2008 NFL Draft Game Thread, Day 2

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,886
Everyone thought they were nuts for picking Matt Cassell, who had about 10 snaps in college and played special teams as a senior. But that pick worked out great, too.
How? Cassel was a seventh round pick who has done dick in his time here. When given the chance in garbage time, he's sucked.
 

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
I think you need to consider the possibility they have an idea what their roster looks like and who might be able to make it. These guys have earned the ultimate in deference on these things, imo.

Everyone thought they were nuts for picking Matt Cassell, who had about 10 snaps in college and played special teams as a senior. But that pick worked out great, too.
They've earned the benefit of the doubt, surely. That does not prohibit one from commenting on their picks. I've been wrong more times than I care to rehash when it comes to the draft but I still like chatting about it. It also doesn't make these last two selections less odd.
 

Sille Skrub

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 3, 2004
5,930
Massachusetts
Chicago either has more faith in Grossman than any sane person on the planet, or they're hoping to pull someone out of another org.
They've already offered their 2009 #1 for KOC. I kid, I kid.

As for Gerbil's point, stock-piling picks with such a deep roster affords you the chance to make some of these moves. There's no way all of these guys are making the team. It definitely has been interesting today.

Aren't they due for a TE with that last pick?
 

Caspir

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
6,886
I heard they had their eyes on a former third round draft pick who has done dick in his time in the league. Someone who, when given the chance in garbage time, has sucked.

Hmmm
Sadly, I think even Cassel would be an upgrade for Da Bears.

Since we're taking players no one thinks we should go for, we might as well draft De'Cody Fagg and see if he can recover from that knee injury.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
They've earned the benefit of the doubt, surely. That does not prohibit one from commenting on their picks. I've been wrong more times than I care to rehash when it comes to the draft but I still like chatting about it. It also doesn't make these last two selections less odd.
You're wrong on how the Pats set up their roster, though. They have always carried 1-2 guys who don't do anything but special teams coverage. Maybe Slater will be another and maybe he's worthless, but your description of ST guys is simply not how the Pats have built their unit. That, to me, is part of thinking about the pick.
 

Granite Sox

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
5,054
The Granite State
I think what these draft decisions mean is that there's a chance Kelley will be taking DS's spot as a full-time WR.
Yup, I agree.

(It will get settled on the field, of course, but hypothetically):
  • Goodbye: Samuel, Wilson, Gay, Colvin, Stallworth, T. Brown, K. Brady, Seau (?), W. Andrews (?), M. Mitchell (?), Cassel (?), Alexander (?)
  • FA: T. Williams, F. Bryant, J. Webster, V. Hobson, TJ Slaughter
  • Bump up depth chart: C. Jackson, K. Washington, D. Thomas
  • Hello: Mayo, Crable, Wheatley, Wilhite, O'Connell, Slater
Likely turning over 20% of the roster after going 18-1 is pretty amazing, but that's the way things may be shaking out...
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Getting a backup QB who you have enough faith in to retain for several years in the seventh round is terrific value, btw, to whoever was ripping the Cassell pick earlier.

Is there any more there? We have no real idea either way...the guy could be the third-best QB in the NFL and he wouldn't have played any more than he has (not that I think he is, of course, just noting that citing lack of PT for him is beyond silly)
 

SoxScout

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2003
30,149
Note on ESPN...

Owen Schmitt: "10 broken facemasks in his career"
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
Anyone catch someone named Samamntha call out Scouts, Inc. on the ESPN drafttracker. Funny stuff:

"Samantha (Atlanta, GA): You guys are so lazy. You literally answer a question every 3 to 5 minutes. Its quite pathetic and I'm sure you get paid fairly well. How do you sleep at night? It wouldn't surprise me if you were hanging with Talib and Manningham, smoking out and sitting around on your lazy aces!!

Scouts, Inc.'s Ken Moll: Samantha, RELAX , RELAX - it takes a while , just RELAX !!"
 

