2024 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[skinsarethebest]

2 hours ago, illone said:

What if Chicago shocks the world and takes Maye #1, similar to the Browns in 2018 selecting Mayfield?

 

There are a few ways this can happen.

 

1. Chicago likes him more

2. CW doesnt declare

3. CW declares and his stock drops over the next few months

4. Unknown drama

 

Not saying any of these things are likely, but absolutely possible as there have been draft surprises every year I've followed it.

would be a realistic possibility if Williams’ camp sends out signals that he might not want to be in Chicago…

[BBLXIX]

2 hours ago, illone said:

What if Chicago shocks the world and takes Maye #1, similar to the Browns in 2018 selecting Mayfield?

 

There are a few ways this can happen.

 

1. Chicago likes him more

2. CW doesnt declare

3. CW declares and his stock drops over the next few months

4. Unknown drama

 

Not saying any of these things are likely, but absolutely possible as there have been draft surprises every year I've followed it.

 

Anything is possible, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Read a twitter insider report (Who was also right about some other news regarding the Bears) saying internally their president Kevin Warren and their team is really high on Williams (Fields also supposedly got a really bad internal review from their analytics department FWIW). I see #4 as the more likely to happen. From a pure talent standpoint, I think all the teams know about what these guys can do. I don't think underwear Olympics will drop anyone's stock. I guess Williams could interview really badly, but from all indications people at USC & Oklahoma talk about him glowingly.

[LD0506]

5 hours ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

The problem with this line of thinking is "How do we get the next one"?

 

You can't make the assumption we'll be picking in the top 3 in the coming years.

 

Basically, if you have a chance to draft a franchise QB (hopefully) you jump on that opportunity.

 

I get that, but say we'd taken Herbert instead of Chase? He'd be gone already and probably wrecked. Gotta have the pieces around him or ya got nothin 

 

[Anselmheifer]

5 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Not a big fan of trading up when you’re already a bad team. When you’re bad your best asset is your draft capital. 
 

By giving up a bunch of picks you are taking away from your blue chip potential moving forward and essentially relying on later round drafting (which can be a crapshoot) and FA to build a roster around a quarterback.

 

It’s easy to ruin a quarterback, too. So giving up a ton of assets just to ruin the prospect is a mistake.

 

I guess it would come down to “what does it cost?”

 

Specifically… I wouldn’t give up a 1 next year. 
 

Really, there’s not much that’s realistic I’d give up to move up to one. Especially because while I believe Caleb is the best prospect it’s entirely possible he’s the bust of the group. And trading assets to get him helps to nudge him that way.

 

I think I like Williams more than you do, but I think that price is  ridiculous. We are probably still going to pick pretty high next year. I'd so much rather have QB2 and a top 15 OT next year and a high 2nd this year. It feels like we are pretty locked in at 2. 

 

I think the one trade up I'd be in favor of is Packaging our 2nds to go get Taliese Fuaga. Per the draft value chart, we could get up to about 16. And adding a road grading RT next to Cosmi could make such a huge difference both in the passing and in the running game. 

 

 

[clskinsfan]

I am confident enough in Maye right now that I would not trade any picks at all. And this is before he undeniably lights up his interviews. By all accounts the guy is a football junkie. And incredibly likeable. If Chicago takes Maye then you end up with the best QB in the draft regardless. 

[Mooka]

38 minutes ago, KDawg said:

Specifically… I wouldn’t give up a 1 next year. 

 

I hear you, but then I look at this:

 

2023: Forbes (16)

2022: Dotson (16)

2021: Jamin Davis (19)

2020: Chase Young (2)

2019: Dwayne Haskins (15)

2018: Daron Payne (13)

2017: Jonathon Allen (17)

2016: Josh Doctson (22)

2015: Brandon Scherff (5)

 

When you look at that.... its hard to really covet future first round picks. I realize we're assuming our new FO won't completely suck but its still hard. 

