2017 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

7 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I'd say you hope someone wants to jump ahead of Chicago, like the Jets, to get a QB and trade back.

 

Or you force the Bears to move up one spot to secure it and can still slide back a little hoping someone still wants to come up for Watson or Cook.

 

Adam's, Peppers, Hooker are, IMO the best behind Garrett who's been the consensus #1 for everyone for a while.

 

Allen, Barnett and Humphrey should also be in the top 10. Williams too, with the way speed rushers are over values, especially in a draft of one.

 

I wish we lost to the ****ing Bears and were picking at 10.

 

 

Guys trading back isnt an option in this scenario. Who are the best players available after Garrett. If we are stuck with  #2 who are we picking.?

 

Who are the best defensive options after Garrett?

I see you you mentioned 3 names but two of them are safeties. Would we seriously consider drafting a S with the number 2 pick? Are they that good? 

 

[Dukes and Skins]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

We'd be at 10- 12 if we didn't beat the ****ing Bears. Yay feel good win.

 

KB you're my dude and all, but we could play this card for like almost any win this season. What if the Baltimore game ended on that catch, the Philly sack to end the game. I mean there was a very razor thin margin for us between being 11-5 and what we ended up being

1 hour ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

 

 

Guys trading back isnt an option in this scenario. Who are the best players available after Garrett. If we are stuck with  #2 who are we picking.?

 

Who are the best defensive options after Garrett?

I see you you mentioned 3 names but two of them are safeties. Would we seriously consider drafting a S with the number 2 pick? Are they that good? 

 

 

If I had a chance on Malik Hooker at FS I take it and I run with it. 

 

The only other guy I look to take there at 2 is Jonathan Allen

[Bonez3]

Malik Hooker >>> pick than Adams IMO for our team. 

 

Hooker is clearly a FS compared to Adams. Adams seems more fit to the SS role based on what I see. Moot argument since neither will be available, but I started looking at the films today with all the SF trade discussions.

[Peregrine]

We need an out and out ball hawk of a cover man.  A pure free safety.  Nobody who you can consider for SS fits our need.  If you have a question, its the wrong guy.  Strong Safeties we can find, but a guy who can cover sideline to sideline will do wonders for our secondary

[Bonez3]

6 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

We need an out and out ball hawk of a cover man.  A pure free safety.  Nobody who you can consider for SS fits our need.  If you have a question, its the wrong guy.  Strong Safeties we can find, but a guy who can cover sideline to sideline will do wonders for our secondary

Budda Baker jumps off the screen in his films. Guys has CB cover skills, great range and doesn't miss tackles. Frankly, he's my favorite from what I've seen

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

Would we not consider a QB if we had the #2 pick?

[Taylor703]

26 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Would we not consider a QB if we had the #2 pick?

I suspect Trubisky ends up being the top pick so if we did trade with the niners I'd expect us to draft Garrett. 

[Redskins Reparations]

I am concerned about Budda's durability with his size at 5'10" 190lbs. Is he on the same teir as Earl Thomas  (5'10" 200lbs) or Bob Sanders (5'8" 206 lbs)? I don't like the idea of drafting someone that high with size concerns.

[Bonez3]

37 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:

I am concerned about Budda's durability with his size at 5'10" 190lbs. Is he on the same teir as Earl Thomas  (5'10" 200lbs) or Bob Sanders (5'8" 206 lbs)? I don't like the idea of drafting someone that high with size concerns.

 As a free safety with primary responsibility being coverage support, I think he's fine. Plus, he's a sure tackler so he adapted his game to his size. He plays bigger than his measurable. Would be a great pick IMO, kid can fall out play football. Would be kinda exciting to see Cravens/Baker combo.

1 hour ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said:

Would we not consider a QB if we had the #2 pick?

No.... Definitely not if the decision was mine

[The Consigliere]

5 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

We'd be at 10- 12 if we didn't beat the ****ing Bears. Yay feel good win.

 

I'm of the same mindset, if you're gonna miss the playoffs you might as well tank, but what changed my mind a bit this year was how winnable the late game slate was, and how little improvement we'd see in our draft slotting because of it. We weren't picking 10-12 if we beat the bears, the best slot we would have had with a loss to the bears would have been 13th or 14th (can't tell because I can't track down Arizona's strength of schedule, would imagine it was tougher than ours, meaning we'd be 13th but I honestly don't know). The difference in slotting we got with that extra win would have been moving up from 17th to probably 13th or 14th. Better yes, but down the stretch did you really expect us to choke away back to back home games against teams with nothing to play for whom Vegas put us as essentially a TD favorite against (I threw money down on Carolina and NYG money line partly because I didn't trust us, but mostly because I wanted to be paid if my redskins broke my heart for the billionth time in a row since 1993)? I thought it was distinctly possible but unlikely. 

