself just by running, jumping and hitting at his size and speed?).

Justin Blackmon - Near doppelgänger dimensions at 6'1" 210 lbs. Hopefully we aren't saying see Koren Robinson above as a historical footnote to a burnout career in a few years, as another tragically misspent and squandered talent. Michael Crabtree like several year dominance in college despite lack of top end long speed. Has flashed the goods sporadically and intermittently in JAX when not suspended, finished strong as a rookie, despite the obvious QB hindrances.

Austin - Lot more upside than Ginn, Jr., IMO. But as the only other smurf on the list, we can similarly say that his dramatically different size makes him ill-suited for any kind of comparison.

One of the biggest problems with the STL offense is they are so young and maddeningly inconsistent (even after week seven). They beat ARI, IND, CHI and NO, and were a play away from beating SEA. But they lost to TEN. The only remedy for that is reps and experience. In the Linehan and Spagnuolo eras, they were old and bad. Now they are young and promising. At their best, they beat IND 38-8 and rushed for 250+ yards against CHI, with their most lopsided consecutive victories in a decade. So there is demonstrable progress, but it is admittedly sporadic and intermittent (again, they are the youngest team in the league, and will be younger in 2014, with all the expected extra picks and possible vet purges - Finnegan, Dahl and Wells). Once the OL gelled, they had like a top five rushing offense. Austin and Cook did have a lot of drops, so if we are finger pointing and reckoning how to fairly distribute the blame, the receiving weapons need to share at least some responsibility. Watkins would help there. People want to see the supposed progress translated into more tangibly reflected W-L record improvement, but I recently saw a stat that they faced like nine of the top ten defenses in 2013? Unfortunatley, with six games against approx top five defenses for now in the division, that could be a yearly reality for the foreseeable future.

Without a frontal assault, I'll address the "QB issue" obliquely. Lack of a WR as talented as Watkins could be precisely the reason many are down on the QB. A common refrain is great QBs elevate their WRs. Well there are only a handful of QBs like that. If every team moved on from their QB that didn't meet that criteria, there would be more than 25 new starting QBs every year.The reality is, most QBs will do the same in a status quo situation, do worse if their weapons are reduced and lessened, and do better if their weapons are upgraded. I question if all this is really as complicated as it is made out to be at times. Austin Pettis was the lead WR I think in the first month and a half or so. Who would you rather throw to, Watkins or Pettis?

 

[Bob Magaw]

rams should pick a qb but they won't

This is a common sentiment. I can understand and appreciate why some people think this. BTW, they will be drafting a QB, just not as high as some people might think they should.

Think of of it like this. Last year, with RGIII having a historically good rookie season and making the playoffs, many concluded WAS got the best of the deal. A year later, coming off a three win season, maybe this take has switched? I wonder if Shanahan thinks STL was swindled?

Lets do a hypothetical. Lets say the STL QB is average. Teams have won super bowls with QBs like Trent Dilfer, by surrounding him with playmakers at other positions (maybe on defense in some cases, like Ray Lewis and Ed Reed). I think he has more upside, so lets say STL adds Watkins and LT Greg Robinson. This helps him become slightly better than average, say top 12. Lets say that RGIII struggles to do as well in the future, even if his knee makes a full recovery, because he doesn't want to run as much as he did as a rookie, and defenses are able to be more effective in pass coverage due to not needing to worry about the scrambling and designed runs. So instead of the perennial top 3-5 QB we thought he might become, he turns out to be in the top 8-10 range.

Now we can begin to break down the trade. If the STL QB had been worthless and cut, and RGIII the #1 QB and a Hall of Famer, disastrous trade for STL. But if the STL QB top 12, and WAS QB top 8-10, now to justify the trade, you only need to do so on the basis of the sum of the accrued picks exceeding the value of the DIFFERENCE between the top 12 and top 8-10 value. Not so clear cut now?

What does STL have to show for the trade so far?

Starting DT Michael Brockers.

Starting LB Alec Ogletree

Starting CB Janoris Jenkins

Starting WR Stedman Bailey (by the end of his rookie season - from the Ogletree trade down)

Starting RB Zac Stacy (technically they packaged one of the sixths from the Ogletree trade down with their own sixth for a fifth)

Five starters

Plus, the 1.2.

Which, if they were to trade down with CLE, could fetch (by the chart) the 1.4, a 2015 first (maybe something else like a 2014 third?). With the 1.4, they could take Sammy Watkins or Jake Matthews. A sixth starter. And if they do get a 2015 first, that could likely represent a seventh starter*. Or maybe they add another 2014 first, or a second and third, and could get a seventh or even an additional eighth starter that way? A team has 22 starters on offense and defense. With as many as seven starters, this could represent upwards of a THIRD OF THE ROSTER'S COMBINED OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE STARTING LINEUP!

I don't know about the rest (Stacy looks really good, and Bailey could be, too), but Brockers, Ogletree and Watkins could be stars.

So was giving up the DIFFERENCE between 1.12 and 1.8-1.10 (hypothetically) worth as many as seven starters, with as many as three or more stars and several other very good players? I think STL would say yes.

* This doesn't even factor in or account for their ability to trade down with a future first (and/or second and/or third), like they did with Ogletree, effectively turning one pick into three starters (which they have shown an inclination and facility for). Conceivably, if they play their cards right in 2014 or even 2015 during the end game of the RGIII trade, eventually close to half their roster could be populated by that original bounty? Also, in 2012, Les Snead didn't have his scouting team in place as the transition came too close to the draft. He did in 2013, in which they drafted five starters (Austin, Ogletree, Mcdonald, Bailey and Stacy). That bodes well for 2014 (and possibly 2015 and beyond, if they can continue to parlay picks from the original trade into later rounds and successive years).

 

[FUBAR]

Johnny Football is all business

http://www.tmz.com/2014/01/06/johnny-manziel-florida-state-national-championship-two-women-video/

So wait ..... a college kid, with a chance to hit 2 for 1, should just pass it up and go to church

This is certainly not a positive.

I think he is doing what we all wish we could have done at his age.. does he have a chance to be another Ryan Leaf?

At the same time, with the right coach and mentor, he could be the next Fran Tarkenton..

only time will tell and I still would Love to see him handing off to Peterson, throwing to Patterson, and causing the opposing defense headaches as he plays Roadrunner to their coyote .. beep.. beep

While I don't blame him for doing what most kids would if they could, I'm not paying millions to most kids. That he went home with two chicks means a lot less than taking off right after a game to party with drake.

On the last part.... why? Most schools are on winter break.. most kids probably headed home.. was he suppose to stick around just to stick around. He decided to celebrate a heck if a game.

Guess I'm in the minority who think he should enjoy this time he has, as long as it is legal, as true adulthood is about to smack them all in the face when they leave college.

He seems more interested in being a celebrity than a teammate. (His off the field issues indicate the same) I'm being harsh here, but I don't recall the true elite quarterbacks doing this until after they had been in the league for a while. Granted, he's even more famous than Peyton or luck were before they left college. He's also lived a different life than most, with opportunities others did not have in their childhood, so maybe he deserves some leeway. It's just one red flag imo, not a sure sign that he will bust.

 

[snogger]

He seems more interested in being a celebrity than a teammate. (His off the field issues indicate the same) I'm being harsh here, but I don't recall the true elite quarterbacks doing this until after they had been in the league for a while. Granted, he's even more famous than Peyton or luck were before they left college.He's also lived a different life than most, with opportunities others did not have in their childhood, so maybe he deserves some leeway. It's just one red flag imo, not a sure sign that he will bust.

I look at things like overpaid LB's on the Vikings like Erin Henderson who gets busted twice in a 2 month span for DWI.. and think...

so what if Manziel is partying it up and enjoying life before he enters the "real" world, at least he isn't breaking laws.

The other thing is now days the contracts for rookies are set at a certain level.. No more huge contracts like the Ryan Leaf days.. They have to play their way to the "Big" money( I say "big" as what they get is big to you and I but not compared to what they would have made a few years back).

So, IMO, I think somewhere around #8 is a perfect spot for him to go.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

It isn't overrating or obfuscating. No need to get snippy. You are taking this process way too seriously. I don't need to ridicule you by questioning your motives or calling you desperate. Suffice it to say, I just think you are mistaken. I don't think you are desperate or concocting anything in thinking a move from 1.2 to 1.4 would fetch merely a third. Just that you are wrong. It is OK to think I am wrong or mistaken, but you don't make your point well by dodging questions about where Manziel and Bortles are likely to go, or what a several pick move down would fetch, those are some of the questions that you are leaving conspicuously unanswered. Earlier, I was just pointing out that a big board isn't a mock draft. The big board-type analysis COMPLETELY fails to account for the fact that QB is the most coveted position in football, and the dynamics of supply and demand vary from year to year. Some years QBs are needed more, some years less. Some years there are more QBs with a first round grade, some years less. This isn't a parallel processing super computing installation architecture, we don't need to draw a schematic.

