2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Koolblue13]

1 minute ago, cakmoney61 said:

You are absolutely right about the need for a good to great QB to have any chance of being a consistent winner.  But do you believe there are QBs in the upcoming draft that can be "the guy" in Washington for multiple years?  This is not last year's crop of QBs.  Can we not find that guy in the second round?  I would hate to miss out on a Kyle Hamilton because we reached for a mediocre QB.

I would absolutely love to Add Hamilton, but an injured safety at the top of the draft instead of a QB after spending an entire year seeing what not having a QB does to your team would be awful.

 

Especially when Hill, Brisker and Cine should be there in the 2nd and Williams, Bates III and Maye will be there in FA.

 

We can absolutely address FS this year without using our 1rst.

[cakmoney61]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I would absolutely love to Add Hamilton, but an injured safety at the top of the draft instead of a QB after spending an entire year seeing what not having a QB does to your team would be awful.

 

Especially when Hill, Brisker and Cine should be there in the 2nd and Williams, Bates III and Maye will be there in FA.

 

We can absolutely address FS this year without using our 1rst.

So which QBs would you not hesitate to draft with Washington's first-round pick (possibly #9-13?)

[KDawg]

6 minutes ago, cakmoney61 said:

So which QBs would you not hesitate to draft with Washington's first-round pick (possibly #9-13?)

 

You didn't ask me, but... so far... in order for me:

 

1. Howell

1b. Corral

3. Willis

[Koolblue13]

8 minutes ago, cakmoney61 said:

So which QBs would you not hesitate to draft with Washington's first-round pick (possibly #9-13?)

 

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

 

 but... so far... in order for me:

 

1. Howell

1b. Corral

 

 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

 

 

Mostly agree that the top two are the ones that are of most interest. Willis is very Trey Lancey... May have a great career but may need to be fostered and I don't think that ability is in DC with a new name and desperation. I just have a hard time ruling him out if the other two are gone and he's sitting there. He has the upside.

 

But yeah, I'm not a fan of where he is right now and think he'd take a lot.

 

But I also say we need to have a quarterback and I like him more than Pickett/Strong.

[cakmoney61]

16 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

You didn't ask me, but... so far... in order for me:

 

1. Howell

1b. Corral

3. Willis

Oh, I absolutely want to hear from you, Skinsinparadise, etc.  You are the guys that know more about these prospects than the vast majority of us.  I don't follow draft prospects at all.  Of course, all of you can have different opinions, but you guys are my source regarding all things WFT.

 

This year, I may watch some footage on these QB prospects to reach my own conclusions about how to feel about them.  Washington needs a franchise QB on the roster beginning next year.  Check that.  "I" need Washington to have a franchise QB on the roster next year and I don't care how they get him.

 

ADDED:  So you would take Willis with pick #9?

Edited January 4, 2022 by cakmoney61

[Redskins Reparations]

Does anyone have rankings for next years QB class?  

[philibusters]

26 minutes ago, Redskins Reparations said:

Does anyone have rankings for next years QB class?  

 

https://www.profootballnetwork.com/early-look-at-2023-nfl-draft-qb-prospects-bryce-young-cj-stroud/

 

Its too early to make any judgments but tentatively next year's class looks stronger (at least at the top) than this year's class with two guys who look like top 5 picks.  This year's class is not that bad except for the fact that it lacks the high end talent.  The depth is fine.  That said its probably going to take a top 3 pick next year to get one of Young or Stroud

Edited January 4, 2022 by philibusters

[philibusters]

I would take WIllis with the #9 pick.   I think people have talked about Tier 1 for a while now as having 6 guys in Willis, Corral, Howell, Pickett, Strong, and Ridder.  But in my head, I have kind of narrowed it down to 4--Willis, Corral, Howell, and Pickett.     Strong has medical issues and Ridder isn't consistent enough throwing the ball to warrant being in that top tier at this point for me.  Of the Tier 1 guys, I would rank them Willis, Corral, Pickett, then Howell, but I wouldn't argue with any order of them because it is not clear to me which option is the best.

[skinny21]

I like the theory of Willis for us - swing for the fences with the high ceiling guy.  Essentially (totally cherry picking names here I know) looking for our Mahomes/Watson vs our version of Baker Mayfield/Mac Jones.  I’m just not sure this staff will be willing to take the risk that comes with him.

