Let the 2015 mock draft begin....

[Burgundy&Wha?]

With the way the offseason is shaping up, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we didn't draft Trae Waynes (CB -- Mich. State).

[riggofan]

There are a few posters here that will be absolutely unhappy when we DON'T draft a NT at #5...no way.

Three reasons,
1) NT's don't get picked that high;
2) As someone already said, we filled the NT position with Pot Roast; and
3) We need someone to put pressure on the qb or protect our qb...An OLB or OT.

Well you're saying that a NT doesn't get picked at #5 but right tackles don't usually get picked that high either. How about some consistency?

Regardless, I kinda think there will be better overall players than Shelton if we're picking at #5. Probably one of the OLBs like most people have predicted.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

Kerrigan isn't?? :/

I like Kerrigan a lot, but wouldn't describe him as a beast.

I guess if your comparing him to Watt.. he isn't there yet... but if I had to pick someone on the squad currently he'd get my most beastly vote

[emoses14]

Kerrigan isn't?? :/

I like Kerrigan a lot, but wouldn't describe him as a beast.

I guess if your comparing him to Watt.. he isn't there yet... but if I had to pick someone on the squad currently he'd get my most beastly vote

Well, that's a different point. Closest facsimile of a beast on the redskins? Ok, him or Alfred or Trent, since we're talking defense, fine, Kerrigan. But the question was beast (or meast as was Sean's nickname) feared by other players. No one on this team fits that bill. The last guy to come close was Griffin in 2012, and again, not a defender.

[fredp45]

It is true, ROTs don't normally get picked at #5, however, the Eagles picked ROT Lane Johnson at #4 in 2013.

If we stay at #5 I assume we'll pick an OLB. If we trade back a ROT would also be in play.

I'd be fine if we traded back to 10-12, picked OL Sherff then picked ROT in 2nd round. That would sure up the right side of the OLine...

[riggofan]

Kerrigan isn't?? :/

I like Kerrigan a lot, but wouldn't describe him as a beast.

I guess if your comparing him to Watt.. he isn't there yet... but if I had to pick someone on the squad currently he'd get my most beastly vote

Kerrigan is awesome, no disrespect to him at all.

Personally I'm talking more about the playing style and attitude. I'd like to have one of those players on defense with all of Kerrigan's talent + some nastiness. Scary, physically intimidating, etc; One of those guys the offense really fears. Sean Taylor is really the last Redskin like that I can remember.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

JR Calls Sean Taylor Killing the Punter: https://youtu.be/cKgv6vX8_Js

Right, I get it.... I mean Dexter, the hogs...

Even still ST was a rare breed for sure!!! He DEFINITELY made people question their routes... and after laying the smack down question their lives!

[Irn-Bru]

There are a few posters here that will be absolutely unhappy when we DON'T draft a NT at #5...no way.

Three reasons,
1) NT's don't get picked that high;

I already addressed this in another thread, but yes, NTs are sometimes worthy of being picked at #5. For example, in just the last few years BJ Raji and Dontari Poe are players who were picked high and, if the 1st round was done all over again, would certainly have gone top five that year.

2) As someone already said, we filled the NT position with Pot Roast; and

We filled a one-year starting position with a player who carries some risk, and that's even assuming he doesn't get injured, which he might. If we got a future star at NT in this year's draft, five years from now no one will remember or care that we already had an NT on the team when we drafted him. No one.

3) We need someone to put pressure on the qb or protect our qb...An OLB or OT.

You do know we're going to be pursuing a BPA approach in the draft, now, right? When I read your posts it's as if this concept has yet to make an impact on you. Why on Earth would McCloughan decided on a position he's going to pick beforehand? That's not how this works at all.

I remember all the Gibbs years and I remember him saying, with a high draft pick you get a QB, a LT to protect your qb or someone who can pressure the qb. Nt's can be gotten in the 2nd, 3rd, or Free Agency (Like Pot Roast!).

Not the dominant, game-changing ones. It's uncommon for a game-changing NT to have been a low round draft pick. Almost always you have to grow your own, and that means investing a 1st round pick so that you can get the talent. (Poe, Raji, Ngata, Wilfork, etc.)

[Countertrey]

It is true, ROTs don't normally get picked at #5, however, the Eagles picked ROT Lane Johnson at #4 in 2013.

