dew1679666265

That's surprising to me.

By the way, the official draft order has been added to the first post in this thread.

The mock draft is now beginning. Each team will have 24 hours to make their selection and it would be helpful if the person who makes the pick will PM the next team in line. Or, I'll PM them. If anybody misses their pick, one will be made for them and we'll move on. Now on the clock, mul21 and reggiemiller rules for the Rams' selection. I'll PM both of them. Also, if you have a pick upcoming and won't be around a computer, PM me and I'll make the pick for you if need be.

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.

Very interesting, if accurate.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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, money is exorbitant whoever you take in the top 3, but QBs especially. I'd definitely take Suh or Berry over either QB. I like Pike more than many and I think he can be comparable to Bradford.

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.

Too bad his technique is average at best. Sure he is a freak athlete but blocking is mostly technique. If he was just getting to college I would make him a TE. Didn't Campbell play another position for his first couple of years? Or am I thinking of another prospect?

He had a .958 OPS last year and an .869 career OPS in one of the biggest pitchers parks in the majors. He's also only about to turn 28 and an average fielder (according to UZR/150). What's not to like about Gonzalez?

Depending on how much they give up for Cromartie, that could be a really good deal. The Lions have time to try to develop him and, if they succeed, they've got a potential elite CB for pennies on the dollar.

Here you go: Off the top of my head, Cantu and Atkins might be of some interest.

I'm in Erik. I might also have a buddy who wants to join.

Also, Montario Hardesty with the best vertical jump of any RB at the combine, the best broad jump of any RB at the combine and a 4.49 40. He could easily be a second round pick at this point, which is rather amazing. He and Dan Williams may be two of the biggest risers up the draft board this year.

Tebow with a 4.7 40 and one of the best verticals in the combine. Still don't know if he can throw, but he's about as athletic as I thought.

Nice. Could he be CJ-esque in that he jumps up the charts to be taken in the mid-late first round? I could see him being one of the first RBs off the board.

If not for his size, I'd be really interested in McCluster. I think he can be a Sproles-esque RB, but with a few more inches he could very well be a feature back - and a rather dynamic one.

The biggest guy is probably Tony Pike. I am very interested to see Pike throw and also John Skelton. He's been getting a lot of hype from some expert types (Wes Bunting, mainly) and I'm interested to see what he can do.