CW21's 2018 NFL Draft Review (Browns Up)

[CWood21]

9 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

You obviously just want to argue to argue.  I called Beavers a miss, but yeah do not want to totally rule him done for until he is out of the league for good.  Sure the Vikings are not great on the offensive line but to right off O'Neill as a prospect based on that, well that is just stupid.  And no I do not read PFF but have your opinion or their opinion, whatever it is just do not be surprised to see Hughes wildly succeed this year and O'Neill start at some point this year as well. 

Sure the Packers have done great things drafting in terms of OL talent. But the Packers usually draft extremely well so the fact they hit on lineman, well they hit on more than just lineman so that is not out of the norm.  But keep pretending CB was not a need for this Vikings roster, yeah right, much less a SLOT corner.  And guess what teams draft players sometimes so they do not have to pay other players in the near upcoming future with their upcoming contracts.  Just ask precious Green Bay about that one in regards to their defensive backfield....  

I'm not arguing to argue.  Beavers hasn't done a damn thing, and the only thing that is giving you remote hope is that he was your 4th round pick a couple of years ago.  He's done, you can take it to the bank.  He didn't even make it on the 53 man roster despite being a 4th round pick.  Teams don't release 4th round picks just all willy nilly.  Since then, he's bounced around PS and a few active rosters.  But he hasn't done a damn thing.  He's done.  No, my opinion on O'Neill is that he's not a plug 'n play OL.  Hell, I'm not sure he's playable a year from now.  And that's coming from someone who liked O'Neill coming out.  The Vikings are in a win-now mode, and O'Neill isn't a win-now player.  He needs work on his technique, and he badly needs a year in the S&C room.  If O'Neill is in your starting OL, I think that goes to show how bad the Vikings OL is rather than how good O'Neill is.

Was CB a 2018 need, yes or no?  IMO, no.  Maybe you'll disagree.  But right now, the Vikings have a big enough group of corners with Rhodes, Waynes, Newman, and Alexander.  The Hughes pick looks more like a 2019 than a 2018 pick.  If I'm drafting in the first round, I want someone to be a player who can impact as a rookie, so unless Hughes ascends to that nickel corner role that's a pick they used more for the future than now.  You talk about how the Packers draft with an eye towards upcoming contract situations.  I'd argue to tell me which one of their first round picks weren't projected to play at least a semi-signifcant role as a rookie?  The only one I can possibly think of is Derek Sherrod who wasn't going to be a starting tackle with Clifton/Bulaga, and wasn't good enough to play at guard.

[CWood21]

15 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

For the first paragraph, we both agree that it's a difference in evaluation. I don't subscribe to the written doctrine on the fate on athletic quarterbacks. In fact I think we may be at an all-time valley in terms of the perceived value of these types of QBs, after the ridiculous spike and drop of Kaepernick and RG3's stock. I think there're a lot more variables involved in their careers, just like with any QB's development. The idea that it's a rule that NFL defenses will magically "figure them out" and they are no longer effective, but it takes 10-20 games of tape to pattern-match to their specific brand of mobile quarterback-ness, that can never evolve on its own.... is quite the over-simplification.  Also, Russell Wilson gets thrown out for this rule, even though his passing numbers in his first 3 year of college don't look any better than Jackson's. To me, you get the magic combination of a generational athlete, with a cannon arm, who has a burning passion to be great*** and you should be able to figure out how to make it work. Just the fact that Ravens are willing to try, is fantastic to see as a fan.

*** This is the biggest key that I believe will separate LJ8 from some of the names thrown around with him. Granted, it's the hardest to discern/project, but that's the feeling I get. You need a near-psychotic devotion to the game to match up with the Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson's... of the game. I had Wentz and Watson as elite QB prospects in 2016 and 17 because I got a similar vibe from them.

Regarding the bold: I already said why I'm lower on this move in the other draft ranking thread, but I contest your wording here. IF Darnold whiffs, then everyone associated with the decision is going to lose their job and the Jets franchise will be set back for years. If Lamar Jackson whiffs, the Ravens could still chug along as borderline playoff conteder or be better or worse depending on how their other moves go. THAT's the difference in the two situations and the point I was making about value.

There's really not a whole lot of variables.  Teams are essentially going to have their pass rushers play contain, bring a S down (or replace one of their ILBs) to play spy on Lamar Jackson, and force Lamar to beat them with his arm.  That's not something he has shown consistently he has the ability to do.  For every NFL-caliber throw, he's like a half a dozen WTF throws.  His passing production comes from the threat of his legs, and a lack of gap responsibility from the pass rushers.  Teams are going to play conservatively with their front 7, and aggressively with their back 4.  They're going to get up in the face of the receiver, jam them, and disrupt the route.  And in terms of route anticipation and throwing with anticipation, Lamar Jackson is a distant fifth among the top QBs.  I'd make the argument that it goes Darnold/Mayfield/Rosen (TIER) Allen (TIER) Lamar.  I mean, Dan Orlovsky had some really good pieces on this with regards to Josh Allen, and it translates to Lamar as well.  As for the Russell Wilson comp, Wilson is a passer who can extend with his legs.  He's more than capable of sitting in the pocket and throwing a team to success.  Russell Wilson his last year at Wisconsin was much more impressive as a QB prospect than Lamar Jackson in his last year at Louisville.  Lamar Jackson was just the flashier player.

