2021 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Est.1974]

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Before I can honestly decide if I think Lance is an acceptable risk, or even Wilson for that matter, I need to see how free agency shakes out. 
 

If most of our needs are at least attempted to be plugged, that reduces the need weight in a weighted BPA formula. And that sky rockets a guy like Lance.

I don’t see the connection as far as QB is concerned. 
 

Prior to the draft, evaluate if Smith,Allen or Haskins are the medium/long term answer at QB. Haskins is the wildcard. Once that’s decided, you either pull the trigger or you don’t.

 

Not drafting a QB because FA didn’t quite pan out, not something i would advocate.

[OVCChairman]

7 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I don’t see the connection as far as QB is concerned. 
 

Prior to the draft, evaluate if Smith,Allen or Haskins are the medium/long term answer at QB. Haskins is the wildcard. Once that’s decided, you either pull the trigger or you don’t.

 

Not drafting a QB because FA didn’t quite pan out, not something i would advocate.

 

I can see a bit of a connection...

 

If we sign a Tackle / MLB / WR in Free Agency, then the risk of taking Lance and passing on Leatherwood / Chase / Parsons is a lot different.  If you are incapable of signing skill position players or an MLB that changes where the draft shakes out.  

 

I don't personally take Trask over Leatherwood or Darrisaw, but if you sign a long term starter at LT, then taking Trask late in the 1st round might end up making more sense.  

 

For the record, i likely dont pass on Chase for any QB not named Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson, but that's just me. 

Edited December 4, 2020 by OVCChairman

[Est.1974]

I think you decide:

 

a - do we want to draft an elite prospect at QB to complete with the group, with a view to being the starter in 2022 or before.

 

b - are we comfortable with our existing group for 2 seasons and can afford to add a mid tier prospect day 2, like Rivera did with Grier.

 

I don’t think the evaluation process leading up to drafting a QB is influenced by FA, unless you have intended to directly address the QB position in FA. If we retain Smith, that’s isn’t happening.

 

All initially boils down to the evaluation of Smith and Haskins, then you decide on the next step at QB.

 

 

[KDawg]

26 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

I don’t see the connection as far as QB is concerned. 
 

Prior to the draft, evaluate if Smith,Allen or Haskins are the medium/long term answer at QB. Haskins is the wildcard. Once that’s decided, you either pull the trigger or you don’t.

 

Not drafting a QB because FA didn’t quite pan out, not something i would advocate.

 

20 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

I can see a bit of a connection...

 

If we sign a Tackle / MLB / WR in Free Agency, then the risk of taking Lance and passing on Leatherwood / Chase / Parsons is a lot different.  If you are incapable of signing skill position players or an MLB that changes where the draft shakes out.  

 

I don't personally take Trask over Leatherwood or Darrisaw, but if you sign a long term starter at LT, then taking Trask late in the 1st round might end up making more sense.  

 

For the record, i likely dont pass on Chase for any QB not named Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson, but that's just me. 

 

There is a significant connection.

 

Lance is developmental and if we have a guy that's more highly rated in a BPA weighted for need formula at the pick then you need to draft that guy. BPA is so important.

 

QBs get a double benefit in BPA, in my opinion. They get a need weight and a higher positional weight. But it's still possible due to actual raw grade in conjunction with those things that another player is higher on the board.

 

I don't believe another player is going to be higher on the board than Fields or Lawrence regardless. Probably not even Wilson. 

 

It's not as easy to say, "pull the trigger or don't". It's just never that simple. You may not be able to pull the trigger.

 

As holes are filled, need weight changes. If we have a hole at QB, but we fill part of the LB hole for instance, there's no way Parsons is going to be rated as highly as Lance. 

[Est.1974]

18 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

If you are incapable of signing skill position players or an MLB that changes where the draft shakes out.

You are largely incapable of most things without a viable QB. 
 

