2018 ES GMs Mock Draft is complete!

[Redskins Reparations]

Speaking at the NFL Combine, Giants coach Pat Shurmur said he believes Eli Manning has multiple years left as a quality starter.

Eli's yards-per-attempt average has declined in four straight years -- his 6.1 YPA mark from 2017 was Manning's lowest since his 2004 rookie year -- but both Shurmur and new GM Dave Gettleman have steadfastly supported Eli as their starter going forward. There are growing indications the Giants will not draft a quarterback at No. 2 overall, instead opting for Penn State RB Saquon Barkley, Notre Dame OL Quenton Nelson or possible trade down scenario. 

 

The NY Giants are now taking offers for the 2nd overall pick in the 2018 NFL Draft...

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

For everyone's reference, in case you missed it last Friday, this year's compensatory picks are thus: 

 

4:

Bengals

Third-round pick (100th overall selection), Fifth-round pick (170th overall), Seventh-round (252nd, 253rd overall)

Cowboys

Fourth-round pick (133rd overall selection), Fifth-round picks (171st overall, 173rd overall), Sixth-round (208th overall)

Packers

Fourth-round pick (137th overall selection), Fifth-round picks (172nd overall, 174th overall), Sixth-round (207th overall)

Raiders

Sixth-round picks (210th overall selection, 212th overall, 216th overall, 217th overall)

 

3:

Cardinals

Third-round pick (97th overall selection), Fourth-round (134th overall), Seventh-round (254th overall)

Texans

Third-round pick (98th overall selection), Sixth-round picks (211th overall, 214th overall)

 

2:

Vikings

Sixth-round picks (213th overall selection, 218th overall)

 

1:

Broncos

Third-round (99th overall)

Giants

Fourth-round (135th overall)

Patriots 

Fourth-round (136th overall)

Chiefs

Sixth-round (209th overall)

Ravens

Sixth-round (215th overall)

Chargers

Seventh-round (251st overall)

Buccaneers

Seventh-round (255thth overall)

Falcons

Seventh-round (256th overall, final pick in the draft)

 

Hail. 

[Epochalypse]

11 hours ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

You can't flip one pick. If you want to go down that round, you'd have to flip every pick. And keep track of them. But then it would completely go to **** as those picks get traded and re-traded in reality. 

 

You paid for Roullier when you made the trade in good faith. Presumably, weighing up everything for the future of your franchise as I'd hope everyone does when making such a move. 

 

Hail. 

I'm not clear what you mean I can't flip one pick. It's a pick in this draft that I have control over. If I choose to honor my trade from last year's draft, I don't see why that's an issue. What I won't do is force those who traded picks in this draft, to honor those trades because I didn't run last year's draft.

 

I am leaning towards not allowing future pick trades, but who knows, maybe if the 3 other teams who traded future picks actually honor the trades in those instances where the owners and teams are the same as last year, then I can validate having future pick trading. Without that it becomes, as you expressed concern for, unfair.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

That quite frankly is utterly preposterous B/S. You can't flippantly say you're 'honouring one trade.' It would completely throw the whole draft. We roll on the picks in reality until the roster's are locked down. Now you want to start 'honouring previous years future picks?' (Which is utter nonsense when it comes to this 'accountability' argument to start with IMHO as those trades are made within the context of a previous draft at that time and are accounted for at that time. By both parties involved. Just as trades within a certain years draft are.). 

 

If we went down that road, you'd have to carry over all the future draft picks. And follow those back in real life to make all the relevant changes. Good luck doing that. We might well be darn late starting this years draft if you did. 

 

This is boiling down to you not liking future picks traded as you expressed last year after you readily traded out of first. Which is sound. But don't try frame this as unfair or any future picks 'not being accounted for' as they most certainly, again, are in the context of the relevant draft and all parties involved. No trade has been made thus far in our three years which has been so out there on the trade chart the majority have voiced to veto it. Like we did the player trades. 

 

I'm not too bothered personally which way the majority falls on future trading. Or yourself if you're taking the decision solely. But please can we cut the B/S slurs on everyone that's made good faith future moves within a draft as somehow being unfair/ unaccountable. 

 

Hail. 

[Epochalypse]

Methinks someone's getting defensive...

 

I'll adjust the OP rules tomorrow to specify no trading future picks to put this to rest.

 

And I still intend to send the Browns 6th rounder to who I feel rightfully owns the pick.

 

Because I'm selfish like that.

