Top 100 Pro Prospects from Rivals

[Carolina_Packer]

As for which position is historically taken in which round, this should help.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/ful...&type=position I'm not sure what constitutes a defensive back in this database vs. a cornerback or either safety position, but if you use the pull down box to change from defensive back to say, cornerback the names change.

[3irty1]

As for which position is historically taken in which round, this should help.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/ful...&type=position I'm not sure what constitutes a defensive back in this database vs. a cornerback or either safety position, but if you use the pull down box to change from defensive back to say, cornerback the names change.

Damn. 99 was a good year.

[Merlin]

I think its about time to stop with the mean-spirited remarks. There is no need for that.

Coming from you Partial, that statement it's almost comical, almost.

[SkinBasket]

I think its about time to stop with the mean-spirited remarks. There is no need for that.

Coming from you Partial, that statement it's almost comical, almost.

Maybe you should look to Partial as an example that it's never too late to change.

Ahem.

cough cough.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Mendenhall, he is a beast.

I would be for taking him but only if he can play tight end. Otherwise he will just rot on our bench behind every other WR we have until one of them gets injured. He has great speed and is a big kid that can stretch the field. It would be nice to have a triple TE threat to get us out of so many 4-5 wide out packages.

There is an expression about keeping your mouth shut and letting people wonder if you are a fool as opposed to opening it and confirming that you are. Think about that.

You want to take a top 20 pick who is a RUNNING BACK and convert a five eleven player to tight end? Yowsa.

Try actually KNOWING the players before you comment.

I thought Mendenhall was Mario Manningham from Michigan, I got the names mixed up. But then again, you never make mistakes right?

Sure, we all get mixed up, make mistakes.

But, could you limit it to one a post. First, you mix up the players. Then you suggest a WR who isn't even a 200 pounds to TE. MM is not a big kid.

So, you didn't JUST get the names mixed up. You are completely wrong in your assessment.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't watch many college games or scout prospects, and I know TT doesnt' draft based on need, but I'm thinking we are looking at the the following priorities in terms of need...

1. CB
2. OG
3. LB
4. DE
5. RB
6. TE
7. QB

I would think OT has to be in our need list. Clifton and Tauscher aren't getting any younger and we really have no one right now that can take over for them and play as well as they are on the roster. We can't afford to wait 2-3 years from now when they retire to fill the position, we need that depth now. OG isn't as much of a need as a want due to the inconsistent play we are getting out of that position. We have experienced that type of play for 3 seasons now and I don't think bringing in a pair of rookies to make a 4th season of inconsistency is smart. Corner backs are normally not first round picks and for once I would like to see a play maker taken that can contribute day one, not 4-5 seasons from now, not person who doesn't make the game day roster, but now.

Do you actually follow football? Or do you just make it up as you go and hope people think you know what you are talking about.

2007: 3 cornerbacks taken in the first round.
2006: 4 in the first
2005: 2 in the first
2004: 4
2003: 5
2002: 2
2001: 3
2000: 2
1999: 5
1998: 4
1997: 5

A ten year STATISTISCAL average results in 3.9 taken in the first round. There are 32 first round picks. If we determine that there are 12 positions in football, and this is being GENEROUS to you (rb, qb, tackle, guard, center, te, wr, de, dt, lb, safety, cb), instead of looking at a breakdown that would further refine the positions (including fb, mlb, sam, etc) and one would expect that 8.333 percent of players drafted in the first round would be CORNERBACKS.

Meaning that approximately 2.6 cornerbacks should be drafted.

Clearly that isn't true, and EVERY freaking GM knows that cornerbacks are harder to find and therefore they draft them early and often, often reaching on players (ie, Ahmad, Sammy Davis, Philip Buchanon, Willie Middlebrooks).

Any other stupid posts that I need to correct Merlin?

All those stats and still NO ONE to take over for Woodson & Harris on the roster. Just because we drafted it doesn't mean they made the team dillhole.

Any other stupid comments TB?

Do you even READ your posts. You said cornerbacks aren't taken in the first round. You didn't say anything about GB.

But, if you wanna talk GB, then didn't we just take one a couple of years ago named Carroll. So, you just are wrong again.

But, as always, you need it spelled out.

GB Drafts CB in first round:

2004
1999
1995
1992
1991

That is 5 in the past 20 years. So, ONE FREAKING FOURTH OF ALL OUR FIRST ROUND PICKS have been cornerbacks. Wow, i didn't know that 25% of our roster are cornerbacks..or, is it that we have drafted a disproportionate amount of CBs. Or as I stated, GMs tend to draft them A LOT.

As for taking over. Oh, is see, you are all knowing in regards to blackmon and his ability. Or that we might take one next year. Or that Nick Collins can play CB.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Corner backs are normally not first round picks

I beg to differ. I think TB has already posted the number drafted per year, so I won't go into spouting off names like Revis, Hall, and Ross at CB, plus Landry and Meriweather at S. Oops, I guess I just did.

I can think of a few CB 1st rounders just for GB -- Vinnie Clark, Leroy Butler, Antuan Edwards, Craig Newsome, Ahmad Carrol, and of course Terrell Buckley. That's six in less than 20 years.

Actually, I see CB as a big need. Bush is learning, and I like Tramon, but the starters are getting old. The OL still needs depth, but I'd be surprised if TT went OL in R1. I agree with Vince that you don't NOT take someone in R1 because of their position, but you do take the BPA. The thing is the BPA is subjective and may be affected by the perceived importance of the position, which is why so many QBs get taken early.

Butler wasn't first round. He was a second.

But, if you wanna put seconds in as well..or thirds: Vinson, Thomas, Williams, Mac,

Oh, and sometimes that can play/or thought they can play other positions..Collins/Jue cb/safety.

