Jump to content

Goldfish's Way Too Early Draft Rankings 2021 (All up)


Recommended Posts

On 5/16/2021 at 3:36 AM, goldfishwars said:

1. Chicago Bears

Not surprised.  Out of curiosity, where did Fields and Jenkins rank on your prospect list?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

The current Browns brain trust has proven they can build a 3rd place team by spending an OBSCENE amount of draft capital that was earned through the virtue of being so abysmal of a team that they could benefit year after year from the league rules for picking up losers.

season 2 lol GIF by NBC

 

Ok there, wackster. We are literally 2 years removed from 0-16, to 11-5 and a divisional playoff win, I'm good with our trajectory there buddy....

Edited by MSURacerDT55
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goldfishwars said:

2nd and 14th!

That's fair.  Significantly higher on Jenkins then me, and quite a bit higher on Fields then me.  Fields was my #12 prospect, and Jenkins was an early 2nd round grade.  Overall, I felt like the large majority of the drafts were roughly equal.  Don't see a ton of disparity between drafts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:
8 hours ago, goldfishwars said:

2nd and 14th!

That's fair.  Significantly higher on Jenkins then me, and quite a bit higher on Fields then me.  Fields was my #12 prospect, and Jenkins was an early 2nd round grade.  Overall, I felt like the large majority of the drafts were roughly equal.  Don't see a ton of disparity between drafts.

It's funny I was actually thrilled when they drafted Jenkins. I didn't like him much. I will probably be wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JBURGE said:

It's funny I was actually thrilled when they drafted Jenkins. I didn't like him much. I will probably be wrong

He's a plug 'n play RT prospect who I have some pass pro concerns.  Releasing Leno was a head scratcher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/20/2021 at 9:20 AM, goldfishwars said:

2nd and 14th!

Our Ronnie Perkins destroyed Jenkins....😎

so I've heard. Didn't see it myself. 

 

 

edit: OK, this is pretty cool

 

 

Edited by Hunter2_1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2021 at 1:17 AM, CWood21 said:

Not surprised.  Out of curiosity, where did Fields and Jenkins rank on your prospect list?

Out of curiosity, where did you rank him? *waits for rival fan to say 2nd round at best*

On 5/20/2021 at 1:06 PM, CWood21 said:

He's a plug 'n play RT prospect who I have some pass pro concerns.

What exactly are those concerns? What are your opinions of him as a run blocker?

On 5/20/2021 at 1:06 PM, CWood21 said:

Releasing Leno was a head scratcher.

This comment is a head scratcher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Out of curiosity, where did you rank him? *waits for rival fan to say 2nd round at best*

Save the salt for the next ice storm.  It was a legitimate question.  I knew GFW was higher on Fields then Wilson, but I legitimately didn't know where Teven Jenkins was graded.  Not to mention, it seems to be a legitimate questions since GFW ranked Fields as his #3 prospect back in this thread.

 

16 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

What exactly are those concerns? What are your opinions of him as a run blocker?

Arm length is certainly shorter than desired to play LT.  The general rule of thumb is that you want your tackles to have 34"+ arms, and his came in at 33.5".  He's definitely not the most fluid athlete in space in terms of pass protection, and I just don't see the foot speed you'd like to see out of your LT.  He's a damn good run blocker.  That bit of his game is far developed moreso than his pass pro skills.  You love that nastiness in him.  I think he's a plug 'n play RT for the next decade.

16 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

This comment is a head scratcher.

The Bears OL wasn't a strong point going into this offseason.  Releasing a competent albeit not a very good one seems counterproductive.  I think the Bears would have been better rolling into the 2021 season with Leno at LT and Jenkins at RT, and then if all goes well move Jenkins to LT in 2022.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2021 at 6:18 PM, CWood21 said:

Save the salt for the next ice storm.  It was a legitimate question.  I knew GFW was higher on Fields then Wilson, but I legitimately didn't know where Teven Jenkins was graded.  Not to mention, it seems to be a legitimate questions since GFW ranked Fields as his #3 prospect back in this thread.

