2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[KDawg]

Just now, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'd add, at least judging by Keim, the team is really high oin Gibson, they think he will keep getting better.  lol, speaking of Chris Simms in his RB report which I watched last night he said watching Hall he reminds him of Antonio Gibson.  Not sure I agree.  but I do agree with the sentiment that Gibson is a good back.  But, really every team in today's NFL IMO needs a 1A and 1B.  And judging by Keim, this team sees it the same way.

 

Gibson is a good back. I think people see us saying we need another one and automatically think we don't like him.

 

He absolutely has a fumble issue. But other than that he's been solid.

 

But his body isn't designed to take the 300+ touch beating NFL backs get. He had under 200 total touches in college including as a kick returner and we've basically quadrupled that on him in the same length of time.

 

If fans want him to be the best he can be, less touches helps him AND our offense. 

[Skinsinparadise]

On the Schaefer (whio is pretty plugged in) GMF segment I put above.  He said he's hearing many of the teams from 20-30 want a WR but the run of the top 5 could be over by then, all of those 5 gone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Forever A Redskin]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I'd add, at least judging by Keim, the team is really high oin Gibson, they think he will keep getting better.  lol, speaking of Chris Simms in his RB report which I watched last night he said watching Hall he reminds him of Antonio Gibson.  Not sure I agree.  but I do agree with the sentiment that Gibson is a good back.  But, really every team in today's NFL IMO needs a 1A and 1B.  And judging by Keim, this team sees it the same way.

 

Agreed. Like seeing Kenneth Walker, Breece Hall, and Ty Davis-Price on the visits/interview list. Wish Dameon Price was on there though.

 

I think 4 deep RB depth charts become the standard. Need a complimentary back to Gibson and injury insurance. Can't afford to have the offense be crippled if Gibson misses a few games.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[DWinzit]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Some of these trade scenarios and mock drafts are so unrealistic that I can tell we're in, "holy crap let the draft happen already" territory.

Oh we entered that territory a while ago. 😆

 

I plan for no trade back option but hope for a good one. There is no way to predict if and with who on trades

10 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Nah. The key to getting a bell cow is so Gibson has less touches. Not touches in a different way.

 

I'd rather the receivers get receiver reps if they are all healthy. They are more dangerous than Gibson there.

I have no problem with Gibson being used a little more in the passing game. It would keep defenses more on edge. We def need another back and I am hoping they run tough between the tackles

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, Forever A Redskin said:

 

Agreed. Like seeing Kenneth Walker, Breece Hall, and Ty Davis-Price on the visits/interview list. Wish Dameon Price was on there though.

 

I think 4 deep RB depth charts become the standard. Need a complimentary back to Gibson and injury insurance. Can't afford to have the offense be crippled if Gibson misses a few games.

 

Dameon Pierce is a fun watch, he's a dude I mentioned eons ago on this thread during the season and I still like him.  Power run -- violent.  Baller.   Can catch, good pass pro, too.

 

didn't have a killer combine but was good enough. 

 

 

 

 

[RWJ]

16 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

On the Schaefer (whio is pretty plugged in) GMF segment I put above.  He said he's hearing many of the teams from 20-30 want a WR but the run of the top 5 could be over by then, all of those 5 gone.

 

 

 

Not directed at you SIP, bud.  This one makes me sick to my stomach.  Commanders in no way should be looking at DT1.  They let a steal of one go to the Bills and could have easily matched the offer he got.  No excuses.  If they want to trade down and pick up one that has a lot of potential in the 5th after acquiring picks ok but we shouldn't even be talking about this one. Probably the most bone headed move RR and Co. have made since being in DC.  

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Dameon Pierce is a fun watch, he's a dude I mentioned eons ago on this thread during the season and I still like him.  Power run -- violent.  Baller.   Can catch, good pass pro, too.

 

didn't have a killer combine but was good enough. 

 

 

Love the video that says, "Pierce lost his hat but not his mind".  Got a good chuckle out of that.  😆
 

[method man]

I like Winfrey and he killed it at the Senior Bowl but he is just not a fit here as he plays the same position as Allen (three technique). Allen can play nose tackle and they had him do some of that in 2020 but that would not be the best use of his skill.

 

DT is something that is more something we should look at round 3 and beyond

[Warhead36]

Gibson is a talent, but in today's NFL unless you have a stud bellcow like a Derrick Henry you need multiple good backs.

[Voice_of_Reason]

14 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Gibson is a good back. I think people see us saying we need another one and automatically think we don't like him.

 

He absolutely has a fumble issue. But other than that he's been solid.

