2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

And AV scores aren't used that much when I listen to sports talk whether its ex-scouts or whomever talking about how they grade.  AV basically is the anti PFF -- PFF tries to and granted they are far from perfect with it to factor context.  AV grades up by their own admission winning teams/units.  So a winning team will just about always have a high grade as for AV players.

 

So to PFF for example Daron Payne was a good player in 2019 season and 2020.  As for AV scores, Payne wasn't good in 2019 but heck the defense was ranked highly in 2020 and Sweat and Young played well so Payne earns a good 2020 AV score. 

 

My favorite example is Josh Norman.  He had an insane AV score in Carolina, he comes here and he's just a guy.  His PFF scores dropped too but not as dramatically.  As Norman would say its different when you got a monster pass rush in front of you, it helps the whole secondary.

 

Of course scouts aren't going to talk about AV, it's not a scouting rubric and it's only calculated for the NFL.  I think you're misunderstanding what AV measures.  It's pretty objective and it's contextualized, two things where PFF grades are weak.  It measures the contributions of individual players to the outcomes of their offense or defense.  If a defense is God awful, as ours did in 2019, it stands to reason that Daron Payne's individual play was either not good or not valuable.  And players have down years where their level of play is far below the standard of their ceiling, especially when playing for dead dog teams where everyone just goes into survival mode as happened for us in 2019.  Good players play like bad players for dead end teams.

 

Of course players's individual level of play is reliant upon system and surrounding talent.  Some players are especially situation/scheme dependent, but all of them are to some extent.  AV doesn't contradict that reality at all, what it does is try and weigh the player's individual contribution to the outcome of the system/situation that they played the season in.  It's not an issue for AV that Josh Norman left Carolina and had his AV scores plummet, because his contributions did in fact stop being hugely valuable once he left Carolina and came here.  He was a limited zone corner who couldn't hang with anyone in man and was a fish out of water in our defense, but he was incredibly valuable to Carolina in that scheme and system.  He made huge contributions to their success and they took a big step back when they lost him.

 

Players aren't chess pieces that move the same way every time.  My point about needing good players to win presupposes the necessity of those players being good in your scheme and in the context of your roster.  AV is how I'm measuring how many good players we had on the roster last year, and I have not seen a better comprehensive stat to do that with that's free to the public.  And to me it is completely rational for a metric to reward players who play for great offenses or defenses--their play will be a reason why the unit's outcome was so good, and what I want to know is how big of a part of that success were they?  That's what AV tells me.  "This player was a good starter for a great offense."  That's what I need to know when I'm building a roster.

 

In reference to the Bengals OL, the reason they had more 7+ AV players on their line this season than us is because they only lost six games from their best four linemen.  Our starting linemen missed 24 games and lots of those missed games overlapped, and the quality of our OL suffered hugely as a result.  In a vacuum and presupposing a healthy season from our line vs the Bengals, our line is way better.  But that's not what happened last season, and you don't get the opportunity to contribute and rack up AV if you don't play at all.  And probably, if you're a good starter and go down with injury, your offense will suffer in outcome, which is what happened for us.

 

And the only player where AV and PFF grade seem to disagree on that Bengals offense is Trey Hopkins.  My guess is Hopkins got a higher AV score than PFF score because he played a ton of snaps for an efficient offense and surprisingly efficient run game.  That's valuable and PFF has never been reliably accurate at judging and contextualizing the run game contributions for IOLs and IDLs.

 

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 I do agree that getting a dude like Joe Burrow is really really hard.  But when you get a dude like that he changes a franchise right away and in a big way.  Colts had Peyton Manning -- they are good.  They lose him, they are the worst team in the NFL.  They draft Andrew Luck and they are right back in the playoffs.   You don't have to think that deeply IMO to see the trends.

 

This is where people get in to trouble when trying to assess the play and the value of QBs and build teams--believing that you don't have to think deep to understand why a team succeeds or fails and that there are easy answers to be had for explaining outcomes.  There aren't simple, singular explanations for these outcomes.  The Colts going from 10-6 to 2-14 to 11-5 isn't just about QB changes.  They made wholesale changes to the FO and coaching staffs, the schedule changed dramatically, other players on the roster declined and improved and flat out quit on the 2-14 season.  Top down, that entire organization quit on the 2011 season.

