2021 NFL Draft Thread

[naptownskinsfan]

3 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

So if we can’t end up with Lance or Wilson in the first I’ve started to hone in on Leatherwood, Wyatt Davis, Chase and Devante Smith. I can’t add Darrisaw to the list because even though I’m a hokies fan I just haven’t seen enough of him to rank him. I still think top priority should be QB and I’m assuming Trask is moving into the first round but I’m just not a fan. 

If we could trade down and select Trask, I'd be OK with that, but really at that point, I'd rather wait a couple rounds and select a guy like Jamie Newman.  

[lavar703]

6 minutes ago, naptownskinsfan said:

If we could trade down and select Trask, I'd be OK with that, but really at that point, I'd rather wait a couple rounds and select a guy like Jamie Newman.  

I’m starting to pay attention to the tackles that will be available when we pick. I really think we have to do something there as Moses is getting older and Lucas is replacement level. So, maybe Leatherwood in the first and Brevin Jordan in the second. Or Davante Smith in the first and Carman Jackson in the second. Go for a QB next year or make a trade for Darnold and try to fix him? It’s tough man cause we have to do something about QB if they’re done with Haskins. 

[turtle28]

59 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Or the FBS wusses can have a REAL playoff instead of this cute 2 game "tournament"

For sure, the 4 game playoffs is better than what used to be but it’s still extremely insufficient in truly determining the best teams. They should have an 8 game playoff.

[Thaiphoon]

7 hours ago, turtle28 said:

For sure, the 4 game playoffs is better than what used to be but it’s still extremely insufficient in truly determining the best teams. They should have an 8 game playoff.

I think you meant "team" rather than "game" there. No worries.

That being said, 8 team is a step in the right direction but not far enough for me.

FCS has a 24 team playoff. The conference winners get automatic bids. The rest are selected. Then they are all seeded. It's very similar to March Madness with a few exceptions. The Top 8 teams get first round byes. The other 16 play the first round. The higher seed (think #1 not #24), host the playoff games. And the championship is played in a neutral site.

For the top teams it means one extra game than the ones playing the 4 team "playoff" play now. For the ones without a bye, add one game onto that (2 more games than currently).

No reason why FBS can't have that same thing (while still incorporating the 4 Big Bowl games). Limiting it to only 8 teams is ridiculous as it eliminates the possibility of Cinderella stories. JMU for example, won their first National Championship while playing every game on the road. That was back before the Natty was played at a neutral site. They had to go into Montana and play the championship on the road in their stadium. And beat the snot out of them.

It also gives those teams who just missed out on the top 4 and have legitimate gripes, a chance to show that they belong on the stage. Think about the arguments about "well, I can't believe they overlooked xxxxxxx and went with yyyyyy as the #4 seed". At least this way, you have the top 24 teams playing in the playoffs and can truly see who the champ is and not just which team that was selected that had a 2 game win streak.

[Vladimir L]

I thik we are set at safety and our oline isnt bad...would like depth though for these positions in rounds 4th to 7th

 

first 3 rounds we neee lb, te, slot wr and maybe a qb if not a qb in the 4th and olinemen in the 3rd

[lavar703]

Like I said, I still think there’s a really good chance Trey Lance drops pretty far. We might be able to get him at 19. 

[Vladimir L]

31 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

Like I said, I still think there’s a really good chance Trey Lance drops pretty far. We might be able to get him at 19. 

At 19 might be worth a shot homie

[Thaiphoon]

40 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

Like I said, I still think there’s a really good chance Trey Lance drops pretty far. We might be able to get him at 19. 

Given who would be available, I'd take him at 19 and sit him for a year behind Smith

[naptownskinsfan]

39 minutes ago, Thaiphoon said:

Given who would be available, I'd take him at 19 and sit him for a year behind Smith

I'm not even sure Alex Smith can make it through the end of this year, much less next year.  And that's a real concern, not me posting that to be smug or anything.  I'm not certain we can rely on him for anything next year.  

[naptownskinsfan]

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

I think you meant "team" rather than "game" there. No worries.

