KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 21 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said: For me, Drew Sanders and Trent are the clear alphas and I would take Sanders in the 1st but not Trent. I think Sanders ceiling and potential are much higher than Simpson. Pace for me remains squarely a Day 3 only option. So you value traits vs. film/production. No harm in that. Some of the biggest draft picks have been based on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 18 minutes ago, KDawg said: So you value traits vs. film/production. No harm in that. Some of the biggest draft picks have been based on that. But how do those draft picks typically pan out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 12 minutes ago, bird_1972 said: But how do those draft picks typically pan out? Not sure. Haven’t studied it. I’d imagine there is some pay off and some absolute failures in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Just now, KDawg said: Not sure. Haven’t studied it. I’d imagine there is some pay off and some absolute failures in there. I'm by no means an expert but my gut says that you go with the film over attributes/measurables. I feel there are so many stories of guys shooting up draft boards and being touted by the draftniks based on a couple of recent performances or, worse yet, combine results that get overdrafted and end up failing. The tape is key - particularly if it represents a multi year body of work and not just one hot year. More data is always better. Won't guarantee success but I think it would increase probability of success way more than measurables. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Just now, bird_1972 said: I'm by no means an expert but my gut says that you go with the film over attributes/measurables. I feel there are so many stories of guys shooting up draft boards and being touted by the draftniks based on a couple of recent performances or, worse yet, combine results that get overdrafted and end up failing. The tape is key - particularly if it represents a multi year body of work and not just one hot year. More data is always better. Won't guarantee success but I think it would increase probability of success way more than measurables. Yes, evidenced by my novels on the last page… I’m in agreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 8 minutes ago, bird_1972 said: I'm by no means an expert but my gut says that you go with the film over attributes/measurables. I feel there are so many stories of guys shooting up draft boards and being touted by the draftniks based on a couple of recent performances or, worse yet, combine results that get overdrafted and end up failing. The tape is key - particularly if it represents a multi year body of work and not just one hot year. More data is always better. Won't guarantee success but I think it would increase probability of success way more than measurables. Definitely! I must admit when I am looking at players I often pay more attention and rate higher players that fit Washington's needs and schemes. I know this is not how most do it and they are right to do it that way. Just my quirk to the fun. I don't have time these days to dig in like many other posters, that's what makes this thread for me the most fun and most informative of all of them. There are a lot of posters that do a lot of work here! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Just now, DWinzit said: Definitely! I must admit when I am looking at players I often pay more attention and rate higher players that fit Washington's needs and schemes. I know this is not how most do it and they are right to do it that way. Just my quirk to the fun. I don't have time these days to dig in like many other posters, that's what makes this thread for me the most fun and most informative of all of them. There are a lot of posters that do a lot of work here! It begs the question - why haven't guys in charge of multi-billion dollar franchises whose goal is to put together the best team of players consistently miss this point? Are they dumb? Stubborn? Both? Seems like the free market would reward those talent evaluators/GMs that figure this out and weed out those that don't but yet here we are - just look at Zach Wilson. Most recent egregious example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 5 minutes ago, bird_1972 said: It begs the question - why haven't guys in charge of multi-billion dollar franchises whose goal is to put together the best team of players consistently miss this point? Are they dumb? Stubborn? Both? Seems like the free market would reward those talent evaluators/GMs that figure this out and weed out those that don't but yet here we are - just look at Zach Wilson. Most recent egregious example. I get it, do they pay too much attention to draftniks with no team ties? You do see that when "visionaries" (lol) come up with different schemes on a side of the ball and draft accordingly. Usually gives those teams advantages in the drafting biz. What I mean is situations like: Buddy Ryan's 46 D, or the Tampa 2, or back when the Steelers and Bills both small market teams moved to the 3-4, the run and shoot, run and gun, two pass catching TE's...... They all had emphasis on specific profile players that were more highly regarded in their schemes than others did. As a result they drafted higher than others because they had different values on their players until a bunch of copycat teams come along 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 20 minutes ago, DWinzit said: Definitely! I must admit when I am looking at players I often pay more attention and rate higher players that fit Washington's needs and schemes. I know this is not how most do it and they are right to do it that way. Just my quirk to the fun. I don't have time these days to dig in like many other posters, that's what makes this thread for me the most fun and most informative of all of them. There are a lot of posters that do a lot of work here! Best part about this hobby is that it helps me become a better coach. I consider it yearly professional development. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 By the way... Next year keep an eye on Old Dominion LB Jason Henderson. Guy had 179 tackles this year. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 1 minute ago, KDawg said: By the way... Next year keep an eye on Old Dominion LB Jason Henderson. Guy had 179 tackles this year. Holy crap! I just looked him up. Listed at 6'1" 225. He isn't any good, too small 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 3 minutes ago, DWinzit said: Holy crap! I just looked him up. Listed at 6'1" 225. He isn't any good, too small 🤣 The argument that he plays at ODU is a very real one. He can get by with that size. But he will get on the radar next year and we should have meaningful cutups to see how he performs. These two games stand out, though: 12 tackles vs. UVA and 16 vs. VT. Edited February 11, 2023 by KDawg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 7 minutes ago, KDawg said: By the way... Next year keep an eye on Old Dominion LB Jason Henderson. Guy had 179 tackles this year. How did Old Dominion all of the sudden start producing NFL-quality draft prospects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWinzit Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, KDawg said: The argument that he plays at ODU is a very real one. He can get by with that size. But he will get on the radar next year and we should have meaningful cutups to see how he performs. For certain but damn, did he let anyone else make a tackle. He must have some