 

We also tend to judge whether a QB is elite or not based on a vague Q-Rating feel which in turn is based on if his offense's outcomes are really great, which in turn depends on that offense having a lot of good players on it and it being well coached.  It's so circular.  Why is Matt Ryan just a guy today when he was an MVP four years ago while playing in an unstoppable offense for a great coach?  And there are also so many obvious examples of great QBs not being able to single-handedly dig out bad teams.  For example, why were Atlanta and Seattle so bad this year?  Why was Detroit so bad for so long despite having Stafford?  Was Drew Brees only worth three wins to the Saints compared to the absolute dumpster fire of a QB situation they had this year?  Why is Lamar Jackson no longer considered a good QB despite being the youngest MVP in league history two seasons ago?  His team went from 14-2 to 8-9 but he's probably a better player now than he was then.  But his Q-Rating and his production and the outcomes of offense and team are dependent upon so much more than just his individual ability.

[Skinsinparadise]

51 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

Of course scouts aren't going to talk about AV, it's not a scouting rubric and it's only calculated for the NFL.  I think you're misunderstanding what AV measures.  It's pretty objective and it's contextualized, two things where PFF grades are weak.  It measures the contributions of individual players to the outcomes of their offense or defense.  If a defense is God awful, as ours did in 2019, it stands to reason that Daron Payne's individual play was either not good or not valuable. 

 

I's contextualized in the framework of the overall unit.  If you are a cog in the wheel of a unit that's good you get graded up.  I follow the idea.  But IMO it inflates players value as to teams that had good seasons if you use that as a grade.  It's almost the perfect metric that misrepresents value of a player coming from a good team as I mentioned who moves elseswhere -- and people wonder what happened to that dude after FA? 

 

When part of what happened is the domino effect that worked in favor of said player, actually in some cases worked against them in the next spot.  You can be a good player on a bad unit.  Conversely, you can be a mediocre player on a good unit with inflated numbers because the attention is directed elsewhere or the other players around you impact your own play in a positive way but that doesn't follow you to the next team.

 

51 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

In reference to the Bengals OL, the reason they had more 7+ AV players on their line this season than us is because they only lost six games from their best four linemen.  Our starting linemen missed 24 games and lots of those missed games overlapped, and the quality of our OL suffered hugely as a result.  In a vacuum and presupposing a healthy season from our line vs the Bengals, our line is way better.  But that's not what happened last season, and you don't get the opportunity to contribute and rack up AV if you don't play at all.  And probably, if you're a good starter and go down with injury, your offense will suffer in outcome, which is what happened for us.

 

 

Our O line was graded 6th by PFF, they don't only grade the starters.  Our backups actually graded really well.    The only back up not featured in what I posted below is Lucas who got a 75.2.  the play and depth of our O line was part of the narrative that its a good unit.

51 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

 

This is where people get in to trouble when trying to assess the play and the value of QBs and build teams--believing that you don't have to think deep to understand why a team succeeds or fails and that there are easy answers to be had for explaining outcomes.  There aren't simple, singular explanations for these outcomes.  The Colts going from 10-6 to 2-14 to 11-5 isn't just about QB changes.  They made wholesale changes to the FO and coaching staffs, the schedule changed dramatically, other players on the roster declined and improved and flat out quit on the 2-14 season.  Top down, that entire organization quit on the 2011 season.

 

We also tend to judge whether a QB is elite or not based on a vague Q-Rating feel which in turn is based on if his offense's outcomes are really great, which in turn depends on that offense having a lot of good players on it and it being well coached.  It's so circular.  Why is Matt Ryan just a guy today when he was an MVP four years ago while playing in an unstoppable offense for a great coach?  And there are also so many obvious examples of great QBs not being able to single-handedly dig out bad teams.  For example, why were Atlanta and Seattle so bad this year?  Why was Detroit so bad for so long despite having Stafford?  Was Drew Brees only worth three wins to the Saints compared to the absolute dumpster fire of a QB situation they had this year?  Why is Lamar Jackson no longer considered a good QB despite being the youngest MVP in league history two seasons ago?  His team went from 14-2 to 8-9 but he's probably a better player now than he was then.  But his Q-Rating and his production and the outcomes of offense and team are dependent upon so much more than just his individual ability.

 

Each of those examples factor certain logic that we might not all agree on.   So what sells a point for you, doesn't per se sell it for me and vice versa.

