2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[sebestian]

It could always be worse, as I get up on the east I notice more white stuff on the ground then I look at the forecast and we have 100% chance of flurries all day long.  Reporting live from the great white north.  🤬

[wilco_holland]

Pure talent wise I dont love the guard options at 11. I feel like they can be good players but not great. Solid starter for years to come but not that next level. I rather find the person who can be that. I want a building block. Somebody who is going to make pro bowls. Somebody that has top 10 potential in his position group. 

 

Just get me that player at 11. Don't care about the position. If you pick that early you should not reach for positions. Just pick the best man with most potential that fits your scheme and organisation. 

 

Good example is McDuffie vs Stingley. I feel like McDuffie is let's say Joe Hadden. Allround good. Solid top 25 corner in the league. Sting is Cromartie/Peterson type. Can be one of the best in league. But that also comes with a risk. You want good corner to stark years to come. McDuffie. You want to swing for game changer. Stingley. 

 

I feel right now we need to swing and find that big player. I love Ryan Kerrigan and Brandon Sherff but we need more. We need to find a star that uplifts the team. That in the 4th Q is going to win the game. 

Edited March 15, 2022 by wilco_holland

[KDawg]

5 hours ago, Going Commando said:

Any first rounder that becomes an All Pro is a great pick and great value regardless of position.  Quentin Nelson was a great pick.  Scherff was a great pick and by far the best pick in that entire garbage ass first round.  We actually won when he played and certainly didn't lose because of picking him.  You get good by getting great players and our problem was we didn't get enough great players period.  These ****ty one and two player draft classes and free agency busts are the main reason this team has been stuck in mediocrity, not picking non premium positions in the first.  Which btw, we have picked a WR and QB and two DEs in the first since drafting Scherff and none of them have been as good and valuable as he was.  If an IOL is the bpa at 11 than we should pick him and he's the best pick to make.

 

Our mistake with Scherff was in not signing him to an extension when he was eligible and letting him have a ****ing all pro season on a franchise tag because Rivera was such a ****ing schmuck when he got here and wanted him to prove himself, which is the same **** for brains nonsense that burned his bridge with Trent when he had his one shot at repairing the relationship with him and instead led him to trade the best OL in the NFL for a ****ing future third round pick.

 

That is your god awful return value on a team building asset.  That and watching Scherff and Kirk walk out of the door for nothing are some of the biggest reasons why this franchise isn't like the Rams.

I’m saying there are no guards that provide the proper value for this team to take them over a Drake London, Kyle Hamilton, even Devin Lloyd. Therefore, I’m saying that the OL available at 11 are very likely not game changing selections.

[cakmoney61]

14 hours ago, Jumbo said:

first, lemme apologize in advance 😁---while i'm trying to catch up with many pages in several hot threads from just the last day and a half i haven't gone that far back in this one and i know that this has likely been dealt with in here long ago

 

but i want to ask: without my making the case for it in this post, is there anyone  that doesn't think it would be stupid to consider taking breece hall (given our current qb room), if he falls to 11 and we haven't traded down? playing with the idea and i kinda like it 🤓

 

i can handle the ridicule 

If Malik Willis doesn't fall in their laps at #11, IMO a position of need with the best talent is WR.  Washington needs a WR1 to pair with McLaurin to really open up the offense.  If Williams, Wilson, or London are on the board at #11, I hope they take one of them.

 

I guess I tend to agree with the consensus position of not taking a RB this early in the draft.

[DWinzit]

6 hours ago, Going Commando said:

Any first rounder that becomes an All Pro is a great pick and great value regardless of position.  Quentin Nelson was a great pick.  Scherff was a great pick and by far the best pick in that entire garbage ass first round.  We actually won when he played and certainly didn't lose because of picking him.  You get good by getting great players and our problem was we didn't get enough great players period.  These ****ty one and two player draft classes and free agency busts are the main reason this team has been stuck in mediocrity, not picking non premium positions in the first.  Which btw, we have picked a WR and QB and two DEs in the first since drafting Scherff and none of them have been as good and valuable as he was.  If an IOL is the bpa at 11 than we should pick him and he's the best pick to make.