 

The caveat(s) is there’s always the chance they bring in a vet for insurance (insurance they can still be competitive in case Willis needs to sit for a while) or maybe they feel they can make use of his running ability and a simplified passing scheme to bring him along slowly, similarly to maybe the Eagles and Hurts (or, IIRC, how they used Cam in Carolina).

 

Just to be clear, I’m not saying I’d just take the uber-athletic guy and hope for the best… a lot still depends on I/scouts evaluated mental makeup/work ethic etc.

 

 

[The Consigliere]

14 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I agree with many of your thoughts.  Just for me, I think only place where we may depart is I think i have more limits as for playing the odds.  Context sometimes to me can play in with a heavy hand where I'll depart from the numbers.  But I mostly do play the odds.  I used to be a teacher's assistant in stats in college eons ago, i forgot much of what I knew math wise but I retained the philiosophy of playing the odds and using stats to make decisions.   But the trick is, numbers are useful but context is still key.

 

Today, it's not the main thing I do job wise but part of what i do includes doing polls which involves looking at numbers and explaining the context of those numbers.  In short, numbers are really helpful in what i do but the context behind the numbers are equally important from my experience.   So I borrow some of that approach to this.  I am not saying this is the way to do things.  I am just explaning my mindset.  

 

There are people on the QB threads over the years who think i am an extremist on the QB position, that i value it too much.  Among other things, there is a dude there who constantly preaches that the value of a Qb might be overstated and their value is very dependant on about how much cap room the QB consumes.  He's obsessed with value. I agree with it to an extent but at times i don't.  I don't want a crap QB no matter how cheap I get them.  i do agree that a good rookie QB is very valuable.  There is another dude who constantly pushes the rare examples of low round QBs succeeding and saying why not us?  i like both of those people as posters.  But they drive me crazy sometimes.      To my mind they are missing the forest for the trees when they take their point in my mind too far.  One IMO can be penny wise and pound foolish.  And the other to me at times can live in fantasy.  

 

You take it a notch even higher than I do about QBs.    Bringing this point to this debate.  It's fun on this thread to give it my own shot at what i think of these players.  i could be right.  I could be wrong.  I got no ego about it.  The only thing i'll pat myself on the back about it is going through the trouble of spending the time to watch and read about these guys.  Others here do it too.   And do a great job.  We are messing around and having fun doing it. 

 

 I obviously respect scouts who do this for a living.  i met Scot McCloughan eons ago, talked about it on the draft thread at the time. i talked to him for hours.  Won an auction to do it.  He knew more about football than I'll ever know and by a mile to say the least.  But at the same time, it weasn't hard to pick out that he doesn't care about the mock drafts.  I care from an entertainment purpose.  I listen to almost all of these dranftnik podcasts among other things.  I find these guys very entertaining.  But I don't treat their takes as gospel.  

 

So bringing this back here, there is so much value I give the media draft geeks.  I value much more leaks from scouts.  When Bon McGinn does his draft reports right before the draft, that stuff to me is gold because he's quoting scouts.  Not that they get everything right but they do nail much more than the Kiper types.   As far as anayltics go, tough for me to ride them on the QB spot as gospel.   I do like reading their different stats.  PFF for example provides grades that aren't easy to find including completion rate for all three levels among other things.  Great stuff.  But to me they are a tool, not the be all and end all.  I'll post some of the stats I compiled from PFF about all these guys soon. 

 

No one has cracked the code to find franchise QBs.  I am not pretending I am the first to do it.     but what the heck if I think for example we might be able to get Corral at lets say 11 and believe next year we'd be picking in the late teens and more in lets say the range to take dudes like Rattler.  I'll give it a shot and my take will be an apples to apples comparison of those two players for example.   And if I think Corral has a shot to be a franchise QB even though some media draft geeks don't like the class -- I'll give it a shot and say my peace. 😀

 

And as for stats. i think more for QBs than any other spot, context is king.  For example, Corral's stats were even better the previous season at least in the context of being profilic.  So what happened?  Did he regress?  I don't think so.  He had better weapons the previous season.  And he improved his skills this year as for decision making so some of his stats did improve on that front.  He hurt his ankle during the season and lost some playmakers and that effected his stats towards the later part of the season.  When I look at his stats I have to factor context.