 

For example, you said to me on a different thread that you don't think Russell Wilson is much better than Matt Ryan. If i bought into that thought, which I don't, then i think your point is strong specific to him.  But for me what I call the good to very good QBs (non-elite guys):  Matt Ryan, Matt Stafford, Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins.  These guys need supporting casts in a bigger way than the elite guys.  But if you give them a strong supporting cast, especially if said QB is clutch (which isn't the case with Kirk) like especially in the case of Stafford and Carr, they will excel.  I made this point last off season when pushing for Stafford.

 

Wilson has been in the playoffs 8 out of the last 10 years.  The two seasons he hasn't, one was a 9-7 season, which would be a banner season for a team like ours.  the other time was last year when he got hurt, missed a bunch of games and played hurt in others.  Took them to 2 SBs.

 

Drew Brees with a 172-114 career record,  He helped take at the time a loser organization which wasn't considered much of an NFL force for seemingly forever to 9 playoff years and their first SB.  Just because there were some down years in the mix doesn't take away what he did for that organization and their version of down years were mediocrity - 7-9, 8-8.  so they were either really good or at worse so so.

 

Lamar Jackson is 37-12.  This year 7-5.  Injuries including to the actual Qb ala Russell Wilson do matter. Yes franchise QBs can have seasons when their teams barely miss the playoffs, it happens, especially in seasons where they miss games and their backups have to play.  

 

The idea am arguing against isn't that a franchise QB doesn't need a supporting cast or against the idea that they might be in the playoffs a lot but it still it won't be EVERY year.  The argument is to be a consistent winner or have a shot at the big dance.  It's 10 times easier with a franchise QB.  And yes they make a huge difference. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Warhead36]

There is no bigger force multiplier in all of sports than the QB. Of course no QB can single handily carry a team with junk around him, but without at least a good one(above average, like top 12 ish in the league)it doesn't matter what you have around him, you're toast. 

 

There is a reason why just about every good QB is either in the playoffs or has his team pretty much on the verge of making it. And the teams that contend year in year out have the best QBs. 

 

You can get by with league average at almost every position. League average at QB puts your ceiling at like 7 wins.

[Skinsinparadise]

I don’t agree with some of this but interesting 

 

 

[The Consigliere]

On 2/14/2022 at 10:02 AM, Skinsinparadise said:

Not sure I agree with item 4, i get the Joe Burrow survived a porous O line but he still didn't win.

 

 

I definitely see it as kind of lazy.

 

Tiering it out, I'd put:

 

Tier 1: Quarterback

Massive chasm

 

Tier 2: Average or better OL, and average or better front 4. 

 

Tier 3: Reasonably good or better secondary

 

Tier 4:

Reasonable weapons for passing game. 

 

That's the wish list. 

 

There's a reason you use First rounders, and especially high end first rounders on QB's, DL's, OL's and corners, and it's because of how they can impact the game. All world safeties that can play the pass and the run (not box safeties like Collins), and WR's come next. Everything else is secondary or lower. 

[The Consigliere]

7 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Treylon Burks.   Wow.  I don't get the he's a 2nd rounder thing that some mock drafters believe.  He's both physical and fast.  They like to use him in the backfield which fits what this offense likes to do.  Not a top 10 guy but IMO a first round talent.  

 

The Good

 

Can block

Is physical with the ball in his hands

He looks fast to me especially for a dude with that kind of build

The move him around Z, slot, etc.  Mostly slot. Big slot.

YAC -- big time so.

Strong hands

 

The Bad

 

Don't see the deep threat just yet -- a chunk of his catches seem to be in the flat even though his YPC is a whopping 17 yards

Route runner?  A lot of slants, comebacks, screens.  Doesn't seem to run a full array of routes.

Because of his long legs, he has some build up speed, in other words for the first 2-3 yards he's not ultra quick but then he builds steam 

Against good corners he can get open but doesn't always seperate with much cushion so the QBs have to thread the needle at times.

 

I looked him up with PFF.  He has their best yards per route numbers, which they tout as their definiing number.  His YAC numbers are over 9 yards per, that's crazy. 

 

 

 

 

The consensus in the dynasty analytics and dynasty tape grinders community has been that Burks is a legit weapon, a poor man's Andre Johnson is a comp I've seen, a little bit of Chris Godwin from some as well, forget the other comp, but the consensus I've heard is consistently:

Tier 1:

1. Burks

2. G. Wilson

 

Tier 2:

3. D. London

 

Tier 3:

4. J. Williams-Injured

5. C. Olave

6. D. Bell

7. G. Pickens-Injured

 

Tier 4:

J. Dotson:

 

I think the most volatile guys are Olave, Bell, and Wilson, as I've seen people rank all 3 of those guys anywhere from 1st, to 2nd, to 7th or lower. A lot of disagreement on where they should be valued, and Pickens, and Williams are particularly interesting since Williams just got hurt, and Pickens is just coming back from an injury last spring. 

