Jump to content

Chris Burke's Ten Worst Team Mock


MSalmon
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://nfl.si.com/2013/12/08/nfl-mock-draft-2014-week-14-teddy-bridgewater/

Almost another full week of NFL action in the books means more movement among the 2014 NFL draft order.

The latest full mock draft here on Audibles had Teddy Bridgewater leading four top-10 quarterbacks. How have things changed with some shake-up in the early picks?

1. Houston Texans: Teddy Bridgewater, QB, Louisville

The Texans are starting to pull away in the race for No. 1 overall — they have 11 losses, Atlanta and Washington have 10, and no other team has more than nine. The new coach here will get a shot to draft his go-to quarterback right away, even if having Jadeveon Clowney or Anthony Barr is a tempting proposition. Bridgewater remains at the head of the QB class.

2. St. Louis Rams (from Washington): Jadeveon Clowney, DE, South Carolina

There definitely is an argument to be made here for a quarterback. Sam Bradford is coming off a major knee injury and is owed a ton of money over the next two seasons. If the Rams do not go that route, there are ample alternatives available — OT or WR, for starters. But getting another sensational DE to add to Chris Long and Robert Quinn would set St. Louis up to be dominant on defense for years.

3. Atlanta Falcons: Jake Matthews, OT, Texas A&M

Clowney probably would be the pick here if he makes it to Atlanta’s spot. So, Anthony Barr ought to be under consideration as well. But Barr doesn’t seem like as much of a fit for Atlanta’s D as Clowney … and Matthews is plenty acceptable as a backup plan. This may not be the sexiest pick, but the Falcons are in rough shape on the offensive line.

4. Minnesota Vikings: Derek Carr, QB, Fresno State

Carrying this pick over from Mock 3.1. The Vikings are almost certain to look QB at some point in the draft. Having a player like Barr still on the board at this point would make it tough to pull the trigger on Carr, but the Fresno State product likely could slide in as the starter from Day 1.

5. Oakland Raiders: Mike Evans, WR, Texas A&M

The Raiders could fit Barr in somewhere if they had to; a player as talented as him can dictate complete changes in scheme and approach. The need for a dynamic receiver is so high here, though, that it really would be hard for Oakland to pass on either Evans or Sammy Watkins. I had Watkins ahead of Evans in Mock 3.1 (the former to Tampa Bay, the latter to the Jets). Here, I’m flip-flopping that order, especially if the Raiders have any plans to use the ad-libbing Terrelle Pryor in the future — Evans has done some of his best work at A&M freeing himself while Johnny Manziel scrambles.

Also, I had Johnny Manziel mocked to the Raiders last week at No. 8 overall. That’s a move that I’d consider very much possible even in the top five, but each additional decent Matt McGloin outing makes it less likely in my mind.

6. Jacksonville Jaguars: Anthony Barr, OLB, UCLA

Merry Christmas. The Jaguars miss out on the top two quarterbacks — a disappointing outcome given their need there — but they land instead a player that might be this draft’s best when all is said and done. Barr’s athletic, multi-dimensional abilities off the edge would fit nicely in Gus Bradley’s system.

7. Cleveland Browns: Sammy Watkins, WR, Clemson

Another spot where Manziel (or Brett Hundley) could land. Watkins has been a sensational deep threat throughout his time at Clemson, which should make him very appealing for Cleveland’s vertical passing attack. Plus, current No. 1 WR Josh Gordon is but one slip-up away from being suspended for an entire season. Cleveland cannot gamble on him without some semblance of a Plan B.

8. Buffalo Bills: Khalil Mack, OLB, Buffalo

Another copycat pick out of Mock 3.1, though the Bills are a spot higher now than they were in that endeavor. Mack has the potential to soar in a defense like the one Mike Pettine wants to play, even more so with Kiko Alonso next to him in the linebacking corps.

9. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Eric Ebron, TE, North Carolina

A major adjustment for the Buccaneers, whom I had selecting Sammy Watkins at No. 5 overall when last we spoke of such things. Four spots lower, the focus is the same: A field-stretching weapon to pair with Vincent Jackson as QB Mike Glennon develops. Ebron may not add a ton as a blocker in the run game, but he can work up the seams and out of the slot, expanding the Bucs’ capabilities on offense.

10. Pittsburgh Steelers: Louis Nix III, DT, Notre Dame

There are two ways the Steelers could go, as it stands here: Taylor Lewan to bolster an offensive line that basically fell apart in 2013. Or Nix, perhaps the type of piece missing from a D-line that’s often overmatched. There will be potential offensive line starters later in the draft, but I’m not sure that’s the case up front at the 3-4 DT spot. Nabbing Nix here would help the Steelers rebuild in the trenches (as well as possibly give them more flexibility in how they utilize Steve McLendon).

Pretty realistic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The St Louis pick makes absolutely no sense.

They picked up Tavon Austin because Sam Bradford needs more help.

They picked up multiple running backs the year before that as well.

They are obviously set on helping Bradford out as much as possible. The next thing is making sure he stays healthy and they have a hole at LT. It only makes sense for them to pick up Jake Matthews.

They aren't a good enough team to sit there and load up on an already dominant D-line for 2 years in a row. How are they helping their current record?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The St Louis pick makes absolutely no sense.

They picked up Tavon Austin because Sam Bradford needs more help.

They picked up multiple running backs the year before that as well.

They are obviously set on helping Bradford out as much as possible. The next thing is making sure he stays healthy and they have a hole at LT. It only makes sense for them to pick up Jake Matthews.

They aren't a good enough team to sit there and load up on an already dominant D-line for 2 years in a row. How are they helping their current record?

It would make sense for us to draft jake Matthews by this logic. Which I agree with btw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The St Louis pick makes absolutely no sense.

They picked up Tavon Austin because Sam Bradford needs more help.

They picked up multiple running backs the year before that as well.

They are obviously set on helping Bradford out as much as possible. The next thing is making sure he stays healthy and they have a hole at LT. It only makes sense for them to pick up Jake Matthews.

They aren't a good enough team to sit there and load up on an already dominant D-line for 2 years in a row. How are they helping their current record?

They picked up Austin and the RB's to help whatever QB is going to play. It doesn't matter if it was Peyton Manning, they had to get some WRs. The moves they made in last years draft wasn't just for Bradford himself. It was for the entire offense.

A lot of people are writing off Clowney to STL, but i think it definitely could happen. Its not like rookie contracts are as high as they used to be where they would be tying up way too much money at the DE spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They picked up Austin and the RB's to help whatever QB is going to play. It doesn't matter if it was Peyton Manning, they had to get some WRs. The moves they made in last years draft wasn't just for Bradford himself. It was for the entire offense.

A lot of people are writing off Clowney to STL, but i think it definitely could happen. Its not like rookie contracts are as high as they used to be where they would be tying up way too much money at the DE spot.

How does an extra DE that would essentially be a bench player help their current status because he isnt starting ahead of the current two DEs on the roster that already dominate? They are a middle to below average team. They dont get better by enhancing something thats already great.

They have a top 5 D-Line in the league and their LT spot has a serious hole AND there's a top LT prospect in the draft.

Its literally stupid to pick up Clowney over Matthews based on their situation.

Edited by ATLFalcons11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make sense for us to draft jake Matthews by this logic. Which I agree with btw

Our situation and St Louis isn't the same at all. We were a great team that fell hard.

We also have a LT that we paid too much money to so benching or replacing will have too much money placed into one position and since we have a lot of other holes it would be a bad decision to draft Matthews.

The best option since you're not a fan of Baker is to pick up a vet LT that could play in place of Baker in case of injury or terrible play.