If we stay at #5 I assume we'll pick an OLB. If we trade back a ROT would also be in play.

I'd be fine if we traded back to 10-12, picked OL Sherff then picked ROT in 2nd round. That would sure up the right side of the OLine...

I like how you identify (correctly) that NT is rarely selected in the top of the draft... And in the process, use an example of a ROT being selected at 5... While acknowledging that Right Tackles are rarely selected at the top of the draft.


...so, your point would be?

I will not be surprised to see Scot go in a different direction, but, dude... You really can't have it both ways.
You do realize how rare it is to find a dominant NT, right?

[riggofan]

You do know we're going to be pursuing a BPA approach in the draft, now, right? When I read your posts it's as if this concept has yet to make an impact on you. Why on Earth would McCloughan decided on a position he's going to pick beforehand? That's not how this works at all.

Fred has been pretty clear that he doesn't believe we'll really draft BPA. To be fair, its the complete opposite of how this team has always drafted. I think we'll have to see McGloughan prove he's serious about it.

I remember all the Gibbs years and I remember him saying, with a high draft pick you get a QB, a LT to protect your qb or someone who can pressure the qb. Nt's can be gotten in the 2nd, 3rd, or Free Agency (Like Pot Roast!).

Not the dominant, game-changing ones. It's uncommon for a game-changing NT to have been a low round draft pick. Almost always you have to grow your own, and that means investing a 1st round pick so that you can get the talent. (Poe, Raji, Ngata, Wilfork, etc.)

I just don't know what conventional wisdom from the Gibbs years has to do with the draft now anyway. So much has changed. There hasn't been a running back taken in the first round in the past two years. Back in the 80s, they were taking six or seven RBs in the first round every single year. Things change.

What I took away from listening to McGlougan was how much emphasis he was placing on just finding good football players. Guys you can count on to make your team better overall rather than guys who can fill a particular position. It makes a lot of sense to me if he can pull it off.

[Countertrey]

You do know we're going to be pursuing a BPA approach in the draft, now, right? When I read your posts it's as if this concept has yet to make an impact on you. Why on Earth would McCloughan decided on a position he's going to pick beforehand? That's not how this works at all.

Fred has been pretty clear that he doesn't believe we'll really draft BPA. To be fair, its the complete opposite of how this team has always drafted. I think we'll have to see McGloughan prove he's serious about it.

I remember all the Gibbs years and I remember him saying, with a high draft pick you get a QB, a LT to protect your qb or someone who can pressure the qb. Nt's can be gotten in the 2nd, 3rd, or Free Agency (Like Pot Roast!).

Not the dominant, game-changing ones. It's uncommon for a game-changing NT to have been a low round draft pick. Almost always you have to grow your own, and that means investing a 1st round pick so that you can get the talent. (Poe, Raji, Ngata, Wilfork, etc.)

I just don't know what conventional wisdom from the Gibbs years has to do with the draft now anyway. So much has changed. There hasn't been a running back taken in the first round in the past two years. Back in the 80s, they were taking six or seven RBs in the first round every single year. Things change.

What I took away from listening to McGlougan was how much emphasis he was placing on just finding good football players. Guys you can count on to make your team better overall rather than guys who can fill a particular position. It makes a lot of sense to me if he can pull it off.

I'll also point out, regarding Gibbs, when he was building and running those overpowering teams of the 80's and 90's, he was NOT the one finding the talent... Just sayin'

[fredp45]

I read and listen to all the stuff on the web...hey, I have plenty of time, I'm retired!!! I've heard and read Scot say he likes BPA -- like all of you, however, I don't believe "Best Player Available" is "BPA" -- to everyone... Read this:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d ... -draft-day

Whether you like Steve Wyche or not, or think this article is old, I believe he's right on -- PBA has a lot of factors...NEED being one of them. In other words, why stockpile one position? The cap doesn't allow that.

Also, BPA available is different for each team -- based on scheme, preferences, how teams gauge past injuries, what players will be available next year, a players personality/interviews, NEED-- etc.

This is not an exact science, who Scot believes is PBA at #5 might be different than another team.

I also believe there are certain positions that have less value at the top of the draft and others more value at the top of the draft -- of course, that's less true as you get later in the draft.