Early on, you in several cases misrepresented my position that I was saying STL would get a kings ransom for the 1.2 like they did in 2012, when I repeatedly and specifically took pains to distance myself from your misrepresentations (plural), and made explicitly clear that there are no Lucks or RGIIIs in this class (let me repeat my stance for you, since after several attempts it didn't sink in earlier - I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY PROSPECTS AS HIGHLY GRADED AS LUCK OR RGIII IN THIS DRAFT). I don't think you ever acknowledged the earlier misrepresentations, either, you just stopped after I brought it up two or three times. Do you remember that? Is it possible that you are confused about my hyping the value of the pick by your own muddled memories of what you mistakenly thought I said, in your unacknowledged misrepresentations?

Again, if you think Manziel and Bortles are likely to go at #17 and #22, imo, you are in the minority. If you say higher, than you are admitting Rang's big board may not be that relevant to a mock draft, the higher you push them up, in which case, why cite something that is lower than what you believe to make a point and "win the debate"? I didn't cite a specific mock, I asked you where you would put them, and alluded to Kiper and Mcshay, wasn't making a definitive claim. You seem to have misunderstood that the authority stated IN THE VERY BLURB YOU CITED (I can't make this stuff up ) MANZIEL WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM. What do you not understand about that being self-refuting?

Not name calling, just stating facts about your history of being mistaken and failing to acknowledge it in the case of the the initial trade with WAS (insisting they should have dealt with CLE). If I am wrong here in May, I will acknowledge it (which you haven't always).

There is nothing else I can really add on this matter.

Don't you dare lecture me Bob. I openly question your motives because they are too obvious. You want to try and artificially inflate the QBs so your team can trade down and get a high price in return. You stated that some team will ABSOLUTELY want to move up for a QB at the #2 pick. Why pay a premium to move-up for a QB that isn't a franchise QB? You never bothered to make a solid case that makes sense other than stating need. Yeah need, NEED of a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK not moving up and paying a premium for some kid with charactor flaws or with a thin frame or somebody who simply isn't good enough to rate moving up for.

You type long posts that, quite frankly, don't get read because they are too long and are not filled with information other than your opinions then you come back and insist people address some obscure point you made. Its a form of bullying and people don't like it.

If you make a concise posts with less opinion and more information you will get better responses.

===========

You accuse me of misrepresenting your point about no Luck or RG III and then you turn around and misrepresent that I said Bortles and Manziel will be slected 22nd and 17th. No. Never said that. I shared Rob Rang's ranking of the top college players that he posted on January 3rd to prove that the mock that he made three days later where he shot Brotles up from the 22nd ranked player to the 1st player taken is absurd. At best, Rang not consistent. When he ranked Bortles the 22nd college player he said he wasn't as polished as Bridgewater or Manziel or even Carr. Three days later? He's going to be taken number one. He never made a reasonable cae for how Bortles shot up past 21 players or the 3 QBs to the top pick in his mock three days later therefore his mock is sketchy at best and BS at worst.

Here is some INFORMATION from today, so its timely and its relevant because it from the St. Louis Dispatch from a Rams beat writer. Bernie Miklasz and its about the RAMS tradind out of the 2ns pick in the draft and guess what Bob?

He states that the Rams best shot to trade out of the 2nd pick is if a team moves up for what position? A QUARTERBACK? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

A defensive end. Jadeveon Clowney. Hmnnn. Who could have said that same thing? You? No Bob, not you.

So from your own team's beat writer, from this very day. AN ENTIRE ARTICLE ABOUT THE RAMS MOVING DOWN, something you should be happy about. But not the scenario that you have been pimping for months.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/ram-bytes-the-trade-market-for-no-overall-pick/article_996fe7b9-34dc-5b73-97b6-ab010428daa7.html

Ram Bytes: The trade market for No. 2 overall pick

48 minutes ago • Bernie Miklasz bjmiklasz@post-dispatch.com

The Rams hold the No. 2 and No. 13 overall picks in the 2014 NFL Draft.

It's too early to line up the board with a firm listing of where the best prospects will be ranked — or where they are most likely headed.

But if the Rams are looking to trade down from the No. 2 overall spot to pick up an extra draft choice or two, the scenario seems promising.

Here's why: scanning several early accountings of team "needs" for the draft, it appears that several teams will be wanting a pass rusher or quarterback. If that turns out to be true, then there could be a lot of competition to move up into the Rams' No. 2 spot. Or as other teams explore their 'Plan B' options, the Rams' 13th overall selection could have trade-up appeal.

I won't bore you with a bunch of team-needs lists. But for the sake of using one for reference, let's go with the breakdown offered by Daniel Jeremiah of NFL.com. He was a former scout that worked for NFL teams including the Baltimore Ravens. I have found Jeremiah to be a sensible guy.

Anyway...

According to Jeremiah's rundown, here are the teams that own the picks behind the Rams' No. 2 that could covet South Carolina edge rusher Jadeveon Clowney — who is probably most talented player in the 2014 draft class.

I list the teams in order of current selection:


* No. 3, Jacksonville. The Jaguars finished tied for 31st for the fewest sacks in the league this season, with 31. They had the third-lowest percentage of pass plays against them that resulted in sacks. But the Jags need help in so many areas I'd doubt that they'd want to sacrifice a pick or picks to move up one spot; if anything this could be a trade-down profile.

* No. 6, Atlanta: The Falcons defense seemed old, tired and worn in 2013. That prompted ATL owner Arthur Blank to go public with the opinion that his team needs to be tougher next season. The Falcons had only 32 sacks in '13, tied for the lowest amount in the league. They also had the eighth-lowest sack rate. The Falcons, who line up in a 4-3, had to rely on the blitz to generate a pass rush. And they did get a good inside push from defensive tackle Justin Babineaux. But among their defensive ends? Goodness. The best of the lot was Osi Umenyiora, who had 23 total QB pressures according to Pro Football Focus. As a group, Falcons defensive ends had only 32 combined QB pressures. For perspective, consider that Rams defensive ends combined for 203 pressures in 2013 (topped by All-Pro Robert Quinn's 91, and Chris Long's 63. And don't forget Williams Hayes' 31 pressures.)

I'm making a big fuss over Atlanta for two reasons: (1) they need a pass rusher in the worst way; (2) Rams GM Les Snead came to St. Louis after a long stint in the Atlanta front office and there's a positive dynamic between the Falcons and Rams' operations. That doesn't mean the Rams and Falcons could easily make a trade, but the relationship seemingly would help.

* No. 7, Tampa Bay: The Bucs were tied for ninth-lowest in sacks with 35. Their sack-percentage rate was also ninth lowest. New head coach Lovie Smith, who has final say in personnel affairs, has to be aching for a pass rusher. He had a good one (Kevin Carter) as defensive coordinator in St. Louis. And in 2010 as head coach of the Chicago Bears, Smith pushed for the Bears to sign free-agent pass rusher Julius Peppers away from Carolina. Which they did. Peppers got a six-year deal worth $91.5 million from Chicago.

* No. 8, Minnesota: The Vikings had 41 sacks, which was roughly middle of the pack. And also a bit misleading; the Vikes were tied for the ninth-lowest sack-percentage total. Not good, because teams in their division like to throw the ball.

* No. 9 Buffalo, and No. 11 Tennessee: Both teams, especially the Titans, could stand to juice up the rush at defensive end. The Bills did get 13 sacks from DE Kyle Williams but don't have much on the other side. I don't know if the Rams would want to go down that far, but it's hardly a stretch with Snead and head coach Jeff Fisher.

Of course, the Rams could decide that they must have Clowney to help intensify their assault on NFL quarterbacks. Defensive end is already established as the Rams' strongest position, but still ... Fisher is a defensive guy and Clowney could be scary good. (He could also be a scary risk.) And maybe the Houston Texans, who have the No. 1 overall choice, will draft Clowney instead of a QB. They did that once before, choosing DE Mario Williams when their fans were pining for QB Vince Young or RB Reggie Bush before the 2006 NFL draft.

What about the teams looking to draft a quarterback?

As of now, there are roughly four first-round candidates:

Louisville's Teddy Bridgewater, Texas A&M's Johnny Manziel, Central Florida's Blake Bortles, and Fresno State's Derek Carr. But the QB prospect list is still taking shape, and we've seen teams lose their minds and go ga-ga over quarterbacks based on combine workouts and individual auditions with teams. So it's hard to predict what could develop.

According to Jeremiah, the teams that need a young QB are Jacksonville (No. 3), Cleveland (No. 4), Oakland (No. 5), Minnesota (No. 8), and Tennessee (No. 11).

