2021 NFL Draft Thread

[MrOaktown_56]

1 hour ago, Humble_Beast said:

we also have Irving, and Thomas who OOOZ POTENTIAL

Potential isn’t ****. We need results and competition.

[Humble_Beast]

14 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Potential isn’t ****. We need results and competition.

meh.. what are these prospects in the draft class. POTENTIAL 

[Humble_Beast]

YOU FOOLING YOURSELF IF YOU THINK A ROOKIE DT WILL COME IN AND GET 10 SACKS. 

[Humble_Beast]

37 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

1- Parson, Ojulari, Paye, Collins even  Phillips or  ROUSSEAU - make pass rush a strength

2- Mayfield hoping he drops doubt it but Radunz, Eichenberg, Walker Little, Carmen, Spencer Brown

3- Trey Smith, Aaron Banks, Alex Leatherwood, Ben Cleveland

3- Jay Tufele - would be nice but doubt it - Shelvin, TUIPULOTU, Marvin Wilson, Twyman( not NT but underrated), McNeill, Bobby Brown

4- LB - Dylan Moses, Jamin Davis, Chazz Surratt, Garrett Wallow

or S- Stearns, Washington, Cisco, Lecounte, Wiggins, Tariq Thompson, Forrest 

I could see us getting these positions in 5th: LB or S whatever isn't drafted in 4th, and a WR with return ability 

UDFA: look for RBs to challenge Reddick 

Rest of Free agency: QB2, David Sharpe, FS, CB

that would take up the 53 man roster. 

[G]

4 hours ago, CaliforniaKid7 said:

Just taking a mock draft stab with our new draft capital...wouldn't mind something like this.

17. Micah Parsons, LB - BPA, only blue chip defensive player that may be available at our pick

48. Levi Onwuzurike, IDL - best penetrating iDL in the class

79. Tyson Campbell, CB - better value here than any of the safeties available. If we don't sign a viable FS in FA then this may have to be a FS pick but I think Campbell has some of the better upside in this class as an outside CB w/ Mullen and Arnette in the slot.

80. Spencer Brown, OT - once again, tough to wait till 80 to go OT if we don't sign a decent body in FA but even then I think Brown can play meaningful snaps early.

121. Caden Sterns, S - really like Sterns as a developmental backend player

162. Reed Blankenship, S - another developmental safety and ST'er from day 1

167. Sadarius Hutcherson, iOL - fits the mold of a mid round iOL that we would like. Gives us another young G to groom going forward with Simpson

201. Khyris Tonga, iDL - can't ever have enough big bodies

This was my favorite Fanspeak today but doubt the small school or Perkins fall as far as they did.

 

17: R1 P17 LB Micah Parsons - Penn State

48: R2 P16 DL Levi Onwuzurike - Washington

79: R3 P15 C Trey Hill - Georgia

80: R3 P16 S Richie Grant - UCF

121: R4 P16 EDGE Ronnie Perkins - Oklahoma

162: R5 P18 OT Dillon Radunz - North Dakota State

167: R5 P23 C Quinn Meinerz - Wisconsin-Whitewater

EDIT: With signing martin I wouldn't take Hill now.

Edited March 19, 2021 by G

[MrOaktown_56]

16 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

meh.. what are these prospects in the draft class. POTENTIAL 

 

16 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

YOU FOOLING YOURSELF IF YOU THINK A ROOKIE DT WILL COME IN AND GET 10 SACKS. 

This is inane. Yes let’s pass on defensive tackles because we have a bunch of players who are collectively mediocre and have shown flashes at some point or another.

 

Also, because a rookie DT won’t get 10 sacks, let’s pass on them. They can’t be good unless they get 10 sacks I guess. It’s not like 4 or 5 would have easily lead our interior. 

[MrOaktown_56]

2 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

we also have Irving, and Thomas who OOOZ POTENTIAL

Thomas has done nothing in the NFL. Irving was good for a year, but has been out of the league and was injured for most of last year. 

[ronjon1990]

2 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Potential isn’t ****. We need results and competition.

We need the potential to get results and compete with the garbage we have. 

A guy like Soloman has a pedigree and got boxed out on a great and exceptionally deep DL. I'm cool with that kind of signing. 

What I still don't understand is how we've managed to (again) really ONLY sign a bunch of guys with NOTHING but potential at positions of need when more proven talent was available.

Ignoring DT in the early part of the draft based on who we've signed would be borderline suicidal. It's the same crap we've been doing on a loop. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by ronjon1990

[MrOaktown_56]

Just now, ronjon1990 said:

We need the potential to get results and compete with the garbage we have. 

