Let's talk about REACHES and the 2022 draft...

[clskinsfan]

I dont care about what is considered a reach. If you like a guy and he is there you take him based on your own grade. No one elses. And none of us have the luxury of interviewing any of these guys. We dont know their backgrounds. We know jack crap. The only thing we can do is look at tape and see how they play football in our own opinions. And that is the same thing every front office is doing as well. They watch the tape, check the background and interview these guys to form their opinions. The draft is a crap shoot anyways. And no one can really know how someone will react to being immediately wealthy either. So many variables. The entire process is a ton of luck. 

[Redwards]

I'm not sure what this draft will turn into in the long run.  Maybe it turns out to be what we need.  Maybe not.  Time and proper coaching/utilization will tell.

 

BUT...I find it extremely interesting that Ron and Mayhew have gone to great lengths to address and defend the criticism they have received by more than a few outside entities.  That makes me legit wonder if Ron and Mayhew are as confident in their draft class as they profess to be.  Or are they just that thin-skinned?  

 

See, it's a lot like a good player in the league that feels he has to argue and defend how good his is, proving to everyone he's an elite player.  The old axiom is that if you have to address and defend such a thing then, by rights, you aren't an elite player.

 

I'm not sure what the deal is with Ron and Mayhew feeling they need to defend everything.  I certainly don't like it and it inspires anything but confidence in these men for me.   I don't see other clubs stooping to addressing outside criticism of their draft and myriad other things associated with their club.   

 

Perhaps it's nothing.  Perhaps it's more.  But it is all very, very curious.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Redwards

[Burgold]

If I had to guess, the defensiveness stems from the players saying they didn't expect to be picked yet. I don't know that I ever heard that before. I mean you hear players ranting about the chip on their shoulder from being snubbed and how they would prove everyone wrong all the time, but you never hear players going... "Ooh! I don't know if the team made a wise choice in picking me. I should have been picked later. I mean I'm not that good. There are other better players out there, you know!"

 

(The above quote is clearly an exageration and an actual quote.)

[profusion]

The issue with reach is not whether to pick the player, in most cases, but whether a team wanting that player could trade back for more picks and still get that player. There's a gamble involved with that, if course.

[FootballZombie]

6 minutes ago, Burgold said:

If I had to guess, the defensiveness stems from the players saying they didn't expect to be picked yet.

 

That's gotta be part of it. These were members of your team, questioning their own draft position.

 

If it was just an outside source questioning you, its way easier to let that slide. When your own org is questioning itself, in an official capacity no less, that is a team sponsored narrative. There is simply no way you can let that stand. You have to repeatedly address and change that narrative that came from your team and your not gonna correct that in a single interview. The "Mama Hen" gameplan has to happen at this point, no way around it.

 

To make matters worse, once the door was open to questioning some prospects, it opened the door to questioning many more. So now you gotta justify even more of the selections you made and how they are good or how you actually plan to use them way more then people think you will in an attempt to justify the selection.

 

As long as you keep your draft boards hidden you can just fall back on the tried and true, "we followed our board" and no one can really question that too much. When you start having team sponsored narratives saying otherwise that becomes a lot more difficult and takes some elbow grease to get out of.

 

 

 

To their credit, I don't think any of the draft pics meant to lay this trouble at their orgs feet or have confidence issues in themselves, they were just being candid in what is a momentous and emotional occasion. It should serve to be a valuable teaching moment that everything they do will be scrutinized now that they are in the public eye like never before and learning how to deal w/ that is important. Every player drafted will have to justify their slot. Every one will get criticized 5 times during the week and 6 times on Sunday. These guys just got a taste a little early.

[Est.1974]

This will be a good thread to bump in 9/10 months time. 

[Bifflog]

Yeah, no one else in the world gives a good Goddamn about what the picks said in their interviews.  It's a total Washington Football Commanders bubble exclusive issue.

[D’Pablo]

Got to love conversations about “reaches” this early after a draft. Reminds me of this gem:

”

Seattle Seahawks

Draft Picks

Round 1: DE/OLB Bruce Irvin (West Virginia)

Round 2: ILB Bobby Wagner (Utah State)

Round 3: QB Russell Wilson (Wisconsin)

Round 4: RB Robert Turbin (Utah State), DT Jaye Howard (Florida)

Round 5: ILB Korey Toomer (Idaho)

Round 6: CB Jeremy Lane (Northwestern State), DB Winston Guy (Kentucky)

Round 7: DE J.R. Sweezy (North Carolina State), DE Greg Scruggs (Louisville)

Grade: D

Summary

The Seahawks received our lowest Round 1 grade for their reach to grab Bruce Irvin at No. 15 overall. They messed up again in Round 3 with Russell Wilson after having signed Matt Flynn this offseason. Neither pick makes much sense to us.

Bobby Wagner and Robert Turbin saved the Seattle draft, but two of its first three picks were just bad.”

