2021 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Chump Bailey]

34 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

 

 

He'd clearly be BPA there.  Plus, Marty Hurney certainly drafted RBs high (Williams, Stewart, CMC).

 

Good points.

[Skinsinparadise]

I am on board and have been for awhile on N. Harris at 19 but I'd be surprised if they do it.  Rivera mentioned Antonio Gibson as a player just touching on his potential and they supposedly love McKissic.  So my guess is adding a third back to the rotation is high enough on their agenda where they'd do it.  I would though.  On that front, if I start hearing rumors otherwise I'd start buying they might.

 

On another note, just looked at Kiper's new mock.  He's all over ESPN talking it up.

 

We get Darrisaw at 19

Pitts #4

5 qbs go top 10.  Mac Jones goes #8.  Lance #9   

Terrace Marshall #27

All three corners and Moehrig go before our pick

Both RBs don't make the first round

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

Here's a thought that I don't understand...

 

Why wouldn't you want to take a RB in the first?

 

Yes, I understand the conventional wisdom: Short shelf life, expensive to re-sign and can find similar production in later rounds or FA.

 

All three of those things make plenty of sense to me.

 

But... with the short shelf life and the expensive re-signing, I would think drafting a RB in the first is actually a very prudent move. Why? Five year lockdown. If you treat the RB position like you would if you were coaching at a college, where you have to find a new one every 4-5 years UNLESS the one you have will re-sign for a reasonable deal that fits within your cap situation, I would say drafting a back in the first is 4D chess.

 

It's clear that the only consideration for not drafting a back in the first isn't JUST football reasons... Total hypothetical, but if we had drafted say... Christian McCaffrey in the first... if we didn't re-sign him this fanbase would be irrationally angry about it. "HOW COULD YOU LET OUR BEST PLAYER WALK!?"

 

And yes, I agree that there are instances where re-signing a stud is important. But there are also times to let The Churn keep working as well. 

[Fresh8686]

Nuance and context is everything I guess. I think the mid to bottom of the first is good value for elite RB talent. Otherwise you’re better off getting that notch lower in talent on day 2 or 3 due to supply. Only a blue chip RB is worth the first, reds or lower nope. Especially, when the players left in other positions are seen as more red than blue. 
 

 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

48 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

On another note, just looked at Kiper's new mock.  He's all over ESPN talking it up.

 

We get Darrisaw at 19

 

 

One of the WFT Blog sites ran a mock draft that I really liked, although I doubt it's realistic. Darrisaw at #19 and Marshall at #51. Mainly because I think Marshall is probably the 4th or 5th WR off the board and goes R1.

 

Anyway, I like Lucas a lot. But the more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense to add an OT at 19 or 51 to really shore-up the OL longterm. I think an OT at #19, especially of the caliber of Darrisaw, completes the line.

 

Christian Darrisaw would be your LT of the future

Saahdiq Charles is TBD, but he could either be the first OG off the bench and the future LG behind Schweizer ... OR he could be the future RT to take over for Moses if we move on some day. He has great T/G flexibility on paper, if he's healthy.

Brandon Scherff is your long-term RG

Morgan Moses is your RT for at least 1 if not 2 more years

Wes Schweizer is your LG for at least 1, if not 2 more years

Chase Roullier is locked in for 3-4 more years

Keith Ismael is backup OC and probably a backup OG if needed

Cornelius Lucas played very well at LT and could/should be given a shot at LT in 2021. If not he's a great swing Tackle option and backup OT to Darrisaw/Moses

 

That leaves the final 1-2 OL roster spots for Wes Martin, Gerard Christian and Pierce Rorschbacher.

 

An OL of Darrisaw - Schweizer - Roullier - Scherff - Moses backed up by Lucas - Charles - Ismael - Christian ... that's a Top 10 OL if Darrisaw plays at the elite level he played at VT last year.

 

I have always subscribed to the idea that you can't have too many OL. And I think it's good practice to draft at least one every year. But if you added Darrisaw at #19 I don't really see any need to add any premier OL in FA or the draft for at least 2-3 years. You'd be well served to draft a couple depth guys in that stretch to ensure you have quality backups and upside starters, but you have your starting OL in place for 2021 and 2022 and in Charles you have the potential future RT in place behind Moses or Schweizer at LG.

