2021 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

Anyone got any 2019 cutups of Paulson Adebo?  Or have thoughts of him in general?

[The Rook]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

You can never have enough playmakers. Look at the Bucs last year. Worst case scenario we make ourselves very attractive to a vet QB who wants to leave(i.e. Rodgers or Wilson).

 

OR - You can never have enough quality Oline.  Look at KC in the Super Bowl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[Commander Wolffe]

On 4/18/2021 at 5:19 PM, KDawg said:

Rodgers is my top receiver not named Waddle, Smith or Chase. I think he’s going to be special. 
 

I don’t like Trask for this team but if he’s had late in the 3rd/4th... why not see what happens.

 

I like Rodgers as well; watching his tape reminds me of Jarvis Landry with more speed. They have that short and stocky build with quicks. If we go OL/LB early I like adding Rodgers and a guy like Sermon or Hubbard in the 4th. I could also flip it and go with Tylan Wallace in the 4th. 

 

Regardless; yes we need OL/LB/TE/FS but I like adding another RB and WR that can play slot like Rodgers who could also handle return duties or an outside physical guy like Wallace.

 

[Warhead36]

22 minutes ago, The Rook said:

 

OR - You can never have enough quality Oline.  Look at KC in the Super Bowl.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

OL is important but you need a bunch of decent ones. We've had studs at LT the last 20 years in Samuels and Williams and didn't win jack. 

[Going Commando]

35 minutes ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

Anyone got any 2019 cutups of Paulson Adebo?  Or have thoughts of him in general?

 

My first viewing of him was watching him catch a paddlin' from Isaiah Hodgins.  Haven't paid him any mind since.

[Ball Security]

3 hours ago, mhd24 said:

Gil Brandt just updated his top 100:

 

https://www.nfl.com/news/gil-brandt-s-hot-100-2-0-top-prospects-in-2021-nfl-draft-class?campaign=Twitter_nfl_cfb

Seems to have JOK and Cosmi a lot lower than others.

[86 Snyder]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've said multiple times I'd be cool with Etienne, he was one of my favorite backs to watch over the years.  I've posted articles about what type of dude Etienne is here among other things.  You've compared some of his game to Dalvin Cook.  I was a big Cook guy before that draft.   I just have Najee Harris a half a peg or so over Etienne so if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose Harris.  But I'd be cool with either. 

 

This whole thing from some about how RB isn't the top need, etc.  Think of this way.  If we had Dalvin Cook or Derrick Henry on this team wouldn't that be the featured dance if this team made it in the post season?  Last time we won a playoff game our team was about Clinton Portis.  He was the dude oppponent's had to stop.  If you play Tennessee you have to stop Henry.  Adding a player that would keep defensive coordinators up at night wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.  And for the obsession about Qb play, as Mike Shanahan and Joe Gibbs loved to say the best friend of a QB is a big time running game.  So if we want to make the most of not having a top flight QB at the moment wouldn't a crazy good running game help do that?

 

I liked Antonio Gibson a lot before he was even on this team.  I still like him a lot.  But is he an E. Elliot in his prime?  A Derrick Henry?  A Dalvin Cook?  IMO no.  

 

The NFL has changed where RBs aren't as central as the past.  But that position has also changed where some of the better running teams have two guys who can beat you at the running game and where the running game doesn't fall off a cliff when their lead dog RB gets hurt. 

 

I took plenty of shots to my Giant friends when they took Barkley.  I thought #2 was too rich for a RB.  So I am not on a different planet as to the value of the spot compared to others.  But when you are talking 19th in the draft, the back half of the first round, its not crazy IMO to take the top back in the draft.  And personally I think it would do more to help the QB than almost any other thing we could do. 

 

Is a RB my top want at 19?  Nope.   But i'd be more than cool with it.  Even though there has been no smoke about them taking a RB early, I am starting to think its not impossible either.  Rivera likes to stress wanting to be a physical team.  If you take Harris in the first, someone like Radunz in the 2nd, Tremble in the third -- you are talking some serious physicality.   

 

The fact that I've seen now multiple times that's consider trading up for Pitts -- which is fun for me to read because it was something I've mentioned in the past multiple times -- gives the strong vibe that they want to add a big time playmaker. 

 

And I get some think whoever is cool with a RB at 19 is part of like the flat earth society.  But to me I am not obsessed with the first pick in the draft as if its the only pick we got, and if that specific piece of the puzzle fits our needs perfectly watch out!  To me maybe we are another off season away to be overly fixated on drafting to need.   I can see Tampa thinking we just have this weakness and if we fill that in the first, bam another SB.  That's not us though. 