 

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1163416-2012-nfl-draft-grades-full-draft-results-report-card.amp.html

[Zim489]

On 5/3/2022 at 2:58 PM, Voice_of_Reason said:

I somewhat agree with you that guards are a little undervalued, especially with the rise of interior pass rushers.  But you can still find really good guards in later rounds.  If you have a super special, all pro level talent, then fine, grab them.  

Its not really about them being undervalued but your ability to get elite ones in replacement. No other position has the hit rate on great to elite players up and down the draft like Guards. Like its multi faceted equation. How much they are being paid on a rookie deal compared to their counterparts in the league. The value of the deal if you hit on them. The value on resigning. The ease of replacement. Along with obviously the most important aspect, how much they contribute to the most wins. Certain positions are far more valued than others. Its why QB LT WR CB Pass Rusher should really be the only positions you take with 1st rounders. Why you dont take run stuffing DTs Guards RBs before day 3. You have only so much cap and draft picks.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 minute ago, Zim489 said:

Its not really about them being undervalued but your ability to get elite ones in replacement. No other position has the hit rate on great to elite players up and down the draft like Guards. Like its multi faceted equation. How much they are being paid on a rookie deal compared to their counterparts in the league. The value of the deal if you hit on them. The value on resigning. The ease of replacement. Along with obviously the most important aspect, how much they contribute to the most wins. Certain positions are far more valued than others. Its why QB LT WR CB Pass Rusher should really be the only positions you take with 1st rounders. Why you dont take run stuffing DTs Guards RBs before day 3. You have only so much cap and draft picks.

Yeah, I somewhat disagree with that.  But I think the draft grades mostly work it out.  NOTE: Draft grades of the teams, not the draft grades of the idiot Thor Nystrom's of the world.  

 

For example, I think you CAN pick a safety of DT, or interior OL in the first, maybe not the high first, but in the first, if you think that player is going to be a difference maker in a more meaningful way than the other players at the position.

 

From the second on, every position is open.  You know what causes you to lose games?  Not being able to stop the run.  Do you know what every team needs?  A RB who can play.  Sure, you can find folks here and there to do it, but it's not a slam dunk.  If you think you can get a guy who will be significantly better than average (think WAR type thing) in the second or third at ANY position, and you don't have another player rated as highly, then you take them.  Period.  

 

Remember, not too long ago we were trying to talk ourselves into Fat Rob Kelley as a legitimate RB because we didn't spend draft capital to get one, and then we kept on bringing in "guys" and they kept being bad.  

 

I don't actually subscribe to the "ease of replacement" theory.  If you're signing a guy in FA, and it's not a contract related FA, then there's a very good chance you're going to get a JAG.  You'll hit on a few gems like a Logan Thomas and J.D. McKissic from time to time.  Or a Lucas or Leno.  But that's really not the norm.  

 

Grab the players who can best improve your team.  If you do that, you will be better off in the long run.  

 

The caveat is you do have to have somewhat of an eye on resource distribution.  Picking DL in 4 consecutive drafts in the first round was an over-allocation of resources to one particular position group.  The issue with it really is you just won't be able to keep all of them in the end.  Now, the problem for Ron is he only picked the last one, and that one was the most obvious.  

 

But I think that's one reason I think they will let Payne walk at the end of the season.  I think somewhere along the way, they should have gone a different direction.  Either not trading back up for Sweat or doing something different with the Payne pick.  Allen was first, and Young was obvious.  It's the middle two which, even at the time, where a bit questionable.  

[Zim489]

2 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Not being able to stop the run.

Statistically this incorrect in modern football. The best run defense is scoring more points on offense yourself.

 

Generally it sounds like your entire post screams old school roster building. 

6 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

For example, I think you CAN pick a safety of DT, or interior OL in the first, maybe not the high first, but in the first, if you think that player is going to be a difference maker in a more meaningful way than the other players at the position.

Like this is an example. Give me a good to great corner over a top 3 guard. You want your best players in the most important positions. 

 

8 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

The caveat is you do have to have somewhat of an eye on resource distribution.  Picking DL in 4 consecutive drafts in the first round was an over-allocation of resources to one particular position group.  The issue with it really is you just won't be able to keep all of them in the end.  Now, the problem for Ron is he only picked the last one, and that one was the most obvious.

I hated the payne pick from day 1. I also was lambasting trading Payne the minute Ron got here. Hell I am already gravitating towards only keeping 2 of the lineman as analytics are pointing more and more towards coverage>pass rush.

 

 

As analytics come more and more to the forefront the times are changing. I tend to be more on the best case scenario side of things. If everything were to come together this is how it should be type of deal. 

[Koolblue13]

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

Statistically this incorrect in modern football. The best run defense is scoring more points on offense yourself.

