majesstik's Mock Draft Game v1.0: Grading Thread [Archive]

majesstik1

03-03-2007, 12:43 AM

Due to the frenzy of the free agent market just opening up, and since two other games are still going, I'll keep it real simple.

Rank the top 5 teams you feel significantly improved their roster. Scoring is:

1st place team = 7 points
2nd place team = 5 points
3rd place team = 3 points
4th place team = 2 points
5th place team = 1 point

After everyone has graded, I'll total up the scores to find our winner, runner-up, and 3rd place teams. If you don't vote, your team(s) will not be in the running. It's okay to vote for your team(s), just do your best to be objective and impartial.

All rosters must be at 53 or less

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

Copy and paste this for your grading format:

1st place team =
2nd place team =
3rd place team =
4th place team =
5th place team =

ftn49

03-03-2007, 02:18 AM

1st place team = Minnesota Vikings (Username)
2nd place team = Arizona Cardinals (BladeX)
3rd place team = Oakland Raiders (majesstik1)
4th place team = Baltimore Ravens (beasley for pres)
5th place team = Cincinati Bengals (ftn49)

Honorable mention New Orleans Saints (Benji)

Also, just my own opinion, but it is much easier for the graders to count players if you don't have them listed multiple times on your roster.

majesstik1

03-03-2007, 03:25 AM

Also, just my own opinion, but it is much easier for the graders to count players if you don't have them listed multiple times on your roster.

I suggest everyone posts how many players they have at the top of their roster when they finish making their cuts, then we won't have to, and you can just look at where the players are being used for depth.

ftn49

03-03-2007, 05:45 PM

If you don't vote, your team(s) will not be in the running. It's okay to vote for your team(s), just do your best to be objective and impartial.

:ohsnap:

Nevyn

03-03-2007, 06:13 PM

majesstik1

03-03-2007, 07:18 PM

1st place team = Oakland Raiders
2nd place team = Kansas City Cheifs
3rd place team = Houston Texans
4th place team = Minnesota Vikings
5th place team = San Francisco 49ers

Honorable mention: San Diego, Dallas, and Indianapolis

New York just fell out with that last trade. SF moves into the 5 spot, although I think they did a lot of side-stepping in their transactions, the bottom line is they still came out improved.

beasley for pres

03-03-2007, 07:20 PM

when are the grades due?

majesstik1

03-03-2007, 07:21 PM

when are the grades due?

Whenever...there's a lot going on right now. If it starts to drag, I'll expedite it, but for now, take your time and get it right.

UserName

03-03-2007, 07:59 PM

1st place team = Minnesota Vikings (Username)

YAY! i'll edit this post w/ my vote tomorrow or during the week probably

edit:

1. San Francisco 49ers
2. Minnesota Vikings
3. Oakland Raiders
4. Baltimore Ravens
5. Carolina Panthers

Honorable Mention: New Orleans Saints and Jacksonville Jaguars

Nilsen31

03-03-2007, 08:26 PM

oof.

:angry:

:nonono:

BladeX

03-04-2007, 08:28 AM

1st place team = San Francisco 49ers (Sorry, I simply couldn't find anyone I thought was better, honest)
2nd place team = Oakland Raiders
3rd place team = Arizona Cardinals
4th place team = Kansas City Chiefs
5th place team = New Orleans Saints

BladeX

03-04-2007, 08:42 AM

Here are my rankings:

1st place team = San Francisco 49ers (BladeX)
2nd place team = Kansas City Chiefs (Nevyn)
3rd place team = Tennessee titans (Ace Matherton)
4th place team = Baltimore Ravens (beasley for pres)
5th place team = Oakland Raiders (Majesstic)

Teams that missed the cut: Arizona (improved overall, but a centerpiece of their strategy is a Center who may not play again, and certainly not next year), Denver (who I had at 5th until I took a second look at Oakland).

Assume we are going by the same rules as every year? Recovering players are assumed to be healthy as of Day1 of the following season unless its already been stated they are not going to be at the time of the mock. In any case we have the young experienced Stepanovich.

Fez

03-04-2007, 08:45 AM

Assume we are going by the same rules as every year? Recovering players are assumed to be healthy as of Day1 of the following season unless its already been stated they are not going to be at the time of the mock. In any case we have the young Stepanovich.

