Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]While I usually find Rusty wrong, I have to agree on this issue. Many on this board were calling for Ingram, a questionable first round talent in most other draft years, health concern with his knee, questionable pass blacking skills. To come out of the draft with Ridley, Vereen and the Saints number 1 is genius. While battling injury this year, Vereen was very worthy of his draft position. I expect him to be very productive next year giving the Pats a speed element missing from the RB position for quite some time. Assuming a reasonable number for Benny, Ifind the Pats quartet of Ridley, Vereen, Woody and Benny very diverse, and allows BB togame plan depending on that weeks opponent. I do feel a return to a heavier run game is possible with these 4 players, but a stronger C is needed with a top 2-4 round choice depending on how the draft plays out.
    Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]

    hey karp,
    i like a center yes.
    a little early to say what kind of move vereen or ridley were at this point i think
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In response to "Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : hey karp, i like a center yes. a little early to say what kind of move vereen or ridley were at this point i think Posted by bredbru[/QUOTE] I thought they both showed the talent to play in the NFL, and with a true offseason and preseason can only get stronger and better. Assuming the same for Solder, Cannon and health for Vollmer, I think the Pats can focus resources( draft choices and free agent targets) on S, OLB, DL, C WR.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Patsman3. Show Patsman3's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    I thought the trade with NO was bad at the time and it turned out to be bad.  First off, who said the Pats needed to take Ingram in that slot?  Maybe they could have taken oh say a PASS RUSHER.

    Second, they could have package their picks and moved UP not down and got an impact player.

    Third, they didnt need to draft TWO running backs.  They should have spent the one pick on Ridley (who they could have gotten lower as well).

    I just pray they actually use the picks this year.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]I thought the trade with NO was bad at the time and it turned out to be bad.  First off, who said the Pats needed to take Ingram in that slot?  Maybe they could have taken oh say a PASS RUSHER. Second, they could have package their picks and moved UP not down and got an impact player. Third, they didnt need to draft TWO running backs.  They should have spent the one pick on Ridley (who they could have gotten lower as well). I just pray they actually use the picks this year.
    Posted by Patsman3[/QUOTE]

    I kind of agree with this. There was nothing said that the Pats had to take Ingram with this pick. In fact, they could have done numerous things and still snagged Vereen and Ridley later in the draft. I don't think either was a prime target to go early. in fact I think both were drafted a 1/2 or full round too early. I wouldn't say either was a huge reach, but we could have hung out for a while and still picked both of them up. Kind of similar to what they did with Cunningham last year.

    They had 28 and 33. I don't think they got any bites at 33 so this is why they selected Ras. This is the pick I have the issue with really. Nothing of any consequence happened from 28 to 33, but plenty did after 33. So, in retrospect, I woould have traded 28 like they did for a first next year, BUT instead, I would have used 33 on any one of these players....
    1. Jabaal Sheard (DE/OLB)
    2. Brooks Reed (DE/OLB)
    3. Torrey Smith (WR)
    4. Rahim Moore (FS)
    All drafted after Ras and all would have added a nice punch to the Pats this year. Again, done in retrospect, but there were plenty of us clamoring for these guys last year on MB's mock draft thread. Each had good years. Now, again, didn't know Ras would miss the season, but grabbing yet another CB high who has an injury history should have raised some red flags.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Army2LT. Show Army2LT's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    How does everyone feel about the Jets picking one spot ahead of us in the 2nd round at #48?  I'm sure it's not at the same level when BB tricked them into taking Gholston back in 2008, but it might get mildly interesting.

