2008 TJB Mock Draft Muncher v1.0
It’s here! After many an hour spent ruining my eyes in front of the computer screen (and no Toby, I didn’t take 10 minute breaks every hour), I’ve finished the official TJB Mock Draft Muncher v1.0.
Why did I do it you might ask?
Well, to be honest, I am less concerned with one person’s particular thoughts on how a complex combinational math problem likely won’t potentially play out (also known as a mock draft) and more interested in what the common perceptions are around certain players, their value. So without further ado, check it out and use this thread as a location to discuss.
[2008 TJB Mock Draft Muncher v1.0]
A few notes:
- This will be interative weekly (likely on Mondays from here)
- Should you find other good mock drafts to insert in coming weeks, email us.
- Let others know (message boards, other blogs, etc.)
26 Responses to 2008 TJB Mock Draft Muncher v1.0
-
Nelson17 says:
I would love to get Gholston and Albert 1 and 2 in this draft that would be great
-
Vbsiena24 says:
I second http://www.Walterfootball.com
I’m not just saying that because I’m a moderator on their forum boards.
It is imo the best draft site out their with 2 great writers. Both Walter and Matt will talk to you and answer questions on the forums too. So check it out.
-
Ya they do a great job, I would definitely recommend it, they go 4 rounds deep in the draft.
-
seanmac says:
Nice site, but the evaluation has an unfortunate tendency to degenerate into “This quarterback has ‘it!’” territory. ‘It’ is basically a signal that the writer is giving up on saying anything meaningful.
That said, I certainly have no objections to their picks for us.
-
I think having “it” is a huge character a scout looks for in a QB. It is vital for a QB to have “it”, the draft pundits haven’t always looked for that but ever since Brady went from a 6th rounder to a MVP people have reevaluated what it takes to be a successful QB and that is why having “it” has been over used a tad.
-
Bent says: Pshaw…I go 8 rounds deep every year…and I’d turn it all the way up to 11 if that were possible.
-
Bent says:
Kellen Clemens has “it”.
(if “it” is skittishness)…
-
Right- that’s why scouts draft Ryan Leaf #2 overall. Because they are enamored with “it.” I still remember the Times running a big spread the night before the 1998 draft going on about how Manning was a nice prospect and all, but this Ryan Leaf guy, he just had “It.”
This is a tongue-in-cheek post that someone made over at FO in response to the silliness that surrounds intangibles. It’s pretty fantastic:
Momentum is important? How important? Is it more important than swagger? What about heart? What happens when a team with better momentum runs into a team which wants it more?
It’s really quite easy to calculate! I am shocked that FO, as a stats-based website, has not addressed this issue yet. There are only a few relevant variables to define:
M: Momentum (or p if you like)
S: Swagger
H: Heart
C: Clutchness (measured in clutch-units)
W: Wantingness
T: TalentClutchness is a binary value; you are either completely clutch or an unstoppable choke artist. Momentum, Swagger, and Heart are all empirically determined through the use of various steam-powered instruments, bulletin-board material, and puppies saved from burning buildings per hour. Wanting it more fluctuates from game to game. Use them all together to come up with the important metric “Cliche-Ability.”
S + H + W = CATalent is multipled by momentum to get “Game-Talent.”
GT = T * MThe actual formula to determine the winner of any game is simple, then. As any sportswriter or heckling fan knows, nothing matters like heart and momentum… except for being a clutch winner.
C * (GT + 2CA) = WinnabilityFinally, as anyone who knows statistics is aware, winning percentage is as easy as subtracting their winnability from yours. So, if your team didn’t win, they must not have had the right mixture of talent, heart, momentum, swagger, desire, or clutchness. Sorry, guys – make sure to throw the goat under the radar and take another crack at it next year.
P.S. All values are of course on a 16.7 point scale.
-
“IT” is bs for I saw him on ESPN once and he is nasty in NCAA Football. “It” is seen in the locker room, during Spring practices and from talking to his teammates and coaches. “It” is not see on TV or film, or even from the stands.
