Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Burgundy Yoda said:

Damn I forgot Fields played baseball too. That alone slightly increases his draft stock for me. 

You know he will be by the time the Skins draft.  Fields probably the second QB taken and the Jags are lock for that second pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question: let's say we end up picking somewhere between 5-10. What would you be willing to trade to move up to 3 and guarantee Fields or Wilson? Call it on a scale of Nothing (Stand Pat at 5-10) to 2012 RG3 Trade.

 

My controversial opinion: If the FO feels Lawrence/Fields/Wilson are all slam dunk prospects, I'd do the RG3 trade package for one of them. If RG3 hadn't gotten hurt in 2012, we damn well might've won the Super Bowl that year. We definitely would have beaten Seattle. I don't think anyone would have criticized the trade then. Plus if we get one of the top QBs, we might actually be able to sign a Juju or an Allen Robinson-type. We immediately become an order of magnitude more attractive for FA's. 

Edited by CapsSkins
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

Here's a question: let's say we end up picking somewhere between 5-10. What would you be willing to trade to move up to 3 and guarantee Fields or Wilson? Call it on a scale of Nothing (Stand Pat at 5-10) to 2012 RG3 Trade.

 

My controversial opinion: If the FO feels Lawrence/Fields/Wilson are all slam dunk prospects, I'd do the RG3 trade package for one of them. If RG3 hadn't gotten hurt in 2012, we damn well might've won the Super Bowl that year. We definitely would have beaten Seattle. I don't think anyone would have criticized the trade then. Plus if we get one of the top QBs, we might actually be able to sign a Juju or an Allen Robinson-type. We immediately become an order of magnitude more attractive for FA's. 


@JoggingGod What’s your take?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Skinsinparadise, that's a very interesting post. I was putting Fields behind Wilson in my readings but that article is making me think about the ranking again. 

 

Here's another list of college QBs who played Baseball

https://touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2019/09/26/30-nfl-quarterbacks-who-also-played-baseball/

Russell Wilson and Kyler Murray, Matt Moore, Dan Marino, Steve McNair, Akili Smith, Dan Pastorini, Archie Manning, John Elway, Tim Tebow, Drew Henson, Tom Brady, Jameis Winston, Matt Cassel, Colin Kaepernick, Brandon Weeden, Daunte Culpepper, Joe Theismann, Steve Bartkowski, Mark Brunell, Rodney Peete, Danny White, Ken Stablers, Jay Schroeder, Bubby Brister, Chris Weinke, Todd Marinovich, Chris Miller, Michael Vick, Jake Locker

 

So after looking at this list I notice that RG3 is not here (and boy do I wish he knew how to slide). But I point this out as another distinguishing element between RG3 and a Fields or a Wilson or a Murray, saying that hopefully Fields falls into that Wilson camp. 

 

But there are also some busts on this list (Akili Smith). I also notice a bunch of hard workers who were athletic / talented but not all high picks and so they had to work and build careers and were able to do so. I also see Gibbs picks / players (Schroeder, Brunell, Theismann). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

Here's a question: let's say we end up picking somewhere between 5-10. What would you be willing to trade to move up to 3 and guarantee Fields or Wilson? Call it on a scale of Nothing (Stand Pat at 5-10) to 2012 RG3 Trade.

 

My controversial opinion: If the FO feels Lawrence/Fields/Wilson are all slam dunk prospects, I'd do the RG3 trade package for one of them. If RG3 hadn't gotten hurt in 2012, we damn well might've won the Super Bowl that year. We definitely would have beaten Seattle. I don't think anyone would have criticized the trade then. Plus if we get one of the top QBs, we might actually be able to sign a Juju or an Allen Robinson-type. We immediately become an order of magnitude more attractive for FA's. 

 

Forgot which media guy repeated a point I made on another thread which was teams don't trade away potential franchise QBs for picks unless they already have one.  So for this to happen we need to hope a team with a franchise QB lands the #3 pick.  I'd trade up for Wilson but I wouldn't give up an RG3 haul.

 

It brings home to me the idea of some have of just win and live for today.  Can you imagine in 2012 if we had the #2 pick instead of #6?  Those cheap wins costs us an extra 2 first round picks and a 2nd rounder.  if you told me hey you can beat Dallas and enjoy this week but it will cost you two first rounders and a 2nd round pick, I'd gag.  Heck if it was just a 2nd rounder I'd gag.  But that's me.   And in reality that's how this stuff can play out if the goal is to get a franchise QB.   