 

But his body isn't designed to take the 300+ touch beating NFL backs get. He had under 200 total touches in college including as a kick returner and we've basically quadrupled that on him in the same length of time.

 

If fans want him to be the best he can be, less touches helps him AND our offense. 

And I would add, he needs to almost be a 50/50 guy in terms of touches.  Half of his touches should be runs, the other half should be receptions.  I do think if you get him in space more with the ball, he will fumble less, rather than having guys all around him punching at the ball.  

 

I'm not going to do the full math on it, but if you had 60 plays on offense, I think you want probably 25 rushes and 35 passes.  Of those rushes, I think you want:

 

Gibson: 10

McKissic: 6

Samuel: 3

RBX: 6

 

You could flip that around in a variety of ways, but that gets you to 25 rushes. 

 

** Missing Samuel last year was HUGE for the team, as I really think they were going to use him in the running game.  And then losing McKissic for the back part of the season was also big.  It added to Gibson's workload.  

 

So while i do think they should be looking for a back in the draft, I also think that back probably would be getting somewhere about 1-2 runs per quarter.  Unless they get into the second half with a lead, and then all the rushing numbers go up significantly, and that's where it would be REALLY nice to have another back to really run some of the power stuff.

 

On the passes, you want to target McLaurin the most.  Clearly.  Because he's the best.  If he's healthy, he should never get less than 10 targets a game.  No matter what.  It's the coaches responsibility to find a way to get him the ball 10-12 times a game.  

 

Then you have all the rest of the guys.  Samuel, Brown, Thomas (when he's back), WRX (I'm assuming we draft a WR), Sims, McKissic and Gibson.  I think you want to really mix up targets as much as you can with that group.  That will keep defenses off-guard because they won't be able to just take one thing away. 

 

I've also worked my way into thinking I'll be very, very disappointed at this point if they go defense at 11. I want them to go offense.  I want them to be an aggressive offense this year, not a run-first, control the ball, try and win 17-15 type of offense.  I want them to try and score 27 points every game (3 TDs, 2 FGs).   

 

In doing so, I want them to go out and get the best goddamn receiver they can find in the draft.  Force teams to cover every single goddamn blade of grass on every goddamn play.  

 

I personally think Brown is going to really benefit from a QB who throws and accurate deep ball.  I think Sims is "just fine."  I think every team in the league has a Brown and has a Sims.  Go get another weapon.  

 

And I'm the only guy in the world (I think) who's anti-trade-down.  Unless you're trading down a few spots, and you know you're going to get one of the guys you would pick at the spot you're picking at. I would NOT trade down from 11 to 20.  UNLESS you already had a deal to move back UP to get a guy at 13 or 14. 

 

There are always tiers of players.  You want to draft a guy in the tier where your pick is.  If you drop down a tier, then you're getting quantity over quality.  We need quality.  Not quantity.

 

And we need offense. Martin/Marty/Ron/JDR have to figure out how to make the defense work basically with what they've got, maybe with a piece or two added here and there. 

 

But I would spend all the resources I needed to on the offensive side of the ball.  If the defense isn't going to be elite, then try to win games 27-24 instead of 17-15.  You have much more margin for error when you can score.  

[Forever A Redskin]

Something I don't see people talking about regarding Devin Lloyd. Dude is old. He will be 29 at the end of his rookie contract.

 

Hot take, I'd rather Chenal over Lloyd.

 

Lloyd is limited as a pass rusher too. All his sacks were free rushes or where he just ran past o-lineman.

 

Chenal ran a faster 10yd split than Parsons too...

 

Really hope we have our eye on him.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Forever A Redskin

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

 

And I'm the only guy in the world (I think) who's anti-trade-down.  Unless you're trading down a few spots, and you know you're going to get one of the guys you would pick at the spot you're picking at. I would NOT trade down from 11 to 20.  UNLESS you already had a deal to move back UP to get a guy at 13 or 14. 

 

 

 

You are 100% not the only one. 

[mhd24]

Just now, KDawg said:

 

You are 100% not the only one. 

Yeah, I only want to trade down to Baltimore at max (assuming Baltimore wants to ensure they get Penning, an edge, or a CB).  Baltimore may want to jump Minny for Stingley for example.

[Warhead36]

Yeah I'd only trade down that far if I got a HAUL. I'm okay with moving down 11 to 14 because we can still get Olave at that spot who is my preferred target anyway.

