Random draft thoughts

[mayoclinic]

Some ideas to toss around:

1. If we take a 3-4 OLB (Barwin, English, Matthews, Sintim, etc.) at 23 and then find that both William Beatty and Louis Delmas are on the board at 34, should we take Beatty at #34 and then try to package #47 and 89 to trade up into the 35-37 range and get Delmas? I would. Barwin, Beatty and Delmas are the top 3 guys on my draft board who will realistically be available at 23, and to get all 3 of them would be a coup. If someone we wanted fell to 58 that would be great, otherwise we could trade it into 2010 and go for values from 97 on.

2. Do we really need an SILB as a high priority from this draft? I understand that Bruschi is aging and Guyton may not be a full-time solution, but do we really expect any rookie to be a starting SILB? Maualuga may have the physical tools but I could see him having a lot of difficulty getting BB's complex defense down. I think that the probability is that even if we draft a rookie SILB our main group for 2009 will consist of Mayo + Guyton/Bruschi. If we draft an OLB prospect at 23 or 34, there is a good chance they should be ready to start by 2010. Shawn Crable has the talent to emerge as a starting-caliber 3-4 OLB by then, plus there's always Woods and even still possibly signing Jason Taylor. Any of those would leave Adalius Thomas free to move inside to SILB in 2010. Plus there are several strong SILB candidates in the 2010 draft, both early on (Brandon Spikes, possibly Rolando McClain) and after the 1st round (Eric Norwood), Micah Johnson).

3. The more I think about it, the more I hope that we can trade #23 and #58 with the Giants for #29 and #45. The only way I wouldn't do it is if there was someone I desperately wanted at #23 who I didn't think would last to 29. But there is much more value in the mid-40's in this draft than at #58. The Giants might conceivably do it if they wanted someone specific - my best thought at this point is WR Hakeem Nicks, who would be perfect for them and whom Miami is said to covet. Picks at #45 and #47 might allow us to get another impact player - a potential pro-bowler like Jarren Gilbert - as opposed to a potential solid starter at #58. Plus an extra mid-round pick would give us more flexibility to trade one of them into 2010, possibly for a 1st round pick. I really want impact players out of the first day of this draft, and the ones I think are potential impact players in our system at positions that I could see us targeting and who could realistically be available to us are Barwin at OLB, Beatty at OT, Delmas at S, and Gilbert at 3-4 DE.

4. If we did somehow end up with Jarren Gilbert out of this draft, should we (heresy) consider trading Richard Seymour this year? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to get Gilbert unless we are planning on him eventually starting, as we could get a backup DE replacement for Jarvis Green much more cheaply. Gilbert starting implies Seymour leaving after 2009, or after 2010 at the latest. If that is the case, then why not try to trade him for 2010 picks while he still has value, and use the cap space to extend Wilfork or Mankins? I know it's controversial, but I thought I should at least raise the possibility.

 

[CanadianPat'sFan]

Some ideas to toss around:

1. If we take a 3-4 OLB (Barwin, English, Matthews, Sintim, etc.) at 23 and then find that both William Beatty and Louis Delmas are on the board at 34, should we take Beatty at #34 and then try to package #47 and 89 to trade up into the 35-37 range and get Delmas? I would. Barwin, Beatty and Delmas are the top 3 guys on my draft board who will realistically be available at 23, and to get all 3 of them would be a coup. If someone we wanted fell to 58 that would be great, otherwise we could trade it into 2010 and go for values from 97 on.

2. Do we really need an SILB as a high priority from this draft? I understand that Bruschi is aging and Guyton may not be a full-time solution, but do we really expect any rookie to be a starting SILB? Maualuga may have the physical tools but I could see him having a lot of difficulty getting BB's complex defense down. I think that the probability is that even if we draft a rookie SILB our main group for 2009 will consist of Mayo + Guyton/Bruschi. If we draft an OLB prospect at 23 or 34, there is a good chance they should be ready to start by 2010. Shawn Crable has the talent to emerge as a starting-caliber 3-4 OLB by then, plus there's always Woods and even still possibly signing Jason Taylor. Any of those would leave Adalius Thomas free to move inside to SILB in 2010. Plus there are several strong SILB candidates in the 2010 draft, both early on (Brandon Spikes, possibly Rolando McClain) and after the 1st round (Eric Norwood), Micah Johnson).