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please no trading up for a QB. I want us to retain our picks. The cost of getting to #2 is going to be prohibitive. I think we could get the next rated QB at #5 or #6. After that, we’re likely to have won another 2 games minimum and all of a sudden the Smith/Allen combination start to look the 2021 favourite. 
 

I am all over the place with my view on this at the minute though :rofl89:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance didn’t begin playing quarterback until ninth grade and settled in as Marshall’s starter as a sophomore. Also a talented basketball player, he considered a future on the hardwood before football took hold. 

“I played football, basketball and baseball growing up,” Lance said. “I stopped playing baseball my junior year of high school. I continued with football and basketball and honestly didn’t know what I was going to do until the point when I committed to NDSU. I fell in love with football; having the opportunity to play as a sophomore and being around that group of guys (in football) changed it for me.”

 

https://247sports.com/Article/Trey-Lance-QB-stats-North-Dakota-State-flying-up-2021-NFL-mock-draft-146816317/

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:

Please no trading up for a QB. I want us to retain our picks. The cost of getting to #2 is going to be prohibitive. I think we could get the next rated QB at #5 or #6. After that, we’re likely to have won another 2 games minimum and all of a sudden the Smith/Allen combination start to look the 2021 favourite. 
 

I am all over the place with my view on this at the minute though :rofl89:

 

I am not quite sure what I want.  I am pretty sure I don't want to use a high pick beyond Wilson.  I genuinely do think we will have a swing and miss if we choose among the next group.  i whole heartedly believe in the argument I am making on the thread which is once you delve into that next tier yeah maybe among the large group there will be a hit but most teams will miss.  

 

Then when I delve into the actual prospects.  I am not in love with any dude post Wilson.  I can see a player or two in that next grouping being an Andy Dalton type OK QB but I'd be surprised if there is a Russell Wilson in that next grouping.

 

My only wild card on that point is Trey Lance.  Trey was a painful watch for me when I went through a few of his games.  But he certainly has high upside so maybe a good Qb coach can bring the most out of his raw talent?  I don't know.  If I had to give a fighting chance for someone else later in the draft it would be Ridder, Mond, Newman.  I'd bet against all of those guys but you never know we can get lucky.  However, alas we don't tend to be the rare lucky team who strikes gold later in the draft at QB. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


If, and it’s a big if, Smith and Allen are being retained in 2021, I think we go after Lance. 

 

I am ok with that if so.  Will see.  In the meantime, lol, I am rooting for high draft position.   I don't want to give up a kings ransom to trade up or miss out on a young QB.  No win over any team (which i'll forget about in a few days) is worth it to me to get over those points. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


If, and it’s a big if, Smith and Allen are being retained in 2021, I think we go after Lance. 

This is my guess. Those two stay on. Smith is the starter next season. A young QB (or two) sits back and learns a ton from a great spot to be.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

Here's a question: let's say we end up picking somewhere between 5-10. What would you be willing to trade to move up to 3 and guarantee Fields or Wilson? Call it on a scale of Nothing (Stand Pat at 5-10) to 2012 RG3 Trade.

 

My controversial opinion: If the FO feels Lawrence/Fields/Wilson are all slam dunk prospects, I'd do the RG3 trade package for one of them. If RG3 hadn't gotten hurt in 2012, we damn well might've won the Super Bowl that year. We definitely would have beaten Seattle. I don't think anyone would have criticized the trade then. Plus if we get one of the top QBs, we might actually be able to sign a Juju or an Allen Robinson-type. We immediately become an order of magnitude more attractive for FA's. 


I don’t trade resources to move up for a QB at this juncture. The team has too many holes. I am a believer that a QB hides more of them than any other position, but they don’t fill them all. Trading an additional first hurts our long term.

 

If we are in the 5-10 range it’s Wilson if he falls.

 

After that I think I would take Parsons, but I’d be willing to listen to and be okay with a Trey Lance pick. 
 

