2021 Draft Order / Tracker: Current Pick #19

[Warhead36]

I want a QB but if we take Parsons, I wouldn't be upset. He's the MLB that could turn this D elite and elite Ds can still at least give you competitive 9-10 win type seasons until you eventually find your guy.

[OVCChairman]

8 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

I'd be more worried if we trade up and spend a bunch to get that guy. But I understand, you don't want to miss with your 1st round pick. I just think anyone has a chance to bust or not play to their potential, not just qb's. I know it was the 22nd pick but that Doctson pick still stings. 

 

 

I agree completely.  Doctson does sting quite a bit but i have a bit more faith in Kyle Smith and Ron Rivera at this point, than I do Scot McCloughin at this point.   

 

BTW we took Kendall Fuller in the 3rd round of that draft.  We have to have some sort of record for 3rd round hits over the last 5 years... just sayin.... 

 

 

Sorry to take this in another direction but good lord

 

2020 - Antonio Gibson

2019 - Terry McLaurin

2018 - Geron Christian - Probably the worst of the bunch... still starting in the interim but not on the same level of the others.

2017 - Fabian Moreau

2016 - Kendall Fuller

 

[El Mexican]

4 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I agree completely.  Doctson does sting quite a bit but i have a bit more faith in Kyle Smith and Ron Rivera at this point, than I do Scot McCloughin at this point.   

 

BTW we took Kendall Fuller in the 3rd round of that draft.  We have to have some sort of record for 3rd round hits over the last 5 years... just sayin.... 

 

 

Sorry to take this in another direction but good lord

 

2020 - Antonio Gibson

2019 - Terry McLaurin

2018 - Geron Christian - Probably the worst of the bunch... still starting in the interim but not on the same level of the others.

2017 - Fabian Moreau

2016 - Kendall Fuller

 

 

Cooley was also 3rd rounder. 

 

The QB dilema has me thinking we should draft a QB in the first AND the third or fourth rounds.

Too much is placed on the shoulders of a rookie. We need some kind of backup plan in case 

he doesn't pan out. Alex Smith is not a long term plan. Allen could be, but that's a very risky proposition.

 

So going with two fresh rookie QBs seems like the most logical choice, it seems.

 

 

[Redskin21502]

13 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

We have to have some sort of record for 3rd round hits over the last 5 years... just sayin.... 

 

 

 

 

We definitely should wait until one of our picks in the 3rd round this year to take a QB 

[OVCChairman]

1 minute ago, El Mexican said:

 

Cooley was also 3rd rounder. 

 

The QB dilema has me thinking we should draft a QB in the first AND the third or fourth rounds.

Too much is placed on the shoulders of a rookie. We need some kind of backup plan in case 

he doesn't pan out. Alex Smith is not a long term plan. Allen could be, but that's a very risky proposition.

 

So going with two fresh rookie QBs seems like the most logical choice, it seems.

 

 

 

 

I don't think a QB will be there at 19 that is worth that pick... Heck, I don't think i'll be sold on any of the guys I anticipate being there at 8 if we ultimately don't win the division.... I also don't think you can afford to take a guy in the 3rd if you take one in the 1st.  Chances are the QB we would take in the first would not be a day 1 starter because it's very likely it's not Lawrence or Fields.  I don't think i'm comfortable going into next season with any of the other QBs that will be taken to be a day 1 starter.  Allen is coming off a pretty bad injury, so while it's 'expected' for him to be ready, I don't know that I want to go into next season banking on Allen being ready by training camp either...  So Smith likely is week 1 starter with Allen possibly being available as well as your first round draft pick.  Haskins likely competes with Allen for 3rd QB spot while your 1st rounder grooms.  If that is how it works, then you've burned a 3rd round pick when you could add a contributor.  If we wait til the 3rd and take someone like Ridder, then the picture gets a bit clearer, while adding a 1st round talent elsewhere... that is if 'your guy' isn't there in the 1st. 

[Dark Acre]

18 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

So looking at your stats right there... you would rather take Lance at 8 instead of Parsons?  Parsons likely takes this defense from good to borderline elite depending on what we do at FS.... 

