Draft Grades

[oakdb36]

2 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

You’d still rather have Fulton?

I liked Fulton before the draft so i still think he's a good prospect. Obviously, the whole NFL disagrees with me.

[jimkelly02]

15 minutes ago, oakdb36 said:

I liked Fulton before the draft so i still think he's a good prospect. Obviously, the whole NFL disagrees with me.

I liked him too... and I wasn’t knocking him.... I should have asked that better....

knowing that Arnette has a hamstring injury before/during 40 (and assuming he’s somewhere between the 4.36 and 4.56, call it 4.48ish) and now knowing how much toughness and tackling means to Maykock and Co.: would you still prefer we would be drafted Fulton over Arnette? Like.... if you could trade Arnette for Fulton straight up right now so you do it?

im just curious, I’m not trying to debate or disagree with you on it 

[Darbsk]

3 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

I was absolutely livid we didn’t trade down from 19 for Arnette...we could have gone down to 24-29 and had near zero risk he wasn’t there still... I feel it cost us the opportunity to Trade up from 80 into the mid 2nd round OR trade up from 80 + 81 into late round 2 and early round 3, where There were some incredible values.  

Nonetheless, now that we have good reason to believe Arnette has better than 4.56 speed (as he ran injured or injured himself running... well documented so  won’t rehash it) the real question is: 

Would you be more happy picking a different CB, and if so who?

I personally wouldn’t want any other CB on the board by a SIZEABLE margin.  
 

 

I can agree that the combine 40 was somewhat misleading and more than likely he had some minor injury, unfortunately he never got the chance to prove that at a Pro Day. With that said, I think he would likely have been sat there in the mid 20s and possibly early 30s so I don't think we got good value ultimately.

Going back to the point above, assuming we traded down to say mid 20s and Arnette was gone then I would take Johnson and a 3rd in the blink of an eye over Arnette at 19. I like Arnette, I really do, but he wasn't clearly that much better IMO to not take the extra value. In fact, I liked Terrell, Johnson and Fulton more than Arnette straight up though all quite close together.  

This past draft had such a huge glut of talent at that end of first to second round range at CB (I even postulated it was possibly a better CB class than WR class in the draft thread) that if we were going to trade down, this was the time to do that and get more value. That GB deal I would have taken and been very, very happy with. 

Deals I'd take over Arnette at 19:

Johnson plus a 3rd

Fulton plus a 3rd

Dantzler plus a 2nd, 5th

Hopefully I'm wrong and Arnette becomes a Pro Bowl CB but considering his age, lack of ideal length, perceived character question marks and slow combine 40 I would be shocked if he wasn't sat there in the mid 2nd round had we traded back or at the end of the first at the least.

By way of a footnote, I agree with virtually all your scouting notes you've posted previously, I think he's a great fit and will be at least an average CB in our system but he wasn't an issue free prospect by any means and we have to be careful not to ignore or make too little of potential red flags just because he is our pick and we desperately want him to work out. 

 

[BayRaider]

7 minutes ago, Darbsk said:

I can agree that the combine 40 was somewhat misleading and more than likely he had some minor injury, unfortunately he never got the chance to prove that at a Pro Day. With that said, I think he would likely have been sat there in the mid 20s and possibly early 30s so I don't think we got good value ultimately.

Going back to the point above, assuming we traded down to say mid 20s and Arnette was gone then I would take Johnson and a 3rd in the blink of an eye over Arnette at 19. I like Arnette, I really do, but he wasn't clearly that much better IMO to not take the extra value. In fact, I liked Terrell, Johnson and Fulton more than Arnette straight up though all quite close together.  

This past draft had such a huge glut of talent at that end of first to second round range at CB (I even postulated it was possibly a better CB class than WR class in the draft thread) that if we were going to trade down, this was the time to do that and get more value. That GB deal I would have taken and been very, very happy with. 

Deals I'd take over Arnette at 19:

Johnson plus a 3rd

Fulton plus a 3rd

Dantzler plus a 2nd, 5th

Hopefully I'm wrong and Arnette becomes a Pro Bowl CB but considering his age, lack of ideal length, perceived character question marks and slow combine 40 I would be shocked if he wasn't sat there in the mid 2nd round had we traded back or at the end of the first at the least.