If Parsons is gone it’s basically Lance vs. some receivers... and that’s if Lance lasts. In that scenario I think I go Lance. But the caveat being that we are as patient as we need to be with him and the coaching staff to develop him. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

The first round has produced 953 more starts than the other six rounds combined. Even the winning percentage dips after the second round, but of course we see a huge upswing in the sixth round thanks to Tom Brady and the Patriots. In fact, Brady has as many playoff starts (34) as the other 214 quarterbacks drafted in rounds two to seven have playoff wins (34) since 1994. We'll get to the sixth round later, but it should be noted that 43.8 percent of the quarterbacks drafted in rounds six or seven failed to play in a game.

 

 

...Every NFL draft now comes with a reminder that Tom Brady was a sixth-round pick, yet among the 92 quarterbacks drafted in the fifth round or later since 2001, only three have thrown at least 1,000 passes: Derek Anderson, Matt Cassel, and Ryan Fitzpatrick. That trio's "success" is driven mostly by their hard-to-explain continued employment rather than the actual success of their passes.

 

Ok I had other posts I wanted to reply to, but this got me because I totally disagree with it. Now its hard to disagree with it because the article is stating facts but I (as a guy who loves to look for the lower round gems) am forced to question stuff like why. In the 1990s as an example, we constantly saw QBs drafted in lower rounds and developed into backups. Heck that was the whole GB philosophy - they knew they had Favre, but they'd still draft a QB every year (in a lower round) and develop him and generally trade that QB for more picks or including Ty Detmer, Mark Brunell and Matt Hasselbeck. We can also look at guys like Kurk Warner, Trent Green, and Marc Bulger. 

 

And the article dismisses that Anderson, Cassel and Fitz are still in the league and managed to throw that many passes, but ignores that so many of the higher draft picks didn't. 

 

So the gems are there. Maybe the numbers as of recent are not as impressive but the question becomes why? Has QB recruiting gotten that much better? Maybe. 

But it could be just what the article points out, are the lower round guys being given chances? Some (like Allen here in DC) can't because of injury although they're playing well. Some like Chase Daniel have been in the league for 10 years but have thrown less than 250 passes. He's obviously doing something right to be able to stay on multiple rosters but isn't being given the keys. 

 

We can also look at Tyrod Taylor who is the ultimate story of a journeyman QB. He is always the guy warming up the seat for the next guy. Baltimore behind Flacco, Buffalo playing well until Josh Allen comes in, Cleveland for baker, and then LA until Herbert.

 

Look at recent drafts.

Garner Minshew, 6th round, 3rd most yards but he's being replaced probably next year. 

CJ Bethard, 3rd round, 

Dak, who was mentioned in the article 

Trevor Siemian, 7th round, 3rd most yards, but traded to Minnesota to be a backup in 2018

AJ McCarron, 5th round, goes 2-1 as a starter in 2015 and doesn't start a game again until 2019 for Oakland. Still has a 6/3 TD/INT ratio. 

TJ Yates, 5th rounder who went 2-3 as a rookie and didn't get another start until his 5th year. 

 

And as I look at it, that stat is wrong because Tyrod Taylor has more than 1000 passes as a 6th round pick. 

 

So I'm not going to say that these are all world beaters and HOF inductees but instead of asking the question of why Anderson, Cassel and Fitz got more opportunities than other low round picks, why not ask the question of why so many high round picks (Tribusky, Bortles, Geno, Glennon, Manuel, Barkley, Osweller, Weeden, Ponder, Locker, etc) are given so many opportunities at the expense of potentially more talented low round guys? 

 

EDIT: Oh, and I didn't mention the guy who played for the team we're about to go against: Tony Romo, who I guess doesn't count since he wasn't drafted but he definitely had a career that made him worthwhile of starting for 10 years or so. So these gems can be found. 

Edited by Thinking Skins
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, UK SKINS FAN 74 said:


If, and it’s a big if, Smith and Allen are being retained in 2021, I think we go after Lance. 

 

We have ample cap space--Lance would need to rent a room with Smith. Let him work his ass off and pick up everything--and take precious few snaps in 2021.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Ok I had other posts I wanted to reply to, but this got me because I totally disagree with it. Now its hard to disagree with it because the article is stating facts but I (as a guy who loves to look for the lower round gems) am forced to question stuff like why. In the 1990s as an example, we constantly saw QBs drafted in lower rounds and developed into backups. Heck that was the whole GB philosophy - they knew they had Favre, but they'd still draft a QB every year (in a lower round) and develop him and generally trade that QB for more picks or including Ty Detmer, Mark Brunell and Matt Hasselbeck. We can also look at guys like Kurk Warner, Trent Green, and Marc Bulger. 

