The Official 2024 NFL Draft Day Thread

[DogofWar1]

5 minutes ago, redskinss said:

 

 

Here's another good one.

 

 

Nobody.

 

Knows.

 

Anything.

 

Except Peters.  He might know something.

[KDawg]

I mean… I have no tangible way to grade this draft. 
 

I have no idea how it’s going to pan out.

 

But just based on optics and how I felt during it (which is NOT a fair way to grade and nor is it the correct way to grade):

 

Daniels: 100% (Maye would have been a 100% as well)

 

Newton: 90% - BPA pick, but at a position of strength so not weighted for need at all. KA Mc or Dejean here would have been a 100%. The player is phenomenal, though, and I’m excited. 
 

Sinnot: 100%. Agree completely. 
 

Sainristil: 75%. Love the player. But again we’re loaded at slot corner. We can move some guys around and make this better. I don’t think he was the BPA here. But love the player. Doesn’t agree with my strategy and since that’s the only way to bull**** grade here…

 

Campbell: 70%. Needed tackle. Got tackle. Probably a decent value selection. Eh.

 

Magee: 80%. Fits a profile of an athletic LB that gets after it. 
 

Robinson or whatever the safety’s name is: 50%. Don’t understand that pick personally. 
 

McCaffrey: 75%. Good value pick. Probably going to be a decent contributor. 
 

Jean Baptiste: 80% for the value selection of when we got him.

 

-2.5% because I ****ing hated trading with the Eagles and passing on a need/BPA convo that made sense. 
 

80% - 2.5% = 77.5%
 

Which is a C+.
 

Which for a pre see any of these guys draft grade is probably pretty good. 
 

I don’t think I’d have anyone over an 84 or so based on a quick run through of teams drafts and quick math in my obviously well thought out scoring scheme.

[Est.1974]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

Which is a C+.

Nah, the best end of 80% is never that. 
 

A- territory.

[kingdaddy]

36 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

Or, you know, give the players time to actually take a snap before making any judgements

Not a judgement, it's an observation. Big difference. It's also not a criticism of Peters, more a comparison to what Roseman did.

[KDawg]

Just now, Est.1974 said:

Nah, the best end of 80% is never that. 
 

A- territory.

What? 
 

97-100 is A+
93-96 A

90-92 A-

87-89 B+
83-86 B

82-80 B-

77-79 C+
73-76 C

72-70 C-

65-69 D

64 and below F

[Est.1974]

2 minutes ago, KDawg said:

What? 
 

97-100 is A+
93-96 A

90-92 A-

87-89 B+
83-86 B

82-80 B-

77-79 C+
73-76 C

72-70 C-

65-69 D

64 and below F

Disagree.

 

Also, for example Sinnott is a great prospect. Love the potential. But he would never be 100% because he was consensus 3rd rounder. So that would weight down. 
 

Overall an A- draft. 

[FootballZombie]

8 minutes ago, KDawg said:

80% - 2.5% = 77.5%
 

Which is a C+.

 

Nobody likes the teacher that does not round their grades.

77.5 should be a B- which if we are being honest is basically a B and if you squint hard enough it can pass for an A.

/s

 

 

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, Est.1974 said:

Disagree.

 

Also, for example Sinnott is a great prospect. Love the potential. But he would never be 100% because he was consensus 3rd rounder. So that would weight down. 
 

Overall an A- draft. 

What are you disagreeing on? My opinion?

 

100% for Sinnott was based on who *I* would have selected there. I would have picked Sinnott. So it’s a 100%. I don’t get the disconnect. It’s MY grade

[Est.1974]

Just now, KDawg said:

What are you disagreeing on? My opinion?

No your logic 

[redskinss]

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I mean… I have no tangible way to grade this draft. 
 

I have no idea how it’s going to pan out.

 

But just based on optics and how I felt during it (which is NOT a fair way to grade and nor is it the correct way to grade):

 

Daniels: 100% (Maye would have been a 100% as well)

 

Newton: 90% - BPA pick, but at a position of strength so not weighted for need at all. KA Mc or Dejean here would have been a 100%. The player is phenomenal, though, and I’m excited. 
 

