2024 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[FrFan]

3 hours ago, PlayAction said:

 

Ten OL and eight WR picked before #36.  What do you think of Barton and Isaac?  Which, if any, of the other players selected in the second round would you have preferred?  

I like Barton, he is quite an explosive player, but I can't tell where he'll shine the most between guard and center. Isaac lit up the combine, if he's got football IQ to match his superior athletic abilities he's going to be a steal.

I like Pearsall for his route running and cuts abilities in the second round. Many players are moving up in the mock drafts, I think we should wait after free agency to try to make more accurate predictions.

Edited March 6 by FrFan

[mudhog]

6 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

 

As some recall I liked Jamin Davis before that draft.  But again as a 2nd round type not a first rounder.  And I said then, i liked watching him rush the passer even though Kentucky didn't have him do it much.  And I recall an interview at the time that said they considered having Davis play edge at the start of his college career

 

 

 

This seems about the best place to ask this question though I might not be in the proper thread, so apologies if I'm wrong. At some point last year we acquired Jabril Cox, who many on here liked in the 2021 draft along with Jamin Davis, JOK, Zaven Collins and Nick Bolton. I know he was drafted by Dallas and was injured at some point, but he was a 4th rounder. Is he a viable option this year as a Sam or Will LB? Or do we truly just have Hudson and Davis? Thanks

[Skinsinparadise]

Just now, mudhog said:

This seems about the best place to ask this question though I might not be in the proper thread, so apologies if I'm wrong. At some point last year we acquired Jabril Cox, who many on here liked in the 2021 draft along with Jamin Davis, JOK, Zaven Collins and Nick Bolton. I know he was drafted by Dallas and was injured at some point, but he was a 4th rounder. Is he a viable option this year as a Sam or Will LB? Or do we truly just have Hudson and Davis? Thanks

 

I don't get the vibe Cox is.  He had a bad injury in Dallas and get the feeling he's not been the same since.

[mac8887]

I really think Malik Washington is going to be a steal in the later rounds. He had amazing production last year. I wonder if a team that drafts him would be willing to let him return punts and kicks? He is good in space and has a ability to make space.

 

His teammate Maliki fields reminds me of Garçon but I don’t think he declared.

 

uva really had a good big possession guy/ home run hitter tandem this year.

 

Edited March 6 by mac8887

[klwilkins1977]

I love the Ertz signing for a lot reasons. Chief among those reasons is its cheap, he'll be a credible voice in the TE Room, and a great veteran presence in the locker room. You can't have enough guys like that in your organization.

[Skinsinparadise]

 

 

 

 

[fearlessNelms]

I get it that we need a QB and with pick #2 in a draft where the QB's supposedly all have high ceilings, you pretty much have to take one. But the bust rate on each of the top 3 QB's is probably 50% or better- at least that's what history says. On the other hand, Marvin Harrison Jr. is a can't miss prospect whose chances of having a Hall of Fame type of career are 50% or better. So the question is, do you take a QB with a 50% chance or better at busting and pass on a receiver with a 50% chance or better of being in the Hall of Fame someday? 

 

As many times as this way of thinking has failed me in my life, I still believe in the percentages. I guess this makes me insane.  

 

 

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

6 minutes ago, fearlessNelms said:

I get it that we need a QB and with pick #2 in a draft where the QB's supposedly all have high ceilings, you pretty much have to take one. But the bust rate on each of the top 3 QB's is probably 50% or better- at least that's what history says. On the other hand, Marvin Harrison Jr. is a can't miss prospect whose chances of having a Hall of Fame type of career are 50% or better. So the question is, do you take a QB with a 50% chance or better at busting and pass on a receiver with a 50% chance or better of being in the Hall of Fame someday? 

 

As many times as this way of thinking has failed me in my life, I still believe in the percentages. I guess this makes me insane.  

 

 

 

 

 

It's simple.  And this is coming from a dude who loves Marvin Harrison Jr.

 

If Marvin Harrison Jr is at great as we expected him to be and we go on any variation of the ride we've been on at Qb for the last 30 years -- we will still likely be a bottom 5 team in the NFL with zero relevance.

 

if they hit on a QB, it will change everything.   We will finally see what its like to be as to teams that sucked until they found a Qb like Buffalo, Cincy, etc who are now in the playoffs every year and have a shot at the SB every year -- versus a team that has no shot at all.

