Draft: now how do you see the top 5 shaking out?

[BeeR]

IMO

 

1 Rams - Bradford all but a lock

 

2 Lions - McCoy. Just a hunch.

 

3 Bucs - whichever DT Lions don't take. Also a lock IMO.

 

4 Skins - Okung seems obvious but I have this nagging thought that they still might take Clausen despite signing McNabb, given McNabb's age health etc.

 

5 Chiefs - Okung if there, if not Bulaga. Berry also possible.

[The Wolf]

I think that one of those top 5 picks will be traded. FWIW, I keep seeing on Twitter that the Lions just may trade that pick.

[BearBroncos]

IMO

 

 

4 Skins - Okung seems obvious but I have this nagging thought that they still might take Clausen despite signing McNabb, given McNabb's age health etc.

 

Are you kidding? This is a Shanahan offense with only 8 RB's. They definately need to draft another RB

[Seahawks21]

Bradford

Suh

McCoy

Okung

Berry

 

The only change I might be able to see is Okung going two.

[wolfer]

While I do agree on seahawk's list I think the Redskins will be the team to trade down or make an effort to accumulate more picks. Lots of holes to fill. If Bradford somehow slipped to 4, I've read that the Redskins will have a major dilemma on their hands. I don't think the same holds true for Clausen. If they keep pick #4 they will use it to protect #5.

[Azazello1313]

yeah, washington trading out of 4 makes a lot of sense now, a way to get back that pick they gave up for mcnabb. if they don't it seems pretty clear it will go bradford, suh/mccoy, mccoy/suh, okung. if any devation from that top 3 happens, I think it makes it that much MORE likely the skins trade out, as there will be more demand for the pick and not much value for the skins.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Azazello1313

[BeeR]

Trading down is a lot easier said than done esp that high. Teams don't want to pay the asking price, to say nothing of a more expensive rookie.

 

I also don't get how Bradford is suddenly way above Clausen because of one spiffy pro day.

[bpwallace49]

I think that WQashington protects that investmnet and takes a top LT

[Skilly]

Trading down is a lot easier said than done esp that high. Teams don't want to pay the asking price, to say nothing of a more expensive rookie.

 

+1

 

Unless one of those teams is ready to take less than the "standard points chart" for compensation, I don't think we will see any of those top 5 teams be able to trade out of their picks. There are good players in this draft, but in my opinion, nobody is worth trading up for....not Bradford, and definately not Clausen.

 

It's an interesting dillema, however. Say a team is willing to part with the #2 overall pick, for say a team's #1 and maybe a third round pick. Definately not equal on the standard points scale, but it serves both teams well. One team gets to trade up to get the player they want, even though they have to pay through the nose, and the other team gets to trade out of the expensive spot but still draft in the first round.

[Seahawks21]

Bradford was MILES ahead of Claussen before the injury. Now that the injury looks fine, he has regained most of the acclaim he had earned. I doubt anybody here remembers, but I have thought Bradford had NFL Superstar written all over him since he was a sophomore. A few college QB's can do it all, but not many make it look as easy as he does. I've been going to UW games for almost 30 years now, and Bradford was the best QB I ever saw on that field, and that includes the likes of Aikman, Palmer, Harrington, Brunell etc. I left with my jaw on the floor. He'll be a top 10 NFL QB by his 2nd or 3rd year, and top 5 for most of his career, barring injury.

 

I can't see Washington trading the 4th pick if Okung is still available. When you have a pretty obvious need for a franchise tackle, and one falls into your lap, you don't pass him up and opt for the 3rd best tackle in the draft, you just don't. You can't pass on that kind of quality. I think the only way Washington doesn't end up taking Okung is if Detroit takes him first. In that scenario you may see them try to trade down, rather than spend tons more money on a DT.

 

I know this is only talking top 5, but what are the chances McCoy, Berry or Okung fall to the Seahawks at 6? And who do the Seahawks take if none of them do? One of the DE's? Bulaga or Davis? Do Bryant or Spiller enter the conversation? Earl Thomas?

Edited April 6, 2010 by Seahawks21

[STL Fan]

Bradford was MILES ahead of Claussen before the injury. Now that the injury looks fine, he has regained most of the acclaim he had earned. I doubt anybody here remembers, but I have thought Bradford had NFL Superstar written all over him since he was a sophomore. A few college QB's can do it all, but not many make it look as easy as he does. I've been going to UW games for almost 30 years now, and Bradford was the best QB I ever saw on that field, and that includes the likes of Aikman, Palmer, Harrington, Brunell etc. I left with my jaw on the floor. He'll be a top 10 NFL QB by his 2nd or 3rd year, and top 5 for most of his career, barring injury.

