taking a mulligan

No moving up or down via trade and you can't take any one already gone

http://www.nfl.com/draft/drafttracker/round/round1

25. Weddle SS-yeah a bit of a reach, fills a need and beats waitng for 13 other guys to come off the board before addressing safety

45. Harris MLB-draft a true MLB instead of a guy with injury questions that just happens to play MLB among other things

59. Kalil C-best pick of the 1st three IMHO, can play day 1 and allow Hartwig to move over and hopefully improve us at RG

83. Johnson DE-a little raw, but probably the best of what was left at DE

118. Robinson WR/KR-with Figures and Jones already gone, it kind of forces our hand to address this need now

155. Gaddis FS-improvement over what we have on the roster and could have contributed on ST

164. Patrick TE-yeah, I know he didn't go until 7, but we have no 6th. I take him early because I don't want to chance it and be stuck with a tweener like Rosario.

226. Snelling FB-some one that can actually challenge Hoover. Goings and Shelton fight it out for 3rd RB.

 

1. I like the Beason pick in round one. I might have considered Olsen but probably not.

2. I like Jarrett and he was good value but I would have probably went with David Harris to shore up MLB

2.a Kalil was a good pick would do the same

3. Johnson is a good pick in the third, good value at a need position

4. We needed a return man so Robinson is fine with me.

5. I like Shaw a lot but I would have probably went with HB Blades instead. Rosario is a bit of a mystery to me, why draft him with Patrick still on the board?

7. Might have took a flyer on Siler with this pick.

 

I'm glad we didn't trade down to get Weddle and Harris, T. Sorry, but no.

Harris has an injury history too, and is not likely a good enough athlete to be a Pro Bowl caliber player. You'll be getting solid starters without much upside. Weddle may make a solid all around safety, but isn't an elite athlete either.

We could have made a choice or two differently, a little less "boom" but a little less "bust."


25. Paul Posluszny - He's not really bigger than Beason, or the the athlete, and he has his own injury issues (as did T's boy Harris). But unlike Beason or Harris, he's can get bigger, and needs to. Won't be the weakside playmaker that Beason would be, but might make a better MLB with added weight, if that's what we are shooting for. Like Beason, he's a good tackler with good quickness and play recognition. Not as quick laterally or as much burst, but probably a little more natural speed. Does have the frame to add 10-15 pounds.

Obviously the staff would rather have the slightly more athletic and more physically developed player. But there isn't much difference between them.


45. I'll stick with the Jarrett pick here. Value too great.



59. Piscitelli, Sabby SS Purdue. He's a late second, early third guy, so the value isn't awful, and I do like him. Big, fast, and rangy, and a good tackler. The staff either didn't like him or couldn't pass up taking a third top 40 rated player.

I like Robinson and Johnson, and frankly, the second day is such a crap shoot, so it really is pointless to second guess. Everyone has just about the same grade, it's whoever the staff happened to see and have catch their eye.

 

ugh. Don't fall victim to the hype (and it's Oregon St). Piscitelli is a workout warrior.

 

Sorry to F with your mulligan taking BUT -

Since we got 5 guys who are widely considered top 80 then make the first 5 picks 16, 32, 48, 64, 80 . . . Then add our 118, 155, 164

16 - Griffin (dependable versatile, our new Minter)
32 - Posluszny (Beason is probably going to be very solid but Puz has that IT thing and I bet he makes more probowls)
48 - Kalil (probably the best value here too)
64 - Johnson (ditto, and we need our DE)
80 - Yanda (G/T to upgrade our depth at T and possible starter at G down the road)
118 - Robinson (I’m ready to get on his band wagon)
155 - Shaw (Didn’t see anyone else I’d rather have here either)
164 - Payne (can cover, return kicks, and punt! I bet he’s going to be a damn good Safety too. He and Griffin would have made a great pair IMO)

I bet Fox & Co have a few vet TEs in mind and I’m banking on King stepping up. I didn’t like the looks of that sillyass “head butting incident” from the Rosario kid so I would have passed on him. The more I see and hear about Jarrett’s attitude problems the less I like that pick. Hope he is capable of growing up, and doing it in a hurry. Draft Key’s replacement next year . . .

