Skip to content

The first PFT mock draft of the decade

Every year, we post multiple mock drafts.

Every year, plenty of you complain about it.

And yet we keep posting mock drafts.

Either we’re dumb or we’re gluttons for punishment.  Or both.

Either way, check out our first mock draft of the year (actually, of the decade), and then feel free to post a comment as to how dumb we are.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
43 Responses to “The first PFT mock draft of the decade”
  1. Opie says: Feb 18, 2010 10:30 PM

    Both!

  2. ryans46d says: Feb 18, 2010 10:30 PM

    That’s great Mike. Too bad the last decade isn’t over yet.

  3. downwithdansnyder says: Feb 18, 2010 10:32 PM

    You’re not dumb, you’re smart. Self-deprecation is one of the best ways to head off critisism.

  4. dowens11 says: Feb 18, 2010 10:32 PM

    YOU GUYS ARE SOFA KING DUMB! WOW! Just joking, I didn’t even look at it yet, just wanted to be one of the first to comment. I will return with my true opinion. Besides, I’m a Raider fan, how can I call anyone else dumb?

  5. Ron In Charlotte says: Feb 18, 2010 10:35 PM

    This is the LAST mock draft of the Decade.
    2001
    2002
    2003
    2004
    2005
    2006
    2007
    2008
    2009
    2010
    That is the decade known as the 2000’s.

  6. Zoology says: Feb 18, 2010 11:09 PM

    wow, you guys must be sitting on a lot of stories we don’t know about yet…

  7. Craig M. says: Feb 18, 2010 11:09 PM

    Chiefs don’t need a corner in the first round. Carr and Flowers are the starters and they drafted a nickel back in the fourth round last year. O-Line, Wide Receiver, Linebacker, Safety are the top needs for the Chiefs, not cornerback.

  8. oh the usual says: Feb 18, 2010 11:12 PM

    dowens11 says:
    February 18, 2010 10:32 PM
    YOU GUYS ARE SOFA KING DUMB! WOW! Just joking, I didn’t even look at it yet, just wanted to be one of the first to comment. I will return with my true opinion. Besides, I’m a Raider fan, how can I call anyone else dumb?
    same boat. as an aside…it’s a mock draft in february. anyone calling other people dumb for a draft prediction in february does not understand the draft process.

  9. csolber says: Feb 18, 2010 11:20 PM

    Wide Reciever for Vikings at 30? U trying to give PA a heart attack? Or just create a big talker next Tues?

  10. csolber says: Feb 18, 2010 11:21 PM

    Wide Reciever for Vikings at 30? U trying to give PA a heart attack? Or just create a big talker next Tues?

  11. whodey says: Feb 18, 2010 11:22 PM

    Florio, must be a really slow news day/week???
    seriously, who cares until the combine?

  12. JAG880 says: Feb 18, 2010 11:23 PM

    My seven-year-old could put a better mock together.

  13. Doc Fluty says: Feb 18, 2010 11:30 PM

    wow…why do you even bother making a mock draft if your not gonna even think while doing it. pioli let CBs walk out of NE year to year.. i dont see him valuing them much..
    did u pick names out of a hat?
    im sure berry, okung, mclain or even d morgan would be taken before a cb

  14. MoonScorch says: Feb 18, 2010 11:31 PM

    A little under eleven months left in the decade. Thanks for the mock, though.

  15. sndvl99 says: Feb 19, 2010 12:11 AM

    Cards taking a WR. Did you even try on this mock Florio?

  16. antneejay2 says: Feb 19, 2010 12:27 AM

    Florio, you’re so dumb you think a Stay Free Mini-pad is a half way house for midgets.

  17. .VoxVeritas says: Feb 19, 2010 1:13 AM

    The Cowboys are gonna draft a TE in the first round with 28 year old Jason Witten and 23 year old Martellus Bennett on the roster and after drafting John Phillips in ’09? Really? What did you do, draw names out of a hat?

  18. SF Saints Fan says: Feb 19, 2010 1:25 AM

    Really Florio, why don’t you just go ahead and pick the teams for the Super Bowl and get it over with……
    Do you really think the Saints are going to pick an offensive lineman in the first round when that is one of the strongest areas of their team? They will very likely pick a DT, DE or some other defender who can help stop the run, not an offensive lineman. Maybe they will pick a QB…….on second thought maybe not.