Edited February 25, 2021 by JamesMadisonSkins

[JamesMadisonSkins]

14 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Nuance and context is everything I guess. I think the mid to bottom of the first is good value for elite RB talent. Otherwise you’re better off getting that notch lower in talent on day 2 or 3 due to supply. Only a blue chip RB is worth the first, reds or lower nope. Especially, when the players left in other positions are seen as more red than blue. 
 

 

 

I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with this. We have seen way too many RBs drafted in the 2nd and 3rd round find high levels of success to go out and get any blue chip RB in the 1st round. It's not a position of value, period. If we didn't have Gibson on the roster coming off a highly graded rookie season, I would definitely consider it in Round 2. But we have a solid RB group.

 

Hell, you just had an UDFA in James Robinson put up 1400 yards last year. Gibson was a 3rd rounder. Kamara is a 3rd. Aaron Jones is a 5th.

 

I understand the excitement behind having a top-flight RB but we could very well already have that in Gibson.

[Fresh8686]

9 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with this. We have seen way too many RBs drafted in the 2nd and 3rd round find high levels of success to go out and get any blue chip RB in the 1st round. It's not a position of value, period. If we didn't have Gibson on the roster coming off a highly graded rookie season, I would definitely consider it in Round 2. But we have a solid RB group.

 

Hell, you just had an UDFA in James Robinson put up 1400 yards last year. Gibson was a 3rd rounder. Kamara is a 3rd. Aaron Jones is a 5th.

 

I understand the excitement behind having a top-flight RB but we could very well already have that in Gibson.

I said nothing about going out and getting every blue chip RB. Again nuance and context matter. BPA matters, choosing blues over reds matter, and weighing comparable blues across different positions matters. 
 

Furthermore, pass catching RB’s with slot position flex have higher value in our offensive system than others. We have to differentiate the different types of RB’s and the differing value they hold. Again nuance matters. 

[Skinsinparadise]

21 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

One of the WFT Blog sites ran a mock draft that I really liked, although I doubt it's realistic. Darrisaw at #19 and Marshall at #51. Mainly because I think Marshall is probably the 4th or 5th WR off the board and goes R1.

 

 

for me that would be a really good haul.  

[Riggo#44]

New QB School on Trey Lance

 

[KDawg]

48 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Nuance and context is everything I guess. I think the mid to bottom of the first is good value for elite RB talent. Otherwise you’re better off getting that notch lower in talent on day 2 or 3 due to supply. Only a blue chip RB is worth the first, reds or lower nope. Especially, when the players left in other positions are seen as more red than blue. 
 

 

Absolutely context matters. Which is why in my previous I said I am generally on board with not taking a back in round 1. But Najee is different. And if he’s there in the back half of the first? You shouldn’t hesitate. High end blue chip talent. Five year deal until he “graduates”.

 

31 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with this. We have seen way too many RBs drafted in the 2nd and 3rd round find high levels of success to go out and get any blue chip RB in the 1st round. It's not a position of value, period. If we didn't have Gibson on the roster coming off a highly graded rookie season, I would definitely consider it in Round 2. But we have a solid RB group.

 

Hell, you just had an UDFA in James Robinson put up 1400 yards last year. Gibson was a 3rd rounder. Kamara is a 3rd. Aaron Jones is a 5th.

 

I understand the excitement behind having a top-flight RB but we could very well already have that in Gibson.

James Robinson, if you watched his film, should have never been a UDFA. He was an animal in college and the front offices missed. 
 

Gibson is not a blue chip back. He MAY be a blue chip playmaker. But as a back he is not. He has the tools you want and I loved the pick and still love the player. But again... context matters. Gibson could be a blue chip playmaker... which he can do from a two back set, the slot, or at times a true RB. Najee is a blue chip running back. There’s room for both and it takes tread off of Gibson’s tires.

Edited February 25, 2021 by KDawg

[mhd24]

I figure this is JD's last year here anyways (he signed a two year deal).  He was great as a pass catcher, but smart teams forced him to blitz pick up, and he's too small to handle it.  Plus, he can't play special teams.  You need at least one RB who can play special teams (Barber did that last year).  

 

Najee gives this offense a special dimension.  His vision is rare.  He's got hands and route running ability.  He'd be BPA clearly at 19.  

[mhd24]

Casserly with his first mock:

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/charley-casserly-2021-nfl-mock-draft-1-0-justin-fields-slides-to-steelers

 

He might have some inside info on our FO considering his ties to Mayhew and Hurney.

