Thread: Two Mock Drafts(After the Jared Allen Trade)

Two of the mock draft sites I look at the most, very interesting

http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2008.php
I like what the Vikes do in this one, I would be very happy with this draft

2nd Round- Oniel Cousins, OT, UTEP
4th Round- Thomas DeCoud, FS, California
5th Round- Kevin O'Connell, QB, San Diego State
6th Round- Frank Morton, DT, Tulane
6th Round- Vince Hall, ILB, Virginia Tech
7th Round- Not yet posted



http://www.thefootballexpert.com/coxmockdraft7.html
This one isnt bad, I like some of the picks

2nd Round- OT Anthony Collins (Kansas)
4th Round- TE Brad Cottam (Tennessee)
5th Round- QB Erik Ainge (Tennessee)
6th Round- WR Paul Hubbard (Wisconsin)
6th Round- SS Jamie Silva (Boston College)
7th Round- RB Chad Simpson (Morgan State)

"dcboardr41" wrote:

Two of the mock draft sites I look at the most, very interesting

http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2008.php
I like what the Vikes do in this one, I would be very happy with this draft

2nd Round- Oniel Cousins, OT, UTEP
4th Round- Thomas DeCoud, FS, California
5th Round- Kevin O'Connell, QB, San Diego State
6th Round- Frank Morton, DT, Tulane
6th Round- Vince Hall, ILB, Virginia Tech
7th Round- Not yet posted



http://www.thefootballexpert.com/coxmockdraft7.html
This one isnt bad, I like some of the picks

2nd Round- OT Anthony Collins (Kansas)
4th Round- TE Brad Cottam (Tennessee)
5th Round- QB Erik Ainge (Tennessee)
6th Round- WR Paul Hubbard (Wisconsin)
6th Round- SS Jamie Silva (Boston College)
7th Round- RB Chad Simpson (Morgan State)

The paper I work for just did a feature on Chad Simpson and how badly he hopes to hear his name called this week. He is a very hard worker and seems to be a good kid. He would maybe be able to work himself into the third or fourth back spot after some work. May just be a practice squad guy though.

Jamie Silva is flat out amazing on special teams..

I like Collins more than Cousins too.. However im not diggiin the U TENN love..

Dont count out Reggie Smith in the second round either.

The first one looks better than the second if for no other reason than they are wasting a pick at TE but I could/would live with it.

Truth be told, if in fact they draft
BPA and not for need we might be all suprised with who they draft this year as they are drafting for depth only and IMHO don't need to worry about any instant starters for the first time in this regime.

Key Note:
For all you yutz's who are gonna come with the same old lame "We Need a C and a OT".
I don't see any rookie coming in that is drafted this year and beating out Chase Johnson or Dan Mozes for the right to start.
Disagree with me all you want, but your not gonna convince me.
;D

So with that said......and one more time for possible penetration.....Spielman + 2008 + BPA = Drafting for depth.
Not starters.
;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

The first one looks better than the second if for no other reason than they are wasting a pick at TE but I could/would live with it.

Truth be told, if in fact they draft
BPA and not for need we might be all suprised with who they draft this year as they are drafting for depth only and IMHO don't need to worry about any instant starters for the first time in this regime.

Key Note:
For all you yutz's who are gonna come with the same old lame "We Need a C and a OT".
I don't see any rookie coming in that is drafted this year and beating out Chase Johnson or Dan Mozes for the right to start.
Disagree with me all you want, but your not gonna convince me.
;D

So with that said......and one more time for possible penetration.....Spielman + 2008 + BPA = Drafting for depth.
Not starters.
;D

I hate that BPA crap, nothing personal.
While it's true, I believe we are drafting entirely for depth this year, I believe we are thinner at depth in certain areas.
It's not going to be BPA available, it's going to be Best OT available, Best DT available, Best Safety available, etc... seriously, if the BPA is a MLB, DE, or DB, do you see us drafting him?
I don't... I'd be pissed if we did...

Btw, I like the first draft.
That fits my views for needs in depth more closely then the second.
I have no idea who any of those players are though, I'm simply going by position.