Again, lots of possibilities there for the Rams provided that they don't keep the No. 2 pick to take Clowney, an offensive tackle, a quarterback or a wide receiver.

I'd have to think that Snead and Fisher will be fielding some some trade calls before the 2014 draft.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Daniel Jeremiah's list of draft order with team needs.

Very helpful for anyone trying to project how the draft might shape up.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000288658/article/2014-nfl-draft-order-top-three-needs-for-all-32-teams


2014 NFL Draft order: Top three needs for all 32 teams
1. Houston Texans Record: 2-14
Team needs: QB, OT, safety
Analysis: I'm not convinced Case Keenum is the long-term answer at the QB position. I would be very surprised if they passed on the top signal-caller in this draft. 2. St. Louis Rams (from Washington Redskins)Record: 3-13
Team needs: OL, WR, safety
Analysis: The Rams -- who own this pick due to the trade made by the Redskins so they could select Robert Griffin III in the 2012 NFL Draft -- need to upgrade the offensive line and this is shaping up to be a strong offensive line class. They have drafted several wide receivers in the last few years, but they still need a true No. 1 wide receiver. Tavon Austin has a bright future in the slot, but they still need a go-to-guy on the outside.

3. Jacksonville JaguarsRecord: 4-12
Team needs: QB, DE, OT
Analysis: Jacksonville is another team that should be in the quarterback market. However, if they fall in love with a pass rusher, they could nab a quarterback at the top of the second round.

4. Cleveland BrownsRecord: 4-12
Team needs: QB, RB, OG
Analysis: I will be very surprised if this selection is anything other than a quarterback. The Browns are loaded with extra picks in this draft, and they could package a few of them to move up for a QB.

5. Oakland RaidersRecord: 4-12
Team needs: QB, WR, OT
Analysis: The Raiders are another team that is unsettled at the quarterback position. They could also use a legitimate No. 1 wide receiver and some help up front on both sides of the ball.

6. Atlanta FalconsRecord: 4-12
Team needs: DE, OL, TE
Analysis: Atlanta is desperate for an outside edge rusher to plug into its defense. An offensive tackle like Jake Matthews would also make a lot of sense.

7. Tampa Bay BuccaneersRecord: 4-12
Needs: DE, TE, OT
Analysis: Tampa's defense is loaded up the middle, but it could use a dominant edge rusher. An offensive tackle like Michigan's Taylor Lewan would also fill a need.

8. Minnesota VikingsRecord: 5-10-1
Team needs: QB, DE, OG
Analysis: The Vikings are very unsettled at the quarterback position, and I could see them going in that direction.

9. Buffalo BillsRecord: 6-10
Team needs: OT, safety, DE
Analysis: The Bills could use another offensive tackle as well as some youth at defensive end. Buffalo linebacker/pass rusher Khalil Mack would be a very popular pick, and his versatility would give defensive coordinator Mike Pettine a lot of flexibility.

10. Detroit LionsRecord: 7-9
Team needs: CB, WR, safety
Analysis:The Lions need to address the cornerback position and it might be smart to draft more than one in the early rounds. If they decide to pass on a cornerback in the first round, finding a receiver to take some heat off Calvin Johnson would make a lot of sense.

11. Tennessee TitansRecord: 7-9
Team needs: Safety, DE, QB
Analysis: The Titans have a very fast, aggressive defense but they could use a more athletic, cover safety as well as another edge rusher. Jake Locker's inability to stay healthy could also factor into the decision to add another QB to the mix.

12. New York GiantsRecord: 7-9
Needs: LB, CB, interior OL
Analysis: Jon Beason has been fantastic since his arrival from Carolina, but there is still a need at the other linebacker spots. They are also in need of some more speed and athleticism in the secondary.

13. St. Louis RamsRecord: 7-9
Team needs: OL, WR, safety
Analysis: If the Rams secure an offensive lineman with their top selection, they could look in several different directions. They could upgrade the secondary, add another receiving weapon for Sam Bradford or supplement the pass rush with another defensive lineman.

14. Chicago BearsRecord: 8-8
Team needs: DL, Safety, Interior OL
Analysis: The Bears' defensive line has been ravaged by injuries this season and they need to add some youth to the position. Finding an upgrade at the safety position should also be a focal point in this draft.

15. Pittsburgh SteelersRecord: 8-8
Needs: OT, safety, CB
Analysis: The Steelers have missed on a few offensive linemen in the past few drafts, and they need to upgrade the offensive tackle position. The secondary is one of the oldest in the NFL, and they could easily go in that direction with this pick.

16t. Baltimore Ravens (pending coin flip)Record: 8-8
Team needs: WR, OT, CB
Analysis: Baltimore's offense hasn't looked the same without Anquan Boldin. They also haven't played that well in the secondary during the 2013 season. Ozzie Newsome will always take the best available player, but it would be tough to pass on a talented wideout to complement Torrey Smith.

16t. Dallas Cowboys (pending coin flip)Record: 8-8
Needs: DE, CB, safety
Analysis: George Selvie has done a nice job this year but the Cowboys could use some more depth at defensive end. The safety position has been an issue for the past few years and it wouldn't be a surprise if they decided to address that problem with their first-round pick.

18. New York JetsRecord: 8-8
Team needs: WR, OG, CB
Analysis: The Jets have a talented defense, but they need a lot of work on the offensive side of the ball. I wouldn't be shocked if they jumped back into the quarterback market this spring.

19. Miami DolphinsRecord: 8-8
Needs: OT, OG, RB
Analysis: The Dolphins offensive line has been the story both on and off the field. They need to upgrade both the OT and OG spots and they also need to find a three-down running back.

20. Arizona CardinalsRecord: 10-6
Team needs: OT, CB, OLB
Analysis: The Cardinals are playing much better up front this season but they still need an upgrade at offensive tackle. They are loaded at inside linebacker but they could use an edge rusher to complement Calais Campbell. John Abraham is playing well this year but he's 35 years old.

============================================================

Eliminated playoff teams

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Green Bay PackersRecord: 8-7-1
Team needs: TE, safety, LB
Analysis: This draft is shaping up to be very deep at the cornerback position and the Packers could go in that direction or possibly land Jermichael Finley's replacement.

22. Philadelphia EaglesRecord: 10-6
Team needs: OLB, Safety, CB
Analysis: The Eagles are in good shape on the offensive side of the ball, although adding a receiver might be an option. I think they'll be more inclined to add a dynamic defensive player.

23. Kansas City ChiefsRecord: 11-5
Team needs: WR, DL, ILB
Analysis: Andy Reid would love to add a field-stretcher in the passing game. Also, adding a stud to play next to Derrick Johnson would make this front seven even nastier.

24. Cincinnati BengalsRecord: 11-5
Team needs: CB, OLB, Safety
Analysis: The Bengals have a very talented roster but they could use more depth at the cornerback position. Also, a playmaking safety would be a nice addition.

==========================================================

Remaining playoff teams

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. San Diego ChargersRecord: 9-7
Team needs: CB, OG, OLB
Analysis: The Chargers' offensive line has played much better this season, but they could still use an upgrade along the interior. They have spent a lot of picks on pass rushers over the last decade, but they're still in the market for a difference-maker on the outside.

26. Cleveland Browns (from Indianapolis Colts)Record: 11-5
Team needs: QB, RB, OG
Analysis: Joe Banner and Michael Lombardi should be able to address the running back position later in the draft. This would be a good spot to upgrade the interior of the offensive line or possibly draft an explosive wide reciever to pair with Josh Gordon.

27. New Orleans SaintsRecord: 11-5
Needs: OT, OLB, CB
Analysis: The Saints' offensive line is very solid on the interior but they could upgrade the tackle position. With all of the young, talented quarterbacks in the NFC, you can never have enough cornerbacks.

28. New England PatriotsRecord: 12-4
Team needs: Interior OL, DL, CB
Analysis: Protecting Tom Brady needs to be the first priority and they also need to add some more youth and athleticism to their defensive line.

29. San Francisco 49ersRecord: 12-4
Team needs: WR, DL, CB
Analysis: The 49ers have two excellent possession wide receivers (Anquan Boldin, Michael Crabtree) but they could use an explosive, stretch-the-field playmaker at the position. Justin Smith continues to play at a high level but he can't play forever.

30. Carolina PanthersRecord: 12-4
Team needs: WR, CB, OL
Analysis: The Panthers need to continue to build around Cam Newton and nabbing an explosive pass catcher with this pick would make their franchise quarterback happy.

31. Denver BroncosRecord: 13-3
Team needs: OT, CB, DL
Analysis: Protecting Peyton Manning and adding depth to the cornerback position should both be high priorities in the upcoming draft.

