2017 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

[wilco_holland]

My God.  You guys don't expect me to write these long posts...right? 

 

For us I'm waiting for a early 2 rounder to rise the next months. Like Davis from Florida. That type of player. 

[nemocystem]

@Monk4thaHALL

 

yeah...i mean we're both over-generalizing with the assumption that everyone here has a working knowledge of what we're talking about, so i'm gonna chalk most of this up to that.  no need to get hyperbolic about each other's assessments.  i'm not really interested all that much in sword-playing over prospects, but i do enjoy the civil discourse we often enjoy on this board.

 

i definitely think you're over-exaggerating my comments, but i lack the energy to get bent over it.  so...c'est la vie.  

 

some things are definitely my fault for trying to rush a thought out from the pooper on my smartphone...but if we care to go over specifics we can do that.  i will say that i posted a bit of a play-by-play earlier in this topic, so that's there...if it helps.  

 

one thing for sure is that i don't mean to say he's analogous to Foster the player, but rather Foster, the position/expectation.  could have just summed it up as "thumper," which i agree, Foster is certainly that.  

 

as i don't really care to address the other stuff, we'll just move along with our different opinions.

 

hey...Melvin Gordon is looking good though!

 

on another note...i had not wanted to look at QB's all that much to this point.  now with all the possibilities being discussed i simply won't rule it out......so i think i'll get into some of that tape next, but i'm not all that excited about it.

 

i think Cunningham/Foster is just a topic that will have to be shelved for me.  same with Hooker/Adams.  see very little point in arguing either except that in each case, one is better vs pass game than the other, & one better vs the run.  i think this we can all agree on.  either way...happy with all 4 options.

 

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Back to Scot.  He didn't give me any smoking gun as to the draft.  But the most interesting thing that I got out of him talking about the draft was he flat out told me there is a position in the draft he really really really really wanted to fix.    He explained to me that he wanted to draft a player at said position in the last draft in the 2nd round but that player was taken before his pick.  And without getting into that part of the conversation -- I got a strong sense that this time, it won't be oh well we will get a guy next year at said position if the draft doesn't flow.  There is a clear determination and fixation on that position.  And when I hear certain beat reporters being asked about the draft saying the same thing -- I take it VERY seriously.  Because Scot made it clear he's laser beam focused on a particular position.  

 

I feel like this d-line group is a little lackluster.

 

Anyways, time to play GUESSING GAME!  Who was the player Scot was talking about?  Let's assume it was for the d-line.  I'm going with Chris Jones.  He was picked 16 spots before us in the 2nd round.  #37 compared to our #53.  If we'd have to go closer, I'm guessing it's who Seattle took.  Jarran Reed.

[RemoveSnyder]

5 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Let me start with you can take or leave everything here.

 

I've read everything you've posted on the subject of lunch prior to this. I'm not questioning the validity of accuracy of yours or any media insiders regurgitation of what McC has said, or otherwise implied, during yours, or theirs, personal dialogues. 

 

I am however pointing out something very specific in relation to last year's 1st round selection, the position, and correlating to last year's defensive line class in general. But more specifically, the ES explanation concerning the justification of philosophy. 

 

You didn't answer my question though. Which selection is Finley (or yourself) generally referencing in relation to Wormely? 1st round, 2nd round, or later? 

It matters. You can provide your opinion if you'd like. I'll probably provide mine. 

 

I ask because I don't rely upon, even if valid, even if legitimate, even if coming from a Pro's opinion in order to form my eval of a player. Or, I should say, I try my best to not allow it to drastically alter my take on a player, particularly if it's contrary to my opinion. I don't jump 180 because so-and-so bigwig said so. 

I, like you, don't have a problem disagreeing with McC. I actually enjoyed that part of your account. 

 

Not that what I think matters at all. I just enjoy the exercise of doing my own work and having my own convictions. It's fun for me. 

 

It's nice to hear that from your perceptions McC's hair is on fire concerning the defensive line. Shame that urgency wasn't there last year, to the same extent you express it now from your observations. Not for anything other than this year, perhaps, the task would not be so gargantuan. So that it wouldn't be such a reallyx1,000,000,000 big deal, as you put it. Maybe that makes sense. 

