2019 Draft Discussion

[vegas492]

57 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Anthony Nelson
Zach Allen
Nasir Adderly
Chauncey Gardner-Johnson (mostly for the Being There references)

Those are my favorites right now.  Getting one or two of them would make me love this draft. 

I've actually watched quite a bit of safety footage lately.  Chauncey is the one that catches my eye.  He's fast, has some "quick twitch" in him and he makes plays on the ball.  He looks to play a lot faster than some of the other tier two safeties (not named Adderly).  If GB can't land Adderly, I'd love Johnson in the third or fourth.

[vegas492]

42 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I want versatile front 7 players and I've been told both Allen and Nelson could play any positions on the front 7 (except for ILB).  Not true? 

I'm also going a lot off an imported draft class in Madden.  I acknowledge that I don't know much at all about prospects, but both of them seem to be capable of what I mentioned. 

I've watched some Allen tape.  He's a tireless worker.  Tough man.  He will do the dirty work.

I see his game as being similar to what Dean Lowry does right now.  I do like him and I think he can play, but as said, he has a lot of limitations.  He will overcome a lot of those limitations due simply to work ethic and toughness.  I also don't see any "star" ability in him.  Solid rotational guy.

[Cheech]

42 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

Allen and Nelson are what I call "I don't know where to play you" players rather than "I can play you anywhere" players. Rather than being versatile, they are actual tweeners. Not stout enough to play IDL, not athletic enough to play EDGE, and the 5-tech spot that they would traditionally fill is dying out with more nickel usage and less base. I think both are going to test incredibly poorly at the combine and they're going to plummet down boards.

Both are traditional 4-3 ends.  I don't see either being a fit for Pettine's D.  

I think they will still both go in the 3rd or 4th.  

[pacman5252]

I was listening to the Locked on Draft podcast yesterday and they went over the top 10 players at each position. One thing I though was interesting was how they tiered their edge players. They have it is as 1 Bosa, then Polite/Burns/Allen all as 2a/b/c (Burns highest floor, Polite best now with character concerns, Allen more potential but needs the most work). There might be a little internet group thought/eye of beholder come draft time.

[Arthur Penske]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Why?  Keep in mind, I don't actually do any scouting, I'm just going off very little information, body types, hype, etc.  I appreciate that type of thing from others on here. 

I'm no scout either, but I like I previously said I was intrigued by him and then went to watch some of the "film" (youtube ) on him and he looked like he had no explosion off the ball, clumsy, and unathletic. Much of that was reflective of the few scouting reports I read on him afterward too. I think the combine is going to be a disaster for him.

[MacReady]

Also, the more I think about it, the more okay I would be with a straight DL.  Are people cooling on Ed Oliver?  Would he be able to be some monster maneuverable player that could do anything at EDGE at certain points?  Could he fall to us?

[JBURGE]

7 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Also, the more I think about it, the more okay I would be with a straight DL.  Are people cooling on Ed Oliver?  Would he be able to be some monster maneuverable player that could do anything at EDGE at certain points?  Could he fall to us?

He could. He would be hard to place though if we are having trouble fitting Mike Daniels in. Oliver is quick and disruptive, but he is tiny

[deathstar]

Any thoughts on Amani Hooker? I've heard he's excellent in coverage but has physical limitations.

[vegas492]

2 hours ago, pacman5252 said:

I was listening to the Locked on Draft podcast yesterday and they went over the top 10 players at each position. One thing I though was interesting was how they tiered their edge players. They have it is as 1 Bosa, then Polite/Burns/Allen all as 2a/b/c (Burns highest floor, Polite best now with character concerns, Allen more potential but needs the most work). There might be a little internet group thought/eye of beholder come draft time.

I watched Allen tape.  He's one impressive dude.  He has agility for days.  I don't know how Burns has the highest "floor", especially compared to him.

