RealGM

We have a thread for draft prospecs, but I want your ideal draft scenario. Nothing too complicated. No more than 1 draft day trade. WHo ya got?

My dream draft
1st rd- #2- Ndamukong Suh, DT


2nd rd- #34- Kyle Wilson CB


3rd rd- #66- John Jerry OG/OT


4th rd- #101- LeGarette Blount RB


5th rd- #151 (from ATL)- Ciron Black OT


7th rd- #218 (from CLE)- BPA

Ideal draft scenario? Ok, this is my ideal mock going off the FA's and trades we've done already.

*Trade #2 overall to Seattle for #6 and #14 overall
1a. CB Joe Haden
1b. OG Mike Iupati
2. DT Brian Price
3. S Nate Allen
4. RB Montario Hardesty
5. CB Amari Spievey
6. WR Blair White
7. ILB Josh Hull

^ how'd you get a 6th?

If we stay at #2, I like Liqs. With trades i like Bars. Nice work

I'll post mine in a bit when i have a few minutes to think it through.

For the first draft, we have too many pressing needs to be taking a low profile guard with a relatively high pick, and we can't afford to draft Blount, both of those picks are awful. This is supposed to be a dream draft and you are ignoring all of our top needs completely!

For the 2nd draft, well it starts off with a bogus trade that will never happen, and you also draft a DT and an OG with those 2nd picks and that's really a huge blown opportunity to get 2 good players in key positions that we badly need, DT and OG not making any sense their whatsoever.

These drafts are basically examples of the worst case scenario of what I fear Mayhew will do. These 2 drafts are the kind of draft I would expect out of him. He has you guys trained well, but my opinion is you should open your eyes and defy Mayhew's inefficient strategy and come up with a better one. That is if you want to get a good review from somebody who is logically focused and not out of his mind!

TSE wrote:For the first draft, we have too many pressing needs to be taking a low profile guard with a relatively high pick, and we can't afford to draft Blount, both of those picks are awful. This is supposed to be a dream draft and you are ignoring all of our top needs completely!

For the 2nd draft, well it starts off with a bogus trade that will never happen, and you also draft a DT and an OG with those 2nd picks and that's really a huge blown opportunity to get 2 good players in key positions that we badly need, DT and OG not making any sense their whatsoever.

These drafts are basically examples of the worst case scenario of what I fear Mayhew will do. These 2 drafts are the kind of draft I would expect out of him. He has you guys trained well, but my opinion is you should open your eyes and defy Mayhew's inefficient strategy and come up with a better one. That is if you want to get a good review from somebody who is logically focused and not out of his mind!

Well TSE why dont you appease us and back up your talk with a dream draft of your own? I really am curious

I only get one trade? Yeah not going to work for me. This team needs a major overhaul and I would be making lots of trades. If I can only make one trade, then my mock won't make sense. How I build this team from the top for the first 3 rounds requires a package of trades that it would take to set that up. If we assume I can't do those trades then that changes the mock. So it wouldn't make sense to do it that way, cause then I'd have to have disclaimers that show what the plan is after the draft, so you can see how we fix the team.

And if it's a dream draft and I can only pick one trade, then the trade I most want is one that includes Stafford. So my trade would be, Lions giving up 2 overall along with Stafford, and then we'd have to get compensation for BOTH of those. And nobody wants to see a mock around a ridiculously unlikely trade like that, especially considering it moves our QB which nobody here but me and Kell are interested in.

TSE wrote:I only get one trade? Yeah not going to work for me. This team needs a major overhaul and I would be making lots of trades. If I can only make one trade, then my mock won't make sense. How I build this team from the top for the first 3 rounds requires a package of trades that it would take to set that up. If we assume I can't do those trades then that changes the mock. So it wouldn't make sense to do it that way, cause then I'd have to have disclaimers that show what the plan is after the draft, so you can see how we fix the team.

