Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

BackinBlack mock
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
backinblack


Joined: 15 Mar 2012
Posts: 148
Location: Rochester, N.Y.
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:49 am    Post subject: BackinBlack mock Reply with quote

First off I had a big mock with lots of pics and descriptions and computer crashed so going with a cheap one now!
We trade our first pick with the Rams sine they are desperate for a LT and have the pics to use to get there. We receive #16, 49 and their first from next year.
at 16 we select Sheldon Richardson
Second rd Margus Hunt de Smu
Third Tank Carridine he will fall with his acl injury and not being able to go to thecombine
4th sanders comming cb georgia
6th best name in the draft Mister Cobble 6 ft 335lb NT
7th Cameron Lawrence ILB
7th Nathan Williams OLB
We use free agency to secure a few lineman and work on the offense but we go strictly defense in the draft.

Rip away lol
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darkness


Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 8560
Location: CA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That'd be a great draft IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LivingLegendWFC


Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 11081
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like it all except the second round pick. Really don't understand what people see in Hunt. There will be better players available there.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15246
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34533
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15246
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Silver&Black88


Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 34533
Location: Boston, MA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.


That's not just your opinion, its a fact man. Laughing

Warren + Kelly =/= NT
Seymour + Kelly =/= NT
Bryant + Kelly =/= NT

I'm probably forgetting some people but we've had poor rush defenses with 2 UTs out there. Its high time we try something else.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15246
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.


That's not just your opinion, its a fact man. Laughing

Warren + Kelly =/= NT
Seymour + Kelly =/= NT
Bryant + Kelly =/= NT

I'm probably forgetting some people but we've had poor rush defenses with 2 UTs out there. Its high time we try something else.


yes sir
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
oakdb36


Joined: 01 Mar 2006
Posts: 14483
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.


That's not just your opinion, its a fact man. Laughing

Warren + Kelly =/= NT
Seymour + Kelly =/= NT
Bryant + Kelly =/= NT

I'm probably forgetting some people but we've had poor rush defenses with 2 UTs out there. Its high time we try something else.


This year, we've allowed the least yards on the ground since 2002.
_________________
Plush wrote:
Papa was a trolling stone
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macklemore


Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 1425
Location: Seattle, WA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oakdb36 wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.


That's not just your opinion, its a fact man. Laughing

Warren + Kelly =/= NT
Seymour + Kelly =/= NT
Bryant + Kelly =/= NT

I'm probably forgetting some people but we've had poor rush defenses with 2 UTs out there. Its high time we try something else.


This year, we've allowed the least yards on the ground since 2002.


A NT isn't going to make our safeties learn proper angles or how to tackle, A NT won't mask McClain's deficiencies. I don't know why everyone thinks a NT is going to fix our run defense. I mean we run a 4-3 for crying out loud, all a NT is going to do is hurt our pass rush.

today's nfl is centered around the pass, give me the elite penetrating UT and find a run-stuffer later in the draft.
_________________


Last edited by macklemore on Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15246
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

macklemore wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.


That's not just your opinion, its a fact man. Laughing

Warren + Kelly =/= NT
Seymour + Kelly =/= NT
Bryant + Kelly =/= NT

I'm probably forgetting some people but we've had poor rush defenses with 2 UTs out there. Its high time we try something else.


This year, we've allowed the least yards on the ground since 2002.


A NT isn't going to make our safeties learn proper angles or how to tackle, A NT won't mask McClain's deficiencies. I don't know why everyone thinks a NT is going to fix our run defense. I mean we run a 4-3 for crying out loud, all a NT is going to do is hurt our pass rush.


lol what pass rush
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macklemore


Joined: 27 Apr 2012
Posts: 1425
Location: Seattle, WA
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NCOUGHMAN wrote:
lol what pass rush


exactly why need a penetrating UT.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TiberiusRising


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 9152
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

macklemore wrote:
oakdb36 wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
Silver&Black88 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
i dont see how richardson can help our defense more than tko. but i like the rest of it maybe some o-line help tho


Imo Richardson = TKO. Maybe a little smarter football wise. Regardless, I really would prefer to not get a penetrating UT.


yea we are kinda stacked at ut and imo 2 ut's dont equal a nt.


That's not just your opinion, its a fact man. Laughing

Warren + Kelly =/= NT
Seymour + Kelly =/= NT
Bryant + Kelly =/= NT

I'm probably forgetting some people but we've had poor rush defenses with 2 UTs out there. Its high time we try something else.


This year, we've allowed the least yards on the ground since 2002.


A NT isn't going to make our safeties learn proper angles or how to tackle, A NT won't mask McClain's deficiencies. I don't know why everyone thinks a NT is going to fix our run defense. I mean we run a 4-3 for crying out loud, all a NT is going to do is hurt our pass rush.

today's nfl is centered around the pass, give me the elite penetrating UT and find a run-stuffer later in the draft.


I agree that a true NT is not a huge need and wont solve the issues. We can just look at the last few weeks as proof. Now that position can help but not an instant fix.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCOUGHMAN


Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 15246
Location: Stockton via East Palo Alto
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

macklemore wrote:
NCOUGHMAN wrote:
lol what pass rush


exactly why need a penetrating UT.


so what are tko, big rich, bryant and houston?

we need a burner edge rusher reallllllly bad
_________________


green24 wrote:
NCOUGHMAN > all of you


Raider X wrote:
This is football, not pussology 101
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bo_Spice


Joined: 17 May 2009
Posts: 9687
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd rather take Dion Jordan at 16 and then Jesse Williams or Kawann Short with our second round pick.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Oakland Raiders All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group