 

I copy pasted it I thought, so the sourse must be wrong.

He wasn't unproductive, with a knack for INTs. He does need have a need to get stronger and is a zone player, but we haven't asked a guy to play man from safety since Grant left.

 

What I would've done at the time, by recollection, at 25 was Posluszny. I'm still comfortable with that.

I'm more than fine with our seconds and thirds, but at the time I was thinking:

2a. Charles Johnson - I was campaigning for him. A round too early in retrospect, sure. This isn't me trying to look good for hindsight. I would've been fine with him here.

2b. John Wendling - yeah, I probably would've. And I'd have been fine with it. He's a workout guy, too, but he's a football player. He was known before combine; guys like Piscitelli were being projected as backup OLBs in February.

I've made no mistake about saying even in hindsight that I'd have no problem reaching for a safety, though.

3. Anthony Waters, ILB - It would've blown to see Buster Davis, Justin Durant, even Quincy Black go before our third, because I would've definitely drafted an ILB here. I don't even like Waters, and sure, I know that makes this pick dumb. But he would've been the only ILB left worth a damn, and going down a needs-list type situation I would've wanted to have a LB first day. Since no one even went 4th round at ILB, the position went early. The only other guy I'd consider at this pick for ILB would've been DeOssie, who's a reach and too much of an outside guy. Maybe Shaw here, maybe not.

Which is why you don't draft exclusively for need. Getting LB early helped us.

4. Ben Patrick - I could've lived with passing on him for the other picks, but by this point, I wouldn't have gone without taking him. Still no idea why he fell, and I would've been plenty happy with him here.

5a. Brandon Frye, OT - since I had no intention of taking the BpA in 2 (despite correctly stating Kalil the best available right before the pick), I would've wanted a tackle here. I wasn't around for the pick, but if we didn't take Kalil, this was the type pick I would've wanted and expected in the second day.

5b. Kevin Payne - I would've wanted a second safety in this draft, Payne was good value in 5.

7. Earl Everett, OLB - I'd have taken him here. No idea why he went undrafted.
PS - Brandon Siler still blows.

Not pretty, is it?


So the true genuflecting, hindsight draft?

25. Posluszny - yeah, I still would've taken him. They really are similar, but I don't know if I'll ever really obsess over comparing the two like others have over, say, Portis/Foster or that type thing. I can see what they were thinking with Beason, obviously if they liked Beason at 14 they wanted him more anyway.

The trade down means they were more than fine with, and I'm guessing here, the safeties or Posluszny, though. And then possibly Olsen.

45. Jarrett - yes, they made a believer. I don't know what Jarrett will do on the field, and I wouldn't have made the pick. But I'll keep it.

59. Kalil - see above. Another pick I wouldn't have made 90% of the time and they were right. Presuming they could get a S, which I've still yet to see.

83. If I was going to take Johnson in 2, I can't not be ecstatic with him in 3.

118. Patrick - I still would've been happy with him here.

155. Chansi Stuckey - yeah, I know. Another guy taken in 7. If we'd taken him in 5, not a peep about shit value. I think Fox even mentioned him as one of the other alternatives to Robinson.

164. John Wendling or HB Blades - I'd have likely picked either by this point regardless of need. Neither deserved the fall.

 

Turn ifs and buts into candy and nuts, and everyone would have a Merry Christmas.

 

Beason is a better sideline to sideline guy, which fits more with what Fox likes. Either would have been fine here, though.

I watched Wendling in the Shrine Bowl, and to me he looked more like a LB than S. I think he's a tweener that will never be more than a ST demon. There's a reason he was picked where he was.

 

I think he'd be an awful LB.
Piscitelli was listed as a LB at one point. I know both were considered workout guys, I just don't buy that Piscitelli is that much better a player because he ran something they didn't think he could run.

you could arbitrarily say that about anyone, given no explanation. I disagree.