2023 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[DWinzit]

31 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

If you get the next Alvin Kamara with Gibbs, how is that not worth 16?

Or the next Blair Thomas  

Risk reward with every player. And then there's the injury factor that can't be foreseen. 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by DWinzit

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, Jumbo said:

Fyi, if anyone one is curious about its disappearance, I deleted a post I just made about cognitive ability assessment tools and "personality" (behavioral) assessment tools, that I thought could result in an off topic extension and possible pissing contest.

 

I'm definitely interested in reading the opinion of someone with psychology experience on these kinds of tests.  I'm just going on my gut, and it tells me that these kinds of tests are always very limited in the perspective they actually provide to employers, and that they always have some kind of bias built into the administration.

 

I haven't seen the S2 before, but from the sounds of it, just off the top of my head I can see there being a major bias in favor of someone who is very comfortable with using a gaming laptop vs someone who hasn't used one before.

[Est.1974]

29 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

If you get the next Alvin Kamara with Gibbs, how is that not worth 16?

Time will tell won’t it. Lots of variables. I was half serious/half joking re the ES mock draft. 
 

Bottom line, we need to draft well. We need to get impact players early. I’m personally not that invested who we take. Should be a fun draft.

[Koolblue13]

12 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Or the next Blair Thomas  

Risk reward with every player. And then there's the injury factor that can't be foreseen. 

 

He could die in a marshmallow roasting disaster, but it's besides the point.

 

That's who I'd equate his talent to and that is worth the gamble of the 16th pick IMO. Not saying I'd take him.

 

I know some people say that RBs don't win you superbowls and those people are dumb and not worth talking to, because that's besides the point. Superbowls are won by talented teams and a lot of positions and elite RBs are great to have. I'm not saying that having Henry and Tannahil is better than Mahomes and CEH. I'm saying that I'd rather have Henry and Mahomes. In this draft we only have a shot at drafting one of them.

15 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Time will tell won’t it. Lots of variables. I was half serious/half joking re the ES mock draft. 
 

Bottom line, we need to draft well. We need to get impact players early. I’m personally not that invested who we take. Should be a fun draft.

If we can score more points than the other teams, we should win more games. 

 

Yes, we need to draft well and add impact players.

[Est.1974]

20 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

He could die in a marshmallow roasting disaster, but it's besides the point.

 

That's who I'd equate his talent to and that is worth the gamble of the 16th pick IMO. Not saying I'd take him.

 

I know some people say that RBs don't win you superbowls and those people are dumb and not worth talking to, because that's besides the point. Superbowls are won by talented teams and a lot of positions and elite RBs are great to have. I'm not saying that having Henry and Tannahil is better than Mahomes and CEH. I'm saying that I'd rather have Henry and Mahomes. In this draft we only have a shot at drafting one of them.

If we can score more points than the other teams, we should win more games. 

 

Yes, we need to draft well and add impact players.

I could see us going Kincaid at #16 before a RB.
 

I do also think RB is on the list though, the talk Gibson was on that trade back was a while back, but he’s as good as gone IMO.

[Koolblue13]

Just now, Est.1974 said:

I could see us going Kincaid at #16 before a RB.
 

I do also think RB is on the list though, the talk Gibson was on that trade back was a while back, but he’s as good as gone IMO.

I don't care for or about Gibson. Fumbles. There are some day three complimentary backs like Duece Vaughn that I'm really high on. 

 

I do think Gibbs will be special, but I'm thinking he's going to be an Eagle, Bill or Bengal. I could see the Bills or Bengals coming up for a back, too. 

 

I'd be so disappointed with Kincaid at 16. Furious. Mayer is the only TE I'd flirt with in round 1 and that would be later.

[Est.1974]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

I don't care for or about Gibson. Fumbles. There are some day three complimentary backs like Duece Vaughn that I'm really high on. 

 

I do think Gibbs will be special, but I'm thinking he's going to be an Eagle, Bill or Bengal. I could see the Bills or Bengals coming up for a back, too. 

 

I'd be so disappointed with Kincaid at 16. Furious. Mayer is the only TE I'd flirt with in round 1 and that would be later.

Why Mayer over a Kincaid ?

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, Est.1974 said:

I think that’s logical, and also basic common sense to be honest. The OL talk at #16 is really reaching IMO. So is Gibbs at at #16, but you are pushing him having taken him in the mock draft, right ?

No. I’m not pushing anyone for any spot. Just that it’s dumb to not take the player with the most value. I don’t know who that will be because it’s not our pick in the draft right now. 