As for the last part, I'd rather whiff on a guy that I think has a strong chance at becoming a franchise QB than whiff on a guy that I think could be a franchise QB.  Regardless of the price.  It isn't like they gave up an RG3 package to do so.

[Ozzy]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not arguing to argue.  Beavers hasn't done a damn thing, and the only thing that is giving you remote hope is that he was your 4th round pick a couple of years ago.  He's done, you can take it to the bank.  He didn't even make it on the 53 man roster despite being a 4th round pick.  Teams don't release 4th round picks just all willy nilly.  Since then, he's bounced around PS and a few active rosters.  But he hasn't done a damn thing.  He's done.  No, my opinion on O'Neill is that he's not a plug 'n play OL.  Hell, I'm not sure he's playable a year from now.  And that's coming from someone who liked O'Neill coming out.  The Vikings are in a win-now mode, and O'Neill isn't a win-now player.  He needs work on his technique, and he badly needs a year in the S&C room.  If O'Neill is in your starting OL, I think that goes to show how bad the Vikings OL is rather than how good O'Neill is.

Was CB a 2018 need, yes or no?  IMO, no.  Maybe you'll disagree.  But right now, the Vikings have a big enough group of corners with Rhodes, Waynes, Newman, and Alexander.  The Hughes pick looks more like a 2019 than a 2018 pick.  If I'm drafting in the first round, I want someone to be a player who can impact as a rookie, so unless Hughes ascends to that nickel corner role that's a pick they used more for the future than now.  You talk about how the Packers draft with an eye towards upcoming contract situations.  I'd argue to tell me which one of their first round picks weren't projected to play at least a semi-signifcant role as a rookie?  The only one I can possibly think of is Derek Sherrod who wasn't going to be a starting tackle with Clifton/Bulaga, and wasn't good enough to play at guard.

You are totally right if Terence Newman is a totally legit starting slot corner, that is something he is not especially considering how he played against the Saints and the Eagles in the last two games of the year.  Great pro, amazing vet on the team and basically is another coach on the team but is not a starting slot man unless he was maybe injured late last year which made him look so bad.  Hughes will start at slot this year and if not will still get a ton of time in the rotation, and Rhodes for one oddly gets injured quite often it seems throughout the year.  Newman and Alexander are not starting boundary corners, now with Hughes they have one who I would feel far more comfortable putting there if something happened and most likely it will.  I would not be shocked for them to use Newman more as a safety which he has at times as well, so if one would view Newman as a safety then they only have Sherels and Alexander as backup corners / slot corners which is a gigantic issue I feel.  

 

The Packers obviously let Damarious Randall, Casey Hayward, Micah Hyde, Sam Shields and Morgan Burnett all walk as DBs in recent years and no big surprise they have drafted some DBs in recent years quite high to take their places.  The first three in Randall, Hayward and Hyde are all very good players I think yet still they let them walk.  So yeah that is what I am talking about with trading contracts, all decent players, some they should have not let go but they went with getting someone new and cheaper and not paying any of these guys.  Are the Vikings doing that are corner, I would believe yes they are potentially or at least letting some know the situation in the room.  But sure the Vikings have not let any of their top CBs go yet but some could be in the works just like they were at Green Bay with that mass exodus of DBs.

 

As for O'Neill, sure if he is this unplayable raw total project sure it does not make sense to draft him.  But I do not view O'Neill as that type of prospect who is a total shelf all year if not for two years.  Sure I would not have minded Connor Williams at that 1st round spot, but I do not mind a position need at CB and slot corner something they arguably do not have on the roster currently.  

[Krauser]

40 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I think the best case scenario with regards to Fusco is you'd call him an average starter.  He's not someone whose going to change the game one way or the other.  Honestly, not sure he's any different than Lane Taylor for the Packers.  He's not going to win you games, but he's also not going to lose you games.  If you want to call that a developmental win, I won't fight too hard given his draft status but it's not a big win by any means.  

I was agreeing with you on this point.

Quote

Harris hasn't played in the league since he was released from the Vikings.  Just because he was serviceable when he was with the Vikings doesn't mean he's good or even that they developed him.

Again, Harris retired for medical reasons. He played well the one year he was starting in Minnesota. Not sure that says much about the quality of their OL coaching (it was different OL coaches anyway than the current group), but it's not like Harris washed out of the league for lack of quality play. 

Quote

And it wasn't to compare it to the Packers in a literal extent.  When you say a team is good at developing OL, you expect more than career journeyman and league average guards.