Steve Dillard

wishes drew noticed him instead of sweet & sour
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2003
5,932
CORRECTION ON TRADE: There was an error in the announcement of the Patriots' trade with Tampa Bay. The Patriots sent their 2007 fifth-round pick (160) and 2007 seventh-round pick (238) to Tampa Bay for the Buccaneers' fifth-round pick (153). That leaves the Patriots with just their sixth-round pick (197).
Heck of a trade. Wonder how pissed Tampa's going to be to find out we already made the picks for them.
 

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
You're wrong on how the Pats set up their roster, though. They have always carried 1-2 guys who don't do anything but special teams coverage. Maybe Slater will be another and maybe he's worthless, but your description of ST guys is simply not how the Pats have built their unit. That, to me, is part of thinking about the pick.
When did I state they don't have 1-2 special teams coverage guys? I said you don't draft them, ideally and specifically stated that drafting two of them in the same draft is odd.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
I guess what I don't understand is how many guys on the board people think will make the Pats in a non-ST role. That, to me, is a pretty obvious condition precedent to not liking the pick of a ST specialist.

Going for an injured prospect seems one argument against it; those guys can be an interesting upside gamble. Not sure that there's a clear pick there though.

Gerbil, you said you don't draft guys who can't play a position. If you agree that the Pats carry a couple guys without another position I'm not clear why you wouldn't draft someone to potentially fill those slots, then.
 

SpacemanzGerbil

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2001
2,964
Gerbil, you said you don't draft guys who can't play a position. If you agree that the Pats carry a couple guys without another position I'm not clear why you wouldn't draft someone to potentially fill those slots, then.
You don't usually draft them because those positions are filled by failed positional picks like Kelley Washington, of which there are loads. Let's put it this way - how many players can you remember being drafted over the past 10 years who's only apparent position in the NFL before being drafted was special teams coverage guy? Drafting guys who have no projectable position in the NFL is odder than drafting a punter.

edit: Oh! I've got something odder than drafting a gunner. Drafting a long snapper, which may be on tap for the 6th.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
I would rather draft a ST player who could make the team, than a positional player who can't even play on special teams and gets released. But that's just me; I thought Danny Ainge fathered his nephew.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
You don't usually draft them because those positions are filled by failed positional picks like Kelley Washington, of which there are loads. Let's put it this way - how many players can you remember being drafted over the past 10 years who's only apparent position in the NFL before being drafted was special teams coverage guy? Drafting guys who have no projectable position in the NFL is odder than drafting a punter.
That's not the right question, though. The question is whether picking a ST cover guy there was the best use of the Pats pick.

I don't think it makes much sense to compare the Pats situation to the average team over the past ten years---they have a vastly superior draft/assessment record and a much more complete roster right now than the average team. Look at it this way (which is a lot more relevant to the question I asked above): how many draft picks in the 5.6.7 round for the Pats the last 3-4 years have been anything but special teams players for them? O'Callaghan, basically, and Cassell. Far more guys couldn't make the roste, and so even making it as a gunner for a couple years would represent more value than they've gotten.

Who is the guy you think they could have taken there with a better chance of doing something....Goff? I guess you never know. It's clearly not a high upside pick but that, to me, isn't the same as it being a mistake. We'll see.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
6,363
Somerville MA
That's not the right question, though. The question is whether picking a ST cover guy there was the best use of the Pats pick.

I don't think it makes much sense to compare the Pats situation to the average team over the past ten years---they have a vastly superior draft/assessment record and a much more complete roster right now than the average team. Look at it this way (which is a lot more relevant to the question I asked above): how many draft picks in the 5.6.7 round for the Pats the last 3-4 years have been anything but special teams players for them? O'Callaghan, basically, and Cassell. Far more guys couldn't make the roste, and so even making it as a gunner for a couple years would represent more value than they've gotten.

Who is the guy you think they could have taken there with a better chance of doing something....Goff? I guess you never know. It's clearly not a high upside pick but that, to me, isn't the same as it being a mistake. We'll see.
This team grabbed Koppen in the 5th after a 2nd SB victory. They took Tully Banta-Cain in the 7th after 2 in 3 years. They can get every down players here, if they're willing to use the roster spot to develop them. They've been less willing to do that in recent years.