32. Seattle SeahawksRecord: 13-3
Team needs: WR, TE, OL
Analysis: A big-time tight end would be a perfect fit for Russell Wilson and a true No. 1 wideout would also make sense. The offensive line hasnât played well down the stretch and that is another area that could be addressed in this draft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teams currently without first-round pick after trading it away

==============================================================

Indianapolis Colts (traded to Cleveland Browns)

Record: 11-5
Team needs: Interior OL, WR, LB
Analysis: Upgrading the offensive line is the No. 1 priority. There should be plenty of quality interior linemen available in the middle rounds.

Washington Redskins (traded to St. Louis Rams)

Record: 3-13
Team needs: DL, safety, interior OL
Analysis: The Redskins could use help across the board on defense and the offensive line also needs to be upgraded.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

22. Philadelphia Eagles

Record: 10-6

Team needs: OLB, Safety, CB

Analysis: The Eagles are in good shape on the offensive side of the ball, although adding a receiver might be an option. I think they'll be more inclined to add a dynamic defensive player.

He nailed that.

 

[Soulfly3]

Im going to maintain that the Browns dont go QB early.

Id kill for a sick WR to partner Gordon. And im NOT a WR early guy

 

[BassNBrew]

It isn't overrating or obfuscating. No need to get snippy. You are taking this process way too seriously. I don't need to ridicule you by questioning your motives or calling you desperate. Suffice it to say, I just think you are mistaken. I don't think you are desperate or concocting anything in thinking a move from 1.2 to 1.4 would fetch merely a third. Just that you are wrong. It is OK to think I am wrong or mistaken, but you don't make your point well by dodging questions about where Manziel and Bortles are likely to go, or what a several pick move down would fetch, those are some of the questions that you are leaving conspicuously unanswered. Earlier, I was just pointing out that a big board isn't a mock draft. The big board-type analysis COMPLETELY fails to account for the fact that QB is the most coveted position in football, and the dynamics of supply and demand vary from year to year. Some years QBs are needed more, some years less. Some years there are more QBs with a first round grade, some years less. This isn't a parallel processing super computing installation architecture, we don't need to draw a schematic.

Early on, you in several cases misrepresented my position that I was saying STL would get a kings ransom for the 1.2 like they did in 2012, when I repeatedly and specifically took pains to distance myself from your misrepresentations (plural), and made explicitly clear that there are no Lucks or RGIIIs in this class (let me repeat my stance for you, since after several attempts it didn't sink in earlier - I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY PROSPECTS AS HIGHLY GRADED AS LUCK OR RGIII IN THIS DRAFT). I don't think you ever acknowledged the earlier misrepresentations, either, you just stopped after I brought it up two or three times. Do you remember that? Is it possible that you are confused about my hyping the value of the pick by your own muddled memories of what you mistakenly thought I said, in your unacknowledged misrepresentations?

Again, if you think Manziel and Bortles are likely to go at #17 and #22, imo, you are in the minority. If you say higher, than you are admitting Rang's big board may not be that relevant to a mock draft, the higher you push them up, in which case, why cite something that is lower than what you believe to make a point and "win the debate"? I didn't cite a specific mock, I asked you where you would put them, and alluded to Kiper and Mcshay, wasn't making a definitive claim. You seem to have misunderstood that the authority stated IN THE VERY BLURB YOU CITED (I can't make this stuff up ) MANZIEL WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM. What do you not understand about that being self-refuting?

Not name calling, just stating facts about your history of being mistaken and failing to acknowledge it in the case of the the initial trade with WAS (insisting they should have dealt with CLE). If I am wrong here in May, I will acknowledge it (which you haven't always).

There is nothing else I can really add on this matter.

Don't you dare lecture me Bob. I openly question your motives because they are too obvious. You want to try and artificially inflate the QBs so your team can trade down and get a high price in return. You stated that some team will ABSOLUTELY want to move up for a QB at the #2 pick. Why pay a premium to move-up for a QB that isn't a franchise QB? You never bothered to make a solid case that makes sense other than stating need. Yeah need, NEED of a FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK not moving up and paying a premium for some kid with charactor flaws or with a thin frame or somebody who simply isn't good enough to rate moving up for.

You type long posts that, quite frankly, don't get read because they are too long and are not filled with information other than your opinions then you come back and insist people address some obscure point you made. Its a form of bullying and people don't like it.

If you make a concise posts with less opinion and more information you will get better responses.

===========

You accuse me of misrepresenting your point about no Luck or RG III and then you turn around and misrepresent that I said Bortles and Manziel will be slected 22nd and 17th. No. Never said that. I shared Rob Rang's ranking of the top college players that he posted on January 3rd to prove that the mock that he made three days later where he shot Brotles up from the 22nd ranked player to the 1st player taken is absurd. At best, Rang not consistent. When he ranked Bortles the 22nd college player he said he wasn't as polished as Bridgewater or Manziel or even Carr. Three days later? He's going to be taken number one. He never made a reasonable cae for how Bortles shot up past 21 players or the 3 QBs to the top pick in his mock three days later therefore his mock is sketchy at best and BS at worst.

Here is some INFORMATION from today, so its timely and its relevant because it from the St. Louis Dispatch from a Rams beat writer. Bernie Miklasz and its about the RAMS tradind out of the 2ns pick in the draft and guess what Bob?

He states that the Rams best shot to trade out of the 2nd pick is if a team moves up for what position? A QUARTERBACK? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

A defensive end. Jadeveon Clowney. Hmnnn. Who could have said that same thing? You? No Bob, not you.

So from your own team's beat writer, from this very day. AN ENTIRE ARTICLE ABOUT THE RAMS MOVING DOWN, something you should be happy about. But not the scenario that you have been pimping for months.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/ram-bytes-the-trade-market-for-no-overall-pick/article_996fe7b9-34dc-5b73-97b6-ab010428daa7.html

Ram Bytes: The trade market for No. 2 overall pick

48 minutes ago • Bernie Miklasz bjmiklasz@post-dispatch.com

The Rams hold the No. 2 and No. 13 overall picks in the 2014 NFL Draft.

It's too early to line up the board with a firm listing of where the best prospects will be ranked — or where they are most likely headed.

But if the Rams are looking to trade down from the No. 2 overall spot to pick up an extra draft choice or two, the scenario seems promising.

Here's why: scanning several early accountings of team "needs" for the draft, it appears that several teams will be wanting a pass rusher or quarterback. If that turns out to be true, then there could be a lot of competition to move up into the Rams' No. 2 spot. Or as other teams explore their 'Plan B' options, the Rams' 13th overall selection could have trade-up appeal.

I won't bore you with a bunch of team-needs lists. But for the sake of using one for reference, let's go with the breakdown offered by Daniel Jeremiah of NFL.com. He was a former scout that worked for NFL teams including the Baltimore Ravens. I have found Jeremiah to be a sensible guy.

Anyway...

According to Jeremiah's rundown, here are the teams that own the picks behind the Rams' No. 2 that could covet South Carolina edge rusher Jadeveon Clowney — who is probably most talented player in the 2014 draft class.

I list the teams in order of current selection:


* No. 3, Jacksonville. The Jaguars finished tied for 31st for the fewest sacks in the league this season, with 31. They had the third-lowest percentage of pass plays against them that resulted in sacks. But the Jags need help in so many areas I'd doubt that they'd want to sacrifice a pick or picks to move up one spot; if anything this could be a trade-down profile.

* No. 6, Atlanta: The Falcons defense seemed old, tired and worn in 2013. That prompted ATL owner Arthur Blank to go public with the opinion that his team needs to be tougher next season. The Falcons had only 32 sacks in '13, tied for the lowest amount in the league. They also had the eighth-lowest sack rate. The Falcons, who line up in a 4-3, had to rely on the blitz to generate a pass rush. And they did get a good inside push from defensive tackle Justin Babineaux. But among their defensive ends? Goodness. The best of the lot was Osi Umenyiora, who had 23 total QB pressures according to Pro Football Focus. As a group, Falcons defensive ends had only 32 combined QB pressures. For perspective, consider that Rams defensive ends combined for 203 pressures in 2013 (topped by All-Pro Robert Quinn's 91, and Chris Long's 63. And don't forget Williams Hayes' 31 pressures.)

I'm making a big fuss over Atlanta for two reasons: (1) they need a pass rusher in the worst way; (2) Rams GM Les Snead came to St. Louis after a long stint in the Atlanta front office and there's a positive dynamic between the Falcons and Rams' operations. That doesn't mean the Rams and Falcons could easily make a trade, but the relationship seemingly would help.

