PDA

View Full Version : Mayock: worst draft in recent memory/twitter


titan
04-25-2009, 09:44 AM
Not the best year to have multiple picks like the Broncos? Been watching the draft pre-shows on ESPN and NFL Network. NFLN's Mayock says:

this is the worst draft in recent memory. "Not even close"

If you are on twitter or want to sign up frequent updates from:

www.twitter.com/richeisen (nfl network)

www.twitter.com/Mort2u (espn's mort)

www.twitter.com/SI_PeterKing (sports illustrated's peter king)

Kaylore
04-25-2009, 09:47 AM
Yeah someone made a sarcastic comment when I said next years' class would be better. Apparently it will be a lot better.

tnedator
04-25-2009, 09:48 AM
Eisen's was some funny stuff. Especially faulk wanting Imo's pizza fedexed to NY. Anyone that's been to St. Louis knows that **** sucks. lol

tnedator
04-25-2009, 09:49 AM
Yeah someone made a sarcastic comment when I said next years' class would be better. Apparently it will be a lot better.

Here's hoping to the bears getting 2-3 wins.

Dexter
04-25-2009, 10:00 AM
I guess I don't see how this years is that bad.

The Safety position at the top of the draft seems weak but there should be value in the 2nd round and on. DT/NT seems to significantly decrease after raji comes off the board.

The QB and Guard positions overall are pretty bad. So maybe 4 somewhat poor positions.

I actually think this RB class will be better than last years, the offensive tackle class has potential to be just as good as last years. Wide receivers, Centers, DE/OLBs, CBs seem pretty deep.


Next years draft defensively seems to be ballin' though :D

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2009, 10:02 AM
Well thank goodness we have extra picks then. ::)

Popps
04-25-2009, 10:05 AM
Again, I think this is a year you concentrate on filling your team out with quality players, not so much hitting home runs.

Harvitz81
04-25-2009, 10:08 AM
Again, I think this is a year you concentrate on filling your team out with quality players, not so much hitting home runs.

I agree, draft solid football players and don't reach/draft on potential.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-25-2009, 10:13 AM
This whole concept of worst draft ever is SO STUPID considering this is such an inexact science. I'll start believing its a "weak draft" when all first round picks become studs and there are no such thing as 6th round sleepers, because those guys will have been correctly evaluated and drafted higher. How can these people claim its a weak draft when they NEVER KNOW for sure

NFLBRONCO
04-25-2009, 10:15 AM
Explain to me why trading down to add a pick this year and next is horrible idea with this being a weak draft class. So we can add more depth to more weak areas and add final pieces with higher quality next year. I just hope we land solid players.

cmhargrove
04-25-2009, 10:17 AM
The good thing is, we have so many needs we can hardly go wrong.

Rohirrim
04-25-2009, 10:18 AM
If you pick the right guys it's a great draft. If you don't, it sucks (just to belabor the obvious). There are good players in this draft. Maybe not as many as in past drafts, but they are there. Time for all those scouts and FO guys to earn their paychecks.

footstepsfrom#27
04-25-2009, 10:23 AM
This whole concept of worst draft ever is SO STUPID considering this is such an inexact science. I'll start believing its a "weak draft" when all first round picks become studs and there are no such thing as 6th round sleepers, because those guys will have been correctly evaluated and drafted higher. How can these people claim its a weak draft when they NEVER KNOW for sure
The same reason they make qualitative judgements to begin with. There's nothing illegitimate about evaluating players. Obviously it's not an exact science but how else do you make decisions?

bombquixote
04-25-2009, 10:23 AM
Explain to me why trading down to add a pick this year and next is horrible idea with this being a weak draft class. So we can fill weak areas and add final pieces with higher quality next year. I just hope we land solid players.

Agreed. Add workers and depth this year, go for stars next year.

GeniusatWork
04-25-2009, 10:26 AM
Again, I think this is a year you concentrate on filling your team out with quality players, not so much hitting home runs.

Trade down from the first round. Someone will offer a lot for 12. Or 18. trade down. That will mean a very young team with all the rookies. But that might be the best thing.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-25-2009, 10:26 AM
The same reason they make qualitative judgements to begin with. There's nothing illegitimate about evaluating players. Obviously it's not an exact science but how else do you make decisions?

if you admit that its not an exact science, why are you taking their assumptions as truth!!! I didnt say you couldnt make educated guesses, its just silly to claim its a "weak draft" when there's no evidence of such because most of these players are crapshoots anyway.

BMarsh615
04-25-2009, 10:27 AM
I think the top 10 is pretty weak, but after that is it pretty decent imo. Especially if you need linebackers.

TheDave
04-25-2009, 10:27 AM
This draft has plenty of talent... especially through the first 4 rounds.

This would be a ****ty year to have a top 7 pick... I'ts a good year to have 5 of the 1st 84.

NASurfer
04-25-2009, 10:27 AM
This whole concept of worst draft ever is SO STUPID considering this is such an inexact science. I'll start believing its a "weak draft" when all first round picks become studs and there are no such thing as 6th round sleepers, because those guys will have been correctly evaluated and drafted higher. How can these people claim its a weak draft when they NEVER KNOW for sure
I see what you're saying but remember people were saying the same thing the year Alex Smith went #1 overall. Some years it's just bad luck to be picking so high and doling out these ridiculous rookie contracts. Sometimes people get these projections right too.