If you can't stop the run you lose.  It's table stakes. If you can do everything else well but not that, it doesn't matter.  That's not old school or new school.  The reason is because pass offenses are so good now, if you give up 4-5 yards on a first down run consistently, you'll literally never see the ball on offense.  Offenses will take the free yards, and then hit you with anything in their arsenal from there, and there will be nothing you can do about it.  

 

The only way to play defense in the modern NFL is to force the offense into known passing situations.  If you can force a defense into a known passing situation, you have a chance.  If you don't, you're completely sunk.  What you want is either a stuffed run or an incomplete pass on first down. That's the absolute best way to get into a situation to get a stop on defense, because the deck is so clearly stacked against the defense.  

 

This was my criticism of Jay, and to a lesser extent Scott Turner, for years.  They were SO insistent on the run on first down, even though it never worked, they put themselves into known passing situations and screwed themselves routinely.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

Generally it sounds like your entire post screams old school roster building. 

Like this is an example. Give me a good to great corner over a top 3 guard. You want your best players in the most important positions. 

No, it's not old school roster building, actually.  And as I said, the draft grades work this out, because position value is always factored into the draft grade of a player.  For all 32 teams, including ours.  

 

You don't draft a CB in the second who might be a "good" prospect over a DT who has a higher ceiling.  That would be ludicrously stupid.  

 

You get the players who have the greatest ability to impact the game on the most number of plays.  

 

2 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

I hated the payne pick from day 1. I also was lambasting trading Payne the minute Ron got here. Hell I am already gravitating towards only keeping 2 of the lineman as analytics are pointing more and more towards coverage>pass rush.

I didn't love the Payne pick, but maybe for a different reason.  I just don't like picking the same position over and over.  

 

Though, I have serious issues with PFF and I think they're ratings and philosophies can be really flawed.  They are at the forefront of the "coverage > pass rush"  I get the theory that it's because of the fact the ball comes out more quickly now than in the past.  

 

However, I've always seen it this way:  If given enough time, it doesn't matter HOW good the defense is, they will eventually lose. 

 

What you need is a good enough secondary to cover for the first 2.8 second of the play.  And you need a pass rush that can force the ball out in under 3.2 seconds.

 

You need both.  Having one without the other suboptimizes both.

 

2 minutes ago, Zim489 said:

 

As analytics come more and more to the forefront the times are changing. I tend to be more on the best case scenario side of things. If everything were to come together this is how it should be type of deal. 

I know something about analytics and predictive analytics because it's part of what I've done for my day job for 20 years.  However, in football, I think analytics are just one of multiple tools which you need to look at, because context is so important.  There are a lot of different ways to do things.  I think the really important analytics are actually more just statistics.  

 

Anyway, I think it's important to look at everything.  I don't think a "moneyball" approach in football is going to work.  There are just too many variables.  

[Ball Security]

19 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Yeah, I somewhat disagree with that.  But I think the draft grades mostly work it out.  NOTE: Draft grades of the teams, not the draft grades of the idiot Thor Nystrom's of the world.  

 

For example, I think you CAN pick a safety of DT, or interior OL in the first, maybe not the high first, but in the first, if you think that player is going to be a difference maker in a more meaningful way than the other players at the position.

 

From the second on, every position is open.  You know what causes you to lose games?  Not being able to stop the run.  Do you know what every team needs?  A RB who can play.  Sure, you can find folks here and there to do it, but it's not a slam dunk.  If you think you can get a guy who will be significantly better than average (think WAR type thing) in the second or third at ANY position, and you don't have another player rated as highly, then you take them.  Period.  

 

Remember, not too long ago we were trying to talk ourselves into Fat Rob Kelley as a legitimate RB because we didn't spend draft capital to get one, and then we kept on bringing in "guys" and they kept being bad.  

 

I don't actually subscribe to the "ease of replacement" theory.  If you're signing a guy in FA, and it's not a contract related FA, then there's a very good chance you're going to get a JAG.  You'll hit on a few gems like a Logan Thomas and J.D. McKissic from time to time.  Or a Lucas or Leno.  But that's really not the norm.  

 

Grab the players who can best improve your team.  If you do that, you will be better off in the long run.  

 

The caveat is you do have to have somewhat of an eye on resource distribution.  Picking DL in 4 consecutive drafts in the first round was an over-allocation of resources to one particular position group.  The issue with it really is you just won't be able to keep all of them in the end.  Now, the problem for Ron is he only picked the last one, and that one was the most obvious.  

 

But I think that's one reason I think they will let Payne walk at the end of the season.  I think somewhere along the way, they should have gone a different direction.  Either not trading back up for Sweat or doing something different with the Payne pick.  Allen was first, and Young was obvious.  It's the middle two which, even at the time, where a bit questionable.  

Going to nitpick on the not using draft capital on the Rob Kelley season, 2016. True, it was the first post-Morris rookie contract season.  But they used four picks on RBs between 2013 and 2016.  Thompson, Seastrunk, Jones, and Marshall.  All on rookie deals.