Not really, though. Only the Packers have a consistent track record of developing multiple 4th round and later draft picks into above average OL. 

If you look at the list of OL drafted in the 4th round or later since 2005 (start of the Ted Thompson era in GB) -- http://pfref.com/tiny/DvK6H -- and sort by AV, the Packers have:

• 2 of the top 5 (Sitton, Lang)
• another in the top 10 (Bakhtiari)
• 2 more in the top 25 (Newhouse, Giacomini)
• 2 more in the top 50-ish (Linsley, Barbre at 53)
• 3 more in the top 100 (Meredith, Moll, Tretter)

Of the top 100 names on that list you'd expect ~3 per NFL team, Packers have 10 -- by far the best in the league.

Vikings look respectably average there with Sullivan and Fusco in the top 25 and Clemmings at 71. 

Point is, if your standard for success for late round OL is based on being a Packers fan, you expect players who get a decent 2nd contract (or better, Pro Bowl / All Pro consideration), but there are very few cases where that happens around the league. "Career journeymen and league average guards" is realistically all you can expect in the 4th round or later. 

I don't think it's a major knock against the Vikings drafting O'Neill at 62 that Yankey drafted at 145 was a bust, or that Fusco drafted 172 only developed into an average starting guard. He's not doomed to fail just because Minnesota hasn't developed multiple Sitton/Lang/Bakhtiari quality players with later picks. 

Quote

Oliver went off the board at 58, and the Vikings picked at 60.  It's not unreasonable to believe that the Vikings could have moved up enough to take him and not give up anything of note.  I'd be willing to bet they could have used a 5th to move up high enough to get him.  

I think given their situation, I think they would have been better off with a plug 'n play OL in the first and a developmental CB in the 2nd.  Instead, they took a CB who is likely buried on the DC in the first and a developmental OL in the 2nd.  Add on the Vikings' history of developing OL, and it's even more hazier. 

They picked 62nd, not 60th, FWIW. 

Agree they could've traded a 5th to move up and take Oliver, but I doubt they could've expected Oliver to be there. 

Again, Hughes won't likely be "buried on the depth chart" even as a rookie. And eventually, he'll be their CB2 across from Rhodes. 

You're arguing the point as if we're disagreeing, but I've said repeatedly that they've have been better off in the short term addressing OL in the 1st and making do with their existing CB group plus a mid-round rookie. 

I think they can still be better off in the long term, as long as O'Neill eventually develops into a starting tackle.

I watched a lot of Spriggs coming out in 2016, since I was wanting the Vikings to draft OL that year (to replace Kalil who I wanted cut), and I like O'Neill as much or better. His main limitation is play strength, which should be easier to fix than Spriggs' technical problems (balance, lunging / waist bending). O'Neill's definitely a project, but I think he has a decent chance, and he was reasonable value in the late 2nd. 

[Ozzy]

19 minutes ago, Krauser said:

 Agree they could've traded a 5th to move up and take Oliver, but I doubt they could've expected Oliver to be there. 

Again, Hughes won't likely be "buried on the depth chart" even as a rookie. And eventually, he'll be their CB2 across from Rhodes. 

You're arguing the point as if we're disagreeing, but I've said repeatedly that they've have been better off in the short term addressing OL in the 1st and making do with their existing CB group plus a mid-round rookie. 

I think they can still be better off in the long term, as long as O'Neill eventually develops into a starting tackle.

I watched a lot of Spriggs coming out in 2016, since I was wanting the Vikings to draft OL that year (to replace Kalil who I wanted cut), and I like O'Neill as much or better. His main limitation is play strength, which should be easier to fix than Spriggs' technical problems (balance, lunging / waist bending). O'Neill's definitely a project, but I think he has a decent chance, and he was reasonable value in the late 2nd. 

Oliver I feel cannot play slot corner, something the Vikings need, and Hughes can play the slot or the boundary.  But like you said they could not have got Oliver anyway late 2nd unless trading up and to me Hughes is the better more talented corner prospect.  

 

As for CWood21 and the Vikings offensive line rankings from 2016 to 2017 and the improvement, well forget freaking PFF.  Yes they improved, just look at these 'numbers', from one year to the next, I would say quite the difference and mind you it is with a backup QB playing a majority of the year and their best running back Dalvin Cook missing well over half the year also.  

 

2017

Total offensive yards: 11th

Rushing yards: 7th

Sacks given up: 25th (27)

 

 

2016

Total offensive Yards: 28th

Rushing yards: 32nd

Sacks given up: 10th (38)

 

So yeah the OL improved more than just a little from 2016 to 2017, will see if they can continue that improvement this up coming year.  

