WW85's FIRST ROUND MOCK (3/9/10)/ Including Jet's Draft

I'd rather they go defense than offense in the 1st. I think, as you pointed out earlier in the thread, that a trade into the 2nd could be an awesome move for us. I was saying a couple of days ago, you guys (you, WW, GM) really know your shit and love the 2nd round guys, and you know Tanny likes to make the occasional trade. I think, ultimately, he trades down, instead of up for once, and I would be pretty happy about it. The one guy I'd really want is Earl Thomas, but I think a snowball has a better chance in hell than him getting all the way down to us. He's really the only "can't miss" guy at that high of a number (29th) IMHO.

 

I'm not sure I want to see us draft a punter. I think Weatherford is good enough and it might be wiser to take multiple shots at OL projects in the late rounds.

 

I don't think it would hurt to bring someone in. Weatherford's best game might have been in the playoffs. His kick to the 4-yard-line right before Leonhard's INT is a very overlooked play. Should we "waste" a pick for a punter?? That depends on whether or not business has been taken care of. I'm always a proponent of drafting a lineman (either side of the ball) when in doubt that late in the draft.

 

Re Odrick: The only reason I was thinking of him on the outside is that Paterno and co. had him lined up all over the place. I would love to see another PSU guy here. I like Navarro Bowman a lot, too, but I know he's not a good fit on our defense.

 

looks good to me, but you have to think that Seattle will be in for one of the top QBs picking at #6 and #14, now that they've traded their backup away.

They have an oft-injured and aging Hasselbeck and Mike Teel, who probably won't do anything more than hold a clipboard his whole career

 

Nice work WW85.

For those wondering about the Tate pick, remember that the staff wanted to trade back into the first for Harvin last season. Tate is a similar player in size and explosiveness.

Also Edwards has been already been told to be around of the OTA's and has a long history of not doing the offseason stuf in Cleveland. This is not only an additional weapon for Sanchez to make our offense more dynamic, but insurance in case Edwards does not get his act otgeather and we do not want to offer him big time long term dollars.

If Tate falls to us I can see it happening, but I feel he's gone in the early 20's.

 

We tried to trade up in that draft because we were really limited at receiver at that point. We have already aquired a receiver in the 2010 draft. Edwards. Like it or hate it, it happened already.

If Tate is the BPA at that point, which I agree he probably would be at that point, you have to trade down. Something has to give. I would be irate if we spent a high draft pick on another receiver. No excuse for it. IMO.

 

It has happened, but With Tanny already firing a "warning shot" in the press to Edwards, I don't think they pass on Tate if he's there.

 

Was it in his conference call? I missed it.

 

I forget where i read it. It was posted on this site and I believe from the conference call.

 

^ Thanks .

 

Awsome. Thanks for fining that ww85.

 

The question is, is Hardesty an upgrade over Washington? Taking him with the pick you'd be getting for him is essentially a 1 for 1 swap, and to me the answer to that question is no.