[Est.1974]

4 minutes ago, KDawg said:

No. I’m not pushing anyone for any spot. Just that it’s dumb to not take the player with the most value. I don’t know who that will be because it’s not our pick in the draft right now. 

I agree.

[e16bball]

3 hours ago, KDawg said:

If I were doing this for a living I'd assign a numerical value to each draft position, each position, each player and a need value.

Sorry in advance for the long post!
 

I actually did a full-scale research project in college where I took exactly that approach. The folks who funded the grant for the sake of *academia* weren’t thrilled that I chose to do my project on the NFL draft, but…what can you do?

 

I think your approach to quantifying BPA is pretty much dead-on, and definitely not just because it hits the three major factors that I used in my analysis at that time as well (player rating, positional value, team need). I think that’s how you answer the most appropriate question, which is “who is the best player available for me?”

 

Some tricky things that I throw out just for consideration. The biggest thing I always struggled with was “fit.” How does that factor in? We all know from evaluating players that all guys at a particular position are not created equal, and some fit different schemes much better than others. In terms of both positional value and team need, some players who at least nominally share a position are going to be more valued than others and more of a fit for particular teams (e.g., 3-tech vs. NT or true X receiver over slot-only). It makes you want to sort of put your thumb on the scale when doing the player evaluations to smooth out the stuff that doesn’t quite fit.

 

The only answer I was ever able to come up with is to be as specific as possible in defining the positions for both positional value and team need. If you’re able to really dig in and separate out the Fs from the Ys and the nickels from the outside CBs, it removes some of the need to ding (or credit) guys for their specific role/fit value when doing the evals. The game is much more specialized and nuanced than it was back when I was doing this back in 2005ish, so I think it’s even more important — but your background in coaching might make it a lot easier for you to manage that. 

The other issue I ran into was with defining need. When I did it, I just stuck with one score for need — which was heavily focused on “what do you have right now?” But really, as we’re seeing with DE in this draft cycle for example, being set right now isn’t the same as having no need. So do you want to have two scores for need (current and future)? Or three (immediate, middle-term, and long-term)? And if so, how do you balance those scores? And do you try to replicate the reality that most NFL drafters seem to skew heavily towards targeting immediate needs early in the draft (where your plug and play guys typically live) and more towards longer-term needs later on (where more of your straight-up developmental guys are found)?
 

Anyway, just throwing a few things out there to take into consideration if you do take the plunge and try to quantify things. I would love to see it — not many people I read on the internets watch as much film of guys across the board as it seems you do, and it’d be a lot of fun to see how it turned out with your coaching eye added to the process.

[KDawg]

8 minutes ago, e16bball said:

Sorry in advance for the long post!
 

I actually did a full-scale research project in college where I took exactly that approach. The folks who funded the grant for the sake of *academia* weren’t thrilled that I chose to do my project on the NFL draft, but…what can you do?

 

I think your approach to quantifying BPA is pretty much dead-on, and definitely not just because it hits the three major factors that I used in my analysis at that time as well (player rating, positional value, team need). I think that’s how you answer the most appropriate question, which is “who is the best player available for me?”

 

Some tricky things that I throw out just for consideration. The biggest thing I always struggled with was “fit.” How does that factor in? We all know from evaluating players that all guys at a particular position are not created equal, and some fit different schemes much better than others. In terms of both positional value and team need, some players who at least nominally share a position are going to be more valued than others and more of a fit for particular teams (e.g., 3-tech vs. NT or true X receiver over slot-only). It makes you want to sort of put your thumb on the scale when doing the player evaluations to smooth out the stuff that doesn’t quite fit.

 

The only answer I was ever able to come up with is to be as specific as possible in defining the positions for both positional value and team need. If you’re able to really dig in and separate out the Fs from the Ys and the nickels from the outside CBs, it removes some of the need to ding (or credit) guys for their specific role/fit value when doing the evals. The game is much more specialized and nuanced than it was back when I was doing this back in 2005ish, so I think it’s even more important — but your background in coaching might make it a lot easier for you to manage that. 

The other issue I ran into was with defining need. When I did it, I just stuck with one score for need — which was heavily focused on “what do you have right now?” But really, as we’re seeing with DE in this draft cycle for example, being set right now isn’t the same as having no need. So do you want to have two scores for need (current and future)? Or three (immediate, middle-term, and long-term)? And if so, how do you balance those scores? And do you try to replicate the reality that most NFL drafters seem to skew heavily towards targeting immediate needs early in the draft (where your plug and play guys typically live) and more towards longer-term needs later on (where more of your straight-up developmental guys are found)?
 

