Nation Wide Mock Draft
by JetMet on Feb 9, 2012 2:36 PM PST
Email
PrintHello Seahawks Fans,
I had an idea for a mock draft in which your sports nation site acts as your team. Over the next few months I plan to visit each team's site and allow for each reader to help pick your team's draft pick. Please answer the poll to select your team's draft pick.
Just to give you a little more on this idea and myself, I am a writer for bleacherbumsports.net and will continue to organize all of the draft information I receive through my site. The poll will be up for 3 days after which the player with the most votes is your teams draft pick. I will then move on to the next site and have them pick from which players are left. This will only be a first round draft and can not involve trades so please pick where your team currently is. I cannot verify in the proper amount of time if the other team would accept your trade.
I would really appreciate everyones help with this. Thanks in advance! - Sam
*Note* I flipped a coin and the Seahawks won the 11th overall pick.
Current Draft Results:
1. Colts - QB Andrew Luck
2. Rams - WR Justin Blackmon
3. Vikings - OT Matt Kalil
4. Browns - QB Robert Griffin III
5. Buccaneers - CB Morris Claiborne
6. Redskins - OT Riley Reiff
7. Jaguars - DE Quinton Coples
8. Dolphins - DE Melvin Ingram
9. Panthers - CB Dre Kirkpatrick
10. Bills - LB Courtney Upshaw
The Poll will be open until Feb 12 at 1pm
88 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Positions
Martin OT
Tannehill QB
DeCastro OG
Perry DE/OLB
Jenkins CB
Richardson RB
Brockers DT
Kuechly MLB
Barron S
Floyd WR
Wright WR
Burfict MLB/OLB
Still DT
Brown WLB/MLB
Dennard CB
Wow
This is why fans don’t get to pick for their teams.
I actually find this fairly reasonable
…which is what one should expect from this…
by GasolineSnuggie on Feb 10, 2012 5:31 PM PST up reply actions
I only see two options...
Richardson or Brockers…
As much as I loathe going early on running backs, I think Richardson is a special talent and too much value compared to the others.
I think Trent Richardson is the clear choice from that list.
I hate the idea of going RB early too, but maybe you're right.
It’s not like we haven’t put a lot of work into the run game— Richardson could really shine. We’d have the best 1-2 punch in the league.
Can I change my vote from Devon Still to Richardson?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
We would finally have a good back up for lynch
(Washington is a change of pace back not a replacement)
if you are going BPA, Richardson is it.
Im surprised more people are not clamoring for the DE/QB
Richardson
Gotta go with the BPA when the board shakes out this way. If this happens IRL I would probably pray for a trade down.
I'm a Penn State fan
and I watched alot of Still. The things he did against some of the better OLs in the B1G were amazing, even through all of the adversity those kids had to endure. I also like Richardson and Brockers but, I’m being a little biased. I would like any of those 3 picks.
BAH!!! HUMBUG!!!
by seanchristopher on Feb 10, 2012 9:48 AM PST reply actions
I don't really disagree with Richardson, I had to think about it for a bit before going with Brockers, but I'm surprised the poll is so overwhelmingly in favor of him.
Is it just because he’s the last really recognizable name on the list? My impression of the FG community was that most people weren’t high on taking a running back this high in the draft. I’m definitely of that opinion, and it would make it even more difficult to spend a top 15 pick on a back who will be likely splitting carries behind Lynch.
Likely
But at this point we dont know what happens to Lynch. He’s not locked up long term. He could play with the tag this year, get hurt next year and we let him walk. I’m not sure I believe PCJS would even take a running back that high, with Cable’s scheme really coming together last year.
Part of the silliness associated with February mock drafts, I suppose.
I think I would be upset if they let Lynch walk and used a first on Richardson to replace him.
That seems like treading water at best.
This is more like Richardson for Forsett.
Richardson seems to be BPA by a wide margin in this mock regardless of position or need. Because I only see 3 guys on D that are worthy of pick 11.
After him I’d go Jonathan Martin, and it surprises me that DeCastro is getting more votes than Martin.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I'm not sure any RB is BPA anywhere the first round
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 10, 2012 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
Finding it hard at this moment not to question your grasp of what BPA means.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Do you understand the concept of "positional value"?