Save the defensive approach for the right time because this wasn't of them. I wasn't being sarcastic either much like when you asked goldfish. I was asking a legitimate question ---which you never did answer BTW. It had nothing to do with goldfish.  But it's been well established that you are a blatant Packer homer and will downplay every move the Bears/Vikes/Lions make while propping up the packers in any way you can.

On 5/22/2021 at 6:18 PM, CWood21 said:

Arm length is certainly shorter than desired to play LT.  The general rule of thumb is that you want your tackles to have 34"+ arms, and his came in at 33.5".  He's definitely not the most fluid athlete in space in terms of pass protection, and I just don't see the foot speed you'd like to see out of your LT.  He's a damn good run blocker.  That bit of his game is far developed moreso than his pass pro skills.  You love that nastiness in him.  I think he's a plug 'n play RT for the next decade.

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to your opinion in how evaluate Jenkins but knocking him just because his arms are only a half inch shorter than what YOU would prefer to see in a tackle seems a bit nit-picky and weird to me.  Especially when you also think he'd be a good RT for the next 10 years.

Which begs the question....do you think LTs need longer arms than RTs? 

A 33.5 inch span is not short  Players like Fanaca and Peters didn't have a problem playing under your desired threshold.

But maybe you're right and he doesn't work out at LT only becomes a very good RT or a guard. I'll still take it but we'll see in time.

On 5/22/2021 at 6:18 PM, CWood21 said:

The Bears OL wasn't a strong point going into this offseason.  Releasing a competent albeit not a very good one seems counterproductive.  I think the Bears would have been better rolling into the 2021 season with Leno at LT and Jenkins at RT, and then if all goes well move Jenkins to LT in 2022.

Bears IOL are very good when they're all healthy. Whitehair is good and can play any interior position, Daniels is good but injury is a concern, Mustpher stepped up last year, and RT was solid with Massie/Ifedi.

The worst part of the OL was outside protection in pass pro and Leno was a big part of it. His career has been on a down slide for 2 years in a row now and at 30 years old there's no upside left. A former top prospect bust (Ifedi) who was moved from RG to RT mid-season played better at RT than Leno did at LT.  Do you see the weak link here?  It was time for a change.  

The Bears were also strapped in cap space and Leno was set to make 11.3M this year which would have been the 5th highest on the roster and releasing him saved 9M. The production vs cost investment was an easy choice to make.  Especially after seeing how the draft played out and being able to get a top QB AND one of the top OTs in the same draft.

So, no, I wholeheartedly disagree that it's counterproductive for a team to release their worst starting Olineman (who was making more than he should have) and relying on him to protect a QB who they just drafted to be the face of the franchise for the next decade.  You know what you get when you put a rookie QB behind a bad Oline......you get Burrows.  A young QB, still going thru growing pains, while also dealing with a bad OL he can't trust that gets him injured and ultimately stalls his growth. Now THAT'S what I would call counterproductive.

The Bears did it the right way. The Bears offense have been a disaster and they spent the first 5 picks on offensive players to help rectify it. They drafted a highly touted QB that they believe in, and then followed it up with drafting a top OT to protect him for potentially the next decade.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Save the defensive approach for the right time because this wasn't of them. I wasn't being sarcastic either much like when you asked goldfish. I was asking a legitimate question ---which you never did answer BTW. It had nothing to do with goldfish.  But it's been well established that you are a blatant Packer homer and will downplay every move the Bears/Vikes/Lions make while propping up the packers in any way you can.

That hardly came out as a real question.  I had an early Day 2 grade on him, and probably went a little later than I anticipated.  I thought he'd go somewhere in that 28-38 range.  I actually thought the value on Jenkins was better than the one on Fields, and I thought the Fields' pick was good value.

And I'm not sure what about me is a blatant homer unless you're regurgitating some of the opinions of other Bears' fans.  I've made 3 critical opinions of the Bears.

1.) Mitchell Trubisky is a MEDIOCRE QB.
2.) The Khalil Mack trade would be a poor decision BECAUSE of Mitchell Trubisky.
3.) I don't trust Matt Nagy to develop Justin Fields correctly.

So far, the first one turned out to be absolutely true.  The second one is a mixed bag.  I never once doubted Khalil Mack's skillset or impact, but mortgaging your future with a QB that I didn't believe in is a poor use of resources.  Third one remains to be seen.  I'm interested to see how he turns out.