 

Our mistake with Scherff was in not signing him to an extension when he was eligible and letting him have a ****ing all pro season on a franchise tag because Rivera was such a ****ing schmuck when he got here and wanted him to prove himself, which is the same **** for brains nonsense that burned his bridge with Trent when he had his one shot at repairing the relationship with him and instead led him to trade the best OL in the NFL for a ****ing future third round pick.

 

That is your god awful return value on a team building asset.  That and watching Scherff and Kirk walk out of the door for nothing are some of the biggest reasons why this franchise isn't like the Rams.

The team offered Schreff top $ and he turned it down so I'd say he was in it for his wallet. I find it hard to believe he ever cared whether he came back of not. I would also look beyond just Ron when it comes to any issues he may have had in Washington with all the past idiot front office and of course the owner

 

I am a believer in building the lines but I don't love the OL options that are predicted to be there at 11. I hope they trade down a bit but we both know that isn't always an available option

[wilco_holland]

11 minutes ago, cakmoney61 said:

If Malik Willis doesn't fall in their laps at #11, IMO a position of need with the best talent is WR.  Washington needs a WR1 to pair with McLaurin to really open up the offense.  If Williams, Wilson, or London are on the board at #11, I hope they take one of them.

 

I guess I tend to agree with the consensus position of not taking a RB this early in the draft.

 

What happened with Burks? Is it his 40 time? He is not the burner but I feel like his catching and yac ability make him a potential threat. I like him better the London. 

[Riggo#44]

Anti-Asburn Syndrome making its way through the boards--we let him go, so he MUST be great! Prime example: Quinton Dunbar...

 

As for Williams, that was on Allen more then anything else. We probably would have had to massively overpay as that relationship was destroyed. Good for Trent, he's been great, and I'd love to have him back, he's still one of my favorite players--but it's not like OL has been a weakness.

[cakmoney61]

10 minutes ago, wilco_holland said:

 

What happened with Burks? Is it his 40 time? He is not the burner but I feel like his catching and yac ability make him a potential threat. I like him better the London. 

I watched him run the 40 and IMO he looked too slow to be elite at the next level.  I would take London over him.  Although I have to admit that the PAC-12 has been weak defensively for many years.

[KDawg]

40 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Anti-Asburn Syndrome making its way through the boards--we let him go, so he MUST be great! Prime example: Quinton Dunbar...

 

As for Williams, that was on Allen more then anything else. We probably would have had to massively overpay as that relationship was destroyed. Good for Trent, he's been great, and I'd love to have him back, he's still one of my favorite players--but it's not like OL has been a weakness.

A Scherff deal would have crippled our cap number and made this team do even more cap gymnastics to get anything else done. The value he’d bring for that cap hit over his replacements isn’t high enough to warrant that deal. 
 

He’s a good player. Sometimes great. But too often unavailable.

 

Agreed. Hand wringing about losing him now is interesting. It’s been a foregone conclusion for years now.

[CommanderInTheRye]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

A Scherff deal would have crippled our cap number and made this team do even more cap gymnastics to get anything else done. The value he’d bring for that cap hit over his replacements isn’t high enough to warrant that deal. 
 

He’s a good player. Sometimes great. But too often unavailable.

 

Agreed. Hand wringing about losing him now is interesting. It’s been a foregone conclusion for years now.

 

 

The only lamentation I have over the loss of Scherff is that we didn't have the foresight to trade him two years ago when we could have potentially gotten a first round pick instead of stubbornly tagging him twice and locking up all that salary against the cap.

 

This is precisely what Belichik does when he has an uber talented player that he realizes he can't afford in the long run ex. Chandler Jones (article linked below)...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/musketfire.com/2020/07/10/patriots-revisiting-chandler-jones-trade-cardinals/amp/

 

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by CommanderInTheRye

[mistertim]

I'm not sure why some are talking about OL in the 1st, especially Guard. Our OL was arguably our best overall unit last season and finished as the 6th ranked line per PFF. I get wanting to shore up the OL and making sure we have depth, but why spend a high 1st round pick on a group that's very good when we have pretty big holes elsewhere? 