 

I've been one of the detractors obviously but the reason is because I don't see Harris/Etienne as Henry/Cook.  Could be wrong but don't see them panning out to that level of success at all.  If you assume they will become two of the very best backs in the league then I don't hate spending 19 on one...but I certainly do not see that outcome as likely.

[KDawg]

7 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

I've been one of the detractors obviously but the reason is because I don't see Harris/Etienne as Henry/Cook.  Could be wrong but don't see them panning out to that level of success at all.  If you assume they will become two of the very best backs in the league then I don't hate spending 19 on one...but I certainly do not see that outcome as likely.

I believe Najee is in that league. Hence why some of us would be okay with it.

 

We’re not saying we’d be okay with Najee at 19 because we think he’s Bryce Love.

[Die Hard]

17 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

OL is important but you need a bunch of decent ones. We've had studs at LT the last 20 years in Samuels and Williams and didn't win jack. 

Can anybody name an OL from the Bucs? A line that neutralized every defensive line in the playoffs?

 

The Skins line is fine. It doesn’t mean it can’t be improved upon. Whether it’s starters or depth.

 

I think with the acquisitions at QB and receiver, we’re already going to get better line play. 
 

I think LB is a greater need than OT.

I think FS is a greater need than OT.

I think OT is a greater need than RB.

 

But at 19, because talent is going to fall, you take BPA.

 

And if that’s a CB, WR, or RB, then thats in play too.

[Ball Security]

Does the workload that Ettiene and Harris had to carry in college concern anyone?  Compare their touches over the course of their college career to Williams (potentially available in the 2nd) and there is a wide spread in usage.

[86 Snyder]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I believe Najee is in that league. Hence why some of us would be okay with it.

 

We’re not saying we’d be okay with Najee at 19 because we think he’s Bryce Love.

 

Well, Bryce Love was a horrible pick the second it was announced. 

 

I kinda get the Harris interest.  Don't see it at all with Etienne as he isn't even complimentary to Gibson like Najee is.  But I will take the big under on either of these guys becoming Henry/Cook.

[Ball Security]

2 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

Can anybody name an OL from the Bucs? A line that neutralized every defensive line in the playoffs?

 

The Skins line is fine. It doesn’t mean it can’t be improved upon. Whether it’s starters or depth.

 

I think with the acquisitions at QB and receiver, we’re already going to get better line play. 
 

I think LB is a greater need than OT.

I think FS is a greater need than OT.

I think OT is a greater need than RB.

 

But at 19, because talent is going to fall, you take BPA.

 

And if that’s a CB, WR, or RB, then thats in play too.

I mean, they just spent a higher 1st rounder on tackle in 2020.

[dswerdlw]

With our first four picks, I'd like to see us draft an OT, LB, FS, and TE (not necessarily in that order). If a QB falls to us in the first or we take one we like in the third round, I'd be open to it, as long as we prioritize LB and OT with the other day one and two picks. In that scenario, we'd probably find ourselves looking to free agency for a FS (Tre Boston) or TE (Ertz if he's cut).

[Silvernon]

23 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

Can anybody name an OL from the Bucs? A line that neutralized every defensive line in the playoffs?

 

The Skins line is fine. It doesn’t mean it can’t be improved upon. Whether it’s starters or depth.

 

I think with the acquisitions at QB and receiver, we’re already going to get better line play. 
 

I think LB is a greater need than OT.

I think FS is a greater need than OT.

I think OT is a greater need than RB.

 

But at 19, because talent is going to fall, you take BPA.

 

And if that’s a CB, WR, or RB, then thats in play too.

Not the best of examples.

 

For those following the draft, Ali Marpet and Donovan Smith in '15 as second rounders are well-known enough. Smith signed a pretty decent second contract for those who follow that side. Wirfs was talked about as a top 10-15 talent in this most recent draft. 

 

I checked the other two and it's a 3rd Rd pick from 2018 (you should hit on your day 2 OG pick) and an undrafted C. Most times you find your C on day 3 or later. 

 

I agree with the rest, except for RB at 19. For this year, it is LB > FS > OT. 

 

BUT...assuming #19 goes to LT this year and assuming WFT won a SB in the next couple of years, it would be:

 

LT - 1st

LG - 4th

C - 6th

RG - 1st

RT - 3rd

 

I think that's pretty standard. 

