incog's 2019 GB Draft Tiers

[JaireAlex]

31 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Good idea, but let's not suggest we draft an uber athletic EDGE to play the most important position on a 2019 defense because that would be a bad idea.

I don't like the top edge except Sweat. 

Round two, I like Banogu, Miller, Polite, Winovich......all guys that could be equal or better than a top 12 pick.

I very much want more round two picks to fill the empty cupboards. So, it's just a difference of opinion on the edge class, which is deep. I see very little difference here and a great opportunity at more picks for more positions.

The only day one starters I like for this year are Lindstrom, Hooker, and Isabella/other slots.

[squire12]

7 minutes ago, JaireAlex said:

I don't like the top edge except Sweat. 

Round two, I like Banogu, Miller, Polite, Winovich......all guys that could be equal or better than a top 12 pick.

I very much want more round two picks to fill the empty cupboards. So, it's just a difference of opinion on the edge class, which is deep. I see very little difference here and a great opportunity at more picks for more positions.

The only day one starters I like for this year are Lindstrom, Hooker, and Isabella/other slots.

Why does the draft pick need to start day 1 this year?  Are they stopping playing after this year?

[JaireAlex]

Just now, squire12 said:

Why does the draft pick need to start day 1 this year?  Are they stopping playing after this year?

I'm just pointing out day one starters. That's all. Hooker may be the number one safety on GBs board for all I know 

And I completely agree with you actually. I think any of the round two edge might end up outperforming the round one edge guys in year three.

That's true also of the TEs. Not many round one guys are a clear cut above, especially when considering injuries and work ethic which play a huge part in who you draft.

And we need a starting safety.

Just pointing out guys/positions that can get immediate starting. But with Lindstrom, we are talking best fit, best player, as well as an upgrade we could use. I feel better grabbing him than Dillard at 12. 

And the cupboards are bare. This is the deepest draft I can recall. Plenty of probowl and plus starter potential in rounds 2-3. The roster is set up to take advantage of the depth 

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, JaireAlex said:

I'm just pointing out day one starters. That's all. Hooker may be the number one safety on GBs board for all I know 

And I completely agree with you actually. I think any of the round two edge might end up outperforming the round one edge guys in year three.

That's true also of the TEs. Not many round one guys are a clear cut above, especially when considering injuries and work ethic which play a huge part in who you draft.

And we need a starting safety.

Just pointing out guys/positions that can get immediate starting. But with Lindstrom, we are talking best fit, best player, as well as an upgrade we could use. I feel better grabbing him than Dillard at 12. 

And the cupboards are bare. This is the deepest draft I can recall. Plenty of probowl and plus starter potential in rounds 2-3. The roster is set up to take advantage of the depth 

Couple of things there...none of those round 2 or later edge guys have the natural athletic ability of those round one guys.  Bosa.  Allen.  Sweat.  Burns.  You may find a nice player later, but let's not believe that the athletic ability is the same.   You keep mentioning that Miami guy, Johnson, I believe.  Yah, nice player, but he has no where near the ceiling of those other guys based on athletic ability.

Lindstrom.  Man I love that guy.  I was surprised at his size.  6'4'' 308.  I have no doubt he would be a "plus" guard.  I have to wonder if he can also play RT.  If so, he's in my "want" tier along with Risner for the versatility that they can bring to the line.

Safety.  I'm on the Hooker train as well.  I also really like CGJ and Adderly, but he's my #3 safety and I think where he will be taken, he's a nice value.  I'd try like heck to get him in round 3.  And if not him in round 3, Savage.  No knocks against CGJ and Adderly, but I think there will be other players there at different positions that offer great value with pick #30 and #44.  DL.  OL.  Maybe TE.

[incognito_man]

3 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

none of those round 2 or later edge guys have the natural athletic ability of those round one guys.  Bosa.  Allen.  Sweat.  Burns.  You may find a nice player later, but let's not believe that the athletic ability is the same.

I'd argue that Christian Miller is a better athlete than Bosa, probably pretty easily. Ben B. has an argument as well.