Selecting Leatherwood/Chase/Parson likely gives you a 90% chance you get a long term starter at OT/WR/MLB

 

Selecting Lance/Wilson likely gives you a 20% chance you get a franchise QB, initially on a rookie contract for 40-45mil over 5 years. That’s be one years salary soon for the vast majority of the top 10.

 

Make your choice.

 

 

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

if Smith is sticking around in 2021, this is exactly the risk we can afford to take. I’m all in for Lance personally, irrespective of risk.

Doesn't matter that Smith is still sticking around, eventually we have to get value out of that first rounder so if he's lousy down the road then so will the team.

[Est.1974]

If we win the division and pick 19 or beyond, I’m taking pure BPA.

 

If we don’t win the division and end up picking top 12, it’s got to be a QB.

 

Only way that isn’t the correct option is if by some miracle Haskins is back in the game.

[PartyPosse]

59 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I get your point.  I feel differently.  I am fixated on skill set first and foremost.  As an example, Zach Wilson could be playing with my kid in the backyard for all I care and if he can fling a 60 yard pass with velocity with accuracy to him versus seeing the same throw to Devonta Smith -- it still speaks to his arm strength.  It doesn't matter if he did it in my backyard or versus LSU.  

 

There are no perfect prospects obviously.  There are concerns about Zach and all these Qbs perhaps sans Lawrence but the scouts are paid to project.    Yeah I wouldn't ride on your opinion or my opinion on Zach Wilson.  We aren't experts and there is too much information about him that we aren't privy to.  But Kyle Smith and the scouts that work there are paid big bucks to figure this stuff out.  

 

I won't knock how you see it as it's a matter of perspective. I just think QB is 90% mental. A smart, poised QB can succeed without being the most talented where as rarely can the most talented thrive if they don't have the smarts and the poise. We've seen that first hand with RG3, Cousins and Haskins. All three had talent coming out the wazoo, but it was their lack of mental toughness or drive that made all of us wanting so much more. I'm not saying he doesn't have any of that because I have no idea, but it's easier to decipher the guys from the power 5 conferences in terms of seeing how they manage against real adversity. Dominating a 3-10 Texas State isn't nearly as impressive to me as Fields early struggle and comeback against Illinois. 

[KDawg]

3 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

If we win the division and pick 19 or beyond, I’m taking pure BPA.

 

If we don’t win the division and end up picking top 12, it’s got to be a QB.

 

Only way that isn’t the correct option is if by some miracle Haskins is back in the game.

You do not reach on a QB just to reach.

[Est.1974]

9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

You do not reach on a QB just to reach.

All indications are that it wouldn’t be a reach.

 

Is taking that QB say 5 slots early a reach, say pick 11 when he’s the 16th ranked prospect? Do you take that CB who is the 11th ranked player? And let that QB get away.

 

How do you strictly define ‘reach’ ?

[Skinsinparadise]

Earlier this season, when asked what trait is most essential for any quarterback to succeed in this league, Arizona Cardinals Coach Kliff Kingsbury didn’t hesitate. “Can they get you out of a bad place,” he said. “When the play breaks down … can they move around and extend the play?”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/12/04/washington-football-alex-smith/?utm_campaign=wp_sports&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_sports&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

The point above is why i am a Wilson guy much more over Jones or Trask.  You either have quick feet, can throw off platform, are fast are you aren't.   That doesn't change based on your competition.  What changes is what you can get away with.  No doubt Wilson isn't putting 500 years against Georgia and just outright humiliating them.    But his skills are still his skills. 

 

Some hyperbole now on my end to bring my point home.  If you play Trask against lets say North Alabama instead of Georgia.  It doesn't make his feet faster or help him run faster or allow him to throw sidearm when he normally doesn't.

 

Same idea with Wilson.  i am sure it won't be as easy to look like Superman against much better competition.  And I've made that comment before about Wilson.  it's clearly the most obvious disclaimer about his play.   But playing against easier teams doesn't make Wilson faster, his feet quicker and allow him to throw off platform with angles like he's a major league shortstop.   Those are actually skills. 