 

A couple 1st rounders, a couple of day 2 picks, and a late round C. 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Silvernon

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

TEAMS ARE NEVER 'A FIRST-ROUND RB AWAY'
Of the most recent 20 running backs to be drafted in the first round, only five led their team in yards per carry as the team’s primary starter.

That statistic may shock you.

But that’s just the start of the shocking statistics if you’re of the belief that drafting first round running backs to jump start a lacking rushing attack is the solution.

I went back and analyzed the last 20 teams to draft a running back in the first round.

https://www.nbcsports.com/edge/article/offseason-research/teams-are-never-first-round-rb-away

 

read the rest here. Don’t kill the messenger. Just thought I’d share what I ran into. Not sure if it’s been shared here. Interesting data regarding RB’s in round 1. 

[KDawg]

No **** teams are never a first round RB away.

 

Teams are also never a first round anything away from anything. They are a top end NFL player away at times, and people equate that to the first round... but it doesn’t have to be. 
 

“That statistic may shock you”

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by KDawg

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

No **** teams are never a first round RB away.

 

Teams are also never a first round anything away from anything. They are a top end NFL player away at times, and people equate that to the first round... but it doesn’t have to be. 
 

“That statistic may shock you”

 

 

 

Some good info in there on the data of the last 20 years re. first round RB’s. There are feelings about RB’s in here and the data doesn’t support selecting one in Rd.1. Doesn’t mean you can’t hit a home run, but it would be going against the grain.  Warren Sharpe doesn’t just throw stuff out there. It’s worth the read. And again I’m just sharing the info. I’m fine selecting BPA regardless of position. 

[Chump Bailey]

4 hours ago, JoggingGod said:

Trading up for a TE is so dumb when we don’t have a QB past this year. What good use is Pitts when Kyle Allen is throwing to him

 

[Die Hard]

31 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

I mean, they just spent a higher 1st rounder on tackle in 2020.

 
So one rookie lineman. Wirffs right? He had a solid rookie year I heard, after struggling at first.

[KDawg]

13 minutes ago, COWBOY-KILLA- said:

Some good info in there on the data of the last 20 years re. first round RB’s. There are feelings about RB’s in here and the data doesn’t support selecting one in Rd.1. Doesn’t mean you can’t hit a home run, but it would be going against the grain.  Warren Sharpe doesn’t just throw stuff out there. It’s worth the read. And again I’m just sharing the info. I’m fine selecting BPA regardless of position. 

It's half-****ed data.

 

Look at the list of backs. I am generally in support of the idea that taking a RB in the first is not a great plan... but context matters.

 

The back half of the first is a much better risk/reward spot for a back than the front half due to the run on talent coming off the board.

 

On that list the following were HUGE reaches (and by the way this leads credence to Snyder 86's thoughts somewhat while also leading credence to my [and others here] position):

 

Rashaad Penny

Sony Michel

Doug Martin

David Wilson

Ryan Mathews

Jahvid Best

Donald Brown

 

The data also spans... from 2009-2020. To find 20 first round backs. The sample size isn't great. And three of the selections are from the same year (2018) with 2 of the three being crazy reaches.

 

It's tough to give a second contract to a RB unless they are absolutely tremendous. In fact, when drafting any position I wouldn't plan on a second contract for them until later in their contract life. 

 

Not taking into account "second contracts", the following were solid draft selections:

 

Mark Ingram

Todd Gurley

Ezekiel Elliot

Christian McCaffrey

Leonard Fournette

Saquon Barkley

 

Jury is out but look good:

Josh Jacobs

 

Too soon:

CEH.

 

6/20 were good picks. 

 

In the case of Beanie Wells, Knownshon Moreno, Trent Richardson: Those guys were flat out busts. Happens in every position. 

 

So 3/20 bust. 6/20 good picks. 7/20 were tremendous reaches. 2/20 are too soon to tell.

 

As far as the premise that surrounding cast matters: Of course it does.

 

The problem with articles like this isn't the actual content within the article. As you said, Sharp is... sharp. He's a smart guy. But you have to look at these things through the prism of each team as it pertains to the validity. 

 

This team is fairly sturdy. The OL is adequate. Not good. Not bad. Adequate. QB is average. Wide receiver is also about middle of the pack. RB is also average with a very talented back that shouldn't carry the load. Defense is solid aside from LB and FS. 