Anyway, just throwing a few things out there to take into consideration if you do take the plunge and try to quantify things. I would love to see it — not many people I read on the internets watch as much film of guys across the board as it seems you do, and it’d be a lot of fun to see how it turned out with your coaching eye added to the process.

I don’t have anything to add to this at this point, but I want to say great post and thank you for sharing.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Some GMs believe the Philadelphia Eagles will trade the 10th overall pick, dealing with a team that wants to move ahead of Tennessee for a quarterback. Or the Titans could just move up one spot themselves to secure the passer they want. . . .

Would Kirk Cousins be shocked if the Minnesota Vikings selected a quarterback (most likely Tennessee’s Hendon Hooker) with the 23rd overall pick? I don’t think so. . . .

There is a sense among other organizations that the Ravens’ interest in Richardson is very real and if he does slide out of the top nine or so picks they would attempt to move up for him, within reason. The Commanders’ 16th spot might be a logical meeting point, and Washington would not be averse to such a scenario. . . .

 

At this point, I think Penn State’s Joey Porter Jr., who had a lot of buzz after the season, is at best the fourth cornerback selected. . . .

Teams in the cornerback market are praying the Falcons or Raiders take a quarterback because if not the initial run on defensive backs might already be over in the top half of the first round. In that case, brace for a lot of offensive linemen to be taken in the back half despite that appearing to be a pedestrian group.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2023/04/21/cj-stroud-draft-texans-titans-raiders/

[Jumbo]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

There is a sense among other organizations that the Ravens’ interest in Richardson is very real and if he does slide out of the top nine or so picks they would attempt to move up for him, within reason. The Commanders’ 16th spot might be a logical meeting point, and Washington would not be averse to such a scenario. . . .

 

 

I would be more than ok with this scenario if it features any halfway decent offer.

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Cory Trice, CB from Purdue.  Just watched a couple of games.  I dig him as a player in that sort bottom part of the 2nd tier of this CB group.  i like his upside.  He doesn't get much attention or mentions as belonging in that 2nd tier of CBs.    But IMO he belongs in that conversation with the Darius Rush, Stevenson, Williams, etc group of CBs.  Maybe because he's had injuries in his career though he was healthy last year.

 

Size and speed.  6 '3, 206 pounds.  32 plus inch arms.  One of the best RAS scores in this group.  Played outside corner on both sides.  Saw him do one rep on the inside. 

 

Off coverage, press, good closing speed, sticky in coverage.  He's a physical corner including against the run.  2 picks.  51.3 passer rating against him which was one of the best numbers among this CB class.

 

A bit grabby when the WR is about to break from their stem.  Got beat on some plays, they all do (CBs) of course but he was within reach of the WRs on most of those plays.  Fell on his butt on one play that could have resulted in a big play but the Qb went elsewhere. 

 

They blitzed him on two plays -- where he was uninspiring, just ran into the blocker ahead of him in a straight line.  Seemed to tire towards the end of the Penn State game I watched and wasn't as good against the run as he was earlier in the game. 

 

But overall I liked him.  late 3rd-early 4th?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[The Rook]

10 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

I would be more than ok with this scenario if it features any halfway decent offer.

 

 

FWIW, Baltimore only has 5 picks this year, but their #22 and #86 picks are valued pretty much equal to #16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

[RWJ]

14 minutes ago, The Rook said:

 

FWIW, Baltimore only has 5 picks this year, but their #22 and #86 picks are valued pretty much equal to #16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

Actually, 60 points shy of what Balt. needs to give up for the pick via:  Draft Pick Trade Value Chart | Pro-Football-Reference.com.  Now, if Baltimore throws in their 5th, good to go.  

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

52 minutes ago, RWJ said:

Actually, 60 points shy of what Balt. needs to give up for the pick via:  Draft Pick Trade Value Chart | Pro-Football-Reference.com.  Now, if Baltimore throws in their 5th, good to go.  

 

Every place has a different calculator, and supposedly most teams use their own versions too. Overthecap has a fun one, that shows you 2 values for the trade. Estimated draft pick value and then estimated contract value of the position the draft pick is used on. So a QB picked represents extra value gained as those contracts are usually enormous.

https://overthecap.com/trade-calculator

Here's the chart for reference:

https://overthecap.com/draft-trade-value-chart

 

According to this one, a simple #16 for #22 + #86 is a clear win in value for the Commanders, but a win monetarily for the Ravens if they pick a QB and we go say OT and Edge. Since they're gaining extra monetary value, perhaps we could demand more.