[diamondbull424]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

There's really not a whole lot of variables.  Teams are essentially going to have their pass rushers play contain, bring a S down (or replace one of their ILBs) to play spy on Lamar Jackson, and force Lamar to beat them with his arm.  That's not something he has shown consistently he has the ability to do.  For every NFL-caliber throw, he's like a half a dozen WTF throws.  His passing production comes from the threat of his legs, and a lack of gap responsibility from the pass rushers.  Teams are going to play conservatively with their front 7, and aggressively with their back 4.  They're going to get up in the face of the receiver, jam them, and disrupt the route.  And in terms of route anticipation and throwing with anticipation, Lamar Jackson is a distant fifth among the top QBs.  I'd make the argument that it goes Darnold/Mayfield/Rosen (TIER) Allen (TIER) Lamar.  I mean, Dan Orlovsky had some really good pieces on this with regards to Josh Allen, and it translates to Lamar as well.  As for the Russell Wilson comp, Wilson is a passer who can extend with his legs.  He's more than capable of sitting in the pocket and throwing a team to success.  Russell Wilson his last year at Wisconsin was much more impressive as a QB prospect than Lamar Jackson in his last year at Louisville.  Lamar Jackson was just the flashier player.

As for the last part, I'd rather whiff on a guy that I think has a strong chance at becoming a franchise QB than whiff on a guy that I think could be a franchise QB.  Regardless of the price.  It isn't like they gave up an RG3 package to do so.

1. Wilson was so impressive in fact that these NFL evaluators allowed him to fall all the way to the middle of the third round. Now you might say “he only fell because he’s short”, which in retrospect we can certainly agree. But a multitude of analysts panned the Seahawks for that 2012 draft BECAUSE of picking Wilson in the 3rd round. Wilson being 5’11” 205 lbs factored into his prospect as a QB so much so that teams were only okay with labeling him a future backup regardless of his skill set. It’s very easy for you in retrospect to point out that Wilson was a better QB prospect. Did you equally have him ranked above RG3 and Andrew Luck in 2012 seeing as though he’s easily outplayed all of them in the pros?

2. Speaking of retrospect, your logic here is flawed. Right now if we assume Darnold to be a hit and Jackson to be a bust, your logic remains intact.

However, if we assume Darnold and Jackson both fail: Ravens lose out on a 2nd and Jets lose out on three seconds.

If we assume that both succeed: The Ravens succeed with losing a second. The Jets succeed with losing three seconds.

If we assume that Jackson hits and Darnold fails, Jackson hits with only a second and Darnold fails while losing three seconds.

While I don’t disagree that if Darnold hits big, we won’t count the cost, but what if he only ever reaches an Alex Smith level of QB success? That move will in retrospect look terrible. Whereas if Jackson only reaches a Smith level of success, he still is worth his level of value. Darnold can be NO WORSE than Matt Ryan level for that move to look good.

3. In terms of the narrative that dual threat QBs don’t have sustained success. Here is a post I wrote before the Ravens drafted Jackson.

Just in case you don’t read it, I went all the way back to QBs drafted since 1998 to look at success rates vs fail rates of first round QBs. And defined a “successful” QB as one that has passed for over 3500 yds passing, 25 TDs, and at least 3 pro bowls (even as a popularity contest it gives a good barometer of national perception of a player, you don’t make three probowls by “mistake”).

What I found was:

• 1/15 (7%) “balanced” college QBs succeed. *Aaron Rodgers was the only one and sat for 3 years behind Favre.
• 7/20 (35%) college pocket passers succeeded. *Goff and Winston seem to be the only capable new additions that could challenge for the success category.
• 5/10 (50%) dual threat QBs succeeded. *With Carson Wentz and Deshaun Watson in this group chances are this percentage will only increase as well.

4. In terms of the actual mock draft analysis, I agree that one can look at it in such a way based off of personal talent evaluation; I disagree with it based off of my evaluations and I also disagree with it based off of something beyond both of those evaluations; the law of averages.

1/2 TEs hitting is a greater likelihood than 1/1 TE. 5/12 players hitting is more likely than 5/7 players hitting. I don’t know exactly which players will hit but regardless of which ones, I trust in law of averages more mortgaging my future for one player, especially in a high impact sport like football.

If I had to guess as to which players will be hits I would say:

• Lamar Jackson (4x PB, 1 MVP, 1 SBMVP)
• Jordan Lasley (3x pro bowl)
• Hayden Hurst (2x pro bowl)
• Orlando Brown (quality starter)
• Deshon Elliot (quality starter)

[CWood21]

1(2) - Saquon Barkley [RB; Penn State]
2(34) - Will Hernandez [OG; UTEP]
3(66) - Lorenzo Carter [EDGE; Georgia]
3(69) - B.J. Hill [DT; NC State]
4(108) - Kyle Lauletta [QB; Richmond]
5(139) - RJ McIntosh [DT; Miami (FL)]