That's what's called a force multiplier -- someone who not only upgrades his specific unit but other units around him; in this case, the DL.  It's like playing Doom* and finding the rocket launcher -- yeah, your shotgun and chain gun are pretty powerful weapons, but if you want elite defense, you need to be pumping rockets into that pack of whatevers, because those whatevers ain't just zombies.

 

It's not an apt analogy to compare where we could be with our previous strong D/weak O teams.  Why?  Because Alex Smith is not comparable to Jason Campbell, Todd Collins, etc.  Right now, if the up front protection were better, Smith is capable of taking this team deep into the paloffs.  He's got McLaurin at WR1, Gibson and a surprisingly effective  what's-his-name at RB 1 and RB 2, Thomas is actually playing well when he doesn't bonehead himself, and Smith can take chances because Tress Way will bail him out.  In contrast, our DL is playing with governors on their engines, like American cars had in the 70s due to the 55 mph speed limit**.  Take off the governors by putting a good MLB back there and that line will shine.

 

*Don't "old school" me.  Old school was Intellivision.  Yeah, their football kinda sucked, but their B-17 Bomber cartridge with the synthesized voice was cool.  What 14 year old doesn't love carpet bombing Nazi Germany?

 

**True Story:  from 1973 to 1995, the United States federal government made it ILLEGAL to drive over 55 mph anywhere in the U.S.A., period, under threat of inconsistent enforcement by local law enforcement (hot chicks, athletes, politicians, and entertainers getting "sorry, have a nice day", while the rest of us were having our lives nearly ruined by the fine, the points, and the traffic class scams we had to sit through).  Some American cars had a really, really, really annoying buzzer that sounded when you exceeded 55.  Do you know how annoying that buzzer is when you're 8, you're in a car with your grandparents and 2 siblings, and you're driving to Disneyland at the crack of dawn at 55?  Just a liiiiiitle faster grampa.  BUZZZZZZZZZZ.  [Makes penalty signaling motion] "We've got Grandpa, speeding, less than 5mph over the limit, non-flagrant.  5 yard penalty."  (Do it again, Grandpa, and you'll be pulling over for a TO.)  So that's what's hampering our DL.

 

 

[OVCChairman]

8 minutes ago, GothSkinsFan said:

That's what's called a force multiplier -- someone who not only upgrades his specific unit but other units around him; in this case, the DL.  It's like playing Doom* and finding the rocket launcher -- yeah, your shotgun and chain gun are pretty powerful weapons, but if you want elite defense, you need to be pumping rockets into that pack of whatevers, because those whatevers ain't just zombies.

 

 

 

This is a major point in the conversation.  Is this team better with Lance at QB or Parsons at MLB?   

 

I bring it back to the RG3 conversation because it's an EXAMPLE of how things can go.  It's not the rule.  How different could this team be if we hadn't taken RG3 and gone with Kirk, letting him win the job from the beginning?  I am not a Kirk defender either, but taking a QB who ultimately does not start for multiple contracts can hurt a lot.  RG3's downfall was ultimately his injury, but it was still a very short lived dream we had.  

 

That said... trading up can find you Pat Mahomes too.. so it's not as simple (as you stated) as looking at what worked before and applying it to now.... because Pat Mahomes isn't in this draft, and neither is RG3.  These are all new players, none of which have anything to do with previous years.  The RB taken 35th overall is not the same as the one taken 35th overall in 2011... they have no influence on each other.  

 

That said, looking at a track record of evaluators (see our effectiveness in the 3rd round regardless of position) would tell you that the evaluator is a much MUCH bigger factor than the historical trends... 

[kingdaddy]

4 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

This is a major point in the conversation.  Is this team better with Lance at QB or Parsons at MLB?   

 

I bring it back to the RG3 conversation because it's an EXAMPLE of how things can go.  It's not the rule.  How different could this team be if we hadn't taken RG3 and gone with Kirk, letting him win the job from the beginning?  I am not a Kirk defender either, but taking a QB who ultimately does not start for multiple contracts can hurt a lot.  RG3's downfall was ultimately his injury, but it was still a very short lived dream we had.  

