Goldfish's Way Too Early Draft Rankings 2022 (All Up)

[JAF-N72EX]

49 minutes ago, ET80 said:

If ever there was a year to punt on QB, this was it. Taking a QB for the sake of taking one has never been good business sense (or football sense).

QB needy teams that passed on the position this past draft did something smart.

Absolutely. This was not the year to draft a QB, even for teams looking for a future franchise QB.

This was a year to use the draft to build a foundation around your potential future franchise QB.

[43M]

12 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

Don't know if this will interest you @goldfishwars, but I went back over your analysis from 2018-present and ranked the teams overall, based on where you ranked them. It goes like this

 

Drafts Ranked 2018-22

1. Ravens

 

25. Steelers

[goldfishwars]

I may as well become a Ravens fan at this point 

[MWil23]

@goldfishwars thanks again for a thorough and super entertaining synopsis! I always enjoy the read each year!

[onejayhawk]

4 hours ago, goldfishwars said:

I may as well become a Ravens fan at this point 

You do like the way their talent acquisition people think.

[Packerraymond]

9 hours ago, ET80 said:

If ever there was a year to punt on QB, this was it. Taking a QB for the sake of taking one has never been good business sense (or football sense).

QB needy teams that passed on the position this past draft did something smart.

You're telling me Josh Paschal is going to move the needle more than whoever was QB2 was on the Lions board?

I completely disagree with this. You take the QB if value presents itself every time. This was not the year to give up assets to try and go get your QB, but if the board falls to you, take the QB. The Titans, Panthers, Commanders and Falcons were smart. At worst you have a nice cost controlled backup for 4 years. Lions should've pulled the trigger in round 2.

[Jameson_Neat]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

 

 At worst you have a nice cost controlled backup for 4 years. 

What if that's the best case scenario?

 

[ET80]

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

You're telling me Josh Paschal is going to move the needle more than whoever was QB2 was on the Lions board?

 

If said QB is going to be a detriment to the team, absolutely. It’s thinking like this that leads to guys like EJ Manuel going 16th or Paxton Lynch going 25th - oh, we need a QB, let’s just take the guy highest on our board and hope for the best.

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

I completely disagree with this.

NFL draft history disagrees with you for the most part - sure, you have isolated incidents such as drafting Aaron Rodgers, but that’s a lottery ticket situation. You can’t base an entire theory on an outlier situation, or the consensus would be to wait until pick 199 to draft a GOAT QB.

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

You take the QB if value presents itself every time.

Unless there was a better player or bigger need available, which you seem to ignore.

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

This was not the year to give up assets to try and go get your QB, but if the board falls to you, take the QB.

You’re assuming “the board” is the same across all 32 teams. That isn’t how it works, teams evaluate players on different parameters and some of the traits they value might not be as important to others.

Or do you really think QB evaluation is cookie cutter/paint by numbers across the league?

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Lions should've pulled the trigger in round 2.

You pull the trigger that early if you have a guy who is/can be better than Jared Goff - I can confidently say that QB did not exist in this draft. There are plenty of QBs that are better than Goff, but this draft had zero.

[Packerraymond]

40 minutes ago, ET80 said:

If said QB is going to be a detriment to the team, absolutely. It’s thinking like this that leads to guys like EJ Manuel going 16th or Paxton Lynch going 25th - oh, we need a QB, let’s just take the guy highest on our board and hope for the best.

NFL draft history disagrees with you for the most part - sure, you have isolated incidents such as drafting Aaron Rodgers, but that’s a lottery ticket situation. You can’t base an entire theory on an outlier situation, or the consensus would be to wait until pick 199 to draft a GOAT QB.

Unless there was a better player or bigger need available, which you seem to ignore.

You’re assuming “the board” is the same across all 32 teams. That isn’t how it works, teams evaluate players on different parameters and some of the traits they value might not be as important to others.

Or do you really think QB evaluation is cookie cutter/paint by numbers across the league?

You pull the trigger that early if you have a guy who is/can be better than Jared Goff - I can confidently say that QB did not exist in this draft. There are plenty of QBs that are better than Goff, but this draft had zero.