Oh no, you didn't just name Stepanovich to make a case for your team. :surrender:

BladeX

03-04-2007, 08:54 AM

Oh no, you didn't just name Stepanovich to make a case for your team. :surrender:

As insurance & backup to my starter? Sure. He's 25yrs old & experienced having started 30 games in 3 years. In that 3 years only gave up 2 sacks and 7 penalties. He's missed time due to injury but as I said, all are assumed healthy for the season. I dont have any issues promoting him behind Bentley. In reality I wouldnt mind seeing the Niners sign him, he fits our scheme.

Nevyn

03-04-2007, 09:54 AM

Assume we are going by the same rules as every year? Recovering players are assumed to be healthy as of Day1 of the following season unless its already been stated they are not going to be at the time of the mock. In any case we have the young experienced Stepanovich.

I understand, but it was news that Bentely needed a second surgery and would miss at least half of 2007 all the way back in mid-december. My first thought when I saw your trade was "Bentley? He'll be lucky to play again".

SBbound49ers

03-04-2007, 12:35 PM

1.) Titans
2.) Vikings
3.) Jags
4.) Broncos
5.) Bengals

MasterShake

03-04-2007, 12:40 PM

lol..I was still trading...didn't realize grading has started.

Well now with the new trade...

1. Buffalo Bills

BladeX

03-04-2007, 05:27 PM

wow it seems the same teams are getting props

That generally tends to happen because savvy posters know who the best are and you'll see a lot of the same names coming up.

UserName

03-04-2007, 07:27 PM

That generally tends to happen because savvy posters know who the best are and you'll see a lot of the same names coming up.

where's the love for Minnesota? :sad:

Nilsen31

03-04-2007, 08:11 PM

4.) Broncos

:yes:

BladeX

03-04-2007, 09:17 PM

where's the love for Minnesota? :sad:

You were on my list but just didnt make it. Lot of good teams this year.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 07:18 AM

where's the love for Minnesota? :sad:

You improved overall, and I considered Minnesota, but I wasn't crazy about the moves to improve the offense, and I didn't like that you gave up Kevin Williams, even to improve the secondary.

MasterShake

03-05-2007, 08:34 AM

With Chris Snee now part of Buffalo's studly line....things need to be re-evaluated and re-ordered!

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 09:35 AM

I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the number of votes the Saints are getting. He did some solid work improving the defense, but Langston Walker at LT?

majesstik1

03-05-2007, 10:00 AM

I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the number of votes the Saints are getting. He did some solid work improving the defense, but Langston Walker at LT?

Agreed. I don't see it either.

Fez

03-05-2007, 10:22 AM

I'm not anyone to grade on this game, but any player who doesn't have Kansas City in the top 3 is just out of his mind.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 10:35 AM

I'm not anyone to grade on this game, but any player who doesn't have Kansas City in the top 3 is just out of his mind.

I endorse this product and/or service.

Ace Matherton

03-05-2007, 11:05 AM

1st place team = 49ers (BladeX) Dont like the line or WR's but team is vastly upgraded
2nd place team = Titans (Ace) Lack of depth all around kept them from the top honor.
3rd place team = Raiders (Majesstik) Dont like the WR#2 as a starter but other than that O-Line is now a strength!
4th place team = Jaguars (SBbound49ers) This was tough I love this offense now and had one of the DT's stayed I probably have this as the top team, that being said this team is poised to compete now and in the future.
5th place team = Baltimore (BFP) I think the O is going to be sluggish and would have like to see some more talent added to the WR and OL but the defense is the best in the game period!

Special notes
ARI: Like the Offense maybe the most potent in the game, i really just could not see the defense being an upgrade (i felt it was worse than what you started with). That for me kept you out of the top 5.
KC:I like the WR additions but the line is worse IMO and the defensive line is as well (though in the future it could be a big upgrade)
Carolina: Probably deserves top 5 status but Jackson and Archuletta just killed it for me.

****SD, NE, Seattle, I like the moves you made pretty tough to do much in this game with teams that are that good already.

I felt there were about 10-15 teams out there that did well and upgraded over what they started with as a whole and most of the rest were either doing something I could not understand or made picks/player aquisitions that made no sense for their final roster and scheme.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 12:11 PM

KC:I like the WR additions but the line is worse IMO and the defensive line is as well (though in the future it could be a big upgrade)

I disagree but I understand how you could see it that way. I knew some people would ding me for Udeze.

