Don Bank's 2009 NFL Mock Draft 3/12

[broadwayjoe]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/03/12/mock3/index.html


The following statement caught my eye in this mock maybe those second round picks will land our Pats a big one (smile)


I can't remember the last time defensive backs were that sparsely represented in round one.

 

[mgteich]

English the picks, but look at the board at 23. It is quite possible to get two of these with our 23 and 24 picks. Safer is to trade our 89 or 124 to move the 34 into the first and guarantee two for five years.

Beatty
English
Cushing
Sintim
Barwin
Laurinitis
Jackson
Nicks
Ayers
Oher

 

[billdog3484]

i say we trade out of round 1 into early round 2 and pick up a 2nd and 3rd or 4th. take the 3rd or 4th add it with our current 3 and move into the late 2nd. 5 2nd round picks. we can take 3 or 4 and use the other 1 or 2 to move into the first round in 2010 a few times.

 

[BPF]

i say we trade out of round 1 into early round 2 and pick up a 2nd and 3rd or 4th. take the 3rd or 4th add it with our current 3 and move into the late 2nd. 5 2nd round picks. we can take 3 or 4 and use the other 1 or 2 to move into the first round in 2010 a few times.

Isn't the point of drafting to stock your team w/quality players, well if all those players mgteich mentioned are still on the board at 23 and beyond why would you trade out? Picks in the bottom of the 1st Rd can be locked up for 5 yrs, where 2nd Rd picks can only be locked up for a max 4 yrs. The money really isn't all that different but when you factor the extra season on the contract it makes it more favorable to draft a player in the latter portions of Rd 1.

I can't believe Tyson Jackson is not going in the 1st Rd in this mock. If he is there at 23, I would hope that the Pats take him.

 

[VJCPatriot]

That's something that is often overlooked. Wouldn't you rather have your stud player for 5 years before he hits free agency vs 4 years? If you hit a homerun on the pick, the player is only going to get more expensive later on.

Imagine if Cassel's contract had a year longer on it. Then the Pats wouldn't have been forced to franchise him and trade him off so quickly. They could have waited to field the best offer because his rookie contract would have been negligible against the cap.

 

[mgteich]

As I indicated, I would rather trade up with the #34 and have two firsts and two seconds, and make sure I got two off my hot list.

BTW, there is a lot of talk of 2010 and needing the draft choices for 2010 needs. I take a different view. I think we should use this year's draft to develop players to meet 2010 needs. This is a great draft. We should use or seven early picks well.

That's something that is often overlooked. Wouldn't you rather have your stud player for 5 years before he hits free agency vs 4 years? If you hit a homerun on the pick, the player is only going to get more expensive later on.

Imagine if Cassel's contract had a year longer on it. Then the Pats wouldn't have been forced to franchise him and trade him off so quickly. They could have waited to field the best offer because his rookie contract would have been negligible against the cap.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

As I indicated, I would rather trade up with the #34 and have two firsts and two seconds, and make sure I got two off my hot list.

So you would use our 3rd in the trade with one of the 2nd's. If the right players are there, I like that idea.

 

[mayoclinic]

So you would use our 3rd in the trade with one of the 2nd's. If the right players are there, I like that idea.

I think using our 3rd to trade up is a definite possibility. According to the "old" draft value charts, 89 + 58 gets us to around 43, 89 + 47 gets us to around 33, and 89 + 34 gets us to around 26. All possibilities. The top 50 looks really good in this draft.

I could also see us trading back from #23. My specific trading partner would be the Giants, because they have #29 and #45, which is pretty much equal in value to #23 and 58. If the Giants want to move up to secure someone (say, one of the big WRs like Heyward-Bey and Nicks, since Miami at 25/Baltimore at 26/Indy at 27 are all possibilities) and we don't see much difference between 23 and 29, then it's quite possible.

We could do both. We could end up with:

#26 (trading up from #34 plus #89)
#29 (trading down from #23 with the Giants)
#45 (trading up from #58 with the Giants)
#47

Or:

#29 (trading down from #23 with the Giants)
#33 (trading up from #47 with #89)
#34
#45 (trading up from #58 with the Giants)

In my "best case scenario", we might be able to get Beatty at 29 and Barwin at 33, and some combination of Sean Smith, Louis Delmas, Jarron Gilbert, or Robert Ayers at 34 and 45.

 

[RussFrancis]

As I indicated, I would rather trade up with the #34 and have two firsts and two seconds, and make sure I got two off my hot list.

BTW, there is a lot of talk of 2010 and needing the draft choices for 2010 needs. I take a different view. I think we should use this year's draft to develop players to meet 2010 needs. This is a great draft. We should use or seven early picks well.

Im fully on board this line of thinking. Much rather have guys for 5 years as opposed to 4. And much rather have 1sts than 3rds.