3. The more I think about it, the more I hope that we can trade #23 and #58 with the Giants for #29 and #45. The only way I wouldn't do it is if there was someone I desperately wanted at #23 who I didn't think would last to 29. But there is much more value in the mid-40's in this draft than at #58. The Giants might conceivably do it if they wanted someone specific - my best thought at this point is WR Hakeem Nicks, who would be perfect for them and whom Miami is said to covet. Picks at #45 and #47 might allow us to get another impact player - a potential pro-bowler like Jarren Gilbert - as opposed to a potential solid starter at #58. Plus an extra mid-round pick would give us more flexibility to trade one of them into 2010, possibly for a 1st round pick. I really want impact players out of the first day of this draft, and the ones I think are potential impact players in our system at positions that I could see us targeting and who could realistically be available to us are Barwin at OLB, Beatty at OT, Delmas at S, and Gilbert at 3-4 DE.

4. If we did somehow end up with Jarren Gilbert out of this draft, should we (heresy) consider trading Richard Seymour this year? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to get Gilbert unless we are planning on him eventually starting, as we could get a backup DE replacement for Jarvis Green much more cheaply. Gilbert starting implies Seymour leaving after 2009, or after 2010 at the latest. If that is the case, then why not try to trade him for 2010 picks while he still has value, and use the cap space to extend Wilfork or Mankins? I know it's controversial, but I thought I should at least raise the possibility.

1) I would love to get those three (Dalmus, Beatty and Dalmus)and I guess you think Ayers will be gone by 23 as I see him just on par with Brown and Maybin. OLB, Safety and OL are huge needs but I might consider a WR if they slip into this whole equation. If a guy like Britt, Maclin, Harvin (yes I know), Heyward-Bey slipped to #34 or Hicks and Robiskie at #47 it would be worth the pick. Moss is not getting any younger and Galloway is not a long term solution. We need to add a good WR to our core with one of our picks in the first three rounds IMO. Just throwing the WR debate into the #23 and #34 selections. If we went with Barwin, Beatty, Dalmus I would be thrilled as we might get a guy like Juaquin Iglesias later in round two. Where there were no WR taken in the first round last year makes me think that more then we think may go this year in round one.

2) If we get Jason Taylor or how well Crable and Guyton has come along will depend on how BB will look at the SILB position. When I saw Teddy on Total Access I just could tell that he still had something left in the tank. While we do need to address the SILB situation I think we could get by if we drafted a good OLB and have Bru, Guyton and AD work in at SILB. As of right now we do need to replace one starting LB from 2008 and that is Mike V. position. Crable was drafted in the third round last year so BB will be expecting something from him sooner rather then later. Jason Phillips, Jasper Brinkley or McKillop can be had on day two and would fill in and compete with one of those hot SILB prospects in 2010.

3) I really like this trade and it adds up against the trade value chart even if we had to throw in a late rounder. A lot of the guys we are targeting are to be had between #25 to #45 so depend on who slips to #23 BB might just say I got nothing here so lets move down a bit (but still stay in the 5 year contract) to get a guy like Barwin, Beatty, Dalmus, English, Ayers or Sean Smith, Mathews and the list goes on. He then would pick 5 spots after then 11 more spots later. We pick up the comp pick at the end of the third so are we really losing anything on this deal I think not. And to turn one of the picks into a top 15 first rounder in 2010 would be a coup as BB has done many times before (us picking up SF 2008 pick and this year picking up #47 from SD).

4) I am not sure I should touch this one with a ten foot poll but I will give it a shot. I think that BB has some serious decision to make with his two top D-line on his team. Both are cornerstones to how that defense is run and works. Both will simply be too expensive I would think to retain long term unless we would work out a contract which would be cap friendly like Haynesworth in Washington. I think some team is going to reach in the first on Gilbert or Hood to try to play some 3-4 End with it emerging in GB, Den and seems to be the new trend in the NFL. I personally think we should look at 2010 draft to start to rebuild our D-Line and with the resigning of Wright I think we should look hard at Baker (who I know you like as much as me) as a short term solution until we pick up a top D-line with the pick we traded for to move into the top 15 of the 2010 draft....or so says my crystal ball

 

[BelichickFan]

I'm keeping Seymour in his contract year unless you're talking about a 2010 #1 which I don't think we'd get. I guess it depends on his trade value before I can really cmment but no #1 = no trade.