 

And the article dismisses that Anderson, Cassel and Fitz are still in the league and managed to throw that many passes, but ignores that so many of the higher draft picks didn't. 

 

So the gems are there. Maybe the numbers as of recent are not as impressive but the question becomes why? Has QB recruiting gotten that much better? Maybe. 

But it could be just what the article points out, are the lower round guys being given chances? Some (like Allen here in DC) can't because of injury although they're playing well. Some like Chase Daniel have been in the league for 10 years but have thrown less than 250 passes. He's obviously doing something right to be able to stay on multiple rosters but isn't being given the keys. 

 

We can also look at Tyrod Taylor who is the ultimate story of a journeyman QB. He is always the guy warming up the seat for the next guy. Baltimore behind Flacco, Buffalo playing well until Josh Allen comes in, Cleveland for baker, and then LA until Herbert.

 

Look at recent drafts.

Garner Minshew, 6th round, 3rd most yards but he's being replaced probably next year. 

CJ Bethard, 3rd round, 

Dak, who was mentioned in the article 

Trevor Siemian, 7th round, 3rd most yards, but traded to Minnesota to be a backup in 2018

AJ McCarron, 5th round, goes 2-1 as a starter in 2015 and doesn't start a game again until 2019 for Oakland. Still has a 6/3 TD/INT ratio. 

TJ Yates, 5th rounder who went 2-3 as a rookie and didn't get another start until his 5th year. 

 

And as I look at it, that stat is wrong because Tyrod Taylor has more than 1000 passes as a 6th round pick. 

 

So I'm not going to say that these are all world beaters and HOF inductees but instead of asking the question of why Anderson, Cassel and Fitz got more opportunities than other low round picks, why not ask the question of why so many high round picks (Tribusky, Bortles, Geno, Glennon, Manuel, Barkley, Osweller, Weeden, Ponder, Locker, etc) are given so many opportunities at the expense of potentially more talented low round guys? 


I think you’re looking at the wrong guys. It’s not the Trubisky’s of the world you should be focused on. It’s the method and way of life in the NFL and the way their system is designed.

 

To make my point, let’s look at roster construction up until this recent era. 
 

Teams usually held 3 QBs and, traditionally, it was a veteran starter type (or an absolute top shelf rookie), a veteran back up and a developmental guy. All three were usually available on game day.

 

Fast forward to today. Most teams have two QBs on their active roster and a guy on the practice squad. 
 

Practice squad dudes are paid much less, and there are rules for practice squad eligibility. So the days of teams, for the most part, having three quarterbacks are long gone. 
 

We have four, yes. But we’re kind of an odd situation with the Smith injury, contract, Haskins and Allen... and Montez is on the practice squad.

 

Guys on the squad have basically a year tops to prove they can be on the main roster. If they don’t, they go elsewhere or they’re out of the league. Because each NFL Draft and UDFA period brings new blood in. But there are also savvy veterans that teams covet. So those guys aren’t going to be cast off for an unproven low round or UDFA guy in a main roster spot. Due to eligibility for the squad, again, you can’t hoard a guy you really like for years, either. 
 

So you have a lot of talent that rolls over because of the way the league works.

 

Personally, I’d allow each team to have five quarterbacks. 2 practice squad, one developmental guy that gets paid better than a squad guy but is technically rostered and then the two primary guys. 
 

If the league wants better QB play that’s the way things need to head. If the league wants to develop guys who need more time, it has to go that way.

 

To answer your concern: yes. I guarantee that there are guys slipping through the cracks in the current system. But that doesn’t mean that these teams are making mistakes in how they’re handling it. The league is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

To answer your concern: yes. I guarantee that there are guys slipping through the cracks in the current system. But that doesn’t mean that these teams are making mistakes in how they’re handling it. The league is.

I think its a mix of both.

 

Take for example San Fran. Lets rewind back to 2017 and they've just signed Kyle Shanny. Obviously Kyle wanted Kirk to be his starting QB but we don't trade Kirk. So Kyle makes the big trade for Jimmy G and has Bethard and Hoyer as backups and immediately signs Jimmy G to a big extension (kinda like we did with Alex). Jimmy G gets injured early and we see a lot of Bethard. Nothing great about 2500 yards 6.4 ypa, 4TD, 6INT. 

