Pete Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I love the Bills picks! Please let this go down Apriil 28!
Bill from NYC Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Thanks for running this Rich. You 'da man. He sure as hell is!!! The only part that disturbed me was that I built a solid foundation for the dolphins.
JoeF Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Best mock draft on the net. Good job Rich and the GMs. I also like the Brushback's http://www.thebrushback.com/mockdraft07.htm
R. Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 True, but if Peterson is still on the board at #12, then you can trade with whatever team would have picked Lynch (probably Greenbay) would then take Peterson, we would acquire possibly 2 of their draft picks (even 1 more would be nice) and then the teams in need for a RB is highly diminished. The only team after us that would need a RB would be Carolina, and I don't see them picking a RB in the 1st round (in fact I havent seen a mock draft yet that has them taking a RB). To recap: If Peterson falls to #12, im sure Greenbay would LOVE to take him. We could take this chance to try and get Greenbay's 2nd rounder or even 2 picks for a swap of firsts. Im willing to take the chance that St. Louis (S. Jackson), Carolina, and Pitt (W. Parker) won't be picking a 1st round RB. Of course this is just my opinion that I would rather take Lynch and get another first day pick, meaning we have 4 first day picks plus Lynch. Or...Green Bay could simply wait for either Peterson or Lynch to fall to them. Why, if there's 2 good RBs available and their pick is just 4 selections away, would they deal up and lose another pick to get one particular player?
R. Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 That would be great! In the meantime, can you share a little of what you're smoking? I REALLY hope you are right, but I see AP being picked WAY before Branch. I hear ya. This mock draft sucks. It's stupid. WTF are you guys thinking? You're all a bunch of idiots. Man, do I love this sideline GM stuff!
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 I hear ya. This mock draft sucks. It's stupid. WTF are you guys thinking? You're all a bunch of idiots. Man, do I love this sideline GM stuff! At first I thought it was YOUR, mock draft. My bad ...but, now it's even better, because I can be a sideline meta-critic of a pseudo draft. Doesn't get any better than that, RR.
R. Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 At first I thought it was YOUR, mock draft. My bad ...but, now it's even better, because I can be a sideline meta-critic of a pseudo draft. Doesn't get any better than that, RR. It takes all kinds, Dean. Critique away.
Stussy109 Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 There are 3 teams b4 us who are liable to take peterson, and most likeley would if he were there. There is about a 5% chance we get him without trading up, sorry to burs your bubble. ATL, Minnesota, and Cleveland All need a back.
R. Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 There are 3 teams b4 us who are liable to take peterson, and most likeley would if he were there. There is about a 5% chance we get him without trading up, sorry to burs your bubble. ATL, Minnesota, and Cleveland All need a back. Agreed. I personally don't believe that the first round would turn out the way it did in this mock (a little too line-heavy, I think; the draft hardly ever goes the ideal way), especially in regard to Peterson.
stuckincincy Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 FWIW, # of mock picks by position, and per round. Offense Total - 46 players Total - round#1 / rnd #2 / rnd #3 WR 14 - 5/5/4 OT 8 - 3/2/3 QB 6 - 2/2/2 OG 6 - 1/2/3 RB 5 - 2/2/1 TE 4 - 1/1/2 OC 3 - 0/1/2 Defense Total - 53 players LB 13 - 3/5/5 DE 12 - 6/0/6 CB 12 - 4/5/3 DT 9 - 2/4/3 S 7 - 3/2/2 Rnd #1 - 14 Offense, 18 Defense Rnd #2 - 15, 16 (no pick for CIN) Rnd #3 - 17, 19 ( 4 compensatory picks)
MattyT Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 FWIW, # of mock picks by position, and per round. Defense Total - 53 players LB 13 - 3/5/5 DE 12 - 6/0/6 CB 12 - 4/5/3 DT 9 - 2/4/3 S 7 - 3/2/2 That's an odd stat.
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 FWIW, # of mock picks by position, and per round. Offense Total - 46 players Total - round#1 / rnd #2 / rnd #3 WR 14 - 5/5/4 OT 8 - 3/2/3 QB 6 - 2/2/2 OG 6 - 1/2/3 RB 5 - 2/2/1 TE 4 - 1/1/2 OC 3 - 0/1/2 Defense Total - 53 players LB 13 - 3/5/5 DE 12 - 6/0/6 CB 12 - 4/5/3 DT 9 - 2/4/3 S 7 - 3/2/2 Rnd #1 - 14 Offense, 18 Defense Rnd #2 - 15, 16 (no pick for CIN) Rnd #3 - 17, 19 ( 4 compensatory picks) No punters picked?
R. Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 No punters picked? No, but there was this kicker from Ohio State that......... Never mind. That wasn't this draft. My bad.
MattyT Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 No punters picked? Are you using the British definition or the American?
daquix Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Or...Green Bay could simply wait for either Peterson or Lynch to fall to them. Why, if there's 2 good RBs available and their pick is just 4 selections away, would they deal up and lose another pick to get one particular player? Because according to ESPN, and others on this board, Peterson is among god status and Lynch is around spartan status. Most people would want the god.
R. Rich Posted April 5, 2007 Author Posted April 5, 2007 Because according to ESPN... You're beginning to lose me here... ...and others on this board... ...and I'm gone.
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Are you using the British definition or the American? Stop making me learn! My brain is just about full (it's so very tiny). OK, from a quick googling, it seems that "punter" is either (all of these rough translations) a: patron/customer, or bettor/wagerer or pushover. Hmmm care to school The Dean on the REAL DEAL with this fine piece of British slang, Matty? (BTW, my gut guess was it was akin to "Buffers"... what the Irish Gypsies (Travelers) on the program The Riches call normal folks who work for a living and who are the rubes for their cons. Seems my gut has betrayed me again. Paying me back for the diet I've been on.
MattyT Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Stop making me learn! My brain is just about full (it's so very tiny). OK, from a quick googling, it seems that "punter" is either (all of these rough translations) a: patron/customer, or bettor/wagerer or pushover. Hmmm care to school The Dean on the REAL DEAL with this fine piece of British slang, Matty? (BTW, my gut guess was it was akin to "Buffers"... what the Irish Gypsies (Travelers) on the program The Riches call normal folks who work for a living and who are the rubes for their cons. Seems my gut has betrayed me again. Paying me back for the diet I've been on. No, you got it. I won't make any judgments about the size of your basal ganglia.
The Dean Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 No, you got it. I won't make any judgments about the size of your basal ganglia. Wait...i got it how? My pissed-off gut was right? If not, which of the googlized definitions is best? And...leave my ganglia out of this!
MattyT Posted April 5, 2007 Posted April 5, 2007 Wait...i got it how? My pissed-off gut was right? If not, which of the googlized definitions is best? And...leave my ganglia out of this! I think gambler is the more oft-used def.
Recommended Posts