I like both of them.
Looking at OT first.
Good depth players later.
The only one I don't see is the TE.
I really like our depth there, and we're already got one more than we usually carry on the active roster.

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

The first one looks better than the second if for no other reason than they are wasting a pick at TE but I could/would live with it.

Truth be told, if in fact they draft
BPA and not for need we might be all suprised with who they draft this year as they are drafting for depth only and IMHO don't need to worry about any instant starters for the first time in this regime.

Key Note:
For all you yutz's who are gonna come with the same old lame "We Need a C and a OT".
I don't see any rookie coming in that is drafted this year and beating out Chase Johnson or Dan Mozes for the right to start.
Disagree with me all you want, but your not gonna convince me.

;D

So with that said......and one more time for possible penetration.....Spielman + 2008 + BPA = Drafting for depth.
Not starters.

;D

I hate that BPA crap, nothing personal.
While it's true, I believe we are drafting entirely for depth this year, I believe we are thinner at depth in certain areas.
It's not going to be BPA available, it's going to be Best OT available, Best DT available, Best Safety available, etc... seriously, if the BPA is a MLB, DE, or DB, do you see us drafting him?
I don't... I'd be pissed if we did...

Btw, I like the first draft.
That fits my views for needs in depth more closely then the second.
I have no idea who any of those players are though, I'm simply going by position.

BPA usually really equates to about 5 guys in that area.
At least that is the way I do it.
I look at those 5 guys and see if any fit a need.
If I do they go in the pick.
If not I look to see if there are any close.
Depending on how far down they are on the value board will determine if I use them.

Most of the time a guy is there in your 5 guy area.
If not then I look at the team to see if they have an area of old vets that they might need a guy to replace someone next year or so.
Then he gets plugged in.

Again, usually don't have to go past those 5 guys to select BPA.

"Marrdro" wrote:

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

The first one looks better than the second if for no other reason than they are wasting a pick at TE but I could/would live with it.

Truth be told, if in fact they draft
BPA and not for need we might be all suprised with who they draft this year as they are drafting for depth only and IMHO don't need to worry about any instant starters for the first time in this regime.

Key Note:
For all you yutz's who are gonna come with the same old lame "We Need a C and a OT".
I don't see any rookie coming in that is drafted this year and beating out Chase Johnson or Dan Mozes for the right to start.
Disagree with me all you want, but your not gonna convince me.
;D

So with that said......and one more time for possible penetration.....Spielman + 2008 + BPA = Drafting for depth.
Not starters.
;D

I hate that BPA crap, nothing personal.
While it's true, I believe we are drafting entirely for depth this year, I believe we are thinner at depth in certain areas.
It's not going to be BPA available, it's going to be Best OT available, Best DT available, Best Safety available, etc... seriously, if the BPA is a MLB, DE, or DB, do you see us drafting him?
I don't... I'd be pissed if we did...

Btw, I like the first draft.
That fits my views for needs in depth more closely then the second.
I have no idea who any of those players are though, I'm simply going by position.

BPA usually really equates to about 5 guys in that area.
At least that is the way I do it.
I look at those 5 guys and see if any fit a need.
If I do they go in the pick.
If not I look to see if there are any close.
Depending on how far down they are on the value board will determine if I use them.

Most of the time a guy is there in your 5 guy area.
If not then I look at the team to see if they have an area of old vets that they might need a guy to replace someone next year or so.
Then he gets plugged in.

Again, usually don't have to go past those 5 guys to select BPA.

It's because many teams would rather get a guy they really want and have options, than force a pick they don't even want and end up with a bust that never helps the team anyways.

"Schutz" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

The first one looks better than the second if for no other reason than they are wasting a pick at TE but I could/would live with it.

Truth be told, if in fact they draft
BPA and not for need we might be all suprised with who they draft this year as they are drafting for depth only and IMHO don't need to worry about any instant starters for the first time in this regime.