 

 

I'd say 100% trade up for Williams and give up whatever it takes. (assuming he's atop our draft board) I have a feeling that CHI won't realistically listen to any offers and will just draft WIlliams. If we stay at #2 then Maye is the pick. To me he has a bigger bust potential and looks suspect reading defenses or going through progressions. But the hell do I know. He's got the tools and traits. Draft him. I love Daniels as dual threat QB and wouldn't hate him at #2 either. HIs weaknesses can be masked with the right offense. However, if we do draft Daniels then he's got to sit until we're confident we can protect him. 

[Anselmheifer]

 

The GPS could not have been correct. He ran 23.4 mph? 

 

In any case, I'm with the other regular board guys that think Payton Willis looks great. He looks like what we were hoping Jamin Davis would develop into. 

[OtisDriftwood25]

21 minutes ago, Anselmheifer said:

 

The GPS could not have been correct. He ran 23.4 mph? 

 

In any case, I'm with the other regular board guys that think Payton Willis looks great. He looks like what we were hoping Jamin Davis would develop into. 

Really like the player. He was a difference maker every time I put on NC State.

[The Consigliere]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

But getting the QB doesn't necessarily require taking one at the top of the draft.  The RGIII trade was a horror show because you put a lot of assets into one player, and when you do that an injury to said player is magnified.

 

Imagine what we could have done for the team if we hadn't taken RGIII, took Cousins, and put the picks we put into RGIII into other players to bring up the total quality of the roster.

 

I don't mind if them taking QBs, but you've got to think about the quality of the QBs you are taking and what value you are putting into taking them.

 

Trading down makes sense if you don't love any one of them and so who you end up with doesn't matter much but you also recognize you need to draft a QB.  If you look Drake and Jayden as essentially equally likely to be good players, but you are pretty sure you can get Jayden at 5 then trading down makes sense.

It does the vast majority of the time, and hits on day 3 of the draft like Cousins are an absurdly ridiculous rarity. Hits on that scale (basically QB10-QB12's, on day 3 are once a decade, sometimes twice a decade things AT BEST. You can't plan that, EVER. That's something you accidentally find. Dallas was not planning on Dak, they accidentally got him after the Broncos snuck ahead of him for their bust, and the Raiders snagged the Michigan State QB a few picks ahead of him. Even Bill Walsh wanted Steve Dils, not Montana. Brady was the the third stringer, an afterthought, not a plan. There have been what, 124 Quarterbacks drafted since we took RGIII and Cousins out of that vaunted '12 class. How many of those 124 Quarters backs hit, and how many of them that hit were day 3 guys? I'm pretty sure it's one day 3 guy, Dak, and Purdy who looks like a hit and that's it. Certainly around the league right now:

Nickels-Day 1

Hurts-Day 2

Dak-Day 3

Howell-Day 3

Love-Day 1

Fields-Day 1

Minnesota Rent a QB-Day 3

Goff-Day 1

Carr-Day 2

Baker-Day 1

Young-Day 1

Ridder-Day 2

Stafford-Day 1

Purdy-Day 3

Kyler Day 1

Geno-Day 1 (or was it 2?)

Tua-Day 1

Josh Allen-Day 1

Mac Jones-Day 1

Zach Wilson and Aaron Rodgers-Day 1

Burrow-Day 1

Lamar-Day 1

Watson-Day 1

Pickett-Day 1

Stroud-Day 1

Richardson-Day 1

Lawrence-Day 1

Levis-Day 2

Garoppolo-Day 2

Wilson-Day 3

Herbert-Day 1

Mahomes Day 1

 

 

So lets be honest here? The Day 3 plan is essentially a hail mary. It aint a plan. Every once in a while you hit on the hail mary, like we did with Cousins, like Seattle did with Russell Wilson, like Dallas with Dak, and like it looks like SF did with Purdy. But that's 2 guys on day 3 hitting and landing jobs out of the nearly 125 QB's selected since that 2012 draft. Every other starter in the league was either a day 1 guy (the vast majority), a day 2 guy (a few of them), or like Wilson, and Cousins, a guy drafted on day 3 in a class earlier than that '13-'23 window. 