 

That said... trading up can find you Pat Mahomes too.. so it's not as simple (as you stated) as looking at what worked before and applying it to now.... because Pat Mahomes isn't in this draft, and neither is RG3.  These are all new players, none of which have anything to do with previous years.  The RB taken 35th overall is not the same as the one taken 35th overall in 2011... they have no influence on each other.  

 

That said, looking at a track record of evaluators (see our effectiveness in the 3rd round regardless of position) would tell you that the evaluator is a much MUCH bigger factor than the historical trends... 

I only have one question about your trading up theory for Mahomes....players like Mahomes come along maybe once in our lifetime. He is ridiculously special. But I get your point and I've argued the same thing about trading up to get a QB you might like. But I just don't know if we'll ever see another Mahomes like player again, he is too damn good. 

[OVCChairman]

12 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

I only have one question about your trading up theory for Mahomes....players like Mahomes come along maybe once in our lifetime. He is ridiculously special. But I get your point and I've argued the same thing about trading up to get a QB you might like. But I just don't know if we'll ever see another Mahomes like player again, he is too damn good. 

 

 

i agree, i'm not advocating doing it, just a data point that it's not ALWAYS a failure.  Far more frequently do you end up with Mitch Trubisky than you do Pat Mahomes.. which is true regardless of whether you trade up or not... so doing so is very VERY risky business because just by the simple fact of most QBs not being able to translate to the NFL, then the bigger emphasis is on the evaluator than the action... Dan Snyder advocating trading up for RG3 did not work out... Kyle Smith advocating trading up for Montez Sweat on the other hand.. appears to be a home run.  

[CobraCommander]

16 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

i agree, i'm not advocating doing it, just a data point that it's not ALWAYS a failure.  Far more frequently do you end up with Mitch Trubisky than you do Pat Mahomes.. which is true regardless of whether you trade up or not... so doing so is very VERY risky business because just by the simple fact of most QBs not being able to translate to the NFL, then the bigger emphasis is on the evaluator than the action... Dan Snyder advocating trading up for RG3 did not work out... Kyle Smith advocating trading up for Montez Sweat on the other hand.. appears to be a home run.  

Trubisky, that name interests me. Because my idea of having to draft at least 1 QB every year until you find your Mahomes is that you have to cut bait with subpar guys like Bumsky and the like. These rookie contracts honestly hinder that plan slightly since you don't want to be cutting 1st round picks every other year but then again they aren't getting those backbreaking contracts a la Jamarcus Russel.

[CobraCommander]

3 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

Trubisky, that name interests me. Because my idea of having to draft at least 1 QB every year until you find your Mahomes is that you have to cut bait with subpar guys like Bumsky and the like. These rookie contracts honestly hinder that plan slightly since you don't want to be cutting 1st round picks every other year, but then again they aren't getting those backbreaking contracts a la Jamarcus Russel.

 

[OVCChairman]

9 minutes ago, Florgon79 said:

Trubisky, that name interests me. Because my idea of having to draft at least 1 QB every year until you find your Mahomes is that you have to cut bait with subpar guys like Bumsky and the like. These rookie contracts honestly hinder that plan slightly since you don't want to be cutting 1st round picks every other year but then again they aren't getting those backbreaking contracts a la Jamarcus Russel.

 

 

 

Yeah but you're killing the talent on the team if you're blowing through 1st round QBs all the time.  

[CobraCommander]

4 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

 

Yeah but you're killing the talent on the team if you're blowing through 1st round QBs all the time.  

 

 

Yes, I don't think they need to be first rounders every year. I wouldn't advocate taking one in the first the year after you already did so. But I might advocate taking one in later rounds if theres one you like that has dropped and has potential as a project. But until you find your guy you have to keep trying. I don't see the point in trotting a guy like Trubisky out in year 4. 

[OVCChairman]

Just now, Florgon79 said:

 

 

Yes, I don't think they need to be first rounders every year. I wouldn't advocate taking one in the first the year after you already did so. But I might advocate taking one in later rounds if theres one you like that has dropped and has potential as a project. But until you find your guy you have to keep trying. I don't see the point in trotting a guy like Trubisky out in year 4. 

