We will use this thread as a discussion thread to keep the picks thread uncluttered. These threads will be used for the duration of the entire draft and will need to be bumped occasionally to push them back to page 1 of the forum.
Once a team is on the clock, they will have two hours to make a selection. If a team goes on the clock after 4pm, their two hour window will roll over to the next day. For example, if you go on the clock at 4:30pm, you will have until 9:30 am to make a selection. Picks may be made between 6pm and 9am if GMs are online and following the draft thread. The time limit only applies during the 9am to 6pm time frame. If the two hour time limit expires, I will make a pick using any list that the GM for the team has sent me in advance (send lists to the email address in my profile) or in the absence of a list, I will use the
GBN Big Board with a little discretion so as not make an obvious dumb pick (ie: Indianapolis Colts won’t be taking a QB in the 1st round this year). If a GM misses two consecutive picks without providing a prospect list or making some form of contact with me (email or posting on the draft thread) Saos1n and Yatqb will have priority to fill the vacancy. Otherwise, the spot will be reassigned to one of the BBIers that didn't get into the draft but were active in this thread.
I have saved the GBN Big Board as of 4/2 in a
Google Document. Once again, we will have a
Google Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet contains the draft order (RD1-5) by team (and GM) and a list of both available and taken prospects based on the GBN Big Board (as well as several other prospects that did not make the GBN Big Board). I will try to keep the spreadsheet and thread updates as often as possible.
this is no longer your opinion. you are stating it like it's fact. if you don't realize by now that teams do unexpected things during a draft you must be 9 years old.
picking qbs early is no guarantee of success, so if you're not crazy about them, or think guys like carr, mccarren, savage, etc etc etc are about the same, you'd be a fool to take one early.
Damn straight!... You know how much time and energy it takes to figure out what the Raiders need every year with usually hardly any picks at all... Dedication!
Quote:
In comment 11619395 Jay in Saratoga said:
Quote:
My #4 overall prospect.
I took an approach of breaking the players into tiers and then ranking within a tier by need. QBs bubbled up to the top of each tier and there were multiple in my top 8 picks for number 8 before the draft started.
I think Bortles is the safest QB when you compare him to the prototype for QBs who have been successful in the NFL. Great size and very good mobility for a guy his size. Reminds me a lot of Roethlisberger in this aspect. Level of competition is always a concern with a school like UCF, but wins this season vs Louisville, Rutgers and Baylor show that he can play at higher levels than his in conference schedule would typically include.
Great pick Jay and so far the steal in the draft... There is a very good chance he is the first pick in the draft.
Thanks, though had I been picking 1st it wouldn't have been Bortles. I would have taken Clowney, Watson or Mack in that order ahead of him. Also would have taken Robinson and one other prospect still on the board ahead of any of the other QBs.
I agree with the sentiment of these QBs feeling like less of a sure thing than in some other years. Also with the vikes having Cassell as a caretaker for a year or two I could have gone with more of a project in the 2nd round or later.
Bortles was the one really clean prospect at QB in my opinion so I pulled the trigger and hopefully solved the problem at the most important position on the field.
In addition to Bortles I like Bridgewater too despite the poor Pro Day. He is not at the Andrew Luck level, but he reminds me of a better version of Andy Dalton/Alex Smith who you can get to the playoffs and won't make a lot of stupid decisions. Manziel and Carr I do not see what the hype is and I question whether they will be starting QB in the NFL. I guess I am lucky being the Ravens in the Mock Draft as Joe Flacco and his salary mean I am not likely to be looking at QB early on
Were either of them a better team for taking a QB?
Cleveland needed one... forced a pick for Brandon Weeden. You think Cleveland would have been better off waiting to take Foles/Wilson later?
Yes, I'm cherry-picking examples. But the point is you don't just take a QB b/c you need one, you need to be sure you are getting a long-term answer for the position if you are going to use a top 10 pick on one. Otherwise, you are setting your team back multiple years - just like my examples above who wasted picks on QBs within the last 3 years and are looking for a new QB again.
That is big time cherry picking. Most starting QBs in the league are first round draft picks. This isn't, what 3-5 years ago, when you gave the 1st pick in the draft a 80 million dollar contract. Missing on a QB in the first doesn't set you back as far as it used to because there is no big money tied to the pick. If anything it is safer to take a QB now.
Same thing if you take a shitty LB right? If you take any shitty player you won't get better we can agree on that. However if the LB is great and the QB is great who would you want?
Quote:
The only joke is Houston, Jacksonville, and Cleveland all passing a QB. That will never ever happen. That is the joke.
this is no longer your opinion. you are stating it like it's fact. if you don't realize by now that teams do unexpected things during a draft you must be 9 years old.
picking qbs early is no guarantee of success, so if you're not crazy about them, or think guys like carr, mccarren, savage, etc etc etc are about the same, you'd be a fool to take one early.
Yes I am the 9 year old... good comment buddy. It is all opinions... It is only a fact when it is actually a fact.
