2018 Comprehensive NFL Draft Thread

[Est.1974]

11 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

That would be a shock to all the insider types.  Seems like Schefter and everyone are convinced the Browns go QB at #1 now let alone skip it #1 and #4 -- and a few have said their favorite prospects aside from the QBs are either Chubb or Barkley depending on the source.

 

I think by a mile there is a better shot we end up with Fitzpatrick as opposed to the Browns.  Now I am not sure I'd bet us versus the Dolphins.  I think its 50-50 he goes to #13 but if I had to bet on it I'd lean Dolphins at #11

 

Yep, pure guess on my part. I'll throw another one out. Browns go QB at 1 the trade right out of 4 with NE. Pats get Mayfield, Browns end up with even more stacked with picks in the top 50.

[skinny21]

44 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Evidence indicates you are nearly as likely to find a game changing RB at 3 or later than at 1 or 2.  No one here wants a 2 down guy with 1 or 2.

 

In 53 drafts, we have NEVER found a game changer RB in rounds 1 or 2, unless you want to include Charlie Taylor who became a game changer at WR.  In those years, we do have a few busts, one guy who got us Byner and a couple of decent COPs.  The only three high round backs that were bell cows for multiple seasons for us were the results of trades or FA. At the same time we've found good to great late round guys like Brown (Lombardi), Thomas (G. Allen), Davis (Casserly), Morris (B. Allen).  We have also had multi-year success with other peoples trash including Rogers (albeit originally a number 1), Byner and Allen.  If Jones did not have ball control issues and injury problems, he'd probably have been a 1000 yard guy in both 2015 and 2016

I’m someone who’s very appreciative of history, so I dig the research you’ve done.  On the other hand, I think it means almost diddly squat.  

 

I mean, front offices change, the game changes, the scouts change, the rb classes change, etc.  By your rationale, the Skins should never draft a 1st round qb either, right?  Pats should never draft a qb before the 6th round?  Skins should go back to pure zone running scheme and draft a back in the 6th, etc.  

 

That’s not to say there aren’t legitimate reasons to not take a back in the 1st, I just don’t see how looking back 50, 40, or even just 10 years has any bearing whatsoever.  If I had to guess, this is maybe why you haven’t gotten any responses (that I’ve seen anyway) the few times you’ve posted this argument.  Or maybe I’m crazy, who knows.  

 

6 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

 

Dang, that truly sucks for him.  

[mistertim]

54 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

He had nagging injuries in 2017, his 2016 tape showed the shifty you're looking for.  The question then is, are those nagging injuries here to stay, if not might they still return?

 

He was still plenty shifty in 2017 as well. I think the nagging injuries affected his burst more than anything.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

32 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN '74 said:

 

Yep, pure guess on my part. I'll throw another one out. Browns go QB at 1 the trade right out of 4 with NE. Pats get Mayfield, Browns end up with even more stacked with picks in the top 50.

 

Maybe.  Though back to the QBs usually the surprise is risers not fallers (at least in recent years) so it would be stunning for it to go the other direction where guys fall -- especially with rumors that Buffalo is crazy hot for a QB, Arizona almost as much.  Jets already trading up.  SD, Denver and NE possibly interested, etc.  Still a chance the Giants take one.

 

I think we are very likely going to get a surprise defensive player fall to 13 -- there simply isn't room to fit all the big name guys in the top 12 if 4-5 QBs go and that's also assuming for the first time in eons we get no surprise picks in the top 10.  It seems almost inevitable that whether its Davenport, Landry or someone else goes higher than expected -- but even if that doesn't happen -- a big name defender is going to fall.  I'd say the hottest ones of late dropping to 13 in mocks are either R. Smith, Fitzpatrick or Edmonds.

[HTTRDynasty]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I'd say the hottest ones of late dropping to 13 in mocks are either R. Smith, Fitzpatrick or Edmonds.

 

While I really like R. Smith as a player, Zach Brown already plays that exact same role for us and we just gave him a 3 year deal.  Having R. Smith and Z. Brown as our ILBs would be a recipe for disaster against the run, especially without an elite run defender at NT.  And I just don't see it with Edmunds.  Sure, he's a beast as a physical specimen, but he doesn't have the instincts or consistency to make me comfortable drafting him in the top 15 picks.  I can definitely see him sliding into the late teens or early 20s.

 

With Fitzpatrick, I would run up to the podium, but I think we might trade back or just (unfortunately) take Guice or reach on Payne (assuming Vea is gone) with that pick if that situation were to play out.