* No. 7, Tampa Bay: The Bucs were tied for ninth-lowest in sacks with 35. Their sack-percentage rate was also ninth lowest. New head coach Lovie Smith, who has final say in personnel affairs, has to be aching for a pass rusher. He had a good one (Kevin Carter) as defensive coordinator in St. Louis. And in 2010 as head coach of the Chicago Bears, Smith pushed for the Bears to sign free-agent pass rusher Julius Peppers away from Carolina. Which they did. Peppers got a six-year deal worth $91.5 million from Chicago.

* No. 8, Minnesota: The Vikings had 41 sacks, which was roughly middle of the pack. And also a bit misleading; the Vikes were tied for the ninth-lowest sack-percentage total. Not good, because teams in their division like to throw the ball.

* No. 9 Buffalo, and No. 11 Tennessee: Both teams, especially the Titans, could stand to juice up the rush at defensive end. The Bills did get 13 sacks from DE Kyle Williams but don't have much on the other side. I don't know if the Rams would want to go down that far, but it's hardly a stretch with Snead and head coach Jeff Fisher.

Of course, the Rams could decide that they must have Clowney to help intensify their assault on NFL quarterbacks. Defensive end is already established as the Rams' strongest position, but still ... Fisher is a defensive guy and Clowney could be scary good. (He could also be a scary risk.) And maybe the Houston Texans, who have the No. 1 overall choice, will draft Clowney instead of a QB. They did that once before, choosing DE Mario Williams when their fans were pining for QB Vince Young or RB Reggie Bush before the 2006 NFL draft.

What about the teams looking to draft a quarterback?

As of now, there are roughly four first-round candidates:

Louisville's Teddy Bridgewater, Texas A&M's Johnny Manziel, Central Florida's Blake Bortles, and Fresno State's Derek Carr. But the QB prospect list is still taking shape, and we've seen teams lose their minds and go ga-ga over quarterbacks based on combine workouts and individual auditions with teams. So it's hard to predict what could develop.

According to Jeremiah, the teams that need a young QB are Jacksonville (No. 3), Cleveland (No. 4), Oakland (No. 5), Minnesota (No. 8), and Tennessee (No. 11).

Again, lots of possibilities there for the Rams provided that they don't keep the No. 2 pick to take Clowney, an offensive tackle, a quarterback or a wide receiver.

I'd have to think that Snead and Fisher will be fielding some some trade calls before the 2014 draft.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

Personally I like Magaw's posts and some of the threads I follow are solely for his posts. I likely it when someone backs up their premise whether it's with facts or well laid out opinions.

By the way, your supporting points are doing a fine job of backing up his position.

 

[BassNBrew]

Im going to maintain that the Browns dont go QB early.

Id kill for a sick WR to partner Gordon. And im NOT a WR early guy

You've got to give Hoyer a shot right???

 

[Soulfly3]

Im going to maintain that the Browns dont go QB early.

Id kill for a sick WR to partner Gordon. And im NOT a WR early guy

You've got to give Hoyer a shot right???

Imo, hell yes

Give him gordon, cameron and watkins...

Get your answer quickly if you got a franchise guy

 

[Bob Magaw]

Like I said, and you keep ignoring, no need to get snippy. Sorry for the length, but sometimes the sheer volume of wrong (you could fill the Rose Bowl with it in this case) makes it impossible to dispatch in a few words. Don't be so wrong, and I can dispatch it more economically going forward.

Are you lecturing me? I do have a right to ask you to not continually misrepresent me. Is that a form of bullying and not very likable on your part?

I think you are wrong and mistaken, but I don't need to attribute motives to make my point. Is it possible to make your point about why you think I'm mistaken without resorting to talking about motives? I'm not the GM, I am not in a position of responsibility to change the landscape of the draft or "shape the narrative" on a level that could impact the national perception as if I worked for ESPN or the NFL channel. At most, your repeated histrionics engender no emotion stronger than amusement... why would a casual conversation on a message board about hypotheticals involve emotions as elaborate as desperation (GASP!!! ). Get over yourself, Bracie.

BTW, the post wasn't that long, yours was probably as long with the Bernie attachment, speaking of lecturing. All I can say is, my posts get a lot of likes (edit/add - thanx B&B, appreciated, and likewise), so don't pretend you speak for everybody, again you are lecturing and being the pot calling the kettle black (edit/add - you have keen perception and/or read my mind, Abrantes).

I'm not questioning your motives. But you did misrepresent me many times falsely stating I claimed STL would command a kings ransom for the 1.2, when I said several times nothing of the sort and the complete opposite. You still never acknowleged this, you just change the subject to deflect from your lack of good faith. It is a fair question to ask if your muddled memory of what happened that caused you to misrepresent me in the first place several times is causing confusion on your part again. It is a pattern with you.

You were mistaken about the RGIII trade in thinking STL was foolish for not taking the CLE trade, initially noting the 2013 pick would have been better. I pointed out in another thread that you were forgetting that CLE would have had a better record (and therefore lower pick in 2013) if they had RGIII. You later neglected to mention this, glossing this over. The same pattern again.

I said the 1.2 pick would draw interest, not a team would definitely trade. I haven't talked about paying a premium, there you go misrepresenting again. you. really. need. to. just. stop. I'm talking about face value, by the points chart, to make a move from 1.4 to 1.2. It is more than a third, more than a second, look it up. I'm not outraged if you don't like the QBs, you are entitled to your opinion. Allow me my opinion, but stop misrepresenting me. You can cite writers saying the QBs aren't good, but if you don't make an effort to show writers that also state Bortles and Bridgewater could be in contention for the #1, which you can find if you look, than you are being one-sided (edit/add - in the interest of consistency, you did mention Rang's subsequent, revised high ranking of Bortles, but only to dismiss it as an example of being inconsistent - in effect, discrediting the very authority who you cited in the first place WITH NO DISSENTING CONTEXT, bending the original narrative beyond recognition out of expediency as it suited your newly altered purpose... i.e. - escaping from a position that had been routed and you were in full retreat from). I have actually stated why I think Bridgewater will be good, and worthy of the #1 overall pick, and I don't think being thin need be a deathblow to his career. I'm not alone in this. Why would a team move up for a QB. Obviously if they think who they can get will be better than who they have, and they can win more games with him than without him. Why else would you think? What is your problem with Bortles. Any character flaws or issues with his size?

You have a severe reading comprehension problem. In post #216, I phrased it as a question... "Where do you think Manziel and Bortles will go? #17 and #22?" Can you try and wrap your mind around the difference between asking you a question about where you would slot the QBs, and misrespresenting that you actually had said this. Those numbers weren't mentioned randomly, they were FROM THE BLURB YOU CITED. Look again at post #219. I didn't say you were claiming the QBs would go #17 and #22. I was commenting on the blurb YOU CITED. I asked IF (the operative word was IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF) you thought that, you were in the minority. I added that IF you say higher, than you are admitting Rang's big board may not be that relevant to a mock draft, the higher you push them up, in which case, why cite something that is lower than what you believe to make a point and "win the debate" (again, the operative word was IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF)? Clearly by stating this as a range of possibilities, I wasn't nailing you down to a misrepresented position. You are even mirespresenting me in saying I misrepresented you. That is twisted dude, like a Borges story illustrated by Escher.

Where did you say the following in post #215 when you originally put it up (talk about revisionist history... are we supposed to be mind readers and know what you meant with no context - how would we know that you intended to show the absurdity of the earlier big board ranking relative to a revision three days later, with you making no mention of the revision AT THAT TIME... again, telepathy? We may need to send you down to the minors for some remedial work with the high school debate team, this stuff isn't passing the bull detector or the smell test)? Weren't you actually just citing him to shore up and bolster your crumbling position that QBs weren't moving up, by showing big board rankings of #17 and #22? You are incorrigible, Bracie... but it is OK, I'm laughing with, not at you.

"I shared Rob Rang's ranking of the top college players that he posted on January 3rd to prove that the mock that he made three days later where he shot Brotles up from the 22nd ranked player to the 1st player taken is absurd. At best, Rang not consistent. When he ranked Bortles the 22nd college player he said he wasn't as polished as Bridgewater or Manziel or even Carr. Three days later? He's going to be taken number one. He never made a reasonable cae for how Bortles shot up past 21 players or the 3 QBs to the top pick in his mock three days later therefore his mock is sketchy at best and BS at worst."

BTW, I don't recall excluding the possibility that a team like ATL might not move up for Clowney, I just may not have focused on it as I see more teams in the top five that need need a QB than a DE... so that could, AGAIN, be more revisionist history and misrepresentation, which, at this point, I'm resigned to this madness from you for perpetuity.

Regarding the Miklasz article YOU CITED, can you possibly be more dense? You switch topics away from how your citing Rob Rang putting a QB at #17 (Manziel, not Bortles) when he himself admitted he would "almost surely" be drafted earlier didn't make you point well, to the following?

"But if the Rams are looking to trade down from the No. 2 overall spot to pick up an extra draft choice or two, the scenario seems promising.