Sinnot: 100%. Agree completely. 
 

Sainristil: 75%. Love the player. But again we’re loaded at slot corner. We can move some guys around and make this better. I don’t think he was the BPA here. But love the player. Doesn’t agree with my strategy and since that’s the only way to bull**** grade here…

 

Campbell: 70%. Needed tackle. Got tackle. Probably a decent value selection. Eh.

 

Magee: 80%. Fits a profile of an athletic LB that gets after it. 
 

Robinson or whatever the safety’s name is: 50%. Don’t understand that pick personally. 
 

McCaffrey: 75%. Good value pick. Probably going to be a decent contributor. 
 

Jean Baptiste: 80% for the value selection of when we got him.

 

-2.5% because I ****ing hated trading with the Eagles and passing on a need/BPA convo that made sense. 
 

80% - 2.5% = 77.5%
 

Which is a C+.
 

Which for a pre see any of these guys draft grade is probably pretty good. 
 

I don’t think I’d have anyone over an 84 or so based on a quick run through of teams drafts and quick math in my obviously well thought out scoring scheme.

 

I agree on the Philly trade, I love the Newton pick but I would have taken dejean at 40, this gives us bpa at 40 and at a position of need while also preventing a division rival from getting him.

We would have been better served to keep letting the draft come to us because based on pre draft grade there's a reasonable chance sinnott would have been available at 67.

And then grab a tackle at 78 and use free agency to patch the oline for another year.

 

Our draft grades would be all A+ had we grabbed dejean at 40 but like we always say draft grades don't mean much for at least year but really two or 3.

[KDawg]

Just now, Est.1974 said:

No your logic 

My logic is fine. It’s MY system that I made up on my own for a stupid purpose of grading a draft immediately after it happened which ultimately means squat.

 

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

I mean… I have no tangible way to grade this draft. 
 

I have no idea how it’s going to pan out.

 

But just based on optics and how I felt during it (which is NOT a fair way to grade and nor is it the correct way to grade):

 

Daniels: 100% (Maye would have been a 100% as well)

 

Newton: 90% - BPA pick, but at a position of strength so not weighted for need at all. KA Mc or Dejean here would have been a 100%. The player is phenomenal, though, and I’m excited. 
 

Sinnot: 100%. Agree completely. 
 

Sainristil: 75%. Love the player. But again we’re loaded at slot corner. We can move some guys around and make this better. I don’t think he was the BPA here. But love the player. Doesn’t agree with my strategy and since that’s the only way to bull**** grade here…

 

Campbell: 70%. Needed tackle. Got tackle. Probably a decent value selection. Eh.

 

Magee: 80%. Fits a profile of an athletic LB that gets after it. 
 

Robinson or whatever the safety’s name is: 50%. Don’t understand that pick personally. 
 

McCaffrey: 75%. Good value pick. Probably going to be a decent contributor. 
 

Jean Baptiste: 80% for the value selection of when we got him.

 

-2.5% because I ****ing hated trading with the Eagles and passing on a need/BPA convo that made sense. 
 

80% - 2.5% = 77.5%
 

Which is a C+.
 

Which for a pre see any of these guys draft grade is probably pretty good. 
 

I don’t think I’d have anyone over an 84 or so based on a quick run through of teams drafts and quick math in my obviously well thought out scoring scheme.

 

Personally, I think grading a draft before at least 2 full seasons is more for fun and otherwise, basically bull****. 

 

But, I will ask. You weigh a pick in each round the same and then just average the grade? I could see a bunch of different ways to do it. Nailing the first rounder being worth more. Or hitting on a day 3 guy earning you extra credit. Maybe taking a guy who was a projected first rounder in the 2nd?

