Over at Sideline Scouting we released our Final seven round mock draft today with explanations for every first round pick. Scroll over the tab “mock draft results” to see specific results for your favorite team. Tabs towards the top of each page to scroll through each round.

http://www.sidelinescouting.com/mock/

What do you guys think?

Minnesota is the real pivot point at three which sucks because it’s so early. Sounds like they’re considering three options but we went with Claiborne because I trust Schefter over anyone else. But if they go Kalil or dare I even say it, Blackmon, it throws everything off.

A few surprise picks, I know. But the NFL Draft is always a surprise. Overall thoughts?

@clevelandfanforlife said:

He played against bad defenses in the Big 12 his whole collee career. Don't get me wrong, he's a pretty fast. However, he only runs a 4.55 (or in that range). If a 5'10" receiver is going to be productive, he needs to be faster.

He ran a 4.41 at his pro day and consistently got separation on his routes. People always talk about the Big 12 defenses thing, but there's plenty of NFL caliber corners in the Big 12. Just a thought.

@jnuh said:

That is the second mock I have seen with Fleener going to the Niners ... no way would the Niners waste a first rounder on a TE when they have a top 5 TE in the league.

Also this mock has Vinny Curry and Trumaine Johnson each going mid to late third round. Id either of those guys are on the board when we pick in the third we need to scoop them up.

I thought the same thing at first. But I had posted our mock on a 49ers board and they all said that according to local papers that Fleener appears to be the favorite for that selection. And they all like it. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The 49ers run a lot of two tight end sets and Fleener isn't a traditional tight end he's more of a hybrid WR/TE who will have a role similar to Gronkowski. If you put Fleener and Vernon Davis together, that's a dangerous pairing and a matchup nightmare. They added Randy Moss and Mario Manningham so they have a couple new WRs to plug in. Also, there's the Stanford connection between Harbaugh and Fleener.

@clevelandfanforlife said:

Not a bad draft but I just would hate idea of taking Kendall Wight at 22. He's not big, he's not fast, and he had one good season against horrible defenses in the Big 12. I want no part of him.

If you don't think he's fast, then you haven't watched him play.

Personally, I think Wilson can compete for a starting job. If he were two inches taller, he's a first round pick. So the skills are there, he's kind of a wildcard to me but I think he'll have a rather long career either as a starter or as a backup. I would imagine he could compete with McCoy right away and push him some in camp.

At Sideline Scouting we released a seven round mock draft today with explanations for every first round pick. We’ll be doing one more the night before the draft, but otherwise this is one of our final mocks with the draft coming up in a week. Scroll over the tab “mock draft results” to see specific results for Cleveland. Tabs towards the top of each page to scroll through each round.

I know last time I posted we had a few haters with giving Tannehill to the Browns. We backed away from that, it doesn't sound like that's going to happen so we went with Richardson. But let me know what you guys think of the rest of the picks.

http://www.sidelinescouting.com/mock/

What do you guys think of the picks we gave the Browns?

A few surprise picks, I know. But the NFL Draft is always a surprise. Overall thoughts?

@mark-o said:

I'd rather take anyone at 4 other than Tannehill. Blackmon would be fine and so would Claiborne. I don't want a project with a top 5 draft pick.

The thing with Tannehill is that he's not a "project" in the same way that a guy like John Skelton is/was a project. He's raw, but not as raw as most think he is. People harp on the "converted WR" thing too much. He was a quarterback in high school and a quarterback to start his career at Texas A&M. He converted to WR for one season because Jerrod Johnson was doing so well and it didn't look like Tannehill was going to get playing time. Johnson tore a bicep and Tannehill started and never gave up the job.

He has all of the tools and should be a good NFL quarterback. But he's just not a guy I'd want to start in year one. Give him a year to learn the offense, get acclimated with the speed of the NFL. I felt the same way about Blaine Gabbert last year. Give that guy a year on the bench to learn and he can be great. But if you throw him to the wolves, you run the risk of ruining him because he doesn't develop any confidence.

This is what I just said on Twitter and I wanted to bring it here: The longer I do this, the more I start to understand why teams reach for QBs. If you think a guy can be your franchise guy, you take him. Quarterbacks affect the win column infinitely more than any other position. If you think a guy can do it, reach for him and coach him. But on the other hand, you have to believe said player can be THAT guy. Don't take a QB just to take a QB.

