Jump to content

Initial reaction: How would you rate your divisional rivals’ drafts?


ClutchDJ

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

There is a lot to be said about teams who stay put and take the best guy, and I mean that in a good way. You shouldn't get penalized for it. What I do is I reserve A+ grades for teams who game the draft, trading all over the place to accumulate loads of value while also taking the best players to fall their way. Having said that, the only real A+ grade I'd give this year is to Minnesota. I don't believe teams like the Bengals and Cowboys deserve less than an A just because they didn't do the maneuvering that the Vikings did; they still had fantastic drafts. I just wouldn't give them an A+ like I would for the Vikings, who went that extra step.

I don't think it is fair to penalize a team's grade for their draft position and lack of trades.

See, the way I see it, giving them less than an A+ isn't penalizing them.  It's just rewarding them less.

The example you give with the Vikings is my whole point.  The Bengals being the worst team, then staying where they are and taking the obvious pick, by the opposing logic, get the same grade as a team that moves back, picks up additional capital, and still takes a player that was a steal where they were already and fits a big need.  That's penalizing the other team.

Giving them a good grade, like a B+ or an A- still makes sense there.  They're rewarded for a good pick, but that's probably the pick I give any other team for taking the right player where they are.  Higher than that is when a player falls further than they should, or they maneuver up.

Hypothetically, with the Redskins' pick.  Let's say they played the Dolphins, and got them to trade up to No. 2 for Tua, then traded back to 3 with the Lions and still landed Chase Young, while also picking up extra capital.  That's an A+ move.  Sitting at 2 and taking a pass rusher, even a great one, isn't worthy of a fraction of a letter grade below that.  It's the second pick: you're supposed to land a stud.

Edited by Daniel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

See, the way I see it, giving them less than an A+ isn't penalizing them.  It's just rewarding them less.

The example you give with the Vikings is my whole point.  The Bengals being the worst team, then staying where they are and taking the obvious pick, by the opposing logic, get the same grade as a team that moves back, picks up additional capital, and still takes a player that was a steal where they were already and fits a big need.  That's penalizing the other team.

Giving them a good grade, like a B+ or an A- still makes sense there.  They're rewarded for a good pick, but that's probably the pick I give any other team for taking the right player where they are.  Higher than that is when a player falls further than they should, or they maneuver up.

Hypothetically, with the Redskins' pick.  Let's say they played the Dolphins, and got them to trade up to No. 2 for Tua, then traded back to 3 with the Lions and still landed Chase Young, while also picking up extra capital.  That's an A+ move.  Sitting at 2 and taking a pass rusher, even a great one, isn't worthy of a fraction of a letter grade below that.  It's the second pick: you're supposed to land a stud.

I understand this logic. Can't really disagree. I guess I'm just a bit more lenient than you are lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Ray Reed said:

Feel like the worst draft of the division was the Steelers and i'd still give them like a B- at worst...unfortunately every team seemed to do well.

 Yeah and Pittsburgh's draft gets a lot better too if you think about Minka Fitzpatrick as being a part of it. Wasn't high on Claypool but knowing their record with WR's he'll probably be a stud. 

Cleveland and Cincy both got better this offseason for sure. Pittsburgh I think has more or less stayed the same and just comes down to whether Big Ben has juice left or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arizona: I think the Cardinals had arguably the best draft in the NFL when you factor in that they picked up DeAndre Hopkins for their 2nd round pick. Simmons is my favorite player in the draft, and I think he will slide into that Cardinals team seamlessly, playing a bit like Honey Badger on steroids. Josh Jones is considered almost unanimously better than the 72nd player of the draft, so it feels like the value there was very good. As a bay area native, I'll say that Evan Weaver has a lot of Chris Borland in him...seemingly unathletic linebacker who is just always around the ball due to superior instincts. Could be a real gem. No other strong feelings on the day 2 picks. Cardinals are clearly ascending. Grade: A

L.A.: Grading holistically here, and counting the non-draftees who were moved around for draft picks/etc. this season. The Rams' 2020 draft is heavily impacted by the team's machinations with its roster. Marcus Peters was traded for Kenny Young and a 5th round pick. That turned out poorly, and Peters has delivered a lot more value to the Ravens than the Rams got in return. L.A. then turned around and sent the 5th rounder they got for Peters with Aqib Talib to the Dolphins as a way to get out of Talib's contract. So, basically, the Rams dealt Marcus Peters for Kenny Young. Boo! The 2020 1st rounder was traded in the Jalen Ramsey deal, and this deal also sucks. I love Ramsey, but the Rams made that deal thinking they were closer to getting back to the Super Bowl than they really are. Whoops. Also, Ramsey is likely going to pull a Laremy Tunsil on the L.A. front office, and bend them over for a market-breaking contract. This is the problem with trading huge amounts of draft capital for young players in need of new contracts: they have you over a barrel in negotiation. Hell, Tunsil didn't even need an agent to sign a 22 mil/season deal just a few weeks ago. Ramsey is a great player, but it was a dumb trade for the Rams. On to the actual picks...none of them looks like big difference makers. I actually really like Terrell Lewis, but he's an major injury risk. Akers is alright...he'll be productive, but productive young RBs are easy to find. Van Jefferson won't stretch the field like Cooks could, and the Rams offense may end up having less space without Cooks on the field, with safeties playing closer to the LOS, not fearing getting beaten over the top. Do the Rams have a real vertical threat in the receiving game now? I don't see it. The Rams look like they're circling the drain a bit. We shall see...maybe McVay's not out of ideas yet? Grade: D

Seattle: Who the hell knows with the Seahawks? Going off the consensus rankings, the Hawks have a bad draft every season, and yet they remain playoff contenders. Go figure. The Seahawks seem to have been building depth here, rather than targeting players they think can be immediate starters. I don't like any of their picks in particular, but I'm sure one of the day 3 picks will end up being a hall of famer. Seattle is just about the hardest team to peg in the draft. I like what looks like a poopy Hawks draft as a 49ers fan, but I know better than to assume Seattle's picks won't work out because the press thinks they're reaches. We shall see. Grade: C

Edited by Ronnie's Pinky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

To put it another way: Why should they be rewarded for winning the lottery?  All they did was take what was given them without screwing it up.