A guy like Soloman has a pedigree and got boxed out on a great and exceptionally deep DL. I'm cool with that kind of signing. 

What I still don't understand is how we've managed to (again) really ONLY sign a bunch of guys with NOTHING but potential at positions of need when more proven talent was available.

IMO there wasn't a lot of proven DT talent. I like the guys we brought in, but they're on 1 year deals. Literally our whole defensive interior is on 1 year deals. All of them. We need to bring in a DT who can develop for the long haul and potentially contribute in year 1. No way Thomas and Jefferson both make the team IMO. Unless Nassib/Key are gone and we don't draft an end.

[ragingraider]

1 hour ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

 

This is inane. Yes let’s pass on defensive tackles because we have a bunch of players who are collectively mediocre and have shown flashes at some point or another.

 

Also, because a rookie DT won’t get 10 sacks, let’s pass on them. They can’t be good unless they get 10 sacks I guess. It’s not like 4 or 5 would have easily lead our interior. 

I would just say that there doesn't seem to be a DT that is elite in this draft.  Barmore is probably the top guy, and he isn't the prospect that would have excited anyone last year or in years where there were elite prospects at DT. Kind of a weak year for the position and not a whole lot out there in FA. I think what we added at the price we paid is pretty good considering the options.

[ronjon1990]

Just now, MrOaktown_56 said:

IMO there wasn't a lot of proven DT talent. I like the guys we brought in, but they're on 1 year deals. Literally our whole defensive interior is on 1 year deals. All of them. We need to bring in a DT who can develop for the long haul and potentially contribute in year 1. No way Thomas and Jefferson both make the team IMO. Unless Nassib/Key are gone and we don't draft an end.

Oh I wasn't talking just DTs. More of a general statement. 

And I fully agree, 1 year deals for mediocre/replaceable talent isn't how we improve. 

It's just a further example of a lack of long term vision. 

[MrOaktown_56]

1 minute ago, ragingraider said:

I would just say that there doesn't seem to be a DT that is elite in this draft.  Barmore is probably the top guy, and he isn't the prospect that would have excited anyone last year or in years where there were elite prospects at DT. Kind of a weak year for the position and not a whole lot out there in FA. I think what we added at the price we paid is pretty good considering the options.

I disagree that it's a weak DT year. Day 2 (2nd round could be the sweet spot) has a lot of day 1/future starters. Onwuzurike, Barmore, Nixon, Tufele all come to mind as instant contributors for us with upside to grow into more.

[MrOaktown_56]

Just now, ronjon1990 said:

Oh I wasn't talking just DTs. More of a general statement. 

And I fully agree, 1 year deals for mediocre/replaceable talent isn't how we improve. 

It's just a further example of a lack of long term vision. 

In this case, I don't think it's a lack of long term vision because these guys need to audition for jobs. The ones who play bad will be cut and the ones who play well will give us incentives to resign them next year. The hope is 1-2 of them give us high-quality play. We'll see.

[ronjon1990]

2 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

In this case, I don't think it's a lack of long term vision because these guys need to audition for jobs. The ones who play bad will be cut and the ones who play well will give us incentives to resign them next year. The hope is 1-2 of them give us high-quality play. We'll see.

To me, that screams a lack of vision. 

Our strategy is to sign potential and bank on either cutting them or getting high level play? That's boom or bust spitballing, not a designed strategy that is viable (as we've seen). At the very least, it's a poor strategy for building a team not full of rotational players- which is exactly what we've been. 

As you said, potential isn't ****. And my point is that anyone arguing that we settle for potential is crazy, chiefly because we have consistently signed "potential" instead of going after proven talent at positions of clear need, and it's never worked. 

[MrOaktown_56]

8 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

To me, that screams a lack of vision. 

Our strategy is to sign potential and bank on either cutting them or getting high level play? That's boom or bust spitballing, not a designed strategy that is viable (as we've seen). At the very least, it's a poor strategy for building a team not full of rotational players- which is exactly what we've been. 

As you said, potential isn't ****. And my point is that anyone arguing that we settle for potential is crazy, chiefly because we have consistently signed "potential" instead of going after proven talent at positions of clear need, and it's never worked. 

I see what you're saying, but the alternative is to sign the guys to longer deals only to see them flame out like Nassib. 

I honestly didn't see a lot of proven IDL who would hit the market so all things considered I'm fine with this.

This has been a solid offseason for me. I get why people are upset and I'm irked by the lack of secondary moves, but this is moving in the right direction IMO.