 

Personally I love Burks, and London the most, and then probably Bell and Wilson, and view Pickens as a HUGE potential value if his injury pushes him anywhere in the later stages of day 2. Olave is the guy that strikes me as high floor but not so high ceiling, but there are people who love them some Olave. 

 

Justyn Ross is a real unusual one. He was one of the top guys in this class a few years ago, maybe top 2-3, and then had a career threatening issue that wiped out all of '20, and left him looking far less explosive in '21, so I'd be real curious about him if his medicals came back good. 

 

 

[The Consigliere]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

There is no bigger force multiplier in all of sports than the QB. Of course no QB can single handily carry a team with junk around him, but without at least a good one(above average, like top 12 ish in the league)it doesn't matter what you have around him, you're toast. 

 

There is a reason why just about every good QB is either in the playoffs or has his team pretty much on the verge of making it. And the teams that contend year in year out have the best QBs. 

 

You can get by with league average at almost every position. League average at QB puts your ceiling at like 7 wins.

All you have to do is line up the final fours going back freaking decades and the hit rate for legit franchise QB's vs the Jimmy G's of the world in Final four's is nearly 80-20. Final Four after Final Four is littered with Mannings, Brady's, Favre's, Rodgers, Mahomes, Josh Allen's, Russel Wilson's etc. The DL's, OL's, etc, those grades ebb and flow, those rankings ebb and flow, the only thing that doesn't is the QB factor, and the other clincher is that the team's that beat the game, and manage to sneak in w/---- QB's, virtually all of them vanish w/o a trace afterwards. For every Ravens Elite D, but middling QB that made Final Four's, nearly 90% of the other squads that pulled it off were like the Titans last year, they made their run and vanished w/o a trace because the QB play sabotaged them. Other than the early aughteen Niner's who made I think 3 Final Four's in like four years, and Ravens who've been the rare exception, nobody else has managed to sustain any final four relevance to speak of for several years in a row unless they had an elite franchise/HOF caliber QB (and it's worth noting, the teams that didnt have the elite QB', almost always had a middling QB in the middle of a career year).

 

There's nothing more insane to me than continuing to pretend there's any other route to relevance beyond getting the elite QB and going from there. There is no other model that's repeatable, especially for a ---- franchise like ours that can't attract talent to coaching staff's, and F.O.'s that want to stick around because of the stink on the franchise. Baltimore can hire elite people and keep them because they have decades of proven elite performance, they're a great stepping stone, and a great place to build and sustain a career, they figured out an end a round that hasn't worked for anyone else and eventually got a potential franchise guy in Lamar. Any other team pull it off? Nope. The Niners eventually fell apart due to aging out the defense and bad QB play, the Bucs of the early aughts aged out at QB and on defense and that was that. Once the Steelers couldn't get even an average season out of broken down Ben they were garbage. You want to have a chance and to build something that can last, you need the QB, and the line that keeps him from being David Carr'd. 

 

I agree it's murderously difficult to do it, and it's beyond infuriating that the freaking Cowboys not only managed to have drafted and developed nearly a half dozen since we did the same with Baugh and later Kirk Cousins (whose sort of half a franchise QB, basically a QB compiler without big game skills), Staubach, White, Aikman, Romo, and then literally a year or two after Romo they got freaking Dak from the discount aisle as well. Just insane. But it's THE WAY, there is no other way. We have to keep trying until we finally do it. Till we get him, we'll never be relevant and we're always working behind the starting blocks of others because of our owner which makes it even more difficult. This is what made our ignoring the position in '20 and '21 so infuriating. It was known for years that the '13, and '14 classes sucked, that '15 and '16 were top heavy (and busted), that '17 and '18 were good, but that '19 wasn't, that '20 and '21 were special and '22 was trash, and '23 was impressive if top heavy, and yet we continually avoided the position in the cream years, and dumpster dived in the lean years ('19 and now possibly '22). Last year was borderline criminal incompetence and a fireable offense. You can't be so arrogant as to believe you can go diving through someone's trash for a 40something, and go with a guy who wasn't even in the league and be serious about the position while shopping in the luxury aisle for amonst the least valuable positions to draft in round 1, only to have the error compounded by the superior prospect, JOK, that wasn't picked, outplay your guy and have been available a full freaking round later, and all of that, while avoiding trading up for a QB ranked dead even with Lawrence as a recruit, and having been elite at Ohio State, and having another Alabama stud available 1 slot in front of you, and nah, you're good, ignore the position, depending upon what exactly, a million year old Fitzmagic, and Heinickie being long term solutions? at best that was a risky proposition for a seasonable bet, and as a long term solution it was flat out clinicially insane, and to compound the stupidity, everyone and their mother knew that any of the top 5 guys in '21 would've been ranked ahead FAR ahead of any QB prospect in '22, ANY OF THEM, and yet we still pulled the trigger on a LB.