I've had enough discussions about my philosophical stance about taking RBs in the first round.  But the Giants saw the immediate team success that the Dallas Cowboys with Ezekiel Elliott and Jaguars with Leonard Fournette and probably felt a reason to emulate their plan and hope to have the same sustained success.  In the months leading up to the draft, the rumors of the Giants in love with Saquon seemed to be far fetched, but in the week leading up in the draft those rumors didn't dissipate it was time to take those rumors more as truth than fiction..  Saquon Barkley is arguably a better RB prospect than both of them, and should immediately contend for the rushing title as a rookie.  In order to protect their investment, they grabbed arguably the second best OL in the draft in Will Hernandez who slides in nicely at LG next to their big FA signing, Nate Solder.  Nate Solder is the highest paid offensive lineman in the draft, and the left side of their offensive line looks orders of magnitude better than it did just a year ago.  From what I've read, Lorenzo Carter isn't a natural fit for a Bettcher defense, but the upside in Lorenzo Carter is undeniable.  Athletically, he tested near the top of the chart in almost all of his Combine testing, but his production at Georgia didn't quite live up to those Combine numbers which probably was a reason why he fell to the third round.  In the third round, they paired him with B.J. Hill who was part of a talented Wolfpack defensive line.  He's not the most explosive DL off the snap, but he's sturdy and technically sound which bodes well for his ability to be a consistent producer for the Giants.  In the weeks leading up to the draft, we kept hearing about how the Giants were comfortable in the future of Davis Webb, and while the selection of Kyle Lauletta doesn't necessarily change anything to that it does give them a fallback plan in case Webb sputters out.  While Lauletta lacks the big arm that Webb has, he's a more accurate passer and projects reasonably well as a potential long-term backup in New York.  In either case, he figures to add more competition with Davis Webb to find the heir apparent to Eli Manning.  In the 5th round, they plucked RJ McIntosh who declared early for the NFL draft.  There were some mixed feelings about his early declaration, and going in the fifth round has to be disappointing.  But his fall is the Giants luck as he will get a chance to get a year in the S&C room and continue to work on his technique.  This late in the draft, that's not a bad bet to make especially given his raw talent.  Overall, this is an interesting draft for me to grade.  On one hand, I think they did a great job in sticking to the draft board in terms of value.  On the other hand, this goes against several of my general philosophies.  I don't like drafting RBs in the first round, although special ones like Saquon Barkley tend to be the exception to the rule.  I also am not a fan of drafting guards this early in the draft, especially when you can get quality ones later on in the draft.

Best Value Pick: Lorenzo Carter [EDGE; Georgia]
Worst Value Pick: B.J. Hill [DT: NC State]
Grade: B+

[CWood21]

@Acgott @10Manning10 @mattbags2313 @minutemancl @w4rrior723 @Money @GMENNATION @Gmen @Gmen4ev @DaBoys @YogiBiz @bzane @Bballbkd @GEE MEN @ny92jefferis

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, Ozzy said:

You are totally right if Terence Newman is a totally legit starting slot corner, that is something he is not especially considering how he played against the Saints and the Eagles in the last two games of the year.  Great pro, amazing vet on the team and basically is another coach on the team but is not a starting slot man unless he was maybe injured late last year which made him look so bad.  Hughes will start at slot this year and if not will still get a ton of time in the rotation, and Rhodes for one oddly gets injured quite often it seems throughout the year.  Newman and Alexander are not starting boundary corners, now with Hughes they have one who I would feel far more comfortable putting there if something happened and most likely it will.  I would not be shocked for them to use Newman more as a safety which he has at times as well, so if one would view Newman as a safety then they only have Sherels and Alexander as backup corners / slot corners which is a gigantic issue I feel.  

 

The Packers obviously let Damarious Randall, Casey Hayward, Micah Hyde, Sam Shields and Morgan Burnett all walk as DBs in recent years and no big surprise they have drafted some DBs in recent years quite high to take their places.  The first three in Randall, Hayward and Hyde are all very good players I think yet still they let them walk.  So yeah that is what I am talking about with trading contracts, all decent players, some they should have not let go but they went with getting someone new and cheaper and not paying any of these guys.  Are the Vikings doing that are corner, I would believe yes they are potentially or at least letting some know the situation in the room.  But sure the Vikings have not let any of their top CBs go yet but some could be in the works just like they were at Green Bay with that mass exodus of DBs.

 

As for O'Neill, sure if he is this unplayable raw total project sure it does not make sense to draft him.  But I do not view O'Neill as that type of prospect who is a total shelf all year if not for two years.  Sure I would not have minded Connor Williams at that 1st round spot, but I do not mind a position need at CB and slot corner something they arguably do not have on the roster currently.  

Even if you think Newman is completely washed up, they still have Mackensie Alexander as their slot corner.  Are they going to cast him aside just to get Hughes into the lineup?  LIS, I have no issues with the value but right now I see him fourth on the DC and that's ahead of Newman.  Your starting boundary corners are Rhodes and Waynes, and Alexander is your slot corner for now.  How Hughes plays in camp and how much Alexander doesn't progress will go into determining how much Hughes plays as a rookie.  LIS, it has as much to do with that as it does with the gap.  The Vikings could have added Connor Williams or Will Hernandez, and they immediately step into the starting lineup.  I'm not sure Hughes does.  And that's part of my evaluation.

