Two starting level linebackers

Navies is restricted. If someone wants to put money in front of him, Ill take the pick. They won't. He'll be ours.

Hambrick will be ours IMO if we want him, cheap. Team seems lukewarm about that. IMO, that's another indiation we may take a run at Farrior. Hambrick isn't in position to ask for a lot. So that tells me we want to upgrade.

 

I'd still like to see what a guy like Newman would cost. Can't be terribly much, probably in the $15 mil over five year range.

Bring in the strong side guy, start Navies tentatively (no one's going to touch him, let's be honest) and draft for weakside in the third.

If we get James, then more power to us. I feel good that he can be a playmaker.

I like our chances finding an incomplete player who can fill a run-downs need at strongside.

 

You included them Brain, but it sounds kind of like Fox has discluded them?

This coming out makes me feel even stronger about trading down. The chances of a second round pick starting are generally slim, let alone a second day pick.

I would argue that Fox is simply stating the facts as they are NOW apposed to tipping his hand at who will or will not be here. Those FA who are not yet signed by someone else (Hambrick and Navies or did we sign Hannibal?) can't be considered part of the team at this point because they aren't under contract. It might just be a little smoke and mirrors stunt?

Plus, I think he has evaluated the quality of our depth and found that it was horribly inadequate.

If we stay at #2, Peppers is probably the best pick or McKinnie. Then in the second we could go Rumph, Sheppard, Craver, Faulk, or Rasheed. I think I like the depth at LB a little better in the draft and would prefer to go CB in the second and LB in the third. That is IF we don't trade down, which I obviously prefer.

Trading down and picking up an extra 2nd and 3rd or a 2nd this year and next makes sense to me. Also, I can't help but think about the Raiders with 2 first rounders, although they are later than we would like @ #21 & #23. If Al Davis gets his heart set on Peppers or McKinnie he will make a deal happen, but I don't know if that is the case, Guess we'll see?

 

Revisiting Farrior

I want to explore this Farrior thing more.

(as background, my first expansion mock followed the idea the Jets had, and I 'd traded down to get Farrior as well. I hoped he'd play this well throughout his career, but I'm just pleased he got it on once they went 4-3. Point is I have pre-draft notes on him.)

Definately the weakside guy. Someone who holds his own on his side of the front and can clean up, but most of tackles were solos (100+). Is tackling machine who . Definately good in pursuit and reading. Not necessarily someone you funnel the back to as much as allow him to take in space. Can definately defend his hole, though, and scrapes well. Haven't gotten a feel for his tackling ability, obviously he pulls down the numbers and all, and I'm sure that he's above average, I just haven't done the work to be certain.

Has the range to be a hell of a zone defender, has free safety level instincts as of now IMO. His speed coming out of UVA was 4.64? Broke up 9 passes his senior year and duplicated that in 2001 (total 18 PD on career), 2 picks (84 yards) on the year. If he brought that type of game to us every year we'd definately be getting our money's worth, not


Is definate upgrade in all phases of the game, including passing game matchups. Definately adds speed to the front.
Basically was the difference in a Buffalo game where he pulled down 16 total tackles, two forced fumbles, and a defended pass. We can most definately use a few guys who are the difference after last year. The question is: how much?

 

>>If we stay at #2, Peppers is probably the best pick or McKinnie.

I really don't know about that at all. McKinnie, with the amount of defensive needs we have? Let's say we do. And then we draft a linebacker like Rasheed in 2. Then a back falls to 3 we must have. We've got neither of our two critical needs. Peppers or Jammer I can see...Jammer isn't great value at 2 but if you can't get trade value and Peppers isn't the guy you have to take the next best thing.

 

Just a feeling, but I can see someone trading ahead of us and Peppers being the #1 pick. The Texans could probably afford to go as low as #6 and still have a shot at Carr and definately still get Harrington, but the Lions are a likely candidate at #3 IF they are that serious on Peppers, feel they can afford the move and feel we will take him.
McKinnie would be the safer pick if we couldn't trade down, but Jammer would better fit a need...then again coming off of 1-15, what isn't a need?

 

True, we have needs all over. Nonetheless, what we'd basically be doing is upgrading RT as an end result.

What needs are over RT?