 

[mgteich]

If we get an OLB and an OT at 23 and 34 (in either order), then the question is how much we prefer one safety over another to be our #3 safety. I have no problem trading up, but I would trade up for Gilbert, leaving the safety for 58.

As much as I would like an OT, I would prefer a DE at 23 and a LB at 34. Most mocks have lots of LB choices available at 34. I would than have a safety and guard at 47 or 58 in whatever order (using our tradeable picks to move up as necessary.

Wouldn't you like a Day One draft of Gilbert/Jackson, OLB, Chung/Vaughn/Johnson and Wood/Unger?

Some ideas to toss around:

1. If we take a 3-4 OLB (Barwin, English, Matthews, Sintim, etc.) at 23 and then find that both William Beatty and Louis Delmas are on the board at 34, should we take Beatty at #34 and then try to package #47 and 89 to trade up into the 35-37 range and get Delmas? I would. Barwin, Beatty and Delmas are the top 3 guys on my draft board who will realistically be available at 23, and to get all 3 of them would be a coup. If someone we wanted fell to 58 that would be great, otherwise we could trade it into 2010 and go for values from 97 on.

2. Do we really need an SILB as a high priority from this draft? I understand that Bruschi is aging and Guyton may not be a full-time solution, but do we really expect any rookie to be a starting SILB? Maualuga may have the physical tools but I could see him having a lot of difficulty getting BB's complex defense down. I think that the probability is that even if we draft a rookie SILB our main group for 2009 will consist of Mayo + Guyton/Bruschi. If we draft an OLB prospect at 23 or 34, there is a good chance they should be ready to start by 2010. Shawn Crable has the talent to emerge as a starting-caliber 3-4 OLB by then, plus there's always Woods and even still possibly signing Jason Taylor. Any of those would leave Adalius Thomas free to move inside to SILB in 2010. Plus there are several strong SILB candidates in the 2010 draft, both early on (Brandon Spikes, possibly Rolando McClain) and after the 1st round (Eric Norwood), Micah Johnson).

3. The more I think about it, the more I hope that we can trade #23 and #58 with the Giants for #29 and #45. The only way I wouldn't do it is if there was someone I desperately wanted at #23 who I didn't think would last to 29. But there is much more value in the mid-40's in this draft than at #58. The Giants might conceivably do it if they wanted someone specific - my best thought at this point is WR Hakeem Nicks, who would be perfect for them and whom Miami is said to covet. Picks at #45 and #47 might allow us to get another impact player - a potential pro-bowler like Jarren Gilbert - as opposed to a potential solid starter at #58. Plus an extra mid-round pick would give us more flexibility to trade one of them into 2010, possibly for a 1st round pick. I really want impact players out of the first day of this draft, and the ones I think are potential impact players in our system at positions that I could see us targeting and who could realistically be available to us are Barwin at OLB, Beatty at OT, Delmas at S, and Gilbert at 3-4 DE.

4. If we did somehow end up with Jarren Gilbert out of this draft, should we (heresy) consider trading Richard Seymour this year? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to get Gilbert unless we are planning on him eventually starting, as we could get a backup DE replacement for Jarvis Green much more cheaply. Gilbert starting implies Seymour leaving after 2009, or after 2010 at the latest. If that is the case, then why not try to trade him for 2010 picks while he still has value, and use the cap space to extend Wilfork or Mankins? I know it's controversial, but I thought I should at least raise the possibility.

 

[mayoclinic]

I'm keeping Seymour in his contract year unless you're talking about a 2010 #1 which I don't think we'd get. I guess it depends on his trade value before I can really cmment but no #1 = no trade.

What about #34 in 2010? We reportedly like that better than a #1 pick.

Seriously, a high 2 might do it. I'm not suggesting giving the guy away, for crissakes, but I would consider anything that's likely to end up between 15 and 40. I'm kind of enjoying the view from the top of the 2nd round - lots of value there that we don't normally see (or, lots of value that we normally see, but we see it from the bottom of the first, where it looks slightly different).