As for o-line though, I think I upgraded at OT, and while you can't upgrade from Shields, I replaced him with a high rated prospect, which I considered a good move considering his age and thoughts on retirement.

Nin£R_4_LifE

03-05-2007, 12:15 PM

my giants aint getting no love

Nilsen31

03-05-2007, 12:17 PM

For KC, I see 3 rookie starters...2 on the O-line along with Petigout who the Giants released. Huard as starting QB, Stanton was pretty good pick up.

As for improvements...A couple of defensive starters and Andre Johnson.

I don't think KC will be in my top 5...just not feeling it.

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 12:18 PM

I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the number of votes the Saints are getting. He did some solid work improving the defense, but Langston Walker at LT?

I agree.........their defense is just big name guys but not many players fit the 3-4 he has implemented.

Nilsen31

03-05-2007, 12:20 PM

I agree.........their defense is just big name guys but not many players fit the 3-4 he has implemented.

yea 2 safties who are quite poor in coverage.

BladeX

03-05-2007, 12:20 PM

1st place team = 49ers (BladeX) Dont like the line or WR's but team is vastly upgraded

Dang, I thought my line was absolutely ridiculous with quality depth and my WR corps were considerably upgraded. :lightning:

At least I still made your #1. :smile:

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 12:21 PM

As for KC, they made 2 very nice upgrades with Andre Johnson and Al Harris but two rookies starting on the o-line is one too many. Especially when you have John Welbourn on the bench.

Improved? Yes. Top 5? No.

Nilsen31

03-05-2007, 12:21 PM

yea 2 safties who are quite poor in coverage.

Although improvements to CB, LB and WR. But I don't think they'll be in my 5.

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 12:23 PM

yea 2 safties who are quite poor in coverage.

Not just that but Hollis Thomas couldnt hold up playing 3-4 NT. He can do it in a 4-3 but not in a 3-4. Woodley was a good OLB pick but Ryans isnt built for the 3-4. Hes a 4-3 MLB who makes tackles sideline to sideline, not fight blockers. Takeo Spikes is a good fit for the 3-4 but as an ILB, not OLB where hes slated on the Saints roster.

I really really dont like McCauley starting from day 1. I dont like him to begin with and giving him the starting nod is a mistake when you have vets like Carft and Thomas.

Benji

03-05-2007, 12:28 PM

what ya talking my Saints???

:shoot: :shoot: :shoot:

DeMeco Ryans is very well fitted in the 3-4 in my opinion. Sean Taylor CAN cover and hit. McCauley is a great young fast corner with good body control.

And Hollis Thomas is a machine. He for sure can play the NT position.

And I got CJ along with Reggie Bush and Drew Brees!!!

Ace Matherton

03-05-2007, 12:30 PM

Dang, I thought my line was absolutely ridiculous with quality depth and my WR corps were considerably upgraded. :lightning:

At least I still made your #1. :smile:

Oh no they were for sure WR core , I'm not a fan of Colsten as far as what he is thought of now at least and i would have liked to see Kalili sit for a year. They were certainly upgraded i just dont like the players you got, purely personal on that part and no downgrade in points because of it.

Benji

03-05-2007, 12:49 PM

1. Baltimore Ravens (Beasley for pres)
2. New Orleans Saints (Benji)
3. Pittsburgh Steelers (knobs27)
4. Oakland Raiders (majesstik1)
5. Kansas City Chiefs (Nevyn)

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 12:51 PM

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 01:21 PM

BladeX

03-05-2007, 01:25 PM

Majesstik I suggest you copy & paste eash persons grades in the first post of this thread for ease of reference.

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 02:02 PM

I don't get your point on that last part. Are we general managers or coaches here?

Well you didnt field your best roster IMO. You've listed Welbourn behind a rookie and that isnt "improvement" to a roster.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 02:22 PM

Well you didnt field your best roster IMO. You've listed Welbourn behind a rookie and that isnt "improvement" to a roster.

