Jump to content
JaguarCrazy2832

Do we overuse the phrase "Could have drafted him later" ?

Recommended Posts

I feel like we always hear this a ton throughout the draft to the point where at some point it cant all be true.

An example is Cleveland(which i know is problem going to make me lose any credibility with this thread) They took Mayfield at 1 and immediately people here and my friends say they could have had him at 4. Can you really be sure of that? I agree, I would have rather had Barkley or Chubb at 1 but with as much value that people put on the QB, why roll the dice on them? If they took Barkley at 1, the Giants either trade down to a team that wanted a QB or take one right? The Jets were always going to take a QB after that trade up so it is possible that 2 QBs would have already been gone before #4. We saw Rosen fall which says that alot of teams that needed one simply didnt think he was worth trading up that far to get him so its unlikely the Browns viewed him as this cant-miss type or they could have rolled the dice and taken the best QB at 4 after best player at 1. 

Same thing with Kolton Miller. He is wildly viewed as someone that could have been had later but do we honestly think he would have fallen by 31 other potential teams and the Raiders could have traded back and got him? Most everyone thinks he was a reach by our standards but isn't it safe to assume someone else was looking there too in the teens?

Does anyone else think that phrase is overused and have other examples of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is overused. I’m always under the belief if a team really like a prospect you don’t wait. Idk if this fits the example, but back in 2012 Fisher wanted Wagner and thought he could trade down in the 2nd round pick up an extra pick and still get him. Well he didn’t as Wagner went soon after the Rams traded their pick. The very next year Fisher trades down in the 1st round to pick up an extra pick because he was targeting Olegtree. I believe Olegtree agent told Fisher if he wanted Olegtree he better take him at his pick because no promise his client will be available if he moved down. Well Fisher got lucky as Olegtree did fall to the Rams after they traded down.

So again I think if a team really want a player, why wait till later? So it’s not great to get too cute in the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it’s overused at times, especially when a team takes a player and we’ll never know how every other team views said player. People also tend to use it when a player at the same position that they view as a better prospect is still available. 

I’ve got to admit I used it to describe all 4 of the Colt’s second round picks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Anytime anyone says a player was a "reach" or he "he was an X round pick" it's farce. Draft people tend to be overly dogmatic about everything to the point they can't possibly imagine how an NFL team might see a player differently. It's why I hate listen to the Locked on NFL Draft podcast. Don't judge me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overused but can still be appropriate.

2013

Dallas Cowboys selected Travis Frederick in the 1st. Dude is a multi year pro bowler.

I still think we could have gotten him late 2nd or early 3rd as well as picked up Xavier Rhoades in the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People believe that the draftniks set the value when the teams drafting set the value of the players.  No one remembers where the draftniks said they should be drafted.  Everyone remembers where they are drafted.  People did not like Terrell Edmunds or Rashaad Penny in the 1st because the groupthink said they were 3rd round picks.  They are now 1st round picks and that is where they will be judged.  Can they live up to that expectation? We will see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, people act we know how the draft will shape up yet the people who do the actual drafting don’t even know. Case and point the Giants tried to trade up to get Lorenzo Carter but had no success which means they felt that somebody above them would’ve taken him. Fortunately for them he was there to them when they picked and didn’t have to give up anything. Point is, we know ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. 100%. That, along with the similar "could have traded back and got him" are most of time untrue and a dumb way to evaluate a draft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

For the most part, yes.  It does apply though in some cases every year.    Rashaad Penny.  Now I know SEA couldn’t pick again until Rd 3, which brings me to the legit criticism draftniks are oversimplifying with that line - the value for the pick wasn’t there at that spot for that player.

Too often, teams fall in love with a guy they don’t want to risk losing him.   So they take him early.   That’s fine if he’s really the only guy who fits their goal and he’s a difference maker over the next guy available later.   Often there are guys who are of similar (or even better if you aren’t good at drafting) later.   Or the talent available where you took that guy is so much more of a difference maker overall.  Especially since drafts don’t have an impact Year 1 let alone Day 1.  

We don’t know how far a guy would have fallen.  Never will.  But we can evaluate the talent passed on.   And the best draft teams can project the board and depth of talent at each position to decide if they can wait on that position.  Not just the player, but the position.   And are willing to not get attached to players who aren’t really that different from their peers still available.  

But the above isn’t a concept you can state on TV or radio or on Twitter in a 10-sec sound bite or a single Tweet.  So that’s the take we get.    And yes it’s overused.  But the larger concept of bad value and waiting when positional depth says you can wait and/or a much better overall talent is available now,  that’s an entirely legit criticism. 

 

Edited by Broncofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I feel like it's basically meaningless or misleading.  If, at a certain point in the draft,  30 teams have a guy in a lower tier, but 2 teams have a guy at the top of their board, then one of those two teams likely needs to pick the player before the other team can pick.  Draft media gives us the impression that there is a "consensus board" shared between teams, but there really isn't.  From draft boards we've seen leaked  teams sometimes have 3rd or 4th round grades on guys that actually went in the 1st (to other teams.)

What we mean by "could have taken him later" is basically "went higher than I think he should have gone."

Edited by PossibleCabbage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. This phrase is infuriating. If a massive accumulation of professional scouts and front office people are high enough on a prospect to draft him at pick # _____, you'd have to assume that another massive accumulation of professional scouts and front office people are high enough on that prospect to draft him at or around pick # _____.

 

Just take your guy and don't get cute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's a completely ignorant statement for a fan to make since they know nothing. NFL clubs at least have a rough idea of where prospects are projected and who covets certain players. "Could have drafted him later" assumes you have some knowledge but since fans have none it makes no sense to say. 

Edited by CalhounLambeau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it is. I heard Ravens at 16, Cowboys 19 had a lot of interest in Miller. In fact soon as Raiders took him at 15 the Ravens traded their pick.  The media creates like a master big board and the general public goes by it so if something looks off its viewed as a reach or a bad pick. IMO Kolton Miller was not the 15th best player available in the draft so yeah its a reach. I understand the pick but I wouldn't have made it. Do the teams care what we or the media think? no. Just go get your guy and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We drafted Tanner Lee in the 6th round when we could have signed him on day 2 of UDFA signings 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×