2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[Warhead36]

19 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Thanks. Do you have a predetermined number before we're allowed to talk about rookies? Like game 7 it's official and we can say who looks good?

 

2 years down the road we can talk about guys having a good game or two? 

 

Just want to make sure that we're not on the warhead silly scale, so it can be really serious fan opinions.

Its fine to say a guy looks good. Its silly to say "see this guy who I absolutely knew we should have drafted!!?? he's killing it in preseason against future Uber drivers! I told you so!" 

 

 

[Koolblue13]

18 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Its fine to say a guy looks good. Its silly to say "see this guy who I absolutely knew we should have drafted!!?? he's killing it in preseason against future Uber drivers! I told you so!" 

 

 

Liking someones college game and then seeing it translate to the NFL and being happy about it, isn't silly.

 

There has been all of one game to watch so far, so that's the sample size we have. Nobody is proclaiming guys as HoFers after 1 preseason game.

[Skinsinparadise]

I watched him late in the process and really liked him.  I recall ditto @Going Commando and we talked about him when we posted our top 100.  The dude flies to the ball, seemed to have really good instincts, plays with oomph.

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Will see if this plays out, 3 of them among my favs predraft.  White, Robinson and Pierce.  All three run with power. 

 

 

 

[KDawg]

Isn't Breece Hall tearing it up, too? It's the Jets so we don't hear alot but I hear he has been awesome. 

[philibusters]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Isn't Breece Hall tearing it up, too? It's the Jets so we don't hear alot but I hear he has been awesome. 

 

Possibly in practice.  In the two preseason games he only has 9 carries for 16 yards.

[Conn]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Isn't Breece Hall tearing it up, too? It's the Jets so we don't hear alot but I hear he has been awesome. 

I was just reading about how Michael Carter is still mostly running with the 1’s, and even though he’s not chopped liver, it makes me assume Hall hasn’t looked transcendent to this point 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, Conn said:

I was just reading about how Michael Carter is still mostly running with the 1’s, and even though he’s not chopped liver, it makes me assume Hall hasn’t looked transcendent to this point 

I'm still kind of surprised they took Hall. I  mean, I think Hall is an excellent talent. But when you have a back like Michael Carter on the roster taking a back that high is a luxury more than a necessity. Probably has something to do with the amount of picks they had and it was "why not?"

[Conn]

27 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I'm still kind of surprised they took Hall. I  mean, I think Hall is an excellent talent. But when you have a back like Michael Carter on the roster taking a back that high is a luxury more than a necessity. Probably has something to do with the amount of picks they had and it was "why not?"

Yeah I agree with you, and my assumption has been that they wanted to do anything they could to take pressure off of Wilson while they try to develop him and salvage that pick, bringing in another playmaker to go along with their two young stud WR prospects. Maybe less of an efficient usage of resources in a vacuum but a way to try to add a force multiplier to the selection of their highly drafted QB. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

I'm still kind of surprised they took Hall. I  mean, I think Hall is an excellent talent. But when you have a back like Michael Carter on the roster taking a back that high is a luxury more than a necessity. Probably has something to do with the amount of picks they had and it was "why not?"

This is where the whole argument of Best Player Available comes in.  If Hall was the best player on their board, and you subscribe to the BPA theory, then that's the pick, and you go from there.

 

I've always had somewhat of an "open relationship" with BPA.  There are some who say you have to be 100% monogamous. It's always BPA and follow your board. I say, I'm not so sure about that. I think a little side action (with full disclosure, of course.  Cheating is bad.) is fine.  Maybe you pass up on the player who you really don't need (and won't need for the next 2-3 years) for a slightly lower-rated played who is not at a position of strength.  Now, if the guy you're picking is CLEARLY an upgrade over the best player at the position, even if it's a strength, then you have to do it. (For example, we had Kerrigan and Sweat as DE's, and picked Young.  Did we NEED to?  No.  But he was a better prospect than both of them, so it made sense.)

 

If you're stacked at a position, and you get another player at that position, especially if there are not contractual implications, you've worked yourself into a situation where you might not be able to get all the guys on the field. If you have a good players on rookie deals, and you draft another good rookie on a rookie deal at the same position, you kindof are stuck.  Carter is young and good, so now they have a situation where they have 2 guys, one ball, both on rookie deals. And that situation won't resolve itself for 2-3 years.  So ... maybe they should have gone a different direction.  