I guess we just have very different views on how to evaluate these things. I was looking at overall improvement of the 53 man roster and not nitpicking over who should start and who should sit (for example, with SF I though Kareem McKenzie would start over Snyder, and Baas and Heitman should switch sides, but I didn't ding him for it because he got the talent and built a roster that could compete, even if I thought his depth chart was wrong). I view who starts as a coaching decision and all depth charts as tentative. In fact, especially where someone started an unproven player or relied on them to perform, I had a look at what their plan B was.

As for your specific complaint, I'm not sure if you are correct in any case. Welbourn has a great reputation from the last few years when the line was dominant, but in 2006 he was no great shakes. He did better at RT than Turley and may have been the best tackle due to lack of options, but he did not have a great year, even allowing for the fact that he got a late start.

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 02:26 PM

I guess we just have very different views on how to evaluate these things. I was looking at overall improvement of the 53 man roster and not nitpicking over who should start and who should sit (for example, with SF I though Kareem McKenzie would start over Snyder, and Baas and Heitman should switch sides, but I didn't ding him for it because he got the talent and built a roster that could compete, even if I thought his depth chart was wrong).

As for your specific complaint, I'm not sure if you are correct in any case. Welbourn has a great reputation from the last few years when the line was dominant, but in 2006 he was no great shakes. He did better at RT than Turley and may have been the best tackle due to lack of options, but he did not have a great year, even allowing for the fact that he got a late start.

Well wouldnt improvement have to consist of fielding the best players you have?

I just dont see an improvement by starting Ugoh over Welbourn. I actually see a regression. Rookie T's often struggle and I took that into consideration and came up with the conclusion that you didnt improve at RT. Or LT, whatever it was.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 03:14 PM

Well wouldnt improvement have to consist of fielding the best players you have?

As I said, if that's how you see it, that's fine.

I saw it as, I'm building a strong group of talent and training camp will determine who shoul start. How can any team determine whether a rookie QB will start over a veteran, for example? Should Kyle Boller start over JaMarcus Russell? That's a question to be decided in camp. What I consider important is having the option where if one player doesn't succeed, there won't be a dropoff.

If Ugoh stunk up camp, Welbourn would start and there would be no dropoff. It Petitgout did, Ugoh or Welbourn would go to LT. The way you evaluate it, I may as well cut Welbourn, because if he isn't projected as a starter, he can't become the starter. Either way, as long as Petitgout or Ugoh is better at LT than Black was, the team will end up with better play at Tackle than they were, because they'll either still have Welbourn, or they'll have Ugoh playing better.

BladeX

03-05-2007, 03:32 PM

Well wouldnt improvement have to consist of fielding the best players you have?

I just dont see an improvement by starting Ugoh over Welbourn. I actually see a regression. Rookie T's often struggle and I took that into consideration and came up with the conclusion that you didnt improve at RT. Or LT, whatever it was.

I wouldnt nitpick over listed starters, some rookies are studs from Day1 your being asked to project they are not otherwise. In any case its all opinion but I personally wouldnt dock unless its REALLY obvious. In this case Ugoh is a top prospect so I dont really see a problem.

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 03:45 PM

As I said, if that's how you see it, that's fine.

I saw it as, I'm building a strong group of talent and training camp will determine who shoul start. How can any team determine whether a rookie QB will start over a veteran, for example? Should Kyle Boller start over JaMarcus Russell? That's a question to be decided in camp. What I consider important is having the option where if one player doesn't succeed, there won't be a dropoff.

Yeah theres gonna be "camp battles" but as of now Im evaluating who have you slated to start at each position and I can only assume that hes anticipated to be your starter. Since we cant project who will win out battles we have to put the best players in as starters and judge off of that.

Like I said before Welbourn IMO is better than Ugoh so I dont see an improvement there.

If Ugoh stunk up camp, Welbourn would start and there would be no dropoff. It Petitgout did, Ugoh or Welbourn would go to LT. The way you evaluate it, I may as well cut Welbourn, because if he isn't projected as a starter, he can't become the starter. Either way, as long as Petitgout or Ugoh is better at LT than Black was, the team will end up with better play at Tackle than they were, because they'll either still have Welbourn, or they'll have Ugoh playing better.

I look at depth. I take a deep look at depth. However, the point of the game is to make the most improvements and by putting a vet on the bench and a rookie in the lineup I can only assume you want the rook to start and I have to judge your team based on that decision. More often than not, I will hold that against the team because I feel they arent improving.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 03:46 PM

I wouldnt nitpick over listed starters, some rookies are studs from Day1 your being asked to project they are not otherwise. In any case its all opinion but I personally wouldnt dock unless its REALLY obvious. In this case Ugoh is a top prospect so I dont really see a problem.

