stevemcqueen1

2018 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

Trading 13 for 21 and 22 just feels like fantasyland thinking, for the record.

Yeah, you’re actually right. Any trade back compensation tends to be that way, from fan perspective. I think it happens IF it’s for a QB. Buffalo has 21+22 in the 1st and 21+24 in the 2nd. 

 

Trades up for a QB tend to be over the value chart, but if Buffalo is willing to part with those 2 picks they’d probably aim to get up higher if Mayfield is there rather than wait until he’s at #13

 

FanSpeak’s paid software has pretty realistic trades and it keeps proposing that one in particular. Most others though are a 1st and 2nd from the 20’s which is more realistic 

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A true even swap of picks would actually be Cleveland sending 33 + 35 for 13. To move up/down that far though I’d probably ask for a 4th thrown in. 

 

From there, with 44 you can still get 3 starters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Yeah, you’re actually right. Any trade back compensation tends to be that way, from fan perspective. I think it happens IF it’s for a QB. Buffalo has 21+22 in the 1st and 21+24 in the 2nd. 

 

Trades up for a QB tend to be over the value chart, but if Buffalo is willing to part with those 2 picks they’d probably aim to get up higher if Mayfield is there rather than wait until he’s at #13

 

FanSpeak’s paid software has pretty realistic trades and it keeps proposing that one in particular. Most others though are a 1st and 2nd from the 20’s which is more realistic 

Yeah, people think teams throw out the value chart or any sense of fair value when they're moving up for a QB.Which is true to an extent when they're going for a top 2 pick or something (like it could happen this year if Darold and Rosen go 1-2 and people become convinced Allen or Mayfield is right there with them, then the Colts #3 pick could become a big deal).

 

But yeah, to move up to 13, even for a QB, they aren't going to go nuts. If Buffalo wants Mayfield and they're willing to give up 21 and 22 to do it, they'll be looking at a top 10 pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, skinny21 said:

I liked what I saw from Hurst.  

Goedert’s my top TE, followed by (in no particular order) Fumagali, Schultz, Hurst, Andrews and Brenneman.  Andrews probably has the most upside, Fumagali is probably the most plug-and-play of the group.  Hurst is a well rounded prospect, Brenneman and Schultz offer more as pass catchers, but really put in the effort as blockers.  The latter have a lot of solid tape going against Dlineman/OLBs. All just MO though.  

 

There a couple other intriguing guys that I have’t been able to watch much like Thomas from Florida.  Gesick doesn’t do it for me, especially as a pass catcher (I don’t see the burst to separate), but he’s reliable.  Solid hands and solid blocking.  

Hurst is an absolute beast, Physically already at an NFL level, he will be good wherever he goes. Definitely a steal in the 3rd or 4th, and I would consider him if we had multiple seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since TEs seem to be the subject de jour, i have had this fantasy of us trading Reed and Davis for whatever we can get, dealing down in the 1st and getting a 2nd for doing so. Then using those two picks on Goedert and Gesicki (I expect Goedert to be a 1st rounder by draft day, though there may be a chance Gesicki is just a 3rd). 

 

I think that has the real potential to be a Gronk/Hernandez type of windfall, minus the constant injuries and multiple murders. Neither of them will ever equal Gronk as a blocker, but they could both be much better than Hernandez, very good blockers if not great. Which make them a great pair to have on the field at the same time. Meanwhile, the athleticism, hands and matchup problem potential that the two of them.

 

Of course, this all felt much more feasible before we dealt a 3rd and flushed Cousins' trade value down the crapper.

Edited by Rufus T Firefly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really swinging now if people still trunk we're in the draft a qb market? I could still see us trading down, picking up one or two day 1 or 2 picks and using one of those on somebody we had our eyes on. But i could also see us sitting pat and going into training camp with Smith, Colt and Morris. 

 

What i fully expect is that in free agency we're going to put bodies at every position so that in the draft we won't NEED any single position to play immediately. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I'm really swinging now if people still trunk we're in the draft a qb market? I could still see us trading down, picking up one or two day 1 or 2 picks and using one of those on somebody we had our eyes on. But i could also see us sitting pat and going into training camp with Smith, Colt and Morris.. 

