My Mock Draft at "Mocking The Draft"
A simple, two-round mock draft I came up with over at Mocking the Draft. I have the Patriots picking Sergio Kindle, Rodger Saffold, Mardy Gilyard, and Corey Wootton, in that particular order. Criticisms welcome.
almost 2 years ago
R_Adragna
15 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
like it
but i dont want kindle…rather take ordick
like the OT pick and the WR pick…but i still wonder if wotton can play 3-4 DE…he played 4-3DE but never as a 4-3DT
Non Sibi Sed Patriae.
I love my ZX-6r Kawasaki.....159 mph is my top speed..will top that this spring
I bleed Scarlet and Grey...A Buckeye for Life
(formerly mathew.40)
Wootton has the frame and versatility. He could be fine as such in the 3-4.
The 2010 New York Mets: Maybe it's the Phillies' turn to have 95% of its roster on the DL
The 2009 New England Patriots: At least we got our division title back
The 2009-10 New Jersey Devils: Allergic to second periods
Kindle's scouting report had some pretty iffy negatives included
Something along the lines of “he’s only a speed rusher, his OLB coverage abilities aren’t proven, he’s inflexible in the lower body” and that means any non-run-around-the-outside pass-rushing moves aren’t on, and I haven’t heard anyone say “man, this kid is really smart, he’ll pick up playbooks easily”… They haven’t been anywhere near as critical of guys like Graham as they have of Kindle. Only Ricky Sapp has taken the same kind of pounding, but he was projected as a likely second-rounder anyway.
Kindle’s still a good player, don’t get me wrong, but he might actually slide right out of the first round… and maybe as far as the 40s. If you could tell me that you can get Odrick at 22 AND Kindle (or Graham, for that matter) with one of the second-rounders, I’d be thrilled.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
Graham
I have some sort of feeling Graham will project in mid-first, so getting Graham is a long-shot.
I could be open about getting Odrick. However, getting Odrick AND Kindle at the same time seems to be a long-shot. I would love it to be possible. The certainty of it ranges from unknown to unlikely.
The 2010 New York Mets: Maybe it's the Phillies' turn to have 95% of its roster on the DL
The 2009 New England Patriots: At least we got our division title back
The 2009-10 New Jersey Devils: Allergic to second periods
Which is why I'd be thrilled
but there are a number of guys of either OLBs or tweener OLB/DEs who might slip around the first and second rounds; Norwood is another who seems like Graham, but without the hype. Odrick doesn’t have that depth of similar guys below him.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Mar 14, 2010 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Pitta can be gotten in 3rd or 4th round.
Either we trade up to get him or stand pat in the 4th. Either way, I’d like to nab Pitta in that one.
The 2010 New York Mets: Maybe it's the Phillies' turn to have 95% of its roster on the DL
The 2009 New England Patriots: At least we got our division title back
The 2009-10 New Jersey Devils: Allergic to second periods
Pitta doesn't look like he's ready to start to me
We need a starter now, not in a year or two.
The first and second-round TEs all seem like pass-catchers > blockers
Considering Hoodie got rid of David Thomas, who’d shown talent, because he wasn’t a great blocker, I’m not sure Belichick will instantly turn around and draft a 2nd rounder with the same skillbase (or lack thereof).
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Mar 14, 2010 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions
That doesn't really matter much now, does it?
If we still had David Thomas, would Hoodie release him or would he be the starter?
We have to use one of the four picks we have in the first two rounds because we need a starter now, there aren’t any available in free agency, and we can’t count on any being available after the draft. There are three TEs in the draft who are capable of starting, and none will be around by the time we get to pick again. We either need to pick one of them in the second round or make a trade, which would likely involve one of those picks anyway.
Depends how you're going to use them, though...
There are only 2 or 3 guys in the draft who are capable of starting as pass-catching TEs, yes. But that’s assuming the Pats are actually going to throw to them in the first place. If they’re wanting a guy who can pump out Chris Baker- or Ben Watson-like stats – blocking for 60% of his snaps, only getting a couple of hundred yards receiving, maybe a TD or two – then there’s a few of them in the lower rounds.
If it came down to replicating the production of Baker/Watson rather than finding outright replacements for them on the roster, I’d rather snag a few lower round draftees – say, a blocking TE and a big possession WR or two – than use a second-rounder on a guy who is going to be neglected in the passing game. The other bonus is that by spreading that production over several guys, you reduce the risk of injury messing up your entire TE production – Ben Watson broke an ACL in his first game of his rookie season, after all. I’m just not sure decent blocking + 500 yards + 5 TDs really justifies a second rounder when you might be able to get that same production from a few 5th, 6th and 7th rounders (and the Pats have plenty of those picks this year, too). Especially when the guys who are available in the second round aren’t great blockers – you’d need to pick up a blocking TE or two in the lower rounds anyway. Might as well keep the 2nd and pick up a handful of TEs and WRs low down.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Mar 15, 2010 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions
And if that was what the Pats planned to do, they'd never have cut Baker and they would have at least made an offer to Watson
But they did cut Baker and they didn’t make an offer to Watson.
