Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

He played LB at Georgia. Actually a rover position which is kinda a LB/SS combo.
He\'s no bigger a questionmark at LB at the next level than Derrick Johnson or Kevin Burnnet

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

Why is this still even an issue?

HE HAS THE TALENT TO PLAY BOTH.
HE IS NOT A TWEENER!

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

Assuming he sticks around until #16 (and that we stay there, which I think there\'s a good chance we won\'t), I\'m thinking more and more about OT Alex Barron. OT is still a need, and the choice would give us some good - and relatively young - talent along the O-line. Talented veteran OT\'s usually require quite a paycheck, so getting a good one early in the draft seems to make sense.

I agree we need defense, too. But I wonder if we wouldn\'t get more by grabbing Barron and praying for a Barrett Ruud or Kevin Burnett to fall to us at #40. Still, Jay Bellamy ain\'t gonna last forever - and there are still doubts about Mel Mitchell - so Thomas Davis bears consideration too.

[Edited on 19/4/2005 by mutineer10]

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

I would\'nt be surprized if we were to drop back and get the TE from VA, and trade boo for a later round pick. Makes since being we have\'nt had a good TE since haz has been here. Just a thought, who knows. They will prob pull a jaw droper and pick someone that makes no sense.

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

I\'d be shocked. Don\'t see how that really helps us.
If they trade up, they better not overpay. Don\'t overpay for the pick and don\'t overpay for the player either. Get DJ at #10 or don\'t get him at all. Don\'t trade up for a CB. Staying at 16 is still a very good option. I like Barron and Brown, Rogers and Davis. Davis somewhat less probably. One of them will fall.

I also think this could be a draft where teams deliberately don\'t pick like the Vikings last year. Get the player you want, but save a few million dollars.

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

Of course we can miss at #16. History teaches us that on draft day, just about every one of the players taken in the first round will be a consensus \"first round value\" player. Maybe a couple of guys will be \"reaches\" that some teams will have considered a \"second round guy\", but for the most part, all of those names you listed will be the names filling the slots after the first round is over--the only variable will be the actual order. But basically, all the players whose names appear in all of the first round mocks leading up to the draft will be the names there after the first round\'s over. The problem is that simple history tells us that a few years from now roughly half of those players will not have proven to be \"worthy\" of a first round selection. Oh, they won\'t necessarily be \"busts\" per se, because they still will likely play to the level of a No. 2 or No. 3 or whatever...just not first round quality. It\'s one of the few things that Mel Kiper gets right, and it\'s because it\'s more a matter of going back to \"re-evaluate\" the draftees after a few years rather than \"projecting\" beforehand how they\'ll do. And the parameters you use to make your projections (production as a collegian, measurable physical attributes, etc.) often end up not being nearly as valid as \"predictors of success\" as we all like to think every year at this time. But what else to you have to go on? Of course you take the guy who ran for all the yardage, or made all the tackles, or had the most reps on the bench press....because it seems like an even bigger gamble to take a guy who didn\'t produce, or who ran the 40 like a turtle. But that helps to point out what the draft really is, after all--a gamble. Like any Vegas gambler, you try to stack the odds in your favor as much as you can, but when push comes to shove, you still have to roll the dice.

So can we miss at #16? I say of course--if it\'s like most every other year, and 16 of those 32 original names you listed end up being \"worth\" a No. 1 and 16 don\'t, then you start out with roughly a 50-50 chance at \"missing\" from the get-go. All 32 of those guys look like first rounders today, but only half will three years from now.

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

Oh, by the way....I\'m in the very small (but apparently growing, from some of the stuff I\'m reading) minority who think Johnson, Williams, and Davis have the most potential to not live up to their draft hype and eventual selection placement.

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

that sounds like a donte,sully,devery kind of thing........
just what are you saying, lol.....................smitty

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

While I agree with your take 100% Williams/Johnson, I don\'t agree on Davis (as an OLB).

He\'s earned his reputation while mostly playing close to the line of scrimmage, which is exactly what WLB\'s do in the NFL. He\'s the perfect size/speed/instincts to become the next Derrick Brooks, only bigger and faster. Just because he was forced to play safety at UGA doesn\'t mean he\'s an NFL safety.
I think he\'d start day one at WLB for this team.

Can't miss at 16, can we?
 

I\'ll wade into this only long enough to say:

\"Can\'t miss\" and \"Saints\" in the same sentence is a recipe for disaster. You would know that if you hadn\'t intentionally forgot the name Jonathan Sullivan. ;)

These kinds of predictions make me nervous Danno, ma-boy.