 

The other thing with QBs is its so intangible driven according to so many coaches.  I don't like what i've read for example about Rattler's intangibles.  I like Corral's intangibles better.  Ditto Howell.  QB is a very personality driven position -- by the nature of your position it helps to be a leader of men.  And as i stated in other post, your work ethic looms very large according to multiple coaches who are known to be QB gurus.  The numbers alone don't really smoke out variables like that. 

 

So yeah I do respect anayltics.  I've actually had to defend using them multiple times in some threads.  But to me there is a limit to them. 

 

Agree.  I'd add some things but those variables are key.

 

Let me add that when it comes to QB's, man, I don't think there's any magic sauce to evaluation. I listed the prereq's because if they don't have those elements I think the success rate automatically drops close to zero, so that's a good rubric for the bare minimum requirements. The craziness of the position for me, superficially anyway, could be really well represented  by Jake Locker vs Josh Allen. Honestly, what's the difference, at least in terms of what they brought to the table as athletes who played the position and the production they brought to bear in college? It was nearly identical: they both shared the exact same attributes: Big, strong armed, super athletic, but unusually inaccurate for the position in their era (especially Allen, Locker was bad too, but by '18 QB's were even more accurate than they were back a decade earlier). How the heck did Allen figure out how to be more accurate in the much tougher NFL than in the wack conference he made his bones in? I have no idea. I imagine the big difference is coaching, and supporting cast, but is it enough to make that much of a difference? All Pro versus wash out? Don't know, it's just weird as hell. I'm sure there's plenty between the ears involved there too, maybe health luck, but man, the position is one where there isn't ever and shouldn't be close to certainty about anything. There just seem to be generally tiered out guys and usually the nfl is kinda right, more or less, about who should be in what tier, but generally no more accurate than a coin flip regarding who will actually make it and who wont in the top tier (and nobody seems to be reliably more accurate either). 

 

I know I suck at evaluating the position beyond sniffing out sure busts, it's rare that a guy I think will be a bust hits (Allen is the only one off the top of my head), but hitting on guys? No better, and probably plenty worse than many others. 

 

[The Consigliere]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Thanks.  But I think I have a good handle on his takes and how definitive he can get.  I am not the only one who has mentioned how definitive he can get.  It's all cool though. 😀

 

I've debated him for years on some players as he's debated others.  It's not just the last few days.  I recall the debate for example about Terry McLaurin.  With him explaining to me his late breakout year is a red flag and pedestrian stats scream "meh".  I debated why you got to look past that.   Factor the player, the intangibles, his YPA is actually really good, Haskins didn't go deep much and he was used as their deep threat, they had other go to WRs like Campbell, etc.   We've had other discussions like that too, especially about Wrs and QBs.

 

He's been right on some players and wrong.  As I have and others have.   So I am not picking on him.  He's good and has interesting takes on plenty.   But on some players he was VERY driven by anaylitcs.  I recall those debates well.  WRs to him is very about dominator scores, etc.  I am not saying he's wrong.  I use numbers here all the time.  Just saying from my perpsective he can take it too far.  That's just my opinion.

 

It's about a series of discussion points over years with him, not just the last few days that compelled me to dive into discussion of analytics which ironically some have accused me of using too much, he's the only one I can think of who has accused me in some debates in the past of not using them enough.  It's all cool.  It's all opinion.  He's spelled out where he departs from them about QBs in a recent post.  I felt compelled to get into how I like to use them and how I don't. 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone here disagrees.  But sometime again exceptions exist.

 

 

 He came off like he doesn't care what the draft media thinks about this.   What the mock draft talking heads think.  He doesn't see them as experts.  And plenty of other scouts have said the same thing about those guys.  Some actually even like to goof on them.  It's almost a cliche.  It's come out in some of the McGinn articles from what I recall among other places as for scouts as the media talking heads not seeing prospects the same way.   So for example, what name that talking head thinks I seriously doubt influences with other teams are thinking about a prospect.  So I think its safe for Scot and other scouts to ignore them.

 

 

 

 

 

WR's most critical factor is breakout age, not dominator factor, though there are others. The weird thing about WR is how little athleticism seems to matter so long as the prospects fit within the particular generalized window. Bench press is particularly funny, more hits with weaker guys than stronger ones, so bp appears to just be white noise.