That being said, 8 team is a step in the right direction but not far enough for me.

FCS has a 24 team playoff. The conference winners get automatic bids. The rest are selected. Then they are all seeded. It's very similar to March Madness with a few exceptions. The Top 8 teams get first round byes. The other 16 play the first round. The higher seed (think #1 not #24), host the playoff games. And the championship is played in a neutral site.

For the top teams it means one extra game than the ones playing the 4 team "playoff" play now. For the ones without a bye, add one game onto that (2 more games than currently).

No reason why FBS can't have that same thing (while still incorporating the 4 Big Bowl games). Limiting it to only 8 teams is ridiculous as it eliminates the possibility of Cinderella stories. JMU for example, won their first National Championship while playing every game on the road. That was back before the Natty was played at a neutral site. They had to go into Montana and play the championship on the road in their stadium. And beat the snot out of them.

It also gives those teams who just missed out on the top 4 and have legitimate gripes, a chance to show that they belong on the stage. Think about the arguments about "well, I can't believe they overlooked xxxxxxx and went with yyyyyy as the #4 seed". At least this way, you have the top 24 teams playing in the playoffs and can truly see who the champ is and not just which team that was selected that had a 2 game win streak.

There just isn't enough football talent spread out to make 24 schools work at the FBS level.  8 teams is about as good as we can make it- Power 5 champions, a Group of Five selection and two wild cards selected, all seeded by the committee.  And this is coming from a Georgia fan, who earlier today thought we would make a good playoff team now that we've got a legit QB under center.  Alabama playing Liberty, Oklahoma State, NC State or San Jose State doesn't do it for me.  Texas probably gets rolled as well.  

This works at the FCS level because the talent gaps aren't as wide, and your top schools aren't littered with NFL starters.  

[Woz]

1 hour ago, Thaiphoon said:

I think you meant "team" rather than "game" there. No worries.

That being said, 8 team is a step in the right direction but not far enough for me.

FCS has a 24 team playoff. The conference winners get automatic bids. The rest are selected. Then they are all seeded. It's very similar to March Madness with a few exceptions. The Top 8 teams get first round byes. The other 16 play the first round. The higher seed (think #1 not #24), host the playoff games. And the championship is played in a neutral site.

For the top teams it means one extra game than the ones playing the 4 team "playoff" play now. For the ones without a bye, add one game onto that (2 more games than currently).

No reason why FBS can't have that same thing (while still incorporating the 4 Big Bowl games). Limiting it to only 8 teams is ridiculous as it eliminates the possibility of Cinderella stories. JMU for example, won their first National Championship while playing every game on the road. That was back before the Natty was played at a neutral site. They had to go into Montana and play the championship on the road in their stadium. And beat the snot out of them.

It also gives those teams who just missed out on the top 4 and have legitimate gripes, a chance to show that they belong on the stage. Think about the arguments about "well, I can't believe they overlooked xxxxxxx and went with yyyyyy as the #4 seed". At least this way, you have the top 24 teams playing in the playoffs and can truly see who the champ is and not just which team that was selected that had a 2 game win streak.

Thai, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the reason at-large teams work in I-AA is that there isn't such a vast disparity between the conferences as there is in I-A.

Think about it for a second (using last year's records because COVID has made the whole thing crazy)

• If you invite all ten conference champions, it's easy. Sort them 1-10 and be done with it. Sure, you end up with an 8-5 that only beat Tennessee Tech outside of the MAC, but hey they won their conference so they deserve a shot, even if they get the 10th seed.
• However, once you add at-large teams (say the just-defeated-in-the-SEC-Championship Georgia Bulldogs as well as the Florida Gators), do you automatically seed them above the conference champions? I mean, they were ranked "better" than any Group of Five champion in the playoff rankings. And let's be fair here, that ranking system is going to be the basis of the seeding committees numbers.
• Add more teams and just more "rich" teams get in. Looking over the week 16 rankings, you have to go down to 15th before you hit a non Power Conference team ... and that's Notre Dame. Memphis is the first Group of Five member at 17th.