I am certainly still hoping we do, because this is my favorite draft for QBs outside the 1st round that I can recall. But it's definitely possible that Smith's contract, which I suspect will be essentially (if not literally) guaranteed for 3 years, will convince the team to wait a year on a QB of the future. 

 

Which would be kind of the perfect cherry on top of this mess- that we wait until 19 and end up with a Cody Kessler type being the best we can do while guys like White and Lauretta end up being studs.

 

7 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

What i fully expect is that in free agency we're going to put bodies at every position so that in the draft we won't NEED any single position to play immediately. 

I don't think that is doable. We have a lot of needs and nowhere near the cap space to fill them all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I am certainly still hoping we do, because this is my favorite draft for QBs outside the 1st round that I can recall. But it's definitely possible that Smith's contract, which I suspect will be essentially (if not literally) guaranteed for 3 years, will convince the team to wait a year on a QB of the future. 

 

Which would be kind of the perfect cherry on top of this mess- that we wait until 19 and end up with a Cody Kessler type being the best we can do while guys like White and Lauretta end up being studs.

 

I honestly don't know what to believe at this time. for the last 4 years I've been a Bruce supporter and liked his approach. This trade shook me to the bones because it causes me to question everything. But we still haven't seen a Jason Taylor type move (maybe we did with the Jamaal Brown trade, but at least we haven't since 2014). So I'm forced to question if QB is his weakspot and (regardless of the championship games) he thinks that you need a good QB to win consistently and was willing to get it once he realized that Cousins wasn't coming back. 

 

Bruce's contracts have been a thing that I've generally liked though because normally they are as you describe - with a statement like if he's on the roster at X date he gets Y amount guaranteed. That becomes incentive to cut player before the given date. So I'm hoping that we still draft a player in round 3 or below (assuming we're able to get a third rounder via trade down or some other means). 

 

3 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

 

I don't think that is doable. We have a lot of needs and nowhere near the cap space to fill them all.

 

You'd be surprised. I don't underestimate this team or coaching staff. Last year I was saying not to give up on Matt I. because he had shown something in a few games his rookie year. I was also confident in Lanier for that same reason. We went out and signed two guys (who surprisingly had reputations for being really good against the run) to help make that line less of a weakness. Same with WR when we lost two guys. I was confident in Doctson (I had a queezy feeling about Pryor because he was a FA and because we kept hearing about spectacular catches, it just reminded me of Brandon Lloyd) and Crowder (who I still think can be a legit number 1). Things didn't quite work 100% but we were able to sign guys in FA to add to our young talent to help us so that we didn't have so many glaring needs. We even signed Swearinger (who was supposed to pair with Cravens) to sure up S. 

 

I have a feeling that we'll see more of that this year. My fear is that we'll be in a win now mode and go for the 30 and over player as opposed to the 5th year guy. But even if we don't sure up every position, I think our coaching staff has a good idea about what they have on the roster. Do they think Doctson continues to improve in year 3? Will Grant/Murphy/Long/Brown be back? What do they think about our G situation? What do we do at backup LT/RT? How good is Moreau and Hosley? How good are the guys behind Nicholson? Is Sprinkle ready to be a regular contributor, possibly taking snaps instead of Davis? 

 

I wouldn't count on all these things happening but I also wouldn't count on none of them happening? But I think that the fact that we have talent at most of these positions means that we don't need to reach in a lot of situations. I could see us signing a guy like Hyde at RB to come in and be the day 1 starter, but also drafting whoever falls to us early in the draft so that we have a competition at RB. That said even if we don't, I could see us letting Bibbs compete with Perine (and possibly Kelley) so that its not a glaring hole.

 

I don't know, maybe I don't see as may holes as most do on the team. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Bruce's contracts have been a thing that I've generally liked though because normally they are as you describe - with a statement like if he's on the roster at X date he gets Y amount guaranteed. That becomes incentive to cut player before the given date. So I'm hoping that we still draft a player in round 3 or below (assuming we're able to get a third rounder via trade down or some other means). 

I don't know hat that mean, it sounds like you;re just describing how most contracts are structured. But Smith has a reported 71 mil guaranteed. If that's accurate, then he's probably uncuttable for 3 seasons. And I'm afraid Bruce and Co. will decide it's not worth drafting a Qb who would likely sit for 3 years of a 4 year rookie deal.