 

What really should get your goat is this: our wins against NYG, and Baltimore, where we almost certainly should have lost (and yes we also have the Dallas and Cincy games we definitely should have won as well to balance them). If we lose at NYG, and lose to Baltimore in a game we largely had no business winning, games very different than that Chicago win were we beat the hell out of the Bears, we'd have been 6-9-1, and in that situation we're picking what, 9th or 10th? That makes a HUGE difference. For me the way I looked at the closing weeks in December was largely a win/win: either we swept through a late game stretch against teams that sucked, or had nothing to play for, and got a playoff push w/a possibility of going far because the conference was so weak (this proved prophetic as the #1, #3, and #4 all went out meekly to some extent w/only Atlanta and Green Bay playing consistently strong football (until today in the latter case), and if we didn't make the playoffs, we'd improve our draft slotting from 21st (or in a likely best case scenario, 25th if we'd won our wild card game before losing at Atlanta). For me, the team building possibilities of a mini-playoff run would be a plus in and of themselves, and the positivity of improving our draft slot a full tier or two by picking at 16 or 17 would also be a positive thing. 

 

I can understand being a bit bummed out about us losing out on landing a perceived sure thing target, but we are pretty lucky that considering team needs, this draft is crazy deep in defense (I've heard multiple people argue the top 25 is 17 or 18 defensive guys deep and that the first round looks like about 21 or 22 defensive guys and about 10 offensive guys), and that the draft even is deep at interior OL and RB, two other need areas. We'll find help if we make the right selections. And McCloughan did a great job of adding a trio of picks to day 3 last spring knowing this draft was loaded and last years sucked. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

12 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I wish we lost to the ****ing Bears and were picking at 10.

We would be picking 13th.

[Koolblue13]

6 hours ago, Darth Tater said:

Well, IF we were bad enough to have lost to the Bears, I highly doubt that pick would fix our needs.  How about if we'd lost to the NYG in the first game or had split with the Eagles?  What about Baltimore or Minnesota?  Record-wise at least, the Giants were obviously the better team.  The Eagles, Baltimore and Minnesota are all pretty much our equals.  Losing to their likes could just have meant we were a mediocre team that got unlucky.  Losing to the Bears would likely indicate we were a bad team that got lucky.

We're a .500 team that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't get lucky. 

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

We would be picking 13th.

Cool, i just remember us having a shot at 10 going into that game.

 

@Dukes and Skins the season was clearly over come the Bears game. We were obviously not a playoff team at that point.

[Darth Tater]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

We're a .500 team that sometimes does and sometimes doesn't get lucky. 

Then we would not have lost to the Bears.  Those other teams?  You'd likely be right.

[Koolblue13]

59 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Then we would not have lost to the Bears.  Those other teams?  You'd likely be right.

We're pretty much good enough to get over those lumps now, which is great.

 

Still, if losing that game would give us a better shot at Hooker,  Adam's or Foster? It would make us a much better team.

[Darth Tater]

Just now, Koolblue13 said:

We're pretty much good enough to get over those lumps now, which is great.

 

Still, if losing that game would give us a better shot at Hooker,  Adam's or Foster? It would make us a much better team.

Nope, not if the loss would mean that we suck.  If we'd lost to the Bears, Foster or Adams would mean ****.  You'd also have to consider all the offensive players and morn the fact we did not lose a whole bunch more to get a shot at a decent QB.

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, Darth Tater said:

Nope, not if the loss would mean that we suck.  If we'd lost to the Bears, Foster or Adams would mean ****.  You'd also have to consider all the offensive players and morn the fact we did not lose a whole bunch more to get a shot at a decent QB.

We'd be a .500 team anyway.

[Darth Tater]

37 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

We'd be a .500 team anyway.

We would not have a 500 record.  So we would be a 7-8-1 suck team that got lucky and beat a few good teams.

[theboomking]

Does Scott have any history of trading up to land the prospect he wants? Malik Hooker would look too good in our secondary. 

[Koolblue13]

2 hours ago, Darth Tater said:

We would not have a 500 record.  So we would be a 7-8-1 suck team that got lucky and beat a few good teams.