[Prowl33]

BPA takes a lot into account. How much better is that player than what you have on your team and other prospects, value of that position (specifically in the 1st round), how his interview went, how his old team mates and coaches spoke of him, and a lot more.

Those things will all be weighted differently, tape im assuming the most, then interviews, and so forth.

A lot of teams have the same boards because they use scouting services like what Scot had, and perform minor tweaks. Having scot, its likely our board is a little more unique since its being built in house.

[fredp45]

Countertrey -- so, because Gibbs wasn't finding the talent (Bethard was) Gibbs can't or doesn't have an opinion? Hell, he won 3 Super Bowls. I believe he knew a thing or two about football players. More than any of us I'd guess!!

[Countertrey]

Countertrey -- so, because Gibbs wasn't finding the talent (Bethard was) Gibbs can't or doesn't have an opinion? Hell, he won 3 Super Bowls. I believe he knew a thing or two about football players. More than any of us I'd guess!!

I'll assume that, despite the sarcasm, your challenge is honest...
Compare Gibbs success when someone else was finding and selecting talent, with his success when HE was finding and selecting talent.

Any difference?

Great coach.... But, GM? Not so much. When comparing head to head... Gibbs coached vs Gibbs managed teams, the latter pretty much get their asses kicked.

No where, however, did I suggest that his opinion was not worthy... Just that it needs to be measured against reality.

[Irn-Bru]

I read and listen to all the stuff on the web...hey, I have plenty of time, I'm retired!!! I've heard and read Scot say he likes BPA -- like all of you, however, I don't believe "Best Player Available" is "BPA" -- to everyone... Read this:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d ... -draft-day

Whether you like Steve Wyche or not, or think this article is old, I believe he's right on -- PBA has a lot of factors...NEED being one of them. In other words, why stockpile one position? The cap doesn't allow that.

Also, BPA available is different for each team -- based on scheme, preferences, how teams gauge past injuries, what players will be available next year, a players personality/interviews, NEED-- etc.

This is not an exact science, who Scot believes is PBA at #5 might be different than another team.

I also believe there are certain positions that have less value at the top of the draft and others more value at the top of the draft -- of course, that's less true as you get later in the draft.

Need is a fairly small component of BPA strategy. It's kind of the coin flip that you use after your other methods for differentiating players ends up giving you a close call. So to say that because need isn't ignored, therefore you only pick one of three positions with the top 5 pick, seems to me to be misguided. No one is saying that team needs don't count, but the point is that it shouldn't be one of the first things anyone says when they are saying we won't or shouldn't draft a given player.

For example, if someone were to say that we shouldn't take Shelton because we just signed a NT in free agency, or because a #5 is just too high a pick to use on a NT, or something like that.

[DarthMonk]

Yep.

McCloughan

Q: In years past the 49ers have stuck with the common phrase, "We will take the best player available." Are there any plans to focus more on a team need versus the best player available? -Aaron Horne

A: Absolutely not, best player available. You can never have enough good football players on your team. If you take the best player, you’re not living in year one, it’s living in the future as well. He’ll help you in year one, but he’ll also help you year two and on.

And then, during the draft, you don’t focus on a particular spot.

“I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need,” McCloughan said. “You draft the best available football player on the board. You know people say, ‘Well, if you have this and this, why would you do that?’ Because, you know, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games."

[Deadskins]

I read and listen to all the stuff on the web...hey, I have plenty of time, I'm retired!!! I've heard and read Scot say he likes BPA -- like all of you, however, I don't believe "Best Player Available" is "BPA" -- to everyone... Read this:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/09000d5d ... -draft-day

Whether you like Steve Wyche or not, or think this article is old, I believe he's right on -- PBA has a lot of factors...NEED being one of them. In other words, why stockpile one position? The cap doesn't allow that.

Also, BPA available is different for each team -- based on scheme, preferences, how teams gauge past injuries, what players will be available next year, a players personality/interviews, NEED-- etc.

This is not an exact science, who Scot believes is PBA at #5 might be different than another team.

I also believe there are certain positions that have less value at the top of the draft and others more value at the top of the draft -- of course, that's less true as you get later in the draft.

Need is a fairly small component of BPA strategy. It's kind of the coin flip that you use after your other methods for differentiating players ends up giving you a close call. So to say that because need isn't ignored, therefore you only pick one of three positions with the top 5 pick, seems to me to be misguided. No one is saying that team needs don't count, but the point is that it shouldn't be one of the first things anyone says when they are saying we won't or shouldn't draft a given player.