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, PartyPosse said:

I won't knock how you see it as it's a matter of perspective. I just think QB is 90% mental. A smart, poised QB can succeed without being the most talented where as rarely can the most talented thrive if they don't have the smarts and the poise. We've seen that first hand with RG3, Cousins and Haskins. All three had talent coming out the wazoo, but it was their lack of mental toughness or drive that made all of us wanting so much more. I'm not saying he doesn't have any of that because I have no idea, but it's easier to decipher the guys from the power 5 conferences in terms of seeing how they manage against real adversity. Dominating a 3-10 Texas State isn't nearly as impressive to me as Fields early struggle and comeback against Illinois. 

 

Agree.  I wouldn't go as far as 90% mental but i agree with the spirit of the point.  I think its 90% mental after having the physical skill set as a launching point.   I do agree that the mindset of the QB -- leadership skills, work ethic, ability to adapt are critical to their success.  The great ones often are both gifted physically and mentally.  But clearly not all of them are with Tom Brady being a classic case maybe Peyton, too.  The thing though about both Tom and Peyton is their footwork and mechanics are insanely sound.  And their work ethics are unbelievable.  They don't just work hard but they are/were both obsessed with perfection. 

 

I like Fields a lot but among the QBs that are mentioned, he's the only one where i've seen his intangibles questioned a little.  My feeling based on what i've read he's overcome those doubts.  And i'd love to have him.   Wilson is supposedly a maniac as for his work ethic/leadership skills based on what i've read and i posted some of that here.

 

Even though I am not blown away by Jones or Trask they also have been lauded in that department.  Ditto Lance.

Edited December 4, 2020 by Skinsinparadise

[Est.1974]

I think the QB debate for us is very straightforward. We control the rights to Smith, Allen and Haskins.
 

The decision point being, are they the long term solution. You then decide if QB in the first round is the way to go, the cost clearly influenced by whether we win the division or not. That likely represents a 10 slot differential.

 

Do you lose sleep over a reach consideration when selecting, reach by ranking +3, +6, whatever it may be. Do you select by ranking on BPA, take that CB or WR at 11, then take the best ranked QB at 43. Nah. 
 

You decide you need a QB and you go get one. Everyone was pissing their pants when the Chiefs jumped to 10 or whatever it was for Mahomes. 
 

I applaud the team that bags the next Mahomes through aggressive drafting.

 

The board is full of people trying to ship out Allen, frowning on the Payne selection. Kerrigan had always been a letdown. Doctson, ugh, might as well swing and miss on another Haskins. 
 

Can’t die wondering if we are picking outside the 3-5.

[PartyPosse]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Even though I am not blown away by Jones or Trask they also have been lauded in that department.  Ditto Lance.

If I had to rank those 4 personally it's:

 

Mac Jones

Trey Lance 

Zach Wilson

Kyle Trask

 

I will admit I've seen more of Trask and Jones than the other two so a lot of my opinion is a predisposition. 

[Otis Wonsley Posse]

On 11/27/2020 at 3:23 PM, KDawg said:

My goal is to make you all love Dyami.

Don’t have to convince me I went to UNC

[KDawg]

12 minutes ago, Otis Wonsley Posse said:

Don’t have to convince me I went to UNC

I think he’s the receiver sleeper in this draft. He gets an opportunity and watch out.

[Warhead36]

Jones and Trask are literally the definition of "meh" for me. No excitement factor whatsoever. They're gonna end up being Drew Lock types and you're gonna be back at the QB well in a year or two. Hard pass. I'd rather have Lance because at least he has that enormous potential, might as well shoot for the moon.

[Anselmheifer]

This is what I want. I love his ball placement. The improvisational skill looks very good. Ability to throw from different platforms. But...the ball placement and touch. Such a nice catchable ball. I’d hate to see this kid in a Shanny offense. And I would move up for him if we are choosing out of range. 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, PartyPosse said:

If I had to rank those 4 personally it's:

 

Mac Jones

Trey Lance 

Zach Wilson

Kyle Trask

 

I will admit I've seen more of Trask and Jones than the other two so a lot of my opinion is a predisposition. 