 

Just insane. 

 

We don't get it.

 

The single positive to me is that the decision was such a catastrophe, that unless we solve the position this year, we could implode in time for a better class in '23, but again, in my running of the '21 draft, I either would have gotten Fields or Jones, or traded down to provide assets for a trade up in '23, alas we didn't do either, and we won't trade down in '22 (which I would do for '23 ammo), and now no matter how we play this, it's nearly impossible to believe we'll solve this problem unless we get the miracle 0 balls, 2 strikes, grand slam selection on the scale of the Josh Allen hit a few years ago etc. Maybe we get lucky in that way, but even with Allen, who I didn't like due to the terrible inaccuracy issues, if nothing else, the guy had literally every other box checked in his profile. Literally NONE of these guys have that, none of them (I suppose maybe Willis?). 

 

If we hit on a QB in this class it will be inspite of good process, not because of it, it will be the same kind of blind luck the Cowboys had when they missed out on their preferred QB's, and ended up taking Dak not because they wanted to, but because Connor Cook was already gone, and was it Paxton Lynch that they wanted to take? Forget which other guy they were trying to get. Dak wasn't genius, Dak was an accident, very much in the same way that Billl Walsh really liked Steve Dills, but he was gone so he went after Montana who'd looked great in a Notre Dame workout where he was actually supposedly more interested in the WR until he saw Montana throwing. 

 

We deserve some luck as fans, hopefully we get it, but trusting this FO or organization doing the smart thing is something nobody would or should ever bet on, and getting lucky at this point isn't in their DNA either. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by The Consigliere

[kingdaddy]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don’t agree with some of this but interesting 

 

 

Of all of these comps I think I like Corral the best. Alex Smith had a decent career too but if Corral can move around like Mayfied and play smarter/more accurately I'd take that comp over the others. 

[VirginiaVibes]

 

This is a really great article. Insightful stuff

[DWinzit]

6 hours ago, VirginiaVibes said:

 

This is a really great article. Insightful stuff

Thank you for posting this article! I have a better feel for him and some of his past that I questioned. Makes me more comfortable about drafting him even though he was already one the two QB's I like the best.

[mistertim]

10 hours ago, VirginiaVibes said:

 

This is a really great article. Insightful stuff

 

That's really gutsy of him to come out and speak openly about his battle with depression. I feel like, even more than in the corporate world, the sports world tends to be super duper hush hush about mental health issues for the most part. Especially men's sports and especially tough guy sports like football where it's probably considered a fatal weakness.

[Anselmheifer]

18 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I don’t agree with some of this but interesting 

 

 

Totally don’t understand the Matt Corral/Baker Mayfield comp. At all. Because they are both less than 6’2”, mobile and didn’t play in a pro style offense in College? 
 

 

[Warhead36]

If those are the comparisons I'd be okay with Pickett. Dalton was pretty damn good in his prime years. I don't put the Bengals playoff failures on him.

[IrepDC]

I've been considering the idea of Corral at 11 and still trading up for one of the top true MLBs in the early 20s. 

 

The question is who's most likely to fall to the mid 20s between Corral, Lloyd, and Dean.

 

Substitute Corral for your favorite QB if necessary.

[DWinzit]

28 minutes ago, IrepDC said:

I've been considering the idea of Corral at 11 and still trading up for one of the top true MLBs in the early 20s. 

 

The question is who's most likely to fall to the mid 20s between Corral, Lloyd, and Dean.

 

Substitute Corral for your favorite QB if necessary.

Interesting. I do not believe Corral, Pickett or WIllis will reach the mid 20's. I don't know about Howell at this point but I like him. I do not believe Dean or Lloyd will reach the mid 20's either.