You said the Packers draft with the intention of replacing a future FA.  Again, I'll ask which first round pick outside of Derek Sherrod was drafted more with a "year from now" logic? Every single one of them was either slotted to be a Day 1 starter, or was slotted to play at semi-significant role as a rotational player (as was the case with Nick Perry and Kenny Clark).  Last year, the Xavier Rhodes and Trae Waynes played in more than 90% of the defensive snaps.  Their third corner in terms of snap percentage was Terrance Newman at 56%.  Their fourth corner, Mackensie Alexander, at 32% of the defensive snaps.  There's only a finite amount of snaps to go around.  You have to figure that Alexander's snaps figure to go up, and eventually Newman's snaps are going to go to Hughes.  If Hughes plays more of the snaps than Alexander played last year, I'll be impressed.

As for O'Neill, if he was this NFL-ready OL he would have gone a LOT higher than late 2nd.  He fell for a reason.  He's just not capable of holding up at this point.  He needs work on his technique, and he needs to continue his work in the S&C room.  If he's in the starting lineup, that's because the guys in front of him were miserable.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, Ozzy said:

Oliver I feel cannot play slot corner, something the Vikings need, and Hughes can play the slot or the boundary.  But like you said they could not have got Oliver anyway late 2nd unless trading up and to me Hughes is the better more talented corner prospect.  

 

As for CWood21 and the Vikings offensive line rankings from 2016 to 2017 and the improvement, well forget freaking PFF.  Yes they improved, just look at these 'numbers', from one year to the next, I would say quite the difference and mind you it is with a backup QB playing a majority of the year and their best running back Dalvin Cook missing well over half the year also.  

 

2017

Total offensive yards: 11th

Rushing yards: 7th

Sacks given up: 25th (27)

 

 

2016

Total offensive Yards: 28th

Rushing yards: 32nd

Sacks given up: 10th (38)

 

So yeah the OL improved more than just a little from 2016 to 2017, will see if they can continue that improvement this up coming year.  

Maybe Oliver can't play slot, but I'm willing to kick Waynes into slot where I don't really like him, but I think you can get away with it.  For me, the difference between Oliver/Hughes wasn't that big.  Maybe it was for the Vikings.  And like I said, they could have made a minor move up for Oliver if they wanted him that badly.

LIS, if you don't want to use PFF that's fine.  But your "justification" isn't any better.  It's really no wonder why the Vikings' yardage stats went up, and it was in large part due to Case Keenum.  If you don't think Case Keenum playing out of his minds didn't make the OL look better with those stats, I don't know what to tell you.

[HTTRDynasty]

On the one hand, Vikings didn't really need all that much more help at CB:

On the other hand, this is a solid justification for the Vikings making that pick:

 

[HTTRDynasty]

On the other other hand:

 

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

1. Wilson was so impressive in fact that these NFL evaluators allowed him to fall all the way to the middle of the third round. Now you might say “he only fell because he’s short”, which in retrospect we can certainly agree. But a multitude of analysts panned the Seahawks for that 2012 draft BECAUSE of picking Wilson in the 3rd round. Wilson being 5’11” 205 lbs factored into his prospect as a QB so much so that teams were only okay with labeling him a future backup regardless of his skill set. It’s very easy for you in retrospect to point out that Wilson was a better QB prospect. Did you equally have him ranked above RG3 and Andrew Luck in 2012 seeing as though he’s easily outplayed all of them in the pros?

Russell Wilson will go down as one of my (and many others) biggest QB whiffs.  I gave him a 7th round grade at the time, which in hindsight was probably way too harsh.  But I think you're also kidding yourself if you don't think there's a stigma against shorter QBs.  I mean, we even saw it this year with Baker Mayfield.  Remember how many people were concerned with Baker's height?  It was only after he measured in at 6'1" that those critics started to stop bringing it up.  If you don't think height played a part in Russell Wilson's fall, I don't know what to tell you.  The other part was that he was essentially a 1-year wonder playing in an offensive scheme that most felt made him look better than he actually was.  I mean, he went from completing 58% of his passes and a 2:1 TD-INT ratio in his last year at NC State to completing 72% of his passes with a 8:1 TD-INT ratio.  Nobody trusted him.  That's why he went where he went.  That being said, I think you and I are clearly on different wavelengths.  I'm evaluating Russell Wilson the passing QB against Lamar Jackson the passing QB.  That's where there is a night and day difference.  Lamar Jackson was a far bigger threat with his legs than Wilson ever was.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

2. Speaking of retrospect, your logic here is flawed. Right now if we assume Darnold to be a hit and Jackson to be a bust, your logic remains intact.

However, if we assume Darnold and Jackson both fail: Ravens lose out on a 2nd and Jets lose out on three seconds.