Well it all depends on how your grading system works. Assuming it’s like most, the grade is based on prospect value, positional value, and team need.

By that standard I don’t see how you give anything less than an A when the Bengals hit large on all 3 components.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49ers: C+ - I was really nervous they would go Jeudy at 14 and was happy to see them grab Kinlaw. I like Aiyuk. I don't think they got good value by trading up for him but the selection makes sense. 

Seattle: D+ - I always hate Seattle's drafts so this one isn't very different. I hate the Brooks pick. 

Cardinals: A - I love what Arizona did. Every pick was a guy I liked at very good value. I am hoping that Vance Joseph continues being Vance Joseph and doesn't properly utilize Simmons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Ray Reed said:

^ Yeah i didn’t like anything any team in the NFC West did except for the Cardinals.

Think the Rams, Seahawks and 9ers are all probably in the bottom 8/10 or so drafts for me which is kind of wild

With the Rams, I think bottom 8/10 is fair but I would say if your first pick is 52 then you probably should have a bottom 10 draft. Other than the Akers and Fuller picks I was pleased with everything else. And I think Akers is a really good back but I just didn't like the value for position and that the Rams spent 2 3rd rounders last year on Henderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lions: B. Okudah and Swift were great and much needed picks. Okwara and both guards Jackson and Stenberg have some potential, even if they don't start this season. I think Patricia finally has the pieces he needs to his defense but I'm just not sure about the offense.

Bears: C. I didn't think this was a good year for Tight Ends (unlike last season or even next year) but Kmet was the top guy and they had a bunch of nobodies at the position, including the corpse of Jimmy Graham. There was talk of Jaylon Johnson being a first round pick, but I think he was drafted right where he belongs. Besides these two, I don't see much else contributing here.

Packers: D-. I mean, I get it. The identity they desire is Tennessee or the LA Rams. The offense goes through the runningback. Love has some awesome physical skills but his play is more similar to Kaepernick than Mahomes. Dillion might be worth the investment if they let Jones walk, and Deguara sounds more like a replacement to Vitale than Graham. Maybe Runyan's kid will do well, but honestly this draft probably deserves a "LMFAO" instead of a D-.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broncos - A

at the risk of going with the consensus, its hard not to love their draft. by stacking the team with weapons, it lets them evaluate Drew Lock asap instead of killing a season and then asking yourself "would he have looked better if he had weapons?" 

It's much more important to make a quick evaluation than to have a second purgatory season evaluating a QB. aside from the process, i love the players they got. Jeudy at 15 is nuts, shame on the raiders for letting him fall to them

 

Chiefs - B-

they largely held par, but i was worried they were going to grab yet another weapon like Mims/Shenault. Edwards-Helaire is a great fit, but i dont think the run game is the real needle-mover there. Their other picks are sound but dont give me the feeling that they pulled away any further than they already were. They didn't have a great sense of urgency to do something big, so they didn't. Held par.

 

Chargers - D

The poor get poorer. I'm not a believer in Herbert whatsoever, and I think they just kinda sat there and thought "well I guess i kinda have to take a QB." I find it hard to believe that they'd actually fall in love with Herbert that much. The trade up for Murray was also a very poor move that cost them a potential starter (the third round pick). They are the only team in the division to have a worse draft than we did.

 

Edited by Turnobili
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denver: Thought they did great. Really hate how well they did, actually.

KC: Not much to say. They didn't have many picks but I'm sure Clyde Edwards-Helaire will be an immediate impact player and they addressed several positions where they are weak.

LV Raiders: I think they were horrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

I don’t get this logic. Why should they be penalized for making the correct pick?

It's not really a case of being penalized.  

It's really about them not deserving the same grade as their rivals due to simply not screwing up the most justified pick of the draft.  

There's just no possible way they could fail (primarily because they failed so much this past season).  

But, I do hope Burrow does well for them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2020 at 3:43 PM, DawgX said:

Both Baltimore and Cincinnati had really nice drafts, IMO. I suppose Pittsburgh's was okay, but looks better when you account for Fitzpatrick.

I think the entire AFC North got better the past few days.

Nah, we did exactly what we were supposed to do.  

Prioritize the wideout over the RB.  

The RB rotation we had last season would have been better if we just had a more eclectic pool of RBs to work with.   McFarland is a speed demon, so adding him to a rotation with Jaylon Samuels and Benny Snell will be ideal if we know how to use them.  

But we needed a big target for Ben to go downfield, and Chase Claypool was exactly the type of WR we needed.  

Nothing against JuJu, but I'm honestly starting to lose my patience with him, and he could be shipped at the end of the season if he doesn't get it together.  

And, then getting Alex Highsmith in the third round was really smart, because it puts Bud Dupree in the hot seat even after he's been tagged.  

In my opinion, Highsmith already looks better than Dupree, but we'll have to see what happens this season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...