Is there a correlation between the teams and draft position, or is it purely a position based program this draft muncher? I assume it does not take into account that STL for example won’t need a QB, but if Ryan is taken either 1st or 3rd, he will average out to 2nd, which happens to be STL.
-
touché, seanmac, touché
-
I know it has a place in sports, and that stats are not the end all be-all … but Moneyball is a great book for the argument of destroying the “it” / five tool player mythos.
-
Bent says:
That’s the flaw, Anthony, in that the drafts are created at different times and some take into account team needs, whereas others just rank the players and some are updated more often than others.
However, by including as many mocks as possible, it (umm, the muncher not “it”) is a useful tool to enable you to take the temperature of anybody’s approximate stock.
What this might not catch is someone who flies up the boards – for example after a strong combine – because some sites will not be updated often enough to take this into account. But for what they are, these things are great.
Ellis and Albert to the Jets? Sign me up!
-
Stevan says:
The guy to keep your eye out for the jets this year is going to be Philip merling. He has the size 6’5 (potentially if he weighs in at 290+..has the frame to get bigger), athleticism and measurables (rumored sub 4.7 40). He is great against the run, can get to the qb (7 sacks and 21 QB hurries this year) and has the potential to be a great 34 DE.
The thing i don’t like about the walterfootball mock is that they have us going gholston and groves in the first two rounds. When we have plenty of other needs on the oline it doesn’t make sense to go DE/OLB with our first two picks when we still have bryan thomas on the team.
I will say this, if C.long doesn’t put up impressive numbers at the combine and gholston flies up the board due to a great workout he could very well be off the board by the time we are picking. From what i’ve heard, gholston is a darkhorse to be selected by miami #1 overal and than by st. louis #2. Before you call me crazy, Parcells generally doesn’t fall in love with physical freaks and I bet that C.long or Matt Ryan will be their pick, but it’s a good chance. St. louis desperately needs a pass rush and Gholston’s 43 ability is being undervalued a lot from what i’ve seen. Now, St. Louis has been a mess come draft day; they drafted adam carricker to play NT when he is better suited as an UT or a 34 DE. Now, they could draft dorsey and play with two UTs, a lot of tampa 2 teams do this. I personally feel dorsey would be their best bet and would give them a tremendous inside pass rush, however they would still like an elite edge rusher, which is what they need.
-
Ilan says:
No, they have us going McFadden-Groves.
-
sth11 says:
I would consider Mcfadden as our first pick a terrible decision. We dont need a RB, we need an OL. Tom Jones had a 1,000 yd. season despite that fact that he is a north-south runner who was forced to change his style because the OLine didnt open up any of the holes up the middle which they were supposed to. Not to mention we just signed him last year to a pretty long term deal.
Mcfadden would be worse anyway, because he is not going to take the first hit behind the l.o.s. and still be able to get back like TJ does on a large majority of his runs. He’s doesnt have that kind of power and apparently is not very good at catching.
Anyone of these guys (C. Long, J. Long, S. Ellis, and V. Gholston) falling to us would leave us in a pretty good position. If not, we have to trade the pick, hopefully to a team like Dallas who has 2 late 1st rdrs.
There might be a large dropoff from 1st tier talent to 2nd, but the second tier of talent goes pretty deep, almost halfway throught the second round. Three picks from 22-36 could yield quite a large payoff, espescially considering the dearth of talent there on the O and D lines. Picks 19-36, according to walterfootball, include 10 O and D linemen, many of which could be solid additions to our team.
We have needs at several positions and its difficult to sign FA’s when all the good ones get franchised or re-signed. We need to address the majority of our needs through the draft. And sorry, RB is not one of them. If it was, I’d find a way to get R. Rice from Rutgers, who would be an excellent compliment to L. Washington.
