2019 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Est.1974]

6 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I agree with your premise, or supposition, but my god, it would be a special brand of crazy to trade away our best olineman to get a qb that we then can’t protect.  IMO anyway.  Would be a different story if we had some youngsters on deck, but with essentially no LG, basically no oline depth...

 

 

 

Yep I'm not saying it's happening, but just said in another thread, IF the brains trust of Dan and Bruce fall in love with Haskins, some serious **** going to happen in order to get him. We can't get him from #15 without shipping some serious trade out of the door. 

 

Or we just trade a second for Rosen or pick Stidham in the third 

[goskins10]

17 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I agree with your premise, or supposition, but my god, it would be a special brand of crazy to trade away our best olineman to get a qb that we then can’t protect.  IMO anyway.  Would be a different story if we had some youngsters on deck, but with essentially no LG, basically no oline depth...

 

 

 

I agree it would take a special kind of stupid to trade Scherff or worse just let him walk. 

 

While this probably belongs in the conspiracy theory, it also belongs here I think. I believe he is getting rid of all the Scot M picks as fast as he can. He has not extended anyone and they traded away Fuller. 

 

is bruce that petty? I think that answer is yes. If he somehow gets rid of Scherff, then I will be sure of it. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

3 hours ago, dballer said:

 

Ravens and Chiefs both "built" their teams while possessing and paying "franchise QBs". They just happened to draft their successors. 

 

Don't get it twisted. Everyone single one of these teams will pay to extend these QB's if they continue to play well. They aren't going to be like "we have to pay Deshaun Watson now, time to let him go and draft another Rookie". A guy like Dak is about to get PAID. 

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the point. More money to spend elsewhere. Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Cam Newton, Ben, Matt Ryan, etc were all sitting home last year. Personally, I hate the thought of the teams chances riding so heavily on the QB. 

 

But the primary goal is still to find a good QB. A good QB on a rookie deal is just icing on the cake. But a good QB on a rookie deal will become good QB on an expensive deal  when the time comes. 

I mentioned this once before, but there is some radio host (can't remember who) that talks about the Matt Ryan line when it comes to QB contracts. By that, he means that you can afford to give one of those huge QB contracts to one as good as Ryan, but spending that much cap on a QB worse than that can cripple you.

 

Obviously, nothing is that absolute. There are other variables, particularly how well you spend the rest of your cap and how well you draft lower-cost players. 

 

Still, I think there is a lot of validity to that. You can win with a Jared Goff-level QB if you have that extra 20-25 mil in cap space to build a team around him. It's a lot less likely without it (unless Goff develops a lot more). And obviously, you can contend without that cap if you have a Brees or a Rodgers to elevate your team. But if you have to pay Dak Prescott 25-30 mil per year, does that leave you enough cap to construct a team that's good enough to win with Prescott as its QB? 

[Nerm]

40 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I mentioned this once before, but there is some radio host (can't remember who) that talks about the Matt Ryan line when it comes to QB contracts. By that, he means that you can afford to give one of those huge QB contracts to one as good as Ryan, but spending that much cap on a QB worse than that can cripple you.

 

Obviously, nothing is that absolute. There are other variables, particularly how well you spend the rest of your cap and how well you draft lower-cost players. 

 

Still, I think there is a lot of validity to that. You can win with a Jared Goff-level QB if you have that extra 20-25 mil in cap space to build a team around him. It's a lot less likely without it (unless Goff develops a lot more). And obviously, you can contend without that cap if you have a Brees or a Rodgers to elevate your team. But if you have to pay Dak Prescott 25-30 mil per year, does that leave you enough cap to construct a team that's good enough to win with Prescott as its QB? 

 

I'm intrigued to see what the Seahawks do with Wilson.  He is a guy who is seen as completely carrying that team despite having one of the worst OLs in the NFL for most of his career.  I see many people say he is going to be the highest paid player in the NFL after his next contract.  Tough situation for Seattle.  How do you increase his pay so dramatically and improve the team?  How do you let a guy go who has been able to elevate the team far beyond its talent level.

 

[Ghedrick]

I can't wait to see Jerry pay Dak 25-30 million a year.Dak can't even take them cowgirls no where with top 10 defense and rushing attack. I could imagen where they will be paying a middle of the pack QB top dollar.

 

Carson's play has dropped off and he will command top dollar as while.If we find a decent QB on a rookie contract within two years we will be able to load up around him while he develops.

 

This will allow us to take advantage of the Eagles and cowgirls well their resources are tied up on average QBS.

[Skinsinparadise]

Just listened to Keim's podcast, he said the impression he is getting is they will take a receiver in the first two rounds. Trading  for a receiver is likely on the table but if not they

are likrly taking one early. He said he is not sure though it will be in the first.