QED — that’s not their plan. So unless they expect to run a four receiver set all year, they need someone who can start right now and can catch the ball. And they’re not going to get someone like that without using one of those first four draft picks.
Except Baker (and even Watson) were both proven decent pass-catchers
I saw nothing in the 2009 season to suggest that Baker would have struggled if he had been targeted with more passes – he caught almost everything that went his way, and did it fairly well. He was also signed long-term and provided good value as a blocker. So it makes no sense to cut him if you intended to throw to your TEs more often than you did in 2009 – the guy was capable of catching and he knew the routes more than any 2010 rookie would. And if you wanted to draft a 2010 2nd round rookie, it makes even more sense to keep Baker – Baker could take all the blocking reps while the rookie gets up to speed, and then provide solid veteran backup for the rookie once the new guy gets adjusted.
The way I see it, there’s two options. The Pats are either investing more in the position and getting an all-out pass-catcher, or they’re downsizing and starting anew with (cheap!) low-round block-first guys. Given the Pats have re-signed Faulk, they have Welker and Edelman still on the books, and haven’t gone after any FBs (like Hillis, who was just traded by Denver), that suggests to me two things:
(a) that Faulk, Welker, Edelman and Morris are going to get the short, underneath route receptions, and;
(b) that TEs are going to do the blocking again, not fullbacks (since the Pats still haven’t got any).
Add in the final kicker – that the free agents the Pats have looked at thus far have been block-first, not-so-athletic veteran guys – and I sense the Pats are looking for more of the same from the TE position.
It all hinges on what you read into the cutting of Baker. Blocking TEs are easier to replace, so it suggests to me that they’re wanting to get cheaper, younger blocking guys in at TE rather than hybrid, expensive early-draft all-rounder TEs like Baker or Watson.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Mar 15, 2010 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
What "except"?
Baker is a good blocker who the Pats never gave a chance to be a receiver. If you’re looking for a blocking TE, you don’t cut a good blocker who did a good job blocking for you but who you never gave a chance to be a receiver. You certainly don’t do that when you have no one else signed, you don’t do it when the guy has proven to be a decent receiver in the past, and you especially don’t do it when your most prolific receiver is out for the start of the season and you have to replace his productivity — and like it or not, you’d be a fool to count on Edelman to pick up all the slack himself, or even some combination of Edelman, Tate, and whatever new receivers the Pats still have on the roster when the season begins. And you’d have to be an even bigger fool to assume that whatever late-round rookie you pick up for cheap is going to be as good a blocker as Baker, who didn’t cost that much in the first place with a $2M base for 2010. That means there’s only one reason you do cut Baker: if you’re planning on upgrading.
So where’s the upgrade? It’s not available in free agency, and it’s not available in the draft unless you pick Gresham, Gronkowski, or Hernandez. So you have to draft one of them or make a trade.
All you’re doing is proving my point — one of those first four picks is going to be invested in a starting TE, whether by trade or by draft.
And you don't cut a decent receiver who never got the chance because you never threw to him...
It doesn’t really fit either way – that you cut a blocking-capable TE when you want blockers, or you cut a receiving-capable TE when you want receivers.
Given that, I figure it’s more likely a cost issue – you can pick up ‘solely’ blocking TEs for very low draft picks and/or cash. I’m not sure cutting Baker is a sure sign that they want a receiving TE when Baker was capable of being that guy and he was signed long-term and he would automatically have a head-start for picking up the playbook and he’s a proven NFL commodity and he’s a good blocker. So my thought on it was either he was a completely toxic locker-room influence (and that seems unlikely; Ben Watson was signing the guy’s praises in an interview published today), or they figure they can do the same job, cheaper. That sounds very Pats-like – wanting to get the same production from cheaper guys, so I’m going with that as the most likely answer.
It doesn’t seem very Pats-like to go out on a limb and assume a second-round TE can give all the production that Baker and Watson couldn’t – if anything, the Pats have always had triple redundancy in their TE draft picks. They took Graham when they already had Fauria on the roster and had taken TEs in the 4th and 6th rounds of the previous draft. They took Watson when they already had Graham and Fauria. They took David Thomas and Garrett Mills when they already had Watson. They picked up Alex Smith and Baker when they already had Watson and David Thomas. In other words, they’ve always wanted multiple, deep and talented TEs, just in case… it seems completely anathema to everything the Pats do to clean out the cadre and invest everything in a second-round rookie all of a sudden. For that reason, I’m thinking it’s a downscaling, not an upscaling.
Token southern hemisphere guy - 14,688km from Foxboro. That's 9128 miles, for you heathens.
by Comedic.Sans on Mar 16, 2010 6:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Media requests: Please email patspulpit at gmail.com
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