 

The payoff of Harrison is hitting without a Qb is like 1 out of 10 IMO.

 

The payoff of a QB hitting is 10 out of 10.

 

It's a low stakes conservative swing versus a high stakes swing for the fences.

Edited March 7 by Skinsinparadise

[fearlessNelms]

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

It's simple.  And this is coming from a dude who loves Marvin Harrison Jr.

 

If Marvin Harrison Jr is at great as we expected him to be and we go on any variation of the ride we've been on at Qb for the last 30 years -- we will still likely be a bottom 5 team in the NFL with zero relevance.

 

if they hit on a QB, it will change everything.   We will finally see what its like to be teams that sucked until they found a Qb like Buffalo, Cincy, etc who are now in the playoffs every year and have a shot at the SB every year -- versus a team that has no shot at all.

 

The payoff of Harrison is hitting without a Qb is like 1 out of 10 IMO.

 

The payoff of a QB hitting is 10 out of 10.

 

It's a Llow stakes conservative swing versus a high stakes swing for the fences.

Your logic makes a ton of sense. But I still wouldn't hate it if we took Harrison because that would mean that a FO office that I finally believe in would have an alternate plan at QB- whatever that would be.

[Skinsinparadise]

5 minutes ago, fearlessNelms said:

Your logic makes a ton of sense. But I still wouldn't hate it if we took Harrison because that would mean that a FO office that I finally believe in would have an alternate plan at QB- whatever that would be.

 

I don't think previous regimes didn't have plans at QB.  They simply didn't work.

 

And as much as i criticized Bruce and Cerrato I have to give on the point that its VERY hard to pull off a QB in that 2nd tier or 3rd tier of QBs or FAs -- most fail at it.

 

As much as i like Peters i wouldn't expect him to succeed taking on great odds to see if that next Jason Campbell, Haskins, Patrick Ramsey ends up being the dude or shopping in FA for QBs that have been mostly discarded and hoping for a better outcome here

Edited March 7 by Skinsinparadise

[Conn]

22 minutes ago, fearlessNelms said:

I get it that we need a QB and with pick #2 in a draft where the QB's supposedly all have high ceilings, you pretty much have to take one. But the bust rate on each of the top 3 QB's is probably 50% or better- at least that's what history says. On the other hand, Marvin Harrison Jr. is a can't miss prospect whose chances of having a Hall of Fame type of career are 50% or better. So the question is, do you take a QB with a 50% chance or better at busting and pass on a receiver with a 50% chance or better of being in the Hall of Fame someday? 

 

As many times as this way of thinking has failed me in my life, I still believe in the percentages. I guess this makes me insane.  

 

 

 

 

imo you need to rethink how you conceptualize percentages like this. You’re using arbitrary, made up percentages to convince yourself that your opinion is unbiased and rational when it is in fact just as emotional as the opposite opinion would be. It feels better when our opinions are based on stone cold logic, so it makes sense that we do this to ourselves. But it creates a false sense of confidence. 

 

A 40-50% chance at a franchise QB would be incredible. The odds are actually probably worse than that, and you still have to take the swing. 
 

But this is the big one. Marvin Harrison Jr. does not have a 50% chance of being a HOF player. That is absolutely silly and skews the whole thought exercise for yourself. 

Edited March 7 by Conn

[fearlessNelms]

2 minutes ago, Conn said:

imo you need to rethink how you conceptualize percentages like this. You’re using arbitrary, made up percentages to convince yourself that your opinion is unbiased and rational when it is in fact just and emotional as the opposite opinion would be. It feels better when our opinions are based on stone cold logic, so it makes sense that we do this to ourselves. But it creates a false sense of confidence. 

 

A 40-50% chance at a franchise QB would be incredible. The odds are actually probably worse than that, and you still have to take the swing. 
 

But this is the big one. Marvin Harrison Jr. does not have a 50% chance of being a HOF player. That is absolutely silly and skews the whole thought exercise for yourself. 

Well, of course I forgot to mention that it was my percentages that say Harrison has a 50% or better chance at the Hall of Fame. A lot of my predictions are silly, but I'm not afraid to make them. We can revisit it in 15 years. 