16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 We went out and signed two guys (who surprisingly had reputations for being really good against the run) to help make that line less of a weakness.

McClain and McGee were just terrible values. And, because of the fact that Bruce gave them deals that were, for some reason,  guaranteed for two seasons, we are stuck with them for at least another year as they continue to be overpriced JAGs. After talking about how you like the way Allen does contracts, you couldnt have picked two better examples to undercut your point f you tried. 

16 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

I don't know, maybe I don't see as may holes as most do on the team. 

We need a #1 RB and WR. We have no starting LG. Mason Foster is currently our best ILB. We are down 2 of our top 3 CBs from this year. We still don't have a S who excels in coverage. Just for starters. 

 

Guessing what Smith's cap hit will be and setting aside cap for RFAs, draft picks, etc, we have maybe about 16 mil left. Without going nuts with backloaded deals, we can't come anywhere near filling all our needs for that.

Edited by Rufus T Firefly
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I have a feeling that we'll see more of that this year. My fear is that we'll be in a win now mode and go for the 30 and over player as opposed to the 5th year guy. But even if we don't sure up every position, I think our coaching staff has a good idea about what they have on the roster. Do they think Doctson continues to improve in year 3? Will Grant/Murphy/Long/Brown be back? What do they think about our G situation? What do we do at backup LT/RT? How good is Moreau and Hosley? How good are the guys behind Nicholson? Is Sprinkle ready to be a regular contributor, possibly taking snaps instead of Davis? 

 

We've had some epic debates on the FO. :)  Nothing personal on my end.  All my angst when it comes out in my posts on the subject are directed at Dan and to a lesser extent Bruce.   And what I've felt is never really one extreme or another on the FO.  To me the FO approach is C level stuff.  It's not run by a bunch of boobs.  But its not run by a bunch of sharp savants either.  It's just somewhere in between -- "meh" in my book.  And I don't really blame the people in the FO for it, I blame it squarely on Dan Snyder as to fostering that kind of culture-approach.

 

JP Finlay did a 180 the other day as to the team on Baker Mayfield.  He said before the team didn't like him.   Now, post Senior Bowl they do like him.  He said though they don't think he will still be there at #13 and they are gun shy about trading up in the draft after what happened under RG3.

 

Now that they have Alex Smith.  I don't think the FO is dumb.  They know the dude needs a running game.  He had a running game last season and a great deep threat.  We've heard from beat guys both the running back position and a speed deep threat are high on the agenda.  I think PR wise Alex Smith being "meh" this season would be a disaster. They need him to be successful.   Now of course they need every unit to be successful to win.  Just saying here, my gut is upgrading the offense has just been elevated over upgrading the defense everything being equal. 

 

I think whatever they don't get in FA is happening early in this draft.  For example if they don't sign a Hyde or Mckinnon in FA or a receiver -- they will make up ground in the draft.  Whatever they miss out is going to be high on their to do list so guys like Ridley, James Washington, Guice, S. Michel I think are in play.

 

With or without Kirk, I wanted a RB bad in this draft.  If it were me, I'd go receiver in FA and go RB in the draft.  I like the idea of trading down.  And I don't think its crazy that if Mayfield or Allen unexpectedly slip that they might grab one -- it would give you a hedge for Alex Smith in case it doesn't work.  But I suspect both are gone.  Seems like Josh Allen is falling in some mocks to our pick or later.  I doubt it goes down that way though.

 

I am still a BPA guy but at some point you got to go RB early.  We haven't done that since L. Betts eons ago.  

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I don't know hat that mean, it sounds like you;re just describing how most contracts are structured. But Smith has a reported 71 mil guaranteed. If that's accurate, then he's probably uncuttable for 3 seasons. And I'm afraid Bruce and Co. will decide it's not worth drafting a Qb who would likely sit for 3 years of a 4 year rookie deal.

 

Yeah, but that depends on whats meant by guaranteed. It was speculated earlier today. https://twitter.com/greggrosenthal/status/959151114389159942

 

Smith's contract is fair: The "four-year, $94 million extension" number got a lot of attention, but it's largely meaningless. Even the $71 million in "guarantees" likely doesn't mean much. NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported that $71 million of Smith's contract will be guaranteed for injury only -- basically three seasons -- which means the Redskins could still cut bait for performance reasons without paying all that money.