By way of a footnote, I agree with virtually all your scouting notes you've posted previously, I think he's a great fit and will be at least an average CB in our system but he wasn't an issue free prospect by any means and we have to be careful not to ignore or make too little of potential red flags just because he is our pick and we desperately want him to work out. 

 

This is my pet peeve too. You can’t fall in love with players, especially outside of the Top 10, the draft is about maximizing value. We got no where close to value with the Arnette pick. 

[Turnobili]

6 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Sure in a vacuum I don't disagree. But that can be finicky sometimes and you can pay the price. If picks hit, often that is more than enough. If Arnette becomes a good starting corner, "value" goes out the window. 

not at all. arnette could become the best player in the draft and it still wouldnt be getting the most value because you could have had arnette AND another 3rd/4th round pick regardless

[Turnobili]

1 hour ago, oakdb36 said:

We don't know if we got good value with Arnette but we definitely know drafting Johnson or Fulton at 19 wasn't good value. They both went in the bottom half of the 2nd.

thats a fair point

[Darbsk]

4 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

All of us blew our evaluation of Arnette.  I myself feel the most foolish because I didn’t question my notes that had him listed as around 4.35 back in ‘18.  I let the speed and shorter arms downgrade him heavily in our system when he played pressman at a high level for an elite team against competition for 3 years.  I learned a real lesson.  Your better off cutting off your “internet research” right around when the season ends.  The group think that we all are saturated by isn’t experienced by NFL teams.... they aren’t on thedraftnetwork.com reading bios and going back and watching YouTube videos.  “Damon Arnette vs “ youtube searches don’t paint an accurate picture of him.  Being on the field, talking to coaches, watching All-22s where you can see footwork, hand usage, etc through the entire route and see the coverage scheme and understand why he gave up and inside release there (When he had help to the inside) are how teams get the full story.  That’s the real story of the one we convince ourselves is true.

Let's not be too hasty on this until he's actually played a series in the NFL, just because we drafted him doesn't mean those concerns were suddenly overblown or disappear, they were valid a justifiable question marks. If the evidence presents itself I was wrong then Ill revise my opinion and admit the mistake.

Its strange how you've gone from absolutely livid about the pick to justifying and writing off every concern, I think there is a middle ground where Arnette was probably more highly thought of by man coverage teams than by most here but equally there are valid concerns and our FO has been wrong many times before and overdrafted and reached aswell . Lets not call him a bust nor ignore potential flaws until we've at least seen him play.

[BayRaider]

1 minute ago, Darbsk said:

Let's not be too hasty on this until he's actually played a series in the NFL, just because we drafted him doesn't mean those concerns were suddenly overblown or disappear, they were valid a justifiable question marks. If the evidence presents itself I was wrong then Ill revise my opinion and admit the mistake.

Its strange how you've gone from absolutely livid about the pick to justifying and writing off every concern, I think there is a middle ground where Arnette was probably more highly thought of by man coverage teams than by most here but equally there are valid concerns and our FO has been wrong many times before and overdrafted and reached aswell . Lets not call him a bust nor ignore potential flaws until we've at least seen him play.

Agreed. The concerns are absolutely still there, especially the arm length issue which is much more worrisome to me than 40 time or maturity issues (and those are still issues too). 

[oakdb36]

59 minutes ago, jimkelly02 said:

I liked him too... and I wasn’t knocking him.... I should have asked that better....

knowing that Arnette has a hamstring injury before/during 40 (and assuming he’s somewhere between the 4.36 and 4.56, call it 4.48ish) and now knowing how much toughness and tackling means to Maykock and Co.: would you still prefer we would be drafted Fulton over Arnette? Like.... if you could trade Arnette for Fulton straight up right now so you do it?

im just curious, I’m not trying to debate or disagree with you on it 

Yes. Before the draft, i had Fulton, Terrell and Johnson very close for the 3rd best CB and really didn't pay attention to Arnette due to his 40. Now, i've watched Arnette and would put him in that group as well. I still prefer Fulton though.

Btw, i'd put Terrell last in that group. I don't think he looked that good when facing pro level talent in college (not just against LSU). Athletically he has it all but he needs work.