I agree.

But then again while doing up my reviews and looking closer at his team, I'm starting to think I screwed him over leaving him out of my top 5. Still not sure who I could displace as I was very impressed with my whole top 5, but looking at it now, that Jax offense is exciting and I don't think the defense regressed as much as I initially thought.

SBbound49ers

03-05-2007, 03:48 PM

I wouldnt nitpick over listed starters, some rookies are studs from Day1 your being asked to project they are not otherwise. In any case its all opinion but I personally wouldnt dock unless its REALLY obvious. In this case Ugoh is a top prospect so I dont really see a problem.

The problem I have is that Ugoh doesnt improve the team like Welbourn does so he got a minor downgrade for that move.

I dont have anything against starting rookies but I feel if you have a better option then the vet should start.

This is just one example though. I completely agree with his decision to start Tank Tyler due to their lack of DT talent. Its all about slotting in the BPA to your roster and Ugoh isnt that at RT IMO.

majesstik1

03-05-2007, 04:09 PM

3rd place team = Raiders (Majesstik) Dont like the WR#2 as a starter but other than that O-Line is now a strength!

The receiving corps is a rotation depending on what role player needs to be on the field. I'd prefer the guy with NFL experience be listed ahead of the rookie is why Moore is the "#2". Same for QB, I want the experienced guy listed first, and the rookie to earn his spot.

beasley for pres

03-05-2007, 04:24 PM

1. Baltimore Ravens (Beasley for pres)
2. New Orleans Saints (Benji)
3. Pittsburgh Steelers (knobs27)
4. Oakland Raiders (majesstik1)
5. Kansas City Chiefs (Nevyn)

:wub:

beasley for pres

03-05-2007, 04:26 PM

I'm gonna start my team by team analysis tonight.. hopefully I'll get my grades posted asap

beasley for pres

03-05-2007, 04:44 PM

hmm and of course with this whole grading the improvement voting.. and I have the Ravens and the Chargers :madgal:

Ace Matherton

03-05-2007, 04:47 PM

The receiving corps is a rotation depending on what role player needs to be on the field. I'd prefer the guy with NFL experience be listed ahead of the rookie is why Moore is the "#2". Same for QB, I want the experienced guy listed first, and the rookie to earn his spot.

Ya i figured that was the route you were going with, again kinda like with Blades WR core I gave points even thought i felt better about other players.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 09:12 PM

this is supposed to be most improved i think i improved my packers but i didnt get any love for it lol :help:

Sorry 121, you rallied late but not before you really hurt your Packers.

Nevyn

03-05-2007, 09:17 PM

where were my faults its my first year playing this so i need some criticism

I'm doing a review of everyone in another thread. Haven't gotten to you yet, but I will. I'll strive to be helpful, but nice.

MisfitZ

03-06-2007, 02:25 AM

why no love for my falcons

phil_creed

03-06-2007, 10:40 AM

1st place team = Oakland Raiders (majesstik)
2nd place team = Jacksonville Jaguars (SBbound49ers)
3rd place team = Kansas City Chiefs (Nevyn)
4th place team = Atlanta Falcons (Misfitz)
5th place team = Baltimore Ravens (BFP)

Almost made it:
San Francisco 49ers, Minnesota Vikings

BigB_85

03-06-2007, 11:52 PM

1. Kansas City Chiefs (Nevyn)
2. Jacksonville Jaguars (SBbound49ers)
3. Tennessee Titans (Ace)
4. Minnesota Vikings (UserName)
5. San Francisco 49ers (Blade)

Nevyn

03-07-2007, 08:39 AM

how many ppl still need to do the grading

Players who still haven't voted:

batman
besley for prez
knobs27
large_ant
Mastershake
Misfitz
Mr Spoons
Nilsen
Niner 4 life

And if anyone is curious, these are the current points standings:

1.Oakland = 40
2.San Francisco = 38
3t. Minnesota = 26
3t. Kansas City = 26
5. Tennessee = 18
6. Jacksonville = 17
7. Baltimore = 15
8. New Orleans = 14
9. Arizona = 8
10t. Pittsburgh = 3
10t. Houston = 3
12t. Denver = 2
12t. Atlanta = 2
12t. Cincinatti = 2
15t. Green Bay = 1
15t. Carolina = 1

Oakland has benefitted from a near consensus of people that they were top 5, and has gotten the most votes. SF has the most first place votes, but other than that only a couple 5ths. Baltimore has made a lot of top 5's, but not placed very highly in any. KC has a lot of votes, but only one first place vote.