If I need a QB and I'm not sold on the options in the top 10, I'd rather get a good-great player at a different position and roll the dice later on a QB.
Quote:
you haven't gotten better.
Same thing if you take a shitty LB right? If you take any shitty player you won't get better we can agree on that. However if the LB is great and the QB is great who would you want?
Seems I have to go slowly for you:
If there is no QB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at QB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if QB is your biggest need.
IIf there is no RB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at RB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if RB is your biggest need.
If there is no WR you like or believe will be a answer for your team at WR. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if WR is your biggest need.
If there is no TE you like or believe will be a answer for your team at TE. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if TE is your biggest need.
If there is no OL you like or believe will be a answer for your team at OL. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if OL is your biggest need.
If there is no DL you like or believe will be a answer for your team at DL. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if DL is your biggest need.
If there is no LB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at LB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if LB is your biggest need.
If there is no DB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at DB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if DB is your biggest need.
If there is no K you like or believe will be a answer for your team at K. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if K is your biggest need.
If there is no P you like or believe will be a answer for your team at P. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if P is your biggest need.
Quote:
In comment 11619541 Hades07 said:
Quote:
you haven't gotten better.
Same thing if you take a shitty LB right? If you take any shitty player you won't get better we can agree on that. However if the LB is great and the QB is great who would you want?
So their choices are a shitty QB or a shitty LBer? No good players available?
Seems I have to go slowly for you:
If there is no QB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at QB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if QB is your biggest need.
IIf there is no RB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at RB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if RB is your biggest need.
If there is no WR you like or believe will be a answer for your team at WR. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if WR is your biggest need.
If there is no TE you like or believe will be a answer for your team at TE. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if TE is your biggest need.
If there is no OL you like or believe will be a answer for your team at OL. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if OL is your biggest need.
If there is no DL you like or believe will be a answer for your team at DL. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if DL is your biggest need.
If there is no LB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at LB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if LB is your biggest need.
If there is no DB you like or believe will be a answer for your team at DB. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if DB is your biggest need.
If there is no K you like or believe will be a answer for your team at K. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if K is your biggest need.
If there is no P you like or believe will be a answer for your team at P. You don't take one because of need. If there is a player at another position that will be good and help your team improve than you take that player even if P is your biggest need.
Let me slow it down for you... Since you can't get this and I won't take up nearly as much space except to quote that long post you wrote... If you don't have a QB your team sucks. There are 3 QBs with top 10 grades some people think 4. If you don't think a QB will go in the top 4 you are entitled to your opinion, but it is a long shot opinion. I disagree and think your reasoning for passing on a QB is a false one. I also believe that people would rather play it safe and pick a player they think will probowl rather than the pick that would be better for the team long run. That way when you come back in 3 years you can say hey look at who I took. I don't do that.
If I need a QB and I'm not sold on the options in the top 10, I'd rather get a good-great player at a different position and roll the dice later on a QB.
They aren't set back... They suck because they don't have a good QB... Do you think they would be much better if they had a stud LB or would they still suck because they have no QB?
Just wait to your pick... [img=insert awesome gif with naked chicks surrounding the devil]
...
In addition to Bortles I like Bridgewater too despite the poor Pro Day. He is not at the Andrew Luck level, but he reminds me of a better version of Andy Dalton/Alex Smith who you can get to the playoffs and won't make a lot of stupid decisions. Manziel and Carr I do not see what the hype is and I question whether they will be starting QB in the NFL. I guess I am lucky being the Ravens in the Mock Draft as Joe Flacco and his salary mean I am not likely to be looking at QB early on
I love the Smith comp for Bridgewater. i think that's spot on.
Quote:
none of the guys I listed got big money. All 3 teams are in the top 10 3 years or less later and still looking for a QB. Clearly they've been set back by those decisions.
If I need a QB and I'm not sold on the options in the top 10, I'd rather get a good-great player at a different position and roll the dice later on a QB.
They aren't set back... They suck because they don't have a good QB... Do you think they would be much better if they had a stud LB or would they still suck because they have no QB?
They suck because they took a QB who suckedand had to wait for him to flop instead of waiting for an opportunity to get a better QB.
Quote:
none of the guys I listed got big money. All 3 teams are in the top 10 3 years or less later and still looking for a QB. Clearly they've been set back by those decisions.
If I need a QB and I'm not sold on the options in the top 10, I'd rather get a good-great player at a different position and roll the dice later on a QB.
They aren't set back... They suck because they don't have a good QB... Do you think they would be much better if they had a stud LB or would they still suck because they have no QB?
Quote:
In comment 11619652 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
none of the guys I listed got big money. All 3 teams are in the top 10 3 years or less later and still looking for a QB. Clearly they've been set back by those decisions.
If I need a QB and I'm not sold on the options in the top 10, I'd rather get a good-great player at a different position and roll the dice later on a QB.