[vegas492]

15 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I'd argue that Christian Miller is a better athlete than Bosa, probably pretty easily. Ben B. has an argument as well.

Miller has an injury history that scares me.  But...he does have some nice bend in him.  Ben B is someone I have not yet watched.  And probably won't.  No knock against your post, just admitting that he's a guy that I haven't watched and I've reached "draft fatigue".  I just want it to happen already.

[Leader]

15 hours ago, deathstar said:

Why?

Okay. Sorry. Just saw this.......

Why would I take Fant over Hock?

@Packerraymond nailed the subtleties of these players some time ago. His viewpoints have remained consistent and been supported by others around the league and @AlexGreen#20 here. Works for me. From what I'm reading, Fant is more the move TE we need than an inline blocker / receiver TE.  Thats not dissing Hock in any way. We're talking subtle differences here but from the sounds of things, Fant COULD BE a serious player - and I've nothing against pairing AR up with serious players.

If we wind up with Hock - its a net positive for the team. As positive as it could be? Cant say. Listen - I love how Hock has just MAULED players at the college level. That type of "I'm gonna hurt you" mentality (in a nice, within the rules way.....) is refreshing to see. If we were to draft him, I'd hope it didnt morf into some sort of "business decision" mentality. 

By all accounts - this is Graham's last year with us (some would prefer we save the cash now - not me - but in any case) - so unless we perceive Tonyan to be the future TE1 of this team going into the future.....................(leaving time for that thought to fully sink in.....) we need a pass catching TE out of this draft. For me, Fant;s that guy. Stern could be that guy IMO....further down the draft process - but again, I'd prefer Fant.

As for the RB's.......
First - you're talking to a guy that raised concerns about or RB depth weeks ago. I like AJ as much as the next guy - but he has spent a fair amount of time with injuries - of the "knee variety" - which is about as bad as they come for a RB.  Second - my read of this RB class is "good but not great" - btw - that means: "My read of others perceptions of this RB class....."  - I've got other positions I'd like to fill before we address the RB position - and I dont research this stuff so deeply that I can tell you who's got the goods in the late 2nd / 3rd round - or beyond.

So my take is - kill off these other positions first.

[vegas492]

4 hours ago, JaireAlex said:

I don't like the top edge except Sweat. 

Explain to me why you do like Sweat, but not Burns?

Here's how I see them, based on tape and combine.  Both are very large men with long arms.  Love that about both of them.  Talking about pass rush here....  Both were productive in college, but when I watch Burns tape, his sacks comes when he clearly beats his man and gets a sack.  Shows great bend in his film.  Sweat's tape showed me that he got clean up sacks when pressure inside (Simmons) make the QB jumpy and moving around the pocket.  Sweat looked like a guy who did a great job controlling his blocker, then scraping off to make the play.  He didn't win clean.  Many of his highlights are either unblocked sacks or clean ups.  To me, that is concerning.  I didn't feel like Burns had anyone inside forcing the action to him like Sweat had with Simmons.

Run game.  Sweat is clearly much better.  Shows a lot more power, a lot more "control" over the tackle.  Sheds easily.  Burns is bad here.  Gets locked up and doesn't disengage well.

Combine.  Both trained for the Combine, and trained really well.  It was reported that Sweat was a 4.6 40 player before training.  After working on the 40 technique, well, we know that he was all-world in the 40 yard dash.  I assume that Burns trained as well.  Only he put on 20+ pounds for the Combine and still ran a very good 40.  Bend.  Again, Sweat looked good in those drills, so did Burns.  When you turn on the tape, though, Burns showed his bend, Sweat did not.

I put those guys neck in neck with each other.  Burns shows the bend at the Combine and on tape.  Sweat shows bend only at the Combine.  Power and run game is clearly a plus to Sweat.  Size, I think, is a wash.  Both are excellent there.

In my mind, if you like Sweat, you also should like Burns.  

[Fl0nkerton]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

I'd argue that Christian Miller is a better athlete than Bosa, probably pretty easily. Ben B. has an argument as well.