And if it's a dream draft and I can only pick one trade, then the trade I most want is one that includes Stafford. So my trade would be, Lions giving up 2 overall along with Stafford, and then we'd have to get compensation for BOTH of those. And nobody wants to see a mock around a ridiculously unlikely trade like that, especially considering it moves our QB which nobody here but me and Kell are interested in.

ok....so you cannot post an ideal mock without more than one trade? fine. Than again, appease me with something that is not your ideal mock, but one in which we stand pat and draft. If we pick at all the same spots, than who are the best players we can take? I know you would rather draft Bradford and trade Stafford and do whatever but pretend Mayhew calls you and says "TSE, you are charge of our draft. We love your stuff on RealGM. We arent making any trades, but pick who you want." Who do you pick?

Gosh, I can't even trade the 2 pick down to 3 or 4? That's tight. Ok. Suh at 2. If not Suh, then Okung.

Round 2: BPA CB (Kyle Wilson or Perish Cox, or if we got really lucky and somebody like Brandon Graham or Earl Thomas made it here that would be nice)
Round 3: BPA CB
Rounds 4 and beyond are pretty immaterial for purposes of looking at the highlights.

TSE wrote:Gosh, I can't even trade the 2 pick down to 3 or 4? That's tight. Ok. Suh at 2. If not Suh, then Okung.

Round 2: BPA CB (Kyle Wilson or Perish Cox, or if we got really lucky and somebody like Brandon Graham or Earl Thomas made it here that would be nice)
Round 3: BPA CB
Rounds 4 and beyond are pretty immaterial for purposes of looking at the highlights.

Finally. lol TSE giving opinion that isn't criticizing our opinion.

You act like as if critiques are a bad thing, I think they are a good thing and they only help people learn more about the game to see not only ideas, but the critiques of those ideas. This forum needs more of both kinds.

Bar, I like yours....a few changes....I doubt Price falls to the 2nd round, and Allen to the 3rd....

*Trade #2 overall to Seattle for #6 and #14 overall
1a. CB Joe Haden
1b. OG Mike Iupati
2. CB Kareem Jackson
3. DT Lamar Houston
4. RB Ben Tate
5. S Terrell Skinner
7. Best athlete available

TSE wrote:You act like as if critiques are a bad thing, I think they are a good thing and they only help people learn more about the game to see not only ideas, but the critiques of those ideas. This forum needs more of both kinds.

Critiques are fine, really, as long as they are occasionally accompanied by positives and your own thoughts.

Thanks for sharing your mock. I agree with the first two picks, though i think I would go BPA in the third, not just best CB.

Well if the draft is bad, you can't give positive thoughts. In my opinion a team should do a good job with ALL of the picks. When I critique a mock I don't like, if it's not horrible and has interesting positives to note then I note those.

Or here's another mock idea for you. Trade Stafford to the Rams for the 1 pick! Then we could take any 2 of Suh/Okung/Bradford and I would be plenty happy with that. I would take Suh/Okung, cause that also then forces the QBs down even further so that I can then get that QB cheaper later, whether it's trading up from 2 to get Claussen or Bradford, or holding out to see if somebody in the next tier drops to the 4th or what not. And then the ultimate backup plan is to go QB-less and then concentrate all of our efforts on the totality of the other positions, and then just take a QB with our first pick next year.

So here's an even shorter sweeter mock:

Rd 1 #1) Suh
Rd 1 #2) Okung
Rd 1 #x) Claussen (traded our 2nd plus whatever, or all picks 3 and down if the team can take players)

If you are St.Louis, then you can use the #1 pick on Suh, Bradford, OR Stafford. Although I highly doubt they would choose Stafford. He's like a Bradford value if you were to guarantee that Bradford has to start off with a lousy year. I'd rather take Bradford, cause that way we can take the pre-existing penalty mark and wipe it off the books while making an even swap. That's what you guys don't see when you look at the idea of trading Stafford. I don't like trading starting QBs for my health, I only like doing it when there is a potential margin to scoop up.

