2010 NFL Draft

[dew1679666265]

Why would the Chiefs trade up? If anything they'll try to trade down if one or both of the QBs fall to #5.

 

The thought would be that they'd want one of Suh, McCoy or Berry, I guess. One of those three may fall to five, but certainly not all three and probably not two of three. If they want a particular one, they might trade up.

[dew1679666265]

what would it take for the chiefs to trade pics with the rams? a 3rd round pick? later?

 

I can't believe this (I may be doing something wrong), but here's what the draft pick value chart that NFL GMs oftentimes use says:

 

Pick #1: 3,000

 

Pick #5: 1,700

 

Thus, the Chiefs would have to make up 1,300 points. They could throw in a player or two that the Rams value, but purely on picks they'd be looking at trading this year's 2nd (530), next year's first (same value as this year's 2nd) and this year's 3rd (245).

 

Again, I could be figuring this wrong or they could divert from the chart somewhat, but that's also why the first 1-3 picks very rarely get dealt.

 

Here's the chart.

 

The chart has always been incredibly stupid. GM's either swear by it, which is equivalent to a GM swearing by a pitchers wins, or they swear against it. More and more teams are going away from it due to the monetary value of the top picks. It's pretty widely said now that if the team with the No. 1 pick could find a taker they would trade down every year. No one wants the pick that you got to guarantee $40-50 million to. They would rather trade down to picks 5-10 where you only have to guarantee $20 or so million but get a prospect with a tiny bit less potential.

 

Yeah, once they get the rookie cap in place it'll become more en vogue, but I can't imagine too many still swear by it. I keep hearing a lot do though, so who knows for sure.

[CubbieBum]

what would it take for the chiefs to trade pics with the rams? a 3rd round pick? later?

 

I can't believe this (I may be doing something wrong), but here's what the draft pick value chart that NFL GMs oftentimes use says:

 

Pick #1: 3,000

 

Pick #5: 1,700

 

Thus, the Chiefs would have to make up 1,300 points. They could throw in a player or two that the Rams value, but purely on picks they'd be looking at trading this year's 2nd (530), next year's first (same value as this year's 2nd) and this year's 3rd (245).

 

Again, I could be figuring this wrong or they could divert from the chart somewhat, but that's also why the first 1-3 picks very rarely get dealt.

 

Here's the chart.

 

The chart has always been incredibly stupid. GM's either swear by it, which is equivalent to a GM swearing by a pitchers wins, or they swear against it. More and more teams are going away from it due to the monetary value of the top picks. It's pretty widely said now that if the team with the No. 1 pick could find a taker they would trade down every year. No one wants the pick that you got to guarantee $40-50 million to. They would rather trade down to picks 5-10 where you only have to guarantee $20 or so million but get a prospect with a tiny bit less potential.

 

Yeah, once they get the rookie cap in place it'll become more en vogue, but I can't imagine too many still swear by it. I keep hearing a lot do though, so who knows for sure.

 

I think the ones who are at the top swear by it that year and the ones at the bottom don't. They probably flip flop each year depending on where their teams pick is.

[dew1679666265]

what would it take for the chiefs to trade pics with the rams? a 3rd round pick? later?

 

I can't believe this (I may be doing something wrong), but here's what the draft pick value chart that NFL GMs oftentimes use says:

 

Pick #1: 3,000

 

Pick #5: 1,700

 

Thus, the Chiefs would have to make up 1,300 points. They could throw in a player or two that the Rams value, but purely on picks they'd be looking at trading this year's 2nd (530), next year's first (same value as this year's 2nd) and this year's 3rd (245).

 

Again, I could be figuring this wrong or they could divert from the chart somewhat, but that's also why the first 1-3 picks very rarely get dealt.

 

Here's the chart.

 

The chart has always been incredibly stupid. GM's either swear by it, which is equivalent to a GM swearing by a pitchers wins, or they swear against it. More and more teams are going away from it due to the monetary value of the top picks. It's pretty widely said now that if the team with the No. 1 pick could find a taker they would trade down every year. No one wants the pick that you got to guarantee $40-50 million to. They would rather trade down to picks 5-10 where you only have to guarantee $20 or so million but get a prospect with a tiny bit less potential.

 

Yeah, once they get the rookie cap in place it'll become more en vogue, but I can't imagine too many still swear by it. I keep hearing a lot do though, so who knows for sure.

 

I think the ones who are at the top swear by it that year and the ones at the bottom don't. They probably flip flop each year depending on where their teams pick is.

 

Entirely possible. Though I'd say the GMs at the top of the draft would be willing, at times, to sway from the chart in order to save some of the money picks 1-3 demand.

[Formerly Snayke]

The talk now seems to be that the Rams are going to pick Bradford.

 

Why? Well that's a question I don't ask. It's entirely possible that this is all more BSing pre-draft.

 

That's been the prevalent rumor for nearly 2 weeks now, I'd say. No idea of its accuracy, but if they're going QB it ought to be Clausen, I'd think.

