2024 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[seantaylor=god]

Listened to a podcast and they thought since there aren’t many elite defensive players, and that the WR class is both great in quality and depth, all of the OTs we have been discussing go in the first.

 

Just thought it was interesting that others agree with the scenario some have speculated will occur and it would make sense to explore a trade up for an OT.

[Going Commando]

24 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

Listened to a podcast and they thought since there aren’t many elite defensive players, and that the WR class is both great in quality and depth, all of the OTs we have been discussing go in the first.

 

Just thought it was interesting that others agree with the scenario some have speculated will occur and it would make sense to explore a trade up for an OT.

 

There are probably ~12 first round worthy defensive players.  Verse, Latu, Turner, Robinson, Murphy, Newton, Wiggins, Arnold, McKinstry, Mitchell, DeJean and potentially Wilson.  On top of that, there are ten first round worthy offensive skill players, with a few more in the neighborhood: Williams, Maye, Bowers, Harrison, Nabers, Odunze, Daniels, Penix, McCarthy, Thomas.  That's about 21 of the first round slots that won't be OLs without projecting reaches.

 

If teams want to reach for OLs like Blake Fisher or Kingsley Suamataia or Patrick Paul in the first round, be my guest.  We should stay put and draft BPA.

 

Only trade up for players when the value becomes +10 or more.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Local radio seemed to be actively discussing the idea of trading up first half of R1 for an LT. Some of these show producers must spend time on here and take some ideas for show fodder, because Grant and Danny literally had a segment on trading 36 and 40 for 12 or 14 with the Broncos or Saints, which is something I brought up earlier this week in here ...

 

Anyway, I thought it would take 36 + 40 + a future 2nd (Value chart wise).Thy seemed to think 36+40 could be close enough to get it done, with maybe a 5th thrown in.

Question was, do you move up to 12 with 36 and 40 and draft Fashanu if he's there. Surprisingly, a lot of the comments were against it (on the FB post). Seemed to think we could get an OT at #36. I am starting to fear the run happens and leave us with Paul as the best OT, and he's a reach for me at that point. 

 

Some of the mocks coming out have been having 8 OTs in R1, then only 2 or so in R2, so really we will be missing the boat. Of course we can see how the draft plays out. If we have a tiered list of guys, and there starts to be a run, we can get up to take someone before it's too late, I have no doubt. But I do like the idea of going up to 12 or 14 and just getting the last of Fuaga or Fashanu if they last that long (not sure they will).

 

To be it's a no brainer. If Fashanu or Fuaga fall to 12 or even 14, you try to move up and get them. If not, then I am waiting until the 20's and going up for Mims or Guyton or Morgan at the end of R1 (he's being mocked to Dallas a lot it seems). Obv. we'd give up less to do that.

 

I also have a sneaking suspicion that JC Latham is going to fall hard. He had a terrible off-season program and I could see a lot of teams removing him from their board. 

 

Of course the flip side is we just let the draft come to us. Using the 2's to move back a bit and add draft capital and then drafting OL where it fits more of the BPA approach could make some sense. I wonder if we have Donovan Smith identified as a post-draft signing to man the LT spot for a year, while whoever we end up drafting at OT competes for RT in that scenario.

Edited April 4 by JamesMadisonSkins

[seantaylor=god]

9 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Of course the flip side is we just let the draft come to us. Using the 2's to move back a bit and add draft capital and then drafting OL where it fits more of the BPA approach could make some sense. I wonder if we have Donovan Smith identified as a post-draft signing to man the LT spot for a year, while whoever we end up drafting at OT competes for RT in that scenario.

 

I think we might go after DJ Humphries (wouldn’t help this year but for next year) or trade for Bolles.

 

I also think if we let the draft come to us, we may be able to grab one of the top OGs (if we missed the run on tackles). That would at least shore up the interior oline and we would have good depth there also. Plan on OTs being average and just deal with it. Keep going BPA- can’t fix it all.

 

[Going Commando]

14 minutes ago, seantaylor=god said:

 

I think we might go after DJ Humphries (wouldn’t help this year but for next year) or trade for Bolles.

