Clickbait!

 

ANYONES FAMILY!!!!

I remember them trying to sell us on not only getting Ted Ginn but his whole family!!! LOL

 

Vernon Hargreaves III

He is my litmus test to see if people on this message board know what they are talking about or not. If you want Hargreaves, you either A) just read other mocks and regurgitate B) have no ability to evaluate film

 

Is that because you don't rate him or you don't think he is a system fit for our scheme?

 

Yeah, the guy looks more like a SS to me.

 

The only player I would be annoyed with us for drafting in the first round is Paxton Lynch or another quarterback.

I am not against drafting Darron Lee because of the risks attached to drafting him, but he's one of those players that if he overcomes those shortfalls in his game, then he could be a very useful linebacker. However, I hope we don't draft him.

 

this is a good post, because I cannot think of a player that I really want at 13. I dislike Hargreaves and something about the Ohio State back doesn't feel right. Perhaps it is only that we should have signed Miller so we don't have yet another hole to fill.

 

Ezekiel Elliot.

 

Elliot after a trade up to #3....would be ok with drafting him at #13, but not giving up multiple picks to trade up and draft him. Hopefully, and likely, it's just media speculation.

 

Both. He is an already undersized corner who would have to face Marshall, Watkins, Decker. When drafting, you have to consider your division. His tackling is pretty poor and he struggles to be aggressive at the line.

Honestly, I would love for one Hargreave lover to show me footage of Hargreaves where he looks like he would be more successful on our team than William Jackson III.

One of the biggest problems concerning this draft is that people think that ranking the players by position and effective way to evaluate talent. This draft is full of specialists. If you ask yourself, "What am I trying to accomplish by drafting player X?" For example, if you are looking to shore up your run game from the linebacker position, Reggie Ragland is really good at stopping the run, but if you think you are gonna vastly improve your pass coverage with Ragland, you will probably be disappointed. If it is pass coverage you are looking for, a guy like Myles Jack may be more of your taste.

This same concept applies even more so for the corners. If receivers like DeSean Jackson, Brandon Cooks, and Tavon Austin were in our division, Hargreaves would make more sense. Don't be fooled by Mel Kiper. The player rankings ARE NOT LINEAR. Ask yourself what you are trying to accomplish at a given position and what players you face twice a week.

 

You can't draft based on your division though because players and coaches change all the time. You have to draft based on getting the best players possible. I'm not saying this to defend one rookie over another, btw, I just disagree with your general drafting strategy.

Also height is overrated in cbs.

 

I don't even read Kiper's stuff, and most fans realise there's no such thing as an absolute ranking system.

For what it's worth, I am not a huge fan of Hargreaves either. Undersized and not a great tackler. I'd much rather take WJIII - although none of us really know what Defensive system we'll be using this year.

 

odds are strong it will resemble the Bengals since we got a guy from there to run it. which I like cause they have done well with the backfield

 

Seriously???? I feel like you are the engineer of the crazy train. I don't know why you wouldn't draft based on your division. Think about a guy like Myles Jack who could be the coverage answer to players like Gronk and Clay who play in our division. Why on Earth would we not try and address these concerns in the draft? Pretending that they will not be there next year is simply ridiculous. We could hope that our opponents receivers suddenly get smaller, but what would possibly lead us to believe that would happen. We know the Bills gave up a ton to get Watkins, and he isn't going anywhere, and both of the Jets receivers are bigger receivers. Why wouldn't you focus on winning those division games? You know you will play those teams every year. If we went 4-2 within the division, we only need to win 5 or 6 more games throughout the year to make the playoffs. Conversely, if we went 2-4 within the division, we would have to win 7 or 8 more games out of the remaining 10 games to make the playoffs.

The point is, winning your division games should be a priority.

 

Yep, but it's bound to have some wrinkles and differences.

 

I didn't deserve your attitude.

Again, think it through, Gronk could be traded next year for example. Then what? That's point you're not getting, you have to build the team you want regardless of your division because the players and coaches in your division change all the damn time.