    Does anyone think BB will leapfrog the Jets and trade with likely trade partner Philly at #47 just to stick it to Rex Ryan?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : PatsEng ~ As Paul described up above, THIS is the way to look at it.  We Traded away the 28th pick in 2011 to NO's, and we acquired their 1st Round Selection in '12, along WITH The Saints 2nd Round Selection (#56) in this past 2011 Draft.  Whether or not Vareen becomes a stud or a dud, BB is parlaying this bet here into far greater odds... Unless The Saints make it to The NFC Championship Game (30/29) and/or The Superbowl (picks 31/32), New England will get as good or in better probability (here)-A better (i.e. higher) 1st Round Selection.  Absolutely The worst case scenario is That NE gets: the 32nd selection in 2012 + the 56th selection in 2011- By NE giving up: the 28th selection in 2011.  Overall, this is an extremely good move wherein BB will get more than he gave, no matter what Now, what Belichick does with this, is another thing...  For instance: Belichick reaches by selecting a guy who by every resource is a late 2nd Round Quality guy <just like BB did a full 1 Rd reach for Vareen-according to the most conservative of specific player selection-spot resources />; Add Vareen (early 3rd Rd quality) + BB doing a late 1st Rd reach this year for a guy regarded as Late 2nd Rd quality & consensus for coming off the Big Board, INSTEAD of perhaps selecting a higher quality (consensus Mid 1st Rd) prospect whom might have slipped down to the end of Rd #1...then= Yea, it'll be safe to safe that it was sorta worthless by and large (but not due to the trade itself, just do to wasting the selection(s) on guys of quality for whom, 99% chance ya coulda still gotten with a pick that wasn't as high).    
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    The problem Laz comes in that Brady has a finite amount of years left. When you continually trade into future years you are limiting the chances of success when you don't strengthen the positions of weakness.

    This past year was a front 7 heavy draft class. That has been an issue for years an continued to be an issue this year.

    There is no black and white here but a ton of grey. IMO when the draft is loaded with a lot of talent in an area of weakness you spend the picks to fix that weakness not trade back into other years. When he draft doesn't present the quality of players in a position needed then you move back into next year. What the funny part is, is when the Pats drafted for need they tend to get really good players, however when they draft for best player available that's when they've had some of their worst drafting years. As I said with King it's a fine line you have to walk but as Brad'y's career is getting closer to end it's time to start spending those chips you accumulated to enhance the team now and for the eventual retirement of Brady. That is unless they believe Mallett is the next Young then you can continue the current path without much worry of a drastic decline in performance

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Rocky. Show Rocky's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    Indepth explanation of the upcoming draft (strength of schedule, tie breakers, playoff teams/draft picks)

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from JohnHannahrulz. Show JohnHannahrulz's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    Agree BB, You don't trade up into the 1st round and think "this guy will be okay,but not a starter". Ingram was perceived as a potential lead back.  I take issue with anyone who thinks Sproles is an average player; on the Saints he's got what 2000+ yards from scrimmage; that's impressive regardless of where he lines up (backfield, Wide out in spread or in the I on screen pass).  It might be function of the system, but it works.

    Would love to see Detroit win in the playoffs, but the Saints are great at home. BB you mentioned that NO has no run D, well, the Lions don't have much of a run game (Smith, Best if he's healthy)IMO that if Detroit loses they should try to trade up and get Richardson (eg: the better Tide back than Ingram).  Getting pressure on Brees will be huge, but that has only happened like 3 times this year.

    Raiders used a short term fix (Palmer) for a long term problem. Losing McFadden hurt them. The O becamed more predictable.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Faucetman. Show Faucetman's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    Army, you were looking at 2010 Strength of Schedules.  The one I posted I calculated myself.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Army2LT. Show Army2LT's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]Army, you were looking at 2010 Strength of Schedules.  The one I posted I calculated myself.
    Posted by Faucetman[/QUOTE]

    Ahh, that's too bad.  Thanks for throwing that together.  I guess 17th is better than where Oakland was projected to go (around 20th).