 

Anyway I was pretty specific about what McLaurin needed to be to hit, a massive outlier, and he was. When I nix a guy, it's because the hit rate on productive WR's at the position say that basically around 85+% of the time the receiver has to have a reasonable breakout age. In that particular offseason if memory serves there were 6 or 7 WR's in the league in the top 50 at the position with a profile analogous to his. That's it, and going back decades, the #1 most important indicator alongside production itself was breaking out early. What made McLaurin so bizarre and literally one of a kind (not 15% of a kind) was tha tnot only did he not breakout in college, indeed he did nothing at all of note period beyond dirty work. A bet on him was a bet on athleticism and profile, an enormously risky bet that basically was historically nearly impossible to hit on. We hit on him. The funniest part of it is that we missed on literally dozens of guys with better profiles from 1982-2018 and then hit on a guy w/his profile of all people. Remains one of the craziest hits ever, but also a bummer in some ways because he was an overage prospect (not as important as RB but still relevant, WR's best years are mid to late twenties and he's already 27 for kickoff next year), so we've already wasted more than half of his prime :(. For an example, '17 prospect Juju, whose already a forgotten man (and maybe justifiably so due to knee injuries), is nearly a full year younger than McLaurin.

 

Anyway, we can go back and forth on these guys all day, I preferr best practices/good process, if you hit using bad process, in the long term, if you don't correct for that, you'll actually be hurt more over time, I'll take misses w/best practices and good process in place, over a hit that is out of bad process every time because in the end, it's the former approach that will win out and produce the best results over time, rather than one off good fortune. A good example of that is the eratic stupidity of the cowboys under Jerruh before his son took over (and maybe still in place) or even Snyder here. In the latter case they hit on back to back franchise QB's in Romo and Dak w/mega long shots by accident but because they operate w/poor practices in place during his reign it was immaterial. W/Snyder, it was always possible his regime could have correctly evaluated Rodgers, or Russell Wilson, or even Mahomes, or Josh Allen but would it have mattered w/Snyder behind the wheel? I tend to doubt it. 

 

But I don't want to dig too deep into that possibility because it's too depressing. 

 

 

[Redskins 2021]

Overall this feels like a bad draft.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

WR's most critical factor is breakout age, not dominator factor, though there are others. The weird thing about WR is how little athleticism seems to matter so long as the prospects fit within the particular generalized window. Bench press is particularly funny, more hits with weaker guys than stronger ones, so bp appears to just be white noise.

 

Anyway I was pretty specific about what McLaurin needed to be to hit, a massive outlier, and he was. When I nix a guy, it's because the hit rate on productive WR's at the position say that basically around 85+% of the time the receiver has to have a reasonable breakout age. In that particular offseason if memory serves there were 6 or 7 WR's in the league in the top 50 at the position with a profile analogous to his. That's it, and going back decades, the #1 most important indicator alongside production itself was breaking out early. What made McLaurin so bizarre and literally one of a kind (not 15% of a kind) was tha tnot only did he not breakout in college, indeed he did nothing at all of note period beyond dirty work.

 

 

 

It's funny I am so used to arguing on his behalf especially going back to draft day before we took him and then even more so after we took him that I remember his stats without even looking them up.  700 Yds.  20 YPA.  4.3 and change speed.  His stats were good enough for me.  They weren't deal breakers. 

 

But the keys were I liked what I saw when I watched him including doing well seperating against some of the more ballyhooed cornerbacks in that draft.  But then the intangibles hype about Terry was nonstop.  Tough for me to just ignore it regardless of him being a late bloomer.  Like you I like to read whatever I can get my hands on and the thing about Terry was everyone was screaming that he was a special dude with special intangibles.  Mature.  Hard worker.  Coaches dream.  Does everything -- blocks, special teams, you name it.    So for me to throw out that whole package because of metrics, I couldn't do that.  And his metrics were good enough aside from being a late bloomer.

 

As for combine stats.  For WRs from what I recall its the vertical.  Speed is most essential at O line.  I've talked about that before among others here.  But it doesn't hurt to have speed in the 4.3's. 