I understand your position on the matter. But just wanted to clarify about my opinion on Tannehill being a "project". There's a lot of project quarterbacks out there. Tannehill isn't like them, he's just a guy you wouldn't want to throw to the wolves in year one.

@mark-o said:

A year is one year too long. There are always QB's to pick. RGIII wasn't on the radar before the season started and now he's the #2 pick in the draft. I'd rather run Colt out there another year with Richardson or Blackmon to help, or just build a fantastic defense with Claiborne and worry about offense later. But I don't pick a guy at #4 who can't help this year. Mid to late 1st round for a project and I wouldn't be as opposed to it, just not at #4.

That's not really true. RG3 was a top 5 pick back in October... and was a "future first round pick" two years ago before his bad injury. It's really hard to find quarterbacks. There's really only 10-12 QBs in the world that make teams feel comfortable going into the playoffs. If you think you found a guy who can enter that top grouping, then you make the move to get him.

But I understand not wanting to see your #4 pick on the bench in year one. I think it's a more probable scenario than some people on this board are willing to recognize. But it makes sense why you'd rather take Richardson.

@harry-buffalo said:

Zing!

Not really a zing. I don't take it personally. I do this for a living. All fans have their opinions.

@mark-o said:

I think we have a team that has so many holes, that when you draft #4 overall and there are that many playmakers available, you have to take one that can come right in and make a difference. Doesn't matter if its Richardson, Blackmon or Claiborne. Any one of those 3 make the Browns better in 2012. Tannehill might be the next Dan Marino, but if he's sitting on his ass on the bench, what good is he?

Good response. IMO, he'd only sit on the bench for a season, so it's good for the next decade after that. It's a move for the future. And the Browns aren't really in the position to compete next year no matter how you look at it. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the situation. but I can understand why a fan base would want a playmaker who can come in and have a difference. Can't be fun watching the current offense that the front office has been trotting out there.

Zombo said:

It's not going to happen, I'm not close minded, I just know the Browns better than you and absolutely know they will not take Tannehill at four.

If you are going to come to our board and post a mock at least put some thought into it from the Browns point of view, the Browns would not spend the fourth pick in the draft on such a questionable prospect. It's just not going to happen.

Your mock is a lazy man's mock, no attempt to scout the guys making the picks and not just the picks.

BTW, just for shits and giggles, I copied Harry Buffalo's response verbatim and you never noticed, you responded to both of them with totally different tones.

You're weak, lazy and you bore me ... other than that your mock sucked.

Z

I did notice. I just responded to them both because you're two different people. Responded to you on the part that you copied. Responded to him on the whole post.

No attempt to scout the prospects? I watch games all year, I attend post-season all-star games, speak with agents and scouts. Not sure what you're getting at. You do more than that?

@mark-o said:

I am by far an expert but I'll take Mike Mayocks opinion....he said Tannehill is a great prospect and will be a franchise QB, but he also will need to sit for at least 1 year before he's ready becuase of a lack of experience playing QB.

I want no part of a guy at #4 that isn't going to contribute this year. Give me Richardson or Blackmon, at least they will be on the field this year.

Honest question/Devil's advocate: Why does it matter if he doesn't contribute this year if you feel that he can be a franchise quarterback? If Colt McCoy is manning the quarterback position, you're pretty mush setting your win cap at six or seven. If you take Richardson, that's one year and 250 carries added to his career total on a (very) likely non-playoff team. Considering most runners these days only last a few years, wouldn't adding that future franchise quarterback be in the best interest of the organization if the goal is to win games? Now, as I said, I'd draft Richardson because he's BPA. But curious to hear your thoughts on that.

@harry-buffalo said:

I can. Only an idiot would think Tannehill is a good pick at #4. H&H are looking at him to have knowledge on him in case teams come calling. Tannehill is a late 1st/early 2nd round talent at best and all the "experts" in the media are hyping him because that is what you do with QB's now a days. I have also read the same stupid reports saying that Kirk Cousins is going to make a great franchise QB. HA!!! You just can not justify drafting a guy who is litterally going to need to sit for at least a year when 1: There are still talents like Richardson, Blackmon, and Claiborne still on the board and 2: the 3 top QB's who are coming out next season are better than him.