 

Has us taking JOK (says he's a better talent than I. Simmons from last year).  He has Najee going top 10!

 

But, he has Pitts falling to 15 and Justin Fields to 26!

Edited February 25, 2021 by mhd24

[Riggo#44]

Justin Fields to 24...and we PASS on him?! 0.00% chance that happens.

[Burgundy Yoda]

Casserly is a joke claiming JOK is a better prospect than Simmons was. 

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

But... with the short shelf life and the expensive re-signing, I would think drafting a RB in the first is actually a very prudent move. Why? Five year lockdown. If you treat the RB position like you would if you were coaching at a college, where you have to find a new one every 4-5 years UNLESS the one you have will re-sign for a reasonable deal that fits within your cap situation, I would say drafting a back in the first is 4D chess.

 

Always contingencies, but I think it makes sense to draft backs like this as a way to add elite playmakers to your offense when they are BPA and you're drafting later in the rounds.  Especially when you've already got a QB and your edge rushers and OT isn't a dire need.  Those are the only positions where you typically need to spend firsts to find what you're looking for.  We don't have the QB part of that, but we're also drafting too late to get the good first round options.

 

In general we should just trust BPA to deliver us the absolute best roster over the long term.  Picking Najee is a BPA selection.  And if he's gone, I truly believe that Etienne would be the next choice for BPA.

 

As far as resigning elite backs to big second deals goes, I think it really depends on the circumstance.  If we draft Najee or Etienne, they're becoming the face of the franchise in the same way that Derek Henry and CMC are the face of theirs.   Would having them define your identity (and sell the team to the football world at large) factor into the decision to keep them?  Yeah probably.  But at least in the case of Henry and Kamara, that decision to extend them has worked out so far.  With McCaffrey it's a little different.  The coaching staff and FO dramatically changed on him and he is now on an uncompetitive team that would rather shut him down if he gets nicked up.  But if we draft Najee and our coaching staff is still here when extension time comes up, then that means we are competitive and going for a super bowl and I think, Hell yeah, resign him.  That's something to worry about waaaaay down the road though, for now we just need to focus on getting hits with our draft picks.

[Thiscat41]

Don't ask me why, but I see us finding a way to land Pitts

[mistertim]

7 minutes ago, Thiscat41 said:

Don't ask me why, but I see us finding a way to land Pitts

 

If he falls to 19 I'd take him. But IMO trading up for a TE in the 1st, especially if you're giving up high picks to do so, is asinine. 

 

Pitts is also much more of a pure pass catcher than a full TE. He gives effort when blocking, but he just doesn't really have enough size to do it all that effectively when going against DL/LBs. He's not a Gronk or Kelce type.

Edited February 25, 2021 by mistertim

[Darth Tater]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

Here's a thought that I don't understand...

 

Why wouldn't you want to take a RB in the first?

 

Yes, I understand the conventional wisdom: Short shelf life, expensive to re-sign and can find similar production in later rounds or FA.

 

All three of those things make plenty of sense to me.

 

But... with the short shelf life and the expensive re-signing, I would think drafting a RB in the first is actually a very prudent move. Why? Five year lockdown. If you treat the RB position like you would if you were coaching at a college, where you have to find a new one every 4-5 years UNLESS the one you have will re-sign for a reasonable deal that fits within your cap situation, I would say drafting a back in the first is 4D chess.

 

It's clear that the only consideration for not drafting a back in the first isn't JUST football reasons... Total hypothetical, but if we had drafted say... Christian McCaffrey in the first... if we didn't re-sign him this fanbase would be irrationally angry about it. "HOW COULD YOU LET OUR BEST PLAYER WALK!?"

 

And yes, I agree that there are instances where re-signing a stud is important. But there are also times to let The Churn keep working as well. 

Only idiots say never or always and actually mean never or always. RBs taken in the first rounds have rarely been significantly better than RBs taken later especially in this era of short-shelf life (and, even then, the last time WFT had a back taken by us in the first round could not beat out a back taken in the 8th round in 1968) to justify their draft position. Of course, we are talking about the back half of the first, not the top half here so I don't know if this applies.  Although Saquon Barkley may never individually live up to the pick the Giants used, given what was available, he was the best pick. As a WFT fan, I'd have preferred Darnold for them.

