My two cents

[Sonny Koufax]

Good point stasheroo, but I like I said, I don't think they'll be looking at wr. I was thinking about the FBs playing on all the special teams, as well as offense. But I probably did pick them a round too high.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Chris Johnson over Rice. Faster, stronger, more explosive and a better receiver. One thing I do give Rice is he is a bit bigger with a lower center of gravity. Always good. They both do break tackles (very important), but Johnson is clearly the stronger of the two.

I take Johnson hands down.

 

[Teague31]

i have no problem using both first rounders on corners... you need at least 3 studs in today's NFL.

 

[AsthmaField]

Never understood this line of thinking.

You say it's a thin, thin draft at WR (and it is, not arguing that point)...so we shouldn't take one in round 1.

Now everyone knows it's a thick, thick draft at RB....and you have us possibly taking one in round one.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to take one of the few good WRs available (given that they are 1st round talent)...therefore exhausting that short list...and then taking one of the several good to above average RBs later...when they'll still be available?

Just how I've always seen it anyway.

Choco pretty much answered it for me, Jack. I do understand what you're saying and we might end up taking a 2nd round RB because there is such depth there. However, that's what got us in trouble with Julius Jones (over Steven Jackson), and while I do understand the rational behind that move... I don't necessarily agree with it.

Like Lab said, the third best RB in this year's draft might be better than the number 1 WR. So, say there are two RB's and 2 WR's taken before we pick, then we can have the third ranked RB or the third ranked WR. This year, the third ranked RB might be rated overall higher than the number 1 rated WR... so we're getting a much, much better player if we take the third RB as opposed to the third WR.

It's just my opinion and I know there are exceptions for both ways of thinking... I like picking from positions that are deep in whatever year's draft we're talking about.

 

[AsthmaField]

Chris Johnson over Rice. Faster, stronger, more explosive and a better receiver. One thing I do give Rice is he is a bit bigger with a lower center of gravity. Always good. They both do break tackles (very important), but Johnson is clearly the stronger of the two.

I take Johnson hands down.

Not me. Rice is a better RB than Johnson, IMO. Maybe not the better athlete or the fastest... but he's a better RB.

Give me vision, productivity, balance, instincts, toughness, heart, leverage and patience and I'll give up some athleticism and speed.

See:

Emmitt vs. Blair Thomas

or

Marion Barber vs. Julius Jones

Seriously, if we didn't know MBIII and Jones and we took them through the combine... I bet most people would take Jones over Barber.

Once you've seen them play the game though... it's an easy choice for Barber.

 

[Verdict]

I actually think taking two corners with the first two picks, or two out of the first 3 picks is a great idea. We are thin at that position, and corners are very costly in free agency. This draft appears deep in corner talent, so its depth plays to our position of need. We might even be able to trade down a couple of places with our first #1 and still get two very good corners.


The only receiver that might be available when we pick worth taking is probably Malcolm Kelly. I would be OK with us taking him with either first round pick as well.

We could probably get a serviceable running back in the second. I would be Ok with trading up in the second to get an impact player (especially receiver or rb) if he is still on the board.

 

[AsthmaField]

I actually think taking two corners with the first two picks, or two out of the first 3 picks is a great idea. We are thin at that position, and corners are very costly in free agency. This draft appears deep in corner talent, so its depth plays to our position of need. We might even be able to trade down a couple of places with our first #1 and still get two very good corners.


The only receiver that might be available when we pick worth taking is probably Malcolm Kelly. I would be OK with us taking him with either first round pick as well.

We could probably get a serviceable running back in the second. I would be Ok with trading up in the second to get an impact player (especially receiver or rb) if he is still on the board.

I'd rather not go corner, corner in round 1... but I'd be ok with it.

If we could somehow go corner, corner and then make a trade up in the second round and get Rice at RB... I'd be thrilled.

Trying to get Rice in the second would be real, real tricky though, IMO. I think if he makes it to round 2 that he'll go early in the second.

 

[jackrussell]

I get what you're saying... But if one group is really that much stronger than another -- like in this case -- the 3rd best RB might be a much better overall player than the best WR. And you want to take the best player, not draft for need at some certain position I think that's what he meant.

As for two corners in the first round... Please no. CB is my favorite position, but that's overkill. Just get some decent journeyman type to go with the rook, and that plus Ball will be plenty.

Choco pretty much answered it for me, Jack. I do understand what you're saying and we might end up taking a 2nd round RB because there is such depth there. However, that's what got us in trouble with Julius Jones (over Steven Jackson), and while I do understand the rational behind that move... I don't necessarily agree with it.

Like Lab said, the third best RB in this year's draft might be better than the number 1 WR. So, say there are two RB's and 2 WR's taken before we pick, then we can have the third ranked RB or the third ranked WR. This year, the third ranked RB might be rated overall higher than the number 1 rated WR... so we're getting a much, much better player if we take the third RB as opposed to the third WR.

It's just my opinion and I know there are exceptions for both ways of thinking... I like picking from positions that are deep in whatever year's draft we're talking about.

Ok...now I did preface all of this by saying a 1st round worthy WR....so I'm not looking at the 3rd or 4th best as compared to the 2nd or 3rd best RB.

While the one group is substantially stronger than the other..perhaps the prospect from the weaker group could indeed be one of the stronger individuals of the 2 groups combined.

Right now I think we're looking at a RB to compliment MB...and a WR that could eventually become our next #1...or at the very least, #2 WR. (forgive me, I'm still mourning over passing on Santonio Holmes ).

So if the prospect order went something like this:

RB
WR---------unavailable at our pick
RB
WR---------1ST ROUND
RB
RB
RB
WR----------2ND ROUND

I'm probably leaning toward the 2nd wr (4th best prospect) over the 2nd RB (3rd best prospect).....and catching the RB a bit later.

Of course...either way...I'm just hoping we can fill the needs accordingly.

 

[the kid 05]

jerry said he wants to recreate what he helped create in the early 90s. that means he will trade with oakland to draft mcfadden to complete the triplets 2.0

then wouldn't we have to get a harper and a stouter defense? we already have our "slow" yet shifty (in his own way) rb and our more accurate then powerful qb and our big mouth big play wr

 

[burmafrd]

There are only 3 RBs that are truly first rd guys; they will almost certainly be all gone. There is only at best 2 WRs that are first rd picks. Odds are they will be gone by 22. There are maybe 6 CBs that are first rd picks. MUCH better odds that one or two will be left by 22. If so we take the best one there; if the other is still there at 28 grab him. Not likely but there it is.

 

[TNCowboy]

There are only 3 RBs that are truly first rd guys; they will almost certainly be all gone. There is only at best 2 WRs that are first rd picks. Odds are they will be gone by 22. There are maybe 6 CBs that are first rd picks. MUCH better odds that one or two will be left by 22. If so we take the best one there; if the other is still there at 28 grab him. Not likely but there it is.

I don't buy that for a second.