[DogofWar1]

 

Saints gonna march their foot up y'alls' bums, as is yearly tradition.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Not getting defensive at all. Just can't do with the patronising B/S because you don't happen to like something. 

 

Tell yer what. Flip the Browns traded 6th from last year without any others. Compromise the entire integrity of the concept. And count me out of this year's draft if you do. 

 

Hail. 

[Epochalypse]

9 minutes ago, Gibbs Hog Heaven said:

Not getting defensive at all. Just can't do with the patronising B/S because you don't happen to like something. 

 

Tell yer what. Flip the Browns traded 6th from last year without any others. Compromise the entire integrity of the concept. And count me out of this year's draft if you do. 

 

Hail. 

Hmm me giving a 6th round pick to someone compromises the entire integrity of the concept.

 

And since I'm still planning on doing it, I'll drop your name tomorrow as requested.

 

As for me doing this just because I didn't happen to like something, I'll remind you we got here because you didn't like a rule I posted...

[Epochalypse]

Alright @styx491 has about 4 more days to respond before we start planning without him.

 

As for the assignment of the Redskins, method used in the past include guessing a pre-determined number in a range and the closest wins.  Could also use assigning numbers and either picking out of a hat or rolling a die/dice, depending on how many we end up in the running.  Open to ideas.  I expect I'll do that Monday 5 Mar.  After that, I'll go in order of those who would like in to pick their teams until we fill up.  If any holes remain I'll start begging as per the norm.

[goskins10]

@Gibbs Hog Heaven and @Epochalypse

 

Please figure this out in a way that you both participate. Both of you are critical to the success of this really fun exercise and have put a lot of your own blood sweat and tears into making it a success.

 

It's kind of like watching your parents argue and wanting them to just figure it out and make up. None of what has been discussed is really that important in the grand scheme of things. This is supposed to be fun. 

 

 

[skinfan2k]

so are we doing a mock draft or a fantasy draft?

[Redskins Reparations]

8 hours ago, Epochalypse said:

As for the assignment of the Redskins, method used in the past include guessing a pre-determined number in a range and the closest wins.  Could also use assigning numbers and either picking out of a hat or rolling a die/dice, depending on how many we end up in the running.  Open to ideas.  I expect I'll do that Monday 5 Mar.

 

Could I play the role of Daniel Snyder?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

27 minutes ago, skinfan2k said:

so are we doing a mock draft or a fantasy draft?

 

Your Steelers are about to get an extra draft pick over the 31 other teams so I'd go with the later. 

 

But I no longer have a team it appears so it's not my place to comment anymore. 

 

Hail. 

[Wildbunny]

41 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:

 

Could I play the role of Daniel Snyder?

[Epochalypse]

1 hour ago, skinfan2k said:

so are we doing a mock draft or a fantasy draft?

Mock, if our definitions for those terms are similar.

1 hour ago, Redskins Reparations said:

 

Could I play the role of Daniel Snyder?

Depends. How is your lawyer?

[Redskins Reparations]

28 minutes ago, Epochalypse said:

Depends. How is your lawyer?

 

Well...Lanny Davis is considered an all-around flunky but so are most of the people I surround myself with.

[Epochalypse]

3 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:

 

Well...Lanny Davis is considered an all-around flunky but so are most of the people I surround myself with.

Hmm you sound overqualified.

 

Wait, are you asking to get added to the Redskin hopeful list?

[Redskins Reparations]

Just now, Epochalypse said:

Hmm you sound overqualified.

 

Wait, are you asking to get added to the Redskin hopeful list?

 

How many are currently on the hopeful list?

[Mania]

On 2/27/2018 at 9:19 PM, Epochalypse said:

I'm currently leaning that way but I'll give it some time to think about it; listen to any other opinions from the other GMs. I just have an issue with what amounts to unpaid costs. Just getting your picks back the next year makes it a joke. I'd like to keep it as close to reality as possible.

I also think in the future that we should consider a team draft instead of just a sign up.  Basically you open a team draft and have everyone pick a number.  Once 32 members are signed up they would get put into a randomizer to determine Team Draft Order.   Then you draft the team you want to manage.  I think it would add a different element to the game.

[Epochalypse]

13 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:

 

How many are currently on the hopeful list?

Check OP

[Epochalypse]

28 minutes ago, SkinsFanMania said:

I also think in the future that we should consider a team draft instead of just a sign up.  Basically you open a team draft and have everyone pick a number.  Once 32 members are signed up they would get put into a randomizer to determine Team Draft Order.   Then you draft the team you want to manage.  I think it would add a different element to the game.