 

27 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

McClain and McGee were just terrible values. And, because of the fact that Bruce gave them deals that were, for some reason,  guaranteed for two seasons, we are stuck with them for at least another year as they continue to be overpriced JAGs. After talking about how you like the way Allen does contracts, you couldnt have picked two better examples to undercut your point f you tried. 

We need a #1 RB and WR. We have no starting LG. Mason Foster is currently our best ILB. We are down 2 of our top 3 CBs from this year. We still don't have a S who excels in coverage. Just for starters. 

 

This is where I'd disagree with you. I thought they'd be better against the run than they were (based on their histories in Dallas and Oakland respectively) but that's partially why I never buy into FAs contributing too much from the getgo. But they both started to come into their own towards the end of the year, McClain especially before he got hurt. I'm not saying that this position is a sure thing right now but those two are not as bad as the media and fans want us to believe. 

 

Same with WR. Doctson had a decent year with a lot of drops. He improves that catch percentage from 50 to 60 or 75 and suddenly we're talking about a #! WR. He get a QB who's not afraid to challenge some DBs and we're talking about 1000 yards, he just get that confidence and our WRs are a lot better. And the same thing can be said about Davis and Harris who are in a similar position as Matt I was in last year or Trent Murphy 2 years ago. Is it solved, no and we need to do something, but we are not in a drastic situation where we've invested nothing in the position. 

 

27 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

 

Guessing what Smith's cap hit will be and setting aside cap for RFAs, draft picks, etc, we have maybe about 16 mil left. Without going nuts with backloaded deals, we can't come anywhere near filling all our needs for that.

 

Again, depends on what you're talking about. I'm all about signing the kind of players that Bruce likes to sign. I'd love to see us with an Arizona type defense from a few years ago where its a bunch of guys on good value contracts who are out-performiging it. Its why I hate losing Fuller so much - because he was outperforming that contract. And if we continue to draft well, the whole question of free agency becomes less of an question and it becomes more about keeping our own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

We've had some epic debates on the FO. :)  Nothing personal on my end.  All my angst when it comes out in my posts on the subject are directed at Dan and to a lesser extent Bruce.   And what I've felt is never really one extreme or another on the FO.  To me the FO approach is C level stuff.  It's not run by a bunch of boobs.  But its not run by a bunch of sharp savants either.  It's just somewhere in between -- "meh" in my book.  And I don't really blame the people in the FO for it, I blame it squarely on Dan Snyder as to fostering that kind of culture-approach.

I'm a lot closer to where you've been right now. Its not that I think the Kirk situation was handled bad, but I'm questioning a lot of my faith in the FO and their philosophy. 


That said, if my understanding is right about this FO, I'd still say that they don't want to settle for what we have on O, but they don't want to overpay either. Hyde is a perfect example. he's a relatively young guy (older than I'd like buy below 30), but he's put up 2 900 yard seasons with 300 yards receiving. He's a big back like what we've been drafting. He shouldn't be too expensive, etc. But if for some reason or another we don't get him we'll probably bring in somebody else of a similar profile. It won't fix the position but it will make it less of a NEED early on draft day. 

 

I fully expect there to be a run on QBs early in the draft (I mean they're talking about this being one of the great ones) which means other positions will drop. We may be targeting some RBs early but does that mean the first? I think we were also targeting guys like Hooker (definitely prior to FA) last year but we wound up getting Nicholson and I'm not disappointed. 

 

Key thing is what if Chubb (DE) drops like Allen did last year? What if R. Smith is there like Foster was last year? Is our defense that good that we can ignore playmakers like that for the mere purpose that we NEED a RB or WR? In all honesty, the draft played out a lot more like some of the first-pick.com drafts instead of the mock drafts. So I say anything's possible right now. But some of this stuff will be answered in the nest few weeks as we re-sign players and then in March as we sign FAs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Yeah, but that depends on whats meant by guaranteed. It was speculated earlier today. https://twitter.com/greggrosenthal/status/959151114389159942

As I said, I'll wait on the details of the deal. But my money is on it being tough to get out of, even before year 3. At least a significant dead cap hit 

13 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

This is where I'd disagree with you. I thought they'd be better against the run than they were (based on their histories in Dallas and Oakland respectively) but that's partially why I never buy into FAs contributing too much from the getgo. But they both started to come into their own towards the end of the year, McClain especially before he got hurt. I'm not saying that this position is a sure thing right now but those two are not as bad as the media and fans want us to believe. 

