With the 39th pick of the 2010 Pride of Detroit Community Mock Draft, the Oakland Raiders select Wake Forest cornerback Brandon Ghee.
Here is damnitdamnitdamnit's reasoning for the pick:
Here were the biggest needs for the Raiders from my first write-up when I picked OT Trent Williams in round one:1-Offensive tackle2-Cornerback3-Run defense4-A lap-band clinic down the street from JaMarcus Russell's houseObviously I won't be picking an offensive lineman again, so of the next three positions, here are what I believe are the strongest possibilities.
CB:Patrick Robinson, Florida StateBrandon Ghee, Wake ForestOddly, both of these guys are about equal in my mind, and I don't know why. I think that Ghee has great measurables and strong upside. Robinson has good pedigree, but it seems at times has lapses in concentration. Now, this is the Raiders, so you have to take into account 40 times, and both were within .01 second of one another, so it doesn't seem like one of them has a leg up in Al Davis' world.Run Stopper:Geno Atkins, DT, Georgia - A good run stopper who has impressed lately. Atkins will be a good 3 technique (or outward) with his size.
Jamar Chaney, MLB, Mississippi State - Unheralded but productive guy, seen by some as a workout warrior.Between the two needs, I don't see anyone standing out, so I will go with my initial thoughts and say that CB is a bigger need. Now is a tough decision, because as I said, I don't see a clear-cut favorite and have to go with my gut. I think that the Raiders will deal Asomugha within a year, and that means they need someone to take his place at #1. Though Robinson is a surer prospect, Ghee has more upside and is slightly more physical and better against the run (see my #2 need above). So there it is. Brandon Ghee, put on some gloves and shake Al's hand.
Check out the 2010 Pride of Detroit Community Mock Draft tracker for a look at all of the picks.
|« Previous Pick (#38 Browns - Jerry Hughes)||Next Pick (#40 - Chargers - Jahvid Best) »|
Do you approve of this pick?
Yes (94 votes)
No (49 votes)
143 total votes