4-3 LBs, kickers and RBs are relatively fungible. Arian Foster is a great RB but the Texans didn’t have a huge drop-off in production when he went down. The same could be said for the Browns or the Vikings or the Redskins or the Rams or any number of teams. You can only improve your run game so much by improving the talent of the guy carrying the ball. This is all before you take into account the poor production from 1st-round RBs (many of which were “steals” or “BPA”) from the last few years.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 10, 2012 7:26 PM PST up reply actions
Part of the reason they didn't see a huge drop of when Foster got hurt was because they spent a second round pick on a running back the year before.
They also lost Mario Williams and still had one of the better defenses in the league.
They drafted Tate with the 58th pick in the 2010 draft
at a time when Foster was an unproven UDFA with fewer than 60 carries under his belt. Drafting a RB at the back end of the 2nd isn’t really comparable to drafting one near the top of the 1st.
This argument about Williams and the Texans’ defense isn’t very compelling. While they did lose Williams, they added a ton of defensive talent (Watt, Joseph, Harris, Manning, Harris, Reed) and a new defensive coordinator. You can add Williams back to this mix and, in theory, get more production. You can stockpile defensive players (or WRs) and get production out of them. You can’t stockpile RBs in the same way.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 10, 2012 9:37 PM PST up reply actions
It's fashionable to say RB's are fungible.
But it’s just not true. The elite ones go in the first round still.
The Texans are a poor example because their line and ZBS are bad ass, and Foster was never an elite runner to begin with.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
It's also fashionable to dismiss fashionable ideas
Can you name an “elite” RB drafted in the 1st since AP or CJ?
I’m not trying to argue that you can’t find better talent in the 1st (though the 1st-round RBs of the last few years haven’t panned out), but that the so-called “elite” RBs just aren’t worth the draft capital because run-blocking is much more important than running and there are plenty of guys (like Murray, McCoy, Foster and Blount) available in later rounds.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 11, 2012 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
Have there been any elite backs since AP or CJ?
Not really. There’s been productive and quality backs for sure. And there’s always a sleeper every now and then. But AP seems to be the last real consensus elite back IMO.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
I would argue that NFL scouts are just bad at determining which RBs will be elite
certainly if teams knew that Foster, Murray, McCoy, or Blount would be as productive as they are in the NFL, they would have been first round or early second round picks.
These players are not available late in the draft because no one values them. They are available because NFL teams are bad at scouting them. I would argue that Ingram’s lack of production is more a product of him not being as talented as his draft position demanded – there is no chance in hell that Murray wouldn’t be picked first over Ingram if the Saints could do it over again and knew what we know about the two backs.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Mcoy was second round 53rd overall,
Murray was third round 71st overall. That’s a long way from top ten, but not exactly off the radar. Early 3rd round pics are still valuable. You’re right that in hindsight he’d go over Ingram, but it’s early. We won’t know for sure which pick was better for a few years because both backs have shown durability issues.
Blount is an over rated one dimensional back who was unable to carry the load on his own this year, and he had character concerns. So he fell for good reason.
Foster, while a good runner is a product of the best ZBS O line in the NFL. Everybody runs well behind that line.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Yes, of course I do.
And it’s hugely important, but Best Player Available is, by definition, position-agnostic.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Feb 11, 2012 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Was Janikowski BPA?
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 11, 2012 11:58 PM PST up reply actions
Probably unanswerable. I'll say no.
But even if he had been, that doesn’t mean you draft him first overall or even in the first six rounds. You look at positional value separately, which doesn’t mean you weigh it less. Saying a stud RB can’t be BPA in Round 1 just makes no sense. Saying you don’t think a RB should ever be chosen in Round 1 due to devaluing it for the position does make a lot of sense.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Feb 12, 2012 12:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
No, he wasn't.
Not by a long shot.
And first round anomalies by Al Davis are poor examples. All of the raiders picks for the last 20 years should be ignored when discussing how to draft.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Feb 12, 2012 8:34 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Agreed
Splittin carries is why i didn’t vote for richardson as well
Enter the 37th chamber: BEASTMODE
by RunMarshawnRun on Feb 10, 2012 10:48 AM PST reply actions
I would rank these for Seattle like this based on BPA and Need.
Michael Brockers/Devon Still- Gotta go with who the coaches fall in love with. But I think we need that interior force on Defense.
Trent Richardson- I like this pick cause I wouldn’t be willing to go all in long term with Lynch and his running style. Even if we have a shared backfield.. that’s fine. Another weapon that can break free at anytime is always good to have.
Nick Perry- Maybe a good pick but not sure where his draft stock is and if we could trade out.
Janoris Jenkins- Small not ideal height for what we normally go for but we need that speed guy to complement the tall guys we already have to cover the Mike Wallaces of the world.