[Est.1974]

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Maybe.  Though back to the QBs usually the surprise is risers not fallers (at least in recent years) so it would be stunning for it to go the other direction where guys fall -- especially with rumors that Buffalo is crazy hot for a QB, Arizona almost as much.  Jets already trading up.  SD, Denver and NE possibly interested, etc.  Still a chance the Giants take one.

 

I think we are very likely going to get a surprise defensive player fall to 13 -- there simply isn't room to fit all the big name guys in the top 12 if 4-5 QBs go and that's also assuming for the first time in eons we get no surprise picks in the top 10.  It seems almost inevitable that whether its Davenport, Landry or someone else goes higher than expected -- but even if that doesn't happen -- a big name defender is going to fall.  I'd say the hottest ones of late dropping to 13 in mocks are either R. Smith, Fitzpatrick or Edmonds.

 

If the QB run happens, then Bears have Ward, 49ers Davenport, Raiders Smith, Dolphins Vea, maybe Nelson falls..

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

8 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

While I really like R. Smith as a player, Zach Brown already plays that exact same role for us and we just gave him a 3 year deal.  Having R. Smith and Z. Brown as our ILBs would be a recipe for disaster against the run, especially without an elite run defender at NT.  And I just don't see it with Edmunds.  Sure, he's a beast as a physical specimen, but he doesn't have the instincts or consistency to make me comfortable drafting him in the top 15 picks.  I can definitely see him sliding into the late teens or early 20s.

 

With Fitzpatrick, I would run up to the podium, but I think we might trade back or just (unfortunately) take Guice or reach on Payne (assuming Vea is gone) with that pick if that situation were to play out.

 

Georgia linebacker Roquan Smith produced the second-best coverage grade among linebackers in 2018 NFL Draft class, according to a report Tuesday by Pro Football Focus.https://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-roquan-smith-produced-second-best-coverage-grade-among-linebackers-2018-draft-class/2PhsFrvLV8b9Vn68NuapTO/

 

I thought Z Brown (6'1" 242 lbs) was good at the run and chasing QBs but horrible in coverage. Smith (6'1" 225 lbs) is really good in coverage and can stick his nose in there. 

 

I think they would be complimentary players imo. 

[Skinsinparadise]

30 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

While I really like R. Smith as a player, Zach Brown already plays that exact same role for us and we just gave him a 3 year deal.  Having R. Smith and Z. Brown as our ILBs would be a recipe for disaster against the run, especially without an elite run defender at NT.  And I just don't see it with Edmunds.  Sure, he's a beast as a physical specimen, but he doesn't have the instincts or consistency to make me comfortable drafting him in the top 15 picks.  I can definitely see him sliding into the late teens or early 20s.

 

With Fitzpatrick, I would run up to the podium, but I think we might trade back or just (unfortunately) take Guice or reach on Payne (assuming Vea is gone) with that pick if that situation were to play out.

 

Sure, I am not advocating for MLB, was just throwing names that could be there at 13.  though wouldn't hate R. Smith, he's a beast but agree he's mostly an overlap to Zach (with much better coverage skills)

 

If the beat guys are on the money, they'd run up to the podium if Fitzpatrick is there versus trade down in that case.  I'd love it.

 

As for Guice, I doubt they take him at 13 but I could see a trade down and taking him.  I'd like it a lot (especially if they pick up a third or better) 

 

I wouldn't like Payne at 13.  Should be interesting to see who is right, Keim thinks they like Vea better, Cooley thinks its Payne.

[HTTRDynasty]

9 minutes ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

 

Georgia linebacker Roquan Smith produced the second-best coverage grade among linebackers in 2018 NFL Draft class, according to a report Tuesday by Pro Football Focus.https://www.ajc.com/sports/georgia-roquan-smith-produced-second-best-coverage-grade-among-linebackers-2018-draft-class/2PhsFrvLV8b9Vn68NuapTO/

 

I thought Z Brown (6'1" 242 lbs) was good at the run and chasing QBs but horrible in coverage. Smith (6'1" 225 lbs) is really good in coverage and can stick his nose in there. 

 

I think they would be complimentary players imo. 

 

Z. Brown is pretty bad in coverage.  But that's just a mental thing IMO.  I think he'll be better in his 2nd year knowing the system.  And yes, Smith is excellent in coverage.