 

[mayoclinic]

If we get an OLB and an OT at 23 and 34 (in either order), then the question is how much we prefer one safety over another to be our #3 safety. I have no problem trading up, but I would trade up for Gilbert, leaving the safety for 58.

As much as I would like an OT, I would prefer a DE at 23 and a LB at 34. Most mocks have lots of LB choices available at 34. I would than have a safety and guard at 47 or 58 in whatever order (using our tradeable picks to move up as necessary.

Wouldn't you like a Day One draft of Gilbert/Jackson, OLB, Chung/Vaughn/Johnson and Wood/Unger?

My ideal is to swap 23 + 58 for 29 + 45, get Barwin at 29 and Beatty at 34. We could bundle 89 and 47 to move up to around 35-37, which I would personally do for Delmas over Gilbert. Then we would either hope for Gilbert at 45 or trade the pick into 2010, hopefully for a 1st. Barwin/Beatty/Delmas + either Gilbert or a 2010 1st is my preferred outcome right now, because I see Gilbert's upside as probably being equivalent to a DE that we could get in 2010 with the extra 1st round pick. Your alternative is to go for Gilbert at 37 and then one of the safeties at 45, which is quite reasonable.

 

[BelichickFan]

What about #34 in 2010? We reportedly like that better than a #1 pick.

Seriously, a high 2 might do it.

We could only guess at what a high #2 would be as the season hasn't been played yet. I love trading for draft picks - I think that drafting a guy, using him then trading him before he gets the big money (see : Branch, Deion) is a great way to utilize your resources.

2009 is different, though, we've had 4 years now without winning the SB and I think Seymour will have a huge year in his contract year. If I were getting a 2010 #2 I would also want to move from our 3a to a top half second round pick this year. Even then it would be tough to do as the goal is to win the SB and Seymour is a big part of that in 2009.

 

[TriplecHamp]

I cant help but seeing us having some sort of secret deal with KC about the #3 overall. Could you imagine come draft day that the cheifs are on the clock and they trade the pick to us for #23 #34 and #89. Essentially #23 and #89 along with Cassell and Vrabel. Then we pick Aaron Curry or BJ Raji. It would make since because BB wouldnt want to be stuck at #3 with Curry or Raji already gone. I already know this is extremely wishfull thinking but Its just an Idea, one that has probably already been explored before. But just imagine Aaron Curry, Conner Barwin and Patrick Chung. That would totally revamp our D.

 

[mayoclinic]

1) I would love to get those three (Dalmus, Beatty and Dalmus)and I guess you think Ayers will be gone by 23 as I see him just on par with Brown and Maybin. OLB, Safety and OL are huge needs but I might consider a WR if they slip into this whole equation. If a guy like Britt, Maclin, Harvin (yes I know), Heyward-Bey slipped to #34 or Hicks and Robiskie at #47 it would be worth the pick. Moss is not getting any younger and Galloway is not a long term solution. We need to add a good WR to our core with one of our picks in the first three rounds IMO. Just throwing the WR debate into the #23 and #34 selections. If we went with Barwin, Beatty, Dalmus I would be thrilled as we might get a guy like Juaquin Iglesias later in round two. Where there were no WR taken in the first round last year makes me think that more then we think may go this year in round one.

2) If we get Jason Taylor or how well Crable and Guyton has come along will depend on how BB will look at the SILB position. When I saw Teddy on Total Access I just could tell that he still had something left in the tank. While we do need to address the SILB situation I think we could get by if we drafted a good OLB and have Bru, Guyton and AD work in at SILB. As of right now we do need to replace one starting LB from 2008 and that is Mike V. position. Crable was drafted in the third round last year so BB will be expecting something from him sooner rather then later. Jason Phillips, Jasper Brinkley or McKillop can be had on day two and would fill in and compete with one of those hot SILB prospects in 2010.

3) I really like this trade and it adds up against the trade value chart even if we had to throw in a late rounder. A lot of the guys we are targeting are to be had between #25 to #45 so depend on who slips to #23 BB might just say I got nothing here so lets move down a bit (but still stay in the 5 year contract) to get a guy like Barwin, Beatty, Dalmus, English, Ayers or Sean Smith, Mathews and the list goes on. He then would pick 5 spots after then 11 more spots later. We pick up the comp pick at the end of the third so are we really losing anything on this deal I think not. And to turn one of the picks into a top 15 first rounder in 2010 would be a coup as BB has done many times before (us picking up SF 2008 pick and this year picking up #47 from SD).