Key Note:
For all you yutz's who are gonna come with the same old lame "We Need a C and a OT".
I don't see any rookie coming in that is drafted this year and beating out Chase Johnson or Dan Mozes for the right to start.
Disagree with me all you want, but your not gonna convince me.

;D

So with that said......and one more time for possible penetration.....Spielman + 2008 + BPA = Drafting for depth.
Not starters.

;D

I hate that BPA crap, nothing personal.
While it's true, I believe we are drafting entirely for depth this year, I believe we are thinner at depth in certain areas.
It's not going to be BPA available, it's going to be Best OT available, Best DT available, Best Safety available, etc... seriously, if the BPA is a MLB, DE, or DB, do you see us drafting him?
I don't... I'd be pissed if we did...

Btw, I like the first draft.
That fits my views for needs in depth more closely then the second.
I have no idea who any of those players are though, I'm simply going by position.

BPA usually really equates to about 5 guys in that area.
At least that is the way I do it.
I look at those 5 guys and see if any fit a need.
If I do they go in the pick.
If not I look to see if there are any close.
Depending on how far down they are on the value board will determine if I use them.

Most of the time a guy is there in your 5 guy area.
If not then I look at the team to see if they have an area of old vets that they might need a guy to replace someone next year or so.
Then he gets plugged in.

Again, usually don't have to go past those 5 guys to select BPA.

It's because many teams would rather get a guy they really want and have options, than force a pick they don't even want and end up with a bust that never helps the team anyways.

Then throw in the fact that it is so easy to move up and down the board to get a guy you want if you think another team is targeting him.

Makes no sense not to get the guy you want and him be the BPA at the same time if your value board is accurate.
;D

"Marrdro" wrote:

"Schutz" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

"BleedinPandG" wrote:

"Marrdro" wrote:

The first one looks better than the second if for no other reason than they are wasting a pick at TE but I could/would live with it.

Truth be told, if in fact they draft
BPA and not for need we might be all suprised with who they draft this year as they are drafting for depth only and IMHO don't need to worry about any instant starters for the first time in this regime.

Key Note:
For all you yutz's who are gonna come with the same old lame "We Need a C and a OT".
I don't see any rookie coming in that is drafted this year and beating out Chase Johnson or Dan Mozes for the right to start.
Disagree with me all you want, but your not gonna convince me.

;D

So with that said......and one more time for possible penetration.....Spielman + 2008 + BPA = Drafting for depth.
Not starters.

;D

I hate that BPA crap, nothing personal.
While it's true, I believe we are drafting entirely for depth this year, I believe we are thinner at depth in certain areas.
It's not going to be BPA available, it's going to be Best OT available, Best DT available, Best Safety available, etc... seriously, if the BPA is a MLB, DE, or DB, do you see us drafting him?
I don't... I'd be pissed if we did...

Btw, I like the first draft.
That fits my views for needs in depth more closely then the second.
I have no idea who any of those players are though, I'm simply going by position.

BPA usually really equates to about 5 guys in that area.
At least that is the way I do it.
I look at those 5 guys and see if any fit a need.
If I do they go in the pick.
If not I look to see if there are any close.
Depending on how far down they are on the value board will determine if I use them.

Most of the time a guy is there in your 5 guy area.
If not then I look at the team to see if they have an area of old vets that they might need a guy to replace someone next year or so.
Then he gets plugged in.

Again, usually don't have to go past those 5 guys to select BPA.

It's because many teams would rather get a guy they really want and have options, than force a pick they don't even want and end up with a bust that never helps the team anyways.

Then throw in the fact that it is so easy to move up and down the board to get a guy you want if you think another team is targeting him.

Makes no sense not to get the guy you want and him be the BPA at the same time if your value board is accurate.

;D

If a team doesn't mainly focus on BPAs when they come available, they are only looking short term.
Over the long haul, taking BPA year after year pays off in the long run.
Just look at how the better franchises draft over the course of several years...they take sure bets over those players with "upside"...ultimately building a team that has hard working, solid players that are eventually complimented by one or two true stars that can take the team to the playoffs and ultimately to a championship.
To keep taking just players that "might" be superstars year after year is a recipe for disaster.