 

[Going Commando]

The S2 cognitive people said they've tested Bryce Young every year since he was in the 10th grade.  No wonder he scored so well if he's taken it six times.

[peanut0862]

Maybe they trade us Lamar for 16

[Going Commando]

3 minutes ago, peanut0862 said:

Maybe they trade us Lamar for 16

 

Honestly, I would rather have picks.  Lamar would be radioactive to me now.  I just don't think it's likely anyone is going to get a contract extension with him done under the current circumstances.  I think he's going to have to play the franchise tag game for a couple of years and then try and rehabilitate his value on the open market, and failing that, he's going to have to be given a reality check that his market isn't very good.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

2 hours ago, Going Commando said:

The S2 cognitive people said they've tested Bryce Young every year since he was in the 10th grade.  No wonder he scored so well if he's taken it six times.

Supposedly there are some elements of the S2 that training does nothing. You either have it or you don't. The final score is made up of (I think) 4 separate tests, so we can not be sure how much the training would influence given it would not help at least one of them.

 

That said, I believe I also read Drew Brees, while already in the NFL was also a repeat test taker. So clearly an established and HoF caliber QB found value in training for it. I'm not sure if we should knock a prospect for not training for the S2 or what, but it seems like we should absolutely credit Bryce Young for training for it. In my mind his high score, and his training for it, are both points in his favor.

[Est.1974]

Interesting insight from Mayhew in the pre draft press conference. I guess it’s kind of obvious in a way. But he clearly said they had visits lined up this year with prospects who fell into all the categories noted, including off field/social concerns. 
 

https://www.commanders.com/news/top-takeaways-from-ron-rivera-martin-mayhew-joint-predraft-press-conference

 

Mayhew added that there are different ways to look at the top 30 visits. Sometimes, prospects are brought in to get interactions with certain coaches or learn more about their football knowledge. Sometimes they are brought in because of some on- or off-field concerns.

[Skinsinparadise]

North Dakota State, really physical team and fun to watch --guys discussed here previously including Cody Mauch and Hunter Luepke.    Nash Jensen too but he probably ends up a UDFA.

 

I'd add to that pile Noah Gindorff, TE.  Probaby 7th round, maybe UDFA.  6 '3, 263, blocking TE but he can move well for someone his size.  4.71.  Good 2nd level blocker -- not on the level of Darnell or Willis on that front, he doesn't block with attitude like them -- but he's good, he can motor down the field.

 

As you'd expect for someone who played for that team with that kind of size, really physical-people move type of blocker but without the mean streak though of his teammate Mauch.  He seems to have decent hands, ran some good delayed routes, got open in the flat.  And he's physical with the ball in his hands.  He had the best YAC number in this TE group albiet in a shot sample -- he missed much of the season with injury.

 

While watching him I couldn't help rewatching Luepke a little.  If they are looking for a FB, he seems a no brainer. He is a good blocker. Nasty as a runner -- good blocker but I wouldn't say nasty as a blocker like lets say Brayden Willis. 

 

He can be used as a backfield weapon too especially in short yardage -- goal line.   230 pounds yet ran 4.58. 1.5 -- 10 which is sick especially for his size.  Killed it in the agility exercises. As i mentioned the first time I watched him, he reminded me of Riggo in his bull dozing style of running -- and I bet its no coincidence he wears 44. 

 

I'd go Willis over Luepke if Willis projects to FB.  But either would work well IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Going Commando]

7 hours ago, Always A Commander Never A Captain said:

Supposedly there are some elements of the S2 that training does nothing. You either have it or you don't. The final score is made up of (I think) 4 separate tests, so we can not be sure how much the training would influence given it would not help at least one of them.

 

That said, I believe I also read Drew Brees, while already in the NFL was also a repeat test taker. So clearly an established and HoF caliber QB found value in training for it. I'm not sure if we should knock a prospect for not training for the S2 or what, but it seems like we should absolutely credit Bryce Young for training for it. In my mind his high score, and his training for it, are both points in his favor.

 

The way the NFL is approaching the scoring from that testing, they don't really care if you score high.  Levis's score doesn't seem to be helping him.  They only care if you score low, as they are viewing that as confirmation you are too dumb to play NFL QB.  That is the rule they are hewing too from the test results.  "Nobody has ever been good who scored low."

 

But I guarantee there are all kinds of flaws and unaccounted for variables in the way this test is being administered and interpreted.  Repeat test taking is one of them.  Realistically, there is no way that preparation and familiarity don't help improve your score.