 

Again, there is a lot of nuance to BPA vs. drafting for need. I think the draftniks have taken a very hard-line approach on this for a while, and it leads them to the Thor Nystrom line of thinking, which is stupid on steroids.  

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

This is where the whole argument of Best Player Available comes in.  If Hall was the best player on their board, and you subscribe to the BPA theory, then that's the pick, and you go from there.

 

I've always had somewhat of an "open relationship" with BPA.  There are some who say you have to be 100% monogamous. It's always BPA and follow your board. I say, I'm not so sure about that. I think a little side action (with full disclosure, of course.  Cheating is bad.) is fine.  Maybe you pass up on the player who you really don't need (and won't need for the next 2-3 years) for a slightly lower-rated played who is not at a position of strength.  Now, if the guy you're picking is CLEARLY an upgrade over the best player at the position, even if it's a strength, then you have to do it. (For example, we had Kerrigan and Sweat as DE's, and picked Young.  Did we NEED to?  No.  But he was a better prospect than both of them, so it made sense.)

 

If you're stacked at a position, and you get another player at that position, especially if there are not contractual implications, you've worked yourself into a situation where you might not be able to get all the guys on the field. If you have a good players on rookie deals, and you draft another good rookie on a rookie deal at the same position, you kindof are stuck.  Carter is young and good, so now they have a situation where they have 2 guys, one ball, both on rookie deals. And that situation won't resolve itself for 2-3 years.  So ... maybe they should have gone a different direction.  

 

Again, there is a lot of nuance to BPA vs. drafting for need. I think the draftniks have taken a very hard-line approach on this for a while, and it leads them to the Thor Nystrom line of thinking, which is stupid on steroids.  

 

I subscribe to BPA with need weights.

 

I can tell you the Jets have much more significant needs than a RB as high as they took Hall. In order for Hall's selection to make sense he would have had to have been extremely high on their board. Like top 5. And maybe he was. But I still have questions about that.

[philibusters]

If you subtract QB from the situation, I don't think the Jets roster is that bad.  Maybe just below the middle or something like that.   Now if Zach Wilson struggles again, the team could be bad, but if Zach Wilson takes a significant step forward they could be decent.  The AFC is so deep they could still miss the playoffs even if he takes a step forward, but they wouldn't be that far from being competitive.

[KDawg]

25 minutes ago, philibusters said:

If you subtract QB from the situation, I don't think the Jets roster is that bad.  Maybe just below the middle or something like that.   Now if Zach Wilson struggles again, the team could be bad, but if Zach Wilson takes a significant step forward they could be decent.  The AFC is so deep they could still miss the playoffs even if he takes a step forward, but they wouldn't be that far from being competitive.

 

You can say this for almost any team. 

[philibusters]

Just now, KDawg said:

 

You can say this for almost any team. 

 

You could say that for probably slightly over half the teams that are viewed as likely missing the playoffs.  I would not say that about the Falcons, Bears, Seahawks, Texans.  In terms of teams viewed as having a shot to make the playoffs, you would need to say it just because it is obvious.

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, philibusters said:

 

You could say that for probably slightly over half the teams that are viewed as likely missing the playoffs.  I would not say that about the Falcons, Bears, Seahawks, Texans.  In terms of teams viewed as having a shot to make the playoffs, you would need to say it just because it is obvious.

Seahawks with Wilson were a different team than without him. Yes, they weren't great with him even after he came back from injury but there are years of data that suggest he helped make them tick.

 

All four of the teams you named also have a very serious common denominator: Awful OLs.

 

I would say almost every team in the NFL would be successful with a top 10 QB and a top 20 OL. The higher up each of those ratings go the better the team. 

[bird_1972]

Damn we really, really missed on JOK. 

[philibusters]

5 hours ago, KDawg said:

Seahawks with Wilson were a different team than without him. Yes, they weren't great with him even after he came back from injury but there are years of data that suggest he helped make them tick.

 

All four of the teams you named also have a very serious common denominator: Awful OLs.

 

I would say almost every team in the NFL would be successful with a top 10 QB and a top 20 OL. The higher up each of those ratings go the better the team. 

 

A bit off topic, but for Bill Belichick, who is probably the best coach in the league of getting the most out of his talent, and having a promising young QB, I think the Patriots would have a bottom six or so roster.

