Now this isn't exactly what's going to happen, because there are inevitably going to be a few trades. But in the scenario of any single team being in their starting point, here is my best guess:
1. Carolina- Cam Newton - QB
2. Denver- Marcel Dareus - DT
3. Buffalo- Von Miller - OLB
4. Cincinnati - AJ Green - WR
5. Arizona - Patrick Peterson - CB
6. Cleveland - Nick Fairley - DT
7, San Francisco - Blaine Gabbert - QB
8. Tennessee - Robert Quinn - DE
9. Dallas - Cameron Jordan - DE
10. Washington - Julio Jones - WR
11. Houston - Aldon Smith - OLB
12. Minnesota - DeQuan Bowers - DE
13. Detroit - Jimmy Smith- CB
14. St. Louis - Cory Liuget - DT
15. Miami Dolphins - Mike Pouncey - OL
16. Jacksonville - JJ Watt - DE
17. New England - Muhammed Wilkerson - DE
18. San Diego - Tyron Smith - OT
19. NY Giants - Gabe Carimi - OT
20. Tampa Bay - Ryan Kerrigan - DE
21. Kansas City - Anthony Castonzo - OT
22. Indianapolis - Nate Solder -OT
23. Philadelphia - Prince Amukamara - CB
24. New Orleans - Justin Houston- DE
25. Seattle - Jake Locker - QB
26. Baltimore - Cam Heyward - DE
27. Atlanta- Adrian Clayborn- DE
28. New England - Brooks Reed OLB
29. Chicago - Danny Watkins - OG
30. NY Jets - Phil Taylor - DT
31. Pittsburgh- Aaron Williams - CB
32. Green Bay - Mark Ingram -RB
Friday, April 22, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
It Must be Spring--He's Knocking Out Mock Drafts.
Here's a First Shot at Round 1 of April's Draft. Inevitably, things will come up that change the spots, and I'll end up modifying this at least a couple of times. Big things to expect:
1) Loads of the DE/OLB guys going in Round 1, especially in the 10-25 range.
2) Not much for the skill guys. Probably only 2 QBs, 2-3 receivers and only 1-2 RBs.
3) Expect a handful of the defenders to really jump when they inevitably have monster workouts, namely Robert Quinn, Corey Liuget, and Aldon Smith.
4) Most of the teams that need a QB will figure out they can wait until Round 2 to get a guy like Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker, rather than spend a top 10 pick on a slightly lesser gamble. The others, well, there's a reason why they pick in the top 10.
5) Things are going to get real congested between 15 and 25, because most of those teams are looking for the same 3-4 DEs and OLBs.
1. Carolina- Nick Fairley- DT- Auburn
2. Denver -Patrick Patterson - CB- LSU
3. Buffalo- Cam Newton- QB- Auburn
4. Cincinnati-AJ Green- WR- Georgia
5. Arizona-Robert Quinn- DE/OLB
6. Cleveland-Marcel Dareus- DT- Alabama
7. San Francisco-Blaine Gabbert- QB-Missouri
8. Tennessee-Von Miller- OLB- Texas A&M
9. Dallas- Prince Amukamara-CB-Nebraska
10. Washington-Corey Liuget-DT- Illinois
11. Houston- Akeem Ayers- OLB- UCLA
12. Minnesota- Jimmy Smith- CB- Colorado
13. Detroit- Nate Solder- OT- Colorado
14. St. Louis- Julio Jones- WR- Alabama
15. Miami- Gabe Carimi- OT/OG-Wisconsin
16. Jacksonville- Ryan Kerrigan- DE- Purdue
17. New England- Aldon Smith- DE- Missouri
18. San Diego- JJ Watt- DE- Wisconsin
19. NY Giants- Mark Ingram- RB- Alabama
20. Tampa Bay- Adrian Clayborne-DE- Iowa
21. Kansas City-Justin Houston - OLB
22. Indy- Tyron Jackson- OT- USC
23. Philadelphia- Mike Pouncey- OG-Florida
24. New Orleans-Adrian Clayborn- DE
25. Seattle- Torrey Smith- WR- Maryland
26. Baltimore-Cam Jordan-DE- Cal
27. Atlanta- Rahim Moore- S-UCLA
28. New England- Muhammed Wilkerson- DE- Temple
29. Chicago- Jonathan Baldwin- WR- Pitt
30. NY Jets- Phil Taylor- DT-Baylor
31. Pittsburgh- Anthony Costanzo- OT- BC
32. Green Bay- Benjamin Ijalana- OG/OT- Villanova
1) Loads of the DE/OLB guys going in Round 1, especially in the 10-25 range.
