2020 NFL Draft: Discussion, Reports, Rumors, and Studies

[Rockice_8]

45 minutes ago, Bianconero said:

1.11: BPA OT

2.48: WR/TE Chase Claypool

3.68: WR Lynn Bowden Jr

3.79: WR/RB Antonio Gibson

👀

Is Bowden expected to go that high?

I'd be okay with Claypool in round 2.  Thinking of scheme I think Aiyuk or Shenault are the guys Gase would want because of their ability with the ball in their hands.  I wonder if guys like Pittman are there and the round 2 YAC guys are gone if they'd go for a smaller guy like Hamler?

[Bianconero]

Just now, Rockice_8 said:

Is Bowden expected to go that high?

I'd be okay with Claypool in round 2.  Thinking of scheme I think Aiyuk or Shenault are the guys Gase would want because of their ability with the ball in their hands.  I wonder if guys like Pittman are there and the round 2 YAC guys are gone if they'd go for a smaller guy like Hamler?

IDK but no one ever really knows

My WR #4 is Aiyuk and I definitely agree that I think Gase would value him high, but I don't see him lasting until 48. I actually think we're going to be a little shocked at how many WRs go before 48. I think Claypool will be the best weapon available at that spot. That leads me into why I like Bowden and Gibson for us. These guys are super dangerous after the catch and can be used in more ways than others. Just like Douglas values dual-ability on the OL, I would bet he values that all over the offense.

(I'm not a Hamler guy personally but he fits this bill as well)

[Rockice_8]

16 minutes ago, Bianconero said:

IDK but no one ever really knows

My WR #4 is Aiyuk and I definitely agree that I think Gase would value him high, but I don't see him lasting until 48. I actually think we're going to be a little shocked at how many WRs go before 48. I think Claypool will be the best weapon available at that spot. That leads me into why I like Bowden and Gibson for us. These guys are super dangerous after the catch and can be used in more ways than others. Just like Douglas values dual-ability on the OL, I would bet he values that all over the offense.

(I'm not a Hamler guy personally but he fits this bill as well)

I'm not a Hamler guy either but he is so explosive though.  I would like Gibson as the change of pase RB to Bell though.  He's be a nice chess piece.  I don't think we need two of them though.  We really need a guy to line up on the outside with Perriman.  

Shenault seems like the best fit assuming he is there even though he scares me.  I like Pittman but he doesn't seem like a scheme fit so he is unlikely to be the pick.

[KingOfNewYork]

Kiper has us taking Wills and Claypool in his latest mock. 

 

[Rockice_8]

11 minutes ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Kiper has us taking Wills and Claypool in his latest mock. 

 

I'd be good with that.

[Bobby816]

1 hour ago, Rockice_8 said:

After people posted that WRs bust more in round 1 you said there is no correlation between drafts because the prospects were different.  Now you are using a draft with different prospects to make your point for a WR.  You sir are very good.

No I said it doesn’t account for how good that prospect is. Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote and understand it. There’s a correlation in this draft (hence why I used it) bc there was very highly regarded OTs and highly regarded WRs. When I said you can’t compare... I was referring to bad draft classes (why I used the 2014 draft again bc it was a good class). I said it’s not comparable bc it’s throwing the likes of Tavon Austin in with Julio Jones. When one was clearly more highly regarded. This 2014 class is a good example of how good WRs and OTs panned out IMO. I purposely didn't choose an awful WR class draft or awful OT draft.

[Bobby816]

14 minutes ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Kiper has us taking Wills and Claypool in his latest mock. 

 

I’d be happy with that. Although I hope there’s a better WR than Claypool there at 48

[Bianconero]

22 minutes ago, KingOfTheDot said:

Kiper has us taking Wills and Claypool in his latest mock. 

 

I'm a visionary

[Bianconero]

9 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

I’d be happy with that. Although I hope there’s a better WR than Claypool there at 48

WRs I'd bet are definitely gone before 48:

1. Lamb

2. Jeudy

3. Mims

4. Jefferson

5. Ruggs

6. Aiyuk

7. Reagor

[Bobby816]

4 minutes ago, Bianconero said:

WRs I'd bet are definitely gone before 48:

1. Lamb

2. Jeudy

3. Mims

4. Jefferson

5. Ruggs

6. Aiyuk

7. Reagor

Agreed. I think Higgins will be gone as well. Shenault and Hamler might be gone too. I can see WRs flying off the board late Round 1 early Round 2.

[NJC33]

4 hours ago, Bianconero said:

I can't stand this "20 of 25 top WRs or OTs were taken in the first round" conversation, lmao

Takes into account zero new information, zero influences of the coaching staff or general management, etc

For example, Joe Douglas himself has had more success finding later round offensive line talent than wide receiver talent

Also FWIW, the Eagles won the Super Bowl the year that they had the #1 rated OL

I hear ya but it serves a purpose.. 

With so many different opinions on here, it's nice to see an objective argument every once in a while or at least one supported with reason. Statistics can be used to provide context as to what we SHOULD do based on historical analysis and precedent. Seeing as we're operating under new leadership, it would be far fetched to find any statistical evidence to support what we WILL do (I.e your new influences point) - Although, it's easy to make assumptions knowing what we know about Gase/JD. There's a place in the evaluation process for analytics - Certainly not end all be all but these types of metrics provide helpful perspective and guidance. Again, when used correctly (Impartially), analytics can be incredibly valuable in painting a clear objective - Uninfluenced by personal bias or emotion. 

Not all statistics are relevant to the conversation or worth a damn - Many are simply skewed to fit an agenda so determining for yourself what's relevant is the most important part of the equation.   

[Rockice_8]

1 hour ago, Bobby816 said:

No I said it doesn’t account for how good that prospect is. Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote and understand it. There’s a correlation in this draft (hence why I used it) bc there was very highly regarded OTs and highly regarded WRs. When I said you can’t compare... I was referring to bad draft classes (why I used the 2014 draft again bc it was a good class). I said it’s not comparable bc it’s throwing the likes of Tavon Austin in with Julio Jones. When one was clearly more highly regarded. This 2014 class is a good example of how good WRs and OTs panned out IMO. I purposely didn't choose an awful WR class draft or awful OT draft.

That bust rate stat factors in bad class for all prospects including bad OT classes.  It's not picking and choosing which drafts to use it is all encompassing.  This class has zero correlation to 2014 so if you think the WRs in that class outperformed the OTs doesn't matter in the slightest when trying to figure out players in this one.

That goes same for the bust rate stat that was posted.  Doesn't mean the OTs will be better then the WRs in this class.  It's more an overall stat that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Rockice_8

[KingOfNewYork]

WRs that went before 48

9. Jacksonville- Jeudy

13. San Francisco- Lamb

15. Denver- Jefferson

21. Philly- Ruggs

22. Minnesota- Aiyuk

30. Green Bay- Higgins

34- Indy- Mims

48- New York- Claypool

after 48

50- Chicago- Hamler

55- Baltimore- Raegor 

56- Miami- Pittman

57- LAR- Duvernay

 

[Rockice_8]

Just now, KingOfTheDot said:

WRs that went before 48

9. Jacksonville- Jeudy

13. San Francisco- Lamb

15. Denver- Jefferson

21. Philly- Ruggs

22. Minnesota- Aiyuk

30. Green Bay- Higgins

34- Indy- Mims

48- New York- Claypool

after 48

50- Chicago- Hamler

55- Baltimore- Raegor 

56- Miami- Pittman

57- LAR- Duvernay

 

In that scenario I'm taking Pittman or Reagor over Claypool.  

[Bianconero]