Mocks

PhillyPhanInDC · April 24, 2006, 11:22:52 AM

Probably not. I definately wouldn't say he is the fourth best DT in the draft either, more like the eighth. Wroten, Wright, McCargo and probably Dvoracek I would rate higher.

PhillyandBCEagles · April 24, 2006, 01:36:30 PM

If we draft Stovall it would be to replace McMullen. If we draft Jackson or trade for Walker, it would be to replace TO.

ice grillin you · April 24, 2006, 02:15:41 PM

funny that the eagles arent on their list of teams in need of a wr...

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/draft/2006-04-23-sinorice-moss-receivers_x.htm

Dillen · April 24, 2006, 02:24:37 PM

Quote from: FFatPatt on April 24, 2006, 11:17:52 AM
Is Orien Harris really a 2nd rounder?

Maybe. He's like Sinorice Moss, did almost nothing at the college level but will get drafted high because of potential.

PoopyfaceMcGee · April 24, 2006, 02:33:55 PM

I'm a little skiddish on Miami D-Linemen right now, especially a guy with a 2nd rounder that should be no higher than a 3rd rounder from the opinions of most in the know.

Rome · April 24, 2006, 02:39:31 PM

Orien Harris??

$:-\$

PoopyfaceMcGee · April 24, 2006, 02:42:08 PM

I would be OK if the Eagles automatically took every defensive lineman with the surname "Harris" immediately off of their draft board. Anyone else have a problem with that? Good. Settled.

Rome · April 24, 2006, 02:43:28 PM

Scout.com has Harris ranked as the 16th best DT in the draft.

Doink

Seabiscuit36 · April 24, 2006, 03:44:14 PM

Wow and he was a guy who was rated top of his class going into his junior year. I actually have met Orien and his older brother Devorn they're both from Newark,DE. All three brothers demolished people at the highschool level but seemed to live too big when they went to college or the nfl.

The BIGSTUD · April 24, 2006, 03:50:42 PM

Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on April 24, 2006, 09:58:56 AM
Quote from: Philly Forever on April 23, 2006, 03:18:25 PM
Chad Jackson is the either the best or 2nd best receiver in this draft. It's not about value. It's about getting the best player at a position of need in the draft. So why would you wait until the 2nd or 3rd round to get a player like Stovall who isn't as good?

People get WAY WAY overboard with this value crap. Value is 100% based on mock drafts. We all say taking Jackson at 14 is too high because a bunch of mock drafts have him going 20. How do you know Denver won't take him at 15? We don't know what the hell is going to happen. If you want a player you take him at 14. It's that simple. You don't trade down to 20 thinking he'll be there simply because a bunch of mock drafts have him going there.

You may think you have an idea as to where he is going to go, so then you trade down and risk not getting the guy at all. What is more important? Getting the guy you want or getting value for him? The #1 thing is to get the guy. Getting value for the guy is only a bonus, because if you trade down you risk not getting him period. That is why I always hate trading down.

1. Chad Jackson is the best or second best receiver in the draft. It is a horrid WR class. So that makes Jackson.....what, exactly?

2. It is about value, like it or not. If you have the fourteenth pick, and there are guys who are rated higher than Jackson on your board at different need positions, because they have more upside, or have demonstrated more ability, to pass on them strictly because you need a WR? No. Doing that is stupid.

3. So if the Birds pass on Jackson at fourteen, and DENVER selects Jackson with the very next pick, that would somehow cement the fact the Birds made a mistake in not taking him, given Denver's recent skill at logically selecting players, right?

4. "If you want a player, you take him at fourteen". Hmm. So if you have a WR, who grades decently, but doesn't seem to be near the quality of say, the guy you picked in the second round last year, or anything approaching who was selected at the same spot in last years draft, you take him because he is the least zesty guy in the group. Makes sense.

5. You don't trade down anticipating a player is going to drop to you. You trade down because you don't see the value there. Meaning this, the Birds are on the clock at fourteen, and they don't see any available players that are head and shoulders above who will be available a few more slots down, or they have reason to believe the teams coming after them have an interest in a particular position that isn't a major need for the Birds. They give away they pick, move down and acquire more picks. The spot they move to, plus the extra picks acquired then, to them, have more value than the fourteenth pick.

6. Getting value for the guy is a bonus? Yeah. That made a whole lot of sense.

7. You always hate trading down. So even if there is equivalent talent later in the round at a need position, you would burn the higher pick anyway, because trading down sucks. Okay.