 

You've implied that come hell or high water he's not going to miss out on the player he wants for d-line this year. I assume that when you recounted this part of his "remorse," or "frustration" in not being able to get the d-lineman he had wanted in the 2nd round last year, that he, at that time, also believed then that the d-line was the weakest part of the defense? 

 

Certainly he didn't think that our receiving corps was the weakest unit on the team last year, right? 

 

It's just interesting to me how people are framing this discussion as it relates to what is the most urgent deficiency on the defense. I have my own opinion. If I had the opportunity to have lunch with McC as you did, I would not be shy about voicing my opinion concerning the talent with both our starting LBs. If he disagreed with me as he did you, vis--a-vis pass rush, I'd probably revert to my Annandale High state champion film study poker face. 

 

Let's just hope that by jamming this one home he gets the right guy. 

 

Lastly, do you recall any of our convos last year, prior to the draft, concerning the d-line class?

There is some pertinent information, even philosophical stuff, relating to how we each viewed the priority of drafting d-line last year.

 

I do find it interesting when people told me last year that you couldn't just force a d-line selection because yadda yadda BPA, yet here we're having a discussion where the notion of jamming a d-line selection is justified because of how poor the unit is according to the man's own interpretation and positional importance valuation, from a unit that he himself has built over the last two seasons. Including the act of not jamming home a d-line selection last year. 

 

Anyway, I always enjoy a good "diatribe" with you, guy. Joking. 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

I feel like this d-line group is a little lackluster.

 

Anyways, time to play GUESSING GAME!  Who was the player Scot was talking about?  Let's assume it was for the d-line.  I'm going with Chris Jones.  He was picked 16 spots before us in the 2nd round.  #37 compared to our #53.  If we'd have to go closer, I'm guessing it's who Seattle took.  Jarran Reed.

 

Lets assume its D line, too hypothetically speaking.    Yeah it would be I'd gather between J. Reed, C. Jones, A Robinson, A. Johnson.   I'd guess like you in that case it would be either C. Jones or J. Reed.    I think C. Jones fits the profile I think he likes a little more.   Jones can provide some pass rush.  Reed is more of a pure run stuffer.   

 

Listening to him talk about the roster, talk about the draft and his response to me asking about a specific player -- coupled with some of the stuff the beat reporters are saying.  I'd put money on this point, if Scot had to pick a dream player for the defense it would be Aaron Donald.   I am not saying that because he's arguably the best defensive player in the NFL but I mean more as to a player like him stylistically.   At the moment a guy like Solomon Thomas seems to be closest to that profile -- can play 5 technique, rush the passer, and stop the run.  I know easier said then done to find guys in that mode.   Though Manusky's throwing out NT in his press conference makes me think a Jareen Reed type might be on the shopping list, too.

[RemoveSnyder]

5 hours ago, SkinsTillIDie said:

There's a fallacy in considering "BPA" that all positions have equal value. If you believe that defensive linemen and corners have a bigger impact on the game than inside linebackers -- as McCloughan and Manusky clearly do -- a defensive lineman with a rating of '88' has more value than an inside linebacker with '91' rating.

 

And given that there's no certainty that any given pick or prospect will actually play out as expected (no one plans to draft a bust), it's wisest to spend your best resources on the positions you value most over the course of whatever 3-4 year plan you have. In waiting for FA and the draft to 'come to him,' he's missed on the defensive line in two consecutive offseasons. There's 0% chance he lets that happen again. If anything, he's going to make up for lost time, given our barren cupboard of young, starting-quality talent.

 

As this was piggybacking off of a convo I was having with Paradise, I wasn't sure if you were implying some fallacy I was extolling.  

I however have never said that each position should be graded with equal importance nor that I try to produce some Madden-esque overall grade.

 

I have often rebuffed the notion that comparing two players of different positions is anything but a pinch of kentucky windage. I also rejected the warrant of "reaching" that many leveled at the selection of Scherff, who I supported and promoted as worthy of the 5th overall selection. From a less sexy position and perhaps not nearly the same level of athlete that the more hype centric positions held in that draft, Scherff was not a consensus ES high-five. 

 

Though the analogy you provided here is interesting to me, so I thought I'd arc from it. 

To bring your theoretical 88 rated D-Lineman and the 91 rated ILB into a more real life example, do you believe McC's philosophy was the same last year as you have stated it is now currently? 

 

As you wrote in the post above: "If you believe that defensive linemen and corners have a bigger impact on the game than inside linebackers -- as McCloughan and Manusky clearly do -- a defensive lineman with a rating of '88' has more value than an inside linebacker with '91' rating" -- how would that philosophy relate to this example I'm providing -- When we have our 91 rated WR in Doctson versus our 88 rated D-Lineman (whether that's Jones or Reed), does that mean that McC believed that WR had a bigger impact on the game than Defensive Linemen? 

 

As you can see what I'm getting at here, it has been put forth that McC has frustration over not getting "his" d-lineman of choice in last year's 2nd round. He now, according to the mythos, believes that d-line is the most pressing deficiency on the defense.

 

So for him to pass on the 88 rated D-Lineman who went some 15ish selections after he picked a WR, despite it being stated that his philosophy believes that the d-line is the most important unit to the defense, he surely must have thought that WR was positionally more important than d-line, right?

 

I mean your example justifies a lesser rated D-lineman than a higher rater ILB per the philosophy. Why didn't that apply last year?

Or did he simply miscalculate on a pretty large scale? Because it's now being described as if his hair on fire concerning the subject. 

 

Interesting convo. 

[RemoveSnyder]

1 hour ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

I'm going with Chris Jones.  He was picked 16 spots before us in the 2nd round.  #37 compared to our #53.  If we'd have to go closer, I'm guessing it's who Seattle took.  Jarran Reed.

 

Probably was Jones because there was an inordinate amount of chatter from the media "regulars," calling his name right after Ryan Kelly. Don't marginalize the fact that seattle actually traded up to get Reed. Now, the fact that I liked Reed has no bearing on anything, but if I had "reached" for a d-line guy there, that's who I would have gone for. Statistically Reed has produced equally or better than the guys selected some 20 slots before he. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, the difference between #22 and #37 is nothing, really. I also wanted Javon Hargrave last year. McC did select Ioannidis, so that one aligned. 

 

 

[nemocystem]

So we're going after Dontari Poe?  Lol...j/k...but yeah.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

I wonder if McCloughan already thinks the NT of the future is on the roster.  Matt Ioannidis.  He was drafted at 299, gained weight and is now listed on the roster at 308, and coaches (and the player himself) have said he's wanted to be at 315 minimum.  They keep referring to him as someone who can line up at the Nose.  Although we've got a brand new DLine coach, so who knows what he thinks about Ioannidis.

 

If McCloughan thought Chris Jones was going to fall to #53, ouch.  He seriously devalues the DL.  I was surprised he didn't go in the 1st.  But given that his teams lately have rarely drafted a DT higher before Day 3, and that doesn't surprise me.

 

If we get someone like Brandon Williams or Hankins in free agency while re-signing Baker.  I'll be happy with wherever McCloughan drafts a DT.  He did draft Ricky Jean Francois in the 7th round, and while not a starting caliber player, he's nonetheless been a terrific selection for a 7th rounder.

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

You didn't answer my question though. Which selection is Finley (or yourself) generally referencing in relation to Wormely? 1st round, 2nd round, or later? 

It matters. You can provide your opinion if you'd like. I'll probably provide mine. 

 

I ask because I don't rely upon, even if valid, even if legitimate, even if coming from a Pro's opinion in order to form my eval of a player. Or, I should say, I try my best to not allow it to drastically alter my take on a player, particularly if it's contrary to my opinion. I don't jump 180 because so-and-so bigwig said so. 

I, like you, don't have a problem disagreeing with McC. I actually enjoyed that part of your account. 

 

It's just interesting to me how people are framing this discussion as it relates to what is the most urgent deficiency on the defense. I have my own opinion. If I had the opportunity to have lunch with McC as you did, I would not be shy about voicing my opinion concerning the talent with both our starting LBs. If he disagreed with me as he did you, vis--a-vis pass rush, I'd probably revert to my Annandale High state champion film study poker face. 

 

Let's just hope that by jamming this one home he gets the right guy. 

 

Lastly, do you recall any of our convos last year, prior to the draft, concerning the d-line class?

There is some pertinent information, even philosophical stuff, relating to how we each viewed the priority of drafting d-line last year.

 

I do find it interesting when people told me last year that you couldn't just force a d-line selection because yadda yadda BPA, yet here we're having a discussion where the notion of jamming a d-line selection is justified because of how poor the unit is according to the man's own interpretation and positional importance valuation, from a unit that he himself has built over the last two seasons. Including the act of not jamming home a d-line selection last year. 

 

Anyway, I always enjoy a good "diatribe" with you, guy. Joking. 

 

It came back to me.   Yeah I was on Treadwell then later Doctson (though you don't recall me switching to Doctson but if you look at the last post before the draft, I posted him as my top choice for our pick ).  You were going on and on about D line is so loaded you got to take one.  Correct me if I am wrong. 

 

If so, yeah think of everything you said, its relevant now.  It's not that I think Scot regrets who he drafted.  It was clear to me for example he loves both Doctson and Cravens.  I just sense its a different attitude in year 3 for him.  Last year he was still trying to load up the roster any way possible.  This off season I sensed he wants to fix the remaining holes.  And he does see one hole is grand canyon size big.   Even though I covered a lot with him -- the vibe I got on the grand canyon size hole was my biggest takeaway.  

 

As for pushing my agenda with Scot.  I did do that a little.   I've always had concerns about the Kirk situation, ironically.  So I put in my 2 cents on it with him and told him what I thought about entrusting this offense to Colt McCoy and I made that point in strong terms.   When I asked him about Galette, he turned it back jokingly on my brother in law who was with me and asked him what to do about Galette.  I gave him my opinion, too.  I didn't sense he agreed with me.  I don't think he'd mind me saying that he wasn't sure what to do about him.  I told him I liked Jay but I hated when Jay talked about each game is going to be a nail bitter.  Ironically, in retrospect I was glued into Scot, I found it annoying when one guy crashed on our conversation twice -- Greg Manusky.  

 

I had no interest in Manusky but he wanted to chat (very social guy) so I made some small talk about Florida and he knew the area I was from.  Then he joked with my kids who were there with me, too.  I was only half paying attention to him but it was clear to me he's one zany dude, he had Scot laughing.  And then when he left, Scot said he's a great guy.  I could have in retrospect probably talked ball with  Manusky but I had no interest.   In retrospect, I should have. 

 

As for MLB I think you picked up my vibe.  I didn't ask him about his interest in drafting MLB.   But got to my take on it by learning what he thought about the MLBs on the roster, and then a side conversation about P. Willis.  The main thought I came out on this front,  was clearly he thought it could be improved on but it didn't feel code red to me.  Maybe it evolved to code red afterward.  I don't know.  I spoke to him before the Vikings game.  The team defensively really fell off a cliff more dramatically later in the season.  I think he might be intoxicated by a Patrick Willis MLB type a guy that can change a defense.  But I'd be surprised if he used a first rounder on a MLB he didn't think was great.   I didn't feel an antsy vibe about that position.  But again Manusky was a MLB -- maybe for that reason it would be tempting for him to groom a guy?

 

As for your takes on players and everyone else here.  I enjoy reading them.   Ditto especially A-Zebra and SMQ.  It's my favorite thread by a mile in the off season.  I get your point now I believe which is should we take JP Finley's and or the media's point of view on a player?  If so, my point was stronger (more pointed) than that.  I don't really think Finley gave much of a take on the player.  What I took seriously was in radio interviews he's referencing that he's heard these guys being mentioned (gave the vibe via Redskins Park).    And based on what Finley has said before on things related to the draft I find him plugged in on that issue.   So if he's hearing McDowell and Wormley.  I take that these guys are sincerely in the soup of who they are considering at the moment.   And these guys happen to fit a certain profile that makes sense to me...

 

And for the big film guys like yourself I don't think you'd be wasting time to look at guys like Brantley, J. Johnson, Wormley, Mcdowell.  I think (but don't know) he'd love Solomon Thomas.  He did tell me at the time when I spoke to him he saw Stanford play in person recently. 

 

 

 

[RemoveSnyder]

1 hour ago, nemocystem said:

@Monk4thaHALL

 

i think Cunningham/Foster is just a topic that will have to be shelved for me.  

 

Basically, with each player's limitations in view, I'm prone to err in getting the most physical guy for the "MLB" position. For me that's Foster. That doesn't mean that I think Cunningham is soft. And I'm willing to own the scrutiny or jibing that comes with perhaps being wrong on Foster. 

 

Remember the whole, "they'll feel us?" Well, I know damn sure that RBs have felt Foster. I want that. I want teams to know that we have a LB who pop you in the mouth. And I look at his mannerisms after he gets a big hit, it's not taunting, it's not trash talking, it's exuberance that seems to permeate those guys around him. Foster at full speed gets me giddy. 

 

I have Cunningham with a 2nd round grade, doesn't mean I'm anywhere near right there. I fully appreciate how fluidly he moves and how seemingly adept he is at picking up routes. I've had a few whimsical fantasies where one could double dip Foster then Cunningham, back to back. I really would have embraced Jaimie Collins as the pass coverage ILB, but as you know he's staying in Cleveland. 

[Dukes and Skins]

I think I've caught the itch and you all are bringing me back into watching film again.....

[RemoveSnyder]

13 minutes ago, Dukes and Skins said:

I think I've caught the itch and you all are bringing me back into watching film again.....

 

Saddle up partner, it's time for the showdown.

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

 

I mean your example justifies a lesser rated D-lineman than a higher rater ILB per the philosophy. Why didn't that apply last year?

Or did he simply miscalculate on a pretty large scale? Because it's now being described as if his hair on fire concerning the subject. 

 

Interesting convo. 

 

I think in different ways your point is on the money and ditto Skinstilldie.  You were using the first round to expound on your point.   Now, I don't know one way or another as for what he was thinking in the first.  I didn't ask him about it.  He did tell me he wanted Doctson and not Fuller but that all I covered on the first. 

 

Though there seemed to be some smoke at the time he was considering Ryan Kelly and to a lesser extent K. Joseph. Both players ironically went before the Redskins pick.    If you look at Scot's previous drafts if I recall the two positions he drafts the most are WR and CB.  What he told me about Doctson is he thinks he's Dez Bryant. So he thinks pretty highly of the dude.  I think there was likely a big enough gap between Doctson and lets say J. Reed in the first round.  I gather in the 2nd round the value of the D lineman were more interesting to him.

 

Priorities and values of positions I think can change from year to year.  To use a food analogy analogy, If I went to steak house 4 weeks in a row.  I might be craving Italian that next week and value it higher.   I doubt Scot abandons a BPA approach so I agree its an interesting puzzle.  The simplest way to solve it is deal with it in FA.  And then do whatever you want in the draft.    But its clear to me a lot of time has been spent on studying one position on the draft -- that I'd be surprised if a player from that position isn't taken early in the draft.

 

Referring back to your question about Wormley.  I have watched a few games of his on draftbreakdown.  But honestly I am not as confident as some here about giving strong-definitive assessment of players.  Though I do so anyway from time to time.  I recall doing it for K. Joseph for example last year.  So I sort of approach the draft like I do with the stock market.  I read someone else's take.  Then look at it myself.  Then try to read lots of people's take to get an overall consensus.  Then weigh my opinion with all of that.  There are some draft geeks I trust above others like DJ.    And that's the same for where players are going to land.  

 

Judging by current mocks, Wormley falls anywhere from mid-to late first round into the 2nd round.    I find that his profile fits that type of player Scot likes.  He tends to draft more from the SEC and Big Ten.  He likes seniors.  He likes leaders.  He for example on the surface at least fits a Scot player profile a little more than McDowell.

[RemoveSnyder]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

There are some draft geeks I trust above others like DJ.    

Judging by current mocks, Wormley falls anywhere from mid-to late first round into the 2nd round.    

 

So, my first impression on the first three game cut-ups I watched on Wormley, I said 3rd round. Just shootin' from the hip. I really wasn't impressed.

 

I then saw the Wisconsin tape, I believe, and I was more impressed with his strength and control at the POA. But I still wasn't overly impressed with the whole package. Good here and there against the run, then inexplicably a run play just goes right around him. I didn't see much when it came to pass rush, individually speaking. I did account for the scheme utilization. The sacks came from stunting and blitzing where he cleaned something up or where the QB tucked the ball instead of getting the ball out on time. That's how I saw it.

 

When I looked at the '15 games I felt like his POA strength stood out more there, so while I was fighting mu first impression, I had to bump him up into the 2nd. But after the first two games I was like, excuse the parlance, "jag." 

 

I moved him up becuase I do appreciate the idea that the team needs to stop the run better and if he's a utilitarian to hel that effort, then so be it. You need grunts. It's just hard for me to value that in the Top 50, and I don't. 

 

Anyway, here's Daniel Jerimeiah's Top 50 list, and coincidentally neither Wormley nor Cunningham are listed in the Top 50. I have to agree with that. I also agree with his assessment of Foster. I think Foster can have an equal impact to the entire D as some are purporting with Solomon T. 

 

Honestly, I mentioned it before, if Foster were available at #9, I'd actually want to move up. 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000775479/article/daniel-jeremiahs-top-50-prospects-for-2017-nfl-draft

Quote

 

7

Reuben Foster - LB, Alabama
 

 

Foster has slimmed down in the last year but still has ideal height and bulk for the position. This is one of the most explosive inside linebackers I've evaluated in the last five years. Against the run, he attacks the line of scrimmage. He uses his quickness and hands to avoid traffic and get to the ball carrier. His lateral range is off the charts and he arrives with bad intentions. He can uncoil his hips on contact, and he delivered splatter-shot tackles in every game I viewed. In pass coverage, he has the speed and agility to line up and mirror tight ends and running backs. He has average instincts in zone coverage. Overall, this is a difference-making linebacker capable of earning Pro Bowl recognition very early in his career.

 

 

I find that his profile fits that type of player Scot likes.

 

You know who likes Wormley? Scott Campbell. It fits his lunchpale, hardhat prototype. That's my theory. It just fits the kind of blase Murphy type guy.  

 

 

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, Dukes and Skins said:

I think I've caught the itch and you all are bringing me back into watching film again.....

YES!!!

[Skinsinparadise]

46 minutes ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

 

 

 

Anyway, here's Daniel Jerimeiah's Top 50 list, and coincidentally neither Wormley nor Cunningham are listed in the Top 50. I have to agree with that. I also agree with his assessment of Foster. I think Foster can have an equal impact to the entire D as some are purporting with Solomon T. 

 

Honestly, I mentioned it before, if Foster were available at #9, I'd actually want to move up. 

You know who likes Wormley? Scott Campbell. It fits his lunchpale, hardhat prototype. That's my theory. It just fits the kind of blase Murphy type guy.  

 

 

 

Good stuff.  I did see that in DJ's mock.  Bucky Brooks (DJ's partner on some broadcasts) has Wormley as the 2nd best DT. I am not saying to be stuck on Wormley by the way.  When I watched him a little ironically the guy who jumped out to me was his partner in crime Taco Charlton.  I wasn't zoned in on Charlton but he was hard to miss on some plays.   IMO guys who are frequently mentioned in the first and 2nd round conversation are likely very relevant to being on the radar.  It could be Brantley.  M. Mcdowell. Solomon Thomas.  Carlos Watkins (who doesn't make DJ's top 50 either) or pick the guy that fits the profile. 

 

Scot told me he doesn't like to trade up.  He has said the same publicly multiple times.  But to play with a hypothetical, my guess is if he thought for example that Solomon Thomas was really special, he'd be more inclined to trade up for him then he would for Foster if he felt likewise about him.  I could be wrong about that.   If he sees Foster as a great-dominant MLB and by some chance he falls to #17, he'd probably take him.  My sense (and this is making an educated guess since he didn't say this directly) to go MLB in the first round he needs to be special or crystal clear BPA.   

