2011 NFL Mock Draft thread.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

1. The coaches definitely want a young QB to develop

2. The Draft is still a crapshoot no matter what position you decide to draft.

3. I don't get how you can honestly say we don't need a QB.

re:#2 - Yes, there is a variable amount of luck involved in picking a player due to injuries and bust factor. But there is much less of a crap shoot chance a blue chip player like LB Vonn Miller or CB Patrick Petersen is going to be bust than say a Mallet or Locker. It is not a complete crap shoot.

re:#3 - Nobody is saying we do not need a young Qb of the future. What the people that are against taking a QB at #10 is there is no QB in this draft worthy of projecting at the #10. The two QB's that most "so called experts" are projected worthy of being a top 10 pick Blaine Gabbert and Cam Newton, will most likely be gone. I really am not too impressed with those two either anyway.
At this point filling the huge holes in our starting line up with quality players is more important then reaching for a Qb with question marks.
This is a deep draft, so spending such a valuable (#10 pick) at this point on a questionable QB (Locker) when there much less questionable talented players like a OT Anthony Costanzo or even possibly Tyron Smitho or a JJ Watt or Cam Jordan might still be there. There are so many other greater foundation needs to address then a luxury pick of a future franchise Qb that will sit on the bench come September. A day one starter at OT or DE/LB would be ideal at #10.
We have to get value player or else trade back.

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

re:#2 - Yes, there is a variable amount of luck involved in picking a player due to injuries and bust factor. But there is much less of a crap shoot chance a blue chip player like LB Vonn Miller or CB Patrick Petersen is going to be bust than say a Mallet or Locker. It is not a complete crap shoot.

re:#3 - Nobody is saying we do not need a young Qb of the future. What the people that are against taking a QB at #10 is there is no QB in this draft worthy of projecting at the #10. The two QB's that most "so called experts" are projected worthy of being a top 10 pick Blaine Gabbert and Cam Newton, will most likely be gone. I really am not too impressed with those two either anyway.
At this point filling the huge holes in our starting line up with quality players is more important then reaching for a Qb with question marks.
This is a deep draft, so spending such a valuable (#10 pick) at this point on a questionable QB (Locker) when there much less questionable talented players like a OT Anthony Costanzo or even possibly Tyron Smitho or a JJ Watt or Cam Jordan might still be there. There are so many other greater foundation needs to address then a luxury pick of a future franchise Qb that will sit on the bench come September. A day one starter at OT or DE/LB would be ideal at #10.
We have to get value player or else trade back.

I assumed you said we don't need a QB in the draft as you said it numerous times in your post. I personally don't mind if we take a QB high as long as the coaches really want him, but at the same time just look at the suggestion I have in my sig. I would love for us to get help on the DL and OL and draft a QB later. That way you aren't as tied to him next year as you would be a first round QB.

To that point though I definitely won't be disappointed if we go QB high, the coaches would have there reason for doing so. I highly doubt Vonn Miller or Patrick Peterson will be available at 10 anyways.

another point I want to make is that our O-line got better toward the end of the season and it isn't as atrocious as some would have us thing. They had a few good games and hopefully with at least a few weeks of FA we can sign a few players to help out, on top of the players we already have getting better.