So, let's go with your system of 24 teams: 10 champions + 14 at-large

First the champions

1. LSU [SEC] - #1
2. Ohio State [Big Ten] - #2
3. Clemson [ACC] - #3
4. Oklahoma [Big XII] - #4
   
   okay, so far so good
    
5. Oregon [Pac-12] - #6
   
   okay ... it happens ... where's the next champion... uh oh ...
    
6. Memphis [American] - #17 (12-1)
7. Boise State [Mountain West] - #19 (12-1)
8. Appalachian State [Sun Belt] - #20 (12-1)
9. Florida Atlantic [Conference USA] - unranked (10-3)
10. Miami (OH) [Mid-American] - unranked (8-5)

At large teams

1. Georgia - #5 (11-2)
2. Baylor - #7 (11-2)
3. Wisconsin - #8 (10-3)
4. Florida - #9 (10-2)
5. Penn State - #10 (10-2)
6. Utah - #11 (11-2)
7. Auburn - #12 (9-3)
8. Alabama - #13 (10-2)
9. Michigan - #14 (9-3)
10. Notre Dame - #15 (10-2)
11. Iowa - #16 (9-3)
12. Minnesota - #18 (10-2)
13. Cincinnati - #21 (10-3) [a Group of 5 at-large bid!]
14. USC - #22 (8-4)

(Virginia fans curse their luck as they end up 24th)

 

So, even though Memphis had an off day midseason and lost to Temple. As a result, they end up bottom of the pack ranking-wise. Even if we assume they hadn't lost there, the likelihood they end up in the top 8 and get a bye is pretty small.

Due to the way the rankings are anchored to the preseason rankings and there are very few games played, there's no real chance for a Cinderella story. On top of which, Memphis, as a 12-1 conference champion, has to go on the road to play Iowa (the 5th best Big Ten team per these rankings).

 

In thinking about it, even though the system is highly inequitable towards the Group of 5, I suspect they (the "underclass" of I-A football if you will) would prefer to stick with the bowl system. As crazy as that sounds, the bowl system (and the proliferation of the games  ... we have almost 45 now?) is more beneficial to the "smaller" conferences because the are near guaranteed payouts. Provided they can get a team qualified to play in the bowl, the conference reaps the reward of the payout (winner or loser).

[Woz]

1 minute ago, Woz said:

In thinking about it, even though the system is highly inequitable towards the Group of 5, I suspect they (the "underclass" of I-A football if you will) would prefer to stick with the bowl system. As crazy as that sounds, the bowl system (and the proliferation of the games  ... we have almost 45 now?) is more beneficial to the "smaller" conferences because the are near guaranteed payouts. Provided they can get a team qualified to play in the bowl, the conference reaps the reward of the payout (winner or loser).

Is this Stockholm Syndrome? Yes, yes it is.

Does that matter? No, no it does not.

[Thaiphoon]

25 minutes ago, Woz said:

Thai, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the reason at-large teams work in I-AA is that there isn't such a vast disparity between the conferences as there is in I-A.

There's a pretty big disparity between conferences in FCS outside the top conferences. Just like there is in FBS

FBS has the P5, the FCS basically has the P3 (CAA, MVFC, Big Sky), then you have Ohio Valley and Southland at the next tier, and then the rest.

So yeah, FCS has its own "haves" and "have nots". And even then the "have nots" still make noise

 

Quote

 

Think about it for a second (using last year's records because COVID has made the whole thing crazy)

• If you invite all ten conference champions, it's easy. Sort them 1-10 and be done with it. Sure, you end up with an 8-5 that only beat Tennessee Tech outside of the MAC, but hey they won their conference so they deserve a shot, even if they get the 10th seed.
• However, once you add at-large teams (say the just-defeated-in-the-SEC-Championship Georgia Bulldogs as well as the Florida Gators), do you automatically seed them above the conference champions? I mean, they were ranked "better" than any Group of Five champion in the playoff rankings. And let's be fair here, that ranking system is going to be the basis of the seeding committees numbers.
• Add more teams and just more "rich" teams get in. Looking over the week 16 rankings, you have to go down to 15th before you hit a non Power Conference team ... and that's Notre Dame. Memphis is the first Group of Five member at 17th.