 

The problem is, you simply cannot plan to address serious problems by betting on essentially the equivalent of a miracle, fixing the biggest problem NFL teams needs to address: finding a legit answer at QB. You can bump into that by accident, and if you do, praise the heavens at your good fortune, but planning? You have to plan to use your draft capital responsibly, where the value and talent at the position is found 95% of the time, which is round 1 and every once in a while on day 2 (and its worth noting, day 2 hits are nearly always just average QB's like Carr, its exceptionally rare that even those guyss, that do hit, hit big, far more often you get a Davis Mills, or Garoppolo or Carr, a guy who can play, but isn't a long term answer if you want to win). It's quite telling that of the day 2 hits at the position, they are either vanilla mediocrities, or guys whose runs to playoff good fortune were often as a part of an ubertalented squad around them (Hurts in Philly, Garoppolo in SF. A team that's made runs with Alex Smith, Kaep, and Purdy as well, and none of those 4 QB's had success outside SF). 

[Anselmheifer]

8 minutes ago, OtisDriftwood25 said:

Really like the player. He was a difference maker every time I put on NC State.

 

If we can move Allen for a 2nd, I'd do it. There are a lot of guys to like in the 2nd/3rd. And we'd save 9.5 million on the cap this year if we trade him. I think we might be more likely to get a 3rd than a 2nd though. 

[The Consigliere]

4 hours ago, dunfer said:

2013-23 would’ve been a lot different without the rg3 trade. If it’s true dan and co wanted Robert and mike and kyle wanted kirk

I highly doubt it. Kirk went to Minnesota, another team that was loaded with talent, and had come within a whisker of the Super Bowl the year before he arrived and they proceeded to pull a "You Like That" Kirk on the Redskins fall from grace every season thereasfter other than '22's outlier 13-4 season, as in:

'18: 8-7-1

'19: 10-5

'20: 7-9

'21: 8-8

'23: 4-4

 

As in, he put up one super elite heaven season as their QB in '22 (13-4), and his other 5 seasons there they were 37-33-1, not altogether different from his peformance in Washington where he was 24-23 as a full time starter all season starting in '15. He's basically a great stat producer that does not produce great season w-l performances, and his habit of disappearing in big time moments and big time games continued in Minnesota. 1-4 in the playoffs, notorious god awful track record in prime time largely intact.

 

It isn't all or even most his fault, but at this point the guys been a starter for essentially a decade, and his career record since '15 at least (its worse if you go back further) is what 61-56-1. There's a fiction out there that we would have been fine if we just turned the page on RGIII in '13, and gone with Cousins. I'm sure we should have post injuries, but regardless, NFL Cousins was a legit hit, a talent top half of the league starter with top 10 production, but in terms of leading teams to the playoffs, or leading teams in the playoffs, he wasn't any good at either endeavor. he took over Minnesota and never came close to replicating their historic miracle run in '17, in Washington he was the best QB we had had since the eighties and yet the dude was .500 here too. Neither team was elite, but Minnesota had the pieces the contend with when he arrived, he was supposed to be the finishing piece, and they basically went .500 that season. It is what it is, we have a decade plus of data. He produces #'s as your teams QB, but not wins. I don't know why it doesnt come together, but it sure as hell doesn't. The RGIII trade meant ---- all in the long term, and in the short. We were always gonna suck, and struggle to be better than average when we didn't suck, with or without Cousins. He shouldn't have been let go, he should have been traded, but even if you don't agree w/that, the fundamental thing is that they had no ----ing sane plan to deal with the post Cousins world, and no sane plan to get the most value possible out of a Cousins trade. That was the crime. The whole RGIII-Cousins thing is largely irrelevant. The trade up was fine, it didn't ruin squat, the team just sucked and Cousins was a stat producer, not a winner, it's just the unfortunate reality, don't know why, just know its what happened both here and in Minny. 

[dunfer]

17 minutes ago, The Consigliere said:

I highly doubt it. Kirk went to Minnesota, another team that was loaded with talent, and had come within a whisker of the Super Bowl the year before he arrived and they proceeded to pull a "You Like That" Kirk on the Redskins fall from grace every season thereasfter other than '22's outlier 13-4 season, as in:

'18: 8-7-1

'19: 10-5

'20: 7-9

'21: 8-8

'23: 4-4

 

As in, he put up one super elite heaven season as their QB in '22 (13-4), and his other 5 seasons there they were 37-33-1, not altogether different from his peformance in Washington where he was 24-23 as a full time starter all season starting in '15. He's basically a great stat producer that does not produce great season w-l performances, and his habit of disappearing in big time moments and big time games continued in Minnesota. 1-4 in the playoffs, notorious god awful track record in prime time largely intact.