[Riggo#44]

I'm not sure what some people think with these mocks. I'd be legitimately pissed at this.

[Inigo Montoya]

I think we would take Sauce or Wilson there, the problem is projecting where these QBs go and who that pushes down

 

i regularly get offered to trade with Pitt and love this draft

20.

Chris Olave

WR Ohio State

47.

• Chad Muma

  LB Wyoming
  52.
• Sean Rhyan

  OG UCLA
  112.
• James Cook

  RB Georgia
  188.
• Cole Turner

  TE Nevada
  228.
• Josh Blackwell

  CB Duke
  237.
• Jack Coan

  QB Notre Dame

Edited March 15, 2022 by Inigo Montoya

[mistertim]

16 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

I'm not sure what some people think with these mocks. I'd be legitimately pissed at this.

 

  If we drafted a Center at 11 while Gardner and Wilson were both there my head would explode. Nevermind the fact that we have a Center who was graded with a PFF score of 83.7 before he went on IR in the middle of the season. Seems legit.

 

57 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

 

The only lamentation I have over the loss of Scherff is that we didn't have the foresight to trade him two years ago when we could have potentially gotten a first round pick instead of stubbornly tagging him twice and locking up all that salary against the cap.

 

This is precisely what Belichik does when he has an uber talented player that he realizes he can't afford in the long run ex. Chandler Jones (article linked below)...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/musketfire.com/2020/07/10/patriots-revisiting-chandler-jones-trade-cardinals/amp/

 

 

 

Yeah Washington seems to have a huge sunk cost issue. We can't seem to just recognize that we won't be able to pay everyone and make the most of it while we can. That's how it was with Kirk, Trent, and now Scherff. They need to make a plan for who they absolutely need to keep and who they don't and then move the latter guys when their value is high. It's painful but necessary. Otherwise you end up getting nothing, which is exactly what we got for Kirk, Trent and now will get for Scherff.

Edited March 15, 2022 by mistertim

[Zim489]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

I'm not sure why some are talking about OL in the 1st, especially Guard. Our OL was arguably our best overall unit last season and finished as the 6th ranked line per PFF. I get wanting to shore up the OL and making sure we have depth, but why spend a high 1st round pick on a group that's very good when we have pretty big holes elsewhere? 

Its going just beyond the roster is what my thinking is. It’s the organizations feeling they need to compete this year and rookies generally struggle and are often not contributors at the premier positions of WR CB. 
 

We can rule out a bunch of prospects based on positional strengths alone. If we throw out everything but the roster we have needs at IMO QB WR G TE MLB FS. When you take into account the combo of contribution from the rookie you can take out QB WR. TE doesn’t have the talent. That leaves G MLB FS. I don’t think they go back to back first round LBs. To an extent it admits defeat on Jamin and Mikes are very hit and miss as rookies. FS has one player in Kyle Hamilton and he’s likely way gone. 
 

That leaves guard. Guard also happens to be one of the highest floor rookie positions. Couple that with our boomer staff that has shown more tendencies than not to be all about the 1993 game than the 2022 I could easily see us wanting to help Carson out not by giving him weapons but by leaning on the running game. Shorten games. Keep them close. Don’t get blown out as much. You get another year of selling that “you’re close”. 
 

I don’t see another position that makes sense for us while trying to put myself into their shoes. I’m not personally advocating for it. A first round G is one of the worst value things you can do in football. First round picks isn’t just about the talent rhere. It’s about the value you gain in the cheap rookie contract in a hopeful premium position where you’re paying for an elite player in years 3-5 at a 1/4 of what they should be getting. Never minding Guards are found up and down the draft with regularity. 

11 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Yeah Washington seems to have a huge sunk cost issue. We can't seem to just recognize that we won't be able to pay everyone and make the most of it while we can

Think the issue is more that they never think of a multi year timelines. It’s always “well who is going to replace him this year? We can’t afford to take a step back” The incessant need to “win this year” constantly hurts them. Yes of course you want to win every year but you can’t have compounding issues year after year after year. You miss out on so many opportunities to put yourself further ahead  than you would have if you just traded the guy. 
 