 

It would still be a better playoff than the BS 2-game fluff fest we get now that is trotted out as the ultimate college football championship <puke>

Also - just because you win your conference is no guarantee you will be one of the top 8 teams with a bye. 

https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2020-01-11/fcs-championship-everything-you-need-know#:~:text=How does seeding for the,the top-eight seed pool.&text=This final vote produces the eight seeded teams%2C in order.

Quote

 

So, let's go with your system of 24 teams: 10 champions + 14 at-large

First the champions

1. LSU [SEC] - #1
2. Ohio State [Big Ten] - #2
3. Clemson [ACC] - #3
4. Oklahoma [Big XII] - #4
   
   okay, so far so good
    
5. Oregon [Pac-12] - #6
   
   okay ... it happens ... where's the next champion... uh oh ...
    
6. Memphis [American] - #17 (12-1)
7. Boise State [Mountain West] - #19 (12-1)
8. Appalachian State [Sun Belt] - #20 (12-1)
9. Florida Atlantic [Conference USA] - unranked (10-3)
10. Miami (OH) [Mid-American] - unranked (8-5)

At large teams

1. Georgia - #5 (11-2)
2. Baylor - #7 (11-2)
3. Wisconsin - #8 (10-3)
4. Florida - #9 (10-2)
5. Penn State - #10 (10-2)
6. Utah - #11 (11-2)
7. Auburn - #12 (9-3)
8. Alabama - #13 (10-2)
9. Michigan - #14 (9-3)
10. Notre Dame - #15 (10-2)
11. Iowa - #16 (9-3)
12. Minnesota - #18 (10-2)
13. Cincinnati - #21 (10-3) [a Group of 5 at-large bid!]
14. USC - #22 (8-4)

(Virginia fans curse their luck as they end up 24th)

 

So, even though Memphis had an off day midseason and lost to Temple. As a result, they end up bottom of the pack ranking-wise. Even if we assume they hadn't lost there, the likelihood they end up in the top 8 and get a bye is pretty small.

Due to the way the rankings are anchored to the preseason rankings and there are very few games played, there's no real chance for a Cinderella story. On top of which, Memphis, as a 12-1 conference champion, has to go on the road to play Iowa (the 5th best Big Ten team per these rankings).

 

I'm not just talking about this year. But if you're exposing how weekly rankings are still tied to preseason rankings every year, then that exposes a flaw in the playoff ranking system, no?

By Cinderella story, I'm not talking about Paducah Community college. I'm talking about that team that just made it into the top 24 by the skin of their teeth going on a run. Right now none of the teams outside the "top 4" have a shot to play for the title. I'd love to see the unranked team do what JMU did in 2004. They won their conference but ended up unseeded. They played on the road against another unseeded (re: not top-8) team. Then went on the road and beat the #2 seed. And then ended up meeting up with the #3 seed ( I know that @e16bball knows who that #3 ranked team was) in the semis.  Or I'd like to see the UCF's of the world in a particular year have a chance to prove that they should've been included rather than being "just left out" because of their perceived strength of schedule. I would've rather seen them prove it in a real playoff system rather than than the dog and pony show we get now.

Quote

In thinking about it, even though the system is highly inequitable towards the Group of 5, I suspect they (the "underclass" of I-A football if you will) would prefer to stick with the bowl system. As crazy as that sounds, the bowl system (and the proliferation of the games  ... we have almost 45 now?) is more beneficial to the "smaller" conferences because the are near guaranteed payouts. Provided they can get a team qualified to play in the bowl, the conference reaps the reward of the payout (winner or loser).

Now, you see...I don't think the bowl games should be excluded. In fact they SHOULD be included wherever they can. Even in FCS, you have the Ivy League that refuses to play postseason due to their own internal rules. And the HBCUs who play their own Celebration Bowl (although some of the teams that would be playoff teams and don't make it into the chance for that bowl championship, do accept invites to the FCS playoffs). The Bowl system can work in an expanded playoffs. Want a guaranteed payout for the Charmin Toilet Paper Bowl that your conference plays in each year? Guess what? That bowl game is now one of the games of the playoffs where your conference is playing. If there are too many bowl games to playoff games, well, they can certainly continue. Also - and don't get me wrong. I completely understand the guaranteed payout for the 90th ranked team (45 bowl games x 2), but you don't need bowl games to make $$ in college football.