David Decastro/Martin- Another Lineman might be overkill or it might be the last piece in the puzzle. If one jumps out and projects as a starter right away. With injuries and still a little undecided on Carpenter.. is his best position guard? will he recover from his ACL..
Tannenhill/Burfict/Zach Brown- Quarterback and Linebacker are big needs but at this position in the draft? I would be a little angry at the TV if they were picked cause I’d rather see a trade before drafting them in this slot.
Wish there was a magical button z for trade backs
With Richardson still available, we might be best served moving back, since the QB and/or 3 tech we would want are overvalued at this spot.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
If we got Trent Richardson, I wonder if Leon would be willing to take a 1 mil paycut.
Also, I wonder if Lynch would care if we didn’t resign Forsett. His shower pill seems to be doing quite well.
Richardson wouldn't be that expensive, and we're really far under the cap.
Asking Leon to take a paycut that small would probably do more harm than good. Leon’s still the guy at returner and change-of-pace.
by Stay Off the Flowers on Feb 10, 2012 2:07 PM PST up reply actions
Richardson?!
You guys have got to be kidding me. A running back. A RUNNING BACK!?
Okay, okay, concentrate. Constructive thoughtful analysis…forming…
A RUNNING BACK?!
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
by Cheddar28 on Feb 10, 2012 2:24 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Yes
Ive given my distaste for drafting the position, but for talent and upside no one left on the list is close. He looks like an All-Pro back out of the gate, he will help whoever we end up at QB down the road.
Best back in the draft since AP, could be better.
It's not a need.
It would be like the Rams drafting Robert Griffin.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
And, no, it doesn't matter how he projects.
He’s not ANY back, he’s the best back PROSPECT. Even Andrew Luck is a prospect. Just because you’re drafted in the top 15 doesn’t mean there’s no development or panning out to be done.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Major difference
1. Bradford is still learning and there is only 1 QB starter (there are way more horror stories about QB controversies than there is good stories)
2. There are more than enough, and proven so, carries for two backs in the league, with a run heavy team maybe even 3.
3. Its harder for a QB to get in and stay in rythm than a running back.
4. the rams suck.
5 see 4
Running back is absolutley a need.
So is WR. I’d like to see another offensive tackle picked too.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
So you're pretty dissatisfied with Tate, Rice, Baldwin, and Lynch?
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
As a group? Yes.
Lynch, no. Baldwin no. Tate, yes. Rice yes.
We’ve got no legit #1, we’ve got a 1.5 who’s an injury liability. And we’ve got no legit #2 (outside of BMW-who’s hurt, and TJ won’t throw to anyways) either.
Baldwin is the only reliable receiver with his position locked down and accounted for.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
BMW is not anymore a legitimate # 2 than rice is only a #1.5
BMW was a crutch to an aging QB who had a noodle arm. He is the Alvin Harper of recievers with less speed and hops and route precision. Barely better than Roy Williams.
Baldwin though he is a great slot, is a much better #2 Receiver than BMW.
Lynch is the only one you can rely on and he's a free agent.
He also was pretty bad in previous years and has a nagging back injury.
I was surprised to see the poll go this way too, but what are the alternatives? Brockers is being talked about this high because he has the potential to have potential. Do you sink another first round pick in the offensive line? Do you reach big time for a QB? Do you spend 11/12 on a linebacker? I like Kendall Wright and Dwight Jones, but it’s not like first round receivers have a great track record either.
I’ve been saying this for a while. but this draft likely shakes out really poorly for Seattle. I wouldn’t be excited for Richardson, but I think you can make the case he’s one of the few elite talents in this draft.
by Nate Dogg on Feb 10, 2012 2:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Need I remind you of Knowshon Moreno, Ryan Matthews, CJ Spiller, Donald Brown,
even Mark Ingram hasn’t worked out so far and it’s not like Beanie Wells or Jahvid Best are world enders either.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Are we really going to do this?
Let’s not draft at any position, since at each position there are hundreds of busts we could point to. Anyway, Trent Richardson scouts better than every guy you mentioned.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
by shams on Feb 10, 2012 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
I just named every first round running back in the past three drafts. I don't see a problem with holistically assessing 1st round running backs.
It doesn’t look good. We have Marshawn Lynch, Leon Washington is good depth, the ZBS makes running back very fungible. Yes, Richardson looks very very good but if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Sorry, by "it doesn't look good" I was referring to the past three drafts.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Leon Washington is not good depth. He's a good returner.