USing a top 5 pick for that wouldn't be the smart thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my mock lol

But looking at the pick from another perspective, if Clowney is truly an otherworldly talent and we all know multiple pass rushers is a good thing. Who knows

I knew it wasn't your mock. Lol. They're aren't getting better with that pick. The goal is to get better not get stuck on otherwordly talent. What good is that talent if it doesn't help you succeed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does an extra DE that would essentially be a bench player help their current status because he isnt starting ahead of the current two DEs on the roster that already dominate? They are a middle to below average team. They dont get better by enhancing something thats already great.

They have a top 5 D-Line in the league and their LT spot has a serious hole AND there's a top LT prospect in the draft.

Its literally stupid to pick up Clowney over Matthews based on their situation.

They don't have a top 5 D line. They have a top 5 pass rush. Lets get that straight to start off with

Secondly, If they drafted Clowney its not like he would be riding the bench. He would be in rotation with their starting DE's plenty. And he is one of the best DE's prospects in the last decade.

Thirdly, Jake Matthews isn't neccesarily worth the 2nd pick in the draft. He isn't head and shoulders above Taylor Lewan nor is he as high of a prospect as Joeckl was last year who was the 2nd pick . The Rams could take Clowney at 2 and then take Lewan at 13 or they could trade up a little and take Lewan a few picks earlier if they were scared about losing him.

There is zero problem with taking Clowney at 2

Edited by Clark Kent™
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our situation and St Louis isn't the same at all. We were a great team that fell hard.

We also have a LT that we paid too much money to so benching or replacing will have too much money placed into one position and since we have a lot of other holes it would be a bad decision to draft Matthews.

The best option since you're not a fan of Baker is to pick up a vet LT that could play in place of Baker in case of injury or terrible play.

USing a top 5 pick for that wouldn't be the smart thing to do.

You do realize the rookie pay scale makes it affordable to even keep baker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have a top 5 D line. They have a top 5 pass rush. Lets get that straight to start off with.

Why draft a rotational player instead of a starter, especially when the starter you're drafting fits a need and the rotational player doesn't?

Secondly, If they drafted Clowney its not like he would be riding the bench. He would be in rotation with their starting DE's plenty. And he is one of the best DE's prospects in the last decade.

Thirdly, Jake Matthews isn't neccesarily worth the 2nd pick in the draft. He isn't head and shoulders above Taylor Lewan nor is he as high of a prospect as Joeckl was last year who was the 2nd pick . The Rams could take Clowney at 2 and then take Lewan at 13 or they could trade up a little and take Lewan a few picks earlier if they were scared about losing him.

There is zero problem with taking Clowney at 2

Agree to disagree on this whole post.

As far as the top 5 Dline as opposed to top 5 pass rush. They have no needs along that whole D-line. Check every draft website and their whole front 7 is solid.

Ironically, they do absolutely need a LT. It doesn't have to be Matthews. It could be Lewan, whatever. But there are top prospects at LT. Having Clowney doesn't help them get to the top of the NFC West. Helping that anemic offense does.

The needs for St. Louis are LT, CB, S, WR, and maybe QB.

Nowhere in there is a D-line or even a front 7. The only reason you don't pick a need and pick BPA is if you're already a good team, but they're not a good team. They want to become a good team and keeping the offense the same while loading up on an already amazing position doesn't move you up from where you were last year.

The best picks for St. Louis and 2 and 13 are:

2: Matthews, Lewan (you say he isn't far off)

13: Haha, Mike Evans

Edited by ATLFalcons11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really- Baker is 40 mil, Matthews would be 20- just can't see tying up 60 mil in the OT spot.

How much was tied up in Ray Edwards and John Abraham?

Btw that'd be 60 m over the life of the contracts. Who says baker sees the end of his contract

#3 overall dion jordan got 4 years 20m and some change. That's a pittance. Only 3.7 m in salary first year. That's cheaper than a FA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize the rookie pay scale makes it affordable to even keep baker?

I never said it did, but look at it like this. We have many positions of need. DE, DT, RG, RT, LT, maybe OLB (although I like Bartu), maybe TE, and S.

We obviously won't be able to fill all those needs in one offseason. So you look at your positions based on cap space, how much cap is put into that position already, serviceable starters at the current position, and definite needs.