Josh Allen is just so impressive on tape compared to Polite and Burns.  The only thing I can "knock" him on is physicality.  He usually doesn't end up fighting much when rushing because he is just so elusive and slippery.  

Much love for Allen.

And...I'm happy they aren't talking about Ferrell!  Let.  Him.  Slide.

[vegas492]

25 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Also, the more I think about it, the more okay I would be with a straight DL.  Are people cooling on Ed Oliver?  Would he be able to be some monster maneuverable player that could do anything at EDGE at certain points?  Could he fall to us?

I read how awesome he was...went to YouTube...watched some highlights and was "meh".  People want to say he has that Aaron Donald build.  But he isn't that powerful.  I'm sure Pettine could use him, but I'm more in love with Wilkens and Simmons.  They pop more on film than Oliver.  But that may just be me.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, snackattack said:

i thought their grades don't take positional value into consideration.  i would agree having jacobs being drafted at 6 would be puke-worthy, but not sure i would fault DJ for grading the player this high.

Even if you don't take positional value into account, do you truly think there are only 5 players who are better than Jacobs?  I sure as hell don't.  I'm not even sure he's a Day 1 prospect.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

I certainly wouldn't take Jacobs at 12, much less 6, but I don't think you can say having a RB at 6 is puke worthy as there are exceptions.

There are a few ( very few) RBs that have generational talent that should be considered that high. I'd certainly take AP, LT, B Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, and maybe even Saquan in the top 10.

Or maybe you'd prefer Tony Mandarich over Barry Sanders?

You're using revisionist history to justify your argument.  What if Mandarich had hit?  Would you still be be disappointed that the Packers took him over Barry Sanders?  Probably not.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, snackattack said:

i would contend that value is a relative term, while grade is not.  so the purpose of a big board for an individual team might take positional value into consideration, but a DJ big board wouldn't have any reason to.  for example, i doubt that mitch trubisky was the highest (or second highest) graded player for the bears two years ago but they obviously had him that high on their board.  i'm actually thinking that "value" probably isn't the most descriptive term for the issue you are taking with a RB at 6 (i know i'm the one that used the word value first).   the positional value is really about the something like the MLB wins-above-replacement stat.  a RB doesn't have that positional value because he is less likely to impact his team's chance to win compared to replacement player.

i think the point i'm trying to make is that DJ's big board definitely doesn't factor this in and therefore shouldn't be puke-worthy.  if it did, i don't think he would have a NT, two TEs, and two ILBs in his top 25.  i think he is just ranking players in terms of overall grade.

i really have no idea though.

Your rankings should take into positional value into account.  You have the best punter come out in NFL history, are you immediately going to slap a first round grade on him?  No.  That's taking positional value into context.  There's also the much more broad statement with regards to positional value when it comes to selection.  If you're on the clock and you have an EDGE and a RB with similar values and needs are relatively the same, EDGE is more valuable because there's a shortage of quality pass rushers in a given draft.

[CWood21]

9 hours ago, rcon14 said:

And it's also an expected value thing. The expected value of AP when he was drafted was not the outcome. We should be evaluating the process of the decision. It is so hard to provide positive value to winning as a RB because running the football hasn't done much in the past 15 years. That's not to say you should never run the football, but in my opinion, we should start attributing good running games to good OLs, not good RBs. If you want to have a good running game, get good OL, because then you also get the benefit of having good pass protection.

I'd make the argument that Adrian Peterson was the last player drafted in that tier.  That was a really big blue chip tier, and he was the last one drafted.

[CWood21]

4 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

Also, the more I think about it, the more okay I would be with a straight DL.  Are people cooling on Ed Oliver?  Would he be able to be some monster maneuverable player that could do anything at EDGE at certain points?  Could he fall to us?

I think we've officially moved into that whole prospect fatigue situation with regards to Oliver.  He's been on the draft board since his freshman year.  He's been picked apart as a prospect for two years now.  We've heard rumblings that he played closer to 270 than 290.  We've heard rumblings about him being a bad teammate.