 

Again, I put a zillion anayltic stats last year before the draft.  I am started to build it this year for RB, see below.  I subscribe to PFF.  I get Sharps books every year.  Football Outsiders.  Love that stuff.  So I am not opposed to you there.  Just explaining sometimes I'll veer away from it in some context, that's all. 

 

I get your point of sticking to a principle.  But I disagree with that to an extent.  I think you need to understand certain principles and factor that in your calls but you also need to have the guts to depart from it.  If you are paying scouts money to go visit campuses and learn about players and what makes them tick.  You don't look at Devin Thomas' one year wonder season and Terry the same way.  One is a knucklehead.  And the other has the maturity of a Hall of Famer. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

2 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Let me add that when it comes to QB's, man, I don't think there's any magic sauce to evaluation. 

 

 

No doubt there isn't.  Like I've said many times whomever crafts the magic sauce for QBs would become a billionaire.  It's extremely hard.  That's why like I said I try not to give anyone a hard time for getting it wrong.  We all do.  So if i bring it up its purely to make a point about something new.  Rosen to me is relevant when we think about judging QBs based on word of mouth about how good or not good classes are.  That's all.  Heck I worshipped RG3.  I look like a fool for it now.  And there have been others.  It's hits and misses for everyone.  But its fun for me to try. 😀

 

2 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

 

Let me add that when it comes to QB's, man, I don't think there's any magic sauce to evaluation. I listed the prereq's because if they don't have those elements I think the success rate automatically drops close to zero, so that's a good rubric for the bare minimum requirements. The craziness of the position for me, superficially anyway, could be really well represented  by Jake Locker vs Josh Allen. Honestly, what's the difference, at least in terms of what they brought to the table as athletes who played the position and the production they brought to bear in college?

 

 

Don't know.  Locker was banged up a lot in the pros so maybe that took a toll.  But agree both were projects.  Locker had a gun but I don't think it was on Allen's level. 

 

2 hours ago, The Consigliere said:

 I imagine the big difference is coaching, and supporting cast, but is it enough to make that much of a difference? All Pro versus wash out? Don't know, it's just weird as hell. I'm sure there's plenty between the ears involved there too, maybe health luck, but man, the position is one where there isn't ever and shouldn't be close to certainty about anything. There just seem to be generally tiered out guys and usually the nfl is kinda right, more or less, about who should be in what tier, but generally no more accurate than a coin flip regarding who will actually make it and who wont in the top tier (and nobody seems to be reliably more accurate either). 

 

 

My take is there are a lot of factors in the soup.  Health.  Coaching.  Supporting Cast.  Intangibles.  I think everything being equal the intangibles for the QB spot is the most important variable outside of talent.  Coach after coach has given a variation of explaining why intangibles are key.  I've hit that point in detail many times on this thread but don't have the time to do it again right now. 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

21 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's funny I am so used to arguing on his behalf especially going back to draft day before we took him and then even more so after we took him that I remember his stats without even looking them up.  700 Yds.  20 YPA.  4.3 and change speed.  His stats were good enough for me.  They weren't deal breakers. 

 

But the keys were I liked what I saw when I watched him including doing well seperating against some of the more ballyhooed cornerbacks in that draft.  But then the intangibles hype about Terry was nonstop.  Tough for me to just ignore it regardless of him being a late bloomer.  Like you I like to read whatever I can get my hands on and the thing about Terry was everyone was screaming that he was a special dude with special intangibles.  Mature.  Hard worker.  Coaches dream.  Does everything -- blocks, special teams, you name it.    So for me to throw out that whole package because of metrics, I couldn't do that.  And his metrics were good enough aside from being a late bloomer.

 

As for combine stats.  For WRs from what I recall its the vertical.  Speed is most essential at O line.  I've talked about that before among others here.  But it doesn't hurt to have speed in the 4.3's. 

 

Again, I put a zillion anayltic stats last year before the draft.  I am started to build it this year for RB, see below.  I subscribe to PFF.  I get Sharps books every year.  Football Outsiders.  Love that stuff.  So I am not opposed to you there.  Just explaining sometimes I'll veer away from it in some context, that's all. 