Yep, we can just 100% disagree there. Those guys were virtually invisible for a combined 11 mil per year. They're both essentially backups at a high cost and uncuttable. 

13 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

Again, depends on what you're talking about. I'm all about signing the kind of players that Bruce likes to sign. I'd love to see us with an Arizona type defense from a few years ago where its a bunch of guys on good value contracts who are out-performiging it. Its why I hate losing Fuller so much - because he was outperforming that contract. And if we continue to draft well, the whole question of free agency becomes less of an question and it becomes more about keeping our own. 

You said we'd be able to sign guys to fill all our needs before the draft. I was referring to that and how unlikely that is with the money we have available. 

 

If by Bruce style deal, you mean overpriced mediocrity, then even then we won't have enough. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I think McGee is an OK player. Nothing more, nothing less. He's rotational. Calling him our best DL is both wrong (Ioannidis was clearly better) and misleading (Allen was out most of the year, Lanier is still a work in progress). Telling me his work on run defense was crucial on what was one of the 5 worst run defenses in the NFL doesn't move the needle much. He's mildly better than Ziggy Hood, that's about where he ranks for me. McClain was worse. 

 

But the fact that those two were given contracts that make them unreleasable i sweat is astounding. Neither of them are worth that kind of deal. The fact that these guys are earning a combined amount that would sign players like Cameron Heyward, Derek Wolfe, Mike Daniels, or we could have used in the same offseason to sign Jonathan Hankins, who's 25, with money left over... none of that speaks to Bruce being a whiz at contracts. Or anything else.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, skinny21 said:

I liked what I saw from Hurst.  

Goedert’s my top TE, followed by (in no particular order) Fumagali, Schultz, Hurst, Andrews and Brenneman.  Andrews probably has the most upside, Fumagali is probably the most plug-and-play of the group.  Hurst is a well rounded prospect, Brenneman and Schultz offer more as pass catchers, but really put in the effort as blockers.  The latter have a lot of solid tape going against Dlineman/OLBs. All just MO though.  

 

There a couple other intriguing guys that I have’t been able to watch much like Thomas from Florida.  Gesick doesn’t do it for me, especially as a pass catcher (I don’t see the burst to separate), but he’s reliable.  Solid hands and solid blocking.  

Of course teams don't rely on PFF crap

 

Their statistics show no context at all which is absolutely needed in a team sport with so many moving parts on every play. This isn't baseball

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

That said, if my understanding is right about this FO, I'd still say that they don't want to settle for what we have on O, but they don't want to overpay either. Hyde is a perfect example. he's a relatively young guy (older than I'd like buy below 30), but he's put up 2 900 yard seasons with 300 yards receiving. He's a big back like what we've been drafting. He shouldn't be too expensive, etc. But if for some reason or another we don't get him we'll probably bring in somebody else of a similar profile. It won't fix the position but it will make it less of a NEED early on draft day. 

 

 

I see RB similar to the safety position over the years, for years they took fliers.  Then they finally got serious with Swearinger.  I think and hope they see RB the same way. Enough is enough.  Personally I'd look RB in the draft.  And use FA for receiver.

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

I fully expect there to be a run on QBs early in the draft (I mean they're talking about this being one of the great ones) which means other positions will drop. We may be targeting some RBs early but does that mean the first?

 

I am guessing the sweet spot for RB is a trade down in the first or to the early 2nd -- earlier than where we are drafting right now in the 2nd.

 

1 hour ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Key thing is what if Chubb (DE) drops like Allen did last year? What if R. Smith is there like Foster was last year? Is our defense that good that we can ignore playmakers like that for the mere purpose that we NEED a RB or WR? 

 

I agree if a stud D player falls they got to take him.  That's what I meant by everything being equal they might lean offense.  I'd be stunned if Chubb doesn't go top 5.  R. Smith is unlikely to drop to 13 IMO but he's one that could be a surprise drop, I agree.