If we assume that both succeed: The Ravens succeed with losing a second. The Jets succeed with losing three seconds.

If we assume that Jackson hits and Darnold fails, Jackson hits with only a second and Darnold fails while losing three seconds.

While I don’t disagree that if Darnold hits big, we won’t count the cost, but what if he only ever reaches an Alex Smith level of QB success? That move will in retrospect look terrible. Whereas if Jackson only reaches a Smith level of success, he still is worth his level of value. Darnold can be NO WORSE than Matt Ryan level for that move to look good.

It's not flawed.  I think Darnold is a viable starting QB, I don't think Lamar Jackson is.  So at that point, I'm willing to give up just about anything in order to add him.  I'm not willing to do that for the Lamar Jackson.  Let's go back to your point.  If they both flop, the Jets invested 3 second round picks into Darnold essentially.  If Lamar Jackson flops, they essentially invested one.  At the end of days, it goes back to the order of magnitude about how I feel the likelihood of Darnold succeeding and the unlikelihood that Lamar Jackson does.  To the point where the cost doesn't really bother me.  Especially since I don't think he needs to be a Matt Ryan-level QB.  It's not like they gave up an RG3 package to get him.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

3. In terms of the narrative that dual threat QBs don’t have sustained success. Here is a post I wrote before the Ravens drafted Jackson.

Just in case you don’t read it, I went all the way back to QBs drafted since 1998 to look at success rates vs fail rates of first round QBs. And defined a “successful” QB as one that has passed for over 3500 yds passing, 25 TDs, and at least 3 pro bowls (even as a popularity contest it gives a good barometer of national perception of a player, you don’t make three probowls by “mistake”).

What I found was:

• 1/15 (7%) “balanced” college QBs succeed. *Aaron Rodgers was the only one and sat for 3 years behind Favre.
• 7/20 (35%) college pocket passers succeeded. *Goff and Winston seem to be the only capable new additions that could challenge for the success category.
• 5/10 (50%) dual threat QBs succeeded. *With Carson Wentz and Deshaun Watson in this group chances are this percentage will only increase as well.

And of those "dual threat" QBs you listed, how many of them had sub-60% completion percentages in college?  Yes, it's a very rudimentary measurement of a passer, but it gives you an idea of him as a passer.  I mean, completing 60% passes in college isn't a huge benchmark to clear especially given the prevalence of spread offenses in CFB.  He didn't even hit that.  As far as I'm aware, Michael Vick is the only QB that had a sub-60% completion percentage in college that had sustained success in the NFL, and I'd make the argument that had more to do with his legs than his arm.  He was an "all or nothing" passer.  That being said, you and I clearly have way different definitions of dual threat QBs.  I think the only player in that group that is remotely like Lamar Jackson is Michael Vick.  Lamar Jackson had 3000+ rushing yards his final two seasons with Louisville.  McNabb had 850 rushing yards, Culpepper had 900, Michael Vick had 1300, Alex Smith had 1100, Vince Young had 2100, Tim Tebow had 1600, Cam Newton had 1500 in his lone year at Auburn, Jake Locker had 800, RG3 had 1300, and Johnny Manziel had 2200.  You lumping in Donovan McNabb and Culpepper in with that group isn't fair given that it was less prevalent that players declared early.  You have to have some sort of baseline to "equalize" it, which is why I said their last two seasons in college.  If you draw that line at 1000 yards, that success rate goes down.  Quite frankly, your benchmarks for what is a success and what wasn't is wildly inconsistent.  Alex Smith hasn't lived up to the #1 overall pick, so I'd hardly call that a success.  He's turned into a decent QB, but not someone who was drafted first overall.  Either way, you're essentially narrowing the focus to fit your argument.  Teams simply don't take running QBs in the first.  If they're going to gamble on those types, it's later in the draft.  You're essentially trying to make the qualifier that because he was drafted in the first that he's more likely to succeed.  Would you still be making this argument if he was drafted 33rd?  Probably not.

But like I said, find me a list of QBs in college with a sub-60% completion percentage who had sustained success in the NFL aside from Michael Vick.  I think you'll be astounded to how much that translate to the the next level.

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

4. In terms of the actual mock draft analysis, I agree that one can look at it in such a way based off of personal talent evaluation; I disagree with it based off of my evaluations and I also disagree with it based off of something beyond both of those evaluations; the law of averages.

1/2 TEs hitting is a greater likelihood than 1/1 TE. 5/12 players hitting is more likely than 5/7 players hitting. I don’t know exactly which players will hit but regardless of which ones, I trust in law of averages more mortgaging my future for one player, especially in a high impact sport like football.