 

I get your point of sticking to a principle.  But I disagree with that to an extent.  I think you need to understand certain principles and factor that in your calls but you also need to have the guts to depart from it.  If you are paying scouts money to go visit campuses and learn about players and what makes them tick.  You don't look at Devin Thomas' one year wonder season and Terry the same way.  One is a knucklehead.  And the other has the maturity of a Hall of Famer. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see total amount of carries on your list. It would quantify how impressive Charbonet may be versus Walker/Williams/Hall/Spiller, for instance. Otherwise I like your spreadsheet

[Skinsinparadise]

23 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I'd like to see total amount of carries on your list. It would quantify how impressive Charbonet may be versus Walker/Williams/Hall/Spiller, for instance. Otherwise I like your spreadsheet

 

OK, cool, I'll add them.  Waiting for more stats to come out to finish that, and I'll add more players, etc.  

[wilco_holland]

Sorry guys from beeing away for most of the season. This team just gutted my excitement for evening looking forward.

 

But I need to get onto draft by discussion. Miss it to much

[wilco_holland]

1 hour ago, Redskins 2021 said:

Overall this feels like a bad draft.

 

It's a good draft for lineman imo. But a terrible draft for us. 

 

Imo we should not add to our D in the first round. We already invested so many resources in that. We can't even keep does guys on the roster if they all pan out. And our O is terrible in young talent. You have Terry, maybe Gibson (big question mark) and Cosmi. 

 

Right now I would say Oline, WR or take a flyer on a QB. Personal favorites: Iken Ekwonu, Wilson from Ohio State (might be out of our reach). As a QB take a shot at Strong from Nevada. He is less flash then Willis but a better passer. I also like his pocket awareness. 

 

[Commander -JB-]

Just draft best available athlete.  Way too many holes.  Complete rebuild is in need per the usual.  Snyder’s got us by the balls!

 

[clskinsfan]

5 hours ago, philibusters said:

Strong has medical issues

Strongs knee was cleared last week as full healthy by the LA Rams doctor. Could be trash based on trying to get him drafted. But I am watching tape on him right now. And the guy has everything you want in an NFL QB. Monster arm, great read and recognition, huge size, excellent accuracy and underrated athleticism. He threw for 4200 yards and 36 TD's.  He is willing to fire the ball into tight windows. Which can give you throws like these:

https://streamable.com/b2scr0

Or it can lead to an occasional pick. His pocket awareness is good. But not great. He is athletic. But not really a running QB. IF HIS KNEE is cleared he is a first round talent IMO. 

 

Ripped and I do mean ripped 12 yard out from the opposite hash:

 

Ripped off balance check down with accuracy:

 

55 yards on a rope. Pinpoint accurate:

 

Underrated mobility and speed:

 

Nice pocket awareness and mobility. Followed by a 23 yard dart:

 

Look off the safety. Avoid the free rusher and split the defense with a bullet for a 20 yard game tying TD:

 

Keep in mind all of these clips are from after his knee injury. The guy can play the QB position. And play it well. 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by clskinsfan

[wilco_holland]

Strong for me is maybe feels a bit old Skool pocket guy but based on his play. I like him the best as a quick starter in NFL. His total upside might be a bit lower then other QBs that have more athletic flash ability but I know he will be able to drop back and start to make our O work vertical. Need to let Samuels and Terry stretch the field to open up routes underneath. 

 

The medical stuff. A team doctor needs to check that. Can't say anything about it. 

[clskinsfan]

2 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

Strong for me is maybe feels a bit old Skool pocket guy but based on his play. I like him the best as a quick starter in NFL. His total upside might be a bit lower then other QBs that have more athletic flash ability but I know he will be able to drop back and start to make our O work vertical. Need to let Samuels and Terry stretch the field to open up routes underneath. 

 

The medical stuff. A team doctor needs to check that. Can't say anything about it. 

LA Rams doctor already did:

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/carson-strong-knee-2022-nfl-draft

 

And I still like Pickett better. He has better mobility and accuracy and is far more dangerous with his legs. But Carson Strong is moving up my draft board after evaluating him. 

[wilco_holland]

1 minute ago, clskinsfan said:

LA Rams doctor already did:

https://thedraftnetwork.com/articles/carson-strong-knee-2022-nfl-draft

 

And I still like Pickett better. He has better mobility and accuracy and is far more dangerous with his legs. But Carson Strong is moving up my draft board after evaluating him. 

 

Yeah I think Pickett brings more to table and because of that will be gone at our pick. 

[Skinsinparadise]

Good news