And none of that counters the fact that winning in your division is priority.

 

Imo, and nearly every expert/scout you can find, Hargreaves is just flat out better than Jackson, better in run support, better in coverage and better diagnosing plays, better body control, better technique and better composure.

There are plenty of 5'10"-5'11" CBs in the league, not a thing to worry about when they have talent to stick with the WR.

 

A'shawn Robinson

 

Because you're obviously 100% correct and anyone who feels otherwise is flat out wrong? That's an offensive position to have on any sports issue, man. You're free to like who you do and disagree with others, but to say that someone doesn't know what they're talking about because they think more highly of a player than you do is BS. Especially a player who NFL front office people rate as a top 20, maybe top 10 talent.

 

you have a good point, cause those experts have never been wrong before. like jamar fletcher,,,,,

 

all that being said I don't like Hargreaves either :)

 

That's fine, you know I've taken positions on players that buck the consensus, I have no problem with that, but his stance that you are either a follower or an idiot is ridiculous.

 

We don't have a finesse oline. We have a **** depth that destroys the overall quality of the oline when one or more of the 3 starters are out. If we had average guards and average backups our style of oline play wouldn't hurt us in our division.

Again, I need you guys to quit ignoring the simple FACT that players and coaches change all the time.

 

Wait, I never said teams don't do that. I said I think its a bad strategy based on common sense. Common sense, btw, that you or the other person have yet to actually address.

 

And still, we ignore the fact that these players, schemes and coaches could all be gone next season from your division.......

 

Could doesn't mean they will though. Should you severely overdraft just because of a matchup? Absolutely not. But if you are deciding between a few closely ranked players or positions, yes you absolutely take a guy that can help you within the division - doubly so when there is a trend (big targets) to counter. Hargreaves struggled against big WRs in college. We play a number of teams with the type of WRs that he struggled with. It would be foolish to ignore that because oh well it may not be that way five years down the line.

Personally, I am not a Hargreaves fan at all. Bad choice. I would be disappointing in any CB really. Hargreaves underwhelms me and any other CB is a huuuuuuuuge reach at 13 right now.

 

Right, but the position put forward is Player X, while good, is too short for players in this division. To me, that is nonsense, because those receivers could be out of the division before the season even starts for all we know.

 

Regarding the division thing...

I think you have to consider what your division rivals have, but not on what they don't have.

I remember a while back people acted I was crazy when I said it's stupid to not to draft a left tackle because our division rivals' pass rushers weren't all that. That was the year before Brandon Albert was drafted. Take a guess how that year went.

 

When it comes to the division thing, if you want to consistently make the playoffs, and win the division, you have to beat the teams in your division, so when drafting you do have to take that into consideration, but scheme also plays a roll in that.

As far as CBs, imo skills count more than size, Revis, Chris harris, Darby, just off the top of my head are all under 6', skill is really important at that particular position, but Oline/Dline is a little bit different, if you are in a division with big strong lineman, you aught to be focusing on the same.

 

Ahhh! A Jamar Fletcher flashback. Thanks brah. Thanks a lot.

 

This. The division is important, but the league is fluid. Players are constantly moving around, getting hurt, coaches get hired and fired on whim theses days, schemes change, etc... Build the team you want and draft players who fit your vision of a superbowl caliber team. When you look at the best teams in the league, Denver, NE, Seattle, GB, etc... they're not chasing players to win the division, they're just building great teams that can compete every Sunday. We all understand the importance of winning in your division, but competing in your division isn't the same as competing for a championship.

Denver is a good example here. John Elway didn't change organizational philosophy because he feared his division, he did it to compete with the Seattle's, NE's, Arizona's, and GB's of the NFL. He saw the value of having a defensive oriented team that could attack and create turnovers and made the necessary adjustments to retool the franchise.

I want Miami to consistently marry value and need as best as possible (with value weighted highest). IDGAF about NE, Buffalo, or NYJ. If we can acquire talented players who fit the philosophy of TPTB, we'll be OK one of these days.