  19. faulkn22 says: Feb 19, 2010 4:49 AM

    Well, you probably got Suh right, I’ll give you that.

  20. Love_Boat_Scandal says: Feb 19, 2010 6:01 AM

    Who cares, Mike? I’m glad you do it. People eat this crap up (me included), and you don’t charge for it. Predict away.
    Kiper and McCliche charge for theirs, and I don’t think they’ve ever work as scouts in their lives. Seriously, they want people to pay to read them write the same thing about every offensive tackle with a 1st round grade: “Here’s a guy who can come in and start from Day 1 and anchor that side of the line for the next 10 years.” How many lineman actually do that?
    Still, talking about the boring NFL offseason still beats talking about spring training.

  21. Rigidy1 says: Feb 19, 2010 7:05 AM

    If people want to jump on Florio for this mock, then they probably shouldn’t be making stupid comments about the decade not being over. The 2000’s are from 2000-2009. Thats a pretty basic concept that you all probably should have looked up before you made a comment about it. It’s the same way a century is set up, or did all of you think that the century started at the year 2001? Florio won’t take your comments seriously because of the ridiculous crap that comes out of your mouths. In fact, I’m sure he often laughs about how stupid a lot of his readers are.

  22. Old Manny of the Mountains says: Feb 19, 2010 7:27 AM

    So do you know why this mock draft (and all mock drafts) doesn’t work? Because drafts ALWAYS have teams that move up or down immediately changing the perceived order of who goes where.
    All these mock drafts show is the top ranked players in the draft.

  23. 31FLAV says: Feb 19, 2010 7:31 AM

    Maybe you should have someone else write for you. Your an idiot.

  24. 8man says: Feb 19, 2010 7:35 AM

    Uh, I’m going to have to side with Florio on this.
    2000 was the first year of the decade. Just like it was the first year of the millenium. When all the numbers change, it’s a new millenium. I mean how can you count the year 2000, which begins with a 2, among a whole bunch of years, well about a 1,000 of ‘em, that began with the number 1?
    Many countries have adopted a standard where the astronomical calendar begins at a year zero.
    Maybe Florio’s using that standard.
    More on this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenium
    There. Now you all have learned something.

  25. RavensFan87 says: Feb 19, 2010 7:43 AM

    Wow all of you are dumb yourself. This is the first draft of the new decade.
    2000- 1 year
    2001 – 2 years
    2002 – 3 years
    2003 – 4 years
    2004 – 5 years
    2005 – 6 years
    2006 – 7 years
    2007 – 8 years
    2008 – 9 years
    2009 – 10th year
    Last i checked 10 years is a decade.

  26. Booster Gold says: Feb 19, 2010 7:44 AM

    You guys do realize this is a new decade!!!
    1990-1999
    2000-2009
    2010-2019
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s

  27. Chapnasty2 says: Feb 19, 2010 7:52 AM

    Cant be anything worse then Kiper, except Kiper gets paid a lot more money to look and sound stupid.

  28. adeem4578 says: Feb 19, 2010 8:05 AM

    i like it

  29. lichnor says: Feb 19, 2010 8:13 AM

    Titans take Clausen?
    I know Young isn’t the second coming, but really? 1st round pick on a QB?
    Dumb.

  30. Marky McFly says: Feb 19, 2010 8:20 AM

    Oh my god, you people are just assholes. OF THE LAST DECADE…It doesnt matter what chunk of time the ten years came in, it could be 2017 and you can still stay “of the last decade” It’s just an easier way of saying “this is the first mock draft we’ve made in ten years” I don’t even like Florio but damn, you people go out of your way to try to sound smarter than the lead writer here. I’ll never understand going out of your way to be an asshole. Never.

  31. parasonic says: Feb 19, 2010 8:28 AM

    yea, whoever is commenting that this is still the 2000’s is F’ing retarded. Under that logic 1990 would be in the 80’s. How stupid are you?