 

I can't see Washington trading the 4th pick if Okung is still available. When you have a pretty obvious need for a franchise tackle, and one falls into your lap, you don't pass him up and opt for the 3rd best tackle in the draft, you just don't. You can't pass on that kind of quality. I think the only way Washington doesn't end up taking Okung is if Detroit takes him first. In that scenario you may see them try to trade down, rather than spend tons more money on a DT.

 

I know this is only talking top 5, but what are the chances McCoy, Berry or Okung fall to the Seahawks at 6? And who do the Seahawks take if none of them do? One of the DE's? Bulaga or Davis? Do Bryant or Spiller enter the conversation? Earl Thomas?

 

Agree with this. And though it may take a few years (right now the Rams are the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked) eventually we're hoping to see him pick apart the Seahawks a couple times a year. Wouldn't it be great to have a real rivalry again?

[Sobrsis]

I would say as of right now it will go down 1.Bradford, 2,Suh, 3.McCoy, 4.Okung, 5.Bulaga. I really don't think any of those teams will trade out of the top 5. The only one that might trade down for more picks is Washington, but Okung is hands down the most complete tackle in the draft and they really need help on the outside of the line. I think Berry is a better overall player than Okung or Bulaga, but i really don't feel like either team has a pressing need for saftey (maybe KC but not as bad as they need an OT). but i could be completely wrong (which is certainly not out of the question at all knowing my track record lol).

[Avernus]

Are you kidding? This is a Shanahan offense with only 8 RB's. They definately need to draft another RB

 

he only drafts them in rounds 3-6 unless you're Clinton Portis...

 

and you really don't know what the Skins will do until they extend McNabb (or don't)....the obvious choice for them is OT...

[keggerz]

he only drafts them in rounds 3-6 unless you're Clinton Portis...

 

and you really don't know what the Skins will do until they extend McNabb (or don't)....the obvious choice for them is OT...

he will be extended...they didnt pay that price for 1 yr

[Avernus]

he will be extended...they didnt pay that price for 1 yr

 

I concur...but this is also Daniel Snyder...this isn't the 1st time he was in over his head..

 

McNabb said he would play for the Skins, he didn't say he would sign a long term contract...

 

with all that being said....I fully expect McNabb to sign a 5 year deal with the Redskins, but wouldn't be shocked if they were not able to hammer something out...

 

for his sake, he better sign a deal because with that OL on the Skins he could easily get hurt and his asking price would plummet...

[Seahawks21]

Agree with this. And though it may take a few years (right now the Rams are the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked) eventually we're hoping to see him pick apart the Seahawks a couple times a year. Wouldn't it be great to have a real rivalry again?

Yep. It has been too long since I got legitimate joy from chasing Rams fans up and down the concourse screaming "WHERE'S WARNERRRRRR!?!?!"

[muck]

If Berry is there at #5 (and Okung / Suh / McCoy are not), KC may trade down with CLE and still get Bulaga (or Trent Williams or similar).

[keggerz]

If Berry is there at #5 (and Okung / Suh / McCoy are not), KC may trade down with CLE and still get Bulaga (or Trent Williams or similar).

IF they can find a partner that is willing to pay the price (assuming CLEV doesnt pay which I don't think they will if bradford goes 1.1)...

 

My top 5

Edited April 7, 2010 by keggerz

[ABearWithFurniture]

JMHO but I still don't think Bradford is a lock at #1 with the Rams...I think they go with Suh or McCoy with that first pick and then grab a QB like McCoy, LeFevor, or Pike in the 2nd round.

[detlef]

Trading down is a lot easier said than done esp that high. Teams don't want to pay the asking price, to say nothing of a more expensive rookie.

 

I also don't get how Bradford is suddenly way above Clausen because of one spiffy pro day.

 

 

+1

 

Unless one of those teams is ready to take less than the "standard points chart" for compensation, I don't think we will see any of those top 5 teams be able to trade out of their picks. There are good players in this draft, but in my opinion, nobody is worth trading up for....not Bradford, and definately not Clausen.

 

It's an interesting dillema, however. Say a team is willing to part with the #2 overall pick, for say a team's #1 and maybe a third round pick. Definately not equal on the standard points scale, but it serves both teams well. One team gets to trade up to get the player they want, even though they have to pay through the nose, and the other team gets to trade out of the expensive spot but still draft in the first round.