If Josh Paschal hits his ceiling as an above average starting DE, the Lions are still a middling team.

If Malik Willis hits his ceiling, the Lions franchise is trending towards being a true contender for the first time since who knows when. (Stafford was a franchise QB but I don't think they ever had the HC/GM combo to make them true contenders while he was there.)

It's the most important position in sports, IMO you should take one every year (this used to be the norm for good GMs 20 years ago, not sure why it stopped.) 

A lot of people said the same thing when they passed on Herbert for Okudah, and again last year when they passed on Mac and Fields for Sewell. They pick up there every year because they don't have a QB, and no matter who else they add via the draft, they'll continue to pick up there until they do.

[Daniel]

My thoughts on taking a QB are that you probably should when there are guys that could start down the road available in the third.

A blown third rounder isn’t a big deal, and unless next year’s group is generational, there are gonna be several teams that wanted to wait until 2023 that will suddenly find themselves either reaching for QBs next year, or coming away with nothing twice in a row and sitting in very very hot seats.

If the whole group of Willis, Ridder, Corral, and Howell all bust, then great, you made the right call. But if any one of them works out, you probably get fired as a GM.

[Jameson_Neat]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

If Josh Paschal hits his ceiling as an above average starting DE, the Lions are still a middling team.

If Malik Willis hits his ceiling, the Lions franchise is trending towards being a true contender for the first time since who knows when. (Stafford was a franchise QB but I don't think they ever had the HC/GM combo to make them true contenders while he was there.)

It's the most important position in sports, IMO you should take one every year (this used to be the norm for good GMs 20 years ago, not sure why it stopped.) 

A lot of people said the same thing when they passed on Herbert for Okudah, and again last year when they passed on Mac and Fields for Sewell. They pick up there every year because they don't have a QB, and no matter who else they add via the draft, they'll continue to pick up there until they do.

I can count on my fingers how many people wanted to take Herbert over Okudah, Brown and Tua.  And if they had drafted Tua, are they really in any better of a place?  Fields or Mac? 

Lastly, Stafford was a franchise QB but they pick high every year because they don't have a franchise QB? Only one year removed from the franchise QB not being on the roster, no less.

 

 

 

 

[ET80]

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

If Josh Paschal hits his ceiling as an above average starting DE, the Lions are still a middling team.

If Malik Willis hits his ceiling, the Lions franchise is trending towards being a true contender for the first time since who knows when. (Stafford was a franchise QB but I don't think they ever had the HC/GM combo to make them true contenders while he was there.)

The problem here is that you bought into the Malik Willis evaluation from his performances in the combine and at his pro day - you have this hypothetical ceiling that he can reach, none of which is validated when you actually watch him play. This is a guy who was middling and inconsistent against D2 level defenses. Now it’s all suddenly supposed to come together against an NFL team? 

So by this standard - projecting him to develop into someone we’ve never seen from him, a franchise saving QB - we can then say that Josh Paschal‘s ceiling is equivalent to Aaron Donald or JJ Watt. Sure, there is nothing about his performance at any level to even hint that he can do that, but if we’re projecting Willis beyond his proven performance to this point, then why not Paschal? 

In addition, you’re only looking at hitting their ceiling at their position. What about their floors? What if both turn into one of the many guys on an NFL roster - not a bad football player but not getting top of their position money? Paschal can still provide value here as a part of a DL rotation, in multiple sub package based on down/distance, on special teams. You’re drafting a guy who can contribute in many ways, on the field.

Can we say the same for Willis? No, the options for production are limited to starting QB or backup QB (which has some value, but I’d prefer a guy who can give me an extra 2-5 sacks a season in a reserve role over a backup QB who may - or may not - see the field).

2 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

A lot of people said the same thing when they passed on Herbert for Okudah, and again last year when they passed on Mac and Fields for Sewell. They pick up there every year because they don't have a QB, and no matter who else they add via the draft, they'll continue to pick up there until they do.

I’m calling BS on this entire premise, because the Lions HAD a QB for the better part of 10 years …and were still picking that high.