 

All I gleamed from this is that after an audit of what Rivera left the roster as, they saw needs everywhere. On top of that, I don't think they looked at this as a draft that is about the upcoming season, but more about 25, 26, 27 with a whole other offseason and draft needed in their minds. 

 

I'll give them the grade of 🎱 (8 ball emoji) because I don't know **** but when I listened to them talk about their guys. They explained all of their picks better than Ron ever did. 

[KDawg]

12 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

Personally, I think grading a draft before at least 2 full seasons is more for fun and otherwise, basically bull****. 

 

But, I will ask. You weigh a pick in each round the same and then just average the grade? I could see a bunch of different ways to do it. Nailing the first rounder being worth more. Or hitting on a day 3 guy earning you extra credit. Maybe taking a guy who was a projected first rounder in the 2nd?

 

All I gleamed from this is that after an audit of what Rivera left the roster as, they saw needs everywhere. On top of that, I don't think they looked at this as a draft that is about the upcoming season, but more about 25, 26, 27 with a whole other offseason and draft needed in their minds. 

 

I'll give them the grade of 🎱 (8 ball emoji) because I don't know **** but when I listened to them talk about their guys. They explained all of their picks better than Ron ever did. 

I just went based on what I would have done. Absolutely zero way that means a damn thing. Like you said: it was for fun and a bunch of bull****.

[Skinsinparadise]

I commented some on him in the UDFA thread but from my initial watch we might have found an outside corner in this draft. Was impressed by the game I watched

 

Edited April 28 by Skinsinparadise

[Chump Bailey]

Big athletic corner - real surprised Chig went undrafted.

[KDawg]

Just now, Chump Bailey said:

Big athletic corner - real surprised Chig went undrafted.

 

6 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I commented some on him in the UDFA thread but from my initial watch we might have found an outside corner in this draft. Was impressed by the game I watched

 

The Chig is up!

[Skinsinparadise]

 

3 minutes ago, Chump Bailey said:

Big athletic corner - real surprised Chig went undrafted.

Feisty player including againt the run. Long. Tall. And ran a sub 4.4

[method man]

1 hour ago, CommDownMan said:

 

I think you can do both.

 

I think Peters did well with the draft.  But judging the draft should include all the 2025 picks that Roseman got.  His ability to move about is really impressive (which sucks).

 

That being said, part of that ability is having done it over several years, his team has a stronger base to work with.  As a result, there is less need to build the roster and allows for more gambles.  Trading out of 3 picks for future picks means you have a team that is well built now (generally), and Peters didn't inherit that luxury.

 

We had one successful trade down and at least 2 mentions of failed trade ups (end of first and end of second I think).  Whether it was first draft nerves, sticking to the board or simply working through being the top guy with all it entails, there were times it appears we weren't able to get our guy.  I do wonder if Coleman was the target and 49ers did Peters a solid saying that wasn't who KC wanted (but we'll never know).  I think grrading the ability to move around can be judge now, as it has nothing to do with players suscess of the field.

 

Peters did well from a handling the responsibility point of view.  Any of us doing something for the first time there is going be room for improvement..  Comparing him to Roseman at this point is a high bar.  There are pkenty of GMs that did far worse with more experience.  However, the goal should be the best and to do that we need to beat the best.  For Peters that is as a GM and his target should be beating GMs for Eagles, Ravens, Steelers.  It was a solid start, but I believe there will be some lessons learned and there is room for improvement.  

 

 

If you are arguing that Roseman had a stronger base to work from, I kind of get that argument. However, one can easily ask why they didn’t move back at certain spots to pick up more Day 3 picks this year to get more players in now to build that stronger base. It is especially disappointing given the consistent discovery of long term starters in Day 3 is what Peters is known for.