 

I wasn't looking at it from a run vs. pass perspective though.  I'm looking at it from a stack-and-shed vs. best-in-space perspective.  Neither Zach Brown nor R. Smith are going to consistently win against OL trying to block them in the run game.  They are guys that are at their best when they have an ILB beside them who can take on OL blocks and keep them free to be heat-seeking missiles to go find the ball and make plays in space.  Having two guys who struggle to stack and shed playing at ILB is a recipe for disaster.  Especially in our division.

[Skinsinparadise]

Interesting, Keim is a fountain of nuggets on twitter.  Here's him on Perine

 

1. 1. John Keim‏Verified account @john_keim 19m19 minutes ago

      More

      Replying to @BlogHogs21

      maybe he wasn't a good one? They felt Didn't break tackles well for back his size

       

       

      Direct message
   2.  

      Redskins Run Down‏ @BlogHogs21 5m5 minutes ago

      More

      so we move on from a 4th round pick and draft a player similar?

      0 replies0 retweets0 likes

       

 

[bobandweave]

 

interesting, what if he fell to 13? 

[The Consigliere]

He's not falling to 9. If he falls past Cleveland, Indy or Tampa will take him. Indy is extremely unhappy with Mack (he's the Ronald Jones of '17, but he's a better pass catching option), and Tampa has Peyton Barber as it's starting RB, and they're already entering year four of the Winston era, time to get him his RB, they'll pass on D and OL help for Barkley for sure, and I think the Colts would too, though it's possible they don't because they have a bunch of 2nd rounders (can grab an elite RB with the first of them or trade up if they fear a RB run happening, and then use the 1st rounder and the other two 2nd rounders to address the huge dearth of talent they have on both sides of the ball). 

 

If he falls past the Colts AND the Bucs, both of those teams are run by colossal dip blanks of epic proportions. I don't mind passing on a RB at the top of a draft, but when you're looking at a Dickerson, a Faulk, a Barry Sanders, A.P., Gurley type once a decade talent at the position, and he's there at slot 5/6, you take them. All the defensive players that are so attractive still carry some elements of bust risk. There is zero bust risk w/Barkley beyond potential injury which is something all prospects must cope with AND both Winston and Luck could use some help from the running game. 

 

But yeah, if he falls to slot #9, I'd be screaming bloody murder for us to trade up. You're getting the #1 talent in the draft, probably across the past two drafts nearly a dozen picks into the draft. But yeah, I don't see that happening. I think he goes at 2, 4, 6 or 7. For the sake of my dynasty teams, I would love him to land on the Bucs. Excellent young offense there, loaded at TE, and strong at WR, with a young franchise QB in place, Barkley would give them elite talent at every single playmaking position on offense. They could focus the next half decade of drafts exclusively on building up the OL and the defense, and ignore WR, QB, TE, and RB entirely.  

[Darth Tater]

1 hour ago, skinny21 said:

I’m someone who’s very appreciative of history, so I dig the research you’ve done.  On the other hand, I think it means almost diddly squat.  

 

I mean, front offices change, the game changes, the scouts change, the rb classes change, etc.  By your rationale, the Skins should never draft a 1st round qb either, right?  Pats should never draft a qb before the 6th round?  Skins should go back to pure zone running scheme and draft a back in the 6th, etc.  

 

That’s not to say there aren’t legitimate reasons to not take a back in the 1st, I just don’t see how looking back 50, 40, or even just 10 years has any bearing whatsoever.  If I had to guess, this is maybe why you haven’t gotten any responses (that I’ve seen anyway) the few times you’ve posted this argument.  Or maybe I’m crazy, who knows. 

You would have a point it it hadn't happened multiple times under multiple front office of differing quality, including one that is lead by the same guy.

Lombardi (1969)

G. Allen (1975)

Casserly (1996)

B. Allen (2012)

How do you go from that to your weird assumptions? I was simply addressing the false assumption that there are no good backs to be had.  Even recently, Almo was arguably one of the best backs in his draft class and Howard was probably second in his.  Last year, 2 of the top 3 RBs were taken after the first two rounds

 

Lombardi had multiple fails with high rounders here00

Beathard did find a UFA who was drafted high and a high pick guy that got us a good bell cow. He also had multiple fails at finding a high round replacement.

Casserly had fails with high rounders. In fact, he also found, albeit via FA, a low round pick who was our bell cow for about 3.5 years.

This is supporting information especially to the question asked.