(And absolutely nobody criticized Okudah over Herbert at the time, that is revisionist history - and really poor revisionist history at that, Okudah was considered a potential Marshawn Lattimore coming out of OSU and Herbert wasn’t unseating Stafford by any measure; Stafford was playing at an MVP level in 2019 before he got hurt, and he was only IRed after the Lions dropped to 3-10-1 that season).

Matt Stafford wasn’t the issue, as we plainly saw once he landed in Los Angeles - you even admit that, so why is there a belief that fortunes changed once a QB (who might not be as good as Matt Stafford was a Lion) is drafted?

I read bad takes daily, but this one is especially bad.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

The problem here is that you bought into the Malik Willis evaluation from his performances in the combine and at his pro day - you have this hypothetical ceiling that he can reach, none of which is validated when you actually watch him play. This is a guy who was middling and inconsistent against D2 level defenses. Now it’s all suddenly supposed to come together against an NFL team? 

So by this standard - projecting him to develop into someone we’ve never seen from him, a franchise saving QB - we can then say that Josh Paschal‘s ceiling is equivalent to Aaron Donald or JJ Watt. Sure, there is nothing about his performance at any level to even hint that he can do that, but if we’re projecting Willis beyond his proven performance to this point, then why not Paschal? 

In addition, you’re only looking at hitting their ceiling at their position. What about their floors? What if both turn into one of the many guys on an NFL roster - not a bad football player but not getting top of their position money? Paschal can still provide value here as a part of a DL rotation, in multiple sub package based on down/distance, on special teams. You’re drafting a guy who can contribute in many ways, on the field.

Can we say the same for Willis? No, the options for production are limited to starting QB or backup QB (which has some value, but I’d prefer a guy who can give me an extra 2-5 sacks a season in a reserve role over a backup QB who may - or may not - see the field).

I’m calling BS on this entire premise, because the Lions HAD a QB for the better part of 10 years …and we’re still picking that high.

(And absolutely nobody criticized Okudah over Herbert at the time, that is revisionist history - and really poor revisionist history at that, Okudah was considered a potential Marshawn Lattimore coming out of OSU and Herbert wasn’t unseating Stafford by any measure).

Matt Stafford wasn’t the issue, as we plainly saw once he landed in Los Angeles - you even admit that, so why is there a belief that fortunes changed once a QB (not as good as Matt Stafford) is drafted?

I read bad takes daily, but this one is especially bad.

You read that entire last paragraph wrong and are agreeing with me, people praised Okudah over Herbert and were wrong, same last year (although Sewell is a really nice player), how many year in a row are we going to praise them for passing on the QB while they're one of the leagues worst franchises? Perhaps they should take the QB???

[ET80]

44 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

You read that entire last paragraph wrong and are agreeing with me, people praised Okudah over Herbert and were wrong, same last year (although Sewell is a really nice player), how many year in a row are we going to praise them for passing on the QB while they're one of the leagues worst franchises? Perhaps they should take the QB???

But… they had a QB up until last season. Matt Stafford started from 2009 to 2020. So you’re in essence saying they should have given up on Stafford sooner?

Bluntly, what you’re saying isn’t making sense. What QB should they have taken from 2010 to current that would improve their situation? Don’t give me theoretical situations, tell me the actual QBs they could have drafted from 2010 onwards that would have turned the Lions around - because you’re the one advocating that the Lions should have still drafted a QB, even in the midst of Matt Stafford putting up exceptional performances every season.

(In addition, I think you’ll find that list to be really small).

[Jakuvious]

3 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

It's the most important position in sports, IMO you should take one every year (this used to be the norm for good GMs 20 years ago, not sure why it stopped.) 

 

I mean, maybe teams did this when the draft was 12 rounds. With it only being 7, constantly spending picks on someone who, after a certain number, is mathematically guaranteed to not play is foolish. And it's so horrendously unlikely to yield anything anyway. Like, let's say the Lions had taken this approach, and in every one of the last 10 drafts took a QB someone between rounds 2 and 7. Unless they took Dak Prescott, they still do not have a better NFL QB on their roster than Jared Goff. And that's not praising Goff, look at the list. The only other names worth mentioning are Carr, who went to high for their 2nd round pick, and Jimmy G, who isn't going to move the needle either.