adam

Harvin #2? He has never had 1,000 yards receiving in a single season, and has never had more than 6 TD's in one season? He shouldn't even be in the top 20.

Ok, so what if the following players are available at #20: DJ Fluker (OL), Desmond Trufant (CB), Alec Ogletree (LB), Tyler Eifert (TE), and Sylvester Williams (DT), who do you pick?

No dead money though, we could cut him and save $2,350,000.

Ogletree is the pick at 20, but with all the starting LB positions filled, I would rather go OL, WR, CB, or DT with the first pick. The optimal scenario would be to trade down, add a pick or two, then pick the BPA. I know people hate this, but you have to consider Teo in the 2nd as a possibility.

If we take a WR, especially someone like Austin, is Bennett the odd man out? Can we afford to pay him that much to be a #4?

Sure, I was just giving some examples, but I do think they are likely partners with so many picks. Especially consider Vaccaro could still be there at 20.

That is what I thought, so no way would I take him in the top 35.. To me, the trade partners for our #20 are: SF for 34 and 61 or 31, 74, and 157 CIN for 37 and 53 (we would have to give up a 5th or 6th as well) MIA for 42, 54 JAX for 33, 64 PHI for 36, 67, and 136

What are the projected rounds for all these? It would be interesting to make a mock only from these guys.

I like it but is Warford a first rounder? I haven't seen him that high.

Both.

Yeah I guess I didn't clarify that it was a 5-yr starter out of 7 years, and they only had to start 8 games to qualify. This seems reasonable since it is well beyond the length of rookie contracts and gives them 7 years to be a starter in 5. It is not perfect, but seems like a good stab. You essentially could break this down any way you wanted, based on Pro Bowls, All-Pro teams, etc.

I got it, and based on the analysis, 11 picks from 150-189 would net you one 5-yr starter, almost guaranteed. The odds of getting 1 with each pick is 8.9%, so if you had 11 picks in that group you would have 11*8.9%= 97.9%. That is all I am saying. So collectively, to move back and get more picks (depending on where they fall) can give you better odds in finding a star, especially with certain picks. So for us, 20 could turn in 30-something and 70-something basically increasing our odds by 22.9% (again I know this is not the exact number but close).

I wouldn't mind if we went Fluker in Round 1 and Schwenke or Jones in later rounds.

lol

Definitely possible, he sucked at run blocking and doesn't move the pile, but was decent in pass blocking and works good with Cutler.

That too. This draft is going to be interesting. If teams start to move up to get certain guys, others are going to drop.

I updated the first post with the latest dates.

I thought Garza was our best OL last year? If anyone, he would be the last one I would want to replace this year.

All teams have "their" guy, someone they like more than others, or may have a huge glaring need to fill. A team wanting to move up to 20 may be a team in the early 2nd who knows X player will not last the next 10-15 picks. I can see the Bills doing that to draft a QB since they wouldn't want to spend their 1st pick on one.

I would only mind this if we addressed OL or LB with the first pick, or if we traded down and this was one of two 2nd rounders.

I think the decision will be pretty simple, if Cutler produces, and Trestman trusts him, he will be extended/re-signed. If he continues at his current level with no improvement, he will not be re-signed. For a contract, based on the market value (not just one good year taken into account), his contract would range from about $12 mil to about $18 mil (Romo money). I can't see him making more than that.

But it is not the same die, there is a pool of players that can't be picked twice, that reduces by one with every pick, so if the other team misses on a 5-yr starter, it actually increases our chances, that's why it is cumulative. We could just take our own picks for example, if we miss on the first pick, that actually increases our chances of picking a star the next pick because he is still available but there are less overall chances to pick him by the group. Take this example, there are 3 HoFer quality players in this draft, yet we have no clue who they are, but they will be taken in the first round. The percentage would go up every time a pick is placed that is not one of those 3. That is how the draft works, yet there is a built in probability weighted towards the early picks.

Are you saying my probability is wrong? I thought you added the odds since they were mutually exclusive. The 2nd pick is like having a 2nd die. If I have a 55.3% chance to roll a 1 on the first roll, a 22.9% chance to roll a 1 with the 2nd die, and a 16.0% chance to roll a 1 on the 3rd die, wouldn't I have a 94.2% chance to roll a 1 overall? The more chances increases the odds? Regardless, I just feel like unless someone drops unexpectedly, we should move down and improve our odds.

It is great to see Marshall and Bennett working together, they need to pull in Alshon and Earl as well. http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...the-change.html

Sure, but they were talking about 5-yr starters, which narrows it down considerably, and yes every team has 22 starters, but for the most part someone who sticks around 5 years is more than likely going to be better than the guys stuck on the bench behind an All-Pro.