Here's why: scanning several early accountings of team "needs" for the draft, it appears that several teams will be wanting a pass rusher or quarterback."

Haven't you been saying that STL won't have good options to trade down, and teams won't be looking for a QB (because they aren't very good). You remember, the very options you misrepresented me as being so "desperate to concoct and pimp"? Doesn't this very article THAT YOU ARE CITING contravene and undermine your own clearly articulated (if no less the mistaken for that) and firmly entrenched (in concrete) position? So you inexplicably go from trying to backpedal out of a self-refuting situation frying pan into the fire of another self-refuting citation. Do you actually read this stuff and think about the implications before slapping it up in your haste to deflect attention from the previous dunderheaded mistake? Also, another instance of severe reading comprehension issues EVEN IN THE BLURBS YOU CITE. Miklasz is quoting Daniel Jeremiah. Somebody in passing (I think Miklasz) states Clowney "is probably most talented player in the 2014 draft class". He than lists the teams thought to be looking for a DE, followed by teams thought to be looking for a QB. He spends less time on the latter, but nowhere states QB won't be as good an option for a trade down scenario as DE (show the thread where he does, look in vain, it ain't there, you are conflating an arbitrary sequence with priority, and reading into it things that aren't stated - you are seeing ghosts). He does say this...

"Louisville's Teddy Bridgewater, Texas A&M's Johnny Manziel, Central Florida's Blake Bortles, and Fresno State's Derek Carr. But the QB prospect list is still taking shape, and we've seen teams lose their minds and go ga-ga over quarterbacks based on combine workouts and individual auditions with teams. So it's hard to predict what could develop."

How do you get from THAT, to this incoherent abomination of a misrepresntation of a writer's premise (detecting a recurring theme here )?

"He states that the Rams best shot to trade out of the 2nd pick is if a team moves up for what position? A QUARTERBACK? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. A defensive end. Jadeveon Clowney. Hmnnn. Who could have said that same thing? You? No Bob, not you. So from your own team's beat writer, from this very day. AN ENTIRE ARTICLE ABOUT THE RAMS MOVING DOWN, something you should be happy about. But not the scenario that you have been pimping for months."

* If you can't do the right thing and acknowledge you have repeatedly misrepresented me, at least stop with the lame efforts to deflect from this lack of good faith on your part by compounding it with further, habitual, chronic misrepresentations.

Just say where you think the QBs will go, and what you think the 1.2 will fetch. The rest is clutter, sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Abrantes]

You type long posts that, quite frankly, don't get read because they are too long and are not filled with information other than your opinions then you come back and insist people address some obscure point you made. Its a form of bullying and people don't like it.

If you make a concise posts with less opinion and more information you will get better responses.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Great another draft thread that will get closed by Bob because of Bob lol. Can you guys just agree to disagree in 50 words or less?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

things seemed to be going ok before. not sure why the escalation all of a sudden.

I don't even get what the argument is about. Seems to be a debate on whether another team will want a QB badly enough to trade up to the Rams spot for one? Who cares if they want a QB or Clowney? Either way, that pick has a chance to be in high demand.

I already placed a wager that the Rams will trade the pick at +150. They've shown a recent history of trading their first round picks and don't seem to have a big enough need at QB or DE to keep the pick imo.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Great another draft thread that will get closed by Bob because of Bob lol. Can you guys just agree to disagree in 50 words or less?

The earlier thread was mine, it literally became counterproductive when most of the posts were nothing but complaints, it had served its purpose (the original intent was to take it through the process of arriving at the final top 10 order at the end of the season, which it did pretty much, and than hand it off to a predraft proper thread) and was time to move on. This is not my thread, that would not be my call to close it.

Feel free to add some content, BigBoy. Some people recognize I am adding content. There are a few posters (not suggesting you) that are purely negative in some of these threads, and do nothing but complain without adding content themselves. You know in a lot less than 50 words if a post isn't of interest, why not skip it in that case lol.

If you were repeatedly misrepresented, you might not appreciate it either. Again, if somebody is a little wrong, I'll be happy to use fewer words. When they are wrong on an industrial scale, it takes more than a few words, for me anyways. But for the record, I am done discussing this. Back to regular programming.

* Aaron, I'll answer here and try to balance answering your question with context while employing brevity.

Many times, I have been misrepresented (I never said STL would extort a king's ransom like they got for RGIII, and in fact repeatedly said the opposite, there was no Luck or RGIII in this draft). It isn't a big deal, but rather than say OOPS, than I am accused of misrepresenting, as a deflection tactic I guess. So instead of putting this behind us in two short posts, now it takes another post to point out, no, you are misrepresenting me AGAIN. From this point forward, I'll just accept the fact that I'll continue to be misrepresented and this will never be acknowledged. I'm OK with that. I'll just have to trust the thread/board to look to what I am actually writing, and not rely on unreliable witnesses reporting things I didn't write. There is obviously no point in pursuing it further, nothing constructive can come from it, I'm done with the subject.

I agree, who cares if a team moves up for a QB or Clowney. I was just pointing out that it didn't say what he thought it did. Agree that the pick could be in demand, that is what I have been saying, but again, there is no point in having this discussion with that party any longer, the position is locked in and at this point entrenched positions are just being rehashed.

Probably a good bet, I'd make that wager myself. In the Fisher/Snead era (which is the only relevant one to account for in this discussion), EVERY original first round pick has been moved, in some cases more than once, not one of their three first round picks has been made from the original position (though they have remained in the first round, and not traded out altogether from that round or into a later year, as NE does sometimes).

 

[msommer]

things seemed to be going ok before. not sure why the escalation all of a sudden.

I don't even get what the argument is about. Seems to be a debate on whether another team will want a QB badly enough to trade up to the Rams spot for one? Who cares if they want a QB or Clowney? Either way, that pick has a chance to be in high demand.

I already placed a wager that the Rams will trade the pick at +150. They've shown a recent history of trading their first round picks and don't seem to have a big enough need at QB or DE to keep the pick imo.

Who will pay the price though? As the class of 2010 showed with much clarity reaching for a QB even if you need one is not a surefire winner. And I suppose you could argue that STL has also shown to drive a hard bargain...

I think we'll know much more about QB need when FA starts. Who says Oak or Jax won't sign Vick in the vain hope that he will actually work out? Will Ryan Fitzpatrick stay in TEN? Does anyone trade for Mallett or entice McCown to stick around.

I have a hard time seeing all the QBs being mocked in the top 10 (or 5) actually going there, unless there is some sort of mass psychosis going on among GMs

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

things seemed to be going ok before. not sure why the escalation all of a sudden.

I don't even get what the argument is about. Seems to be a debate on whether another team will want a QB badly enough to trade up to the Rams spot for one? Who cares if they want a QB or Clowney? Either way, that pick has a chance to be in high demand.

I already placed a wager that the Rams will trade the pick at +150. They've shown a recent history of trading their first round picks and don't seem to have a big enough need at QB or DE to keep the pick imo.

Who will pay the price though? As the class of 2010 showed with much clarity reaching for a QB even if you need one is not a surefire winner. And I suppose you could argue that STL has also shown to drive a hard bargain...

I think we'll know much more about QB need when FA starts. Who says Oak or Jax won't sign Vick in the vain hope that he will actually work out? Will Ryan Fitzpatrick stay in TEN? Does anyone trade for Mallett or entice McCown to stick around.

I have a hard time seeing all the QBs being mocked in the top 10 (or 5) actually going there, unless there is some sort of mass psychosis going on among GMs

well, it's hard to answer that without knowing what the asking price would be.

But it seems the new CBA has made it a lot easier for teams to move around in the draft as those high picks don't come with a cap-killing contract anymore. That also makes those early picks pretty valuable as you might be able to lock up a player who can elevate a franchise for a below market value contract.

The assumption that I've been under for awhile is that Bridgewater and Clowney were both going to be highly sought after prospects at the top of the draft. Those are also premium positions. Seems reasonable that a team desperate for a QB or DE would be willing to pay SOMETHING to move up to the #2 spot. The price would obviously depend on how far they want to move up or how far down the Rams are willing to go.

I think all one has to do to appreciate the value of young QBs is look at Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Colin Kaepernick, and Russell Wilson all playing this upcoming weekend.

 

[GregR]

No decision will mean more to Texans coach Bill O’Brien’s tenure in Houston than the selection of a franchise quarterback. And O’Brien says that quarterback’s mental makeup will be every bit as important as his physical tools.

O’Brien told Peter King of TheMMQB.com that when Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was playing in O’Brien’s offense in New England, the most important aspect of Brady’s character was that he spent every bit as much time studying the offense as the coaches did.