2) Not much for the skill guys. Probably only 2 QBs, 2-3 receivers and only 1-2 RBs.
3) Expect a handful of the defenders to really jump when they inevitably have monster workouts, namely Robert Quinn, Corey Liuget, and Aldon Smith.
4) Most of the teams that need a QB will figure out they can wait until Round 2 to get a guy like Ryan Mallett or Jake Locker, rather than spend a top 10 pick on a slightly lesser gamble. The others, well, there's a reason why they pick in the top 10.
5) Things are going to get real congested between 15 and 25, because most of those teams are looking for the same 3-4 DEs and OLBs.
1. Carolina- Nick Fairley- DT- Auburn
2. Denver -Patrick Patterson - CB- LSU
3. Buffalo- Cam Newton- QB- Auburn
4. Cincinnati-AJ Green- WR- Georgia
5. Arizona-Robert Quinn- DE/OLB
6. Cleveland-Marcel Dareus- DT- Alabama
7. San Francisco-Blaine Gabbert- QB-Missouri
8. Tennessee-Von Miller- OLB- Texas A&M
9. Dallas- Prince Amukamara-CB-Nebraska
10. Washington-Corey Liuget-DT- Illinois
11. Houston- Akeem Ayers- OLB- UCLA
12. Minnesota- Jimmy Smith- CB- Colorado
13. Detroit- Nate Solder- OT- Colorado
14. St. Louis- Julio Jones- WR- Alabama
15. Miami- Gabe Carimi- OT/OG-Wisconsin
16. Jacksonville- Ryan Kerrigan- DE- Purdue
17. New England- Aldon Smith- DE- Missouri
18. San Diego- JJ Watt- DE- Wisconsin
19. NY Giants- Mark Ingram- RB- Alabama
20. Tampa Bay- Adrian Clayborne-DE- Iowa
21. Kansas City-Justin Houston - OLB
22. Indy- Tyron Jackson- OT- USC
23. Philadelphia- Mike Pouncey- OG-Florida
24. New Orleans-Adrian Clayborn- DE
25. Seattle- Torrey Smith- WR- Maryland
26. Baltimore-Cam Jordan-DE- Cal
27. Atlanta- Rahim Moore- S-UCLA
28. New England- Muhammed Wilkerson- DE- Temple
29. Chicago- Jonathan Baldwin- WR- Pitt
30. NY Jets- Phil Taylor- DT-Baylor
31. Pittsburgh- Anthony Costanzo- OT- BC
32. Green Bay- Benjamin Ijalana- OG/OT- Villanova
Monday, January 31, 2011
Weekend at Paulie's
It's hard not to look across the Conservative landscape and not try to pick out the likely challenger for 2012 and Barry O. That being said, the choices are pretty much a combination of the fringy deranged paranoids (Palin, Bachmann), the washed up self-parodies (Gingrich, Giuliani, Romney) and the melba-toast lingerers (Huckabee, Pawlenty). Realistically, any of these options are basically a sacrificial lamb, because there's no way they'd beat Obama in a head to head matchup.
Lingering in the background is the young Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. He's a young, good looking guy, with facially moderate views, and no major skeletons thus far (I'm assuming there isn't a "wide stance" or Argentine Newscaster around the corner, but perhaps that's too generous). The interesting thing here, is the way he's being presented--the new economic expert. Within the last two years he's submitted his own version of the Federal Budget, and delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union. This cat's setting himself to be the rising star of the GOP over the next few years and the main player for them in 2016.
The Conservative set has tried to cast him as a not just a fairly smart guy, but as a straight up expert. The problem with this, is that he really just isn't. I think of it like "Weekend At Bernie's," where the two pals end up with a dead body that they have to convince everyone is really still alive and having a good time. Sure it didn't make sense, but hey, it was easier just to roll with it and throw Bernie on the boat for a spin. Is our man Ryan an economist? No. Does he have anything beyond a BA at decent school? No. Does he wear sunglasses at parties? Hmm....
Hell, by now he's gotten good at the "I'm actually very smart, even if I actually am not making any sense, because I smile a lot and sound calm." If we were watching this on Telemundo, we'd be all set if we couldn't translate and just assumed that what he was explaining wasn't 200% made up jibberish. He was talking recently in his State of the Union reply about how bad of shape Greece, Ireland, and the UK are now (presumedly because of high taxes, over regulation, and high government spending to support a derelict populace, etc.). The problem with this, are that Greece's problem was a combination of a decades-long fraudulent government scheme to hide debts, corruption, and an under developed economy. Ireland's problem was a lack of any meaningful banking regulation, wild speculation by investment houses, and a huge property bubble collapse. The UK is probably the most relevant comparison for his point, but it's important to note that the cost-cutting measures he's supporting haven't generated the promised fixes and they were, as of 2006, the UK was recognized by the Heritage Foundation as having more "Economic Freedom" than the US (5th Highest, overall).