 

I also think if we let the draft come to us, we may be able to grab one of the top OGs (if we missed the run on tackles). That would at least shore up the interior oline and we would have good depth there also. Plan on OTs being average and just deal with it. Keep going BPA- can’t fix it all.

 

 

Agreed.  If you trade up, you are at minimum losing a pick in the exchange.  That is a lot of draft value to sacrifice.  To me, you have to recoup some of that lost value on the trade up itself in order to come anywhere near the value you lost from not just staying put and drafting BPA.  That's why I don't want to trade up for anyone who isn't sitting around +10 in value. 

 

The only player who I think might approach that +10 value at ~14 or 15 (what our 36 and 40 would get us) is Brock Bowers.  Fashanu and Fuaga don't constitute that kind of value, they'd be more like +2 or +3.

In contrast, say teams go reaching for OLs in the first and some of the defenders start dropping.  What if Kool-Aid and Darius Robinson are there at 36 and 40?  That's like +15 value on each pick, and we'd already be at +30 value 40 picks into the draft.  That is a home run outcome, and we'd be much better off in that scenario than we would be after trading our seconds to get Fuaga or Fashanu.

[JamesMadisonSkins]

25 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

Agreed.  If you trade up, you are at minimum losing a pick in the exchange.  That is a lot of draft value to sacrifice.  To me, you have to recoup some of that lost value on the trade up itself in order to come anywhere near the value you lost from not just staying put and drafting BPA.  That's why I don't want to trade up for anyone who isn't sitting around +10 in value. 

 

The only player who I think might approach that +10 value at ~14 or 15 (what our 36 and 40 would get us) is Brock Bowers.  Fashanu and Fuaga don't constitute that kind of value, they'd be more like +2 or +3.

In contrast, say teams go reaching for OLs in the first and some of the defenders start dropping.  What if Kool-Aid and Darius Robinson are there at 36 and 40?  That's like +15 value on each pick, and we'd already be at +30 value 40 picks into the draft.  That is a home run outcome, and we'd be much better off in that scenario than we would be after trading our seconds to get Fuaga or Fashanu.

 

I understand the concept from a pure value standpoint. We'd just have to be okay with Lucas starting at LT if the plan is to wait for best value and sign Humphries. 

[Going Commando]

9 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

I understand the concept from a pure value standpoint. We'd just have to be okay with Lucas starting at LT if the plan is to wait for best value and sign Humphries. 

We have to be no matter what.  You can't count on rookies starting every game for you even when they are high picks.  Draft picks aren't good options for filling immediate roster holes.

[Warhead36]

I don't see us packaging both 36 and 40 to move up. I think what's more likely is 36 + 100 + possibly one of our 5ths to move up to like 27-29 ish. Based on the draft value chart, 36 + 100 is = 29 exactly, and Detroit at 29 probably wouldn't mind trading down since they have no real immediate needs. Also 29 is a sweet spot for T since we can vulture someone the Ravens and 49ers both have their eyes on(both teams need T help bad).

 

It really is gonna come down to how the board plays out. If there is a run on Ts in the teens and early 20s then that could make us consider trading up. But then again of course that also comes down to how we grade the Ts. If only one or two with first round grades is left, we might make a move to secure a guy. But if we don't have that many 1st round grades on Ts, perhaps we wait and just take whoever is left at 36(if any even worth left are taking).

[MartinC]

51 minutes ago, Going Commando said:

 

Agreed.  If you trade up, you are at minimum losing a pick in the exchange.  That is a lot of draft value to sacrifice.  To me, you have to recoup some of that lost value on the trade up itself in order to come anywhere near the value you lost from not just staying put and drafting BPA.  That's why I don't want to trade up for anyone who isn't sitting around +10 in value. 

 

The only player who I think might approach that +10 value at ~14 or 15 (what our 36 and 40 would get us) is Brock Bowers.  Fashanu and Fuaga don't constitute that kind of value, they'd be more like +2 or +3.

In contrast, say teams go reaching for OLs in the first and some of the defenders start dropping.  What if Kool-Aid and Darius Robinson are there at 36 and 40?  That's like +15 value on each pick, and we'd already be at +30 value 40 picks into the draft.  That is a home run outcome, and we'd be much better off in that scenario than we would be after trading our seconds to get Fuaga or Fashanu.

