GBN mock 1/25/09 - Page 4

Mr. Laz · 01-27-2009, 02:33 PM

2009 DRAFT PROJECTION

January 25, 2009

* Indicates underclassman

#
Team
Player
POS
School

1 Detroit
Matthew Stafford
QB
Georgia

2 St. Louis Andre Smith
OT
Alabama

3
Kansas City Aaron Curry
LB
Wake Forest

4

Seattle
Michael Crabtree
WR
Texas Tech

5

Cleveland
Aaron Maybin
DE/LB
Penn State

6
Cincinnati Eugene Monroe
OT
Virginia

7 Oakland Jason Smith
OT
Baylor

8

Jacksonville Michael Oher
OT
Mississippi

9
Green Bay B.J. Raji
DT
Boston College

10
San Francisco Mark Sanchez
QB
Southern California

11 Buffalo Everette Brown
DE
Florida State

12 Denver Chris Wells
RB
Ohio State

13 Washington Brian Orakpo
DE
Texas

14 New Orleans Malcolm Jenkins
CB
Ohio State

15
Houston Jeremy Maclin
WR
Missouri

16
San Diego Rey Maualuga
LB
Southern California

17 New York Jets Alphonso Smith
CB
Wake Forest

18 Chicago D.J. Moore CB
Vanderbilt

19
Tampa Bay Percy Harvin
WR
Florida

20 Detroit (from Dallas) James Laurinaitis
LB
Ohio State

21
Philadelphia Knowshon Moreno
RB
Georgia

22 Minnesota Vontae Davis
CB
Illinois

23
New England Brian Cushing
LB
Southern California

24
Atlanta Peria Jerry
DT
Mississippi

25 Miami Michael Johnson
DE
Georgia Tech

26
Baltimore Clint Sintim
LB
Virginia

27
Indianapolis
Sen'Derrick Marks
DT
Auburn

28
Philadelphia (from Carolina) Eben Britton
OT
Arizona

29 New York Giants Hakeem Nicks
WR
North Carolina

30
Tennessee Brandon Pettigrew
TE
Oklahoma State

31
Arizona
LeSean McCoy
RB
Pittsburgh

32
Pittsburgh
Duke Robinson
OG
Oklahoma

If you have comments or suggestions, e-mail: The editor. The GBN can also be reached by phone at (613) 692-1088; by fax at (613) 951-0387; or regular mail at PO Box 5282, Merivale Depot, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; K2C 3H5.
Great Blue North Draft Report Privacy Policy.
The GREAT BLUE NORTH DRAFT REPORT is a division of SQUITERLAND ENTERPRISES, Ottawa, Ontario,Canada

Frosty · 01-28-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pestilenceaf23

The only possible person that someone would want to trade with us for is Crabtree. That's IF (and a big if) they think that he's just like Fitzgerald (which I don't). The only people I could see trading for him would be Jacksonville and San Francisco. It's not going to happen though because it would cost them too much to get up to the #3 spot.

You don't think Cinci might? They are probably losing both Housh and Ocho Cinco. That leaves them with pretty much only Chris Henry.

Chiefnj2 · 01-28-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Exactly.

Then you're left holding your dick and a 2nd round pick, all because you weren't worried about getting value.

Picks are POWER.

Taking less than what is rightfully owed is ****ing reeruned.

Why is some random chart "rightfully owed"?

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-28-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Does having 200 extra points make it worthwhile?

If it's the difference between having Brendan Carr and NOT having Brendan Carr, I'd say yes.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-28-2009, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Why is some random chart "rightfully owed"?

Yeah, it's a "random" chart that the entire league uses to decipher pick value.

**DeezNutz** · 01-28-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Does having 200 extra points make it worthwhile?

Maybe. You can trade them in at the Fun Factory for a mid-grade prize.

Chiefnj2 · 01-28-2009, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yeah, it's a "random" chart that the entire league uses to decipher pick value.

"Miami would like nothing better than to trade down, stockpile picks and save cap space, but that's much easier said than done. Potential trading partners that aren't scared off by the cap's voodoo economics are handcuffed by the value chart that has become standard across the NFL. This chart, which assigns a numerical value to every slot (3,000 for No. 1, 590 for No. 32, 44 for No. 128, and so on), was designed to help GMs pinpoint the market value of their picks. Problem is, the chart is absurdly top-heavy, making it hard for teams to trade down and to look like they didn't get taken in the eyes of the fans and media. "Every GM would trade these picks in a heartbeat if they could," says Polian. "But no one else wants to pay for them."

In 2006, two professors, Yale's Cade Massey and the University of Chicago's Richard Thaler, published a study of the 1991 to 2002 drafts. They found that a first-rounder is nearly as likely to be out of the NFL after five years (8%) as he is to make the Pro Bowl during those five seasons (9%). And it gets worse. While top picks do perform better than lower ones, Massey and Thaler also discovered that performance falls off much faster than compensation, making No. 1 and No. 32 nearly indistinguishable from a value standpoint. In other words, at this year's draft, the Giants, selecting at No. 31, will likely grab as valuable a player as the Dolphins will at No. 1. If the Dolphins truly understood what they were up against, they'd let the clock expire on their choice 20 times and ultimately risk only $10 million instead of $60 million. "There is no science to the draft," admits Giants GM Jerry Reese. "If you guess right, you look smart. If you make a couple of wrong guesses, you look dumb. You just try to get more right than wrong.""