So what's Christian Miller's deal? It sounds like he's not getting a ton of love considering his testing and the fact that he went to Bama.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

Okay. Sorry. Just saw this.......

Why would I take Fant over Hock?

For funsies....

Fant....40 dash at 4.5.  Bench at 20.  Broad jump at 127.  Vertical 39.5.  3 cone, 6.81.  RAS score of 9.89.

Hock....40 dash at 4.7.  Bench at 17.  Broad jump at 123.  Vertical 37.5.  3 cone, 7.02. RAS score of 9.21.

Tonyan....40 dash at 4.51.  Bench at 16.  Broad jump at 128.  Vertical 38.  3 cone,  7.12.  RAS score of 9.0.

I'm good with either Fant or Hock, but also still very intrigued by Tonyan especially since he has had a full year with the organization.

[vegas492]

6 minutes ago, Fl0nkerton said:

So what's Christian Miller's deal? It sounds like he's not getting a ton of love considering his testing and the fact that he went to Bama.

Wasn't used very much as a pass rusher.  Was injured often.  There's a lot of upside there.  To me, the main issue is health.

[JaireAlex]

24 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Explain to me why you do like Sweat, but not Burns?

Here's how I see them, based on tape and combine.  Both are very large men with long arms.  Love that about both of them.  Talking about pass rush here....  Both were productive in college, but when I watch Burns tape, his sacks comes when he clearly beats his man and gets a sack.  Shows great bend in his film.  Sweat's tape showed me that he got clean up sacks when pressure inside (Simmons) make the QB jumpy and moving around the pocket.  Sweat looked like a guy who did a great job controlling his blocker, then scraping off to make the play.  He didn't win clean.  Many of his highlights are either unblocked sacks or clean ups.  To me, that is concerning.  I didn't feel like Burns had anyone inside forcing the action to him like Sweat had with Simmons.

Run game.  Sweat is clearly much better.  Shows a lot more power, a lot more "control" over the tackle.  Sheds easily.  Burns is bad here.  Gets locked up and doesn't disengage well.

Combine.  Both trained for the Combine, and trained really well.  It was reported that Sweat was a 4.6 40 player before training.  After working on the 40 technique, well, we know that he was all-world in the 40 yard dash.  I assume that Burns trained as well.  Only he put on 20+ pounds for the Combine and still ran a very good 40.  Bend.  Again, Sweat looked good in those drills, so did Burns.  When you turn on the tape, though, Burns showed his bend, Sweat did not.

I put those guys neck in neck with each other.  Burns shows the bend at the Combine and on tape.  Sweat shows bend only at the Combine.  Power and run game is clearly a plus to Sweat.  Size, I think, is a wash.  Both are excellent there.

In my mind, if you like Sweat, you also should like Burns.  

They are really different.

Burns has bend. Sweat has speed and hustle and is stronger at POV. Burns is way better at speed rush.

I see both as huge projections with possible bust. But Sweat is maybe a better 4-3 end.

In any case, not enough from either to take them at 12. I'd take Polite over either but at 20. Just feels a lot safer pick to me. I know Polite's going to struggle with strength but he has instincts and fluidity you simply cannot teach. He's a baller.

Just understand that I cannot take high risk guys that are all projection with a 12. There's enough questions about Sweat and Burns that I cannot risk a 12, maybe even a 20. I'm super risk averse. Make sense? I need to be able to say: this guy will at least succeed at a,b, or c. I can see Burns totally flop. Sweat won't but he's a better safe fit on another team. Polite will succeed so long as he really wants it. He has football on the field athleticism that is rare. 

And he is very similar in size to CMIII, with longer arms; being shorter can be an advantage as he's  quicker than the other two and less lanky. He has insane quickness at times.

Some are ok with high risk at the top. Not me. Just a different view. Miller and Banogu and others are worth fliers. They have athleticism and film. In a class THIS deep, I can risk risk later

 

[Fl0nkerton]

3 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Wasn't used very much as a pass rusher.  Was injured often.  There's a lot of upside there.  To me, the main issue is health.