2018-2019 look at the finances and JMU is 63rd out of all D1 football programs with $52.7m total revenue. That is WITHOUT a major TV deal and without going to bowl games. Not counting Ivy Leagues who exist on their own billion dollar endowments, they rake in the most revenue of any FCS team. Compared to FBS, they are ahead of many, if not most, G5 programs in revenue (for example, the only Mt. West teams ahead of them are Air Force, Colorado State and San Diego State in terms of revenue and JMU is ahead of the entire MAC). Only schools ahead of them are in AAC, Big Ten, ACC, PAC-12 and SEC. And yet, JMU does it without bowl games and without mega TV deals. 

This was JMU's road natty. It was the last time there were only 16 teams. And even if they went to 16, it would be better than what it is now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_NCAA_Division_I-AA_football_season

Here is 2016.

https://www.ncaa.com/brackets/football/fcs/2016

Bottom line is that it can be worked out. I see no reason why the FBS cannot come up with a similar system whereby we have more than just the token 4 teams in a ridiculous "here are your champions", 2-game "playoff" (while still maintaining the bowls). It's literally why I pay almost no attention to the FBS Championship or the Bowl games (*). They just don't mean anything to me because I'm not seeing what I consider to be a real playoff.

 

(*) I will record them and watch them for the draft if someone here talks about how a player did in that game, but otherwise they get recorded and unwatched on my DVR.

[turtle28]

8 hours ago, Thaiphoon said:

I think you meant "team" rather than "game" there. No worries.

That being said, 8 team is a step in the right direction but not far enough for me.

FCS has a 24 team playoff. The conference winners get automatic bids. The rest are selected. Then they are all seeded. It's very similar to March Madness with a few exceptions. The Top 8 teams get first round byes. The other 16 play the first round. The higher seed (think #1 not #24), host the playoff games. And the championship is played in a neutral site.

For the top teams it means one extra game than the ones playing the 4 team "playoff" play now. For the ones without a bye, add one game onto that (2 more games than currently).

No reason why FBS can't have that same thing (while still incorporating the 4 Big Bowl games). Limiting it to only 8 teams is ridiculous as it eliminates the possibility of Cinderella stories. JMU for example, won their first National Championship while playing every game on the road. That was back before the Natty was played at a neutral site. They had to go into Montana and play the championship on the road in their stadium. And beat the snot out of them.

It also gives those teams who just missed out on the top 4 and have legitimate gripes, a chance to show that they belong on the stage. Think about the arguments about "well, I can't believe they overlooked xxxxxxx and went with yyyyyy as the #4 seed". At least this way, you have the top 24 teams playing in the playoffs and can truly see who the champ is and not just which team that was selected that had a 2 game win streak.

I’m fine with that, use all the bowl games for it so they don’t lose that revenue. I don’t see the NCAA doing it, but I’d be for it.

[turtle28]

6 hours ago, naptownskinsfan said:

I'm not even sure Alex Smith can make it through the end of this year, much less next year.  And that's a real concern, not me posting that to be smug or anything.  I'm not certain we can rely on him for anything next year.  

We never could rely on Alex to sty healthy for an entire year, I mean I don’t think anything about that has changed other than can Alex recover or does he even want to go through this calf injury to play again?

I doubted if he wanted to play again before or would get back, I’m not doubting him now, but I’d totally understand if he retired after this year.

They can not treat this offseason like Alex is going to be able to play most of the games next year should he want to play next year.

To me it’s still all in Haskins’s hands. If he plays at least average, prepares well, acts professional and shows progress the rest of the year, they probably will retain him for at least one more season and not draft a QB. If he falls flat on him face, then they’ll be drafting a QB in April and trading or cutting Haskins.