    How do you feel about the second round looking like this-

    47. Phiily
    48. Jets
    49. Pats

    Do you think the Pats will try to leapfrog the Jets just to stick it to them?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]In response to "Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks": I thought they both showed the talent to play in the NFL, and with a true offseason and preseason can only get stronger and better. Assuming the same for Solder, Cannon and health for Vollmer, I think the Pats can focus resources( draft choices and free agent targets) on S, OLB, DL, C WR.
    Posted by rkarp[/QUOTE]

    agreed and agreed.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]I thought the trade with NO was bad at the time and it turned out to be bad.  First off, who said the Pats needed to take Ingram in that slot?  Maybe they could have taken oh say a PASS RUSHER. Second, they could have package their picks and moved UP not down and got an impact player. Third, they didnt need to draft TWO running backs.  They should have spent the one pick on Ridley (who they could have gotten lower as well). I just pray they actually use the picks this year.
    Posted by Patsman3[/QUOTE]

    agree strongly with all of these very good points.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : I kind of agree with this. There was nothing said that the Pats had to take Ingram with this pick. In fact, they could have done numerous things and still snagged Vereen and Ridley later in the draft. I don't think either was a prime target to go early. in fact I think both were drafted a 1/2 or full round too early. I wouldn't say either was a huge reach, but we could have hung out for a while and still picked both of them up. Kind of similar to what they did with Cunningham last year. They had 28 and 33. I don't think they got any bites at 33 so this is why they selected Ras. This is the pick I have the issue with really. Nothing of any consequence happened from 28 to 33, but plenty did after 33. So, in retrospect, I woould have traded 28 like they did for a first next year, BUT instead, I would have used 33 on any one of these players.... 1. Jabaal Sheard (DE/OLB) 2. Brooks Reed (DE/OLB) 3. Torrey Smith (WR) 4. Rahim Moore (FS) All drafted after Ras and all would have added a nice punch to the Pats this year. Again, done in retrospect, but there were plenty of us clamoring for these guys last year on MB's mock draft thread. Each had good years. Now, again, didn't know Ras would miss the season, but grabbing yet another CB high who has an injury history should have raised some red flags.
    Posted by PatsLifer[/QUOTE]

    that was th emain thing, ia chance we didnt have to take in that high a position.
    and yeah, in hindsight there many other players left would have been nice of course if he is an alll pro in a year or 2 maybe it all comes out in the wash. we'll see.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : The problem Laz comes in that Brady has a finite amount of years left. When you continually trade into future years you are limiting the chances of success when you don't strengthen the positions of weakness. This past year was a front 7 heavy draft class. That has been an issue for years an continued to be an issue this year. There is no black and white here but a ton of grey. IMO when the draft is loaded with a lot of talent in an area of weakness you spend the picks to fix that weakness not trade back into other years. When he draft doesn't present the quality of players in a position needed then you move back into next year. What the funny part is, is when the Pats drafted for need they tend to get really good players, however when they draft for best player available that's when they've had some of their worst drafting years. As I said with King it's a fine line you have to walk but as Brad'y's career is getting closer to end it's time to start spending those chips you accumulated to enhance the team now and for the eventual retirement of Brady. That is unless they believe Mallett is the next Young then you can continue the current path without much worry of a drastic decline in performance
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    exactly my point i wrote about in the time leading up to the draft last year.
    well said.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from bredbru. Show bredbru's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]Agree BB, You don't trade up into the 1st round and think "this guy will be okay,but not a starter". Ingram was perceived as a potential lead back.  I take issue with anyone who thinks Sproles is an average player; on the Saints he's got what 2000+ yards from scrimmage; that's impressive regardless of where he lines up (backfield, Wide out in spread or in the I on screen pass).  It might be function of the system, but it works. Would love to see Detroit win in the playoffs, but the Saints are great at home. BB you mentioned that NO has no run D, well, the Lions don't have much of a run game (Smith, Best if he's healthy)IMO that if Detroit loses they should try to trade up and get Richardson (eg: the better Tide back than Ingram).  Getting pressure on Brees will be huge, but that has only happened like 3 times this year. Raiders used a short term fix (Palmer) for a long term problem. Losing McFadden hurt them. The O becamed more predictable.
    Posted by JohnHannahrulz[/QUOTE]