 

I've watched a bunch of all 4.

 

For me its

 

Zach Wilson

Trey Lance

Mac Jones

Kyle Trask

[Number 44]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

Jones and Trask are literally the definition of "meh" for me. No excitement factor whatsoever. They're gonna end up being Drew Lock types and you're gonna be back at the QB well in a year or two. Hard pass. I'd rather have Lance because at least he has that enormous potential, might as well shoot for the moon.

Top player seasons by Total Quarterback Rating (QBR) since at least 2004

RK	PLAYER	TEAM	SEASON	QBR
1	Mac Jones	Alabama	2020	95.5
2	Kyler Murray	Oklahoma	2018	95.4
3	Joe Burrow	LSU	2019	94.9
4	Tua Tagovailoa	Alabama	2019	94.8
5	Justin Fields	Ohio State	2020	94.4
6	Russell Wilson	Wisconsin	2011	94.1
7	Andrew Luck	Stanford	2010	93.8
8	Kyle Trask	Florida	2020	93.4
9	Tua Tagovailoa	Alabama	2018	93.1
10	Baker Mayfield	Oklahoma	2017	92.3

2020 stats through games of Nov. 28.

SOURCE: ESPN STATS & INFORMATION GROUP

 

Total quarterback rating

Total quarterback rating is a proprietary statistic created by ESPN in 2011 to measure the performance of quarterbacks in American football. It incorporates all of a quarterback's contributions to winning, including how he impacts the game on passes, rushes, turnovers, and penalties. Since QBR is built from the play level, it accounts for a team's level of success or failure on every play to provide the proper context, then allocates credit to the quarterback and his teammates to produce a clearer measure of quarterback efficiency. It was created to be a more meaningful alternative to the passer rating but has been met with criticism among fans and commentators alike.

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

I think he’s the receiver sleeper in this draft. He gets an opportunity and watch out.

 

Dyami Brown could be a stud.  I think the sleeper might be Newsome, he's arguably more below the radar.   UNC arguably has three really explosive players in this draft.  Grab all 3?  😀

 

 

 

 

 

[PartyPosse]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've watched a bunch of all 4.

 

For me its

 

Zach Wilson

Trey Lance

Mac Jones

Kyle Trask

You and I both know the best QBs this year are gonna end up being Tanner Morgan and Brock Purdy

[Going Commando]

13 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Earlier this season, when asked what trait is most essential for any quarterback to succeed in this league, Arizona Cardinals Coach Kliff Kingsbury didn’t hesitate. “Can they get you out of a bad place,” he said. “When the play breaks down … can they move around and extend the play?”

 

Eh, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the sport.

[Going Commando]

10 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

This is what I want. I love his ball placement. The improvisational skill looks very good. Ability to throw from different platforms. But...the ball placement and touch. Such a nice catchable ball. I’d hate to see this kid in a Shanny offense. And I would move up for him if we are choosing out of range. 

 

One of the worrisome parts of projecting him to the NFL from watching that is most of those throws were not NFL windows.  Especially on the bombs outside the numbers.  Saw him placing it inside shoulder against inside leveraged DB and getting away with it because his receivers have steps on the coverage.  He's not being challenged or punished by good coverage.  That is pitch and catch football.  Also a lot of those throws into the deep halves that are beating safeties with ease won't work in the NFL.  Not without some kind of high end weapon generating lots of space.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 hours ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

Eh, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the sport.

 

I read a long article from scouts on the same subject their take was ball placement first and foremost.   I think Kingsbury was making a nuanced point about that being a trait he craves in today's NFL.  Everything being equal, yeah I'd rather have a Qb that can make plays when things break down versus an old school pure pocket passer.   Some will say though that Peyton and Brady especially Brady have such exemplary footwork that they dodge pressure relatively well in spite of their lack of mobility. 

 

But like anything greatness comes in all sizes.   I think Kingsbury was generalizing on the power of mobility in today's NFL. 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Skinsinparadise