It's not all about value. It's about getting the player you want. Don't bring up taking a late rounder in the first, it's a bad comparison.

If the Eagles really want Jackson and he's there at 14, then they shouldn't take him simply because the could maybe get him at 20, and risk the guy they love not being there? Is that what you are saying? Because if so, that's ridiculously stupid. If they are lukewarm on Jackson, then yes, you are right, but if a team really wants a player, you don't trade down and get them later. You take them when you can.

and I'm not talking about drafting a 6th round guy in round 1. Don't use such an extreme example.

ice grillin you · April 24, 2006, 03:59:52 PM

i couldnt agree more...words like 'value' and 'reach' are all subjective bs...to me the only way you dont take a player at any specific point in the draft is if they are going to be around at your next pick...but in general if you think someones good enough then take him...are you going to pass on someone at 14 because you think he wont go until 24...thats retarded

PhillyPhanInDC · April 24, 2006, 04:05:38 PM

That goes back to the original point. The Eagles won't want Jackson at fourteen, shtein, they probably wouldn't take him at twenty either. The reason I brought up a "late rounder" is that they may see the same value as Jackson later in the round. Prior to the combine Holmes was the number one, now it is Jackson, a lot of people feel that Moss has the most playmaking ability. People are starting to climb onto the Stovall band wagon. It is an at best average class talent wise, with a decent depth of average prospects. Did Chad Jackson turn the collegiate ranks on it's ear with his awesome, sure-fire first round level of talent? No, and neither did any of the other guys.

I don't get why people have such a hard time believing the FO is going into the season with Brown as the #1. Whether or not you feel he is worthy of the role is debatable, but as to whether the FO is penciling him in, isn't really.

My arguement isn't that if they want Jackson, they should pass on him thinking he will be there later. It is that they won't take him because they will feel the his potential isn't equal that of an early/mid first round selection.

The BIGSTUD · April 24, 2006, 04:07:15 PM

Quote from: ice grillin you on April 24, 2006, 03:59:52 PM
i couldnt agree more...words like 'value' and 'reach' are all subjective bs...to me the only way you dont take a player at any specific point in the draft is if they are going to be around at your next pick...but in general if you think someones good enough then take him...are you going to pass on someone at 14 because you think he wont go until 24...thats retarded

Exactly, and what is value based on anyway? Mock drafts. How do we know the Bills won't take Jackson at 8? We don't have a clue. The only reason we think the Bills will get Ngata is because mock drafts have him going at 8.

Value is 100% based on mock drafts. You can't trade down thinking a player will be there 8 picks later because a bunch of mock drafts have him going at that spot. You take the player you want when he's there. Mike Patterson was projected as a 2nd rounder last year, but the Eagles got him at 31. Was that a bad pick? Everyone seems to like Patterson. That is all it takes. Someone taking a player they want early and unexpectedly and your trade down strategy gets completely farged over.

The BIGSTUD · April 24, 2006, 04:10:03 PM

Quote from: PhillyPhaninDC on April 24, 2006, 04:05:38 PM
I don't get why people have such a hard time believing the FO is going into the season with Brown as the #1. Whether or not you feel he is worthy of the role is debatable, but as to whether the FO is penciling him in, isn't really.

Because a receiving corps of Brown, Pinkston, and Gaffney flat out sucks. Thats why. I don't care what anyone says, but we have no shot of making any noise with a receiving corps like that.

After the rough year mentally on McNabb, and all the crap he went through with TO and his injuries and you won't even get him another weapon at receiver to go with Brown? That would tell me they don't give a shtein about McNabb. It tells me they are doing everything they can to fill their pockets, not to make the team better.

PhillyPhanInDC · April 24, 2006, 04:14:34 PM

Quote from: Philly Forever on April 24, 2006, 04:10:03 PM
Because a receiving corps of Brown, Pinkston, and Gaffney flat out sucks. Thats why. I don't care what anyone says, but we have no shot of making any noise with a receiving corps like that.

After the rough year mentally on McNabb, and all the crap he went through with TO and his injuries and you won't even get him another stud at receiver to go with Brown? That would tell me they don't give a shtein about McNabb. It tells me they are doing everything they can to fill their pockets, not to make the team better.

Okay, so they need a second or third receiver, based on where they see Gaffney working out. Do you spend the fourteenth pick on a second or third wideout?