I agree that running backs are largely plug-and-play but best value is best value, and if QB or scheme-appropriate DT isn’t there, but Richardson is there, and assuming we don’t get an attractive trade offer, why not grab him?
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Primarily,
because the pass rush needs to be addressed and the depth on the front seven should be more of a priority than running back. Now, admittedly, the best three or so defenders in those categories are already off the board but couldn’t Nick Perry or Burfict be potential LEOs? Not to mention the best guard is still on the board,
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
I agree that the front seven is much more of a priority than running back.
But if the value isn’t there, that’s it. Guard, I don’t know. Maybe.
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Those defensive guys aren't worth the #11 pick.
We could trade pack to the end of the first round and get them.
DeCastro’s on the board still, but so is his teammate Martin who is a tackle who’s probably good enough to challenge Okung for the starting LT job. So why take a guard?
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Because we're currently worse off at guard
and the situation may or may not improve as a whole.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
What do you think would happen if we put Okung at guard?
The technical term for guard is “not good enough to play tackle”.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Honestly I dunno
but my guess would be that he’d do alright if he had time to learn it.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Gallery was a failed 1st round tackle.
The only reason I really entertain the idea is because a Martin/Okung or a Okung/Martin left side could be deadlier than the Walt/Caveman one.
Possibly.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Seems like a gigantic waste of their talent and draft capital.
I don’t see you getting a lot of extra value out of moving one of those guys over than what you’d get out of just drafting a guard. And it’s risky since you don’t know how either would play the position.
However,
I would like to apologize for not reading the other comments first and for spamming this thread inappropriately. I wouldn’t object to being flagged right now.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
Meh. De minimus.
It’s the off-season, release your passion. But then, I don’t work here. :)
"The time has come," the Walrus said, "to talk of many things."
Sometimes FG is too smart for its own good.
You all have a problem with drafting Trent Richardson at number 11?
That’s hilarious.
Positional value is great when you’re comparing similar talents… there is no comparison here.
How much will he improve this team over the next 2 years if Lynch is re-signed?
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
At some point you just have to admit that the first round is the best chance you have to find a star.
At pick 11, I’m betting Trent Richardson has the best odds of becoming a star from the available list.
Lynch is the man… but if you have a chance to draft a guy like Trent Richardson all the way down at 11 you jump on it.
Especially if you have the run-first philosophy that this team has.
Your loaded question, once again, is trying to argue positional value and team needs.
I am arguing that is the wrong lens to view this problem through with respect to Richardson’s availability.
by trippsixxes on Feb 12, 2012 12:44 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
im all for drafting depth
but one thing to rememebr is that QBs and DE ALWAYS go higher than they are predicted. I wouldnt be surprised if 4 QBs and 4 DEs are taken in the first.
SO ask yourself is it worth reaching to get the guy who can help your team the most or better to get someone who will be a back up but might be a superstar?
those two options are not mutually exclusive
it’s very possible that Richardson and Lynch could both be 1000 yard, 10 TD backs, and RIchardson sharing carries could prolong the peak performance period of Lynch.
Is the benefit of Richardson over the 3rd or 4th best back in the draft (potential 2nd round draft choice) greater than the difference between what either Still or Brockers would give us over Branch, Mebane, or Bryant – let alone the DT we could get in the 2nd round?
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Sure I can argue that.
You cannot ignore where your team needs help when looking at a top talent. Now, if you could reasonably liquidate surplus talent to make room for a great draft choice, awesome. For example, not re-signing Lynch and then signing a top FA (e.g. Manning) and drafting Richardson. I just don’t think it makes sense to use so much draft capital to put Richardson and Lynch on the same team.
Another way to put it is, you can draft a star, but it doesn’t maximize overall talent and I don’t see how you can afford to ignore the bigger picture. GMs don’t just evaluate talent, they holistically address a roster’s issues.
As for the Seahawks, they shall have stars at elbow and foot...Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again...Death shall have no dominion.
I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you.
Passing on Trent Richardson because it doesn’t “maximize talent” is where I just have to let it go.
I’ll let my initial comment stand… lets not overthink this.
That being said, I’d much rather have fellow fans that overthink than the opposite.