 

It isn't all or even most his fault, but at this point the guys been a starter for essentially a decade, and his career record since '15 at least (its worse if you go back further) is what 61-56-1. There's a fiction out there that we would have been fine if we just turned the page on RGIII in '13, and gone with Cousins. I'm sure we should have post injuries, but regardless, NFL Cousins was a legit hit, a talent top half of the league starter with top 10 production, but in terms of leading teams to the playoffs, or leading teams in the playoffs, he wasn't any good at either endeavor. he took over Minnesota and never came close to replicating their historic miracle run in '17, in Washington he was the best QB we had had since the eighties and yet the dude was .500 here too. Neither team was elite, but Minnesota had the pieces the contend with when he arrived, he was supposed to be the finishing piece, and they basically went .500 that season. It is what it is, we have a decade plus of data. He produces #'s as your teams QB, but not wins. I don't know why it doesnt come together, but it sure as hell doesn't. The RGIII trade meant ---- all in the long term, and in the short. We were always gonna suck, and struggle to be better than average when we didn't suck, with or without Cousins. He shouldn't have been let go, he should have been traded, but even if you don't agree w/that, the fundamental thing is that they had no ----ing sane plan to deal with the post Cousins world, and no sane plan to get the most value possible out of a Cousins trade. That was the crime. The whole RGIII-Cousins thing is largely irrelevant. The trade up was fine, it didn't ruin squat, the team just sucked and Cousins was a stat producer, not a winner, it's just the unfortunate reality, don't know why, just know its what happened both here and in Minny. 

There’s a good chance it changes everything if we  save our future picks and draft Kirk late. The chance that mike retires and Kyle ibecomes our head coach is there.. in another universe

it’s all hindsight of course, but it’s a lesson in going all in and trading your future on a slot machine. Don’t be the fools to trade a fortune 
 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

It does the vast majority of the time, and hits on day 3 of the draft like Cousins are an absurdly ridiculous rarity. Hits on that scale (basically QB10-QB12's, on day 3 are once a decade, sometimes twice a decade things AT BEST. You can't plan that, EVER.

 

It's quite telling that of the day 2 hits at the position, they are either vanilla mediocrities, or guys whose runs to playoff good fortune were often as a part of an ubertalented squad around them (Hurts in Philly, Garoppolo in SF. A team that's made runs with Alex Smith, Kaep, and Purdy as well, and none of those 4 QB's had success outside SF). 

 

First, you can plan on low probability events happening.  That's why people do things like get insurance.

 

Second, Cousins was just an example.  I didn't say specifically day 3.  I just said not at the top of the draft.  

 

When you start looking at people taken in the first round but not at the very top your list changes a lot.  If we hadn't drafted RGIII and traded down to 15 (from 6 which is where our pick was) and taken Cousins at 15, we still would have had a lot more resources to build a team around Cousins.

 

And yes, later round draft picks that are successful tend have stacked rosters, but that's partly because getting your QB lower in the draft allows you put assets to other things.  The two things go hand in hand.  Which was my initial point.  If you are putting a lot of assets into your QB that means that you have fewer assets to put to other things.  It is easier to build a stacked roster around a rookie QB taken later in the draft because you don't have many assets into your QB.

 

In this case, we could trade out of 2, to like 10, take a QB at 10, pick up assets, and take a QB in round 2 and still have excess value left over to put to build the roster (i.e. for going from 2 to 10, we'll pick up more than a 2nd round pick).

 

Now go  back and look at your list taking into account QBs taken that were taken 10 or later compared to the ones taken in the top 10.  Then take into account for the fact that you've got 2 QBs and not just 1 and more picks to build a better roster.