If it's weak then it's the GMs job to identify that and adjust accordingly (trading down if possible and stockpiling/ turning these picks into next years lot).

DenverBrit
04-25-2009, 10:31 AM
This draft has plenty of talent... especially through the first 4 rounds.

This would be a ****ty year to have a top 7 pick... I'ts a good year to have 5 of the 1st 84.

:thumbsup:

GeniusatWork
04-25-2009, 11:09 AM
I think the top 10 is pretty weak, but after that is it pretty decent imo. Especially if you need linebackers.

Some of the top LB's/DE's that can fit the 3-4 are risky all through the first round. Denver might be best to trade down out of one the firsts, try for Malcolm Jenkins in the first, get the project 3-4 LB's/DE's/NT's later. Maybe grab the Moreno kid in the first.

The thing is if they trade down and add more rookies, that's a lot of rookies. It's hard to win this year with a lot of rookies. They did get some good vets for the D in free agents, so maybe trading down from the first once for more picks won't hurt too much this year, and might be better in the long run.

I bet Denver will get some good offers for #12. It might be best to take the offer and add a 2 this year and a 2 next year.

Drek
04-25-2009, 11:14 AM
Again, I think this is a year you concentrate on filling your team out with quality players, not so much hitting home runs.

Yep. We've got a lot of guys already on the roster that we're trying out at various positions (DJ, Dumervil, Thomas, Powell, Larsen, Woodyard, Moss, Crowder, etc..)

It'll be very hard to grade those players accurately if we don't fill in some solid role players around them. That is one of the benefits of having Fields, Davis, and the starting four secondary we now have. They're all at least solid at their roles. If we add a few more solid contributors in this draft we get a better idea what we've actually got and where we need to go.

I still like this draft's depth of talent from about 15 to 85 or so. It just really lacks many top level talents (Only Curry would be a top 5 pick in last year's class, and probably the year before that). It also doesn't boast the late round depth we've seen from several recent drafts (most notably '08 and '06, which had some big underclassmen waves that propped them up).

My personal preference would be to take a safe starter type like Jackson or Cushing at #12, then trade #18 for a 2010 first and an additional 2nd rounder this year. Use both seconds and both thirds on BPA with a slight bias towards the defensive front seven and look to next year as our opportunity to bring in elite playmakers, once we've identified our needs more clearly.

broncosteven
04-25-2009, 11:14 AM
Here's hoping to the bears getting 2-3 wins.

Here is hoping that we get more than 2-3 wins!

TheChamp24
04-25-2009, 11:28 AM
I think this draft isn't strong in terms of potential star players, but adequate guys who can get the job done if that makes sense.
A ton of guys I see, are solid guys but don't seem that special to me.

lex
04-25-2009, 11:36 AM
Yep. We've got a lot of guys already on the roster that we're trying out at various positions (DJ, Dumervil, Thomas, Powell, Larsen, Woodyard, Moss, Crowder, etc..)

It'll be very hard to grade those players accurately if we don't fill in some solid role players around them. That is one of the benefits of having Fields, Davis, and the starting four secondary we now have. They're all at least solid at their roles. If we add a few more solid contributors in this draft we get a better idea what we've actually got and where we need to go.

I still like this draft's depth of talent from about 15 to 85 or so. It just really lacks many top level talents (Only Curry would be a top 5 pick in last year's class, and probably the year before that). It also doesn't boast the late round depth we've seen from several recent drafts (most notably '08 and '06, which had some big underclassmen waves that propped them up).

My personal preference would be to take a safe starter type like Jackson or Cushing at #12, then trade #18 for a 2010 first and an additional 2nd rounder this year. Use both seconds and both thirds on BPA with a slight bias towards the defensive front seven and look to next year as our opportunity to bring in elite playmakers, once we've identified our needs more clearly.

Its weird. If you look at the rags, they typically give a high grade to the pass rushing OLBs/ 4-3 DEs. But the problem is that so many NFL teams are moving to 3-4s while most college programs run a 4-3,...so theres more mystery at what allegedly is one of the stronger positions.

The fact that the top QBs are juniors also invites some scrutiny.

And the best player in the draft, according to most, Aaron Curry, is a LB but not necessarily a pass rushing LB. Charlie Casserly calls him the best LB he's scouted in the past 10 years but again, with so many teams switching to 3-4s, there is a greater need on pass rushing OLBs and NTs. Currys pass rushing is a little bit of a mystery.

The lack of NTs also makes it seem worse.

Its also another good year for tackles but after last year and the run on tackles, it seems like it may be kind of devalued.

fido
04-25-2009, 11:55 AM
My personal preference would be to take a safe starter type like Jackson or Cushing at #12, then trade #18 for a 2010 first and an additional 2nd rounder this year. Use both seconds and both thirds on BPA with a slight bias towards the defensive front seven and look to next year as our opportunity to bring in elite playmakers, once we've identified our needs more clearly.

I agree with this....this would also be a great way to make the cutler trade pay more in dividends than just what we got strait up....a good way to go imo.