 

That said because they Belichick and Jones I still expect them to go 8-9 or so, but take away Jones and give them a downgrade at QB and give them another coach and they could be like 3-14 or 4-13 team

Edited August 25, 2022 by philibusters

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, philibusters said:

 

A bit off topic, but for Bill Belichick, who is probably the best coach in the league of getting the most out of his talent, and having a promising young QB, I think the Patriots would have a bottom six or so roster.

 

That said because they Belichick and Jones I still expect them to go 8-9 or so, but take away Jones and give them a downgrade at QB and give them another coach and they could be like 3-14 or 4-13 team

Tom the QB and Bill the HC bailed Bill the GM out for a decade plus. 

 

I think Ron actually has a better setup than Bill does, because he has an actual GM who really does GM things even though he reports to Ron, and then he has a sounding board in Marty, and another former GM on the team as well.

 

Ron doesn't have to make every single decision, he defers a lot of them.  Sure, he's involved, and the final decision maker, but I think he's more of the CEO who delegates a lot of the stuff.  The draft video with him and Martin Mayhew was really illuminating.

 

I get the feeling Bill actually is more involved in a lot of things than Ron is.  I think he's a complete control freak who wants to control every aspect of everybody's lives. I'm not going to knock him for it, he's wearing 6 SB rings, and has a .670 winning percentage and is 31-13 in the playoffs.  Ron seems like he's more willing to assign responsibilities and then let guys do their jobs.  

 

I could be wrong about that, but it's just my gut feel.  

[Skinsinparadise]

Looks like Dameon is the dude this preseason.  He was my top choice in the third round.  Robinson though was one of my choices too, preferred Dameon, but I am not unhappy.  Will see if it translates to the season.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[KDawg]

Brisker had a hell of a night for the Bears. I wasn't all that high on him but if he keeps that up I'll be eating a little crow. 

[Going Commando]

They might have something nice cooking on offense.  The OL also has some talent and Mills might actually end up hitting his best case scenario.  That defense front looks barren but Pitre and Stingley are a pretty nice foundation in the secondary too.  They had a huge draft haul this year and got lucky with their second rounder the year before.  Big turnaround for their FO.

I think I remember Houston having the fewest 7+ AV players in the league last season, which is a cut off I was using for good starter coming off a solid season.  I think it was just Cooks.  To go from that, to having maybe five guys on offense who hit that level this season and two or three on defense is a quick turnaround.

[mhd24]

28 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

They might have something nice cooking on offense.  The OL also has some talent and Mills might actually end up hitting his best case scenario.  That defense front looks barren but Pitre and Stingley are a pretty nice foundation in the secondary too.  They had a huge draft haul this year and got lucky with their second rounder the year before.  Big turnaround for their FO.

I think I remember Houston having the fewest 7+ AV players in the league last season, which is a cut off I was using for good starter coming off a solid season.  I think it was just Cooks.  To go from that, to having maybe five guys on offense who hit that level this season and two or three on defense is a quick turnaround.

Plus, with the multiple Cleveland first rounders coming up, they have a chance at leapfrogging Indy and Tennessee soon.  I know you loved Green this past draft too

[Skinsinparadise]

Judging by preseason one player I am definitely looking wrong about is Doubs.  He's having a monster camp.  I liked Cole Turner and thought his game would translate better to the pros as for the Nevada playmakers.  But judging by preseason hype both dudes will make an impact.  Though Turner needs to get healthy. 

Edited August 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Though Turner needs to get healthy. 

Get and stay healthy.

 

Didn't he have some health issues at Las Vegas?

 

As a complete aside, as I look back on my life's choices, the fact I didn't decide to go to UNLV is one of the biggest regrets of my life.  Not that I ever considered it, or applied.  But I really should have. Imagine going to college in Las Vegas.  It's like, "there's a time for everything, and that time is college.  Oh, and btw, we have no rules here anyway, so have at it."

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Get and stay healthy.

 

Didn't he have some health issues at Las Vegas?

 

As a complete aside, as I look back on my life's choices, the fact I didn't decide to go to UNLV is one of the biggest regrets of my life.  Not that I ever considered it, or applied.  But I really should have. Imagine going to college in Las Vegas.  It's like, "there's a time for everything, and that time is college.  Oh, and btw, we have no rules here anyway, so have at it."

 

Don't recall injuries plaguing him in Nevada and that being a concern.  His teammate, Carson Strong, that's another story on that front.

 

Hamstring issues typically aren't that serious but they can be nagging.  

Edited August 26, 2022 by Skinsinparadise