 

Catching up on Alex Smith, he had a career season and two main components of it were K. Hunt and T. Hill.   I think they will try to give him a similar dynamic.  If Jay Gruden wants a more aggressive-attacking offense you need that Desean Jackson type I think to maximize Smith's skills and open things up underneath again for Crowder. 

 

And I recall one beat guy said that Jay wanted Desean back last off season but the FO didn't oblige.   I think they will work to take care of that this time.  So I wonder about a deep threat type like a James Washington or in FA Richardson or whomever.

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that idea (that the FO targets offense early), 1) I really hope they don’t go with a receiver in the first, 2) I could see them outright going with Guice in the 1st and receiver in the 2nd.   If they’re dead set on offense, I’d at least like to trade back a bit in the 1st... uh...first.  

 

Could very much see the FO wanting to make an offensive (no pun intended) splash, both to give Smith help, and because they’re scared of the PR optics if Smith has to deal with the same lack of supporting cast Cousins did.  

 

I don’t like the idea or targeting that much, but it should lead to offensive improvement at least.  Heck, maybe they pick up a TE like I keep harping on.  Hopefully in that scenario they re-sign Brown, or pick up another decent ILB or a good dlineman to help the defense out.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the year that the stars align and gives us a true Nose Tackle, one that is scheme versatile and can stay on the field when we're in nickel like we are the majority of the time?

 

Vita Vea and Payne could both play NT, play next to Allen in nickel at DT, and still be athletic enough to play end in heavy 4 DL sets at LE. Something like LE - Vea/Payne DT- Allen, DT-Ioannidis, RE-Kerrigan.

 

Or flip Ioannidis/Allen to LE instead of Payne/Vea... Either way... We'd quickly become a very versatile front on the line allowing for all kinds of interesting stunts and confusing looks. All the while still giving us the Nose we've lacked but have been reluctant to spend high picks on due to the small percentage of snaps we are in a true 3-4. The athleticism of Vea in-particular kills two birds with one stone and justifies the high pick.

 

I'm just not sure I'm sold on the WR talent at #13, and can't bring myself to advocate for a RB in the 1st round. Especially when this draft seems to be pretty deep at both positions.

 

I like DJ Chark at WR and apparently we met with the RB from SDSU at the senior bowl as well. Penny and Chark could also give us a couple new faces to try out at KR/PR as well.

Edited by DC Lumber Co.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also believe that if there is any QB that fits the mold you look for to groom under a veteran without being drafted too high to cause controversy this year it's Kyle Lauletta.

 

Unfortunately after his senior bowl performance I doubt he'd last until the 4th round. Maybe he will, who knows. As of right now he's the only QB I like to bring along under Smith.

 

Perhaps we trade back in the 1st and pick up the 3rd rounder needed to draft him, or we get lucky and he lasts until our 4th rounder.

 

The only drawback I see to Lauletta is that he may not possess the wheels Gruden looks for in his ideal QB. The other knock I see on him is his arm strength, but that's also a knock on Smith. Didn't see any duck balls from the tape I watched either...

 

Kid also had a different OC every year he played at Richmond and has played under center. Very interesting QB prospect 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ultimate trade-down (realistic trades) from FanSpeak ... 3 trade downs

1.13 to Cleveland for 2.1 + 2.3 + 4.1 + 4.23

2.1 to Chicago for 2.7 + 4.5

2.7 to LAC for 2.16 + 3.20

 

2.3: Sony Michel, RB Georgia

2.9: Dallas Geodert, TE South Dakota State
2.16: Harrison Phillips, DT Stanford
3.20: Leighton Vander-Esch, ILB Boise
4.1: Tarvarus McFadden, CB FSU
4.5: Kyle Lauletta, QB Richmond
4.13: Terrell Edmunds, SS Va. Tech
4.23: Lowell Lotulelei, NT Utah

5.12: Jake Weineke, WR South Dakota State

 

Pretty unrealistic. Gonna have to just wait until closer to the draft to see some of these draft boards start to come together a bit. But if that draft took place, I'd argue you only really need a stud LG in free agency, since that was the one hole from this draft. 

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.