 

Fast forward to the next year and we have Jimmy G injured again. Bethard comes in for the next 5 games and goes 0-5, has 1200 yards and 8TD, 7Int, and 7.4 yards per attempt. Nothing great but nothing horrible, especially for a second year backup QB. But after 5 games Kyle turns to Nick Mullens. Now Nick goes 3-5 as a starter, 2200 yards, 13 TDs, 10 INTs, 8.3 yards per att. These numbers are actually more impressive than Jimmy G for the year. 

 

But the enxt year, Jimmy G is back in the drivers seat and takes the team to the super bowl (behind a great running game). His QBR on the year was only slightly better than Mullens the year before. 

 

And now Jimmy G is injured again and we see Mullins taking over again. He's not as impressive as he was 2 years ago but he is stilll respectable. 

 

But the situation shows what happens in this league. Jimmy G had done NOTHING to be given that contract and the guaranteed starter position in SF, but he was. And when we had two instances where he should have at least been challenged by a low round pick and an UDFA, he wasn't. Then he takes* the team to the SB and suddenlt he has arrived. Why wasn't Mullens given more opportunities? Because the Kyle wanted to give the team to an injury prone Jimmy G. 

 

We saw the same thing in Carolina where Kyle Allen looked good last year but a new coach wanted Teddy B and Will Grier so he traded Kyle instead of letting him compete. Honestly its only because of Ron's loyalty to Allen and Turner that he's even getting a chance to compete with Haskins (and maybe Haskins bad practice habits, yeah I acknowledge it now). And thats a repetitive thing. We saw it with AJ McCarron, with TJ Yates, with dude in Atlanta who played better than Vick but was traded to Houston. Heck, we saw it here with Cousins until we finally benched RG3. It happens all over the league. Its not just the not having enough spots (although thats a part of it) its the lack of open competitions in training camp.

 

I was honestly surprised that Seattle did what SF refuses to do. They had an open competition in camp and let Wilson beat out whoever that bum was from GB who had about the same resume as Jimmy G before being annointed starter. And Wilson became a legend. That doesn't happen if the HC is too proud to admit that he may have messed up like SF seemed to be. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CapsSkins said:

Here's a question: let's say we end up picking somewhere between 5-10. What would you be willing to trade to move up to 3 and guarantee Fields or Wilson? Call it on a scale of Nothing (Stand Pat at 5-10) to 2012 RG3 Trade.

 

My controversial opinion: If the FO feels Lawrence/Fields/Wilson are all slam dunk prospects, I'd do the RG3 trade package for one of them. If RG3 hadn't gotten hurt in 2012, we damn well might've won the Super Bowl that year. We definitely would have beaten Seattle. I don't think anyone would have criticized the trade then. Plus if we get one of the top QBs, we might actually be able to sign a Juju or an Allen Robinson-type. We immediately become an order of magnitude more attractive for FA's. 

The RG3 package was too much.

 

If we're moving from 5 to 2 or 3, I would not give up a future 1st. That just isn't enough of a move up. I'd give up a 2nd and 3rd or some kinda package like that though.

 

If we're picking 10th then I'd give up a future 1st.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have too many holes to be giving up draft picks in 21 and the future , to get I would assume Fields at #2.

 

So, we draft a QB. I would love to do what Miami did with Tau. Start the vet but when the team felt the rookie was ready, put him in. I feel a QB needs to get at least some playing time in year 1. You can only really develop by playing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

We have too many holes to be giving up draft picks in 21 and the future , to get I would assume Fields at #2.

 

So, we draft a QB. I would love to do what Miami did with Tau. Start the vet but when the team felt the rookie was ready, put him in. I feel a QB needs to get at least some playing time in year 1. You can only really develop by playing.

You draft a guy in the top 5-10, he plays. Period.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

We have too many holes to be giving up draft picks in 21 and the future , to get I would assume Fields at #2.

 

So, we draft a QB. I would love to do what Miami did with Tau. Start the vet but when the team felt the rookie was ready, put him in. I feel a QB needs to get at least some playing time in year 1. You can only really develop by playing.

 

I strongly disagree with the idea you only develop by playing.  It all depends on where you are in your development.   I think playing too early retards development.   