Inherently, the response he's looking for is "Damn! He's talking about multiple countries and even comparing them. This must be important and smart!" The problem with all this, of course, is that it's pure hogwash, and the numbers just don't make any sense. Comparing these countries is basically akin to say that Detroit and Las Vegas are both struggling for the same reason--too many street lights.
Similarly, the whole budget proclamation is all about broad generalizations, with some wild speculations tied to made-up numbers. There's a pattern of basically using some numbers to make half a point, and then just making up the rest (Thus, a 50% increase in revenue divided by a 10% shift from the public sector to private sector= Obama's a Socialist). That, or they just don't exist, because he didn't actually, as the economic experts say, "use any actual numbers or do any math."
Anyways, the real takeaway is that this guy's not going away any time soon. He's going to emerge as the inexplicable economic theorist of the Conservative political class, largely by default. But the fact that we're being sold this story of his great financial mind shouldn't cloud the fact that he's really just some guy. He's alive, which gives him a leg up on Bernie, but they're bringing the same amount of legit material to the table.
Lingering in the background is the young Congressman from Wisconsin, Paul Ryan. He's a young, good looking guy, with facially moderate views, and no major skeletons thus far (I'm assuming there isn't a "wide stance" or Argentine Newscaster around the corner, but perhaps that's too generous). The interesting thing here, is the way he's being presented--the new economic expert. Within the last two years he's submitted his own version of the Federal Budget, and delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union. This cat's setting himself to be the rising star of the GOP over the next few years and the main player for them in 2016.
The Conservative set has tried to cast him as a not just a fairly smart guy, but as a straight up expert. The problem with this, is that he really just isn't. I think of it like "Weekend At Bernie's," where the two pals end up with a dead body that they have to convince everyone is really still alive and having a good time. Sure it didn't make sense, but hey, it was easier just to roll with it and throw Bernie on the boat for a spin. Is our man Ryan an economist? No. Does he have anything beyond a BA at decent school? No. Does he wear sunglasses at parties? Hmm....
Hell, by now he's gotten good at the "I'm actually very smart, even if I actually am not making any sense, because I smile a lot and sound calm." If we were watching this on Telemundo, we'd be all set if we couldn't translate and just assumed that what he was explaining wasn't 200% made up jibberish. He was talking recently in his State of the Union reply about how bad of shape Greece, Ireland, and the UK are now (presumedly because of high taxes, over regulation, and high government spending to support a derelict populace, etc.). The problem with this, are that Greece's problem was a combination of a decades-long fraudulent government scheme to hide debts, corruption, and an under developed economy. Ireland's problem was a lack of any meaningful banking regulation, wild speculation by investment houses, and a huge property bubble collapse. The UK is probably the most relevant comparison for his point, but it's important to note that the cost-cutting measures he's supporting haven't generated the promised fixes and they were, as of 2006, the UK was recognized by the Heritage Foundation as having more "Economic Freedom" than the US (5th Highest, overall).
Inherently, the response he's looking for is "Damn! He's talking about multiple countries and even comparing them. This must be important and smart!" The problem with all this, of course, is that it's pure hogwash, and the numbers just don't make any sense. Comparing these countries is basically akin to say that Detroit and Las Vegas are both struggling for the same reason--too many street lights.
Similarly, the whole budget proclamation is all about broad generalizations, with some wild speculations tied to made-up numbers. There's a pattern of basically using some numbers to make half a point, and then just making up the rest (Thus, a 50% increase in revenue divided by a 10% shift from the public sector to private sector= Obama's a Socialist). That, or they just don't exist, because he didn't actually, as the economic experts say, "use any actual numbers or do any math."
Anyways, the real takeaway is that this guy's not going away any time soon. He's going to emerge as the inexplicable economic theorist of the Conservative political class, largely by default. But the fact that we're being sold this story of his great financial mind shouldn't cloud the fact that he's really just some guy. He's alive, which gives him a leg up on Bernie, but they're bringing the same amount of legit material to the table.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
The NCAA Playoff Blueprint
Now that we've reached the New Year and the peak of Bowl Season, it's time to hear the annual chants for a playoff. "Do it for Boise and the TCUs of the World!" we hear. And I get that. Now realistically, I'm not a big believer in the argument that Boise and TCU would be able to really challenge the elite teams in a game that mattered. As much as I was impressed with TCU yesterday against Wisconsin, it seems fairly apparent that: (a) Wisconsin on its best day was probably 2-3 Touchdowns worse than Auburn or Oregon; (b) Wisconsin had no business losing that game, and only did because of a bizarre strategy of throwing the ball waaaayyy to much when its huge advantage was pounding the ball on the ground. Anyway, I digress.