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-28-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

"Miami would like nothing better than to trade down, stockpile picks and save cap space, but that's much easier said than done. Potential trading partners that aren't scared off by the cap's voodoo economics are handcuffed by the value chart that has become standard across the NFL. This chart, which assigns a numerical value to every slot (3,000 for No. 1, 590 for No. 32, 44 for No. 128, and so on), was designed to help GMs pinpoint the market value of their picks. Problem is, the chart is absurdly top-heavy, making it hard for teams to trade down and to look like they didn't get taken in the eyes of the fans and media. "Every GM would trade these picks in a heartbeat if they could," says Polian. "But no one else wants to pay for them."

In 2006, two professors, Yale's Cade Massey and the University of Chicago's Richard Thaler, published a study of the 1991 to 2002 drafts. They found that a first-rounder is nearly as likely to be out of the NFL after five years (8%) as he is to make the Pro Bowl during those five seasons (9%). And it gets worse. While top picks do perform better than lower ones, Massey and Thaler also discovered that performance falls off much faster than compensation, making No. 1 and No. 32 nearly indistinguishable from a value standpoint. In other words, at this year's draft, the Giants, selecting at No. 31, will likely grab as valuable a player as the Dolphins will at No. 1. If the Dolphins truly understood what they were up against, they'd let the clock expire on their choice 20 times and ultimately risk only $10 million instead of $60 million. "There is no science to the draft," admits Giants GM Jerry Reese. "If you guess right, you look smart. If you make a couple of wrong guesses, you look dumb. You just try to get more right than wrong.""

Yet the entire league continues to use the chart, as-is.

You and zilla can get together over tea and bitch about how stupid the chart is, while the rest of the league continues to use it.

If you think it's smart to trade down from 3 to 7 and only get a 2nd round pick out of the deal, I can't help you. You'd need a professional to figure out WTF is going through your head.

Chiefnj2 · 01-28-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yet the entire league continues to use the chart, as-is.

You and zilla can get together over tea and bitch about how stupid the chart is, while the rest of the league continues to use it.

If you think it's smart to trade down from 3 to 7 and only get a 2nd round pick out of the deal, I can't help you. You'd need a professional to figure out WTF is going through your head.

Do you have good draft classes and bad draft classes where the talent level changes?

Would the Raiders have made a mistake trading away the #1 pick (Jamarcus Russell) for the 7th round pick, a 2nd rounder and came up short 200 points on the chart?

**The Franchise** · 01-28-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Do you have good draft classes and bad draft classes where the talent level changes?

Would the Raiders have made a mistake trading away the #1 pick (Jamarcus Russell) for the 7th round pick, a 2nd rounder and came up short 200 points on the chart?

Nice try....but no one knew if JaMarcus Russell was going to suck or not and at the time everyone thought Adrian Peterson was injury prone.

Just deal with the fact that you may not like the draft value chart....but all 32 teams use it.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-28-2009, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Do you have good draft classes and bad draft classes where the talent level changes?

Would the Raiders have made a mistake trading away the #1 pick (Jamarcus Russell) for the 7th round pick, a 2nd rounder and came up short 200 points on the chart?

Assuming you meant trading away the #1 overall for the 7th overall and a 2nd rounder - yeah, that's ****ing reeruned.

In that scenario, you're giving up 1000 points, not 200. Or the equivalent of a mid-first round pick.

Don't blame the chart for the Raiders making a stupid selection, considering Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas would have been worth the #1 overall, unlike Russell.

Chiefnj2 · 01-28-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pestilenceaf23

Nice try....but no one knew if JaMarcus Russell was going to suck or not and at the time everyone thought Adrian Peterson was injury prone.

Just deal with the fact that you may not like the draft value chart....but all 32 teams use it.

If the Raiders gave up the first and made a deal that was 200 points short, the media and fans would have cried - bad move the "chart" said we are idiots and are 200 points short. In reality all that matters is whether or not your picks pan out. Whether you came up 200 points short, or made a great deal where you got 600 extra points - doesn't matter one bit unless you hit on the picks.

Saying someone came out ahead or behind because of the value chart is like grading the draft on the day of the draft.

**The Franchise** · 01-28-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If the Raiders gave up the first and made a deal that was 200 points short, the media and fans would have cried - bad move the "chart" said we are idiots and are 200 points short. In reality all that matters is whether or not your picks pan out. Whether you came up 200 points short, or made a great deal where you got 600 extra points - doesn't matter one bit unless you hit on the picks.

Saying someone came out ahead or behind because of the value chart is like grading the draft on the day of the draft.

Yeah and you're going back and picking and choosing drafts and players because of how well they performed. Same ****ing thing.

Chiefnj2 · 01-28-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Assuming you meant trading away the #1 overall for the 7th overall and a 2nd rounder - yeah, that's ****ing reeruned.

In that scenario, you're giving up 1000 points, not 200. Or the equivalent of a mid-first round pick.

Don't blame the chart for the Raiders making a stupid selection, considering Calvin Johnson and Joe Thomas would have been worth the #1 overall, unlike Russell.

You proved my point. You had several athletes in that draft who were top talents and all worth the mythical 3,000 points. The chart doesn't take that into account.

**DaneMcCloud** · 01-28-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

If the Raiders gave up the first and made a deal that was 200 points short, the media and fans would have cried - bad move the "chart" said we are idiots and are 200 points short. In reality all that matters is whether or not your picks pan out. Whether you came up 200 points short, or made a great deal where you got 600 extra points - doesn't matter one bit unless you hit on the picks.

Saying someone came out ahead or behind because of the value chart is like grading the draft on the day of the draft.

Are you really Carl Peterson?

Chiefnj2 · 01-28-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Are you really Carl Peterson?

Get back under my desk and fellate me Mr. Gretz.