 

Basically once you start playing you are going to do whatever will give you the most improvement in the short term.  Think of the analogy to dieting.  The quickest way to lose weight would be to exercise two hours a day.  It may not be sustainable but its the quickest short term way to lose weight.  Whereas long term, the best way to lose weight would be to develop healthy eating habits.   Likewise a QB from a long term needs to get their fundamentals straight, learn how to understand coverage, and things like that.  At a certain point you do need to play to continue to improve, but if you play before you have the fundamentals both in physical mechanics and understanding coverages, I think it will retard growth.  Because those things take time to improve, and on a week to week basis, there just isn't enough time to work on those because the short term return on investment is so much higher working on other things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not for trading up a RG3 type package or even a Wentz type package, especially not with seeing what Jackson, Mahomes, Watson, Allen, etc have become. I really wonder how Smith will grade the QBs.

 

Will it be tier1 - Lawrence

tier 2 - Fields 

tier 3 - everybody else

 

or is Fields up there with Lawrence? Is Wilson above Fields? And is that a generally accepted thing around the league or unique to Washington? Is Jones up there? Is Lance? How many of these guys are seen as just a guy vs something special? 

 

I doubt this year is comparable to 13, 11, 10, but 2009? 2008, where there were 5 QBs taken in the first 96 picks and only 2 became special - really 1 special and one a SB winner. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

You draft a guy in the top 5-10, he plays. Period.

 

And here lies the rub in why the fan base would struggle with a guy like Lance who may need some time before he’s ready.

 

Its entirely possible he’s ready day one. But it’s also possible he’s not ready until halfway through season 2.

 

The Football Team won’t make decisions based on fans, but once the fans start and the media runs with the narrative and Snyder gets ahold of it... problems start!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

 

Ok I had other posts I wanted to reply to, but this got me because I totally disagree with it. Now its hard to disagree with it because the article is stating facts but I (as a guy who loves to look for the lower round gems) am forced to question stuff like why. 

 

It's not up for debate.  It's a fact.  The higher you pick the more likely the QB is going to be a success.  Same for any position.   It's not about absolutes.  It's about what's more likely.  Any emotional plea otherwise doesn't change that fact.  It's not a question.  One side is right on it.  You can make the point that the odds yawn -- look at this dude who beat the odds or that dude and I am the type to go to Vegas and enjoy betting against the house and winning anyway.  Heck the whole gambling industry is built on that mindset.  I get it. 

 

And granted the odds in football aren't as dramatic.  But its still a debate about playing the odds or who cares about the odds.  Are you going with the house or you going against the house.  Now every draft is different.   To me that's the one way to debate this with your side of the argument.  So if someone argues this version of the craps table is different than the past because X, Y, Z.  That to me is an interesting discussion.  You can make the point that this draft is deeper than other drafts or whatever.  But if we are talking purely theortical then there is one right answer and one wrong one.  Stats prove it. 

 

IMO recalling debates with you about other players you get emotionally attached to young players and are heavily optimistic that they are poised for success and if they don't reach that goal its typically on the coaches not the players.  If I recall you still think Jason Campbell might have been the goods but the coaches and context failed him.  I am using hyperbole to make a point but recalling some of our discussions you'd love it if we had six 7th round picks and 10 undrafted free agents and lets have a party then and build ourselves a roster.  

 

But my point to that is there is typically a difference between the freakish talented QBs versus the mere talented QBs.  Yes no guarantees exist.  You can eat salads everyday and drop dead of a heart attack and another dude eats steaks every night lives to 100.  Exceptions exist all the time.  But Tony Romo for example doesn't prove the point that we want to find the next QB among the undrafted pool.  And Jamarcus Russell busting doesn't mean buyer beware of Trevor Lawrence.  On and on.

 

You got to take every situation as it comes and evaluate accordingly.  And no sarcasm implied with this point.  I do share your passion for going young.  But in my humble opinion you take the late rounder and undrafted free agent point too far typically.  That's our main disagreement.  Because otherwise like you I want to accrue draft picks and stop trading them away.  

 

 I value the top picks much more than any type of pick.  IMO there is a reason why Lawrence is considered a stud and lets say Ian Book isn't.  And Tony Romo or name that random example doesn't change that point one whit.  And the fact that there are no absolutes in drafting doesn't change the point either -- instead it helps make my point which is yes there are no guarantees so the best way to increase your chances of success is to play the odds. 

 

And if you play the odds, its something like this:

 

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Historic Success Chart

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

 

 

Edited by Skinsinparadise
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • zskins changed the title to 2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...