4) I am not sure I should touch this one with a ten foot poll but I will give it a shot. I think that BB has some serious decision to make with his two top D-line on his team. Both are cornerstones to how that defense is run and works. Both will simply be too expensive I would think to retain long term unless we would work out a contract which would be cap friendly like Haynesworth in Washington. I think some team is going to reach in the first on Gilbert or Hood to try to play some 3-4 End with it emerging in GB, Den and seems to be the new trend in the NFL. I personally think we should look at 2010 draft to start to rebuild our D-Line and with the resigning of Wright I think we should look hard at Baker (who I know you like as much as me) as a short term solution until we pick up a top D-line with the pick we traded for to move into the top 15 of the 2010 draft....or so says my crystal ball

Barwin, Beatty, Delmas, Gilbert, Nicks and Ayers are probably the 6 guys I can see being pro-bowl caliber impact players on the Pats. I don't see taking a WR before Nicks is gone (I'm fine with him anytime after #34, but think he will go 1st round), and Ayers looks like he will go well before 23. That leaves the remaining 4 guys. My dream would be to get Barwin/Beatty/Delmas and then either Gilbert or to trade the remaining pick for a 2010 1st rounder. That may be a little ambitious. But I'm sure the FO will move around aggresively for whomever they target.

A lot of people seem to be on the SILB and DE bandwagons. Re DE, I guess if we spend a high pick on DE then we are effectively giving up on Seymour, because there's really no need to spend the pick if we believe that we can keep Seymour/Warren/Green/Wright intact. Warren and Wright are signed, and Green can be replaced/upgraded without spending a top pick, so the only reason I see spending a top pick on DE is if we are effectively assuming Seymour can't be extended long-term. Conversely, if we do spend that high a pick, and if we can get good value for Seymour, then maybe we're better moving on - I'm not sure.

Re ILB, I just don't see a rookie making that big of an impact, and Adalius Thomas gives us a lot of long-term flexibility at the position. We don't see that flexibility right now because we're thin and OLB and need Thomas there, but that could change considerably in a year.

 

[mayoclinic]

I cant help but seeing us having some sort of secret deal with KC about the #3 overall. Could you imagine come draft day that the cheifs are on the clock and they trade the pick to us for #23 #34 and #89. Essentially #23 and #89 along with Cassell and Vrabel. Then we pick Aaron Curry or BJ Raji. It would make since because BB wouldnt want to be stuck at #3 with Curry or Raji already gone. I already know this is extremely wishfull thinking but Its just an Idea, one that has probably already been explored before. But just imagine Aaron Curry, Conner Barwin and Patrick Chung. That would totally revamp our D.

I think that's problematic, for several reasons:

1. 23, 34 and 89 shouldn't get us close to #3. There could be such a deal, especially if you factor in the "Cassel bargain factor" and if KC is desperate to trade down, but I doubt it.

2. The cost of #3 is likely to be prohibitive for us. If it were getting a Raji at 10-12 I could understand it, but the cost of signing the #3 pick is getting into the cost to extend Wilfork territory. I can't see that. I think we'd just look at trading down again. And much as I like Aaron Curry, the risk of Aaron Curry plus the #3 salary is probably greater to my mind than the risk of Connor Barwin plus the #23 salary - Curry has a lesser chance of flopping altogether, but he may not live up to the #3 pick and the cost of failing at that high a level is prohibitive.

3. At 47 and 58 we might get one impact player, but quite possibly not. I doubt we'd get Barwin. At 58 we might miss out on all 4 of the top safeties.

If we had taken the mythical #12-for-Cassel deal from Denver then I could potentially see Raji-Barwin-Delmas, which would be phenomenal beyond all imagination. But not now.

 

[DW Toys]

My ideal is to swap 23 + 58 for 29 + 45, get Barwin at 29 and Beatty at 34. We could bundle 89 and 47 to move up to around 35-37, which I would personally do for Delmas over Gilbert. Then we would either hope for Gilbert at 45 or trade the pick into 2010, hopefully for a 1st. Barwin/Beatty/Delmas + either Gilbert or a 2010 1st is my preferred outcome right now, because I see Gilbert's upside as probably being equivalent to a DE that we could get in 2010 with the extra 1st round pick. Your alternative is to go for Gilbert at 37 and then one of the safeties at 45, which is quite reasonable.