 

 

 

ah yes i agree. 

[El Mexican]

1 hour ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

I don't think a QB will be there at 19 that is worth that pick... Heck, I don't think i'll be sold on any of the guys I anticipate being there at 8 if we ultimately don't win the division....

 

Oh absolutely, I agree. Kyle is a huge asterisk at this juncture.

 

I was exposing my argument on the premise that Haskins will not be here next season.

I firmly believe the team will pull the trigger once an interesting offer floats around.

Things can get toxic really fast.

 

Drafting another QB at a high position in the draft with Haskins still around looks strange:

 

• Smith
• Haskins
• Drafted QB in 2021

 

This looks much better:

 

• Smith
• Drafted QB in 2021
• Kyle/FA QB like Tribiski/3rd4th round 2021 pick

 

We rolled the dice with Shanny with a similar structure and the better QB rose in time.

 

 

[Darth Tater]

2 hours ago, El Mexican said:

 

Cooley was also 3rd rounder. 

 

The QB dilema has me thinking we should draft a QB in the first AND the third or fourth rounds.

Too much is placed on the shoulders of a rookie. We need some kind of backup plan in case 

he doesn't pan out. Alex Smith is not a long term plan. Allen could be, but that's a very risky proposition.

 

So going with two fresh rookie QBs seems like the most logical choice, it seems.

 

 

Thing is, beyond Lawrence, I don't see any top 15 worthy QBs.  What I mean is that a top QB should be a guy you KNOW is going to make it sans injury.

[OVCChairman]

29 minutes ago, El Mexican said:

 

 

This looks much better:

 

• Smith
• Drafted QB in 2021
• Kyle/FA QB like Tribiski/3rd4th round 2021 pick

 

We rolled the dice with Shanny with a similar structure and the better QB rose in time.

 

 

 

Personally, I don't think it looks better... When we did it in 2012 it was viewed as a potentially damaging and toxic move, and it got us into a QB carousel for the next couple years.  If I'm not mistaken, Shanny did not want to move up for RG3.  He wasn't necessarily down on him, but he wasn't 100% on the move either.  Having Kirk behind RG3 was a very frustrating time.  There were reports that Kirk wanted out... there were reports that the locker room was split.. A lot of things in that 2012 season, and the seasons following, were tumultuous to say the least.  If you take a first round QB this year... there is going to be enough of a debate as to when that QB should be inserted into the lineup.  Taking another one in the 3rd is throwing even more oil onto that fire...  It's going to raise the questions of "Is [First round QB] Rivera's guy or did Dan step in? and is that why they took a guy in the 3rd as well" and yada yada yada.  

 

If you take one in the first round this year, then take a flier on a guy in the 5th next year, the questions are much less involved, because you're imagining Smith and Haskins are on their ways out, Allen MAY be retained, and it's a depth type draft pick... ie. Stephen Montez. 

 

If there isn't a guy available in the 1st round that would give River and Kyle Smith enough confidence to feel they've got their guy and they don't need to address it further in the same draft, then they shouldn't take a QB in the 1st round....  

[Skinsinparadise]

IMO the likely conversation within the FO relating to QB would be it depends....

 

If they think for example Zach Wilson or Justin Fields are bonafide game changers then it begs the next question...

 

A.  what price is too steep or what is worth it?

 

If they think its Wilson or Fields or bust or name that scenario then they might bypass QB entirely

 

What do they think of that next grouping of QBs?

 

B.  if they love Trask, Jones, Ridder or Newman or maybe just like their potential and have questions about the top tier then maybe they shoot for one of those guys.

 

I think it all could end up a fascinating trip as to QBs because you got more dynamics at QB than the average draft.

 

A.  You might have three QBs entering this draft who in a normal year would all be #1 picks in a typical year.  All three argunaly are more hyped than any of the 2015-2018 Qbs.  I am not saying better but more hyped. 

 

B.  You have Mac Jones and Kyle Trask who depending on the opinion are seen as potential Kirk Cousins type prospects with some higher on them than that and some thinking they are high end backups.  A lot of variance on both dudes.  I have my own opinion on both which I shared on the draft thread.  But my opinion obviously doesn't mean squat.  I'd be fascinated to know what Kyle thinks of them.