 

Edit:  I was thinking back on the Manusky 980 interview.  And Scot likes to say he aims to please his coaches and fill their needs.  Manusky might be a game changer to a degree on the shopping list.  Manusky really stressed that he comes at the job summoning his MLB mentality of stopping the run and he flat out said stopping the run is his #1 priority.  That's different from what I recall about Barry who talked about 1 gap and attacking.  Reading about Manusky he seems to like to blitz and attack that way but he gives a strong vibe he wants some strong run stoppers -- I'd presume out of the D line, MLB.  If Foster is off the charts in that regard -- coupled with Manusky being an ex-MLB -- it doesn't seem far fetched to me, that they'd go there.  But I'd still be surprised if they traded up.  And judging by mocks (granted they are questionable and not the be all and end all) Foster is unlikely to be there at #17.

[AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy]

9 hours ago, Monk4thaHALL said:

Cam wants you to feel his hit and he puts his facemask in the strike zone then unleashes the shoulders and arms in a fluid wrap like a cresting wave.

 

In my opinion, Cunningham would be a good complimentary player to Reuben Foster. But you prioritize Foster ahead of Cunn. If Foster was the hammer, the run enforcer, then Cunn would be a compliment to that, with his athleticism to run with routes, and therefore you'd have a duo with well rounded abilities. Cunning ham would be fine for me in the 2nd round, like #50 to #65, not at #17. 

That first sentence sounds so sexy.

 

Foster and Cunningham would be a dynamite duo.  Kinda of a Wagner/KJ Wright thing.  For me, we have to replace both starting ILBs this season.  

 

Not to bring FA too much into the convo, but they are of course inseparable.  I doubt we draft two LBs in consecutive rounds, so what kind of a draft/FA pairing do you see as a possibility if we drafted a ILB in the early rounds.  For example, would you think a Foster/Timmons duo would work well together in terms of skillsets?  Or maybe Foster/ZBrown?  Or who might fit well with Cunningham?  Or with Jarrad Davis?  

[DC Lumber Co.]

Anyone else starting to hope that we trade down? If so, what players falling could warrant a team to call us up? A qb like Trubisky or Watson? A running back which scot has shown a history of not taking in the 1st round?

 

I just think the value and strength of this class is late 1st through the 3rd and 4th rounds. I feel like #17 is borderline too high for a lot of our GMSM prototypical player targets besides Malik McDowell and Rueben Foster. If we were able to some how trade down to the late 1st/top 5 in the 2nd while picking up multiple 2-4th round picks we could legitimately fix our defense in one draft meanwhile making any of the selections align with BPA.

 

For example the following are all prospects who would likely still be available in a trade back scenario that fit the GMSM mold (seniors, big, nasty, "football players") : 

 

ILB: Jarrad Davis, Haasan Reddick (cats out of the bag on his potential, no way he lasts to #17 in the 2nd round), Duke Riley

 

DL: Wormley(think hes a reach at #17 overall), Carlos Watkins, Caleb Brantley, Elijah Qualls, Jaleel Johnson, Dalvin Tomlinson (feel like hes the perfect 3-down nose prospect for us), Tanoh Kpassagnon, Jarron Jones, Montravius Adams, Daeshon Hall

 

CBs: Cordrea Tankersley, Tre'Davious White, Cam Sutton, Jourdan Lewis, Rasul Douglas

 

FS: Budda Baker, Desmond King, Justin Evans, Marcus Maye, Obi Melifonwu

 

The rest of the higher rated DBs we'd be missing out on are underclassmen who we likely wouldnt target anyways and the elite D-lineman will be long gone (allen, garrett, solomon) before 17th overall.

 

I just think a trade back makes too much sense for how stacked this draft is at our most needed positions unless we are in love with, and 110% sure of either Foster or McDowell.

 

From the tape ive watched so far my mancrushes are: Wormley, Reddick, Dalvin Tomlinson, Montravious, Rasul Douglas, Damontae Kazee. And with a trade down its a possibility we could draft all of them with our 1st through 5th(s). Only position that wouldn't be addressed is FS. That would be one hell of a draft.

 

What do yall think? Anyone else high on Douglas and Kazee? What would be your favorite combination of the players I listed?

[Butters20]

@DC Lumber Co.

 

I think there is a significant possibility we trade down as well.

 

The caveat being, there are probably 3-4 players that could potentially be available at 17 that I think would have us staying put(unless we get a trade offer to move down just a few spots).