Mayo, I enjoy this type of thinking. I like creative and that is certainly. I am not sold on an O-Lineman at #34 or even #58. I think BB is playing with the idea of a "singlewing" or "wildcat" if you prefer, by talking to White. The surprise pick for that combination job could be James Casey. He ran that at Rice this season with a 4.6 yard average and 6 TDs from the "Thor" formation. Rice wanted Casey to stay and become the starting QB in 2009. He ran that about 46 times last season. He ran some QB drills on his Pro Day and has a rocket for an arm (best fastball in the White Sox organization one year) Watson probably won't be kept in 2010 and Thomas is in the doghouse.

I think Casey is under the radar here for the Pats.I also like Delmas and in the forth, Collie.
DW Toys

 

[TriplecHamp]

I think that's problematic, for several reasons:

1. 23, 34 and 89 shouldn't get us close to #3. There could be such a deal, especially if you factor in the "Cassel bargain factor" and if KC is desperate to trade down, but I doubt it.

2. The cost of #3 is likely to be prohibitive for us. If it were getting a Raji at 10-12 I could understand it, but the cost of signing the #3 pick is getting into the cost to extend Wilfork territory. I can't see that. I think we'd just look at trading down again. And much as I like Aaron Curry, the risk of Aaron Curry plus the #3 salary is probably greater to my mind than the risk of Connor Barwin plus the #23 salary - Curry has a lesser chance of flopping altogether, but he may not live up to the #3 pick and the cost of failing at that high a level is prohibitive.

3. At 47 and 58 we might get one impact player, but quite possibly not. I doubt we'd get Barwin. At 58 we might miss out on all 4 of the top safeties.

If we had taken the mythical #12-for-Cassel deal from Denver then I could potentially see Raji-Barwin-Delmas, which would be phenomenal beyond all imagination. But not now.

I hear you the only reason I think it could be possible is because of the relationship between BB and pioli.The cheifs lack of picks: only 7 overall and only 2 in the first 3 rounds which is a big negative for a team trying to rebuild. We have 11 and we dont have that many roster spots or holes to fill. So either we trade up or we trade back into next year.

...I also had a dream a couple of nights ago with AC talking with BB in the Dana-Farber feild house lol.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Wouldn't you like a Day One draft of Jackson, OLB, Chung and Wood/Unger?

I would be extremely happy with this draft.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Vols DE Ayers "Most Polarizing Defender..." - CBSSports.com

With the draft less than a month away most teams are settling their draft boards. One player whose stock remains very much in flux is Tennessee defensive end/outside linebacker Robert Ayers.

There appear to be two camps when it comes to Ayers. Some teams view him as a top ten prospect. Mike Mayock of the NFL Network, whose opinion I respect, recently ranked Ayers as the 5th best player in the entire 2009 draft. Other teams, however, view Ayers as a second round prospect -- and a marginal one at that.

 

[mgteich]

Is it worth the 23rd pick to draft the replacement for Green whose position we have been paying $3M a year? The player would replace Smith this year and either Green or Seymour next year.

I like the OT's alot, but Light is here for at least two more years and we have two adequate LT/RT's as our RT and our swing tackle.

I would not be at all surprised to see us draft Jackson or Gilbert at 23.

Barwin, Beatty, Delmas, Gilbert, Nicks and Ayers are probably the 6 guys I can see being pro-bowl caliber impact players on the Pats. I don't see taking a WR before Nicks is gone (I'm fine with him anytime after #34, but think he will go 1st round), and Ayers looks like he will go well before 23. That leaves the remaining 4 guys. My dream would be to get Barwin/Beatty/Delmas and then either Gilbert or to trade the remaining pick for a 2010 1st rounder. That may be a little ambitious. But I'm sure the FO will move around aggresively for whomever they target.

A lot of people seem to be on the SILB and DE bandwagons. Re DE, I guess if we spend a high pick on DE then we are effectively giving up on Seymour, because there's really no need to spend the pick if we believe that we can keep Seymour/Warren/Green/Wright intact. Warren and Wright are signed, and Green can be replaced/upgraded without spending a top pick, so the only reason I see spending a top pick on DE is if we are effectively assuming Seymour can't be extended long-term. Conversely, if we do spend that high a pick, and if we can get good value for Seymour, then maybe we're better moving on - I'm not sure.

