2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[DWinzit]

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.  

Yeah well I guess I care more about those other needs than you...your priorities are a mess if you don't see it the same way as me 🤣

 

The draft especially day two and early day three are the best way to handle some of those needs. It also seems to be the teams recent MO as they way they handle it. Well that and taking players off the scratch and dent section of FA. I wish we had extra day 2 picks every year, but instead we go into this draft and the next one down picks. Moving down a few slots in the first solves my concern much easier than other scenarios other than trading other assets.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

11 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

was losing Roullier and McKissick and having a gimpy Gibson in December that killed us. 

More than losing Rouiller, it was losing Rouiller, Larson, and Schweitzer at center that killed us.  When you're on Center #4, bad things happen.  Though Ismael (sp?) was drafted as a center (I think), and I thought played admirably for his first time out and being the 4th on the depth chart.  

 

Losing McKissick was a big deal, but I'd argue losing the combination of Samuel/McKissic AND Thomas was really the big deal from a skill position perspective. (Gimpy Gibson wasn't helpful either) Because it really limited what they could do offensively.  TH's best, most accurate and most consistent plays are within 10 yards of the LOS in front of him, which is where slot receivers, TEs RBs make their money.  When they were all out, there was just nobody left to really threaten the defense short.  

 

I don't think it was any one thing which killed them, I think it was the combination of things.  Though, I would argue, losing your starting quarterback after 16 snaps, the only backup I can remember making anything out of that scenario is Kurt Flipping Warner after Trent Green went out in preseason.   Big Ben came in early in his rookie year and started 15 games as a rookie, which wasn't the plan, but he was also like the 10th pick in the draft.  So he wasn't long for being a backup no matter what.  Brady came in as a backup in year 2, early in the season, and the rest is history. Amazingly Ben lost to the Patriots I believe in the AFC Championship game the same year n Brady filled in for an injured Bledsoe.

 

Young took over for Montana when he was injured, though I don't remember exactly when in the season that was.   I still think Warner's rise was the most improbable because it was LITERALLY the entire season from the get-go.  But if you want to toss the others in there as well, I'll give them all to you, and say, "those are the exceptions that prove the rule."  I guess you never really know if your backup is going to turn into Warner or Brady (Big Ben was drafted to start, so I really don't put him into this category, and Young was a high draft pick and former starter who had all the talent in the world so I'm not sure he fits either) but it's really not bloody likely. 

/Tangent

 

 

I don't disagree center is important.  Though, they did re-sign Larson.  And Schweitzer should be back healthy, and I think Ismael is still there, so they should, at the very least, have the same group as last year with more experience, and I think that should be helpful.  

[oraphus]

the issue is that if they draft a RB high, I don't see where he will get the snaps. 

The offence last year as supposed to be ~50/30/20   Gibson/ Samuel/ Mckisik rb spread

Samuel was never healthy so it ended up being 60/40 Gibson/ Mckisiik, Gibson got knicked up, Mckisik got hurt

With everyone hopefully healthy, there are no snaps left for a rookie RB and you're giving up too much value to draft a guy in the top 3rds and have hit sit for 'just in case' scenario

 

Unless you find a rb steal in the 5th+ .. there are plenty of decent vet RBs available after the draft that can be had for cheap as a backup

[Warhead36]

6 minutes ago, oraphus said:

the issue is that if they draft a RB high, I don't see where he will get the snaps. 

The offence last year as supposed to be ~50/30/20   Gibson/ Samuel/ Mckisik rb spread

Samuel was never healthy so it ended up being 60/40 Gibson/ Mckisiik, Gibson got knicked up, Mckisik got hurt

With everyone hopefully healthy, there are no snaps left for a rookie RB and you're giving up too much value to draft a guy in the top 3rds and have hit sit for 'just in case' scenario

 

Unless you find a rb steal in the 5th+ .. there are plenty of decent vet RBs available after the draft that can be had for cheap as a backup

There are always snaps to go around for good football players.

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, oraphus said:

the issue is that if they draft a RB high, I don't see where he will get the snaps. 

The offence last year as supposed to be ~50/30/20   Gibson/ Samuel/ Mckisik rb spread

Samuel was never healthy so it ended up being 60/40 Gibson/ Mckisiik, Gibson got knicked up, Mckisik got hurt

With everyone hopefully healthy, there are no snaps left for a rookie RB and you're giving up too much value to draft a guy in the top 3rds and have hit sit for 'just in case' scenario

 

Unless you find a rb steal in the 5th+ .. there are plenty of decent vet RBs available after the draft that can be had for cheap as a backup

Take them from Gibson.

 

 

[Est.1974]

1 hour 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.

Certainly need a #1 back to take over that roll from Gibson. I think Gibson could handle way more reps at WR. In fact, with a proper RB in the fold I’d be slightly concerned that Gibson and Samuel have a very similar skill set when fully healthy. 

[oraphus]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Take them from Gibson.

 

 

Unless the plan is to replace Gibson, which is doesn't sound like it is... with Wentz hopefully chucking the ball down field the underneath run game should open up which could poise Gibson for a big season.