 

Now, I'm not saying they should do that.  But if you look at the general stats, I think the numbers work in the favor of that sort of move.

 

This is where you need to be able to evaluate talent and understand value.  Doing just 1 of them isn't good enough.  It has been along time since we had somebody that actually understood both.

1 hour ago, The Consigliere said:

I highly doubt it. Kirk went to Minnesota, another team that was loaded with talent, and had come within a whisker of the Super Bowl the year before he arrived and they proceeded to pull a "You Like That" Kirk on the Redskins fall from grace every season thereasfter other than '22's outlier 13-4 season, as in:

'18: 8-7-1

'19: 10-5

'20: 7-9

'21: 8-8

'23: 4-4

 

That's a bit misleading because the Vikings had to a pay a premium for Cousins.  Him here on a rookie deal with the assets put into getting RGIII wouldn't have been the same.  The Vikings put a lot of assets into a getting a QB.  They didn't do it in terms of draft picks, but in terms of salary. 

Edited January 11 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

I'll add this years draft with next years supposedly awful QB draft makes making a move down especially interesting.

 

If you take a guy at 10 and in the 2nd round and run with Howell if you decide that Howell or the guy in the 2nd round are your answer, there's a good chance you'll get good value next year for the guy you took at 10.

 

Some team is going to be desperate for a QB next year.  And if it is a bad QB draft, they might be willing to take a chance on the guy that you took at 10 this year and give you good value for him.

 

Now that I'm not sure how you can account for, but it does add a level of complexity I think you have to at least consider.

[Going Commando]

5 hours ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

BTW, is anyone on board with that valuation of draft picks? Look at the Packers at 4th and the Giants 5th on that list. The Giants have the 6th pick, the Pack the 19th. The next three picks each have are slightly higher for NY, while the following three are a little higher for GB. And then GB has 4 extra picks late. 

 

I mean, does anyone think 4 picks starting at the end of the 5th round are worth more than picking 6 vs 19 in the 1st round? Because that's what that chart seems to imply. 

 

IMO nothing is more valuable than having 1 and 9 in this class.  That's Caleb Williams aka the QB prospect of the decade + a stone cold stud like Jared Verse or Dallas Turner.  It's sinilar to what the Texans were able to do at the top of the draft last year.  The Bears are a future power team, and that division is about to get really spicy, especially since the South is moribund and the East and West are aging.

[Going Commando]

7 hours ago, skinny21 said:

You make some really good points here.  I’ve been of the mind that we (generally) go by “supply” - OT and WR are seemingly deep in the draft, and looks like a pretty good group of Edge, corner and ILB in FA.  More generally, I’d tend to avoid FA for RB and TE (in our case specifically, would love to find a stud TE and they don’t hit FA… though we could use a decent guy there as well, which you can get in FA).

 

I was partially in alignment with you in that I’d look to add one good OL in FA (and 2-3 in the draft), but your points about needing time to develop is pretty salient when we’re looking at fielding a rookie qb in a new offense….

 

I think the FA OLs will be cheap relative to the DLs too, and I think the second round OLs in the draft probably won't be that good outside of the IOLs.  I would still draft those IOLs in the second, but I'd sign the FAs first and plan on them being my starters. We need more pipeline talent now that Daniels and Stromberg are really the only guys left in there with any intrigue.

 

I think we're solid at WR, and can hold out for upgrades.  No need to add bodies out there unless they are BPA or a true FA bargain.

 

The reason I like defense in the second is because I think it has a better chance of being BPA.  I like the IOLs and RBs being projected in the second, but that's about it.  I like the LBers, DBs, and DLs in the second round mix more.

 

TE is wretched in the draft this year.  It's Brock Bowers in the top five and then virtually nothing.

Edited January 11 by Going Commando

[RabidFan]

1 hour ago, dunfer said:

There’s a good chance it changes everything if we  save our future picks and draft Kirk late. The chance that mike retires and Kyle ibecomes our head coach is there.. in another universe

it’s all hindsight of course, but it’s a lesson in going all in and trading your future on a slot machine. Don’t be the fools to trade a fortune 
 

Yeah I was super jazzed when Kyle was calling plays for us and the coaches we had under him.  Was hoping Mike would have just become team pres and Kyle ascend to HC but of course Dan and Bruce could never cede that control and blew it all up.  