I will agree with the Wright pick. Wright because Heckert goes more off of game tape than combine numbers, meaning that he is goig to see Wright's game day speed is good and Hill's combine numbers don't necessarily make him a good WR. But then you have us taking Martin when Miller, the clear cut #2 RB in the draft, doesn't go until much later. I don't know how you justify that.

I agree with Curry if he falls to the 3rd, but I also think Nick Perry DE USC is a very real option if he is still there for us at #22. After I can't say much except for the TE from MSU. If we take any TE in the draft it is going to be the guy from Louisiana Lafayette. We have too many TE that our FO actually believe in for them to spend any pick on a TE other than him who they have seen at his pro day and invited for a visit.

Really your #4 and #37 picks are the head scratchers, the ones that show you are A: eating into the stupid media hype called McShay and B: are literally unaware of some of the top guys talents (ie the Martin over Miller pick).

I actually really like Lamar Miller. I think Martin, Miller, and David Wilson are all on the exact same level. I have hard time doing my RB rankings because they're so close. Right now though I have the rankings as Martin, Wilson, and then Miller. The reasoning is because Martin is a Ray Rice type of player who can carry the load and is versatile in the passing game. He's a strong guy with surprising quickness. Wilson is a bit smaller but much more explosive. Lamar Miller was #2 on my rankings for most of the year, I love his style and think he can be a second round steal; however, Miller battled a shoulder injury all year and will be having surgery after the draft. So that little bit of a concern bumped him below Martin and Miller who are both (relatively) healthy. But all three are great players.

Media hype has nothing to do with my rankings. I don't really follow McShay or Kiper's rankings, I have my own that I keep all season. Kiper today has AJ Jenkins as an early second round pick. I don't have him in my top 100, and won't be putting him in.

Edit: Not sure where you get that Lamar Miller is the clear cut #2 RB in this draft. Most of the people I talk to don't have him at #2. I know a few draft guys I chat with have Chris Polk at #2. With running backs it's more about fit than anything when you have guys on a similar tier. Blocking schemes, current personnel, etc.

Zombo said:

Only an idiot would think Tannehill is a good pick at #4. H&H are looking at him to have knowledge on him in case teams come calling. Tannehill is a late 1st/early 2nd round talent at best and all the "experts" in the media are hyping him because that is what you do with QB's now a days. I have also read the same stupid reports saying that Kirk Cousins is going to make a great franchise QB. HA!!! You just can not justify drafting a guy who is litterally going to need to sit for at least a year when 1: There are still talents like Richardson, Blackmon, and Claiborne still on the board and 2: the 3 top QB's who are coming out next season are better than him.

Zombo

Close mindedness like this on prospects and strategies is why I can't debate with you. Teams don't even listen to media hype, they have their own scouting reports and people that they look to for personnel decisions. The fact that ESPN is hyping up Tannehill has nothing to do with the Browns' possible interest in him. Tannehill is a better prospect than you're giving him credit for. I'm not a Cousins fan, he'll probably go second round, but he's not starting material. I'm on record as saying that if I were the GM, I would take Richardson. He's the BPA, which is the strategy I like to go by. However, it's not unfathomable that the Browns would take Tannehill. It's a mock draft, we try to have fun with it. The selection of Tannehill isn't as crazy as you make it sound. I wouldn't do it, but I can see it happening, so we went with it.

Zombo said:

Overall, I think you need a new hobby. And if this is your job, you should quit and get one you are good at.

Zombo

What kind words. Please elaborate on your issues.

@tour2ma said:

See... there's my issue. You can't agree that Wright is a 2nd tier WR yet hold that he is a freak and/ or a stud.

Our "tier" system must be different. I consider the first tier like the Calvin/Andre Johnson's of the world. Second tier would be the Greg Jennings, Steve Smith, Roddy White's of the world. Second tier is not a bad thing.

@tour2ma said:

Pick away... nits or otherwise... ... no apologies needed...

I may be being a tad rigid here, but in my mind leading a team in catches does not a #1 receiver make. The '#1' is designation I reserve for a wideout who can separate at the line of scrimmage through quickness or strength or, on rare occasions, both. And that DQ's WR's that need the slot to routinely get open in my old school mind.