“I’d be getting texts, calls from Tom on Wednesday night about the third-down package,’’ O’Brien said. “Thursday night I’d be hearing from him 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock about red-zone plays. Obviously, he’s talented, but Tom never stopped thinking about football. When you coach Tom Brady, you’re not coaching with him; you’re a partner in the offense with him. That’s the ideal for a quarterback—someone who cares about it as much as you do.”

Might as well just come out and say Manziel isn't on their draft board then.

 

[Bob Magaw]

No decision will mean more to Texans coach Bill O’Brien’s tenure in Houston than the selection of a franchise quarterback. And O’Brien says that quarterback’s mental makeup will be every bit as important as his physical tools.

O’Brien told Peter King of TheMMQB.com that when Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was playing in O’Brien’s offense in New England, the most important aspect of Brady’s character was that he spent every bit as much time studying the offense as the coaches did.

“I’d be getting texts, calls from Tom on Wednesday night about the third-down package,’’ O’Brien said. “Thursday night I’d be hearing from him 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock about red-zone plays. Obviously, he’s talented, but Tom never stopped thinking about football. When you coach Tom Brady, you’re not coaching with him; you’re a partner in the offense with him. That’s the ideal for a quarterback—someone who cares about it as much as you do.”

Might as well just come out and say Manziel isn't on their draft board then.

Good point.

Definitely describes Bridgewater. Not sure about Bortles, but not assuming it doesn't.

I think if they want one of those two, they won't be trading down, they will just have to simply exercise the #1 overall pick.

 

[Houston turmOiler]

No decision will mean more to Texans coach Bill OBriens tenure in Houston than the selection of a franchise quarterback. And OBrien says that quarterbacks mental makeup will be every bit as important as his physical tools.

OBrien told Peter King of TheMMQB.com that when Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was playing in OBriens offense in New England, the most important aspect of Bradys character was that he spent every bit as much time studying the offense as the coaches did.

Id be getting texts, calls from Tom on Wednesday night about the third-down package, OBrien said. Thursday night Id be hearing from him 9 oclock, 10 oclock about red-zone plays. Obviously, hes talented, but Tom never stopped thinking about football. When you coach Tom Brady, youre not coaching with him; youre a partner in the offense with him. Thats the ideal for a quarterbacksomeone who cares about it as much as you do.

Might as well just come out and say Manziel isn't on their draft board then.

Good point.

Definitely describes Bridgewater. Not sure about Bortles, but not assuming it doesn't.

I think if they want one of those two, they won't be trading down, they will just have to simply exercise the #1 overall pick.

FWIW Dane Brugler from NFLDraftscout (?) was on 610 radio a little while ago and said Bortles was above average in that department....I also hadnt heard anything on Bortles in that area so thought Id pass it along. He has Bortles mocked number 1.

 

[Bob Magaw]

things seemed to be going ok before. not sure why the escalation all of a sudden.

I don't even get what the argument is about. Seems to be a debate on whether another team will want a QB badly enough to trade up to the Rams spot for one? Who cares if they want a QB or Clowney? Either way, that pick has a chance to be in high demand.

I already placed a wager that the Rams will trade the pick at +150. They've shown a recent history of trading their first round picks and don't seem to have a big enough need at QB or DE to keep the pick imo.

Who will pay the price though? As the class of 2010 showed with much clarity reaching for a QB even if you need one is not a surefire winner. And I suppose you could argue that STL has also shown to drive a hard bargain...I think we'll know much more about QB need when FA starts. Who says Oak or Jax won't sign Vick in the vain hope that he will actually work out? Will Ryan Fitzpatrick stay in TEN? Does anyone trade for Mallett or entice McCown to stick around.

I have a hard time seeing all the QBs being mocked in the top 10 (or 5) actually going there, unless there is some sort of mass psychosis going on among GMs

well, it's hard to answer that without knowing what the asking price would be.But it seems the new CBA has made it a lot easier for teams to move around in the draft as those high picks don't come with a cap-killing contract anymore. That also makes those early picks pretty valuable as you might be able to lock up a player who can elevate a franchise for a below market value contract.

The assumption that I've been under for awhile is that Bridgewater and Clowney were both going to be highly sought after prospects at the top of the draft. Those are also premium positions. Seems reasonable that a team desperate for a QB or DE would be willing to pay SOMETHING to move up to the #2 spot. The price would obviously depend on how far they want to move up or how far down the Rams are willing to go.

I think all one has to do to appreciate the value of young QBs is look at Andrew Luck, Cam Newton, Colin Kaepernick, and Russell Wilson all playing this upcoming weekend.

You checked off pretty much all the boxes there.

Snead did recently allude to not being averse to a 2015 first, he likes having multiple first round picks (I can see why it would be appealing, after enjoying that flexibility in 2013 and looking forward to it again in 2014 - and who knows, lightning could strike again and the 2015 might end up being higher than what was expected at the time?). I didn't take that to mean he wouldn't settle for anything else, though.

I'm fairly certain Snead and Fisher (like everybody else) recognize this draft is not the same as the 2012 draft, there is no Luck or RGIII, let alone two like them, and they won't be flipping the 1.2 for three firsts and a second, so I don't think the driving a hard bargain applies here. Also, I'm not sure it did even then. It was a sealed bid, right? No negotiations or dickering (though I think Holmgren later whined that the CLE offer was better and STL should have accepted it, maybe said it was unfair because Fisher and Shanahan were buddies - this rings hollow to me since I don't think that offer included a 2014 pick, which has become the 1.2 - the same pick which coincidentally got the ball rolling in the first place). WAS made a huge offer, what was STL supposed to do, say this is too much, we are giving the 2014 first back to you?

I think the perception of who "won" the trade (we should remind ourselves that it has just been two years, and to be careful and guard against making sweeping claims) is volatile and still in a relative state of flux. Some may now be saying STL took WAS to the cleaners (I've broken the haul down so far, and it is impressive, more so when you add the 1.2 cherry on top), and it is easier to say that with WAS coming off a 13 loss season and Shanahan getting fired. But this time last year, after RGIII had one of the best seasons for a rookie QB in NFL history and leading his team to the playoffs, probably many were saying WAS took STL to the cleaners. If WAS wins the Super Bowl next season, probably there would be another reversal and it would flip again. I find that outlook kind of disconcerting to become attached to and invested in fleeting and transient beliefs, and try to cultivate the kind of patience and perspective needed to become attuned to the longer rhythms, waves and cycles that large trades like this inhabit.

A big difference between that draft and this one, and it is related to the fact that it had Luck and RGIII and this draft doesn't have analogous historically coveted QB prospects, is that it was known well in advance Luck would be the IND pick. That enabled Snead to execute the sealed bid strategy or process. This time around, if HOU doesn't announce in advance who the pick is (and why would they, if they want to explore options on the clock for possible trades, as they have stated they might want to), than STL won't be trading their pick until it is on the clock (of course, nothing preventing them from working out paramaters with an interested party or for that matter exploring multiple options well in advance, in the interest of being thorough and prepared - we wouldn't want another MIN situation ).

Back to the driving a hard bargain thing, IMO they would settle for the face value "chart points", so it wouldn't be about extorting teams. Maybe something like CLE's two firsts, or maybe the 1.4 and a second and a third (i think that might about line up points-wise?).

There are a few moving parts here, which you noted. STL is fortunate that in addition to Clowney, there are also Bridgewater, Bortles and Manziel (all four could have opted to not declare?), and just about every team in the top eight could be looking for one or in some cases two of these positions (except for the Rams themselves, who may be more interested in a WR or LT?). A key is how the QBs are graded (we already know Clowney will have a high grade). Are Bortles and Manziel moving up due to delusion and hysteria, or are they legitimately good prospects? Rich Gosselin said talking to NFL personnel types left him convinced Manziel was a top 12 pick, he had a great bowl game since, and I think he has even more momentum than he did then. I have heard some scouts compare Bortles to Luck and Rothliesberger, and saying he could be in the running with Bridgewater?

I think of each draft class as independent events. Because Gabbert and Ponder busted, doesn't mean Manziel and Bortles will. Gabbert seems to have trouble stepping into his throws, gets happy feet and has a tendency to take his eyes away from his WRs downfield and get heavily distracted by the pass rush. Bortles sounds like he is mobile, smart and aware and may be able to buy himself time in a different way, which Gabbert has proven unable to so far. I don't know about anybody else, but I can look at two minute of Ponder film and two minutes of Manziel film and conclude that the latter is a vastly better prospect. Nobody at the time leading up to the draft was saying that Ponder was a possible top 3-5-10 pick. AT THAT TIME, observers and commentators were noting it had all the earmarks of a classic postional reach and case of being overdrafted. My sense is, NOW, BEFORE THE DRAFT, that any of the three could go #1 (probably not Manziel based on what the new HOU HC has said about the importance of intangibles), and all three are likely to be gone by MIN at 1.8, and they won't be options unless they trade up (maybe they like Carr, though Andy already said that felt like another dreaded Ponder-esque reach scenario... though perhaps not, at least if he does grade out as a first rounder before the draft, unlike Ponder, who was I think a consensus second rounder).