 

Us drafting a RB at 19 is contextually much different than, say, Atlanta taking one at 4. 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by KDawg

[mistertim]

That article had an interesting case against 1st round RBs. Even when a team does seem to hit on one the "we get a cheap RB for 5 years" argument is basically thrown out the window because most teams give those RBs a big new contract after their 3rd year or so. And it doesn't usually seem to pay off.

[Die Hard]

25 minutes ago, Silvernon said:

Not the best of examples.

 

For those following the draft, Ali Marpet and Donovan Smith in '15 as second rounders are well-known enough. Smith signed a pretty decent second contract for those who follow that side. Wirfs was talked about as a top 10-15 talent in this most recent draft. 

 

I checked the other two and it's a 3rd Rd pick from 2018 (you should hit on your day 2 OG pick) and an undrafted C. Most times you find your C on day 3 or later. 

 

I agree with the rest, except for RB at 19. For this year, it is LB > FS > OT. 

 

BUT...assuming #19 goes to LT this year and assuming WFT won a SB in the next couple of years, it would be:

 

LT - 1st

LG - 4th

C - 6th

RG - 1st

RT - 3rd

 

I think that's pretty standard. 

 

A couple 1st rounders, a couple of day 2 picks, and a late round C. 

 

I didn’t need it to be a perfect example. 😜 Just good enough. And I think you actually proved my point! 😂

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

 Right now it's Fitz, Heinicke, Montez and not Allen. He makes league minimum and can be cut whenever. 

 

To that point, I think Fitz is in the conversation for 12-16 top Qb in the league.   It's not crazy that he could be the solution here for the next 2 years.   He's 38.  He can play a couple of years i think if need be.  It's not the ideal situation but far from a code red situation either. 

 

As you know, I am hardcore on the point that you need a Qb to win in this league.    But getting Fitz has made me more relaxed on this, I think he buys some time

 

I've argued against some on the QB thread who push the Foles, Eli narrative as to winning a SB.  My retort was that is rare and its a lot to count on for a Qb like that to get hot at the right moment.  Foles and Eli weren't just carried into those SB wins.  Their own play were key to those wins.  They played well in the clutch and got hot at the right time.  The thing is IMO Fitz is the type of QB who could get hot like that.  He fits that profile.  He's streaky and clutch.  That's who Eli was at his peak.   Would I bet on it?  No.  Does it sound crazy?  Not to me.

 

PFF which is as snobby as it gets as for QBs.  They think you need one to win and almost no price is too big to land one.  One of their anaylists made this same exact point about Fitz and the WFT.  He said he could see that if this team can make the post season, Fitz is the type of QB who could get hot at the right time and take them all the way.  

 

So coming from a dude who shoots down that outlier theory typically as for you can get by a win a SB without a top QB -- I don't think that thought is outrageous with Fitz.  If they signed Dalton I'd feel night and day different.  That's not because I think Fitz is a mile better than Dalton but because I don't trust Dalton when the lights are on and its a big game.  I do trust Fitz.  I get the complaints about Fitz as for who he has been in his career but as he's said he's a different dude now.  He's gotten better. 

 

I am not saying Fitz = SB but I don't think the idea of ridiculous if you build a killer roster around him.   Other thing is some veterans might be on the trade market next off season including Aaron Rodgers. I want a long term solution but wouldn't hate seeing Aaron Rodgers for 2-3 seasons with a loaded roster.  Granted that might not happen.  But its fun to think of a possibility.   It's not impossible. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:

 

I've been one of the detractors obviously but the reason is because I don't see Harris/Etienne as Henry/Cook.  Could be wrong but don't see them panning out to that level of success at all.  If you assume they will become two of the very best backs in the league then I don't hate spending 19 on one...but I certainly do not see that outcome as likely.

 

I get it from that perpsective.  Personally I think Harris and to a lesser extent Etienne are going to be killer good. 

[mistertim]

2 hours ago, redskinss said:

I'm not sure I agree.

I've said all along that we don't know what we have in heinicke the sample size is too small but I'm not ready to say he's a backup quite yet.

If he plays a full season anywhere near what he's shown me so far I'd say we have our quarterback. 

That is certainly a big if between his lack of frame and the fact that he's bounced around around league a little but I don't think the coaches are as low on him as some others around here believe they are.

They had tag options for both heinicke and Allen, Kyle got the cheap tag and heinicke got a decent two year extension and I don't think it was a coin flip that Allen lost.

I think heinicke opened some eyes on the coaching staff too and they want to give him a chance but don't want to put all their eggs in that basket.

 

I think Allen having a season ending major injury was a bit of a factor as well.