Nin£R_4_LifE

03-07-2007, 08:46 AM

oh , i will get going, my giants have improved loads, i hope people are looking at my roster!

majesstik1

03-07-2007, 09:38 AM

1. Kansas City Chiefs (Nevyn)
2. Jacksonville Jaguars (SBbound49ers)
3. Tennessee Titans (Ace)
4. Minnesota Vikings (UserName)
5. San Francisco 49ers (Blade)

No Raiders, huh? :nonono:

beasley for pres

03-07-2007, 10:18 AM

No Raiders, huh? :nonono:

whats terrible is no Ravens :fishing:

Ace Matherton

03-07-2007, 10:49 AM

PSSSST- Everybody wants to vote TITANS, TELL EVERYONE!

BladeX

03-08-2007, 11:59 AM

Fez

03-08-2007, 12:02 PM

:banned:

Crybaby. :tung:

BladeX

03-08-2007, 12:56 PM

Crybaby. :tung:

:hangon:

Nilsen31

03-09-2007, 08:44 PM

I'll be gradin' in the next couple of days.

Busy week. plus I'm lazy.

Nilsen31

03-12-2007, 08:19 AM

darn it.

comin' soon!

BladeX

03-12-2007, 01:10 PM

So has anyone won this thing yet?

majesstik1

03-14-2007, 12:44 AM

Last call for voting!!!

Voting closes Thursday, March 15th @ 11:59pm PST.

Still to vote:
BFP
knobs
L_A
Shake
Fitz
Slap
Nilsen
N4L

Nilsen31

03-14-2007, 09:42 AM

Last call for voting!!!

Voting closes Thursday, March 15th @ 11:59pm PST.

Still to vote:
BFP
knobs
L_A
Shake
Fitz
Slap
Nilsen
N4L

dun dun dunnnnnn

Ace Matherton

03-14-2007, 09:44 AM

I have to say compared to last year there are a ton more people grading!

Mr Spoons

03-14-2007, 05:42 PM

1st place team = Dallas Cowboys :ninercaphell: Oakland Raiders (but they did start from about as low a base as was humanly possible...)
2nd place team = Minnesota Vikings
3rd place team = Kansas City Chiefs
4th place team = San Francisco Forty Niners
5th place team = Atlanta Falcons

(5th was a coin toss between Atlanta, Carolina and Baltimore:spy: )

majesstik1

03-14-2007, 05:44 PM

I have to say compared to last year there are a ton more people grading!

These were also the people that were most into it last year. I appreciate everyone who accepted the invite, and stayed the course...on that note, still to vote are:

BFP
L_A
Shake
Fitz
Nilly
N4L

MasterShake

03-14-2007, 06:32 PM

Sorry been pretty busy at work and in life...not sure I'll be able to grade.

Nilsen31

03-14-2007, 07:12 PM

1 Faiders
2 49ers
3 Ravens
4 Cardinals
5 Broncos

I really liked the drafts I had w/ my teams :(.

With Chicago, I think I did exactly what they needed, Brought in a few weapons on offense in Givens, Troupe, and Mike Anderson as well as a few picks on offense. Drafted a young QB to compete for the QB job. Drafted a RB who could complement Benson while studying under Anderson. Brought in a couple young offensive linemen who could easily end up starting in the future. As well as drafting a starting OLB and bringing in a couple of safties to compete for the starting job, as safties weren't very strong for the Bears.

I mean I know it's not the most improved...(they went to the super bowl), But I liked my draft.

As for Denver...I loved my draft.

5 picks in the first 3 rounds. A lot of young talent was brought in. Even in the later rounds, I think I got some real good value. Cutler getting to throw to Javon, Stallworth, Ginn Jr. and EJ...as well as Dom Davis out of the backfield...along with starting RB shifty and strong Mike Bell...w/ Dom catching and spelling him as a quicker back and Dayne as the big boy in short yardage situations and really pound the ball late in the game vs tired defenses...I don't think many other transactions were that "exciting" and didn't really stand out...but I think I got good depth and quality starters for the future.