This is a somewhat atypical year to me, in that, there are 4-6 or more teams that need QBs, and most of them are conveniently situated in the top 10. Whereas usually teams in a position to draft highly graded QBs aren't good (generally a big reason they are drafting from where they are), you have HOU and MIN that were in the playoffs as recently as 2012.

* I wouldn't bet the farm on a STL trade, though I think it is likely. As noted elswhere (HOU thread?), HOU may just want to use the pick on Bridgewater. Even if they are interested in moving it, with three potentially coveted QBs, teams will be able to go through STL more cheaply that HOU. Even though I'm convinced there will be interest and they will consider moving the pick (as Snead and Fisher have in all three previous cases with their first rounders in 2012-2013), it may happen that JAX, CLE and OAK aren't interested. And if they decide they really want to add Sammy Watkins (hypothetically, no idea if this is the case), and don't want to risk dropping down so far they lose him (in 2012, after moving from 1.2 to the WAS 1.6 pick, they kind of got sniped on a move up by JAX to secure Justin Blackmon, reportedly causing Fisher to slam his glasses down), they might just take him at 1.2. Or Clowney (though I find that unlikely as DE is a strength, but I get that some people think it is the smart BPA pick - maybe not so smart if he doesn't play hard consistently)? Of course, if they like multiple targets, and were OK getting Watkins or Matthews or Robinson, for instance, that could greatly increase the chance, if given the opportunity to move down further (say something like ATL at 1.6 or MIN at 1.8), that the 1.2 pick does indeed change hands, and Snead and Fisher preserve their first round trade streak, leaving it intact.

** msommer raised a good point about possible free agent options at QB. Looking at some of the coaching changes around the league, HOU (1.1), CLE (1.4) and MIN (1.8) are all teams that will have new HCs and could be looking for QBs. Plus JAX (1.3) and OAK (1.5) could also be looking for QBs. Are they going to want to move forward with an aging retread who looks like he is on the downside of his career like Vick, or a mediocre known commodity like Fitzgerald? It might make sense to PAIR a free agent vet with a rookie, but they don't seem very exciting to me as standalones (I was impressed with how McCown played, but at his age and given his previous nondescript resume, not sure he has a lot of perceived upside?).

 

[FUBAR]

It isn't overrating or obfuscating. No need to get snippy. You are taking this process way too seriously. I don't need to ridicule you by questioning your motives or calling you desperate. Suffice it to say, I just think you are mistaken. I don't think you are desperate or concocting anything in thinking a move from 1.2 to 1.4 would fetch merely a third. Just that you are wrong. It is OK to think I am wrong or mistaken, but you don't make your point well by dodging questions about where Manziel and Bortles are likely to go, or what a several pick move down would fetch, those are some of the questions that you are leaving conspicuously unanswered. Earlier, I was just pointing out that a big board isn't a mock draft. The big board-type analysis COMPLETELY fails to account for the fact that QB is the most coveted position in football, and the dynamics of supply and demand vary from year to year. Some years QBs are needed more, some years less. Some years there are more QBs with a first round grade, some years less. This isn't a parallel processing super computing installation architecture, we don't need to draw a schematic.

Early on, you in several cases misrepresented my position that I was saying STL would get a kings ransom for the 1.2 like they did in 2012, when I repeatedly and specifically took pains to distance myself from your misrepresentations (plural), and made explicitly clear that there are no Lucks or RGIIIs in this class (let me repeat my stance for you, since after several attempts it didn't sink in earlier - I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY PROSPECTS AS HIGHLY GRADED AS LUCK OR RGIII IN THIS DRAFT). I don't think you ever acknowledged the earlier misrepresentations, either, you just stopped after I brought it up two or three times. Do you remember that? Is it possible that you are confused about my hyping the value of the pick by your own muddled memories of what you mistakenly thought I said, in your unacknowledged misrepresentations?

Again, if you think Manziel and Bortles are likely to go at #17 and #22, imo, you are in the minority. If you say higher, than you are admitting Rang's big board may not be that relevant to a mock draft, the higher you push them up, in which case, why cite something that is lower than what you believe to make a point and "win the debate"? I didn't cite a specific mock, I asked you where you would put them, and alluded to Kiper and Mcshay, wasn't making a definitive claim. You seem to have misunderstood that the authority stated IN THE VERY BLURB YOU CITED (I can't make this stuff up ) MANZIEL WILL ALMOST SURELY BE DRAFTED EARLIER THAN I RANK HIM. What do you not understand about that being self-refuting?

Not name calling, just stating facts about your history of being mistaken and failing to acknowledge it in the case of the the initial trade with WAS (insisting they should have dealt with CLE). If I am wrong here in May, I will acknowledge it (which you haven't always).

There is nothing else I can really add on this matter.

Don't you dare lecture me Bob. I openly question your motives because they are too obvious. You want to try and artificially inflate the QBs...

Really? I'm sure all of the NFL teams will come rushing to trade up because a moderator on this board posts that he likes the QBs.

 

[Sweetness_34]

I keep thinking about this - what if the Texans or Rams decide to draft Clowney. Can you imagine JJ Watts and Clowney on the same DL or can you imagine Long, Quinn and Clowney on the same DL? God I wish some team would do that....would be so much fun to follow and watch in this pass happy NFL.

 

[ffchamp1]

I keep thinking about this - what if the Texans or Rams decide to draft Clowney. Can you imagine JJ Watts and Clowney on the same DL or can you imagine Long, Quinn and Clowney on the same DL? God I wish some team would do that....would be so much fun to follow and watch in this pass happy NFL.

With Romeo in the fold, if HOU wastes Clowney and Watt as 3-4 DE's, they will regret it IMO

 

[Milkman]

I keep thinking about this - what if the Texans or Rams decide to draft Clowney. Can you imagine JJ Watts and Clowney on the same DL or can you imagine Long, Quinn and Clowney on the same DL? God I wish some team would do that....would be so much fun to follow and watch in this pass happy NFL.

Long, Quinn, and Clowney all play the same position don't they? Not sure they can get them all on the field at the same time. Houston should draft whoever they think is the best QB. It would be nice to see both Watt and Clowney on the same team though. .....

 

[msommer]

I think I'll reply to Bob without the quote function - giving the scroll wheel a much needed break (you're welcome!).

When it come to the price of 1.02 I think it is hard to determine in advance. You have moments where it appears that GMs are irrational because they see a gap in talent between one guy and another that you don't but that is merely and information bias issue, that we all do in trying to impose our view on reality on others as the 'only' view.

Assuming STL is on the clock, HOU has either taken Clowney or Bridgewater. If Clowney is off the table I'd say that some teams will not be looking to trade who otherwise might. That doesn't mean that the price has gone down though, because someone (most?) might actually have a gap between Bridgewater and Manziel, Bortles etc which makes the 1.02 even more attractive in their eyes. So while there might be fewer suitors, the price might become higher.

The thing about massive amount of QB needy teams at the top of the draft is that they are not just a QB away from competing. They generally do have other needs to look after as well. CLE and STL (assuming they 'need' a QB) might perceive a bigger need for a WR. Jax and MIN hasn't had a consistent pass rush for awhile now, they might be hot for Clowney (TEN too?), And doesn't OAK need just about everything? ATL is probably the only team that doesn't need either a QB or Clowney, so are they in the enviable position that they can actually trade down without it messing up their plans. There are teams that really should look at OT and OLB,so it is possible, maybe even likely that they will look to that and let the QBs slide - or at least decide to let the draft come to them and not jump at the chance to move to 1.02.

Anyway, we're all just speculating without much data here, we need to go through the initial stages of player evaluations and FA before a real picture emerges

 

[msommer]

I keep thinking about this - what if the Texans or Rams decide to draft Clowney. Can you imagine JJ Watts and Clowney on the same DL or can you imagine Long, Quinn and Clowney on the same DL? God I wish some team would do that....would be so much fun to follow and watch in this pass happy NFL.

Long, Quinn, and Clowney all play the same position don't they? Not sure they can get them all on the field at the same time. Houston should draft whoever they think is the best QB. It would be nice to see both Watt and Clowney on the same team though. .....

Didn't the Giants do that with Kiwanuka, Umaniora and Strahan. IIRC that worked pretty well for awhile...

Apart from that I agree that it is far more likely that the Texans go with Bridgewater

 

[Grahamburn]

Who's off the radar right now? Who is going to dominate the combine or Senior Bowl and skyrocket up mock and draft boards? It always seems like there's one or two guys who come out of nowhere to become top 10 picks.