 

Feels some like last year when we got heavy hints there will be a RB in the 2nd. Will see,

 

On another note, from where I am at I can't attach tweets easily but jusr read MMQ and they said they heard Jon Gruden really digs Drew Lock. And Will Grier might sneak in to the late first rd.

[HigSkin]

FWIW

 

 

[Anselmheifer]

29 minutes ago, HigSkin said:

FWIW

 

 

So, ball speed means nothing. I can't understand why this measurement is so bad. 

[skinny21]

23 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

So, ball speed means nothing. I can't understand why this measurement is so bad. 

I mean, I really like Grier and have advocated for him on here... but Lock (for one) clearly has a much better arm.  So yeah, I don’t get the measurement either.  

[Anselmheifer]

Thanks McQueen for redirecting my attention here. He doesn't have great length, but speed is very good. He has a nose for the ball and good hands. Good blitzer. Solid tackler and appears to take on blocks well in the box. I think he's a second rounder, but would love him in the 3rd or 4th. 

If we are focused on WR, this is the year to do it. We could totally reload the position. McShay's latest mock had us taking Marquise Brown at 15. Imagine Marquise Brown at 15, and Haikim Butler in the 2nd. I really think Butler is going to be a star. 

 

 

[goskins10]

This is call out to all the Draftniks out there that would like to try their hand at being a GM, albeit in cyberspace.

 

For those that may not know for at least the last 5 yrs that I know of (likely more before that), we have held a 7 rd 32 team Mock draft. It starts about a month before the real draft. it typically takes about 3 weeks to complete as we have GMs from around the world participating. There is a GM for each team with the Redskins GM being drawn by lottery out of those who want to be Redskins GM. This will be my 4th yr participating and it is a lot of fun. A bit competitive but in the very best way. If all else fails you can enjoy mocking others picks as they try to justify a 5th rd reach in the 2nd rd (looking at you @Gibbs Hog Heaven 🙂 JK ) along with the banter that ensues. 

 

The thread is pinned to the top of the Stadium. If you are interested at all or even just curious, please go to the thread and read the rules (yes, even with something like this rules are a necessary evil.) If you are interested in participating pick one of the open teams by either sending me a PM or saying something directly in the thread. Also let us know if you want to be in the Redskins GM lottery. 

 

There are currently 16 confirmed GMs. There currently 6 teams open. GMs from last yr have until tomorrow at 6:00PM EDT to claim their teams. At that time whenever teams have not been claimed will also be made available on a first come first serve basis. 

 

We start next Friday at 12 Noon. Hope to see some of you put all that good work doing player evaluations to use.  

 

 

[dballer]

15 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

I mentioned this once before, but there is some radio host (can't remember who) that talks about the Matt Ryan line when it comes to QB contracts. By that, he means that you can afford to give one of those huge QB contracts to one as good as Ryan, but spending that much cap on a QB worse than that can cripple you.

 

Obviously, nothing is that absolute. There are other variables, particularly how well you spend the rest of your cap and how well you draft lower-cost players. 

 

Still, I think there is a lot of validity to that. You can win with a Jared Goff-level QB if you have that extra 20-25 mil in cap space to build a team around him. It's a lot less likely without it (unless Goff develops a lot more). And obviously, you can contend without that cap if you have a Brees or a Rodgers to elevate your team. But if you have to pay Dak Prescott 25-30 mil per year, does that leave you enough cap to construct a team that's good enough to win with Prescott as its QB? 

 

I agree with that line of thought. The problem is even Goff and Dak level QBs are hard to find. So when it’s time to pay Dak, do you not pay him and try to find another guy? 

 

The Ravens had been able to stay pretty good paying big money to a QB under that Matt Ryan line. 

 

I’m torn. Even Rodgers can’t elevate the rest of the team if the organization isn’t drafting well. And you really need to draft well every year. But if you have Rodgers you are always starting the year as a contender.

 

I mean we had the perfect example, to pay or not pay Kirk. We got lambasted by many for letting him walk. Of course we then went and paid a similar QB similar money proving we really had no plan, but that’s besides the point. I can’t think of another instance where a team felt they didn’t want to pay big money to a home grown, slightly above average QB? If we are the trendsetter, chances are it won’t be a trend. 🤣

 

And to be fair, I agree with not paying Kirk the big money. But, as we go into this year with Colt and Case (and even if it had been Alex)...hard to not have second thoughts on that. 

[Anselmheifer]

1 hour ago, dballer said:

 

I agree with that line of thought. The problem is even Goff and Dak level QBs are hard to find. So when it’s time to pay Dak, do you not pay him and try to find another guy? 

 

The Ravens had been able to stay pretty good paying big money to a QB under that Matt Ryan line. 

 

I’m torn. Even Rodgers can’t elevate the rest of the team if the organization isn’t drafting well. And you really need to draft well every year. But if you have Rodgers you are always starting the year as a contender.