10 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Fair enough. You're certainly entitled to your opinion in how evaluate Jenkins but knocking him just because his arms are only a half inch shorter than what YOU would prefer to see in a tackle seems a bit nit-picky and weird to me.  Especially when you also think he'd be a good RT for the next 10 years.

Which begs the question....do you think LTs need longer arms than RTs? 

A 33.5 inch span is not short  Players like Fanaca and Peters didn't have a problem playing under your desired threshold.

But maybe you're right and he doesn't work out at LT only becomes a very good RT or a guard. I'll still take it but we'll see in time.

It's not necessarily short arms that are the killer.  It's part of the equation.  The difference between LT and RT (for the most part) is the fact that you're protecting the QBs blindside.  The ability to see a pass rusher coming by the QB is extra value.  Do you trust Jenkins on an island against a top pass rusher?  I don't know.  Alan Faneca was an OG fwiw.

But back to arm length, it's not necessarily a black and white thing.  And I think he's going to be a really good RT.  I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I didn't like the pick.  Probably one of the better picks in the second round.  I just think they would have been better rolling with Leno/Jenkins in 2021.

10 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Bears IOL are very good when they're all healthy. Whitehair is good and can play any interior position, Daniels is good but injury is a concern, Mustpher stepped up last year, and RT was solid with Massie/Ifedi.

The worst part of the OL was outside protection in pass pro and Leno was a big part of it. His career has been on a down slide for 2 years in a row now and at 30 years old there's no upside left. A former top prospect bust (Ifedi) who was moved from RG to RT mid-season played better at RT than Leno did at LT.  Do you see the weak link here?  It was time for a change.  

The Bears were also strapped in cap space and Leno was set to make 11.3M this year which would have been the 5th highest on the roster and releasing him saved 9M. The production vs cost investment was an easy choice to make.  Especially after seeing how the draft played out and being able to get a top QB AND one of the top OTs in the same draft.

So, no, I wholeheartedly disagree that it's counterproductive for a team to release their worst starting Olineman (who was making more than he should have) and relying on him to protect a QB who they just drafted to be the face of the franchise for the next decade.  You know what you get when you put a rookie QB behind a bad Oline......you get Burrows.  A young QB, still going thru growing pains, while also dealing with a bad OL he can't trust that gets him injured and ultimately stalls his growth. Now THAT'S what I would call counterproductive.

The Bears did it the right way. The Bears offense have been a disaster and they spent the first 5 picks on offensive players to help rectify it. They drafted a highly touted QB that they believe in, and then followed it up with drafting a top OT to protect him for potentially the next decade.

Again, I'll go back to the question at hand.  Do you think the Bears are better with Charles Leno at OT and Teven Jenkins at RT or Teven Jenkins at LT and (I believe) Germain Ifedi at RT?  Not that it's the end-all, be-all to the dicussion but Leno graded out better then Ifedi according to PFF the last 3 seasons.  If you want a rookie LT and a bust at RT, go right ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2021 at 1:16 PM, CWood21 said:

That hardly came out as a real question.  I had an early Day 2 grade on him, and probably went a little later than I anticipated.  I thought he'd go somewhere in that 28-38 range.  

Out of curiosity, where did you rank him? *waits for rival fan to say 2nd round at best*

I'm not sure what part of my post didn't come off as a legit question.  But whatever, lets move on. 

On 5/26/2021 at 1:16 PM, CWood21 said:

I actually thought the value on Jenkins was better than the one on Fields, and I thought the Fields' pick was good value.

Okay.  So in terms of value overall as a prospect and what was given up to secure said prospects I think I can see where you're coming from here and correct me if I'm wrong. Even tho I disagree with it, I can understand where you're coming from.

You think the Bears giving up a 1st and 5th rd picks in 2021 plus next years 1st and 4th for Fields was good value. But you also think giving up this year's 2nd, 3rd and 6th to move up for Jenkins was even better value in terms of each player? Am I right on this or no?

If this is the case, then I certainly understand your point of view and in some ways I do agree. The Bears didn't need to give up any 2022 assets to get Jenkins whereas they had to get Fields. 