  32. Byrd Is The Word says: Feb 19, 2010 8:41 AM

    Cmon guys. There was no year zero. Referencing Wikipedia? You know anyone without a high school diploma could’ve wrote that, right?
    A decade is 1-10, not 0-9.
    Pop culture and reality are two different things.

  33. florioshairpiece says: Feb 19, 2010 8:53 AM

    It looks like you just picked a bunch of random names so you could omit Tim Tebow from the list. This is how a lawyer says “T.T. won’t be picked in the first round.”
    Also, nice hair.

  34. theblade23 says: Feb 19, 2010 9:16 AM

    I’m checking on it right now, but this may be the worst mock draft I’ve ever seen!!

  35. Rex Grossman says: Feb 19, 2010 9:33 AM

    LOL @ the comments.
    Florio, everybody knows that you don’t really know anything about these prospects yet. Cut the bolonga!

  36. aec4 says: Feb 19, 2010 9:39 AM

    If a decade is 1-10, why did the new century start in 2000 and not 2001? I agree with the premise that the centuries/decades begin on 1s, not 0s, but wasn’t year 0 the year Jesus was born?
    Now onto football.
    Cardinals taking a WR in round 1? REALLY!? A team who is going to shift to running the ball more (you don’t win passing with Matt Leinart) who has Boldin AND Fitzgerald?

  37. The Rural Juror says: Feb 19, 2010 9:42 AM

    Looks better thns most.
    But IMO, if Greshamis on the board at 25 the ravens are taking him. Heap is their only TE right now.

  38. Booster Gold says: Feb 19, 2010 9:47 AM

    Wow, I guess Byrd belongs with the retards. I didn’t know that 1990 was the 80s!!!

  39. Bongo says: Feb 19, 2010 9:50 AM

    So the Bills have no LT, their RT just retired, they are very questionable at QB and they just switched to a 3-4 without the key pieces like NT and you give them the “perfect 4-3 defensive end”. Hmmmmmmm………………..
    You sleepin’ at the wheel, Mike?

  40. Rex Grossman says: Feb 19, 2010 10:32 AM

    I’m just amazed at how many people here don’t understand what a decade is. That alone makes this blurb worth it.

  41. Mr. Beefhead says: Feb 19, 2010 11:39 AM

    I think it’s dumb that you posted a story to let people know you posted a story 20 minutes ago.
    I consider everyone who came to this thread as dumb as the argument of what a decade is.

  42. It puts the lotion on the skin says: Feb 19, 2010 12:03 PM

    HAHAHA, I am sooo tired of people coming out and saying that the decade ends after 2010. Seriously people, you are like the comic book nerds that get pissed when the person playing a comic book character in a movie is taller than the comic book character is in the comic books. Technically, you are correct, but you look like a tool. Remember when the movie Spawn came out, and John Liguizamo played the Clown. He is something like 5’2″ and the character in the comics is 5″1″, and people were protesting……lol, those people also think that 2010 needs to be included in the team of the 2000’s argument….so even though the decade doesnt end until after 2010 in sports, it is accepted that 2010 starts the next decade……
    Decades in sports, have always been judged, the way Florio is judging them. The team of the 70’s is judged based on 1970-1979. The team of the 80’s is judged based on 1980-1989. The team of the 90’s is judged based on 1990-1999. The team of the 2000’s is judged based on 2000-2009……….. If you included 1980 in the 70’s, it wouldnt be the 70’s…. If you included 1990 in the 80’s, it wouldnt be the 80’s, etc…..

  43. Bill In DC says: Feb 19, 2010 6:27 PM

    aec4 says: February 19, 2010 9:39 AM
    If a decade is 1-10, why did the new century start in 2000 and not 2001? I agree with the premise that the centuries/decades begin on 1s, not 0s, but wasn’t year 0 the year Jesus was born?
    ========================
    Umm, no genius. There was no year 0. Jesus was born in the year 1AD, the year before that was 1BC. This is exactly why people are constantly arguing about decades, centuries, and millennia start & end. BTW, we were wrong to celebrate the new millennium on Jan 1st, 2000. The real date was Jan 1st, 2001 otherwise the last millennium only had 999 years.
    It has become socially acceptable to begin centuries/decades on years ending in 0 (2000, 1990, etc) even though they really don’t, it just sounds better.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!