Richardson
I agree completely with the analysis of Richardson I don’t think the Seahawks are at a point a a franchise where best player available works. Despite our very good season there are still some holes needing to be filled and improved before going best player available. I would love to see PC and JS trade back acquire a later 1st rounder and really stockpile. With their scouting abilities, that would help us more than richardson
by iamzee123 on Feb 10, 2012 2:53 PM PST via mobile reply actions
In this situation, draft Richardson, re-sign Marshawn
and try to deal Richardson to the team that drafts Polk (or whichever player is your second favorite RB to draft) and 1st and 4th round picks next year.
Smashmouth is the new sexy!
Also...
In today’s NFL most teams use more then one back, I don’t think Forsett or Washington are bringing enough to the table. A competent coaching staff which I believe we have would find a way to make use of two talents such as Richardson and Lynch.
If there was a premier front seven guy i’d vote for him. But there is nothing left we would be reaching. Too high for Perry (rather have the guy from Illinois) and Brockers has not proven a ton yet, but would be my second choice of the options.
Trent Richardson?
For real guys.
I am disappoint.
Learn JiuJitsu.
Semper Fi'
Cortez Kennedy is in the Hall Of Fame!!!!!!!! WE DID IT!
combo of BOA and relative value of our needs
I would hope that we trade back, but can you really see taking any of the others at eleven?
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
by stufr on Feb 10, 2012 4:14 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
That was BPA
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
by stufr on Feb 10, 2012 4:15 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Being mad about Richardson being chosen here is a bit silly.
He’s clearly the BPA in a draft that has thus far – hypothetically – played out horribly for the Seahawks. Griffin, Coples, Ingrahm, and Upshaw are all gone.
by GasolineSnuggie on Feb 10, 2012 5:40 PM PST reply actions
why not trent richardson
i rememebr a guy named shaun alexander drafted in this same position behind a solid back in ricky watters that turned out ok .
never hurts to have another option and since we are most likely using the franchise tag on lynch never hurts to motivate him by having a guy who can replace him much like watters felt the year shaun was drafted
Watters was at the end of his career and subsequently retired after Alexander was drafted.
And I would agree with you Richardson is a good pick at 11…if we didn’t have so much holes at QB, Pass Rush, Linebackers, even the O-Line is spotty at best. Had Richardson been the only recognizable player on the board then yes, I would take him. But passing him over Devon Still, Zach Brown and Brockers is plain stupid.
"You are the molders of their dreams." - Clark Mollenhoff
Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down Trade down
Except I have no freaking clue which team would actually want the 11th pick.
Don't be an idiot. If an idiot would do that, then don't do it. Muahahahaaha back on twitter
by RagingAlot on Feb 10, 2012 7:35 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Oh bum no draft trades.
Draft Osweiler.
Don't be an idiot. If an idiot would do that, then don't do it. Muahahahaaha back on twitter
Elite Talent = Richardson
At the top of the draft, you draft elite talent and make it work.
Worst case scenario is all three DE’s gone. Well, plan B – let’s kill it in the run game and keep opposing offenses off the field.
What’s wrong with leading the league in rushing? Doesn’t this help the weak passing game by taking pressure off? Doesn’t it squeeze the clock to run it 60% of the time and save the defense?
Chuck Knox would love this pick!
If Richardson were still available at 11
I would hope the Hawks would maximize the pick’s value and find a salivating trade partner with a rb void. In this trade-less hypothetical, though, I would argue to improve the team as best as possible which I think of the options presented would be Michael Brockers. The Hawks have a good thing going with the current running game, they would be better off to resign Lynch/Robinson and use the draft to improve other aspects of the team. And I just don’t see an equivalent to Brockers available in FA this year. I’m crossing my fingers that him or Coples are still available when the Hawks are on the clock for real.
That being said, there simply arent players of Richardson’s caliber available after the top 10 very often. If by some miracle the draft boiled down this way PC&J would be fools not to take advantage of the extra value the 11th pick suddenly had. But then again, so would the teams right in front of them.
Richardson
Honestly guys, I’d hate to not have a decent #2 back… If Lynch goes down to injury then what? If Richardson is there, you still have a shot on the season… look what happened in KC this year when Charles went down, look what happened to Chicago when Forte went down, the Vikings when Peterson went down… I don’t want to be sitting with just Washington back there. If we are going to be a running team, we need to have depth at running back… 2 #1s getting 15 carries a game? One having a bad day, he gets 10 the other guy 20? Richardson adds a good reception aspect to it as well… Lynch is alright receiving too, if not Richardson in the first… we NEED another good solid RB.
Agreed.
At first I thought not good to draft a guy high that will not be on the field all the time. But after thinking it over they need the security. The thought of bringing in a Julius Jones halfway through the season is not nice.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