[DWinzit]

6 hours ago, Going Commando said:

 

I think the FA OLs will be cheap relative to the DLs too, and I think the second round OLs in the draft probably won't be that good outside of the IOLs.  I would still draft those IOLs in the second, but I'd sign the FAs first and plan on them being my starters. We need more pipeline talent now that Daniels and Stromberg are really the only guys left in there with any intrigue.

 

I think we're solid at WR, and can hold out for upgrades.  No need to add bodies out there unless they are BPA or a true FA bargain.

 

The reason I like defense in the second is because I think it has a better chance of being BPA.  I like the IOLs and RBs being projected in the second, but that's about it.  I like the LBers, DBs, and DLs in the second round mix more.

 

TE is wretched in the draft this year.  It's Brock Bowers in the top five and then virtually nothing.

Your methodology has a lot of validity. 

 

OL-Fully agree with you on the IOL if you could pull in 2 good ones in FA. However at OT, if we don't hit on Onwenu there is no other name. To me Wylie's replacement is a priority and having someone in line for behind Leno would be important if not replacing him. I would really like to see us take advantage of the strong OT class.

 

WR and TE - We are in need of at least one more weapon. The draft while weak in TE is strong with large athletic WR's. Would love to be able to take advantage of the draft strength grabbing one of them. Yes, there are also a number of really good WR's in FA but they need at least one. Then there's our TE pool...It's going to be a rough TE year but hope they look to FA and maybe Rogers can prove he is decent coning off IR but I don't a have faith in him

 

LB - I feel like we minimally need a vet leader type as well as a good draft choice. This position has been ignored for too long

 

DB - We need leaders in the backfield and look to hit here via FA and draft

 

Edge - We have young decent players but a top FA would solidify the position pre-draft and the edge isn't a great draft class

 

 

[Est.1974]

11 hours ago, KDawg said:

Not a big fan of trading up when you’re already a bad team. When you’re bad your best asset is your draft capital. 
 

By giving up a bunch of picks you are taking away from your blue chip potential moving forward and essentially relying on later round drafting (which can be a crapshoot) and FA to build a roster around a quarterback.

 

It’s easy to ruin a quarterback, too. So giving up a ton of assets just to ruin the prospect is a mistake.

 

I guess it would come down to “what does it cost?”

 

Specifically… I wouldn’t give up a 1 next year. 
 

Really, there’s not much that’s realistic I’d give up to move up to one. Especially because while I believe Caleb is the best prospect it’s entirely possible he’s the bust of the group. And trading assets to get him helps to nudge him that way.

Yeah losing next years #1 isn’t an outcome I like, which really is a problem because I want us to get Williams…😂

 

I’m shopping Payne or Allen instead if that’s what it takes.

[PlayAction]

9 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

I hear you, but then I look at this:

 

2023: Forbes (16)

2022: Dotson (16)

2021: Jamin Davis (19)

2020: Chase Young (2)

2019: Dwayne Haskins (15)

2018: Daron Payne (13)

2017: Jonathon Allen (17)

2016: Josh Doctson (22)

2015: Brandon Scherff (5)

 

When you look at that.... its hard to really covet future first round picks.

I'd say 100% trade up for Williams and give up whatever it takes. (assuming he's atop our draft board)

 

If the new front office sucks as badly as the prior one then nothing else is going to matter.  Harris is looking to establish a front office that will be successful in identifying talent.  The picks you give up will now be valuable players. 

[Going Commando]

42 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Your methodology has a lot of validity. 

 

OL-Fully agree with you on the IOL if you could pull in 2 good ones in FA. However at OT, if we don't hit on Onwenu there is no other name. To me Wylie's replacement is a priority and having someone in line for behind Leno would be important if not replacing him. I would really like to see us take advantage of the strong OT class.