[Conn]

17 minutes ago, fearlessNelms said:

Well, of course I forgot to mention that it was my percentages that say Harrison has a 50% or better chance at the Hall of Fame. A lot of my predictions are silly, but I'm not afraid to make them. We can revisit it in 15 years. 

Yes, I know it’s your percentages, that’s the point of my post. There is no such thing as having a 50% chance at a HOF career. Many of the best prospects of all time are lucky to get 7-10 years in the league, and you need a lot more longevity than that to be a HOF player. And that isn’t even taking into account health, that’s purely talking about skillset and production allowing a long, elite career in a vacuum. But nothing happens in a vacuum. 

I’m not even saying you shouldn’t make your predictions btw, that’s fine. I hope you’re right, it’ll be fun to watch. Nothing against going with your gut.
 

I’m simply saying that if this is how you conceptualize the chances that a QB prospect hits vs the chances a WR prospect is a HOF level player—you have to be honest with yourself that it’s not logical. It’s pure gut. Just say you don’t love any of the QB’s and you prefer the elite WR prospect. People will still disagree, but it’s not cloaked in made up percentages as if you’re being more logical or rational about your opinion than anyone else. This is a direct quote from you:

 

[“So the question is, do you take a QB with a 50% chance or better at busting and pass on a receiver with a 50% chance or better of being in the Hall of Fame someday? 

 

As many times as this way of thinking has failed me in my life, I still believe in the percentages. I guess this makes me insane.”]
 

That’s not “the question”, because the entire premise is that you’re citing your made up percentages here like they mean anything, and then saying you “believe in the percentages” like there’s some valuable advanced analytics at work here. And then say “I guess this makes me insane” as if you’re the rational martyr that no one else will listen to. That’s a poor lens to view this through, imo. That’s my only point. The unrealistic percentages you’re making up for yourself give false confidence in your expected outcome, and the entire framework of your argument is basically that it’s an appeal to rationality. Instead of just being a shot in the dark guess.

 

 

Edited March 7 by Conn

[NOLA2DC]

3 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Posted this in the QB thread but meant to post it here, it would suck if McConkey goes in the first.  I've become hung up on getting McConkey or Pearsall, especially if they take Maye.  Maybe Roman Wilson but I don't like him as much as the other 2 but I think all three are high floor.

 

If its Daniels, I am more in that Legette, Polk -- maybe even Coleman, Franklin mode.

 

Both Barton and Morgan are gone.

 

 

 

I think a position like LT should be addressed in FA and the draft, regardless of who the pick at QB is. A rook QB, and it just doesn't sound like a good idea, especially when he's not to tier guy. 

[seantaylor=god]

More than anything, offense (which is heavily dependent on good QB play) is so disproportionately tied into winning in today’s NFL. It’s seen in the playoff teams each year and the superbowl champion is a team with an elite QB. It’s been YEARS since a defensive team won a SB with average QB play. Probably 20 years. We’ve had average QBs get hot like Foles and a aged Manning who won while not playing superb ball physically (still a HOF processor though). These are the outliers.

 
In light of this, is it fair to say offense is more than 50% related to team success? 60% offense, 10% ST, 30% defense? It’s a different game than than the 90’s for sure.

 

How much is offensive success tied to QB play? It has to be over 50% because great QBs can make the rest of the offense good even when the weapons and oline are average. The reverse is not true, if it’s poor QB play the offense fails. It doesn’t matter the weapons or the oline.

 

If you accept my premise (and if you don’t, I’d love to hear alternatives) If QB is 50% offensive success, oline protection/scheme is 30%, and weapons are 20%, how can we not take that into account in the draft?

 

If a QB accounts for 30% of team success, more than any other position or player, by far, how can you possibly justify foregoing QB (or finding lesser, cheaper QBs) to “build the rest of the roster”? 

 

 

Edited March 7 by seantaylor=god

[Riggo#44]

Drake Maye it is

 

[DWinzit]

^^^Then Maye it is!!!

 

I figured he'd say Sam Darnold

Edited March 7 by DWinzit

[CTskin]

We all know the qb is the most important position on the field and the one most correlated to winning. It’s not an argument.