However, I disagree with this outlook overall simply because it seems like you are neglecting to separate the differences and importance between each position. Which is why each prospect should never be treated equally IMO.

Jenkins still being available when the Bears traded up was certainly a luck by chance. But the same can be said for Fields too and I don't think I need to tell you the differences that a QB makes to a team vs an OT. Especially for a team who has literally been trying to fill this void since world war 2.

On 5/26/2021 at 1:16 PM, CWood21 said:

And I'm not sure what about me is a blatant homer

I'm not going down this road with you man. I know I kinda started it by referencing you being a homer, and although I have a perfectly good reason to think it, I'll own up to it. But as I said earlier, lets move on and not derail this thread by potentially making it personal.

On 5/26/2021 at 1:16 PM, CWood21 said:

It's not necessarily short arms that are the killer.  It's part of the equation.

I understand this. You have concerns about Jenkins as a prospect at LT and him having shorter arms is just another aspect of those concerns. I get it.

However, that doesn't answer my question. It seems like you're using his arm length as an arbitrary cutoff and putting more weight into this than there should be in order to downplay the move. 

Based on what you have said, you alluded to the fact that you don't think Jenkins would be a good LT because his arms only a half inch shorter than you would prefer, but in the same breath claim he would be a very good RT. This is the part I'm confused about.

I'm just asking for clarity is all. You are essentially saying that you prefer a LT to have longer arms than a RT for whatever reason. Do you understand why this is confusing?

 

On 5/26/2021 at 1:16 PM, CWood21 said:

Do you think the Bears are better with Charles Leno at OT and Teven Jenkins at RT or Teven Jenkins at LT and (I believe) Germain Ifedi at RT?

The latter for reasons already stated. Plus, the Bears are already set at RT with Ifedi and Borom. And if the idea was to make Jenkins a LT anyhow then I would much rather them make the move now and get growing pains out of the way this year so that he's better prepared for 2022 and beyond.

On 5/26/2021 at 1:16 PM, CWood21 said:

Not that it's the end-all, be-all to the dicussion but Leno graded out better then Ifedi according to PFF the last 3 seasons.

Well I'm glad you recognize that PFF is certainly not the end all be all so that I don't have to waste either of our time pointing out how awful they are and repeating myself for the 2,836th time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Okay.  So in terms of value overall as a prospect and what was given up to secure said prospects I think I can see where you're coming from here and correct me if I'm wrong. Even tho I disagree with it, I can understand where you're coming from.

You think the Bears giving up a 1st and 5th rd picks in 2021 plus next years 1st and 4th for Fields was good value. But you also think giving up this year's 2nd, 3rd and 6th to move up for Jenkins was even better value in terms of each player? Am I right on this or no?

If this is the case, then I certainly understand your point of view and in some ways I do agree. The Bears didn't need to give up any 2022 assets to get Jenkins whereas they had to get Fields. 

However, I disagree with this outlook overall simply because it seems like you are neglecting to separate the differences and importance between each position. Which is why each prospect should never be treated equally IMO.

Jenkins still being available when the Bears traded up was certainly a luck by chance. But the same can be said for Fields too and I don't think I need to tell you the differences that a QB makes to a team vs an OT. Especially for a team who has literally been trying to fill this void since world war 2.

The Fields trade up was okay in terms of value.  It was the going rate if they weren't willing to move their SRP, or the Giants weren't accepting a deal that didn't include a future FRP.  My guess is that it's the latter given Gettlemen's history of not trading down.  But the problem is that you're essentially putting this year's draft AND next year's draft in the hands of Justin Fields.  If Justin Fields turns into what people think he can be, nobody is going to blink an eye about giving up that extra FRP.  But if he doesn't, losing that FRP hurts.  Especially if Chicago struggles this year.  Do you want to be the team to hand over a top 10 pick because you traded it for a bust?  You have to weigh the downside with the upside.  The 3rd and 6th round picks that were dealt were replaceable.  And the success rate goes down drastically from the 1st round to the 3rd round by orders of magnitude.  The first trade was significantly more costly, and it's not like it was on a prospect that you're pretty confident is going to hit.