[mistertim]

3 hours ago, Anselmheifer said:

Totally don’t understand the Matt Corral/Baker Mayfield comp. At all. Because they are both less than 6’2”, mobile and didn’t play in a pro style offense in College? 
 

 

 

Maybe because they're both smaller in stature and had some dual threat ability (though IMO Corral is faster and more athletic than Mayfield was)?

 

Mayfield was a much more prolific passer in college but I always hesitate to compare Big 12 QB stats with...pretty much anyone else. Because defense is basically banned in the Big 12 and most top QBs from there put up video game numbers but ultimately end up as busts or mediocre at best in the NFL. Mahomes is pretty much the only exception.

[Anselmheifer]

21 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Maybe because they're both smaller in stature and had some dual threat ability (though IMO Corral is faster and more athletic than Mayfield was)?

 

Mayfield was a much more prolific passer in college but I always hesitate to compare Big 12 QB stats with...pretty much anyone else. Because defense is basically banned in the Big 12 and most top QBs from there put up video game numbers but ultimately end up as busts or mediocre at best in the NFL. Mahomes is pretty much the only exception.

I’d also say that Corral has a better arm and is a better off platform thrower. 

[mistertim]

2 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

I’d also say that Corral has a better arm and is a better off platform thrower. 

 

Yeah I'd agree with this. Corral has shown himself to be very good off platform and definitely has a gun. IMO in this draft he's only slightly behind Willis in arm talent. Dude can spin it. I think Mayfield was a bit more of a "traditional" pocket passer, but he also definitely could move well too.

 

I honestly just never know what to think about Big 12 QBs though. They almost always put up insane numbers and it pretty much never translates into the NFL. As I noted, Mahomes is really the sole exception to that.

[Going Commando]

I think you guys are underestimating Baker Mayfield's arm talent.  He's a power thrower who rips deep outs and seam throws with barely any wind up.  Look at the highlights from the game against Baltimore starting at 2:38

 

 

Those were highly difficult, breathtaking throws he stuck.  He was dealing that game. 

 

He's got one of the strongest arms in the NFL.  I think there is a misconception about him not having a lot of arm strength or talent because he is such a good touch passer, but he definitely does.  And he is really good on the move and doesn't need a lot of space or time to operate.  The guy is stupidly talented, he's just been hurt and saddled with awful coaching situations and he presents himself as a clown so people forget how good he really is.  He was a significantly better college player than any of these dudes in this year's class.  I seriously doubt any of this year's QB prospects could have gone in the first round of 2018's class.

[IrepDC]

2 hours ago, DWinzit said:

Interesting. I do not believe Corral, Pickett or WIllis will reach the mid 20's. I don't know about Howell at this point but I like him. I do not believe Dean or Lloyd will reach the mid 20's either.

That scenario would be your preference of Lloyd/Dean and Howell versus Corral and Muma- on my board.

Edited February 17, 2022 by IrepDC

[The Consigliere]

3 hours ago, DWinzit said:

Interesting. I do not believe Corral, Pickett or WIllis will reach the mid 20's. I don't know about Howell at this point but I like him. I do not believe Dean or Lloyd will reach the mid 20's either.

Nope, I've heard that supposedly Carolina was fixated on Howell, which is odd, and I find it nearly impossible to believe that Willis would slip below 10 or 11, Pickett, for whatever reason is #1 for a lot of people, inexplicably to me, but his status means he's going top 20, I'm just assuming Corral will. 

[method man]

If this team wants Willis, it may have to trade up to #4 as Carolina is a candidate to take him at #6 and the Giants are not likely to send #5 to us without a king's ransom

[KDawg]

21 hours ago, kingdaddy said:

Of all of these comps I think I like Corral the best. Alex Smith had a decent career too but if Corral can move around like Mayfied and play smarter/more accurately I'd take that comp over the others. 

I actually see Howell as more of a Mayfield than Corral.

[Warhead36]

Yeah Baker is a baller. People forgot he led the Browns, the friggin BROWNS, to their first playoff win since returning to Cleveland just a year ago. He was hurt this past season. I'd be okay trading #11 for him.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

I’d prefer to trade back from #11 and get a QB in the 20’s and move back up to get a LB with our draft capital than use future high picks to move back up to take a QB/LB. It’s a deep draft, not a top heavy draft, so there’d be value in that path if someone falls in love with someone sitting at #11