2023 NFL Draft Watch and Post Thread - The Hangover Special

[Conn]

25 minutes ago, mhd24 said:

Interesting...

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2023/05/01/nfl-draft-2023-raiders-texans-cj-stroud-peter-king-fmia/

 

"Cards GM Monti Ossenfort called Ziegler. Hushed discussion, presumably exchanging potential offers for the pick. Then Ziegler and McDaniels huddled. Having the 12^th and 33^rd overall picks, to go along with the Raiders’ 38^th choice, would be tempting. “We could get [Oklahoma tackle Anton] Harrison at 12,” McDaniels said. The Raiders loved Harrison—not as much as Johnson, but enough maybe to lose the fourth non-QB they love in order to pick up the 33^rd pick. They mulled"

 

If the Raiders trade down with the Cards, they would have taken Harrison at 12.

 

 

Do you have any hopes for Chris Paul, or is he just a JAG?

The dreaded Just A Just A Guy. Bet he uses the ATM Machine! 

[Warhead36]

The secondary should absolutely be a strength now. If I see guys running wide open on 3rd and 13 again I'm going to smack someone.

[Skinsinparadise]

13 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Though I see 33 5/8 on nfldraftbuzz.

 

I don't know where some of these places get their info.

 

Losing any of those guys would bother me.

 

Fuller the most, because he's healthy.

 

I'd cut bait with Thomas/Roullier though, because of the savings and health.

 

I just hope a tight end appears in vet FA. 

 

Cutting Fuller to me defeats part of the charm of adding an outside CB in the draft.   if we go just Forbes and St. Juste.  Dantzler better be ready tomplay half a season or so.  i know Vikinngs fan ddn't love him.  Looked at his PFF scores, not bad, pedestrain, 0 picks.   

 

the problem IMO with the secondary last year wasn't just they didn't create turnovers but also depth.

 

As for Rouillier.  We got three centers without him.  Larsen.  Gates.  Stromberg.  I love Rouillier but i think we can survive without him. 

 

I wouldn't cut Norwell.  He's not great but he's at least OK.  We need depth at that spot.  Our o lineman tend to drop like flies. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[DWinzit]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I wouldn't cut Norwell.  He's not great but he's at least OK.  We need depth at that spot.  Our o lineman tend to drop like flies. 

Feel like they could cut him and bring him back cheaper. Only issue is have the dissed him by it sounding like they already planned on cutting him

He si the only real LG we have right now. Boy have there been some years we have not had a LG

[757SeanTaylor21]

Norwell was absolutely trash last year and the difference between flowers play and Norwell was abundantly clear. He was not good by any means and needs to be cut

[Chump Bailey]

I think I would have explored a modest trade up for Drew Sanders. I’ll go against the Pros here his skill set is very intriguing and he is new at the position. 

[HigSkin]

FWIW - reference Forbes maybe not being around in the 2nd

 

 

[KDawg]

1 minute ago, HigSkin said:

FWIW - reference Forbes maybe not being around in the 2nd

 

 

I don't think he would have been there at 47. But in the second? Maybe.

 

That doesn't say he'd have gone in the first. And, quite frankly, it may have pushed Banks or Brents to us at 47.

 

The more I'm reflecting the more I dislike the strategy of the first two rounds. Keep in mind I am talking about the STRATEGY. NOT the players.

 

I have nothing but hope for Forbes and Martin. I think they are both damned good players and I am happy they are on this team. They will both help us. This isn't about the PLAYERS themselves but the whole strategy involved. We failed to maximize value, in my opinion. I've said that a bunch but I'm just really unhappy with the plan of attack and forcing picks and the order in which we forced them.

 

The idea that we may have even tried to trade up to get Martin annoys me.

 

But I have to also keep in mind that if Martin and Forbes are among the best players in the class, none of this matters at all. 

 

[redskinss]

The irony of jack campbell is Half this board thought we had a shot at him in the 2nd, had we taken him with 16 there would be outrage at how much of a reach he was despite being a good player and we should have drafted for better value.

Now that he went 18th the narrative has completely flipped.

Hindsight is a very powerful tool when it comes to draft evaluation. 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, redskinss said:

The irony of jack campbell is Half this board thought we had a shot at him in the 2nd, had we taken him with 16 there would be outrage at how much of a reach he was despite being a good player and we should have drafted for better value.

Now that he went 18th the narrative has completely flipped.

Hindsight is a very powerful tool when it comes to draft evaluation. 

 

Wouldn't have heard a single complaint from me. 

 

Only reason I thought he'd be available at 47 was the way the league values linebackers. The guy is a monster. Thought the League would value some of the more athletic ones more than him. But I forgot Dan Campbell existed and loves real football players who jump off on film and isn't impressed with finesse.

 

It isn't hindsight from me. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by KDawg

[DWinzit]

6 minutes ago, redskinss said:

The irony of jack campbell is Half this board thought we had a shot at him in the 2nd, had we taken him with 16 there would be outrage at how much of a reach he was despite being a good player and we should have drafted for better value.

Now that he went 18th the narrative has completely flipped.

Hindsight is a very powerful tool when it comes to draft evaluation. 

Would not have heard it from me either. Campbell was my favorite player bar none in the draft and the perfect fit for this team. I have stated I had him graded at 24 and mentioned numerous times he would not be around in the second round.

 

Hindsight is always sweet....🤣

[Koolblue13]

If not for Detroit, Campbell was probably there at 47.

[KDawg]

Just now, DWinzit said:

Would not have heard it from me either. Campbell was my favorite player bar none in the draft and the perfect fit for this team. I have stated I had him graded at 24 and mentioned numerous times he would not be around in the second round.

 

Hindsight is always sweet....🤣

People who try to make that point are often the ones who weren't following that thread and have no idea how much we as a consensus on this forum loved him.

Just now, Koolblue13 said:

If not for Detroit, Campbell was probably there at 47.

Entirely possible. Except Detroit had picks in between. So, probably not. But Detroit is the kind of team that values him so I see the point and agree that there weren't many other teams that would have done that.

 

But damn did I love that for them.

 

Detroit had a perfect draft for the Commanders

 

Aside for no OL, really. 

[method man]

2 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

If not for Detroit, Campbell was probably there at 47.

 

I doubt it. This was such a weak off ball LB draft, especially when compared to last year. If you needed one, he was your safest bet, meaning you had to take him higher than he would typically go

[Darrell Green Fan]

24 minutes ago, 757SeanTaylor21 said:

Norwell was absolutely trash last year and the difference between flowers play and Norwell was abundantly clear. He was not good by any means and needs to be cut

 

Yeah I don't get the love for Norwell. He sucks and they are better without him.

 

I get they don't use 3 traditional LBs but they have right now Davis, who showed promise but is still unproven and a FA who was benched before finally "figuring it out".  We will see if he figured it out.   And those are the only 2 legit LBs on this roster.  Next they have an improved OL but again not one player who can be described as anything other than average or below average starter by league standards with the possible exception of Wylie.  

[redskinss]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

People who try to make that point are often the ones who weren't following that thread and have no idea how much we as a consensus on this forum loved him.

I was following it, that's how I knew that it was consensus that most loved him at 47.

Dint remember too many saying they liked him at 16 though.

Could be wrong I didn't follow it as closely as some.

[KDawg]

Just now, redskinss said:

I was following it, that's how I knew that it was consensus that most loved him at 47.

Dint remember too many saying they liked him at 16 though.

Could be wrong I didn't follow it as closely as some.

I had him as LB1. Very rarely will you find a "1" in any position besides specialists where someone wouldn't like that player in the first.

 

I didn't think someone would take him there, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have/wouldn't have liked it.

 

I know you try to see positive in all situations and there is a lot here. Nothing to be really upset with as it pertains to the talent we got in Forbes. 

[757SeanTaylor21]

Now the big question is...if war rooms got drafted....where would have ours been drafted at?

[skinny21]

34 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

Paris Johnson, if on the board, would have been my BPA in all circumstances. Need weight was huge, player grade was high. 

 

I guess I shouldn't say all. Bryce Young would have been higher. Gibbs. Bijan. But other than them.

 

Campbell was next. I had him as a top 20 player in the class.

The other thing about Campbell for me was positional depth - we likely could have gotten a high end corner later, but ILB?  A lot less likely.  Of course I’m with you if Paris was there.  More positional depth at OT than backer, but maybe not by much, and you have to account for ROI/FA cost, etc.

Now one thing I feel the FO on - backers and TEs usually need a bit more seasoning than other spots, so I can see how that may have weighed in for them.

 

Semi-separately, I respect that the staff seemed to put some added emphasis on the passing game - Daniels, Stromberg and Rodriguez with pass pro chops, rolling the dice on two DEs and adding two high end dbs to help stop the pass.  Now, we didn’t add anything in terms of receiving weapons, but we’ve got our trio of receivers, Gibson can be a threat, Thomas hopefully gets his step back, Turner’s got some serious possession/red zone traits, and Rodgers is a high end athlete.  Not saying we’re set there, but there’s some legitimate quality along with some potential.

[redskinss]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I know you try to see positive in all situations

If my wife read this she would have to go to the hospital from laughing too hard.

 

[skinny21]

4 minutes ago, 757SeanTaylor21 said:

Now the big question is...if war rooms got drafted....where would have ours been drafted at?

Maybe by my son’s middle school?

[KDawg]

7 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Maybe by my son’s middle school?

 

It wasn't that nice. Doesn't matter where your son's middle school is. It wasn't that nice. 

[NYSkins21]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I went to college there, I've experienced it. lol but not these days, but most of my in laws are in NY. 

Where in NY SIP? College and your in-laws?

[757SeanTaylor21]

3 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

It wasn't that nice. Doesn't matter where your son's middle school is. It wasn't that nice. 

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 I actually wanna create a war room thread just so we can rag on that joke of a room

[DWinzit]

18 minutes ago, redskinss said:

I was following it, that's how I knew that it was consensus that most loved him at 47.

Dint remember too many saying they liked him at 16 though.

Could be wrong I didn't follow it as closely as some.

You are correct, I don't recall a single person having him at 16.

And, numerous had him at 47. I saw no way he made it past the first few picks in the 2nd round if he made it that far. 

There were too few good players at ILB, he was head and shoulders over the others which made him overvalued for Detroit and who knows what other teams might have felt similar.