Gotcha. Could be a bargain Day 2 if he stays healthy.

[deathstar]

1 hour ago, Leader said:

Okay. Sorry. Just saw this.......

Why would I take Fant over Hock?

@Packerraymond nailed the subtleties of these players some time ago. His viewpoints have remained consistent and been supported by others around the league and @AlexGreen#20 here. Works for me. From what I'm reading, Fant is more the move TE we need than an inline blocker / receiver TE.  Thats not dissing Hock in any way. We're talking subtle differences here but from the sounds of things, Fant COULD BE a serious player - and I've nothing against pairing AR up with serious players.

If we wind up with Hock - its a net positive for the team. As positive as it could be? Cant say. Listen - I love how Hock has just MAULED players at the college level. That type of "I'm gonna hurt you" mentality (in a nice, within the rules way.....) is refreshing to see. If we were to draft him, I'd hope it didnt morf into some sort of "business decision" mentality. 

By all accounts - this is Graham's last year with us (some would prefer we save the cash now - not me - but in any case) - so unless we perceive Tonyan to be the future TE1 of this team going into the future.....................(leaving time for that thought to fully sink in.....) we need a pass catching TE out of this draft. For me, Fant;s that guy. Stern could be that guy IMO....further down the draft process - but again, I'd prefer Fant.

As for the RB's.......
First - you're talking to a guy that raised concerns about or RB depth weeks ago. I like AJ as much as the next guy - but he has spent a fair amount of time with injuries - of the "knee variety" - which is about as bad as they come for a RB.  Second - my read of this RB class is "good but not great" - btw - that means: "My read of others perceptions of this RB class....."  - I've got other positions I'd like to fill before we address the RB position - and I dont research this stuff so deeply that I can tell you who's got the goods in the late 2nd / 3rd round - or beyond.

So my take is - kill off these other positions first.

I really appreciate your post. I guess my take away is that Fant has tools that Hock doesn't. But if you're a supporter of Fant are you a supporter of Metcalf? Elite tools but not consistent with his hands so drops 10% of balls thrown at him. 

People label Hock as this mauling tight end who dominates blocking but I don't see that. I see an effective blocker who excels as a receiver. I said in another thread he reminds me a lot of Dallas Clark. His routes are great, his hands are great, his athleticism is top notch. When it comes to receiving the ball I don't see how there's an argument FOR Fant.

I'll search around for @Packerraymond's thoughts on them to see if I can understand.

[Leader]

18 minutes ago, deathstar said:

I really appreciate your post. I guess my take away is that Fant has tools that Hock doesn't. But if you're a supporter of Fant are you a supporter of Metcalf? Elite tools but not consistent with his hands so drops 10% of balls thrown at him. 

People label Hock as this mauling tight end who dominates blocking but I don't see that. I see an effective blocker who excels as a receiver. I said in another thread he reminds me a lot of Dallas Clark. His routes are great, his hands are great, his athleticism is top notch. When it comes to receiving the ball I don't see how there's an argument FOR Fant.

I'll search around for @Packerraymond's thoughts on them to see if I can understand.

DK is going to do well at the next level. I've not given the WRs a hard look - primarily because IMO we need a stud TE more than we need a stud WR on this cycle. I've liked what tape I looked at for Brown - but - as I've said multiple times - my approach is positional. I want top talent at certain positions NOW and not counting on a 2nd/3rd year bumps on guys.

Positions:
First / foremost IMO: EDGE - to finish off that package - FOR THIS YEAR. Mix and match the talents - but create an overall dominant grouping. One that hits, pressures, speeds up opposing QBs - NOW.

Safety - of the FS variety - to pair with Amos NOW - so they can go forward and seal off that back end - NOW.
TE - for reasons already explained.

If we snagged these positions: 12, 30, 44...(or moved up from 30/44 to accomplish...) I'd be like the proverbial pig in ^^^^ - plug and play guys.
Yadayadayadayada.....