TSE wrote:Well if the draft is bad, you can't give positive thoughts. In my opinion a team should do a good job with ALL of the picks. When I critique a mock I don't like, if it's not horrible and has interesting positives to note then I note those.

Or here's another mock idea for you. Trade Stafford to the Rams for the 1 pick! Then we could take any 2 of Suh/Okung/Bradford and I would be plenty happy with that. I would take Suh/Okung, cause that also then forces the QBs down even further so that I can then get that QB cheaper later, whether it's trading up from 2 to get Claussen or Bradford, or holding out to see if somebody in the next tier drops to the 4th or what not. And then the ultimate backup plan is to go QB-less and then concentrate all of our efforts on the totality of the other positions, and then just take a QB with our first pick next year.

So here's an even shorter sweeter mock:

Rd 1 #1) Suh
Rd 1 #2) Okung
Rd 1 #x) Claussen (traded our 2nd plus whatever, or all picks 3 and down if the team can take players)

If you are St.Louis, then you can use the #1 pick on Suh, Bradford, OR Stafford. Although I highly doubt they would choose Stafford. He's like a Bradford value if you were to guarantee that Bradford has to start off with a lousy year. I'd rather take Bradford, cause that way we can take the pre-existing penalty mark and wipe it off the books while making an even swap. That's what you guys don't see when you look at the idea of trading Stafford. I don't like trading starting QBs for my health, I only like doing it when there is a potential margin to scoop up.

Ok, Seriously. This isn't Madden 2010. You cant just trade whoever for the top 3 picks in the draft. You talk about all the problems this team has and you want us to basically draft 3 players in the top 10? When the salary cap is put back in place next year we are going to have to release players because unlike on your Madden game, you have to manage your salary cap effectively and you are not doing that by having the top two picks in a draft. I know it is a totally different sport, but ask Jerry Krause how that turned out a few years back for the Chicago Bulls by having the top two picks in the draft and having to shell out a ton of money for players that never turned around the franchise.

Stafford IS one of those guys. All we would be doing is trading Stafford's big contract with another.

I'm lost, what's the benefit of trading Stafford for an inferior Claussen??

If you consider them both to be potential franchise QBs, you could argue that your odds of Clausssen panning out are higher, on account that Stafford had one freebie year that he looked really bad in. Most QBs take time to develop, but nevertheless the first year was a shot for Stafford to surprise and be a high-impact rookie, or to play good enough that he raises his perceived stock from the point of where we drafted. In my opinion his first year play, all things considered for him being rookie, he lowered his stock. If I'm looking for a franchise QB I would rather take my shot with a guy like Bradford or Claussen, it's a more strategic play. And this is a special year for the cap, now's the time to reshape and make changes. The opportunity to trade Stafford won't be available in the future due to cap hits as well as the fact that he's either going to prove his worth and we won't want to trade him, or he'll take a 2nd hit and then we'll be in no-man's land. With Claussen not only do we get a QB who I think has a slightly higher chance of not busting, but we buy time and we get 2 shots instead of one, the same first year for Claussen to get his feet wet but still a chance to surprise and shine and raise his stock, or the 2nd year dynamic which would be the equivalent of what we have now. I see a potential for more odds and more bullets, and with the QB position I don't mess around, I have to do everything I can to get SOMEBODY in there that can get the job done, and I'm getting that done first and securely and I don't care what the guy's name is. I just want the fastest most secure route of getting that keeper.

So you throw away a proven Stafford for unknowns in Bradford (questionable injury history) and Claussen? Best-case scenario, its a lateral move. Likely, its a downgrade.

Basically, your logic doesn't make any sense to me.

I have TSE on my foe list so his posts don't show up for me, but after seeing what others have quoted, I can't help but laugh.

He critizes my dream draft, and then eventually gives a vague version of my draft as his dream draft. He really showed me.