Re ILB, I just don't see a rookie making that big of an impact, and Adalius Thomas gives us a lot of long-term flexibility at the position. We don't see that flexibility right now because we're thin and OLB and need Thomas there, but that could change considerably in a year.

 

[mayoclinic]

Is it worth the 23rd pick to draft the replacement for Green whose position we have been paying $3M a year? The player would replace Smith this year and either Green or Seymour next year.

I like the OT's alot, but Light is here for at least two more years and we have two adequate LT/RT's as our RT and our swing tackle.

I would not be at all surprised to see us draft Jackson or Gilbert at 23.

Not to me. I'm sorry my friend, but if what we end up getting for #23 turns out to be a backup DE replacement for Jarvis Green, then I will not consider it to have been a particularly good use of a 1st round pick.

If that player turns out to be the future replacement for Richard Seymour and a solid one at that, then they will be well worth it. But not for Green.

 

[mayoclinic]

If we get an OLB and an OT at 23 and 34 (in either order), then the question is how much we prefer one safety over another to be our #3 safety. I have no problem trading up, but I would trade up for Gilbert, leaving the safety for 58.

As much as I would like an OT, I would prefer a DE at 23 and a LB at 34. Most mocks have lots of LB choices available at 34. I would than have a safety and guard at 47 or 58 in whatever order (using our tradeable picks to move up as necessary.

Wouldn't you like a Day One draft of Gilbert/Jackson, OLB, Chung/Vaughn/Johnson and Wood/Unger?

If you take Barwin at 23 and Beatty is off the board at 34 but Delmas and Gilbert are still there, what about taking Delmas at 34 and trading up to the 35-37 range for Gilbert (packaging #47 and 89)? Then you could hopefully get Wood/Unger or Jamon Meredith at 58. That would give you a first day of Barwin (or your OLB of choice)/Delmas/Gilbert and an OL.

 

[dryheat44]

Some ideas to toss around:

1. If we take a 3-4 OLB (Barwin, English, Matthews, Sintim, etc.) at 23 and then find that both William Beatty and Louis Delmas are on the board at 34, should we take Beatty at #34 and then try to package #47 and 89 to trade up into the 35-37 range and get Delmas? I would. Barwin, Beatty and Delmas are the top 3 guys on my draft board who will realistically be available at 23, and to get all 3 of them would be a coup. If someone we wanted fell to 58 that would be great, otherwise we could trade it into 2010 and go for values from 97 on.

Well of course you would. If those are your top 3 guys in the draft, why wouldn't you position yourself to get them? If your top 3 guys are Josh Freeman, LeSean McCoy, and Phil Loadhold, you should do the same.

The only logical reason not to do it is if you had Delmas, Chung, and Moore all rated equally and were confident you could get one of them at #47 and still have #89 available for a pick or for a different trade-up.

 

[bakes781]

Have we completely ruled out CB early? I know this class is thin and the need is not immediate after the signings of Bodden and Springs, but if Darius Butler is sitting there at #23 do we not have to at least think about it?

 

[mayoclinic]

Have we completely ruled out CB early? I know this class is thin and the need is not immediate after the signings of Bodden and Springs, but if Darius Butler is sitting there at #23 do we not have to at least think about it?

With Hobbs, Bodden, Springs, Wheatley and Wilhite I don't see a lot of room for a CB. Hobbs and Bodden are unsigned after this year and we don't know for certain how Wheatley and Wilhite will develop (though both showed nice signs last year) so I can understand a potential need for 2010, but if we take a CB either the draft pick won't get playing time or one of the guys we already like won't get a further chance to develop. So I don't really see spending a 1st day pick on CB.

I saw a mock on another board where Darius Butler went 62 (which was absurd), and even then I had to think about whether we would take him with a 2nd round pick. At 23 and 34 I clearly pass - not that Butler isn't worthy of that pick, but he's well down on may value board because CB is not a position of need. At 47 or 58 I expect him to be gone, but at that point I think it would be much harder to find comparable players who would represent greater values.