Won't disagree that you can "next year" yourself to death, but to spend a 4 on Tannehill? No way... and as I said, I like the kid and was willing to spend a 2nd round pick on him before the draft were QB-crazy after the 'Skins overbid for RGIII... the next Michael Vick... minus the dogs...

Wright is a 2nd tier WR at best...

I'm sure you had criteria for rounds 2 thru 7, but you did not share them. I've neither the time nor the interest to vet your picks, but if you should chose to post your thoughts then I'll read them... and probably disagree with them...

If you want to return the favor. I'm working on an update, but here's my first Mock. Have at it Sparky...

Checked out your mock and responded to it. A "2nd tier WR" at #22 isn't a bad thing, he's a better player than Greg Little and would be their #1 WR by year two.

Cleveland's picks:

1.) Ryan Tannehill - Groom him as the quarterback of the future in cleveland. I'd have him start the year behind Colt and coach him up a bit. Great talent.

22.) Kendall Wright - Stud WR who can play inside and outside, perfect complement to Greg Little

37.) Doug Martin - Versatile back who does everything and reminds many of Ray Rice or Jonathan Stewart. Between the tackles runner who can catch the ball. Has bellcow potential to carry the ball 250+ times a year.

Side note: If the Browns did that with those first three picks, that's an offense worth watching.

67.) Vinny Curry - Terrific pass rusher, fits in their scheme. Has a great first step and would be a steal at 67.

100.) Andrew Datko - Browns need a right tackle. Datko is a solid candidate at this spot. The crop gets very thin after him.

118.) Ryan Steed - Good small school cornerback. Cleveland needs depth behind Joe Haden.

139.) Aaron Henry - safety Mike Adams left, adding depth in the secondary here with Henry

160.) Brian Linthicum - Browns tight ends are well below average, taking a flier on Linthicum here, a good receiver, isn't a bad idea

204.) Darius Fleming - Chris Gocong and Kaluka Maiava could be improved upon, Fleming could be brought in for camp competition.

205.) Greg Childs - Second round talent who really struggled due to injuries the past 18 months. Grab him and hope to develop him as a #3 or #4 WR

211.) Justin Bethel - Depth at a position of need

245.) Derrick Shelby - Depth at a position of need

247.) Rokevious Watkins - Depth at a position of need

@tour2ma said:

I've been picking away at my draft for a couple weeks. My critique of Mike H's "Latest" prompted me to wrap it up. Spent a few hours on it tonite (who needs sleep) and here it is for your consideration...

Not sold on Blackmon. If I take a WR in Rnd 1 it'd be Floyd... and I don't need a #4 to get him. So I shop the #4 to Miami for their #8 plus either their 2nd or two-3rds with the latter more likely. For competition I shop the pick as low as Carolina at #9. And of course I will consider offers from the Rams at #6 and Jags at #7... which would give me a shot at Floyd. But if he's gone, no sweat because with my first 1st round pick I take Ingram DE, the player I really want.

Then I package up my #22 with a lesser piece of my above trade-down to move up to Philly's #15 and snatch Dre' Kirkpatrick (CB) out from under Cinci's nose (per some Mocks). I actually like Dre' more than Claiborne.

Rnd 1:

1.4 => Miami (1.8 + 3.09 + 3.10 )

1.8 (Miami) - Melvin Ingram (DE-NC) - 6'1"/264 THE impact DE in the draft and the final piece of our D-line.

1.15 (Philly) - Dre' Kirkpatrick (CB-Bama) - 6'2"/186 & 4.51 speed. Opposite Haden... gotta love that.

1.22 + 3.10 ==> Philly (1.15)

Rnd 2:

2.5: Kevin Zeitler (OG-Wis) - 6'4"/314 A solid piece of that beast of a line WI featured. Strong and mobile.

Rnd 3:

3.4 - Marvin Jones (WR-Cal) - 6'2"/200 & 4.46 speed.

3.9 (Miami) - Cyrus Grey (RB-A&M) - 5'10"/206 & 4.47 speed and 100+ catches. Roger Craig potential... I swear...

3.10 (to Philly from Miami from Chicago via Carolina) lotta mileage on this pick...

Rnd 4:

4.5 - Keenan Robinson (OLB-TX) - 6'3"/242 Straight rip-off of Mike H's. Easily the best mid-round OLB value I see.

4.23 (ATL) - Dwight Jones (WR- NC) - 6'3"/230 & 4.55 speed and a jumper.