[Forever A Redskin]

 

 

Chenal: 9.9 RAS

Lloyd: 9.58

Edited April 11, 2022 by Forever A Redskin

[Voice_of_Reason]

14 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Not directed at you SIP, bud.  This one makes me sick to my stomach.  Commanders in no way should be looking at DT1.  They let a steal of one go to the Bills and could have easily matched the offer he got.  No excuses.  If they want to trade down and pick up one that has a lot of potential in the 5th after acquiring picks ok but we shouldn't even be talking about this one. Probably the most bone headed move RR and Co. have made since being in DC.  

Yeah, I think they goofed with the backup DTs.  I think what happened was they were thinking they were bringing Matt I. back, but then couldn't come to terms with him on a restructure, and in the meantime, they lost Settle.

 

I agree they shouldn't be targeting a DT early.  I also don't know if Settle is a steal of a DT, but he's a good rotational guy and a good locker room guy.  

 

Look, I get the position they were in: They were trying to keep every single last penny available because they didn't know what they were going to have to do at QB. Also, they KNOW they have to offer a Godfather deal to Terry.  And they want to keep Payne.  So they slow-rolled a bunch of guys they shouldn't have slow-rolled.  That was an ooops.  

 

What they were trying to avoid was negotiating against themselves.  They wanted all of these guys to go out to the market, let the market set the price, then give them a chance to match.  That only sometimes works because all of a sudden you let a guy go visit the Bills, and he just wants to stay there....

 

I get what they were trying to do.  Hindsight being 20/20, what they should have done is moved quickly after the season to release Matty I. and Collins, thrown money at TMac and structured the deal in a cap friendly way, re-signed McKissic and Settle, and then gone from there.  They could always clear more room if they needed to when they landed a QB. 

 

I think my biggest issue is they weren't decisive.  They were passive.  

 

(I know this is the wrong thread for this, but just my general commentary. And as far as the draft is concerned, I agree, they shouldn't target a DT early in the draft.)

 

[DWinzit]

Most of the posters don't want to trade down multiple times. They want to trade down once a little ways to gather another day 2 pick and hopefully something more.

[Going Commando]

Gibson's not a natural back.  He's a hard charger who is super fast and strong but he still is indecisive and inconsistent finding his lanes on his way to the hole.  The instincts of a great running back are not something you can develop in the window of an NFL rookie contract.  He shouldn't be a lead back for us, he should be splitting snaps at WR.  If you replace him with a lead back with truly excellent vision and instincts, our ground game would explode.  If you draft Kenneth Walker, he takes over the lead role early in his rookie season and our run game becomes one of the best in the league.

 

I'm amazed that there is this persistent undervaluing of running backs and centers in NFL conventional wisdom.  And yet the only position that causes your offense to become more dysfunctional when you lose a good starter than them is quarterback.  It's not OT, not WR, nor TE that killed us last season.  Hell it wasn't even losing our starting QB.  It was losing Roullier and McKissick and having a gimpy Gibson in December that killed us.  These positions have ultra high individual impact and cost almost nothing to drastically upgrade.

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

You are 100% not the only one. 

I have found a friend!

 

5 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

Yeah, I only want to trade down to Baltimore at max (assuming Baltimore wants to ensure they get Penning, an edge, or a CB).  Baltimore may want to jump Minny for Stingley for example.

The only way I would do that would be if they had 3 guys who they wanted, and they KNEW one of them would be there.  If they only had 2 or especially only 1, I wouldn't do it.  

 

4 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Yeah I'd only trade down that far if I got a HAUL. I'm okay with moving down 11 to 14 because we can still get Olave at that spot who is my preferred target anyway.

If they want Olave, and he's there at 11, they should pick him at 11 and send CommanderOne (or whatever the plane is called these days) to wherever he is to pick him up and call it a day.  

 

You trade back to 14, you think you're getting Olave, and then some team trades up with Minny or Houston for him, or one of them take him, and you're sitting there with your thumb up your butt, probably with an additional something or other but without the guy you wanted.  

 

Now, if they had 2 WRs they liked equally, Olave and whoever, and they are both there at 11, then MAYBE you could trade back more safely, and assume one of them would be there.  

 

The draft is a high-stakes game of poker.  So never forget your Kenny Rodgers:  "You got know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money while you're sitting at the table.  There'll be time enough for counting, when the dealin's done."

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

Gibson's not a natural back.  He's a hard charger who is super fast and strong but he still is indecisive and inconsistent finding his lanes on his way to the hole.  The instincts of a great running back are not something you can develop in the window of an NFL rookie contract.  He shouldn't be a lead back for us, he should be splitting snaps at WR.  If you replace him with a lead back with truly excellent vision and instincts, our ground game would explode.  If you draft Kenneth Walker, he takes over the lead role early in his rookie season and our run game becomes one of the best in the league.