While I agree it would be different, you again depart further from reality.  Not necessarily a bad thing but counter to what I usually do these mock drafts for.  If given the situation each of the real NFL teams find themselves in, could I do better then the real scouts, GMs, what have you, when presented with the same situation.  Unfortunately they have the benefit of having players to trade, which I tried our first year and found out without limits it was taken too far.  Last year I observed the same thing happening with future draft picks so I tried to limit it this year until follow on discussion showed even mild limits weren't enough apparently.  It's an iterative process to find something that hopefully enough enjoy while making sure the construct isn't abused by any individual GM.

[goskins10]

36 minutes ago, Epochalypse said:

While I agree it would be different, you again depart further from reality.  Not necessarily a bad thing but counter to what I usually do these mock drafts for.  If given the situation each of the real NFL teams find themselves in, could I do better then the real scouts, GMs, what have you, when presented with the same situation.  Unfortunately they have the benefit of having players to trade, which I tried our first year and found out without limits it was taken too far.  Last year I observed the same thing happening with future draft picks so I tried to limit it this year until follow on discussion showed even mild limits weren't enough apparently.  It's an iterative process to find something that hopefully enough enjoy while making sure the construct isn't abused by any individual GM.

 

Is there any interest in allowing future picks to be traded but limit them to no higher than a 4th? That way there is some leeway but no one can sell out the entire next with no ramifications. Just a thought. 

[Epochalypse]

2 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Is there any interest in allowing future picks to be traded but limit them to no higher than a 4th? That way there is some leeway but no one can sell out the entire next with no ramifications. Just a thought. 

I'll leave the rule as it currently is, but if enough other GMs come in and like this idea better, I'm willing to discuss.

[Redskins Reparations]

6 minutes ago, Epochalypse said:

I'll leave the rule as it currently is, but if enough other GMs come in and like this idea better, I'm willing to discuss.

 

I completely understand how much effort is required to run this so I will speak on behalf of everyone and say thank you for running the draft Epoch.

 

Seems like most owners want to have the option of trading future picks.  Would you be willing to have someone volunteer their services to relieve you of the responsibility and manage a spread sheet to keep track of future draft picks traded beyond 2018 to apply to the 2019 ES Mock Draft?

 

Or is there any way ES members could help you?

[Epochalypse]

The issue isn't tracking picks, and especially not future picks.

 

As I posted above, there were only 5 trades for future picks all of last draft.

 

Here they are again.

 

Cowboys (GHH) 1st to Browns (me)

Cowboys (GHH) 2nd to Browns (me)

Cowboys (GHH) 4th to Eagles (skinfan57)

Texans (Monk4thaHall) 5th to Saints (DogofWar1)

Cowboys (GHH) 2 x 5ths to Jaguars (Wildbunny)

Panthers (SamMillls51) comp 5th to Chiefs (ZRagone)

Cowboys (GHH) 6th to Panthers (SamMillls51)

Giants (Redskins Reparations) 6th to Eagles (skinfan57)

Browns (me) 6th to Steelers (skinfan2k)

 

[Cowboys also traded their 2019 1st to Browns]

 

My issue isn't trading future picks since as you can see, I generally like trading FOR them, and in one instance above I traded 1 away.  They open up opportunities, but opportunities come with costs.  Costs that weren't being paid.

 

My issue is that there is evidently a risk that a team will trade most if not all of their future picks to improve their draft this year, then come back next year and expect that they should get all those picks back to do it again.

 

There's nothing fair about trading all your future picks to get better players this year, then come back next year and repeat, always having better players to say "I drafted X" when they never actually paid for them.  My initial rule change this year was designed to limit that to only one transaction; in one single transaction you could trade as many of your future picks as you wanted but that was the only time you could do that for the remainder of the draft.  None of this trading future picks 5 times to keep moving up in the draft.

 

Again if I'm going to say Chase Roullier was worth trading up for, I should actually have to complete that trade, i.e. this year give my Browns 6th rounder to the Steelers, because I SAID LAST YEAR I WOULD.  Would I have liked others to follow through on that, sure but I didn't mandate that.  And even though I lose a pick by doing that, I still have someone who decided to withdraw from the league over something as simple as me giving a pick I had this year to someone I told last year I'd give them.  If trading future picks is causing this much angst, we are better without it.

 

As to your point that most owners want to trade future picks, I've not seen evidence of that.  In this thread alone more have expressed that they'd rather not than ones that would.  And last year again, only 5 teams traded away future picks.  Problem is one team took advantage and did it 5 times.