 

I heard this stupid argument from Keim that must have come from this FO that they didn’t want too many picks because it could cause issues with resigning that many guys to second contracts. That is 1) inherently arrogant because it assumes you are going to have an amazing hit rate and 2) shortsighted because if guys perform and you can’t keep them, you trade them for picks or get comp picks, which you can continuously recycle like how Howie has

[Conn]

 

 

[Skinsinparadise]

[seantaylor=god]

2 hours ago, Going Commando said:

 

I wish Standig would specify what the concerns were.  It's too vague to judge whether or not we were justified in passing over him based on them without knowing the nature of the concerns.  I heard a rumor that he was homesick at Oregon and that's why things didn't work out there, but if that's the concern, that would not have kept me from picking him.

I don’t think he’s a bad guy but I’m not sure he had the mentality we were looking for. Most of our picks were team captains and/or guys that played a ton of college football as well as RAS monsters.

 

The reports that we tried to trade into top 15 for an OT, and when that failed didn’t try to trade into late first, makes it likely they wanted a guy like Fuaga or Fauntanu.

 

Listening to Peters and Newmark I think they had a pretty clear archetype.

[DogofWar1]

I grade this draft a Fresh Prince of Bel Air out of fatty smoked Brisket.

[kingdaddy]

17 minutes ago, method man said:

If you are arguing that Roseman had a stronger base to work from, I kind of get that argument. However, one can easily ask why they didn’t move back at certain spots to pick up more Day 3 picks this year to get more players in now to build that stronger base. It is especially disappointing given the consistent discovery of long term starters in Day 3 is what Peters is known for.

 

I heard this stupid argument from Keim that must have come from this FO that they didn’t want too many picks because it could cause issues with resigning that many guys to second contracts. That is 1) inherently arrogant because it assumes you are going to have an amazing hit rate and 2) shortsighted because if guys perform and you can’t keep them, you trade them for picks or get comp picks, which you can continuously recycle like how Howie has

I think I agree with you...when you're a 4-13 team with new parts/pieces literally all across your organization go for adding more pucks in future drafts if it's there. I'd be curious as to how trade offers AP rejected to move back? 

[CommDownMan]

22 minutes ago, method man said:

If you are arguing that Roseman had a stronger base to work from, I kind of get that argument. However, one can easily ask why they didn’t move back at certain spots to pick up more Day 3 picks this year to get more players in now to build that stronger base. It is especially disappointing given the consistent discovery of long term starters in Day 3 is what Peters is known for.

 

I heard this stupid argument from Keim that must have come from this FO that they didn’t want too many picks because it could cause issues with resigning that many guys to second contracts. That is 1) inherently arrogant because it assumes you are going to have an amazing hit rate and 2) shortsighted because if guys perform and you can’t keep them, you trade them for picks or get comp picks, which you can continuously recycle like how Howie has

 

Yes, I'm saying Roseman started in a better position to punt picks to future years.  The Eagles have a solid player base already.

 

Using OT as an example, Commanders tried to trade up in first and saw all of wave 1 OTs get drafted.  Then is second round they started to look into move up, maybe again for an OT.  Coleman might have been their pick at 67, but it might have also been a move made by a rookie GM that needed to have an answer at OT.  Not a reach necesarily, but also not in position to trade back and add picks.

 

My post was talking about grading the GM, as opposed to the players.  I think Peters was at a disadvantage vs Roseman from the team and moments like 67 his hand was a bit forced (this is my feeling).  I think overall the players fit scheme and I see action towards a plan.  I hope there is a bit more polish on his drafts as Peter's has more time in the position.  

 

I also agree with your second point.  Find me 10 starters a year in the draft and you never actually need to pay anyone of a second contract.  (You'd get salary floor penalties, but that's not my point).  Get all the talent you can and let Peter's work it out.  

 

edit: one other note, this is also why bad teams tend to stay bad and good teams tend to stay good.  Roseman is constantly in position to master the draft, helps his team and is ready to do it again in 2025.  Commanders over several coaching staffs traded future picks for needs and ALWAYS needing something every year.  The reason I want to see Peter's do better, is a shift there would make me feel like we turned a corner.

Edited April 28 by CommDownMan

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, redskinss said:

Here's another good one.

 

What a gem from good old Nolan Nawrocki, who dinged Cam Newton for his smile.