It always falls back to the complete unwillingness to rebuild in any capacity

Edited March 15, 2022 by Zim489

[Riggo#44]

1 hour ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

The only lamentation I have over the loss of Scherff is that we didn't have the foresight to trade him two years ago when we could have potentially gotten a first round pick instead of stubbornly tagging him twice and locking up all that salary against the cap.

This is all well and good in theory--but was anyone knocking on the door with a 1st? Remember, we most likely get a 3rd next year for him, so not a total loss.

 

The only one I am irked at we didn't trade earlier was Williams--we had a 1st sitting on the table from both the Texans and Browns. Allen held onto him out of spite.

[CommanderInTheRye]

33 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

This is all well and good in theory--but was anyone knocking on the door with a 1st? Remember, we most likely get a 3rd next year for him, so not a total loss.

 

The only one I am irked at we didn't trade earlier was Williams--we had a 1st sitting on the table from both the Texans and Browns. Allen held onto him out of spite.

 

 

"...but was anyone knocking on the door with a 1st?"

 

Riggo, I honestly don't know if they even investigated trading him.

 

Hell, to be honest I would have taken a second rounder and a day three pick if it came to it.

 

"Remember, we most likely get a 3rd next year for him,

 

Obviously, a potential third round pick (which is really an early 4th round pick) three years later (from the first tag) can't compare with the certainty of a pick you acquire immediately along with considerable cap flexibility.

 

"...so not a total loss."

 

Should we excuse poor business decisions by essentially saying, "Well it could have been worse?" A major goal of any well run organization is to maximize efficiencies and minimize deficiencies. In this case they failed at doing both.

 

But we're quibbling over a secondary issue.

 

The critical issue is not precisely how much they could have gotten in a hypothetical trade. It is that they weren't willing to cut bait on Scherff and use the pick(s) and immediate cap savings they got by trading him to acquire long term roster solutions immediately.

 

"The only one I am irked at we didn't trade earlier was Williams"

 

No argument here. The (mis)handling of Trent Williams was a complete indefensible fiasco.

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by CommanderInTheRye

[Redwards]

1 hour ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

 

 

The only lamentation I have over the loss of Scherff is that we didn't have the foresight to trade him two years ago when we could have potentially gotten a first round pick instead of stubbornly tagging him twice and locking up all that salary against the cap.

 

This is precisely what Belichik does when he has an uber talented player that he realizes he can't afford in the long run ex. Chandler Jones (article linked below)...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/musketfire.com/2020/07/10/patriots-revisiting-chandler-jones-trade-cardinals/amp/

 

 

This is one of my continuous gripes with our Front Offices.  Our lack of forward-thinking in this area kills this team.  Ron's FO hasn't improved in this area yet either.  It just seems like we're always one of the teams that just stubbornly hangs on to players (that everyone in the world knows more than likely won't be a part of the team in a season or two) until they are either all used-up or walk away in FA with us getting nothing but a comp pick when we could have ended up with more.  This needs to change if we want to continuously put ourselves in a position to succeed in today's NFL.  

[Riggo#44]

2 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

"...but was anyone knocking on the door with a 1st?"

 

Riggo, I honestly don't know if they even investigated trading him.

 

Hell, to be honest I would have taken a second rounder and a day three pick if it came to it.

This sounds like Kramer explaining business write-offs from Seinfield many moons ago.

 

2 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

"Remember, we most likely get a 3rd next year for him,

 

Obviously, a potential third round pick (which is really an early 4th round pick) three years later (from the first tag) can't compare with the certainty of a pick you acquire immediately along with considerable cap flexibility.

 

No. It's a pick in the 3rd round. An early 4th round pick starts the 4th round. Any pick in the 3rd round is, by definition, before the 4th round and therefore more valuable than a 4th round pick.

4 minutes ago, CommanderInTheRye said:

The critical issue is not precisely how much they could have gotten in a hypothetical trade. It is that they weren't willing to cut bait on Scherff and use the pick(s) and immediate cap savings they got by trading him to acquire long term roster solutions immediately.