skills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 Just now, bird_1972 said: How did Old Dominion all of the sudden start producing NFL-quality draft prospects? When they could beat VT and almost beat Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny21 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 It’s tricky - you want proof guys can play (film), but you also want the traits as it should give the player a better chance at withstanding the step up in competition level - guys are faster, stronger in the pros. Lot of nuance though. Traits are worthless if guys aren’t coachable, lack the necessary work ethic, have off-field issues, or have low football IQ. Proven play ability isn’t usually enough if guys can’t match certain measurables. For me, I’m taking a chance on measurables later in the draft. Early on, I’m focused on film with some baseline measureables (though there are caveats - like if guys play fast on film, I’m not worried about speed tests). And of course, there are guys like Jamin Davis - guys that test well, flash on the field, but are going to need time to (hopefully) find that consistency to become legitimate players. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bird_1972 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, KDawg said: When they could beat VT and almost beat Virginia. I guess what I mean is that it's amazing that they've been able to compete for recruiting talent so quickly after starting a football program. VT and UVA have been established for decades and much more $$$. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) Full disclosure... this is my first top 50. It is NOT well thought out. It's just me taking what I've put together so far and putting together a list. It will change. Considerably. I noticed some things I want to change already on it and in positional rankings. But I like to share my process with this group as I do things. But don't take this as anything more than a rough draft. Edit: Doubled up on a few guys. New list. Also keep in mind this isn't where I think they'd get drafted. A mock draft would look a lot different. Edit #3... Left some guys off. Edited February 11, 2023 by KDawg 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 1 hour ago, KDawg said: So you value traits vs. film/production. No harm in that. Some of the biggest draft picks have been based on that. Not at all. I value both. Production to me is a dubious metric. I doubt any NFL FO is going to put that much weight into say the number of tackles a player has. It's part of the process and something to weigh but I would zero in on how disruptive that player is. What does his game bring and how will it affect my opponent? Matchup exploitation - how long can he stay on the field - certain packages only? That sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 2 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said: Not at all. I value both. Production to me is a dubious metric. I doubt any NFL FO is going to put that much weight into say the number of tackles a player has. It's part of the process and something to weigh but I would zero in on how disruptive that player is. What does his game bring and how will it affect my opponent? Matchup exploitation - how long can he stay on the field - certain packages only? That sort of thing. Then I’m confused why you don’t like Pace. He checks every box but measurables. Drew Sanders really only checks measurables as a ILB, but it makes more sense for him with his recent switch. He checks the box as an edge, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, KDawg said: Then I’m confused why you don’t like Pace. He checks every box but measurables. Drew Sanders really only checks measurables as a ILB, but it makes more sense for him with his recent switch. He checks the box as an edge, though. I don't dislike Pace at all. He is just limited IMO what he brings at the next level. PFF has him highly rated. I am in the minority here but comfortable enough in my assessment to stay put and to also eat crow should he be drafted and balls out. Edited February 11, 2023 by Chump Bailey 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 3 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said: I don't dislike Pace at all. He is just limited IMO what he brings at the next level. PFF has him highly rated. I am in the minority here but comfortable enough in my assessment to stay put and to also eat crow should he be drafted and balls out. To be clear, I'm not trying to get you to change your take. More that I'm trying to understand it. He's one of the most versatile ILB prospects on film. What makes you think he's limited in what he brings to the pros? Just his size? Speed? I could see those concerns, but he's not tremendously undersized other than his height, but there is precedence for that height. The height + speed is a concern for me, and what holds me back from a big bump for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Bailey Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 1 minute ago, KDawg said: To be clear, I'm not trying to get you to change your take. More that I'm trying to understand it. He's one of the most versatile ILB prospects on film. What makes you think he's limited in what he brings to the pros? Just his size? Speed? I could see those concerns, but he's not tremendously undersized other than his height, but there is precedence for that height. The height + speed is a concern for me, and what holds me back from a big bump for him. It's not necessarily a speed thing because I think he will test adequate there and although related, I do suspect he will lack sideline range and no way can I see him matchup well against NFL TE's. I also question his ability to disengage from blockers. His best asset is rushing the QB and it's his best trait by a country mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 I mean, Sanders is 6'5" 235lbs. He produced as an OLB and then transferred and changed positions and still had 11 sacks and 3 TOs. He is still learning off ball. It's not like he had an off year. He improved. He's also exactly what we need to pair with Davis. A pass rusher who can play the Mike and drops. Sanders is an every down backer. Pace I could see in a BN role if he times extremely well. A 4.6 40 isn't too bad, but the 4.5 shuttle is excellent for a guy Sanders size. Pace needs to do much better than that if he's going to be able to get around NFL sized defenders. Pace had a nice year and I wouldn't hate the pick on day three. I hope we add one of the LBers who had double digit sacks. There's a few. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted February 11, 2023 Share Posted February 11, 2023 37 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said: I mean, Sanders is 6'5" 235lbs. He produced as an OLB and then transferred and changed positions and still had 11 sacks and 3 TOs. He is still learning off ball. It's not like he had an off year. He improved. He's also exactly what we need to pair with Davis. A pass rusher who can play the Mike and drops. Sanders is an every down backer. Pace I could see in a BN role if he times extremely well. A 4.6 40 isn't too bad, but the 4.5 shuttle is excellent for a guy Sanders size. Pace needs to do much better than that if he's going to be able to get around NFL sized defenders. Pace had a nice year and I wouldn't hate the pick on day three. I hope we add one of the LBers who had double digit sacks. There's a few. Sanders had 9.5. Pace had 9. Pace is better inside as well. Id say Sanders is better as a more traditional OLB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts