2023 NFL Draft Watch and Post Thread - The Hangover Special

[Skinsinparadise]

52 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Love the player.  But like I said it annoys the heck out of me, too.   

 

I can argue for him at 47, i made a post about it 3 days before the draft.  He wouldn't have been my top guy at 47, but I like him enough where I embrace the pick.  But trading up for him, would likely be costly -- he's not worth two players -- that is, losing a player to trade up.  

 

And as far as Forbes, I do think he would have gone in the first round.  Enough smoke about that.  I even said he's on the table for me in the later first.  But my issue with it is the draft was so deep at CB.   They could have gone Murphy, N. Smith early -- i love Campbell, 16 seems rich, but i'd dig that probably more too.   For the need based draft people, I do agree with the team that they needed both an outside corner and nickel.  Especially if the nickel is a hybrid type like Quan.

 

I am listening to Logan Paulsen who as usual does a great job dissecting players and their fits to our scheme.  And he watched a lot of film and also talks to scouts.

 

He loves that they went Forbes and Quan back to back.  He loves both players.  He doesn't say if Forbes was top on his board.  He did say Quan was his top player when 47 came up.  I gather he must have said that on the team's broadcast?  i know he was doing one on youtube during the draft but I didn't watch it at the time.

 

They play a ton of 3 safety sets -- Quan can play post-strong safety-nickle.    He also talked about how the defense tanks when he's off the field. 

 

As to Forbes he said he is up to 175 now. 

10 minutes ago, NYSkins21 said:

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

 

All over Queens and Long Island as for in laws.  Undergrad I went to Stony Brook.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[FrFan]

[NYSkins21]

4 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Love the player.  But like I said it annoys the heck out of me, too.   

 

I can argue for him at 47, i made a post about it 3 days before the draft.  He wouldn't have been my top guy at 47, but I like him enough where I embrace the pick.  But trading up for him, would likely be costly -- he's not worth two players -- that is, losing a player to trade up.  

 

And as far as Forbes, I do think he would have gone in the first round.  Enough smoke about that.  I even said he's on the table for me in the later first.  But my issue with it is the draft was so deep at CB.   They could have gone Murphy, N. Smith early -- i love Campbell, 16 seems rich, but i'd dig that probably more too.   For the need based draft people, I do agree with the team that they needed both an outside corner and nickel.  Especially if the nickel is a hybrid type like Quan.

 

I am listening to Logan Paulsen who as usual does a great job dissecting players and their fits to our scheme.  And he watched a lot of film and also talks to scouts.

 

He loves that they went Forbes and Quan back to back.  He loves both players.  He doesn't say if Forbes was top on his board.  He did say Quan was his top player when 47 came up.  I gather he must have said that on the team's broadcast?  i know he was doing one on youtube during the draft but I didn't watch it at the time.

 

They play a ton of 3 safety sets -- Quan can play post-strong safety-nickle.    He also talked about how the defense tanks when he's off the field. 

 

As to Forbes he said he is up to 175 now. 

 

All over Queens and Long Island as for in laws.  Undergrad I went to Stony Brook.

Ha Nice. I live on Long Island. Miller Place. About 5 mins from Port Jeff, 10 from Stony Brook. Small world.

[Skinsinparadise]

Listening to Logan Paulsen on and off, doing work at the same time, so just half listening but will relisten.  So more to add

 

He made a similar point that i did yesterday, Braeden Daniels he sees as a dude who can make or break the draft, has traits, if he develops or not, it could make the draft really good or not as much.

 

He likes Stromberg.  

 

He likes Henry -- jack of all trades edge but likes his fit.

 

Intrigued by Andre Jones, freak length, athletism -- played with a lot of oomph -- likes his brand of play better than S. Toney who he thought didn't play with full force on play after play like Jones.  Now I got to watch Jones. 

 

Big fan of Rodriguez -- plays so violently, good hands, good pass protect.  They will try to wear down defenses with him and Robinson.

 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, NYSkins21 said:

Ha Nice. I live on Long Island. Miller Place. About 5 mins from Port Jeff, 10 from Stony Brook. Small world.

 

wow. that's close.  Loved Port Jefferson.  Use to go to Tara's for some drinks back in the day when i went to college a long time ago. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[skinny21]

7 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Listening to Logan Paulsen on and off, doing work at the same time, so just half listening but will relisten.  So more to add

 

He made a similar point that i did yesterday, Braeden Daniels he sees as a dude who can make or break the draft, has traits, if he develops or not, it could make the draft really good or not as much.

 

He likes Stromberg.  

 

He likes Henry -- jack of all trades edge but likes his fit.

 

Intrigued by Andre Jones, freak length, athletism -- played with a lot of oomph -- likes his brand of play better than S. Toney who he thought didn't play with full force on play after play like Jones.  Now I got to watch Jones. 

 

Big fan of Rodriguez -- plays so violently, good hands, good pass protect.  They will try to wear down defenses with him and Robinson.

 

 

 

 

 

Daniels panning out would be huge.  With that said, if Forbes, Quan and Stromberg become good starters and we get one or two solid contributors (say, Rodriguez and one of the edge rushers), that’s a nice draft outcome regardless of Daniels IMO.  Of course, OT has been such a sore spot for us recently and is such an important position, so I can sorta see his logic there.

Edited May 1, 2023 by skinny21

[Chump Bailey]

I think Andre Jones will open some eyes with his play. Good motor and strength IMO. Was watching him closely the last couple of months.

[mhd24]

1 hour ago, Koolblue13 said:

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

Nah, he was going to go earlier than expected. Peter King wrote it today.  

[Conn]

lmao finally saw a video of the cowboys war room everyone is referencing compared to ours. Wow, nuke our facility from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Conn

[markmills67]

Was it just me that thought when Rivera phoned our picks to tell them they will be Washington commanders,  they looked so underwhelmed with the prospect of playing for us? Hopefully with Dan the useless ******* gone soon this will be a thing of the past.

[The Consigliere]

On 4/29/2023 at 1:47 PM, Jumbo said:

My take after many years here is a number of admittedly well-informed and fairly intelligent  amateurs still over-estimate their level of accurate foresight and overall merit of their declarations.

 

I also think they often take themselves, in this regard, too seriously even if, like myself, they have a fan level of respectability in how many takes they do have that are pretty much on the money.

 

Additionally, a good perspective to have is that even the world of pros who do this, media and NFL people, have pretty humbling hit and miss ratios when all the years are totalled. If you regularly  listen like I do to one of the better guys doing it, Scott Pioli, he often points the aforementioned out and frequently gives examples of  his own misses. He's very humble about the art and science of drafting.

 

 

Now please be smart enough not to read this as some blanket "excuse making" for our or any fo or media heads, or some sweeping put down off the talents of many amateur prognosticators. Thenk yew. 😁

 

 

 

The fact that Thaler's research into drafting revealed that nothing improved hit rate beyond simply having "more picks" is all one needs to know. There's no magic pill to any of this, and in general, there are no teams that get it much better than others, just a little better than others. Taking that knowledge in tow, the only way to play this effectively is to prioritize what tools are availabe that provide an edge of any sort and there are some (analytics provides little bits of edges here and there, signs and signifiers of slightly improved chances of hitting etc), and then trade down whenever possible to simply add more bingo balls so to speak so they have better odds of getting one more or two more relevant players than they might have otherwise.

 

Since Thaler did his research we have found things that help, that S-2 test for QB's, athleticism thresholds for RB's and TE's, breakout age for WR's, little tools that give you an idea, but beyond the little edges, the biggest mover on success in simply having more picks than other teams.

 

That's how you do it. Getting married to a player, to a position cohort, to your own tape eval of a player above all else is largely fools gold, you can use all that of course, but don't prioritize your own genius over simply adding more picks when possible, that should always be the #1 priority. 

 

We did the opposite of pretty much the only evidentiary pieces that suggest an improved chance of getting a hit (I do think the athleticism angle is interesting, but I dont think enough studies have been done positionally to suggest the relevance) with choices which is probably the single biggest reason people are upset. 

 

We know trading down helps. We didn't.

 

We know fixating on a position cohort or player, and/or trading up is usually a bad idea. We did all of the above. 

 

That's why people are frustrating.

 

I would add I think some people (and maybe I'm just old which is why I stopped doing this decades ago) get married to particular prospects they really like and still get upset when we don't add them, especially when they're available and the value we get instead is perceived as a reach. I get some of that, but anyone who really gets tied to getting their player is bound to be disappointed. I think this is the first year pretty much EVER I've ever seen someone actually get multiple guys that were tops on their list (Sip). I've not seen that happen in 35 years across multiple sports. So that was an aberration, people should definitely not expect that kind of sip like thing to happen again for anyone including sip. 

[Chump Bailey]

18 minutes ago, Conn said:

lmao finally saw a video of the cowboys war room everyone is referencing compared to our. Wow, nuke our facility from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure 

 

Always appreciate a good Michael Biehn, Aliens reference

[DWinzit]

23 minutes ago, Conn said:

lmao finally saw a video of the cowboys war room everyone is referencing compared to ours. Wow, nuke our facility from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure 

Did you catch the Pats war room?

