Worse First Round Picks

**bmorecareful** · 04-27-2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Bhcforlife

I also think the Rams really f-d up the first round. I'm sure they were bummed not to get Blackmon but they could have still gotten an impact guy like Claiborne, Kuechly, or Barron. I admittedly know little about the guy they did draft, but on a team so devoid of talent in the secondary and overall defensively, passing on those guys was not a great move IMO.

I hated the Brockers pick. Their biggest need is OL and they passed on 2 great ones for a DT I'm not convinced is better than guys they can get in the 2nd. They will have legit shots at Kendall Reyes, Jerel Worthy, and Devon Still with their 2nd rounders, and at #14 they could have had DeCastro or Reiff, both of whom grade out higher on the big board than Brockers and fill greater needs. They also were very well positioned to move up ahead of Arizona for Michael Floyd.

Again, I think they panicked, didn't know who to get, couldn't make a better move, and just grabbed a guy. Brockers isn't even a very good fit for their scheme. Just not a good pick at all IMO.

I guess it's not all that bad, since they can still get a quality OL in round 2.

**Bhcforlife** · 04-27-2012, 01:05 PM

I just really feel like the Rams needed a marquee player, a playmaker type, both for their team's success and to reinvigorate the fanbase. They had a chance to get one in Claiborne, but passed. I don't understand that. The DT they got may be a solid player but is he going to have the kind of impact that a guy like Claiborne would have? Unless the dude is like Warren Sapp in terms of interior presence, I don't see it.

**Raven Maniac** · 04-27-2012, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by moose10101

Jim Brown has called Richardson an "ordinary" RB. But I don't know if he's shown any skill as a talent evaluator, even though he was God at that position.

Well, he'd evaluate from his knowledge of playing the position and the mechanics haven't really changed since Brown carried the ball, so that'd make him a pretty fair judge of a running backs character IMO.

**pslholder96** · 04-27-2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Bhcforlife

I just really feel like the Rams needed a marquee player, a playmaker type, both for their team's success and to reinvigorate the fanbase. They had a chance to get one in Claiborne, but passed. I don't understand that. The DT they got may be a solid player but is he going to have the kind of impact that a guy like Claiborne would have? Unless the dude is like Warren Sapp in terms of interior presence, I don't see it.

The rams are clearly in rebuilding mode. 35 players from last year's team are no longer on the current roster. Don't forget they've got 2 first rounders in both the 2013 and 2014 draft. So they can afford to be a little choosey.

**LukeDaniel** · 04-27-2012, 04:20 PM

A lot of this has already been said.

Bad first round pick(s) in order of bad to worse

#5- Chiefs

#4- Dolphins- Just don't like the pick of Tannehill. The Dolphins might be rivaling the Colts as the AFC's team next year. Tannehill is going to look as lost as Gabbert did last year. I don't think the pick itself was a bad move, but I think the decision to drafta QB was unsound.

#3- 49ers- Jenkins would very realistically been around at pick 61. There are four WRs still out there (Sanu, Hill, Jeffery, Randle) who I would have to imagine were higher on most draft boards than Jenkins. Even if you internally think Jenkins is a better WR than any of the four mentioned above, he still represents no value.

#2- Seahawks- Irvin scares the pants off me. I'm not convinced they couldnt have drafted them at the same spot in round 2. Even if they didn't want to risk that, why not trade down to pick 20-23 and pick up a 3rd rounder and then draft him. Irvin wasn't to any of the teams in that range.

#1- Browns---for all the reasons listed above. Richardson was a good pick, but they used bad strategy in getting him. The Weeden pick was awful for so many ways. Bad player valuation. Impatience. Overreaching to fill a need. Awful overall strategy. All the components of a bad pick were embodied in this pick.

What makes this all the worse is that Cleveland owns a very early 2nd round pick (#37). What team drafting from 22-36 would have anywhere near enough interest in Weeden to draft him? All of the teams after them in the first round were top end teams from 2011 with firmly entrenched QBs. None of them are going to draft a QB in the first round. One or two of them might take a QB in round 2/3 to groom to be an eventual starter (like with Ryan Mallet in NE last year). However, I don't think grooming a 28 year old QB for a starting spot that might be available 3-4 years makes a lot of sense for any team.

The teams drafting early in round two all had firm QBs in place.

Cleveland could have easily had Weeden at pick 37. This is an inexcusable case of not thinking ahead. It's a pitiful case of blind drafting with little regard for strategic value. It's a painful reminder for Cleveland sports fans why the Browns are perpetual NFL doormats.

**BleedPurple92** · 04-27-2012, 04:28 PM

How can you go wrong with the seahawks?

I mean taking a one dimensional 3rd round player, with character issues with a top 15 pick. I mean you cant get any worse than that.

**Ravenswintitle** · 04-27-2012, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by BleedPurple92

How can you go wrong with the seahawks?

I mean taking a one dimensional 3rd round player, with character issues with a top 15 pick. I mean you cant get any worse than that.

The Raiders are PISSED that they didn't get the chance to draft a 3rd rounder in the first this year

**BleedPurple92** · 04-27-2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

The Raiders are PISSED that they didn't get the chance to draft a 3rd rounder in the first this year

Lmao I couldn't believe they took him, that was such an Oakland raidersesque pick. Pete Carroll is doing his best Al Davis impersonation.

**LukeDaniel** · 04-27-2012, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by bmorecareful

I hated the Brockers pick. Their biggest need is OL and they passed on 2 great ones for a DT I'm not convinced is better than guys they can get in the 2nd. They will have legit shots at Kendall Reyes, Jerel Worthy, and Devon Still with their 2nd rounders, and at #14 they could have had DeCastro or Reiff, both of whom grade out higher on the big board than Brockers and fill greater needs. They also were very well positioned to move up ahead of Arizona for Michael Floyd.

Again, I think they panicked, didn't know who to get, couldn't make a better move, and just grabbed a guy. Brockers isn't even a very good fit for their scheme. Just not a good pick at all IMO.

I guess it's not all that bad, since they can still get a quality OL in round 2.

I'm not wowed by the Rams, but I don't think they've done that badly. Their 2012 draft will live or die on the backs of their 3 2nd round picks and that early 3rd round pick.

I read today that Brockers was the guy the Rams were intending to draft at pick at pick 7. If that is true, that's great for them. I just have a hard time thinking that they truly had Brockers as their #7 guy. I mean, if they hadn't traded with Dallas, they could have drafted Claiborne and still had two 2nd rounders and the 2nd pick of round 3. I remember Torrey Smith making that secondary look awful last year and Justin King looking hopeless against him. Claiborne could have filled a huge need and given them a core defensive player, along with Chris Long, around which they could build a defense.

I am mixed on the pick. I love trading down for 2nd rounders, but I think when there is a player at CB with the type of talent Claiborne has, you can't ignore it in favor of a DT with less impact potential.

I'd give them a C for the pick of Brockers. I don't think he was a bad pick at 15 in terms of value, but I do think DeCastro would have looked awfully nice alongside Saffold for the next half-decade.