7- 8/8- 7 whatever. You really think that one game defined us as a good team, instead of a bad team? Okay. I saw we're mediocre. Average. Middle of the road. We scare nobody , but can't be overlooked. 

 

We've got almost no playmakers. We won 1 game without Reed. The better the draft pick, the closer to play makers We are. 

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

So to sum up if we had the #2 pick it would be 

 

1. Jarrett if he didn't go 1

2. John Allen

3. Malik Hooker

4. Adams

 

Surprised there aren't more stud defensive players at the top of this draft.

 

If we did pull the trigger I'd like it to look something like this

17' #2 1st round & 3rd round

18' 2nd round & 3rd round

 

is this crazy? Not enough? Too much?

it is a QB.. 

[squatch66]

1 hour ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

If we did pull the trigger I'd like it to look something like this

17' #2 1st round & 3rd round

18' 2nd round & 3rd round

 

is this crazy? Not enough? Too much?

it is a QB.. 

 

I doubt it would happen, but if the Niners were to offer that I think you have to at least think about it...

 

I've been thinking about this lately. Recent history has shown that an increasing number of QB's have come from the 2nd round or later (Kirk, Wilson, Carr, Dak, Dalton). I'd say draft one for a couple years straight, let them sit and learn, and then compete.

 

If we did trade Cousins then that's 2 1s, 2 2s, and 4 3s over the next two years. Use a couple of those nice early 2nd/3rds to get a couple of young guys in here. Or, use some of that ammo to try to move up to 1 to get Rosen.

 

Scott could easily use all those early picks to draft a strong defense and running game that every young qb needs to lean on. 

 

Again, this will never happen. Just my opinion on how I would do this in Madden lol

[Conn]

Edit: wrong thread

[Going Commando]

If we traded Kirk to get the second overall pick, you take a quarterback.  You only make that trade to replace Kirk with another QB.

 

If you don't have a QB, then you have nothing.  You're wasting a season of the careers of all your players and postponing the beginning of your rebuild.  And if we traded Kirk, we wouldn't have a QB.

You don't trade your quarterback to take a ****ing safety.  That is a terrible idea.

[Koolblue13]

4 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

If we traded Kirk to get the second overall pick, you take a quarterback.  You only make that trade to replace Kirk with another QB.

 

If you don't have a QB, then you have nothing.  You're wasting a season of the careers of all your players and postponing the beginning of your rebuild.  And if we traded Kirk, we wouldn't have a QB.

You don't trade your quarterback to take a ****ing safety.  That is a terrible idea.

I don't think it's the year for a first round QB though. If everything else can be fixed or close to it, while remaining competitive,  it puts the team in a much better position down the road. Similar to the cowboys success this season or the 49ers and Seahawks a few years back.

 

Currently,  any success we have hinges on Kirk and Reed. That's it.

 

Like I said in the correct thread for this discussion. In the course of the next 5 years. Are we a better team if we have Kirk or a strong defense and running game?

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I don't think it's the year for a first round QB though. If everything else can be fixed or close to it, while remaining competitive,  it puts the team in a much better position down the road. Similar to the cowboys success this season or the 49ers and Seahawks a few years back.

 

Currently,  any success we have hinges on Kirk and Reed. That's it.

 

Like I said in the correct thread for this discussion. In the course of the next 5 years. Are we a better team if we have Kirk or a strong defense and running game?

 

It's not an either/or situation.  There is no guarantee we'll have a strong defense and running game by letting Kirk go and not replacing him.  The only guarantee is that we'll suck in the short term, Jay will get fired, and we'll kick off yet another full rebuild, and McCloughan's leash will be tightened considerably--if he survived the transition.

 

Nor is it a guarantee that we won't be able to field a good defense and running game with Kirk.  In fact, it's much easier to build those things when you already have a great offense because you have a good quarterback.

 

You've got to have a QB.  If you don't, you have a pointless team that can't actually compete and you are literally wasting the season.  The Cowboys, 49ers, and Seahawks all had quarterbacks when they good.  When they didn't, they were bad.

 

And if you don't like any of the first round QBs in this class, then there should be no way in Hell you want to trade Kirk.  Because trading him to replace him with a rookie is absolutely the only plan that wouldn't lead to nonsensical, self-inflicted disaster.  And yet it still might if your rookie doesn't pan out.

 

We've been looking for a QB like Kirk for 25 years.  It is bizarre to see this fan base's attitude about him, treating him as if he's expendable.  I can only imagine that's because the team has been without a good QB for so long that the fans don't understand what good quarterbacking looks like, nor the impact that it has.