Mike D's first-round mock draft | HoumaToday.com
Saints writer and all around NFL/Draft guru. Also has a tidbit on a LA Tech receiver that the Saints are interested in...
about 1 year ago
tlsk1066
16 comments
0 recs |
Comments
no kidding
You’re right, to be a guru it takes some really big nuts to wait until April 16 to put up your first mock, and then take a really pedestrian point of view (Miami comes down with Ingramania!??? That is so January 2011.).
Not impressed. In fact, I’m putting Monsieur Detillier on the List. I’ll bet he can’t get 13 out of 32. He won’t even get 5 of the first 10 picks. Oh hell, he won’t do better than 1 of the first 3.
Houma…GAAA!!!!
The incense burned away and the stench began to rise
Dude, I tried to keep up with most ‘expert’ mock drafts last year, and I don’t think more than 3 hit 13 picks.
If I am good I could add years to my life / I would rather add some life to my years.
GAAA!!!!
32. Green Bay Packers, Brooks Reed, Outside Linebacker/Defensive End, Arizona
Reed is NOT a first round talent. Coldpizza, you should ask Michel for your money back that you paid for his draft analysis. GAA!!!
The incense burned away and the stench began to rise
I pay no attention to his mock drafts. They’re always woefully out of date, by the time the publication arrives. The individual player capsules are what makes the book worth the $20.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
He based his mock on the capsules. Which doesn’t say much for his capsules. Save yourself $11:
The incense burned away and the stench began to rise
the only draft mag I've found at my local groceries/drug stores
is the USA Today one – I bought it last week as my one draft mag purchase of the year, and it stinks on ice – I warn all of you – - don’t buy it!

Atheists just take a pass,
Watch football in their underpants.
by Hans Petersen on Apr 18, 2011 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions
No, he bases his mocks based on what he perceives to be team needs. The guy definitely knows his college fooball. What he doesn’t know is the NFL, outside of the Saints. You can see that in his overall NFL player rankings, which are basically nothing more than a Who’s Who of the 2000s, peppered with a few trendy names. The capsules truly are spot on most of the time, especially his player comparisons.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
How in depth does that magazine go? Every player capsule in Detillier’s guide has a 1/3 to 1/2 page write up on average. Here’s the breakdown by position from last year’s guide (number of capsules/number ranked):
QBs – 19/44
HBs – 29/55
FBs – 13/24
WRs – 38/76
TEs – 29/52
Cs – 17/33
Gs – 18/38
Ts – 25/55
DEs – 35/54
DTs – 27/50
ILBs – 15/32
OLBs – 26/51
CBs – 25/62
FSs – 15/30
SSs – 15/28
Ks – 3/8
Ps – 3/8
TOTAL – 352/700
I always fill in the drafting teams as I’m watching. There’s typically 2 or 3 players every year that are drafted and nowhere to be found in the book. Still, unless Lindy’s is providing extensive write ups on 350+ players, along with twice as many mentions, I’s day you’re selling yourself $11 short.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
I’ll avoid any guide that still has Fairley ranked #1. I’ll print my stuff off line the day of the draft…much preferable then getting stuck with something 3 months out of date.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
Doubting the Wilkerson pick. The more and more I hear, Wilkerson is seriously starting to slide. The only question is….is he sliding from the “near top 10 player” that Kiper likes to tout him as…or is he sliding from the early to late 20’s selection that most had him previously rated as being.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
I didn’t know the Beastie Boys’ Mike D was into NFL Football. Cool.
"It's more than a handful. It's a handsful."