So I don't think I did so well in the game sense...but I just liked my Chicago draft and loved my Denver draft.

:D :dance2: :yu:

Benji

03-15-2007, 03:09 AM

(5th was a coin toss between Atlanta, Carolina and Baltimore:spy: )

how can you cointoss between 3 teams??:lightning:

Mr Spoons

03-15-2007, 06:58 AM

how can you cointoss between 3 teams??:lightning:

really cleverly :jay:

BladeX

03-15-2007, 03:16 PM

I gotta go with Kanye West on this one........ :laugh:

"If I dont win the award the whole show loses credibility"

:woot: :help:

MisfitZ

03-15-2007, 03:57 PM

1.Raiders
2.Falcons
3.Broncos
4.Ravens
5.49ers

Honorable mention
Chiefs

MisfitZ

03-15-2007, 03:58 PM

1 Faiders
2 49ers
3 Ravens
4 Cardinals
5 Broncos

I really liked the drafts I had w/ my teams .

With Chicago, I think I did exactly what they needed, Brought in a few weapons on offense in Givens, Troupe, and Mike Anderson as well as a few picks on offense. Drafted a young QB to compete for the QB job. Drafted a RB who could complement Benson while studying under Anderson. Brought in a couple young offensive linemen who could easily end up starting in the future. As well as drafting a starting OLB and bringing in a couple of safties to compete for the starting job, as safties weren't very strong for the Bears.

I mean I know it's not the most improved...(they went to the super bowl), But I liked my draft.

As for Denver...I loved my draft.

5 picks in the first 3 rounds. A lot of young talent was brought in. Even in the later rounds, I think I got some real good value. Cutler getting to throw to Javon, Stallworth, Ginn Jr. and EJ...as well as Dom Davis out of the backfield...along with starting RB shifty and strong Mike Bell...w/ Dom catching and spelling him as a quicker back and Dayne as the big boy in short yardage situations and really pound the ball late in the game vs tired defenses...I don't think many other transactions were that "exciting" and didn't really stand out...but I think I got good depth and quality starters for the future.

So I don't think I did so well in the game sense...but I just liked my Chicago draft and loved my Denver draft.

:D :dance2: :yu:

Atlanta had 8 picks in the first 3 rounds :dancin:

Nilsen31

03-15-2007, 04:12 PM

MisfitZ

03-15-2007, 04:35 PM

looking at it now, i think i shoulda put ATL in my top 5.

I think I looked at the QB spot and didn't really like it...and then saw Isaac Bruce...and blew off the dirty birds.

IDK even so...maybe 6 is good. but maybe i shoulda bumped myself...ahh!

=0( why didnt you like bruce??? i probably could have went more offense but that defense for the falcons is scary

majesstik1

03-15-2007, 07:26 PM

Last call for voting!!!

Voting closes Thursday, March 15th @ 11:59pm PST.

Still to vote:
BFP
knobs
L_A
Shake
N4L

Winners to be announced around Midnight tonight!

:yahoo:

Nilsen31

03-15-2007, 07:47 PM

=0( why didnt you like bruce??? i probably could have went more offense but that defense for the falcons is scary

idk, i think hes on the decline...14 years in the league, 34 years old and has had some injuries the past 2 seasons.

plus, i hate him. :secret:

MisfitZ

03-15-2007, 07:48 PM

idk, i think hes on the decline...14 years in the league, 34 years old and has had some injuries the past 2 seasons.

plus, i hate him. :secret:

what did you think of my defense?

Nilsen31

03-15-2007, 07:49 PM

pretty stacked

majesstik1

03-16-2007, 06:13 PM

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8044/medal400mh1129bn3.jpg

1st Place = Oakland Raiders (majesstik1) - 61 points

2nd Place = San Francisco 49ers (BladeX) - 46 points

3rd Place = Minnesota Vikings (UserName) - 31 points

Thank you all for playing, and grading. :bigboss:

Nevyn

03-16-2007, 06:28 PM

D'oh, son of a ..

UserName

03-17-2007, 01:54 PM

woohoo! 3rd place

BladeX

03-17-2007, 11:21 PM