[mhd24]

34 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Only idiots say never or always and actually mean never or always. RBs taken in the first rounds have rarely been significantly better than RBs taken later especially in this era of short-shelf life (and, even then, the last time WFT had a back taken by us in the first round could not beat out a back taken in the 8th round in 1968) to justify their draft position. Of course, we are talking about the back half of the first, not the top half here so I don't know if this applies.  Although Saquon Barkley may never individually live up to the pick the Giants used, given what was available, he was the best pick. As a WFT fan, I'd have preferred Darnold for them.

 

 

 

No he wasn't.  In hindsight, they should have taken Josh Allen.  If they were vehemently against taking QB, than Nelson was the pick.  If not, take the Jets trade down offer of three 2s and take BPA at 6.

[Chump Bailey]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

James Robinson, if you watched his film, should have never been a UDFA. He was an animal in college and the front offices missed. 

 

Agreed. Really baffling why he went undrafted.

[DWinzit]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

Here's a thought that I don't understand...

 

Why wouldn't you want to take a RB in the first?

 

Yes, I understand the conventional wisdom: Short shelf life, expensive to re-sign and can find similar production in later rounds or FA.

 

I am a huge fan a big back and Harris can do it all. It would be incredible to have on the roster.

 

The reason for my statement was we were given a body of work-a full draft of our positions only and no mention of FA acquisitions. Based on that no LB or DB was selected until the mid 4th round, that scares me. Based on that and no trade down available, I felt it would have been better to fill bigger needs. In this example there was also an assumption the Harris was the BPA at 19. We have no idea who was selected above him. There are many boards I have seen with him between 10 and 25 so he wouldn't be BPA on all boards even if all players above him on their boards were selected. 

 

You listed 3 of many reasons why drafting a RB early doesn't make as much sense as other positions. Heck in this draft alone there are a bunch of good RB's that would match up well with the other RB's on or current roster. No not Harris caliber but....how far off is a Javante Wiliams from him?

 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

I am a huge fan a big back and Harris can do it all. It would be incredible to have on the roster.

 

The reason for my statement was we were given a body of work-a full draft of our positions only and no mention of FA acquisitions. Based on that no LB or DB was selected until the mid 4th round, that scares me. Based on that and no trade down available, I felt it would have been better to fill bigger needs. In this example there was also an assumption the Harris was the BPA at 19. We have no idea who was selected above him. There are many boards I have seen with him between 10 and 25 so he wouldn't be BPA on all boards even if all players above him on their boards were selected. 

 

You listed 3 of many reasons why drafting a RB early doesn't make as much sense as other positions. Heck in this draft alone there are a bunch of good RB's that would match up well with the other RB's on or current roster. No not Harris caliber but....how far off is a Javante Wiliams from him?

 

Williams is very good.

 

far.

[Going Commando]

I'm going to drive the Etienne bandwagon here too.  Very good fit in our offense.  Faster than Najee, has the turbo button acceleration and the elite flexibility and agility in his lower half that makes Kamara special.  He gets on you for 15, 20 yards before you can even react.  I slightly prefer Najee to him because I like his instincts and his vision and creativity better, but Etienne is one of the ten best players in the class too: Lawrence, Wilson, Fields, Pitts, Chase, Smith, Harris, Etienne, Sewell, Slater.

 

 

[Darth Tater]

1 hour ago, mhd24 said:

 

 

 

No he wasn't.  In hindsight, they should have taken Josh Allen.  If they were vehemently against taking QB, than Nelson was the pick.  If not, take the Jets trade down offer of three 2s and take BPA at 6.

Hindsight is fine but not relevant here. Until this season, Allen was competing for which 2018 top-10 QB would be a bust. In fact, he was on a path that gave him the inside track. Nelson would have been solid.

[mhd24]

17 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Hindsight is fine but not relevant here. Until this season, Allen was competing for which 2018 top-10 QB would be a bust. In fact, he was on a path that gave him the inside track. Nelson would have been solid.

Allen was the starter for a team that went to the playoffs last year ( where they lost that close game to Houston).  He was never a bust (compared to Rosen or Haskins)

 

Barkley isn’t even the best RB from that draft.  Chubb is a much better RB (even before Barkley’s injury).  Barkley can’t even pass protect.  He’s JD Mckissic level bad (and JD is willing but is too small to do it).  Barkley has the size, but is just a horrific pass blocker.  If you can’t pass block, than you can’t be a RB on today’s NFL.  If Clinton Portis was HOF level blocker, than Barkley is a UDFA camp cut blocker

Edited February 25, 2021 by mhd24