 

I'm amazed that there is this persistent undervaluing of running backs and centers in NFL conventional wisdom.  And yet the only position that causes your offense to become more dysfunctional when you lose a good starter than them is quarterback.  It's not OT, not WR, nor TE that killed us last season.  Hell it wasn't even losing our starting QB.  It was losing Roullier and McKissick and having a gimpy Gibson in December that killed us.  These positions have ultra high individual impact and cost almost nothing to drastically upgrade.

 

I think you have a strange obsession with center, but we all have our positional quirks so, not going to sit here and try to say you're wrong. You may not be at all. I just don't agree there.

 

But RB? Same exact page.

 

Need a back. Should have been Najee last year instead of Jamin. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

6 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Most of the posters don't want to trade down multiple times. They want to trade down once a little ways to gather another day 2 pick and hopefully something more.

I have seen a whole bunch of "trade down to 20 with Pitt so they can take Willis" scenarios. 

 

Hell, even Ben Standig proposed that trade in his Athletic mock draft.  

 

I'm violently opposed to that.  

 

Everybody is freaking out because we're think across the interior of the DL and missing a swing backup guard, and they want to add picks to plug those holes, especially since we don't have a 3rd.  And I also get we need a MLB and a Buffalo Nickel guy.  

 

I guess I just don't care about those needs.   Get the guy you want at 11, get another guy you want in the second, draft the best backup QB you can in either the 4th or 5th (they need another QB on the roster no matter what, so you have to get that guy somewhere), and then you're in to the second FA period to fill any remaining holes.  There will be starters available.  Hell, there are still guys available who they could get.  

 

It's all going to be ok.  Don't panic and give up quality prospects because you need depth.  

 

This is going to piss of Ben Standig.  But I don't really care about that either.  

[Chump Bailey]

Would not mind seeing Esezi Otomewo Minnesota DT or Eric Johnson Missouri State DT selected at some point for us.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Chump Bailey

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I have seen a whole bunch of "trade down to 20 with Pitt so they can take Willis" scenarios. 

 

Hell, even Ben Standig proposed that trade in his Athletic mock draft.  

 

I'm violently opposed to that.  

 

Everybody is freaking out because we're think across the interior of the DL and missing a swing backup guard, and they want to add picks to plug those holes, especially since we don't have a 3rd.  And I also get we need a MLB and a Buffalo Nickel guy.  

 

I guess I just don't care about those needs.   Get the guy you want at 11, get another guy you want in the second, draft the best backup QB you can in either the 4th or 5th (they need another QB on the roster no matter what, so you have to get that guy somewhere), and then you're in to the second FA period to fill any remaining holes.  There will be starters available.  Hell, there are still guys available who they could get.  

 

It's all going to be ok.  Don't panic and give up quality prospects because you need depth.  

 

This is going to piss of Ben Standig.  But I don't really care about that either.  

 

I find all the trade scenarios to be odd.

 

People actually think we can trade back 3-4 times, find QUALITY starters, and rake in picks.

 

In reality it never works that way.

 

You're lucky to trade down once. And then you're lucky to transition 1 of those picks into an impact player. You are just buying more tickets to the lottery, but with lower odds than your one original ticket. 

[HoggLife]

My Top 10 Wishlist in order of how I like them for out team. After the Top 4 I would highly consider a trade down. 

1. Williams

2. London 

3. Hamilton

4. Sauce

5. Stingley

6. Lloyd

7. Dean

8. Wilson

9. Olave

10. Cross

[RWJ]

8 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I have found a friend!

 

The only way I would do that would be if they had 3 guys who they wanted, and they KNEW one of them would be there.  If they only had 2 or especially only 1, I wouldn't do it.  

 

If they want Olave, and he's there at 11, they should pick him at 11 and send CommanderOne (or whatever the plane is called these days) to wherever he is to pick him up and call it a day.  

 

You trade back to 14, you think you're getting Olave, and then some team trades up with Minny or Houston for him, or one of them take him, and you're sitting there with your thumb up your butt, probably with an additional something or other but without the guy you wanted.  

 

Now, if they had 2 WRs they liked equally, Olave and whoever, and they are both there at 11, then MAYBE you could trade back more safely, and assume one of them would be there.  

 

The draft is a high-stakes game of poker.  So never forget your Kenny Rodgers:  "You got know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run. You never count your money while you're sitting at the table.  There'll be time enough for counting, when the dealin's done."

I like Treylon Burks and think they can make the move down into the 20's (GB) if they wanted to trade with us and get a nice haul.  If they go with Olave, which it being stated by a lot of media and I put on my wish list Terry wants him and RR with draft him.  Just what I think happens.  Rather a trade down.