So they trade him, when, exactly? When he missed 8 and 5 games respectively? You think you're going to get value for him? Allen was still the GM then too...so we would definitely not get value for him. Who in those drafts would you have taken?

[CommanderInTheRye]

2 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

This sounds like Kramer explaining business write-offs from Seinfield many moons ago.

 

 

No. It's a pick in the 3rd round. An early 4th round pick starts the 4th round. Any pick in the 3rd round is, by definition, before the 4th round and therefore more valuable than a 4th round pick.

So they trade him, when, exactly? When he missed 8 and 5 games respectively? You think you're going to get value for him? Allen was still the GM then too...so we would definitely not get value for him. Who in those drafts would you have taken?

 

 

At this point I will just have to  agree that we see the issue differently.

 

Nevertheless I respect your opinion and viewpoint and more importantly the intelect behind it even though I don't agree with everything you've said.

[Zim489]

16 minutes ago, Redwards said:

This is one of my continuous gripes with our Front Offices.  Our lack of forward-thinking in this area kills this team.  Ron's FO hasn't improved in this area yet either.  It just seems like we're always one of the teams that just stubbornly hangs on to players (that everyone in the world knows more than likely won't be a part of the team in a season or two) until they are either all used-up or walk away in FA with us getting nothing but a comp pick when we could have ended up with more.  This needs to change if we want to continuously put ourselves in a position to succeed in today's NFL.  

Unfortunately in their eyes the step backward isnt worth the possibility of two steps forward in 2 years because they only think on one year timelines 

[mistertim]

1 hour ago, Zim489 said:

 

That leaves guard. Guard also happens to be one of the highest floor rookie positions. Couple that with our boomer staff that has shown more tendencies than not to be all about the 1993 game than the 2022 I could easily see us wanting to help Carson out not by giving him weapons but by leaning on the running game. Shorten games. Keep them close. Don’t get blown out as much. You get another year of selling that “you’re close”. 

 

I get what you're saying but I'm not entirely sure that this part is true. Yes, Rivera may be a bit more of an old school guy as a player from the 80s, but IMO he's shown that he's fine with being more forward thinking. He did that when he drafted Cam in his first year as HC with the Panthers. He's also indicated several times that he understands how the game is now, that it's a passing league, and you need to have a top QB to be perennial contenders.

 

He's also really honest, so if he truly was one of those guys holding on to the notion that you can still be a top team year in and year out with a good defense, good running game and mediocre QB he'd say it. But he hasn't. He might be a bit old school in some ways, but he's not stupid; he knows how the NFL game is played nowadays and he wants to win.

 

Turner also has shown that he's good with being a pass first modern team. We were passing the ball much more in the first half of the season. I think the main reason why we went away from that and towards more of a smashmouth running and defense centric style of play is because of Heinicke's limitations as a QB. I'm not trying to stir the pot or start another debate about TH; it's just a fact.

 

I think with Wentz we'll see the team go back to more of a big play pass happy offense. Obviously you absolutely still want a good running game to balance it out, but with the kind of talent that Wentz has IMO you'd be nuts to not try and maximize it. I think Turner will.

[Inigo Montoya]

I'm starting to really dig this guy in the 3rd (still like Cook in the 4th) https://www.profootballnetwork.com/rachaad-white-arizona-state-rb-nfl-draft-scouting-report-2022/ 

[Llevron]

2 hours ago, mistertim said:

I'm not sure why some are talking about OL in the 1st, especially Guard. Our OL was arguably our best overall unit last season and finished as the 6th ranked line per PFF. I get wanting to shore up the OL and making sure we have depth, but why spend a high 1st round pick on a group that's very good when we have pretty big holes elsewhere? 

 

I feel you but also I worry about Wentz getting pancaked. With the anchor of our line walking, its easy to want to over compensate. I dont know where else on offense you would spend the pick if not WR or OL so I want one of them. 

 

Mind you I know almost nothing about anyone in this draft.  

[Est.1974]

We’re trading back, have to be. We are bypassing the upper end of FA. Got to think we fully intend to bail out of #11 to pick up a couple more picks on day 2.