 

We have a LOT of holes on this roster and you can’t fix everything in one offseason. Just be patient and let the draft come to us.

 

We do need to have a plan for LT though on the assumption that answer might not come from the draft. Even if we pick an OT at say 36 no guarantee he is ready to be the starter immediately.

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Local radio seemed to be actively discussing the idea of trading up first half of R1 for an LT. Some of these show producers must spend time on here and take some ideas for show fodder, because Grant and Danny literally had a segment on trading 36 and 40 for 12 or 14 with the Broncos or Saints, which is something I brought up earlier this week in here ...

 

Anyway, I thought it would take 36 + 40 + a future 2nd (Value chart wise).Thy seemed to think 36+40 could be close enough to get it done, with maybe a 5th thrown in.

Question was, do you move up to 12 with 36 and 40 and draft Fashanu if he's there. Surprisingly, a lot of the comments were against it (on the FB post). Seemed to think we could get an OT at #36. I am starting to fear the run happens and leave us with Paul as the best OT, and he's a reach for me at that point. 

 

Some of the mocks coming out have been having 8 OTs in R1, then only 2 or so in R2, so really we will be missing the boat. Of course we can see how the draft plays out. If we have a tiered list of guys, and there starts to be a run, we can get up to take someone before it's too late, I have no doubt. But I do like the idea of going up to 12 or 14 and just getting the last of Fuaga or Fashanu if they last that long (not sure they will).

 

To be it's a no brainer. If Fashanu or Fuaga fall to 12 or even 14, you try to move up and get them. If not, then I am waiting until the 20's and going up for Mims or Guyton or Morgan at the end of R1 (he's being mocked to Dallas a lot it seems). Obv. we'd give up less to do that.

 

I also have a sneaking suspicion that JC Latham is going to fall hard. He had a terrible off-season program and I could see a lot of teams removing him from their board. 

 

Of course the flip side is we just let the draft come to us. Using the 2's to move back a bit and add draft capital and then drafting OL where it fits more of the BPA approach could make some sense. I wonder if we have Donovan Smith identified as a post-draft signing to man the LT spot for a year, while whoever we end up drafting at OT competes for RT in that scenario.

If you’re going to give up both our second rounders plus a 2025 pick; that’s an awful lot to give up for one player-just for an LT or RT. You’d better be sure.

 

I’d rather trade Allen and a 2025 pick.

[DWinzit]

1 hour ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

 

I understand the concept from a pure value standpoint. We'd just have to be okay with Lucas starting at LT if the plan is to wait for best value and sign Humphries. 

So whats everyones thoughts on the Humphries and this potential move for the future?

I'd assume we would take an OL that at least had the potential of becoming a starting T even if they start at G

Edited April 4 by DWinzit

[JamesMadisonSkins]

3 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

So whats everyones thoughts on the Humphries and this potential move for the future?

 

Looks like the Cards have moved Paris Campbell to LT and have Jonah Williams at RT. I think Campbell played RT last year, Humphries LT.

 

Humphries is 30 and tore his ACL at the end of the season. I do not think he can be counted on to play much in 2024. So any signing of him would be a longer-term play, for 2025 and beyond. Hard to see him making sense for 2024 in any capacity. So if you signed Humphries, you're starting Lucas at LT, because chances are you're not drafting anyone to play LT out of the gate.

 

It just doesn't make a lot of sense from timing, unless you're confident you can get him at a long-term below-market rate for 2025 and beyond. But I also don't think we would make that move - there's no rush to sign him. 

[Warhead36]

I'd offer the Broncos one of my 5ths for Garret Bolles. He'd make a good stopgap option since he's 32.

Reg. LBs, I think Coulson is the guy I'd target in round 3. He's only 21(22 in December)and he could really blossom after playing with someone like Bobby Wagner for a year.

[Bantu]

18 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I'd offer the Broncos one of my 5ths for Garret Bolles. He'd make a good stopgap option since he's 32.