If I had to guess as to which players will be hits I would say:

• Lamar Jackson (4x PB, 1 MVP, 1 SBMVP)
• Jordan Lasley (3x pro bowl)
• Hayden Hurst (2x pro bowl)
• Orlando Brown (quality starter)
• Deshon Elliot (quality starter)

And the law of averages works better off when we're talking about larger sample sizes.  The Packers drafted two corners a few years back with Damarious Randall and Quentin Rollins with their first two picks.  Randall was just dealt to Cleveland for DeShone Kizer, and Rollins is in jeopardy of being released.  Just because they drafted two TEs doesn't mean they're going to get one of them to hit.  It's a little outdated but the numbers figure to remain relatively static.

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Scroll down to the TE situation.  There's a 67% success rate in the first round, but only a 39% success rate in the 3rd round.  Assuming my math is correct, there's a 26% chance that they both hit.  There's a 41% chance that Hurst hits, but Andrews flops.  There's a 13% chance that Andrews hits, but Hurst flops.  And there's a 20% chance that they both flop.  Each position has a list, and you're likelihood of them succeeding goes down as you go down in the draft.  I've already mentioned that I think Lamar Jackson flops, but I think your expectaions of Jordan Lasley making 3 Pro Bowls as unlikely.  The success rate of 4th round receivers is ~12%.  Maybe he beats the odds, but that 88% chance he flops seems like a better bet.

[ny92mike]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Overall, this is an interesting draft for me to grade.  On one hand, I think they did a great job in sticking to the draft board in terms of value.  On the other hand, this goes against several of my general philosophies.  I don't like drafting RBs in the first round, although special ones like Saquon Barkley tend to be the exception to the rule.  I also am not a fan of drafting guards this early in the draft, especially when you can get quality ones later on in the draft.

As a fan, the one major issue that the Giants have had imo over the past few years, has been the lack of finding and keeping quality offensive lineman.  From years of watching Eli being forced out of the pocket with a 3 to 4 man rush only to look down field to see that the safeties are playing deep again, to the running back getting tackled behind the line.  

It was a head scratcher when they drafted Flowers, and even more so when the front office refused to play him at RG or RT, both positions that I believe he would be better suited.  Justin Pugh also regressed over the past few years and perhaps partly due to just being next to Flowers.  Richburg at center is the only lineman that I would had like to see back.  

Had my heart set on the front office selecting Quenton Nelson with the first pick.  Was a little upset that wasn't the case as I believe he's light years ahead of the other guards drafted.  Instead, they drafted the running back, and Will Hernandez in the second.  I'm personally, not a fan of him and believe he was drafted too high.  Now I certainly hope I'm wrong about him and that he can be coached.  Whether I like Will as much as others or not, he and Nate are definitely an upgrade.  I just question if Brett Jones is better than Richburg and if Flowers can and will be a better fit at RT.  The fact that he isn't showing up to workouts and his teammates are still calling him out, I wonder if drafting Orlando Brown over Hill wouldn't have been the better pickup.  Just seems like the front office is still relying on Flowers to protect Manning, just as the previous office did.  

I'm with you on drafting running backs in the first or at least that early in the first round.  Barkley seems like a great person, with no off the field issues, a hard worker, basically everything you want out of a player on and off the field.  I just continue to believe that drafting Q. Nelson from ND as well as a potential starter / depth at RT in the later rounds would have made me feel all warm and fuzzy.  Right now, I still have my doubts about this offensive line.  Where the only position I feel comfortable with is LT Nate Solder but if he gets hurt, is Flowers the starter?

Drafting Nelson would have been the better pick IMO.

As for your grade B+ is spot on.  Nice read.      

[wackywabbit]

8 hours ago, CWood21 said:

There's really not a whole lot of variables.  Teams are essentially going to have their pass rushers play contain, bring a S down (or replace one of their ILBs) to play spy on Lamar Jackson, and force Lamar to beat them with his arm.  That's not something he has shown consistently he has the ability to do.  For every NFL-caliber throw, he's like a half a dozen WTF throws.  His passing production comes from the threat of his legs, and a lack of gap responsibility from the pass rushers.  Teams are going to play conservatively with their front 7, and aggressively with their back 4.  They're going to get up in the face of the receiver, jam them, and disrupt the route.  And in terms of route anticipation and throwing with anticipation, Lamar Jackson is a distant fifth among the top QBs.  

Give him all day to throw and play press aggressively at the LoS? Lamar Jackson has shown more than capable of hitting deep throws over the top if you are going to make it that easy. 

8 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Russell Wilson his last year at Wisconsin was much more impressive as a QB prospect than Lamar Jackson in his last year at Louisville.  Lamar Jackson was just the flashier player.

Or compare Lamar Jackson's age 18-20 seasons which were way better than Russell Wilson's age 20-22 seasons. 

8 hours ago, CWood21 said:

As for the last part, I'd rather whiff on a guy that I think has a strong chance at becoming a franchise QB than whiff on a guy that I think could be a franchise QB.  Regardless of the price.  It isn't like they gave up an RG3 package to do so.

Nah. Every GM would rather whiff on the guy that cost a mid and future second, than the guy that cost the #6 overall, a high second, a mid second, and a future second. If they whiff, what does it matter what you used to feel about them?