 

I mean we had the perfect example, to pay or not pay Kirk. We got lambasted by many for letting him walk. Of course we then went and paid a similar QB similar money proving we really had no plan, but that’s besides the point. I can’t think of another instance where a team felt they didn’t want to pay big money to a home grown, slightly above average QB? If we are the trendsetter, chances are it won’t be a trend. 🤣

 

And to be fair, I agree with not paying Kirk the big money. But, as we go into this year with Colt and Case (and even if it had been Alex)...hard to not have second thoughts on that. 

I think we draft better than the packers.

 

I think part of the problem of paying Smith, what really made it terminally stupid, was Smith's age. We were not close to a super bowl. We needed time to build, and we traded for and gave good money to, a 33 year old QB that was only somewhat above average to start with. 

I still think our team would have made the playoffs last year with Cousins. Even when we won with Smith, the statistics said we weren't as good as our record and everybody could sense that the whole thing was going to come crashing down. 

[Wyndorf25]

This is my short list of players I hope the Redskins draft with pick 15 (or later if they trade back, NO trade up) in the first round (in no particular order)... 

 

-ILB Devin White 

-TE T.J. Hockenson

-DE/OLB Montez Sweat

-QB Kyler Murray/Dwayne Haskins/Drew Lock

-CB Greedy Williams

-WR Marquis Brown

-OLB Brian Burns

-OG Cody Ford

-OLB Jachai Polite

 

Guys who are close but are left off...

-WR D.K. Metcalf

-TE Noah Fant 

-OLB Devin Bush

-QB Daniel Jones

 

 

[Skin'emAlive]

70 mil is a lot to give a guy like Alex Smith. But really, he wasn’t ever going to be here more than 3 years. We went in with the Kansas City plan, which would require us not reaching for a qb this draft, but getting one mid round and having Alex teach him the ropes. 

 

Of course that went to crap when Alex went down... but every team other than the Pats and Eagles would falter under those circumstances 

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, dballer said:

 

I agree with that line of thought. The problem is even Goff and Dak level QBs are hard to find. So when it’s time to pay Dak, do you not pay him and try to find another guy? 

 

The Ravens had been able to stay pretty good paying big money to a QB under that Matt Ryan line. 

 

I’m torn. Even Rodgers can’t elevate the rest of the team if the organization isn’t drafting well. And you really need to draft well every year. But if you have Rodgers you are always starting the year as a contender.

 

I mean we had the perfect example, to pay or not pay Kirk. We got lambasted by many for letting him walk. Of course we then went and paid a similar QB similar money proving we really had no plan, but that’s besides the point. I can’t think of another instance where a team felt they didn’t want to pay big money to a home grown, slightly above average QB? If we are the trendsetter, chances are it won’t be a trend. 🤣

 

And to be fair, I agree with not paying Kirk the big money. But, as we go into this year with Colt and Case (and even if it had been Alex)...hard to not have second thoughts on that. 

Well, the idea is more about building a Super Bowl contender, and I'm not sure the Ravens ever were since they paid Flacco a big contract. Not that I think he is the only reason, or even the main reason, for that. But his case doesn't really refute the premise.

 

Likewise, yes, if you want to stay "competitive", you hang on to Dak or Goff even at big money, but the question is whether you can put enough around them to go after titles.

[Going Commando]

Eli Manning is the other example.  The lesson there I guess is that you need to have an elite OL--those DIehl/Snee/McKenzie/O'Hara offensive lines were elite, arguably the best in the NFL around that time--and an All Timer defensive line.  But if you can get that kind of stable on both sides of the trenches, then you can win multiple SBs with an average starting QB.

The Matt Ryan line also feels kind of high.  He's an MVP winner.  I think we should put the line at someone like Matt Stafford instead.

[Jericho]

Still not buying into Drew Lock as a first round pick. A 57 % career completion percentage that drops to roughly 53% against SEC opponents? That's fugly. He seems fine as a player you try and develop, but he has a rather serious flaw that should prevent him from being a first rounder. I feel some team is about to make a huge mistake. I'm hoping its not Washington.

[Skin'emAlive]

 

17 hours ago, Nerm said:

 

I'm intrigued to see what the Seahawks do with Wilson.  He is a guy who is seen as completely carrying that team despite having one of the worst OLs in the NFL for most of his career.  I see many people say he is going to be the highest paid player in the NFL after his next contract.  Tough situation for Seattle.  How do you increase his pay so dramatically and improve the team?  How do you let a guy go who has been able to elevate the team far beyond its talent level.

 

 

This is tough, with regards to both of Seattle's Superbowl appearances, their OL either was dominant or outplaying their potential.