Reg. LBs, I think Coulson is the guy I'd target in round 3. He's only 21(22 in December)and he could really blossom after playing with someone like Bobby Wagner for a year.

I think this is an underrated roster building move most are not talking about (understandably) that I believe will be clearer once the draft is over. An apprentice to Wagner that can be properly developed and, most notably, given time to grow in the MLB position down the road. 

 

Considering how fast the game is evolving, I feel pretty clueless as to what defenses will want to deploy in the years ahead on the 2nd level of defenses. Hopefully, Peters & Co. have some excellent foresight on this. 

 

[PlayAction]

2 hours ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Local radio seemed to be actively discussing the idea of trading up first half of R1 for an LT. Some of these show producers must spend time on here and take some ideas for show fodder, because Grant and Danny literally had a segment on trading 36 and 40 for 12 or 14 with the Broncos or Saints, which is something I brought up earlier this week in here ...

 

 

I wouldn't doubt that they have an assistant scouring the internet for topics of interest to fans.  How else to keep our interest 24/7 for months?  On the draft!!! And, then training camp.  I remember when we didn't turn back to the Redskins (after the Superbowl) until the preseason games began.   

[DWinzit]

37 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I'd offer the Broncos one of my 5ths for Garret Bolles. He'd make a good stopgap option since he's 32.

Reg. LBs, I think Coulson is the guy I'd target in round 3. He's only 21(22 in December)and he could really blossom after playing with someone like Bobby Wagner for a year.

We certainly do have the Wagner advantage that we should take advantage of by drafting a LB no later than the 4th in my eyes.

Coulson is a good one. I'd like to see what he could do with a Gray or how about a transitioning James Williams. That dude learning LB from Wagner has very intriguing potential. I love his S instincts and Wagner would whip him into shape

[illone]

This guy wouldnt be the worst LB to pick in the 2nd round

 

*NSW (Language)

 

 

[JamesMadisonSkins]

Cooper is exciting. He’s the one defender I’d be cool taking at 40. I don’t think he’ll last much longer. 
 

He has the feel to me of a Parsons type play style and I think this FO would be all over that. But is it too repetitive with Luvu? LB isn’t a need but long term it is with Davis and Wagner on one year deals essentially. 

Edited April 4 by JamesMadisonSkins

[Warhead36]

Isn't Coop more of an outside guy? I want a future signal caller MLB type.

[Conn]

47 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

Isn't Coop more of an outside guy? I want a future signal caller MLB type.

Luvu is that, he’s younger than Wagner and signed for 3 years. Before we also brought in Wagner we all thought that was going to be Luvu, right? We just have the luxury of both for at least this year.

[Warhead36]

8 minutes ago, Conn said:

Luvu is that, he’s younger than Wagner and signed for 3 years. Before we also brought in Wagner we all thought that was going to be Luvu, right? We just have the luxury of both for at least this year.

I don't know about Luvu. I mean, I know he's a damn good player. Just don't know about his role. I know he came here because he wanted to pass rush more. And we'll be using Davis in that way as well. That's why Wagner was so important

[CommanderInTheRye]

 

Gg

 

 

 

 

Damn I wish there were some way to get this guy and our franchise qb, but it'snot to be..

[DWinzit]

Rival coaches LOVE Joe Alt...I'm sure they do! 

[Redskins 2021]

5 hours ago, 88Comrade2000 said:

If you’re going to give up both our second rounders plus a 2025 pick; that’s an awful lot to give up for one player-just for an LT or RT. You’d better be sure.

 

I’d rather trade Allen and a 2025 pick.

 Allan is worth a second round pick. Maybe him and pick 40 for green bay 1st rd pick?  You would think alot of OT get picked between 13 and 30.

Edited April 4 by Redskins 2021

[illone]

2 hours ago, Warhead36 said:

Isn't Coop more of an outside guy? I want a future signal caller MLB type.

 

 

A&M plays that weird 4-2-5 Ron Rivera college defense with two linebackers 😂 but if you watch how he is aligned on most plays he is smack dab in the middle of the field and his first read is the QB and he comes downhill quick on run plays.  Seems like a guy suited for the middle in the NFL, but could potentially play anywhere.