They aren't set back... They suck because they don't have a good QB... Do you think they would be much better if they had a stud LB or would they still suck because they have no QB?
They suck because they took a QB who suckedand had to wait for him to flop instead of waiting for an opportunity to get a better QB.
And when is that opportunity then? Wouldn't that be right now. Again if they took Mack back then instead of Gabbert would Jacksonville be any better? By how much with still out a QB I would say a game maybe two at most. It is extremely tough to win without a QB and most starting QBs come in the first round... So if you don't have a QB and there are QBs rated there you take him. You don't shy away because you missed before. No QB is going to be perfect. They are going to all have question marks. Peyton, Eli, Rivers, Roth, Rodgers, etc... they all had question marks.
Quote:
In comment 11619652 YAJ2112 said:
Quote:
none of the guys I listed got big money. All 3 teams are in the top 10 3 years or less later and still looking for a QB. Clearly they've been set back by those decisions.
If I need a QB and I'm not sold on the options in the top 10, I'd rather get a good-great player at a different position and roll the dice later on a QB.
They aren't set back... They suck because they don't have a good QB... Do you think they would be much better if they had a stud LB or would they still suck because they have no QB?
They sucked because they took a poor QB because they needed one instead of getting a better player at another position? And you are recommending they do it again?
I can't keep explaining to you that a good LB wouldn't of fixed Jacksonville or Cleveland last year. The only thing that will fix them is a good QB which they need. You don't agree fine, then don't agree. You are not even in this draft... your arguments bore me. Have a good day sir.
You are assuming that all GMs have those 3/4 QBs in the top 10. I think all of the talk we are hearing about QBs dropping (who knows if it's true) lately gives credence to the idea that most people DO NOT have these QBs in their top ten. I (for one) had only 1 QB in the top 10 and just barely.
As the "GM" I was very disappointed that Matthews & Evans were off the board. I was hoping 1 of them would fall to me. It came down to Lewan, Ebron & Barr. Lewan can step in and make a difference year 1. Barr was a very close 2nd and while I like Ebron, I can get value at TE in rds 2 or 3.
You are assuming that all GMs have those 3/4 QBs in the top 10. I think all of the talk we are hearing about QBs dropping (who knows if it's true) lately gives credence to the idea that most people DO NOT have these QBs in their top ten. I (for one) had only 1 QB in the top 10 and just barely.
I am sorry you lost me at I have a flaw... If that is what it is so be it. I am not so sure though. No need to keep dwelling on it though.
Typical BBI Mock, unexpected picks being taken earlier than predicted. Others falling. I doubt GB would be interested in any of the free-falling QBs, but it could be tempting. Last year's round robin of QBs really hurt the Packers when Rodgers was out.
Interesting pick as they need help at CB desperately and the top CBs were all there, but then you look and see a need for a Safety also and realize there are 3-4 good safeties and a lot of good CBs. Really like Ha Ha, but it would have been tough to pass on Gilbert for me.
If those were the 3 guys you were deciding between I do concur with Ha Ha for the Lions. I too do not think Gilbert is worth the #10 pick and Barr does not really fit the Lions' scheme. Barr needs to go to a 3-4 team. With how the draft is falling I could see why the Lions have been linked to Eric Ebron although they are a prime candidate to trade down in real life if someone is looking to get ahead of the Giants or St. Louis
And when is that opportunity then? Wouldn't that be right now. Again if they took Mack back then instead of Gabbert would Jacksonville be any better? By how much with still out a QB I would say a game maybe two at most. It is extremely tough to win without a QB and most starting QBs come in the first round... So if you don't have a QB and there are QBs rated there you take him. You don't shy away because you missed before. No QB is going to be perfect. They are going to all have question marks. Peyton, Eli, Rivers, Roth, Rodgers, etc... they all had question marks.
The Jags would absolutely be better off right now if all they did was take JJ Watt or Robert Quinn instead of Gabbert. Even if they ended up with the same record, having one of those guys on the team instead of the 6th rounder they get this year for dumping Gabbert would have them one piece closer to being a good team.
Anthony Barr, OLB - UCLA
6'5" 255 lbs.
As a Junior and Senior:
23 1/2 Sacks
41 1/2 Tackles for loss
10 Forced Fumbles
Titans have moved to hybrid defense that will utilize much more of a 3-4 look. They lost a starting corner, but need Barr to fill the DeMarcus Ware type role in this defense, and can not resist the impact plays that Barr brings with him to the Tennessee D
[URL=http://www.makeagif.com/8cDOmy][IMG]http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/4-14-2014/8cDOmy.gif[/IMG][/URL]
you just needed the piece in between the img tags, and you need to type those lower case - IMG doesn't work, needs to be img
I doubt Carr was under consideration for Andy, so we'll see where he goes.
Don't fuck this up!
And, I don't owe him money or nothin'.
I agree about being able to get CB a little bit later while Safety won't be as easy to get especially a FS.