 

WR and TE - We are in need of at least one more weapon. The draft while weak in TE is strong with large athletic WR's. Would love to be able to take advantage of the draft strength grabbing one of them. Yes, there are also a number of really good WR's in FA but they need at least one. Then there's our TE pool...It's going to be a rough TE year but hope they look to FA and maybe Rogers can prove he is decent coning off IR but I don't a have faith in him

 

LB - I feel like we minimally need a vet leader type as well as a good draft choice. This position has been ignored for too long

 

DB - We need leaders in the backfield and look to hit here via FA and draft

 

Edge - We have young decent players but a top FA would solidify the position pre-draft and the edge isn't a great draft class

 

 

 

As far as the draft goes, especially those second round picks, I think defense is probably the best bet to be BPA in the late 30s to early 40s.  I think the OT and WR quality tapers off in the teens and early 20s most likely, when Latham, Fuaga, Morgan, Odunze, Leggette, and Mims all come off the board.  The IOLs are getting mocked and boarded way later than we are putting them in here.  Like third round versus the first and early second round consideration we have been giving them all season.  Same for the RBs.

 

Meanwhile there are three super strong ILBs being ranked in the 30s-40s, plus Quinyon Mitchell, plus a whole bunch of DLs. Latu, Turner, Newton, and Verse are gonna go early, but after them, Trice, Braswell, Robinson, Tuimaloau, Jenkins, Murphy, and Elliss are all within reach in the early second.  My gut says that Cooper and Wilson and Trotter won't fall like LBers usually do, because they're going to test well and their tape is too good.  So I'm liking the value of a class where we get somebody like Quinyon Mitchell or Peyton Wilson at one second rounder and Bralen Trice or Kris Jenkins at the other over something like Egbuka/Coleman and Guyton/Fautanu at those picks.

 

[seantaylor=god]

Aside from Bowers, who are  some  of the best TEs? We need help at TE desperately next year; I think it’s a lock we draft one.

[Warhead36]

25 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

Aside from Bowers, who are  some  of the best TEs? We need help at TE desperately next year; I think it’s a lock we draft one.

TE sucks this year after Bowers. Id just look for bargains in FA.

[DWinzit]

19 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

As far as the draft goes, especially those second round picks, I think defense is probably the best bet to be BPA in the late 30s to early 40s.  I think the OT and WR quality tapers off in the teens and early 20s most likely, when Latham, Fuaga, Morgan, Odunze, Leggette, and Mims all come off the board.  The IOLs are getting mocked and boarded way later than we are putting them in here.  Like third round versus the first and early second round consideration we have been giving them all season.  Same for the RBs.

 

Meanwhile there are three super strong ILBs being ranked in the 30s-40s, plus Quinyon Mitchell, plus a whole bunch of DLs. Latu, Turner, Newton, and Verse are gonna go early, but after them, Trice, Braswell, Robinson, Tuimaloau, Jenkins, Murphy, and Elliss are all within reach in the early second.  My gut says that Cooper and Wilson and Trotter won't fall like LBers usually do, because they're going to test well and their tape is too good.  So I'm liking the value of a class where we get somebody like Quinyon Mitchell or Peyton Wilson at one second rounder and Bralen Trice or Kris Jenkins at the other over something like Egbuka/Coleman and Guyton/Fautanu at those picks.

 

The OT to me needs to be addressed. While I am not often in favor of trading up, I favored your earlier suggestions on moving back into the first round with a bundle yet hanging onto the top 2nd round pick and taking Fuaga them Leggette.  Those three players would transform the offense with a couple hits in FA at IOL. Leggette could fall due to the talent at WR in the draft but won''t make it past the top of the 2nd. 

 

I then would aim at LB, DB, TE and RB...Deva vu as I think I have written that group in prior years.

 

While I know you want to hit talent, it seems like this would be hitting BPA and following the strength of the draft

 

I favor the current FA market list for LB's and Edge along with at least one DB and IOL.

 

 

[KDawg]

4 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

TE sucks this year after Bowers. Id just look for bargains in FA.

 

I don't think so. 

 

I like Stover and Sinnott. Sanders is a good receiving option.

 

Like most draft tidbits I think there is some major buy in to media narrative.

 

I'm not saying this TE class or RB class in particular are going to set the world on fire. But "sucks" is a strong response.