    i think sproles set an al purpose yards from scrimmage this year with 2600 something.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : The reason I'm confused is because you are comparing NO taking Ingram and us Ridley when one didn't affect the other from happening.  Yes NO spent a 1st to get him and I'd say if Vereen proved to be a serviceable back this year that it's fair to compare Vereen to Ingram but not Ridley and Ingram. Frankly if Vereen doesn't develop and we get nothing from NO's pick this year then what's the net result from Ingram and what we ended up with? Absolutely no difference and Ridleys performance one way or another won't affect that.
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE] I don't care about last years draft,what are they going to do this year? I'm just presuming that BB will trade one of his first round selections. My guess is he try and garner a 4th rd., pick this year and a 1rst rd pick for 2013.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : The problem Laz comes in that Brady has a finite amount of years left. When you continually trade into future years you are limiting the chances of success when you don't strengthen the positions of weakness. This past year was a front 7 heavy draft class. That has been an issue for years an continued to be an issue this year. There is no black and white here but a ton of grey. IMO when the draft is loaded with a lot of talent in an area of weakness you spend the picks to fix that weakness not trade back into other years. When he draft doesn't present the quality of players in a position needed then you move back into next year. What the funny part is, is when the Pats drafted for need they tend to get really good players, however when they draft for best player available that's when they've had some of their worst drafting years. As I said with King it's a fine line you have to walk but as Brad'y's career is getting closer to end it's time to start spending those chips you accumulated to enhance the team now and for the eventual retirement of Brady. That is unless they believe Mallett is the next Young then you can continue the current path without much worry of a drastic decline in performance
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    I hear'ya PatsEng, and you should know I'm a LOUDLY outspoken critic of what & when Belichick scr#ws up on a draft player, or in an entire Draft by and large, AND similiarly I am (and I mean THE day after the draft) the same loudly outspoken proponent when Belichick nails a player, or a draft, or a trade, and does so (pick-wise) in a superb fashion...  So based off your point, and specifically in light of previous points I've made personally- I don't know what ta tell'ya here.
     

    Hope ya remember, because I've given my "imho's" about what an Overall NFL Draft Class of yearly prospects, looks like prior to each and every draft (the draft class as a whole, not NE's specific haul from any given one).  As a whole league class of rooks: In terms of 2010, I said how it was by far and away the best looking class in ANY memory of 1 year given prospects (and Belichick went about that draft in a VERY good way, in all).  In 2011, before this past draft, I wrote much of the same (REALLY well above average class of prospects, but by no means the "freak 2010 class of guys", Excellent nonetheless).  ...Because I hear'ya man, Having 2 BOTH Very good Draft Years of Well above average talent & deep talent, Yes=You take better advantage of that (...esp. than Belichick did in 2011).  This year?  =Average.  And I mean, If you could define something as being "Not sub-par" and "Not really good" just "Average", it would be this 2012 crop of skilled prospects, and depth of decent prospects.  This year is NOT the 3-4 year dearth of just Below Average, to Average, to REALLY bad Draft Prospect years that we saw in 2007 <Horrific bad overall crop of prospects />, 2008 <well Below average crop of prospective NFL players />, and 2009 <average, to just meekly above being "Not Average"> (just maybe '06 too <average>)...