DT is of the highest need because after the season we won't have any

DE has been a need for a while now.

RG and RT are definite needs. No doubt about it. Some may say even bigger than DT and DE.

LT and S could use an upgrade. If we pick #2, whether you look at BPA or Needs. Clowney is the hands down best pick over Matthews because he's the BPA that fits a need. Its the best of both philosophies.

That alone makes him the better choice along with LT taking up a lot of cap space. We have a serviceable starter there who we cant cut loose. We just have young DEs that can be cut loose. If you absolutely want to adjust the LT position, then its best to do so thru free agency with a vet that could come in a pinch or in case of injury or possibly as a challenge to Baker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much was tied up in Ray Edwards and John Abraham?

Thats not the same because Edwards and Abe can play on the field at the same time.

And we know Baker cant play RT so you would be trying to place Matthews at RT and drafting a RT as a top 5 pick is about as nonsensical as the Rams picking up Clowney with a loaded DE position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not the same because Edwards and Abe can play on the field at the same time.

And we know Baker cant play RT so you would be trying to place Matthews at RT and drafting a RT as a top 5 pick is about as nonsensical as the Rams picking up Clowney with a loaded DE position.

It's not about just this year in top 5 picks. It's about setting your team up for years to come as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about just this year in top 5 picks. It's about setting your team up for years to come as well

Regardless you don't draft a RT top 5. For years to come there will be plenty of other LT prospects and Baker's contract will be a year older and closer to cutting him loose. This year isn't the time to do it. Its just not logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless you don't draft a RT top 5. For years to come there will be plenty of other LT prospects and Baker's contract will be a year older and closer to cutting him loose. This year isn't the time to do it. Its just not logical.

Pin this pistol. I'm going to laugh we grab matthews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree on this whole post.

As far as the top 5 Dline as opposed to top 5 pass rush. They have no needs along that whole D-line. Check every draft website and their whole front 7 is solid.

Ironically, they do absolutely need a LT. It doesn't have to be Matthews. It could be Lewan, whatever. But there are top prospects at LT. Having Clowney doesn't help them get to the top of the NFC West. Helping that anemic offense does.

The needs for St. Louis are LT, CB, S, WR, and maybe QB.

Nowhere in there is a D-line or even a front 7. The only reason you don't pick a need and pick BPA is if you're already a good team, but they're not a good team. They want to become a good team and keeping the offense the same while loading up on an already amazing position doesn't move you up from where you were last year.

The best picks for St. Louis and 2 and 13 are:

2: Matthews, Lewan (you say he isn't far off)

13: Haha, Mike Evans

You can agree to disagree all you want. You are the one saying how it is "literally stupid". I am saying i have zero problem with it. I am well aware of STL draft needs.

As far as the top 5 D line vs Top 5 pass rush. I was 100% right about that.

When you are talking about the best DE prospect to come out in the last 10 years then it makes you think twice. Would they rather have Matthews at 2 or Lewan at 13?

Yes I said Matthews is not head and shoulders above Lewan, but are you really going to sit there and act like they are going to take him at 2? lol as of now there is no way they would reach 10 picks to get him when he is already slated to go at 13.

And enough with the "you won't get any better with clowney" talk. The guy will get his snaps in a heavy D line rotation.

I'm not saying that Stl is going to draft Clowney and then Lewan, but i definitely would not write it off.

Edited by Clark Kent™
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rams taking a De would be like TD taking watkins.

Could cclowney make tthem better? Sure.

Do they have a lot of other more pressing needs? Yes.

Except Watkins isn't talked about nearly as the top WR prospect in the last decade now is he? In usual situations I would say like both you guys are. Take the OT and take the big WR, but you have to give extra emphasis to the potential Clowney has. If he is the next Julius Peppers then you have to give strong consideration. It will all come down to how much they like Jake Matthews. If they don't like him enough at #2 they may take Clowney or even trade back.

Edited by Clark Kent™
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...