FoxSports First round mock

[mstrahan22_1/2]

Was it 2 years ago? I guess it was, but Jackson really started coming around this year--or at least enough for me to notice.

 

I hope my post didn't read like I was disparaging Faulk--he had a great career. I was disagreeing that the Rams had a plan in place to replace him. And clearly he was well into his decline before the Ram's drafting of Jackson bore fruit.

well here's a better example, larry johnson. he was a good talent and the cheifs got him for a bargain, late in the first. they looked foolish initially, but it's looking like a pretty good idea now, no?

 

i'm not saying this would pay off immediately, tiki barber probably does have atleast one year left in him. we're just not solid enough at the running back position to not consider drafting a backup.

[fishgutmartyr]

well here's a better example, larry johnson. he was a good talent and the cheifs got him for a bargain, late in the first. they looked foolish initially, but it's looking like a pretty good idea now, no?

 

i'm not saying this would pay off immediately, tiki barber probably does have atleast one year left in him. we're just not solid enough at the running back position to not consider drafting a backup.

 

I'm not going to argue about Larry Johnson's ability, obviously he's talented. He's also running behind one of the best offensive lines in the league. Where Johnson's ability stops, and the O-line's ability starts, I have no idea--but KC did do a good job transitioning from Priest Holmes by getting a guy capable of taking advantage of their line.

 

---Warning: even more off-topic than our discussion has already been ---

I would, given the choice, have a great O-line than a great RB. Why? An average RB, or RB tandem, will look good behind a great O-line. You need an exceptional RB to look good behind a mediocre/bad O-line. If Luke "Twitchy" Petitgout could learn to start when everyone else does, we have a good line.

-------------------------------------

 

If Barber were to (god forbid!) go down, would it hurt our running game? Of course, he's one of the best in the game right now, that's why he's 40% of our offense, and that's why he gets his money. But while there would be a significant dropoff, I don't think our running game would become useless. It will still get the job done, but not to such a spectacular degree. This is where you and I disagree.

 

Unfortunately, as things stand today, we are in pretty bad shape when it comes to our defense. We still don't have a starter or a backup for WLB, unless we start talking about Emmons, and I don't think too many people here want that. We've done pretty well with a DT rotation, but now we're down two DTs. We have a CB that may or may not see the field again. And we have 6 picks.

 

Maybe Duckett and Seawright are good enough in rotation, and we just need a backup. Maybe Arrington does sign, and plays at a level that helps. Maybe our secondary is set as it currently stands. Maybe not.

 

But we're also drafting late in each round, so there's no garrentee that a player in these positions is going to be available, or that he's going to pan out. So I don't feel comfortable drafting just one player in these positions, particularly as things stand now.

 

So, this is why, in this particular draft, in this particular scenario, I would trade down for more picks. Particularly if we could do so by keeping in the first round, and getting a second.

[gateb]

well here's a better example, larry johnson. he was a good talent and the cheifs got him for a bargain, late in the first. they looked foolish initially, but it's looking like a pretty good idea now, no?

 

i'm not saying this would pay off immediately, tiki barber probably does have atleast one year left in him. we're just not solid enough at the running back position to not consider drafting a backup.

That's the only thing that would make me somewhat optimistic about this pick. But if this was the situation I still would like to trade down and get some more picks from a team that would like Deangelo as their RB, possibly the Colts.

[fishgutmartyr]

well here's a better example, larry johnson. he was a good talent and the cheifs got him for a bargain, late in the first. they looked foolish initially, but it's looking like a pretty good idea now, no?

 

i'm not saying this would pay off immediately, tiki barber probably does have atleast one year left in him. we're just not solid enough at the running back position to not consider drafting a backup.

 

OK, with Levar signing, I won't disagree as vehemently as I have. I'd still prefer a trade down, but wouldn't mind keeping Williams.

 

Gotta be flexible with new circumstances.

[JMFP]

Regardless of the LA signing, we still need defense the 1st 2 rounds. Preferably, DT and CB. In fact, I'd still be fine signing another LB.

[fishgutmartyr]

Regardless of the LA signing, we still need defense the 1st 2 rounds. Preferably, DT and CB. In fact, I'd still be fine signing another LB.

I would still rather trade down, but at least the TV would be intact if we draft Williams.

[gateb]

I think the Colts would want Williams really bad. And they would probably think he wouldn't fall to their slot. Maybe we can trade down 5 spots and get some nice picks in return.

[mstrahan22_1/2]

That's the only thing that would make me somewhat optimistic about this pick. But if this was the situation I still would like to trade down and get some more picks from a team that would like Deangelo as their RB, possibly the Colts.

i can't disagree with ya there. if the player we want isnt there, and a team like the colts would give up a lot to move up we should do it. i guess the point i was trying to make was that it's not necessary to get a runningback this year, but if a top runningback falls into our lap with the best defensive players off the board we should take the runningback. it's never too early to start looking for a replacement (unless you are ladanian tomlinson).