    So I hear you man, When noone's offering you great value for the #33 selection of a well above-average group of draftees and you ineviably select a player of very late 2nd Rd-early 3rd Rd Quality WITH that pick anyways, and/or when someone's offering to take your 1st rd selection of an extremely above-average draft year group of prospects, And they'll give you a 2nd Rd selection (in the same very good year) plus a 1st Rd selection in next year's very plain ole "average" group of guys, then....Mmmm- something ya gotta at least factor into the first reaction of, "We got a GREAT Deal!"
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    Is every draft class above average? I mean 2010 made sense, everyone coming out before the salary cap, but that should have made 2011 weak. Personally I think alot of the draftnicks are just plain gamblers at heart. It's always about the next guy...he has the skills to be a HOFer! Do you want to give up your $10,000 dollar cash prize to find out what's behind door number two? Ooh ooh, yeah it could be a new car, yeah! Well the sad reality is more often than not, it's not a new car, it's more like a new bicycle, and sometimes it's not even that. I hope BB keeps doing exactly what he's been doing. You can run the numbers backwards, sideways and anyway you want but BB trades have resulted in this team picking higher AND more often in early rounds than if they stuck with their assigned picks (see page 2 of this thread for details). Oh, I know, but how have those picks done? Well they did have 8 pro bowl selections tied for most in the NFL, and are 13-3 on the best team in the AFC. Considering they've had the lowest draft position in the last ten years, and every objective analyses has them still as on of the best drafting teams that's pretty darn good.....but this year, this years different, this year they should trade away all their picks to move up and get the latest cant miss prospect...his name is Reggie Bush...no wait. Michael Crabtree, i mean Gholston, oh Blackmon that's it! Can't miss prospect right there.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]Is every draft class above average? I mean 2010 made sense, everyone coming out before the salary cap, but that should have made 2011 weak. Personally I think alot of the draftnicks are just plain gamblers at heart. It's always about the next guy...he has the skills to be a HOFer! Do you want to give up your $10,000 dollar cash prize to find out what's behind door number two? Ooh ooh, yeah it could be a new car, yeah! Well the sad reality is more often than not, it's not a new car, it's more like a new bicycle, and sometimes it's not even that. I hope BB keeps doing exactly what he's been doing. You can run the numbers backwards, sideways and anyway you want but BB trades have resulted in this team picking higher AND more often in early rounds than if they stuck with their assigned picks (see page 2 of this thread for details). Oh, I know, but how have those picks done? Well they did have 8 pro bowl selections tied for most in the NFL, and are 13-3 on the best team in the AFC. Considering they've had the lowest draft position in the last ten years, and every objective analyses has them still as on of the best drafting teams that's pretty darn good.....but this year, this years different, this year they should trade away all their picks to move up and get the latest cant miss prospect...his name is Reggie Bush...no wait. Michael Crabtree, i mean Gholston, oh Blackmon that's it! Can't miss prospect right there.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    No (see my above post).   Every upcoming Draft Class is NOT always "A very good Draft Year."   And this is the same misconception that was actually labeled onto me personally saying this before last year's draft.  Gotta seperate the reality of those that follow the NFL Draft 365 and 24-7, with the reality that each and ALL NFL & NFL Draft Fans, Coaches, Players, Prospects, Scouts, and a million more draft sporting sites, analysts, journalists, and agencies are ALL gonna be privy & subjected to: i.e. the personal investment factor regarding the type of motherload bounty that's just waitin' yonder round-the-bend, and over the very next hill up ahead.  Ya do this year and year out, and hopefully you can better check this fantasy ideal.  And If ya actually love the draft itself even more than you do 99% of The NFL Season (I actually do -maybe I shouldn't b/c it's sorta weird, but I still do; I'm w/ company though, b/c I know mbeaulieu & faucetman, to name just 2, DO as well)- then ideally you're in a much better and more objective place I'd think, to best curb those personal investments in the entire process.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In response to "Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : No (see my above post).   Every upcoming Draft Class is NOT always "A very good Draft Year."   And this is the same misconception that was actually labeled onto me personally saying this before last year's draft.  Gotta seperate the reality of those that follow the NFL Draft 365 and 24-7, with the reality that each and ALL NFL & NFL Draft Fans, Coaches, Players, Prospects, Scouts, and a million more draft sporting sites, analysts, journalists, and agencies are ALL gonna be privy & subjected to: i.e. the personal investment factor regarding the type of motherload bounty that's just waitin' yonder round-the-bend, and over the very next hill up ahead.  Ya do this year and year out, and hopefully you can better check this fantasy ideal.  And If ya actually love the draft itself even more than you do 99% of The NFL Season (I actually do -maybe I shouldn't b/c it's sorta weird, but I still do; I'm w/ company though, b/c I know mbeaulieu & faucetman, to name just 2, DO as well)- then ideally you're in a much better and more objective place I'd think, to best curb those personal investments in the entire process. Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE] Well you just keep on keepin on then and don't let the man keep you down ya jive turkey.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In response to "Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks": [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks : loL! There is RKarp!  How are ya today, RKArp? Enjoy your Jets seasson? I love how you say I am usually wrong, but I win again being right.  Seems like i am right a lot more than you think. Could it be I follow this closer than you do and know more, using my own brain instead of an agenda channeled down by ESPN? Posted by RidingWithTheKingII[/QUOTE] Been busy Rusty with a full slate, but now off until mid March. No, I think that I am correct in saying that you are usually wrong. I do understand it is hard to make observations never really attending games. You also continue to be wrong painting me a Jets fan. My point had always been that I hoped someone knocks the Jets out of the playoffs so that the Pats did not face them a third time. Let's include your meanderings on Ocho Cinco, Mankins, Brady and the offense, the running game, the defense. Shall I go on?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks

    In Response to Re: Saints and Raiders 2012 draft picks:
    [QUOTE]Is every draft class above average? I mean 2010 made sense, everyone coming out before the salary cap, but that should have made 2011 weak. Personally I think alot of the draftnicks are just plain gamblers at heart. It's always about the next guy...he has the skills to be a HOFer! Do you want to give up your $10,000 dollar cash prize to find out what's behind door number two? Ooh ooh, yeah it could be a new car, yeah! Well the sad reality is more often than not, it's not a new car, it's more like a new bicycle, and sometimes it's not even that. I hope BB keeps doing exactly what he's been doing. You can run the numbers backwards, sideways and anyway you want but BB trades have resulted in this team picking higher AND more often in early rounds than if they stuck with their assigned picks (see page 2 of this thread for details). Oh, I know, but how have those picks done? Well they did have 8 pro bowl selections tied for most in the NFL, and are 13-3 on the best team in the AFC. Considering they've had the lowest draft position in the last ten years, and every objective analyses has them still as on of the best drafting teams that's pretty darn good.....but this year, this years different, this year they should trade away all their picks to move up and get the latest cant miss prospect...his name is Reggie Bush...no wait. Michael Crabtree, i mean Gholston, oh Blackmon that's it! Can't miss prospect right there.
    Posted by shenanigan[/QUOTE]

    As Laz has said not every draft was a good draft and it tends to go up and down with the strengths of the draft at certain positions.

    For example the 07' draft was relatively weak as far as depth goes verses say the 10' draft which was a very strong and deep draft class. 11' was an extremely strong front 7 draft class but as far as other positions it was extremely weak for both depth and talent. Positions like RB last year had good depth in day 2 and 3 but overall compared to other draft years was a weak overall class. Since our main weakness the past couple years has been in the secondary and front 7 pass rushers it would seem to make sense to load up on what appeared (and turned out to be) a strong pass rush heavy draft but BB took the opposite approach.

    This years draft is shaping up to be relatively weak as far as top end talent with S's and front 7 players however, from the back end of the 1st to day 2 picks there are some good pass rushers and coverage FS's available, oddly enough that's where 5 of our picks lie. This draft class appears to be extremely strong in the WR position too and there is a very strong WR FA class as well. It's one reason I don't expect to see BB go after a WR early in the draft. The value isn't there as the depth and talent level will drive late day 1 early day 2 players into the late 2nd early 3rd range. BB tends to go after weaker positions in the draft where you can get the top players coming out of those positions in the later rounds. Now I do expect him to trade one of those 1st's into future years but he's playing a very dangerous gamble with those picks. If you notice his selections they are usually boom or bust players because he plays against the odds and drafts players in weaker parts of the draft who's stock is usually hurt because of the team they played for, injury, or because of the strength of the position in the draft class. As such when he hits he looks like a genius but when he misses you don't even get a serviceable player most of the time. It almost makes you wonder about his UDFA ability. Is he really great at finding UDFA talent or is it that his other draft picks in those positions fail so horrible that the UDFA's look good filling the roles and you are left saying well for a UDFA he's doing really well. If Meri, Butler, DMC, or Ras were still on the field performing to expectations for their draft position would we even notice Arrington or Moore? Or if Brace was performing would we even look at Love? Don't get me wrong I love our UDFA's but comparing them to other starters in the league they shouldn't be starters they should be situational players, which is a role where them seem to excel most in.
     

Share