-
Nobody’s really been talking about Quentin Groves as a first round pick, but I think that he’s a real possibility. If you look at his body of work in college it’s really incredible. He had a stellar junior season and played almost his entire senior season with dislocated toes (OUCH). Despite that, he was still a force and will probably run a 4.5 or lower at the combine. He also got experience playing outside backer last year because of the foot injury. I expect him to be a fast riser on draft boards leading up to the draft maybe even moving into the top 10 and jumping Gholston as the top 3-4 OLB prospect. I think it’s really important to take into account the quality of the SEC and his entire body of work there. He would be a much more versatile OLB whereas Gholston would be much more like Suggs with the ability to rush the passer but be of little help in coverage. Right now Groves is a reach at the top of the draft but once we’re closer to late April he may not be. Either way, I think there will be NT/DE prospects available in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of this draft but the premier OLBs will be off the board and I view that as the greatest need.
As such, I’m hoping the Jets go OLB in the first, Albert in the second, and Rubin/Harrison/Bryant in the third. Oh yeah, it would be really nice to sign Sean Locklear to shore up that RT position. I wouldn’t throw huge money at Jacob Bell or the other OG prospects with so many of the top FA talents at that position getting franchised or re-signed.
-
Before this season, Groves was considered a top 10-15 pick and was ranked more highly than Gholston.
-
Groves is likely going to jump up the draft boards after the combine. Because he is fast and all, the major knock on him is that he is raw. He disappears for a while in games, hopefully that will change if he wants to succeed in the NFL.
-
I’m with you, Ilan – I love Groves. The dislocated toes really set him back this year, but there’s no indication that’s going to be a lingering problem for him. When healthy, I think he’s the best rusher in the draft. Some people question his size for the 3-4, but he’s only 6 lbs and half an inch smaller than Gholston.
If one of the “big 5″ dropped to us at 6 (say McFadden for example), we very well might be able to find a trade-down partner that would net us extra picks and still give us a chance to get Groves in the middle part of the first round. The combine should help him, but I still don’t see him jumping into the top 10.
-
Bent says:
His size and athleticism is perfect for the 3-4. His problem is that the main knock on him in 2006 was that he was raw and because he was never 100% (agreed: three dislocated toes – ouch!) he never got a chance to show any improvement. At times he played OLB (in a 4-3) just because the toes meant it was tough for him when engaged with blockers, so DE would’ve been more taxing.
4.5 or BELOW? I’d like to see that! Surely that would elevate him right back into the top 10. I’ll take the over though ;o)
I don’t have him far behind Gholston at all, so if we can get him without using the 6th pick that would be great.
-
Bent says:
Incidentally, Mangini has never scouted Groves, but did apparently spend time with *Grover* this summer.
-
OK, BELOW is an exaggeration. I do expect him to run in the 4.5 range though and definitely faster than Gholston. By the way, he ran a 4.5 coming out of high school. Perhaps a better scenario would be for Groves to struggle dropping him into the second round. I also expect the Jets to have an extra first day pick from trading any combo of Vilma, Pennington, McCareins or Ellis. In any case, the Jets need first day talent at OLB, G, DE/NT (based on whether Robertson remains at NT or slides to DE), RT and a playmaker on offense. Any combination of players in free agency or the draft in these areas would go a long way to making the Jets relevant in ’08.
-
JetsNyc says:
This is a good evaluation of the stock of each player up to this point, even though it’s not really a mock draft. It’s more like the ranking of top players available irrespective of the team picking at that position, (e.g., Minnesota drafting a running back and Denver drafting a quarterback.) It will be interesting to see how the Scouting Combine shakes up the rankings.
-
SackDance99 says:
seanmac, I’d love to see the NYT article on Leaf because most scouts now say that he had no passion for football and that you could tell that in his interviews. Probably post-hac rationalizations for a bad prediction, but a physical specimen, like Leaf, who performed well in the Pac-10 (even in limited action), will always fool the scouts. Anyhow, now the scouts say that you could tell he didn’t have “it.” Bent, the “it” Clemens doesn’t have is height.
-
I wish I had saved it. (Of course, I also wish I saved Russ Lande’s free breakdown for his GM.Jr website where he argued vehemently that Ryan Leaf was a far, far superior prospect to Peyton Manning. Way to go, Russ.)
Leaf was credited with having a gunslinger mentality, while Manning was robotic and hesitant. Oh, and he couldn’t beat Florida, therefore…something.
I like http://walterfootball.com/draft2008.php