Rnd 5:

5.4 - Nick Foles (QB-AZ) - 6'5"/245 Stock fell in combine; love his size, mechanics and arm.

Rnd 6:

6.5 - Coty Sensabaugh (CB, Clem) - 5'11"/189 & 4.42 speed plus cover skills... and still learning.

Rnd 7:

7.4 - Donald Stephenson (OT-OK) - 6'6"/312 & 4.94! Can hit the weights and develop into solid lineman.

That's it. I think it takes the D to the next level, and adds enough talent to the offense to make it competitive.

IMO, it's not smart to mock trades because there's too many factors that go into each move. The trades seem to be one sided looking at the reasons that Cleveland would do them, while ignoring the reasons the other teams wouldn't.

1.) Why is Miami moving up to 4? Their top need would either be at quarterback, wide receiver or to add a pass rusher. There are players at those positions that will be available at #8. They'd have to be completely sold on Justin Blackmon to do that trade. That's the only thing that makes sense, if they were completely sold on Blackmon and moved to get ahead of St. Louis and Jax. And that's a big assumption to make, that's not a slam dunk pick.

2.) Why is Philadelphia trading down? Their top need right now is an offensive tackle with Jason Peters' terrible injury. There's only a couple OT's in this draft worthy of taking in the first round. Moving down decreases your chances of landing one. Big risk to take. Especially moving behind San Diego and Chicago who both could take OTs.

The picks aren't bad, but the Browns ignore two of their biggest needs at quarterback and running back. Foles and Gray are reserves. Gray is your typical mid round back who will have flashes, but is more of a platoon guy and Foles is a backup QB who would likely push Colt for a year until Colt is ultimately replaced.

@lcdawgfan13 said:

I have just one question...If the Browns Would have traded up for RG3, who would he have thrown the ball to? They would have given up both firsts this year and a first next year and a second as well. RG3 would have had a season similar to Colts season this year but with more rushing yards. There would still be nobody open and receivers dropping more passes than they catch. So...how would that have helped this team at all?

I would much prefer to see what Colt can do with actual weapons. If he pisses his pants, than we have the weapons in place to bring in a franchise QB next year. That makes much more sense than to trade away 4 picks in the top 2 rounds of the draft to take a chance on a rookie that doesn't fit our offense anyway...Then, if he doesn't work out, have no QB, no weapons, and no picks to get any weapons either.

Everyone wants to make a splash in the draft I know. But a splash tends to only last a few seconds. Then you're left with nothing. I will trust Heckert...He has done well in the draft thus far. Let's see how this pans out.

Good quarterbacks make receivers around them better. Robert Griffin is and will be a terrific quarterback, they should have done anything and everything to get him. Then worry about the receivers second. Get the quarterback who can change your franchise for the next decade and worry about the rest later. I LOVED that trade for the Redskins because they were saying to their fan base, "We want to give you something to cheer for, and we're dedicated to winning. We're going to get a stud franchise quarterback and we're going to give up whatever we have to, to get this thing done." And that's the attitude the Browns front office should have taken. That Redskins fan base is re-energized and think that they're going to make a run in the next two years.

Browns fan base on the other hand are talking about "well, let's see what we have with Colt McCoy and take a stud running back." Look at the teams that win in the NFL. It has become a passing league. Having a top running back is a luxury, not a necessity. Having a top quarterback is a necessity, not a luxury. Colt McCoy is not the answer in Cleveland and I can confidently state that. Robert Griffin would have been that answer, but they chose to spend another season toiling in mediocrity.

As far as Ryan Tannehill, he's not on the same level as RG3, but the team will need to take a look at him, and if the coaching staff feels that they can develop him, then you take him at #4. Because Tannehill, although not a finished product, has a very high upside and is a better prospect than last year's #8 and #12 picks Jake Locker and Christian Ponder.

@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Say we take Blackmon at #4 and Tannehill drops to #22 by some stroke of luck. Do we take him?

It would be oddly similar to Cincinnati's draft a year ago.

I was talking with Ryan Lownes of Draft Breakdown last week about this situation. I don't see Tannehill getting past Miami, Buffalo, Kansas City, and Arizona in the top 13. But if for some reason he does, he could very likely drop to #22. There isn't a team from 14-21 that would likely spend a first round pick on a quarterback.