 

2005 Seattle: had possibly one of the top 3 OL in the history of the league.

Walter Jones

Sean Locklear

Steve Hutchinson

Robbie Tobeck

Chris Gray

 

Shaun Alexander had about 1900 yards that season and won the MVP

 

2013 Seattle: had imo the second best defense of all time, and an OL that was anchored by probowler Max Unger at C and Tom Cable putting on a Offensive Line clinic

 

Marshawn Beast Mode happened

 

But perhaps the difference in those two teams is the fact that Wilson is better than Hasselbeck. He's changed his game since then and is arguably just as good as he ever was. You pay the guy and figure it out along the way. Last year Seattle had the most rushing yards in the league with a lineup of: Chris Carson, Mike Davis, and Rashard Penny?! Thats ridiculous. They also had no TE at all, and a rotating core of young receivers with Baldwin out most of the year.

[Anselmheifer]

1 hour ago, Jericho said:

Still not buying into Drew Lock as a first round pick. A 57 % career completion percentage that drops to roughly 53% against SEC opponents? That's fugly. He seems fine as a player you try and develop, but he has a rather serious flaw that should prevent him from being a first rounder. I feel some team is about to make a huge mistake. I'm hoping its not Washington.

Career 53% against the SEC is awful. No thanks. Also consistent with what Mcqueen said about Lock looking laborious moving the ball down the field, while Haskins did it effortlessly. 

[Nerm]

13 minutes ago, Skin'emAlive said:

 

But perhaps the difference in those two teams is the fact that Wilson is better than Hasselbeck. He's changed his game since then and is arguably just as good as he ever was. You pay the guy and figure it out along the way. Last year Seattle had the most rushing yards in the league with a lineup of: Chris Carson, Mike Davis, and Rashard Penny?! Thats ridiculous. They also had no TE at all, and a rotating core of young receivers with Baldwin out most of the year.

 

I agree, you have to pay Wilson, and try to add some players.  You have a top 5 QB, and a team that has made the playoffs 3 of the past 4 years.  I think it is time for them to go "all in".  Push some cap hits off in to the future, and add some key FA guys.  Maybe trade some draft picks for salary cap space (kind of like the Texans did with Osweiler).  

 

I'm surprised that teams don't do this.  Instead of signing a FA straight up, find a team with a ton of cap space that is wanting draft picks.  Have them sign the FA with a big signing bonus, then they trade you the player for a draft pick.  You then get the player you wanted in FA for a much lower cap hit... Plus, it doesn't count against you when calculating comp picks.

[Rufus T Firefly]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Eli Manning is the other example.  The lesson there I guess is that you need to have an elite OL--those DIehl/Snee/McKenzie/O'Hara offensive lines were elite, arguably the best in the NFL around that time--and an All Timer defensive line.  But if you can get that kind of stable on both sides of the trenches, then you can win multiple SBs with an average starting QB.

Eli is particularly problematic in this example, as his teams really never played like title contenders until the postseason, when Eli started playing like an MVP and elevating them. In other years, he didn't elevate his game or team to the same extent. 

 

Also, we're going back with him. He won his first while on his rookie deal, albeit at a time when there was no rookie wage scale and rookie QBs earned way too muc. He won his second early in his second contract. I'm not 100% sure how the economics of those deals translate to today. More research would be required, at the least.

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

The Matt Ryan line also feels kind of high.  He's an MVP winner.  I think we should put the line at someone like Matt Stafford instead.

It's interesting you mention Stafford, as I was thinking of his as an example of the flaw in the absolutism of this. How much worse is he really than Ryan? Can you really compete for Super Bowls paying Ryan $25 mil, but not paying Stafford $25 mil? The difference could easily be made up by Stafford having a slightly better FO (in reality, of course, Ryan has a much better one). 

 

Again, this is where I take issue with absolute lines, or tiers. Obviously, we can all see that it would be much easier to contend while paying Aaron Rodgers big money than Dak Prescott. But can you really win with Ryan and not Stafford? And if you can win with Stafford, can you really not win with Cam? And if you can win with Cam, can you really not win with Trubisky? It's easy to make cases like that when you're comparing two players where one of them is at the top of the higher or the bottom of their lower tier, but it's a lot murkier as you try to draw lines between players who are closer together in ability.

 

So, still, I agree with the general premise of the Ryan line, and that's why I bring it up, but absolutes just don't work in that way.

[Skin'emAlive]

Even if we were to look at the Flacco situation as an example of paying too much... The real problem was Ray Rice knocked his wife out, and their best receiver in the past 6 years was Steve Smith. For a team that has always been anchored by running and TE's, they had no one at either position due to injuries, Vegas, and poor drafting in their respective postitions. That defense has been legendary since Ray Lewis, and doesnt show signs of stopping. I dont think Flacco was the problem more than their entire ethos of offensive identity was on IR for 5 years just about.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

 

[kingdaddy]

Assuming the Skins like Tim Settle, it seems to me as if we have depth at DT and could move one of the 4 in a deal to either move up or get a WR?