For example, if someone were to say that we shouldn't take Shelton because we just signed a NT in free agency, or because a #5 is just too high a pick to use on a NT, or something like that.

Well said.

[riggofan]

Yep.

McCloughan

Q: In years past the 49ers have stuck with the common phrase, "We will take the best player available." Are there any plans to focus more on a team need versus the best player available? -Aaron Horne

A: Absolutely not, best player available. You can never have enough good football players on your team. If you take the best player, you’re not living in year one, it’s living in the future as well. He’ll help you in year one, but he’ll also help you year two and on.

And then, during the draft, you don’t focus on a particular spot.

“I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need,” McCloughan said. “You draft the best available football player on the board. You know people say, ‘Well, if you have this and this, why would you do that?’ Because, you know, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games."

Great share, man - thanks! Right from the horse's mouth. I knew I've heard him say these things in recent interviews but its awesome to read.

[Countertrey]

Yep.

McCloughan

Q: In years past the 49ers have stuck with the common phrase, "We will take the best player available." Are there any plans to focus more on a team need versus the best player available? -Aaron Horne

A: Absolutely not, best player available. You can never have enough good football players on your team. If you take the best player, you’re not living in year one, it’s living in the future as well. He’ll help you in year one, but he’ll also help you year two and on.

And then, during the draft, you don’t focus on a particular spot.

“I’m never under the assumption that you draft for need,” McCloughan said. “You draft the best available football player on the board. You know people say, ‘Well, if you have this and this, why would you do that?’ Because, you know, in the long run, they are the ones who will help you win the most games."

Great share, man - thanks! Right from the horse's mouth. I knew I've heard him say these things in recent interviews but its awesome to read.

I don't know how much more unequivocal Scot can be about this. If he uses #5 on a player, it will be the player he has as the best player on his board at the time we pick.

[fredp45]

I DO NOT DISAGREE.... Scot will pick the best player available on HIS board. That board is determined by a lot of things. And NEED is one of them....That's all I'm saying.

I also believe need might become less of a factor the further you get into the draft. For example....While Ive heard WR White from WV could be the BPA when we pick - does anyone see us picking him? Not me. However, I could see us picking a WR later in the draft.

[cowboykillerzRGiii]

^ we get what you ate saying Fred... a lot goes in to determining what the best player available is. However, need is not a factor to our new GM.. if there is a Safety rated lower then a WR (White for example) Scott will take him over the Safety even tho our needs are much less at Wide receiver. Now the entangables that determine who HIS best players available are, is a different story. We arent privy to how he rates players... some put more stock in work ethic and character then others- or just because some ones top speed is higher he might have slower footwork and acceleration. I think we will be surprised by a lot of his picks, hopefully for the better tho

[DarthMonk]

^ we get what you ate saying Fred... a lot goes in to determining what the best player available is. However, need is not a factor to our new GM.. if there is a Safety rated lower then a WR (White for example) Scott will take him over the Safety even tho our needs are much less at Wide receiver. Now the entangables that determine who HIS best players available are, is a different story. We arent privy to how he rates players... some put more stock in work ethic and character then others- or just because some ones top speed is higher he might have slower footwork and acceleration. I think we will be surprised by a lot of his picks, hopefully for the better tho

I'm feelin' you ... so to speak.

[fredp45]

I don't agree that need is not a factor. Said without all the negatives....I believe "need" enters into all personnel decisions.

A lot of posters are taking everything they hear so literally and emphatically.

"We will be a running team" - does that mean we won't ever throw the ball?
"We will play a 3-4 Defense" - does that mean 4 guys won't have their hands in the dirt occasionally?

If we keep Garçon and DJax does anyone believe Scot would take Kevin White at #5, who some is saying a top player in the draft? Does Scot even value WRs that high? Look at Seattle's WRs. Again, BPA is based on a *sh$t* load of stuff!!!

[ferryrich]

You can have position rankings without them being based on need and I'm sure that's what Scot has. It looks like he values linemen particularly highly from his draft history.
I can't see us taking a receiver at 5 based on those position rankings, but if we traded back 10 spots or so and White was miraculously still there, I'd bet we take him.