The point is that DB is one of the toughest positions to fill and GMs draft them early and often and take "flyers" on guys.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As for which position is historically taken in which round, this should help.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/ful...&type=position I'm not sure what constitutes a defensive back in this database vs. a cornerback or either safety position, but if you use the pull down box to change from defensive back to say, cornerback the names change.

that is the site from which i pulled my data. I went thru all the positions, but i didn't do the drop down. I'm a dope.

[The Leaper]

The point is that DB is one of the toughest positions to fill and GMs draft them early and often and take "flyers" on guys.

Yep.

DBs probably have one of the lowest success rates in terms of first day draft picks...but it hasn't deterred teams from taking them off the board at a frantic pace. With the abundance of quality receivers these days, teams can't have enough capable DBs. The success of Green Bay and New England at spreading teams 4 and 5 wide is only going to increase the demand for DBs.

Look at Carroll. The guy was puny and didn't have an overly impressive college record. He was a FIRST ROUND PICK! There are loads of those kind of picks in the last decade.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The point is that DB is one of the toughest positions to fill and GMs draft them early and often and take "flyers" on guys.

Yep.

DBs probably have one of the lowest success rates in terms of first day draft picks...but it hasn't deterred teams from taking them off the board at a frantic pace. With the abundance of quality receivers these days, teams can't have enough capable DBs. The success of Green Bay and New England at spreading teams 4 and 5 wide is only going to increase the demand for DBs.

Look at Carroll. The guy was puny and didn't have an overly impressive college record. He was a FIRST ROUND PICK! There are loads of those kind of picks in the last decade.

Leaper agreeing with me? Hell is freezing over.

I'm not sure I agree with the excess demand theory. I think they'll go the opposite route..figure out the way to get to the QB and disrupt timing..like the eagles did. Much easier to do that then find decent CB.

The spread offense has been tried before, and as much as i don't want to say it because it doesn't bode well for us, it failed. Think Oilers back in the late 80s. Or the bills.

The problems is that it scores quickly and keeps the defense on the field to much. Ultimately, the defense wears down.

[The Leaper]

I'm not sure I agree with the excess demand theory. I think they'll go the opposite route..figure out the way to get to the QB and disrupt timing..like the eagles did. Much easier to do that then find decent CB.

I would agree that is probably more effective, although I'm not sure it would be much easier. A little easier perhaps?

You stick Favre and Brady behind a capable pass blocking OL with 5 WRs...it will be almost impossible to stop IMO regardless. The NFL has always been about "you have to run to win"...thanks Hank Stram and Vince Lombardi. Sure, that was true 30-40 years ago. I'm not so sure that is true today with the level of athlete that is on the field.

You need a very good, experienced QB to do the damage in that kind of setup...but I think it is almost unstoppable if you stick to it. The Eagles played a nearly flawless game defensively...and the Pats still racked up almost 400 yards passing.

[SkinBasket]

I think the spread is fine when used as it's being used in GB, as a package, not as an offensive philosophy. The offense is still relatively balanced, given our early season run blocking/running failures with Lee at TE and Grant at RB.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think the spread is fine when used as it's being used in GB, as a package, not as an offensive philosophy. The offense is still relatively balanced, given our early season run blocking/running failures with Lee at TE and Grant at RB.

I agree.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'm not sure I agree with the excess demand theory. I think they'll go the opposite route..figure out the way to get to the QB and disrupt timing..like the eagles did. Much easier to do that then find decent CB.

I would agree that is probably more effective, although I'm not sure it would be much easier. A little easier perhaps?

You stick Favre and Brady behind a capable pass blocking OL with 5 WRs...it will be almost impossible to stop IMO regardless. The NFL has always been about "you have to run to win"...thanks Hank Stram and Vince Lombardi. Sure, that was true 30-40 years ago. I'm not so sure that is true today with the level of athlete that is on the field.

You need a very good, experienced QB to do the damage in that kind of setup...but I think it is almost unstoppable if you stick to it. The Eagles played a nearly flawless game defensively...and the Pats still racked up almost 400 yards passing.

Well, we disagree on that. I watched a clearly outmatched Eagles team stay close. You view yardage, but i look at scoring. I dont' care if a team moves from the 30-30. More importantly, it took him 54 passes to do it. And, they couldn't run the ball at all. 7 yards per reception. I'll take that anyday, against any team..regardless of the scheme.

The eagles are far from a good team. Once you play a team like the packers or one with better linemen and backers you have a chance.

Finding 3 good DBs is a miracle. 5 impossible. Finding decent linebackers or lineman is easier. The rams showed how hard it is to find decent CBs and they only went 3 deep. Hakim on a third was always a mismatch in his favor.

The NFL is about match ups. Good teams like the Pack, pats, Dallas have depth at a skill position and you exploit it. Very few teams can stay with our 3rd receiver and will get killed by Krob at 4..especially when he rounds into shape.

Just look at our team. Do you feel confident if Bush is out there against Welker? Or against Anthony Gonzalez. Chris Henry?

If we had the equivalent of harris in his philly days as our 3rd CB i'd be really thrilled with our CBs/

You keep stunting, blitzing, etc. you will throw off the timing, you will smack the QB and eventually they will get "happy feat" or gun shy. Now, i'm not saying this specifically about the Pats, cause they are the perfect storm. How many teams get a Moss, Brady, and Belichek?

You do have to run to win. It is virtually impossible to win without being able to run. It eats clock. keeps the defense fresh. Parcells beat the bills by doing this. Time of possession is a huge factor in winning.

Athletes: I don't think that has much to do with it. Each gen has theirs.