[HTTRDynasty]

Interesting list.  I respect Jon as an evaluator, so I'm going to have to look at some of these prospects more in depth.  Definitely not in line with the consensus rankings normally being pushed out:

 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Z. Brown is pretty bad in coverage.  But that's just a mental thing IMO.  I think he'll be better in his 2nd year knowing the system.  And yes, Smith is excellent in coverage.

 

I wasn't looking at it from a run vs. pass perspective though.  I'm looking at it from a stack-and-shed vs. best-in-space perspective.  Neither Zach Brown nor R. Smith are going to consistently win against OL trying to block them in the run game.  They are guys that are at their best when they have an ILB beside them who can take on OL blocks and keep them free to be heat-seeking missiles to go find the ball and make plays in space.  Having two guys who struggle to stack and shed playing at ILB is a recipe for disaster.  Especially in our division.

 

Completely agree with this. I love Smith as a player but he's absolutely a pure Mike ILB in a 3-4. That's the guy who's there to make plays, flow to the ball, use his superior instincts, etc and just create havoc. You generally want to keep him as free from blockers as possible in order to utilize his talents correctly...he shouldn't be stacking and shedding in the box and getting caught in the scrum. That's what the Jack ILB is there for...to be a big thumper who can take on OL, stack and shed, help keep the Mike clean. 

 

We already have our Mike in Brown, who we just signed to a 3 year extension. He's pretty much a pure Mike as well with his speed and instincts. Yeah his coverage isn't that great but I agree he'll probably get better after being in the system...IIRC he wasn't bad in coverage before. If we took R. Smith we'd have two of the same type of player and no Jack to keep them free. So we'd either have to figure out how to let Brown go or try to force him into a Jack position which IMO he'd be horrible at...it just isn't his game. He'd probably demand a trade anyway if we tried to force him to do that.

[HigSkin]

I don't know if everyone caught what Jay said in the Cooley interview but he said they've initially got like 20-25 guys they could pick at #13.  

 

It's around the 16:00 mark...

 

 

[HTTRDynasty]

@mistertim Yep, agree 100%.  Btw, I'm not sure if this was already posted here, but it seems to support some of your fears regarding Vea.

 

 

[mistertim]

27 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

@mistertim Yep, agree 100%.  Btw, I'm not sure if this was already posted here, but it seems to support some of your fears regarding Vea.

 

 

 

Yeah it was and I thought it was pretty telling and lined up with my feelings on Vea and Payne both. I actually do think Danny Shelton was a better prospect than Vea coming out of college, though I still wasn't super high on him at the time and wasn't all that interested in us taking him. I think his college tape showed him having better leverage, hand usage, and consistency than Vea does.

 

Whenever an enormous, athletic guy comes out there are always people clamoring for them no matter what and I think their rarity artificially inflates their value as the ones taken high usually don't end up being worth it outside of a couple guys like Ngata and maybe Poe. I don't think Vea will be the exception. But if it has to be a pick your poison between Vea and Payne, I'll take Vea.

[HTTRDynasty]

6 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Yeah it was and I thought it was pretty telling and lined up with my feelings on Vea and Payne both. I actually do think Danny Shelton was a better prospect than Vea coming out of college, though I still wasn't super high on him at the time and wasn't all that interested in us taking him. I think his college tape showed him having better leverage, hand usage, and consistency than Vea does.

 

Whenever a enormous, athletic guy comes out there are always people clamoring for them no matter what and I think their rarity artificially inflates their value as the ones taken high usually don't end up being worth it outside of a couple guys like Ngata and maybe Poe. I don't think Vea will be the exception. But if it has to be a pick your poison between Vea and Payne, I'll take Vea.

 

Yeah, I'm not in love with Vea at 13.  I wouldn't be angry about it, given the huge hole we have at NT and how good I think our defense can be if we plug that hole.  But this is just another reason why I want us to sign Hankins over any other option at that spot.  I don't want us to have to reach for Vea or Payne at 13, and Jay's interview with Cooley yesterday only makes me more worried that we will reach for a need rather than go BPA if an elite player falls to us.

[cakmoney61]

31 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

I don't know if everyone caught what Jay said in the Cooley interview but he said they've initially got like 20-25 guys they could pick at #13.  

 

It's around the 16:00 mark...

 

 

I smell a trade back in order to recoup that third-round pick.