 

The clip I saw showed Belicheck all alone at a table with files and computer

[Chump Bailey]

 

A 'Cerrato' rating too funny.

[HigSkin]

2 hours ago, KDawg said:

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

 

 

Yep, should have spelled out our 2nd pick.

[Skinsinparadise]

17 hours ago, Number 44 said:

I think that it is doubtful that Stromberg would have made it to us in the 4th, now that I've noticed that Scruggs went in the 2nd round.

 

I loved Stromberg, and just liked Scruggs.  But McGinn's scouts are typically the best predictor of what the NFL does versus the draft media.

 

The draft media wasn't high on Scruggs.  McGinn's scouts, basically a number of scouts who worked for teams, rated Scruggs as the 2nd best center in the draft.  Stromberg #6

 

Not saying the draft totally flowed based on their likings but some of it did.  

 

My point wasn't that I'd rather have waited for the 4th for Stromberg.  but whether there was a better shot Quan Martin went to the bottom of the third round versus Stromberg going to the mid 4th round.  My gut was better shot Stromberg would have made it to the mid 4th.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[Chump Bailey]

Patriots giving Malik Cunningham the highest ever salary for a UDFA - was curious to see where Malik would end up. I like him better than most.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Chump Bailey

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

 

 

That's how you do it. Getting married to a player, to a position cohort, to your own tape eval of a player above all else is largely fools gold, you can use all that of course, but don't prioritize your own genius over simply adding more picks when possible, that should always be the #1 priority. 

 

 

Agree.  Its actually one of Kiper's mantra.  Add picks and it increases your odds.  Listening to Mayhew sounds like they had opportunities to trade up and down after the first round -- sounds like he's more upset that they didn't trade up.  IMO their approach last time of trading down was better.  I get it takes tow to tango but it sounds like at some spots in the draft they could have done it.

 

2 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said:

Patriots giving Malik Cunningham the highest ever salary for a UDFA - was curious to see where Malik would end up. I like better than most.

 

This team supposedly was interested.  But the Pats is a better destination spot and othersa teams often seem to outbid Dan in recent years.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[redskinss]

1 hour ago, Conn said:

lmao finally saw a video of the cowboys war room everyone is referencing compared to ours. Wow, nuke our facility from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure 

Do you have a link?

I can't find it.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

Agree with @Voice_of_Reason draft rankings don't matter aside from Rick Snider's grade and Thor Nystrom.

 

But for those curious here's Brugler

 

[Die Hard]

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Agree with @Voice_of_Reason draft rankings don't matter aside from Rick Snider's grade and Thor Nystrom.

 

But for those curious here's Brugler

 

That profile for Henry sounds very similar to one of our past draft picks LB Ryan Anderson.

[Skinsinparadise]

8 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

That profile for Henry sounds very similar to one of our past draft picks LB Ryan Anderson.

 

In some ways, I agree.  His profile from the context of they were the unheralded D lineman in that team's mix who seemed to be lost in the sauce for that reason.

 

 Very different athletes.  One was one of the worst athletes to ever come out at the spot.  the other is above average on that front -- not killer, but at least good

 

As a dude, Ryan's profile was he played mad and set a tone.  Henry's intangibles and smarts hyped a bit more -- he already earned his masters degree. 

 

But who knows?  Will see.

 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Skinsinparadise

[shemp nixon]

10 minutes ago, Die Hard said:

That profile for Henry sounds very similar to one of our past draft picks LB Ryan Anderson.

When turned loose, Henry is explosive. Anderson...not so much.

[The Consigliere]

On 4/29/2023 at 8:03 PM, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I do actually read it.    

 

I got a sick obsession with reading about, listening about and watching football.    😢

 

My work is very cyclical.  Basically 4-5 months of hell every 2 years, 16 hour days, non-stop.  But in the odd years, like now, its not too intense.  So I got plenty of time on my hands right now.

 

Because of what i do for a living, so many people i am in contact with want to talk politics with me -- that I've learned to hate it and I am beyond burnt out on the subject.   I've never made a single post on the subject on the board, on the thread where its allowed, outside of the rare times that what I do overlaps with the team -- like the stadium quest, etc.   So in my spare time, I am all sports.  

 

I try to keep this pure fun for me -- but heck sometimes my angst can show up -- when buttons are pushed -- or I focus on how Dan has ruined my team.  

 

 

 

Sounds like how you feel about my RB age cliff posts, now, about that age cliff, when we're talking about the RB drought 2009-2014, and it's distorting effect on the number....<fades out>

[KDawg]

here’s the bottom line: we got good college players that have tools. We should all be supportive of the players regardless of our personal feelings about the strategy. 
 

Hope for the best here. 
 

All any of us can do.