Calling my shot right now: Xavier Rhodes CB, Florida State

[BigRob]

Calling it right now. We're selecting Xavier Rhodes at 1.17.

I am leaving my picks from January in my sig because I want to see how close it actually is instead of doing a mock every month this year.

[Oviedo]

I would hate that pick. He played "bump and run" at Fla State. Not a Cover CB like we typically use.

[phillyesq]

I would hate that pick. He played "bump and run" at Fla State. Not a Cover CB like we typically use.

To apply your logic from the Eifert thread, Gil Brandt has Rhodes going at 11 overall. Should I make some sort of condesceding, holier than thou comment about how your evaluation must be wrong because some talking head (in this case, one with actual credentials) says so?

[aggiebones]

I would hate that pick. He played "bump and run" at Fla State. Not a Cover CB like we typically use.

My brother said the same thing. I've been too deep into other stuff to dig into the draft this year. I'm winding up now. I'm not sure what the heck we are going to do. Eifert seems like an easy pick. I don't want the 6th best OL at that pick. No NT there. No ILB that I like. Please no Vaccaro from texas u. No WR that I want to invest in. Haven't decided about possible OLBs yet. That's about all I'm left with.
Time to trade down...or up.

This seems like the pick at 17:
Trufant, JJones, Eifert or Vaccaro.

Please just trade down, even if you don't get much. I like Jones IF the docs think he's good to go.

[BigRob]

I would hate that pick. He played "bump and run" at Fla State. Not a Cover CB like we typically use.

Dude can play man to man coverage. How often have we had that? I'm not saying that is who I would pick, but I think it will be the pick.

[phillyesq]

Dude can play man to man coverage. How often have we had that? I'm not saying that is who I would pick, but I think it will be the pick.

I saw where he said that he was better in man than he was in off coverage, but that he was aware of that and looking to improve. He certainly has good size and speed, which is important in a division with AJ Green, Torrey Smith and Gordon over in Cleveland. I'm not sure if he will be the pick, but he certainly makes sense.

[Oviedo]

To apply your logic from the Eifert thread, Gil Brandt has Rhodes going at 11 overall. Should I make some sort of condesceding, holier than thou comment about how your evaluation must be wrong because some talking head (in this case, one with actual credentials) says so?

You can and I promise not to make a smart a$$ response because it is just your opinion and like mine means nothing enough to get spun up about.

[Oviedo]

Dude can play man to man coverage. How often have we had that? I'm not saying that is who I would pick, but I think it will be the pick.

I'd love the pick if the defense changed to a scheme that employed steady man to man and not "tackle the catch" zone

[Shoe]

I like the thinking behind the pick, as Rhodes has game-changing ability (as opposed to say a Trufant, who at best is a solid Deshea Townsend type). I wouldn't say I hate it, but I do agree with Oviedo that it doesn't make sense within our scheme(s). Even in the Tampa-2 scheme that we fans incessantly predict Tomlin will switch to, we don't need overbearing corners like Rhodes. Both schemes simply require guys who can play strong zone defense. Even though I would be intrigued if he were available, I don't see the fit.

[flippy]

I think X and Cortez could play press man coverage and change the whole dynamic of our Defense. I'd like this pick. I've thought about putting him in a mock, but I wouldn't be all that surprised if someone takes him a lot earlier. I wouldn't even be surprised if he's the first CB taken.

[flippy]

I like the thinking behind the pick, as Rhodes has game-changing ability (as opposed to say a Trufant, who at best is a solid Deshea Townsend type). I wouldn't say I hate it, but I do agree with Oviedo that it doesn't make sense within our scheme(s). Even in the Tampa-2 scheme that we fans incessantly predict Tomlin will switch to, we don't need overbearing corners like Rhodes. Both schemes simply require guys who can play strong zone defense. Even though I would be intrigued if he were available, I don't see the fit.

I agree it doesn't fit our system, but with the evolving offenses, you can barely get to a QB anymore. So the best bet may be to ruin a WR's route to make the QB hold the ball a second longer. As the game evolves it may be the only way to consistently get to a QB.

[Eddie Spaghetti]

wouldn't hate it, wouldn't love it. Can definitely understand the logic behind it.

I don't know that at his size, he could play some safety in sub packages if we needed him to.

I think he represents better value than the chosen one.

[Chadman]

Calling it right now. We're selecting Xavier Rhodes at 1.17.

I am leaving my picks from January in my sig because I want to see how close it actually is instead of doing a mock every month this year.

Rhodes ticks a lot of boxes. Age is right, size/measurables are right. Level of competition is right. Future need...

The trade of Revis to Tampa Bay might have actually made Rhodes at #17 a strong possibility.

[Steelhere10]

Vacarro is the pick.... Two aging safety , the Steelers don't draft for now but the future. Then we will go WR heavy and sprinkle in a RB.
1)Vacarro
2-4 WR RB WR
put in writing. And then CB.

[Chadman]

Vacarro is the pick.... Two aging safety , the Steelers don't draft for now but the future. Then we will go WR heavy and sprinkle in a RB.
1)Vacarro
2-4 WR RB WR
put in writing. And then CB.

Vacarro's brushes with the law might be concerning. And depth at Safety in this draft class might allow the Steelers to pick one a little later but still get a quality player.