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

 

Yeah, I'm not in love with Vea at 13.  I wouldn't be angry about it, given the huge hole we have at NT and how good I think our defense can be if we plug that hole.  But this is just another reason why I want us to sign Hankins over any other option at that spot.  I don't want us to have to reach for Vea or Payne at 13, and Jay's interview with Cooley yesterday only makes me more worried that we will reach for a need rather than go BPA if an elite player falls to us.

 

I don't think our "hole" at NT is as big as people think, to be honest. Before we lost Allen and The Greek was basically playing with only one hand, our defense was looking pretty legit. There seems to be this belief that if we just had a 345 lb behemoth we'd suddenly be good at stopping the run but IMO that's a bit simplistic.

 

Another issue I have with the whole "let's get the enormous NT hole plugger" theory is that it doesn't really fit in with the type of 3-4 we generally run. If we ran a more old school 2 gap 3-4 as our base then yeah I could see it since there your D linemen are almost purely to swallow up blockers so your LBs can flow downhill and make plays. But we generally run more of a 1 gap 3-4 Under scheme where the D linemen are meant to penetrate and do more than just soak up blockers. So there you tend to have a NT who is still big but more agile, quicker, and adept at shooting gaps. Sure, some people think Vea can do that but I haven't seen him do it consistently (his TFL numbers seem to agree) and when he does it tends to be with sloppy technique IMO.

 

I definitely do think Hankins fits our scheme so I agree with you there and really hope we can bring him in.

[actorguy1]

My ideal draft scenarios 

1. Trade back to late teens gain 3rd rounder and still have choice between Payne Vea and Guice. 

2. Nelson or Barkley fall to 13 and we draft one

3. Fitzpatrick and/or James fall to 13 and we draft one

[Mr.Will]

23 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

My ideal draft scenarios 

1. Trade back to late teens gain 3rd rounder and still have choice between Payne Vea and Guice. 

2. Nelson or Barkley fall to 13 and we draft one

3. Fitzpatrick and/or James fall to 13 and we draft one

My thoughts EXACTLY,I agree with your whole post buddy!!!!

[Skinsinparadise]

Seems like Keim is putting out a billboard (he's said what he said below now multiple times) their board is

 

1. Fitzpatrick

2. D. James

3. Vea

4.  If they aren't there trade down -- and maybe get Guice

 

John Keim‏Verified account @john_keim 2h2 hours ago

More

John Keim Retweeted NFL Network

Believe if Minkah and then Derwin aren't there then Vea would be the guy. We shall see.

 

 

 

[Darth Tater]

46 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I don't think our "hole" at NT is as big as people think, to be honest. Before we lost Allen and The Greek was basically playing with only one hand, our defense was looking pretty legit. There seems to be this belief that if we just had a 345 lb behemoth we'd suddenly be good at stopping the run but IMO that's a bit simplistic.

 

Another issue I have with the whole "let's get the enormous NT hole plugger" theory is that it doesn't really fit in with the type of 3-4 we generally run. If we ran a more old school 2 gap 3-4 as our base then yeah I could see it since there your D linemen are almost purely to swallow up blockers so your LBs can flow downhill and make plays. But we generally run more of a 1 gap 3-4 Under scheme where the D linemen are meant to penetrate and do more than just soak up blockers. So there you tend to have a NT who is still big but more agile, quicker, and adept at shooting gaps. Sure, some people think Vea can do that but I haven't seen him do it consistently (his TFL numbers seem to agree) and when he does it tends to be with sloppy technique IMO.

 

I definitely do think Hankins fits our scheme so I agree with you there and really hope we can bring him in.

I made this bleg elsewhere but I'd like to know what formations had the biggest problem stopping the run.  If non-base forms are where we had the most trouble, that would seem to support the injury theory meaning we probably need depth and/or a guy like Fitzpatrick or James who reportedly would provide depth plus the ability to shift some defenses we run on the fly.  Don't forget we also saw our defense stumble hard when Nicholson and Foster were down.  Some of our worst rushing defenses saw no Brown either.  I also would note that a few of our most atrocious defensive showings came when we were playing out the string which indicates a coaching issue, not a talent one.  The Eagles were held to less than 100 yards rushing only 5 times, once was us who held them to just 58. Of the 5 games were we held our opponents to less than 100 yards rushing, all but 1 came before injuries killed us. In the 7 where we gave up 150 or more, 3 came against top 10 running teams and only 2 came before mid-season (those against top rushing offenses). Indications are that our problems were injury (fix by depth is pretty much the only available strategy here) and coaching related.