Edited April 29, 2020 by oakdb36

[Rolni]

12 - Henry Ruggs | WR | Alabama - A

19 - Damon Arnette | CB | Ohio State - C

80 - Lynn Bowden Jr | WR/RB | Kentucky - C

81 - Bryan Edwards | WR | South Carolina - A 

91 - Tanner Muse | LB | Clemson - D

109 - John Simpson | OG | Clemson - A

139 - Amik Robertson | CB | Louisiana Tech - A 

[reddevil]

6 hours ago, BayRaider said:

This is my pet peeve too. You can’t fall in love with players, especially outside of the Top 10, the draft is about maximizing value. We got no where close to value with the Arnette pick. 

This is a really interesting point. Mayock and Gruden are quite similar in the sheer love they have for football and footballers. Add to that the emphasis they put on character and I can imagine them watching tape together and geeing each other up when they see something they like and I imagine their even more collectively pumped after meeting a player with passion or a football brain. 

As much as we need Mayock to take the edge off some of Gruden’s eccentric foibles - he’s actually pretty similar in that way himself and my guess is that they do encourage each other. I think there are and will be examples where this works over time - but like you say, it will also come at a cost, particularly if they do get tunnel vision in the draft when you’ve got to respond to things you didn’t expect.

[OG_C2X]

12 - Henry Ruggs | WR | Alabama - A+

19 - Damon Arnette | CB | Ohio State - B-

80 - Lynn Bowden Jr | WR/RB | Kentucky - B+

81 - Bryan Edwards | WR | South Carolina - B+

91 - Tanner Muse | LB | Clemson - C-

109 - John Simpson | OG | Clemson - A-

139 - Amik Robertson | CB | Louisiana Tech - B-

[Turnobili]

1 hour ago, reddevil said:

This is a really interesting point. Mayock and Gruden are quite similar in the sheer love they have for football and footballers. Add to that the emphasis they put on character and I can imagine them watching tape together and geeing each other up when they see something they like and I imagine their even more collectively pumped after meeting a player with passion or a football brain. 

As much as we need Mayock to take the edge off some of Gruden’s eccentric foibles - he’s actually pretty similar in that way himself and my guess is that they do encourage each other. I think there are and will be examples where this works over time - but like you say, it will also come at a cost, particularly if they do get tunnel vision in the draft when you’ve got to respond to things you didn’t expect.

Rather than a full board i get the impression that they just identify the 10-15 guys they like and pick the next guy on that list regardless of draft slot

recall all the stories where months before the draft mayock told Gruden that they are drafting josh jacobs 

[Jerry]

8 hours ago, Darbsk said:

I can agree that the combine 40 was somewhat misleading and more than likely he had some minor injury, unfortunately he never got the chance to prove that at a Pro Day. With that said, I think he would likely have been sat there in the mid 20s and possibly early 30s so I don't think we got good value ultimately.

Going back to the point above, assuming we traded down to say mid 20s and Arnette was gone then I would take Johnson and a 3rd in the blink of an eye over Arnette at 19. I like Arnette, I really do, but he wasn't clearly that much better IMO to not take the extra value. In fact, I liked Terrell, Johnson and Fulton more than Arnette straight up though all quite close together.  

This past draft had such a huge glut of talent at that end of first to second round range at CB (I even postulated it was possibly a better CB class than WR class in the draft thread) that if we were going to trade down, this was the time to do that and get more value. That GB deal I would have taken and been very, very happy with. 

Deals I'd take over Arnette at 19:

Johnson plus a 3rd

Fulton plus a 3rd

Dantzler plus a 2nd, 5th

Hopefully I'm wrong and Arnette becomes a Pro Bowl CB but considering his age, lack of ideal length, perceived character question marks and slow combine 40 I would be shocked if he wasn't sat there in the mid 2nd round had we traded back or at the end of the first at the least.

By way of a footnote, I agree with virtually all your scouting notes you've posted previously, I think he's a great fit and will be at least an average CB in our system but he wasn't an issue free prospect by any means and we have to be careful not to ignore or make too little of potential red flags just because he is our pick and we desperately want him to work out. 

 

Did we have trade offers for 19?  That's the real question.

[Darbsk]

1 minute ago, Jerry said:

Did we have trade offers for 19?  That's the real question.

When you look at the trades that went down shortly after our pick it seems logical to think there might have been options also it seems like we never made any effort to initiate a trade ourselves. Maybe we didn't but we never even tried apparently.