But the bigger issue is the window that the Bears are trying to capitalize on before Fields starts to get expensive (assuming he hits).  Offensively, I think they've got some good pieces in place.  Obviously, they need health on the IOL, and I think they're one OT and one WR away from having a strong supporting cast for Fields.  Defensively, I think they're starting to get a bit long in the tooth.  I really like Jaylon Johnson, but the rest of the CBs scare me.  And they need more production opposite of Khalil Mack.  It's a risky trade up.  And given that I'm not a huge believer in Matt Nagy as a play caller or developing QBs, that's not really a risk I like.

41 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I understand this. You have concerns about Jenkins as a prospect at LT and him having shorter arms is just another aspect of those concerns. I get it.

However, that doesn't answer my question. It seems like you're using his arm length as an arbitrary cutoff and putting more weight into this than there should be in order to downplay the move. 

Based on what you have said, you alluded to the fact that you don't think Jenkins would be a good LT because his arms only a half inch shorter than you would prefer, but in the same breath claim he would be a very good RT. This is the part I'm confused about.

I'm just asking for clarity is all. You are essentially saying that you prefer a LT to have longer arms than a RT for whatever reason. Do you understand why this is confusing?

You watch him and you come away saying that he's a strong pass protector?  Because that's certainly not what I saw.  You see him as a plus in the run game, but his pass pro just isn't there.  Arm length is just one concern I have.

You're not understanding what I'm saying if that last sentence is all you got out of it.  He's got enough arm length so survive at LT (or RT), but I'm not sure he's ever going to be a strong pass protector because of that and the rest of his pass pro skills.  To me, it's similar to Elgton Jenkins in a way.  He's an elite OG, and he can play OT at a high level.  Maybe not elite level but you're comfortable with him at that spot.  And that's a best case scenario for him.

43 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

The latter for reasons already stated. Plus, the Bears are already set at RT with Ifedi and Borom. And if the idea was to make Jenkins a LT anyhow then I would much rather them make the move now and get growing pains out of the way this year so that he's better prepared for 2022 and beyond.

To me, that's mind boggling considering the Seahawks who have been OL deprived since Max Unger didn't really try to retain him.  Ifedi is at best a place holder.  Same as Lane Taylor for the Packers for a few years.  Same as that OG the Vikings had for a few years who is escaping my mind.  You're willing to put up with the relative poor play.

I'd say the Bears probably had a top 5 draft class without digging into the classes too much.  But there's a TON of inherent risk and I don't see it as a slam dunk amazing draft class like some have said.  As we've noticed, GFW is significantly higher then I am.

45 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I'm not going down this road with you man. I know I kinda started it by referencing you being a homer, and although I have a perfectly good reason to think it, I'll own up to it. But as I said earlier, lets move on and not derail this thread by potentially making it personal.

IF you're going to make a claim, I'd like to hear you back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The draft is always going to be a risk. But if I had to choose the best possible risk then I would rather that risk be used on a high-end QB and OT in rounds 1 and 2 than anything else. 

And I'm fine with that.

Ifedi didn't play poorly though, and I don't care what he did 3 years ago. I care about how he played for the Bears last season. He is a just a placeholder but he played well enough to earn an extension and if he plays as well as he did last season then he's well worth it. At least until Borom or someone else steps up to fill the position long term.

Nope. Not falling for the bait.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

The draft is always going to be a risk. But if I had to choose the best possible risk then I would rather that risk be used on a high-end QB and OT in rounds 1 and 2 than anything else. 

And I'm fine with that.

Again, which is why the Bears are viewed as a top 5 draft.  I just don't see them as the slam dunk #1 class like I believe GFW does.  Hence the initial question to where he/she graded out Fields and Jenkins.

 

15 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Ifedi didn't play poorly though, and I don't care what he did 3 years ago. I care about how he played for the Bears last season. He is a just a placeholder but he played well enough to earn an extension and if he plays as well as he did last season then he's well worth it. At least until Borom or someone else steps up to fill the position long term.

And yet he only got a 1 year, $4.25M deal which ranks 46th in AAV of all OTs.  That's a stopgap salary, not legitimate starting OT money.

17 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Nope. Not falling for the bait.

It's not bait.  You made a claim, I'm asking for you to back it up.

Link to post
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...