I don't think you should ever take a QB that high unless you think he's a stone-cold lock to succeed big-time in the pros because of the money. It befuddles me that the Rams could come to that determination about a guy who had shoulder surgery last year, didn't have that strong an arm to begin with and came from a system that would be ridiculed via pro potential if the players wore Texas Tech uniforms instead of Oklahoma.

 

I think Bradford could be fine in the pros but I don't like him even close to that much.

 

Yeah, but you're using logic, stupid. It's pretty unbearable listening to people tell the Rams what they should do. This is the first time they "earned" the No. 1 pick and I can't stand it. The arguments for Bradford/Clausen always come down to "they didn't take Cutler, Ryan or Sanchez so they have to take a quarterback now." Or it's "defensive tackles don't provide good value" And my new favorite "when was the last time a defensive tackle won the Super Bowl?"

 

I would be quite OK with Bradford, but the way people automatically assume it's gotta be him is making my head hurt.

[Guest]

Why would the Chiefs trade up? If anything they'll try to trade down if one or both of the QBs fall to #5.

 

The thought would be that they'd want one of Suh, McCoy or Berry, I guess. One of those three may fall to five, but certainly not all three and probably not two of three. If they want a particular one, they might trade up.

 

I guess, but I still don't really see it. Pioli likes draft picks too much and they have too many other holes. They'd be better served doing something like trading down to Buffalo's spot and taking McClain and banking a pick.

[dew1679666265]

Why would the Chiefs trade up? If anything they'll try to trade down if one or both of the QBs fall to #5.

 

The thought would be that they'd want one of Suh, McCoy or Berry, I guess. One of those three may fall to five, but certainly not all three and probably not two of three. If they want a particular one, they might trade up.

 

I guess, but I still don't really see it. Pioli likes draft picks too much and they have too many other holes. They'd be better served doing something like trading down to Buffalo's spot and taking McClain and banking a pick.

 

I agree with you, but I was explaining the reasoning as to why they might trade up.

[jame.gumb]

Joe Haden and his 4.57 40 might be dropping to SF now.

[jame.gumb]

Unofficial 4.24 for Mays. :shock:

[shnsajax]

Unofficial 4.24 for Mays. :shock:

 

Taylor Mays? That can't be right.

[jame.gumb]

Unofficial 4.24 for Mays. :shock:

 

Taylor Mays? That can't be right.

 

He said that's what he'd run, but I still thought 4.4.

[jame.gumb]

Unofficial 4.44 for Earl Thomas. Wouldn't be upset at all if the Niners took him.

[jame.gumb]

Unofficial 4.24 for Mays. :shock:

 

Bump that to 4.43 officially. Not quite as impressive, but still very good for a guy that size.

[dew1679666265]

4.49 unofficial for Eric Berry. Solid time if accurate.

 

From what I saw, Berry did exactly what he needed to do – he didn't need to really impress, just be solid. And he did that.

[jame.gumb]

I think Virginia CB Chris Cook fits SF's profile perfectly. 6'2", 212 and ran a nice 4.46. I think they love him in Round 2.

[dew1679666265]

Joe Haden and his 4.57 40 might be dropping to SF now.

 

I doubt he gets past the Titans. I doubt he gets to the Titans for that matter, but if he makes it to 16, I think he's going to Nashville.

[dew1679666265]

I'm putting this in the NFL offseason thread and here because it could impact the draft as well.

 

According St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell, the Rams have had "intense internal conversations" about a possible trade for Donovan McNabb.

We're not sure what to make of this report. Burwell characterized the talks as "internal" and also involving the Eagles, which is obviously oxymoronic. Burwell's colleague at the Post-Dispatch, Bernie Miklasz, is "skeptical" of the report, doubting the Eagles are serious about dealing McNabb. The reported price is a second-round pick, which has us skeptical as well.

[Magnetic Curses]

4.48 for Benn, not bad. i'm wondering what Boldin ran.

[Magnetic Curses]

Unofficial 4.24 for Mays. :shock:

 

Bump that to 4.43 officially. Not quite as impressive, but still very good for a guy that size.

 

let me guess, the 9ers might take a shot at him?

[jame.gumb]

Joe Haden and his 4.57 40 might be dropping to SF now.

 

I doubt he gets past the Titans. I doubt he gets to the Titans for that matter, but if he makes it to 16, I think he's going to Nashville.

 

I don't think he gets that far.

Edited March 2, 2010 by jame.gumb

[jame.gumb]

Unofficial 4.24 for Mays. :shock:

 

Bump that to 4.43 officially. Not quite as impressive, but still very good for a guy that size.

 

let me guess, the 9ers might take a shot at him?

 

I hope not.

[dew1679666265]

I'd be interested in Taylor Mays for the Titans, but if they want a safety in the first round, I'd prefer trading up to get either Eric Berry or Earl Thomas. Mays is a distant third for me at this point in the safety rankings.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

According to Adam Kaplan, many teams do not even have a first-round grade on Clausen.

[dew1679666265]

According to Adam Kaplan, many teams do not even have a first-round grade on Clausen.

 

That's surprising to me.

[shnsajax]

According to Adam Kaplan, many teams do not even have a first-round grade on Clausen.

 

That's surprising to me.

 

I'm curious as to how he interviewed and if teams think he has the mentality to succeed.