DE
CB
LB
RB
future DT
FB

that's a draft's worth of needs above RT. Five likely starters and one future. Of those, the only place you can get a starter deeper in the draft than you can at RT is FB, which can be dealt with in free agency cheaply anyway. DT you can put away because of immense now needs. IN the end the difference between getting McKinnie at #2 and getting Langston Walker at 66 isn't that great of a difference to me because Terry is somewhat solid. He's probably our pass protection weakness at the moment, certainly, but he's a strong run blocker and serviceable for another year.

Do we have that player, the 'serviceable for another year' player, at DE? nope. CB? Nope. LB? possibly, though team speed would suffer, as would playmaking. RB? Tentatively. We could technically run with Huntley alone, without much depth, and with him going out of the year as a free agent.

So that's three needs we'd have to fill with first day picks. Asbolute must haves. And to get McKinnie, we've gotta throw one of those out the window, knowing that the dropoff from Peppers to Dennis Johnson is a big one. Knowing that the dropoff from Jammer to Mike Rumph is a big one. Knowing that each of those getting pushed back a round means that instead of a blue chip linebacker, we're hoping that a blue collar one will fill the void.

In essence, unless we felt we could trade down and still get McKinnie, he's terrible value at #2. Even then, the likelihood that Jammer or Buchanon is still there is great, as would be the probability of Henderson, Haynesworth, Sims or Bryant being there at DT if we're talking 10-12. All of those take precedent over OT.

The frosting on the cake is that some have been unimpressed with McKinnie's run blocking, where he's average. Steussie isn't overpowering either. So we'd be gaining above average pass protection on a grind-it-out football team. So if we were really that in need of a RT, Mike Williams would be a better value, and since both he and McKinnie are dropping, you could very easily pick up a Levi Jones or Terrence Metcalf in the top of round two and have a player that more easily fits the position he'd be playing, right tackle.

To me, picking McKinnie is like buying a bum a bowtie. He smells of liquor, he hasn't had a good meal in a few days, might not have shaved or gotten a decent haircut since Desert Storm, but hey that bowtie sure is sharp. I know that's an exaggeration, but that's honestly how I view it. Even if offensive tackle were a big need with this team, and it was down to just defense versus offense, one spot each, I'd still pick the end, the corner. I know I can pick the top 5 player at the top of 2, I know I can get the top ten player at the top of 3 and since RTs are less valuable you can

If we didn't have Steussie it would be another matter. If we had a situation where we could trade one of our linemen away and make McKinnie a cornerstone it would be another matter. There's a good line in place, one that needs a backup RT who can step into a starting role in a year at the worst. That, to me, is a 3rd or 4th round pick, not a $50 million player.

McKinnie's great, but I just can't at all see that pick, no matter how safe he is, no matter how much better we'd be offensively, no matter how great a guy he is. I'd almost rather waste the pick on Harrington, and I most definately am dead set against that pick unless we have a deal done for a 3rd in exchange for Weinke done the night before.

With all the needs defensively, McKinnie is a luxury pick. We're not in a position to make a luxury pick and still fill a portion of our needs. It would take having the money to buy both Farrior and Starks to allow McKinnie to be an option. That money's not available.

 

Now I'm just plain confused.

Farrior's meeting with the Steelers. Why?

He sucked in the 3-4 inside. Besides, they could put a guy like Faulk or comparable in the slot with a 4th and be done with it.

They've always done very well in middle rounds.

He doesn't have the bulk or the natural skills to play outside. And they picked Fiala back up in this case anyway. Why pay Farrior $20 mil to play out of position and fill the one spot of the four that doesn't look for speed or flash?

What happened to Earl Holmes anyway? Might he be an option for us? He was only mentioned with Buffalo, and that was before Fletcher.

 

Weak

Fuel to the fire. According to my boy Tony at TFY, McKinnie put up 225 just 19 times. Less than Joaquin Gonzalez, and damn near half Martin Bibla's 35 at the combine. That's also a total of four reps more than Najeh Davenport and Ed Reed.

McKinnie ran an average 5.1 40. He weighed in at 343, a bit overweight.

 

I just can't see anybody but Peppers at number 2.

McKinnie's hurting himself, Henderson is long out of it, and Jammer at #2 seems a big reach.

Who else could we justify using the #2 on?

Starks and Farrior are the 2 FA's I want. That would seem to make the draft a hell of alot easier.