This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Not certain, but I think it can be considered pretty likely given how the Patriots approached this draft. Traded around frequently, but took Chung as the first of a bunch of second round picks. Could suggest he was near the top of their board and didn't want to lose him. Belichick called him an all-around talent, but didn't state specifically where he'd play -- at least not that I've seen yet anyway. My speculation is that it'll be Chung SS and Meriweather FS in the long term.
I'm usually guilty of over-ranking safeties with the potential to rack up tackles. I'm likely to have William Moore much higher than anyone else, too.I think Mitchell would have to flop hard to not start on opening weekend and I think the Raider defense still sees plenty of tackle opportunity, but that ranking is still a function of how relatively weak the second and third tiers of prospects are this year. I may be overrating Mitchell's skill set and not taking the new defensive scheme into account -- which wasn't been very favorable for safeties in Seattle. This early in the preseason, however, I tend to draft for upside. Since there's an outside chance that Mitchell may be a DB2+ immediately, he gets a high ranking in this group from me.
I like safeties too. I like Delmas for a similar reason(a lot of tackle opportunities if he starts).
So should we just exclude Wood's rankings then?It's fine to be contrarian, but Orakpo #2 with Laurinitis 12 and Rey at 20?? I mean... look, even if you're not a fan of either Laurinitis or Rey, there's no way either are outside the top 10 based on opportunity and position alone, especially in an otherwise unimpressive draft class.
You and I are thinking alike corpcow. Wood's rankings appear so off base they lose credibility. I agree that a cookie cutter approach (agreeing with everyone else) is not always the correct approach, but in this case Wood's rankings come off like the guy has no experience with IDP's at all. His rankings appear more driven by draft order than insight.Nothing personal here (don't even know who Wood is), but the first thing I did was exclude his rankings from the composite to get a more accurate measure. Thanks for mentioning this corpcow, I didn't want to come off as negative, but those rankings don't do FBG's any favors.Jene's and the rest of the guys appear right on the money, as usual. Thanks guys.
Maybe he's just trying to rile you guys up?So should we just exclude Wood's rankings then?It's fine to be contrarian, but Orakpo #2 with Laurinitis 12 and Rey at 20?? I mean... look, even if you're not a fan of either Laurinitis or Rey, there's no way either are outside the top 10 based on opportunity and position alone, especially in an otherwise unimpressive draft class.
You and I are thinking alike corpcow. Wood's rankings appear so off base they lose credibility. I agree that a cookie cutter approach (agreeing with everyone else) is not always the correct approach, but in this case Wood's rankings come off like the guy has no experience with IDP's at all. His rankings appear more driven by draft order than insight.Nothing personal here (don't even know who Wood is), but the first thing I did was exclude his rankings from the composite to get a more accurate measure. Thanks for mentioning this corpcow, I didn't want to come off as negative, but those rankings don't do FBG's any favors.Jene's and the rest of the guys appear right on the money, as usual. Thanks guys.
You and Bloom both have him at 4 overall for IDP rookies. Pasquino ranks him at 30. I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts behind his rankings, from all parties.
I have to assume this is because Pasquino's are pre-draft rankings. Moore landed in a great spot. Same with Patrick Chung.
I think Miami has two rookie CBs starting on day 1. I am leaning towards Smith fantasy wise as I can see him matching up against all the go to WRs in the conference. TO, Moss, Cotchery, etc...
I think conventional wisdom is that chung takes over at ss at some point, but so far this is just speculation, and it might not happen for some time.belichick likes flexibility, and they will probably play a lot of nickel --- maybe you see 3 safeties out there.
this may be a little off topic, but I didn't really follow oakland football and was a bit surprised they parted ways w/gibril ---- do you know what the story was there?I've probably rostered gibril the last 3 years and he seemed to produce pretty well in oakland off the stat sheet.
Beat writers speculated that it was a cap issue to give them flexibility to pay Nmandi Asomugha and Shane Lechler. There's always been some concerns with Wilson's coverage skills in the background and the Raiders seemed to be high on both Tyvon Branch and Hiram Eugene. Could have been a little of everything, but strange no matter what the explanation given the big money they paid a year before.