 

C.  You got sort of the prototype boom-bust prospect in Trey Lance.  Sort (but not exactly apples to apples) of the potential that's akin to Lamar Jackson who was a polarizing prospect before that draft.  And does Jackson coming back to earth this season effect this at all? 

 

D. You got Jamie Newman who has some upside but hasn't played this year.  You got a high variance QB like Mond.  You can get perhaps Ridder who some (among them me) like.  Some are into Pickett from Pitt. So you got some of that early to mid round potential similar to 2012 in theory -- back then there was some talk about Kirk, Foles, Wilson, etc.

 

You also have a young D line who likely will only be fully intact for another two seasons or if they stay intact it won't be at the current price.  So the window isn't forever to exploit that strength the way they could now.  You got a fan base that has somewhat checked out where you might need a young QB to bring some needed excitment.   And you might have one of the better QB drafts we've seen inawhile.

 

Now Kyle and Ron might not see it that way.  But it wouldn't shock me if they would and if so I wouldn't be surprised that they got some QB targets where they are actually somewhat aggressive.

 

[El Mexican]

3 hours ago, OVCChairman said:

 

Personally, I don't think it looks better...

 

All valid points, no doubt.

 

Except now we have Smith as the established QB. We didn't have that kind of solidity in 2012.

We can actually groom a rookie or two.

 

But yeah, two rookie QBs spaced in the 2021 and 2022 drafts seems sounder.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[CurseReversed]

I think an interesting way to put this hypothetical would be comparing what these picks could be.  I believe that an elite MLB prospect is the only first round pick that could have the close to the team elevating impact that a qb could have. 

Lets take mahommes off the table for the hypothetical  because he is probably the best qb prospect to ever play and it will skew the thought experiment.

But lets say Parsons could be a ray lewis type player for us and lance could be a Russel Wilson type player.

Is it possible that a Ray lewis in this defense could be more valuable in the long term then a Wilson? 

 

I think there is definitely an argument for both.  Personally I would take ray lewis, and bpa qb in the 2nd or later over a Wilson in the first and bpa in the second,  given our situation.  

 

[CapsSkins]

8 minutes ago, CurseReversed said:

I think an interesting way to put this hypothetical would be comparing what these picks could be.  I believe that an elite MLB prospect is the only first round pick that could have the close to the team elevating impact that a qb could have. 

Lets take mahommes off the table for the hypothetical  because he is probably the best qb prospect to ever play and it will skew the thought experiment.

But lets say Parsons could be a ray lewis type player for us and lance could be a Russel Wilson type player.

Is it possible that a Ray lewis in this defense could be more valuable in the long term then a Wilson? 

 

I think there is definitely an argument for both.  Personally I would take ray lewis, and bpa qb in the 2nd or later over a Wilson in the first and bpa in the second,  given our situation.  

 

 

Naw man you take Russell Wilson over Ray Lewis 1000 times out of 1000.

[Skinsinparadise]

44 minutes ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Naw man you take Russell Wilson over Ray Lewis 1000 times out of 1000.

 

Yeah agree.  I think in spite of our holes, you add a Russell Wilson type to this roster I genuinely think its a SB caliber roster in 2021 with the addition of some upgrades.  Some of the debate here has an all or nothing feel to it -- ala you either get your Qb or instead you build a supporting cast.  But the reality is we have the cap room and enough picks to do both.   But if its just a supporting cast without the QB I doubt this team is great next year. 

 

Seattle's defense is ranked near the bottom of the league in DVOA from Football Outsiders and we are #5.  So how come they are so good and we aren't?  Easy.  They got a Qb which means more than any unit by a mile.

[philibusters]

1 hour ago, CapsSkins said:

 

Naw man you take Russell Wilson over Ray Lewis 1000 times out of 1000.

 

Agree

[JoggingGod]

4 hours ago, CurseReversed said:

Is it possible that a Ray lewis in this defense could be more valuable in the long term then a Wilson? 

 

Is this a joke? Like is this actually a serious question?

 

You take a HOF QB over a HOF LB any day. No questions asked.