[KDawg]

Just now, oraphus said:

Unless the plan is to replace Gibson, which is doesn't sound like it is... with Wentz hopefully chucking the ball down field the underneath run game should open up which could poise Gibson for a big season.

 

Not if he's hurt. Or fumbling. 

 

Touches matter. He gets too many. 

[Est.1974]

35 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.

I’m inclined to agree here. I’d like to see him get more reps at WR.

[Skinsinparadise]

Gibson if I recall was 4th in the NFL in carries.  That has to change.  Pushing Kenneth Walker some, he led these prospects in 15 plus yard runs.

 

Those are the top 10 last year in 15 yards plus runs.  Taylor had the most and he had 23 15 plus yard runs.  Walker had 30.  Walker had 262 carries.  Taylor had 332 carries.

 

For those who think they are moving Gibson to WR or they are down in him -- judging by what beat reporters are saying that's far from what they are thinking.  they apparently really dig Gibson.  So do I.  but they believe apparently now in the 1A-IB RB idea.  As do i. 

[Est.1974]

2 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

For those who think they are moving Gibson to WR or they are down in him -- judging by what beat reporters are saying that's far from what they are thinking.  they apparently really dig Gibson

I don’t think anyone is thinking that way. It’s more a case of how to utilise him better / more efficiently.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

I don’t think anyone is thinking that way. It’s more a case of how to utilise him better / more efficiently.

 

Cut his overall touches down and I bet you he can be just as - if not more - productive with less fumbles and injuries.

 

If they keep running him into a wall over and over and he will be less effective with every passing year. 

[Skinsinparadise]

17 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

I don’t think anyone is thinking that way. It’s more a case of how to utilise him better / more efficiently.

 

We got right now maybe the top two punch WR-RB hybrid types in the league in McKissic and Samuel with a QB who notoriously doesn't like to throw to RBs.

 

If we didn't have that already, I'd be all for having Gibson much more active in the passing game.   

 

I think the key for Gibson is to lessen the load, lessen the carries.  Add a runner and perhaps preferrably who can run power-gap to bring more variety to the run game.  Right arguably all these guys now including Gibson are zone -- mostly outside zone runners

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Est.1974]

11 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

If they keep running him into a wall over and over and he will be less effective with every passing year. 

I agree with this.

[Conn]

29 minutes ago, oraphus said:

the issue is that if they draft a RB high, I don't see where he will get the snaps. 

The offence last year as supposed to be ~50/30/20   Gibson/ Samuel/ Mckisik rb spread

Samuel was never healthy so it ended up being 60/40 Gibson/ Mckisiik, Gibson got knicked up, Mckisik got hurt

With everyone hopefully healthy, there are no snaps left for a rookie RB and you're giving up too much value to draft a guy in the top 3rds and have hit sit for 'just in case' scenario

 

Unless you find a rb steal in the 5th+ .. there are plenty of decent vet RBs available after the draft that can be had for cheap as a backup

There is no scenario where Samuel is getting anywhere close to 30% of RB touches or snaps, so your numbers are super off. He MIGHT get 1-2 carries and end-arounds per game, and line up there further in some obvious passing situations. But those numbers are way off, even if you could guarantee his health. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Conn

[Forever A Redskin]

43 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

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. 

 

I disagree. Yes, it's about who you select.... But the positional value of the positions we need is 2nd/3rd round. If we needed a CB, Edge, DT, QB then sure, you wouldn't trade down. But I doubt Olave would have even been a 1st rounder last year. You don't draft a guy that doesn't have WR1 upside at 11 overall.

 

Look at the pro bowlers at WR that have come from the 2nd round. MLBs and RBs too.

[KDawg]

RB touches (carry/rec): 

Bellcow: 15-20

Gibson: 10-15

McKissick: 5-10

 

Receiver touches:

McLaurin: 5-8

Rookie #2: 4-6

Samuels: 5-8

Healthy Thomas: 3-6

Brown: 2-5

Rest: 3-6

 

If you total that at its highest values for each its 84 total touches a game. 
 

They all won’t hit their ceiling weekly, it’s how the league works. If someone gets a hit hand they extend their ceiling and someone else loses their floor. 
 

I don’t see why it would be hard to get these guys plenty of touches each.

2 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

I disagree. Yes, it's about who you select.... But the positional value of the positions we need is 2nd/3rd round. If we needed a CB, Edge, DT, QB then sure, you wouldn't trade down. But I doubt Olave would have even been a 1st rounder last year. You don't draft a guy that doesn't have WR1 upside at 11 overall.

 

Look at the pro bowlers at WR that have come from the 2nd round. MLBs and RBs too.

I don’t want Olave at 11. So I don’t get your point.

[clskinsfan]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

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.

You can do both in this draft. The drop off from round 1 to 2 is less than most drafts IMO. No real superstars at all in this draft. And here is what a single trade down could net us:

 

 

By the way. I really started breaking down Tyler Badie as a mid rounder. The guy is a straight up beast:

 

 

[Forever A Redskin]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I don’t want Olave at 11. So I don’t get your point.