Regardless of that game, the playoff is an entirely workable system that we can use--and still keep the bowl system in place. I get that the NCAA and the member schools love the bowls as a huge moneymaker and to really highlight the sport. Fine. Yet because the NCAA has opted against instituting a playoff, they come off as arrogant and unresponsive to public sentiment. (Note: I recognize that the NCAA is, and has always been, arrogant and unresponsive, but there's no need to emphasize the point.)
In working this out, it's imperative to keep the bowl system in place, protect the relevance of conference plays and championships, and not just add another 4 weeks to the season. If a team has to cut an early non-conference smackdown, so be it (so Oregon may need to let go of the 2011 match-up with Portland State that it won this year 69-0).
The Plan:
Everything is normal through the week of Thanksgiving. Everyone can play their rival game just like they have. The next weekend, teams play their conference championship games, if they have one. In the week after all conference championships, we go to the polls and grab the top 8 teams. Those are the playoff schools, and generally this will be similar to the BCS schools as it stands now.
The next week, normally the first Saturday in December, we play the first round of games, 1 vs. 8, etc. The next week, we have the semifinals, and we're still only about mid-December. By this point, we have a clearly defined Championship matchup, plus there are still 2 weeks to get the Major Bowl games filled. To simplify, you can even prearrange the rankings to certain bowl games in advance, with the only changes being the teams who make it to the Championship. Or just set the most preferable match-ups. Everyone who wasn't in the top 8 is unaffected by this, and just goes to the normal bowl game they would have anyway (Helloooo Alamo Bowl!). You really need to have at least 2 weeks before the bowl games to let the tickets be distributed, hotel rooms booked, etc.
How would this look? Let's play it out:
December 4, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (8) Arkansas; (2) Oregon vs. (7) Oklahoma; (3) TCU vs. (6) Ohio State; (4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford.
December 11, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (5) Stanford; (2) Oregon vs. (3) TCU
January 1, 2011: Fiesta Bowl-(3) TCU vs. (7) Oklahoma; Rose Bowl-(4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford; Orange Bowl- (8) Arkansas vs. (6) Ohio State
January 3, 2011: National Championship: (1) Auburn vs. (2) Oregon
And there it is.
Regardless of that game, the playoff is an entirely workable system that we can use--and still keep the bowl system in place. I get that the NCAA and the member schools love the bowls as a huge moneymaker and to really highlight the sport. Fine. Yet because the NCAA has opted against instituting a playoff, they come off as arrogant and unresponsive to public sentiment. (Note: I recognize that the NCAA is, and has always been, arrogant and unresponsive, but there's no need to emphasize the point.)
In working this out, it's imperative to keep the bowl system in place, protect the relevance of conference plays and championships, and not just add another 4 weeks to the season. If a team has to cut an early non-conference smackdown, so be it (so Oregon may need to let go of the 2011 match-up with Portland State that it won this year 69-0).
The Plan:
Everything is normal through the week of Thanksgiving. Everyone can play their rival game just like they have. The next weekend, teams play their conference championship games, if they have one. In the week after all conference championships, we go to the polls and grab the top 8 teams. Those are the playoff schools, and generally this will be similar to the BCS schools as it stands now.
The next week, normally the first Saturday in December, we play the first round of games, 1 vs. 8, etc. The next week, we have the semifinals, and we're still only about mid-December. By this point, we have a clearly defined Championship matchup, plus there are still 2 weeks to get the Major Bowl games filled. To simplify, you can even prearrange the rankings to certain bowl games in advance, with the only changes being the teams who make it to the Championship. Or just set the most preferable match-ups. Everyone who wasn't in the top 8 is unaffected by this, and just goes to the normal bowl game they would have anyway (Helloooo Alamo Bowl!). You really need to have at least 2 weeks before the bowl games to let the tickets be distributed, hotel rooms booked, etc.
How would this look? Let's play it out:
December 4, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (8) Arkansas; (2) Oregon vs. (7) Oklahoma; (3) TCU vs. (6) Ohio State; (4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford.
December 11, 2010: (1) Auburn vs. (5) Stanford; (2) Oregon vs. (3) TCU
January 1, 2011: Fiesta Bowl-(3) TCU vs. (7) Oklahoma; Rose Bowl-(4) Wisconsin vs. (5) Stanford; Orange Bowl- (8) Arkansas vs. (6) Ohio State
January 3, 2011: National Championship: (1) Auburn vs. (2) Oregon
And there it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)