 

If those few players aren't available, I think we seriously consider moving back and acquiring a few extra round 2-4 picks.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, DC Lumber Co. said:

Anyone else starting to hope that we trade down? If so, what players falling could warrant a team to call us up? A qb like Trubisky or Watson? A running back which scot has shown a history of not taking in the 1st round?

 

I just think the value and strength of this class is late 1st through the 3rd and 4th rounds. I feel like #17 is borderline too high for a lot of our GMSM prototypical player targets besides Malik McDowell and Rueben Foster. If we were able to some how trade down to the late 1st/top 5 in the 2nd while picking up multiple 2-4th round picks we could legitimately fix our defense in one draft meanwhile making any of the selections align with BPA.

 

 

 

I feel the same way but I go back and forth because the draft could fall our way.  Looking at different mocks and playing around with it myself.  It actually might be a good spot for a BPA.   It seems like its possible that a big time player falls to 17.  Just about every draft there are some surprise picks at the top half.  I think the key is for 3 Qbs and 3 CBs to go in the first 16 picks which I see in some mocks.  It's not a reach IMO.  The key is for SF (Trubsiky) and Cleveland (Watson) to snag one and maybe Buffalo/Jets (Kizer)?.   Its possible 2 Wrs are gone with Mike Williams and Corey Davis.   If that happens it leaves 8 left among:

 

Myles Garrett -- given he's gone

Jonathan Allen -- given he's gone

Leonard Fournette -- probably gone

Solomon Thomas -- probably gone

Jamal Adams -- very likely gone

Malik Hooker -- very likely gone

Dalvin Cook -- probably gone

Reuben Foster -- likely gone

Derek Barnett -- probably gone

 

 

In that scenario one of these guys would drop to #17.  If T.  McKinley is all that some say he's cracked up to be.  He might be an attractive option, too. 

[wilco_holland]

Put this guy on the Scot Mc watch list:

 

Former Walk-on became on of there leaders on D. 

 

Haason Reddick, ILB, Temple

I had several scouting friends of mine asking me if I had seen Reddick. I had and loved what I saw. At 6-foot-1 and 237 pounds, he rushed the quarterback, where he's comfortable, and showed he could play in coverage, both in man and zone. And in team drills he was everywhere. For a guy most consider a "tweener" he made a big statement on Wednesday. He's an ultra-versatile player. If you think of Lawrence Timmons -- and I'm not saying Reddick is Timmons -- he came out of Florida State 10 years ago as an explosive guy the Steelers put in their 3-4 scheme as a inside WILL (weakside) linebacker. They use him as a cover guy but also they bring him on the rush in certain situations. That's where I think Reddick fits. I've been told he'll test well, too, at the combine and his pro day. His arrow is pointed way up from what I've seen here.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000779227/article/senior-bowl-mike-mayocks-day-2-practice-stars

[JamesMadisonSkins]

13 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

 

Haason Reddick, ILB, Temple

 

Just checked CBS Sports and they've got him #38 prospect and listed as OLB ... so if he's a riser, it's likely into the 1st round or 2nd at least.

[mistertim]

Trading down pretty much all depends on who is left on the board and how they rate them. There are certain guys that we just KNOW will be off the board but others are likely but still possible, especially after the combine and workouts, etc. I'd take Thomas or Foster at 17 easily, and you'd at the very least have to think very hard about taking Fournette if he's there. I'm still super intrigued by McDowell as well and he seems to be a bit more in the mold of SM's physical traits...long and uses his long arms and hands really well to keep blockers off of him.

[CTskin]

I bring nothing to the table in this conversation, but thank you guys for the tremendous insight. Can you point me in the direction of these film cutups you speak of? Would love to see what you're seeing. Also, I know it's a big ask, but being that some of your posts appear to be very time consuming as it is, I'm wondering if you can create a list of player rankings by position as the draft draws nearer. 

 

Random question about a random player- Andrew Billings. I remember he was a 1st/2nd rounder on the "draft gurus'" boards, but dropped like a rock on draft day. I believe he was on the board when we traded away our 4th rounder, so after the draft, I was left scratching my head as to why we essentially passed up this top tier talent for Ioannidis. Do you have a comparison, agree/disagree with the move?