 

the issue is that when talking about this specific draft class, we’re absolutely forcing it if we take a qb at #2. This is FAR from 2020 with burrow, tua, Herbert. You take a qb at 2 when the value adds up, which it doesn’t for maye or daniels. 
 

the high iq move is to trade the pick if the offer presents itself. The next best move is to take MHJ.

 

im still holding out hope that peters is capable of playing 4D chess and all the qb rumors are just to get a team hot and bothered enough to overpay for our pick.

[Conn]

1 minute ago, CTskin said:

We all know the qb is the most important position on the field and the one most correlated to winning. It’s not an argument.

 

the issue is that when talking about this specific draft class, we’re absolutely forcing it if we take a qb at #2. This is FAR from 2020 with burrow, tua, Herbert. You take a qb at 2 when the value adds up, which it doesn’t for maye or daniels. 
 

the high iq move is to trade the pick if the offer presents itself. The next best move is to take MHJ.

 

im still holding out hope that peters is capable of playing 4D chess and all the qb rumors are just to get a team hot and bothered enough to overpay for our pick.

This is extreme 2020 revisionist history, which invalidates the rest 

[88Comrade2000]

If Ron was coach he’d trade down and draft defense. Would not fix the  oline and not fix linebacker.

[seantaylor=god]

7 minutes ago, CTskin said:the issue is that when talking about this specific draft class, we’re absolutely forcing it if we take a qb at #2. This is FAR from 2020 with burrow, tua, Herbert. You take a qb at 2 when the value adds up, which it doesn’t for maye or daniels. 
 

the high iq move is to trade the pick if the offer presents itself. The next best move is to take MHJ.

 

im still holding out hope that peters is capable of playing 4D chess and all the qb rumors are just to get a team hot and bothered enough to overpay for our pick.

If a player is a potential starting QB, which Maye and Daniels both are, it’s not a reach. There is no magical player worthy of #2 that is a better prospect AND his play will elevate others and effect the team as much as a QB.

 

This isn’t some trash QB class and we are taking a QB just to take one.

[NOLA2DC]

50 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

More than anything, offense (which is heavily dependent on good QB play) is so disproportionately tied into winning in today’s NFL. It’s seen in the playoff teams each year and the superbowl champion is a team with an elite QB. It’s been YEARS since a defensive team won a SB with average QB play. Probably 20 years. We’ve had average QBs get hot like Foles and a aged Manning who won while not playing superb ball physically (still a HOF processor though). These are the outliers.

 
In light of this, is it fair to say offense is more than 50% related to team success? 60% offense, 10% ST, 30% defense? It’s a different game than than the 90’s for sure.

 

How much is offensive success tied to QB play? It has to be over 50% because great QBs can make the rest of the offense good even when the weapons and oline are average. The reverse is not true, if it’s poor QB play the offense fails. It doesn’t matter the weapons or the oline.

 

If you accept my premise (and if you don’t, I’d love to hear alternatives) If QB is 50% offensive success, oline protection/scheme is 30%, and weapons are 20%, how can we not take that into account in the draft?

 

If a QB accounts for 30% of team success, more than any other position or player, by far, how can you possibly justify foregoing QB (or finding lesser, cheaper QBs) to “build the rest of the roster”? 

 

 

This true but you kinda need both a stout defense and an elite QB. As great as Mahomes has been these past two years, it really has been Spags holding down the fort in critical games. The same may be said about Brady in Tampa. The margin for the era is so slim in the playoffs; one turnover can kill you, and all of the defenses are top-notch.  

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If Marvin Harrison Jr is at great as we expected him to be and we go on any variation of the ride we've been on at Qb for the last 30 years -- we will still likely be a bottom 5 team in the NFL with zero relevance.

 

100% agree.  Calvin Johnson.  Andre Johnson.  Larry Fitzgerald.  The receivers of their generation, and all of them on **** teams that never won anything until Kurt Warner showed up in Arizona at the end of his career.

 

A transcendent WR has absolutely zero ability to carry a team to wins on his own.

[CobraCommander]

1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

Drake Maye it is

 

He would pick the skinniest one.

[mudhog]

2 hours ago, DWinzit said:

^^^Then Maye it is!!!

 

I figured he'd say Sam Darnold

Yup. It's a wrap! Thanks Ron for bringing the Maye vs Daniels debate to an end a month and a half early. Now I can sleep easy knowing that we will pick Maye since you said Daniels. Easy button!