Which, again, is precisely why the draft, as it stands, makes bad teams worse.

 

Take the QB spot. Word is that Bradford's the guy. Well, unless you ask Kiper, or Dilfer, or any number of other guys who analyze this sort of thing for a living. The best you can say is that nobody really knows. But the team picking first "gets" to pick first between two guys that, if history is any indication are each about as likely as the other of succeeding. Only, for that luxury, the Rams pay significantly more than the team getting sloppy seconds. Same with every other position on the board. This not only affects their bottom line, but also their ability to address other positions and become competitive. And this is why it's so hard to trade down. Were I a GM, I wouldn't trade up even if there were no other picks involved.

 

Honestly, I have yet to see why just doing away with it entirely would be any worse. The salary cap still exists so salaries wouldn't go up any higher. Only each team wouldn't be put under enormous pressure to pay a kid what he wants because they wouldn't be forced to sign him or nobody. Both the current system where the market slots players and a rookie salary structure like the NBA where there's a set and fixed system are completely arbitrary. It does not take into account any drop-offs in talent.

 

Ironically, the draft screws both sides. It screws the players because they have no choice in where they're going to work and it screws the teams because your arms are tied. Think about it, the team nearly always caves in the end because not signing a guy is simply not an option. Especially if you suck and therefor were picking near the top.

 

Seriously. How would just ditching the system entirely be any worse?

[Seahawks21]

Giving the worst team their pick of every college player out there is the fairest way to things. Hold their scouts accountable.

 

If they didn't do it this way, the Saints and Indy could easily get two of the most prominent players in the draft. How fair is that?

 

Also, if a player didn't HAVE to go to Seattle, they wouldn't. Seattle would have to pay twice as much for a player of the same caliber that say a NY team would have to pay. Seattle would essentially become the Kansas City Royals.

 

Blame the salary cap structure and blame the scouts that can't hit on players, but the system itself is as fair as it can be.

[Savage Beatings]

I would love to see the team with the #1 overall pick trade back to the #2 or #3 spot for absolutely no compensation (just because they don't want to pay out the #1 overall contract).

[detlef]

Giving the worst team their pick of every college player out there is the fairest way to things. Hold their scouts accountable.

 

If they didn't do it this way, the Saints and Indy could easily get two of the most prominent players in the draft. How fair is that?

 

Also, if a player didn't HAVE to go to Seattle, they wouldn't. Seattle would have to pay twice as much for a player of the same caliber that say a NY team would have to pay. Seattle would essentially become the Kansas City Royals.

 

Blame the salary cap structure and blame the scouts that can't hit on players, but the system itself is as fair as it can be.

It's not as easy as blaming it on scouting. I'm not talking about massive screw ups in scouting like, say, Jamarcus Russel. I'm talking about the fact that, more often than not, the difference in talent levels between the upper tier is so slight and hard to predict, that the price one has to pay to get first pick at them is simply not worth it. Last year there were 5 highly touted OTs coming out. If you looked at 5 lists, you'd get 5 guys ranked as the best one. These are all experts who do this for a living, mind you. Guys who have watched hours and hours of tape. Now, maybe you have a preference but it might simply come down to a matter of, "you have to pick one". So if you look at the situation logically, is getting the "5th best" among guys who are a virtual dead heat really such a bad thing if he costs you half as much?

 

We always do our top 5 lists of women we get a free pass with. Well, let's say they're all standing right there in front of you. All of them ready to go. Only, it's gonna cost you a ton of money if you want to actually pick among those 5. I don't know about you, but since I'm pretty freaking stoked to get any of them, I'll roll the dice in terms of which one I get and save the cash.

 

Also, you realize that you just undid your NO and Indy argument with the very next sentence. NO and Indy aren't NY, Boston, Chicago, etc. They're smaller markets in the big picture. And if everyone wants to go to NY rather than Seattle, why don't they? There is, after all free agency. Do we have some evidence to support that guys are willing to take less money to go there? Not really. What we have is evidence that guys will go wherever is willing to give them the most money.

 

I understand that the intention of the system is to promote parity and give the bad teams a chance. However, this is not the first time when something fails to achieve it's intended goal.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I would love to see the team with the #1 overall pick trade back to the #2 or #3 spot for absolutely no compensation (just because they don't want to pay out the #1 overall contract).

 

You mean like the Vikings slipping from 7th to 9th?

[Savage Beatings]

You mean like the Vikings slipping from 7th to 9th?