 

I was moreso saying that this draft in particular, with our needs what they are... That we have better odds to parlay a trade down into impact players. Usually your argument would be correct, but the superstar factor isn't there this year round 1 and the drop off in talent is minimal from 1st to 2nd round.

[skinsfan93]

The problem with Gibson is that he is not a natural running back and still isn’t going into his third year. He hasn’t really learned the small nuances of playing the position especially getting that extra yard and learning to hit the right hole. Also anyone notice he doesn’t really push the pile but rather trying to make the extra cut where he usually gets tripped up. 
 

He had over 250 carries last year and averaged 4.0 yards. For a guy who is 220 lbs that simply isn’t acceptable and shows he is not a bellcow running back. I believe he would be better with 10-12 touches. 
 

Im not necessarily in favor of drafting a running back too high but bringing in someone would be a good thing. 

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said:

 

I was moreso saying that this draft in particular, with our needs what they are... That we have better odds to parlay a trade down into impact players. Usually your argument would be correct, but the superstar factor isn't there this year round 1 and the drop off in talent is minimal from 1st to 2nd round.

 

I disagree.

 

London, Wilson, Lloyd, Hamilton, heck even Jordan Davis have superstar potential. 

 

Zero chance I pass on a star for drafting George Pickens. 

[Warhead36]

13 minutes ago, skinsfan93 said:

The problem with Gibson is that he is not a natural running back and still isn’t going into his third year. He hasn’t really learned the small nuances of playing the position especially getting that extra yard and learning to hit the right hole. Also anyone notice he doesn’t really push the pile but rather trying to make the extra cut where he usually gets tripped up. 
 

He had over 250 carries last year and averaged 4.0 yards. For a guy who is 220 lbs that simply isn’t acceptable and shows he is not a bellcow running back. I believe he would be better with 10-12 touches. 
 

Im not necessarily in favor of drafting a running back too high but bringing in someone would be a good thing. 

Yeah he doesn't really have natural RB instincts. There are noticable differences between him and McKissic.

 

I do like Gibson in space though, but in traffic he often just runs into linemen.

[shemp nixon]

47 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

I’m inclined to agree here. I’d like to see him get more reps at WR.

I hoped we would use Gibson like Andy Reid used Westbrook, get him the ball in space... Has not happened...Yet.

[Voice_of_Reason]

34 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

We got right now maybe the top two punch WR-RB hybrid types in the league in McKissic and Samuel with a QB who notoriously doesn't like to throw to RBs.

 

If we didn't have that already, I'd be all for having Gibson much more active in the passing game.   

 

I think the key for Gibson is to lessen the load, lessen the carries.  Add a runner and perhaps preferrably who can run power-gap to bring more variety to the run game.  Right arguably all these guys now including Gibson are zone -- mostly outside zone runners

 

But this is a different offense than Wentz has had before, so it's POSSIBLE that Wentz will throw more to RBs in this offense, because it's possible there will be more designed plays to the RBs in the pass game.

 

Not for sure, but possible.  

 

I'm very intrigued by Wentz in this offense.  I do wonder how long it's going to take him to pick up.  I could be proven dead wrong on this, but I think this offense MIGHT fit Wentz better than the Pederson/Reich offense.  He likes to go deep, this offense (which is predicated on the Norv offense, which is predicated on the Air Coryell offense) will allow him to do that.  It's very run the ball and hit the deep ball kind of offense. 

 

To that end, I do think they will mix things up with Gibson/McKissic in the passing game.  But I also think they need to find another back to take carries from Gibson.  And have Gibson and that back on the field at the same time so you don't know exactly where the ball is going.  I was hoping they would do more of this with McKissic and Gibson last year, and it didn't materialize the way I had hoped.  I DO think if Samuel had been healthy, you would have seen him take some carries from Gibson. 

 

I don't know who it is, but I think they should absolutely draft a RB somewhere in the back half of the draft, and then use them.  Unless they REALLY think Patterson is that guy, which I don't.

 

Hell, if one of the best RBs on the board was available in the second round, and they went Olave and RB in the first 2 rounds, I wouldn't hate that at all.  

[Forever A Redskin]

18 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I disagree.

 

London, Wilson, Lloyd, Hamilton, heck even Jordan Davis have superstar potential. 

 

Zero chance I pass on a star for drafting George Pickens. 

 

TBD on Drake London for me. If he runs a 4.6 I'm lowering on him. But I would be fine with him at 11 if he tests well and he's one of the only ones. Value for Lloyd isnt there for me. He's 24y/o and closer to his ceiling vs. a guy like Chenal who'd be available later. Him or Muma/Andersen would be better value for not much difference in impact. Lloyd isn't Parsons.

 

I could be talked into Hamilton maybe. And Davis isn't a realistic option for us.

 

We're a better team with 4-5 players in rounds 1-3 this year than we would be with any of the options at 11 other than maybe Hamilton or London. Unless a crazy fall happens like a Sauce Gardner.

 

All of the above is why I'm so keen on trading back.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Forever A Redskin