The 2023 Draft Thread - We're picking #7

[massraider]

8 minutes ago, FloydFan said:

Because even if Hooker’s offense is simple he was still able to do his job as a passer in it at an elite level. Richardson was not

But the potential negative is still there, and gets glossed over with Hooker. He runs this simple offense, but reads defenses better than a guy he's what, 5 years older than?? Drafting Hooker should come at a discount, feels like that discount is gone, and now is a premium price for a guy with major obvious red flags. 

[FloydFan]

5 minutes ago, massraider said:

But the potential negative is still there, and gets glossed over with Hooker. He runs this simple offense, but reads defenses better than a guy he's what, 5 years older than?? Drafting Hooker should come at a discount, feels like that discount is gone, and now is a premium price for a guy with major obvious red flags. 

There is negative with all of these prospects. It matters what negative a front office assesses and what the weight of severity they attach to various aspects are. You raise valid points about Hooker’s red flags but there are things he does significantly better than Richardson and Levis. They aren’t carbon copy prospects. It will not shock me if someone takes a late first flyer on him whatsoever. Albeit, I think his true value is in the second. 

[NYRaider]

Felix

[NYRaider]

Devon Witherspoon

[reddevil]

There are so many CBs in this draft. I’d be happy with either Witherspoon or Gonz at 7, Joey P jr or Banks after a trade down in the 1st. Then there’s a gazillion guys from early 2nd through til god knows when. 

We need 1 potential no.1 and then another later developmental guy for depth IMO 

[NCOUGHMAN]

10 hours ago, NYRaider said:

His forty time is fine but his 3-cone and shuttle numbers are pretty meh.

He never looked explosive to me and I like my lbs to play with hair on fire

[NCOUGHMAN]

10 hours ago, FloydFan said:

There is negative with all of these prospects. It matters what negative a front office assesses and what the weight of severity they attach to various aspects are. You raise valid points about Hooker’s red flags but there are things he does significantly better than Richardson and Levis. They aren’t carbon copy prospects. It will not shock me if someone takes a late first flyer on him whatsoever. Albeit, I think his true value is in the second. 

Yea nobody is talking about him top 10 even tho I think without the injury he makes a argument for 2nd best qb. I’ve always said best I’d do would be pick him up end of the first to get the 5 yr rookie deal. He’s worth that Imo. I see stuff saying Seattle at 5 idk about that situation he needs to play asap

Edited April 1, 2023 by NCOUGHMAN

[big_palooka]

16 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

There’s no way we can just draft players with our 12 picks.  We absolutely have to be incredibly active with trades, moving up and down the draft board to target players we want.

Honestly, I think this draft makes or breaks Zeigler.  Either he pulls it off masterfully or outright fails, I don’t expect anything between.

How do you gauge this exactly as draft picks need time to develop?

Personally, I think if they come out of the draft with 3 day one starters with their top 100 picks, it will be a success. Or 2 and a QB. Anything after 100 should be looked at as developmental. 

What does outright failure look like?

 

[big_palooka]

16 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Kincaid and the Georgia tight end are future stars to me IMHO. The Georgia tight end blocks like an OL too so he would be a monster improvement in the run game.

Washington is tailor made for this offense. Extra tackle who can catch passes. He'd be a huge get. 

Next year, I will move mountains to draft Bowers speaking of Georgia TEs. 

[big_palooka]

16 hours ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

There are a lot of CB's that are good in this draft. The thing that separates phillips to me is his ability to create turnovers himself, not the ones that fall into your lap. It's a first round skill.

I would draft Phillips bottom of round one and not think twice about it. He is that good in my view. We are seeing eye to eye on his playmaking ability. 

[big_palooka]

11 hours ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Meh situational plays depending on defenses being played. Using decoys is a nfl thing also they even talked about it with that short fast wr we just got in fa. Again he still has to make the  throws and work the pocket. I understand the hash mark factor but at the end of the day for qbs it’s still can you complete a pass consistently and lead a group of men.
 

behind stroud and Bryce he’s my #3 qb this year followed by ar

Same arguments that were made for Drew Lock. He completed passes consistently in this offense. But up huge numbers, etc. 

[jimkelly02]

11 hours ago, massraider said:

But the potential negative is still there, and gets glossed over with Hooker. He runs this simple offense, but reads defenses better than a guy he's what, 5 years older than?? Drafting Hooker should come at a discount, feels like that discount is gone, and now is a premium price for a guy with major obvious red flags. 

That’s exactly how I feel.  I’d definitely take Hooker is there’s a discount but not at full price.

[jimkelly02]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

How do you gauge this exactly as draft picks need time to develop?

Personally, I think if they come out of the draft with 3 day one starters with their top 100 picks, it will be a success. Or 2 and a QB. Anything after 100 should be looked at as developmental. 

What does outright failure look like?

 

That’s a question that can’t be given an exact answer.  If we somehow landed a Crosby level player that high level talent would certainly have more importance than two starters in round 3.

I never said the draft should be judged fully right after the draft or after year 1.  I do think tho after year 1 you can start to get a better look.  Way too often picks look good because they seem like a “good value” but those players don’t pan out.  

But to give you a generic answer I think after year 1:

1) 1st rounders need to start and produce up to their draft spot.

2) second rounders should begin to start during the season and show enough that there’s hope they can be long term starters.

3) 3rd rounders get some starts and look like long term starters.

4-5th) I’d like to see there guys play some snaps and show they can be depth pieces.  
 

as you said, 3 starters would be one of a few good thresholds to rate the draft.  The last 3rd is basically a 4th so I wouldn’t require that pick to be a year 1 starter.

I’ve said it many times but will say it again: 3 good drafts and your on your way.  I don’t expect to write this drafts grade in permanent marker right after the draft or even after year 1.  It takes time. 

[Bitty 2.0]

On 3/4/2023 at 5:18 PM, RaidersAreOne said:

Ehh he's besting Cam Newton's combine. I mean an all-time great combine, that isn't something to balk at. Not to mention he's by all accounts interviewing with the best as well.

This combine has made me love him even more tbh.

Don’t know why they’re comparing them? Cam was a national championship college quarterback. Richardson couldn’t even win 10 games in his whole college career.

[Humble_Beast]

18 hours ago, jimkelly02 said:

I want nothing to do with Haener, UNLESS we’re talking rounds 5-7.  I just don’t see the point.  I don’t see him ever being a starting QB and I hate carrying 3 QBs.  If Jimmy G goes down I think you gotta have a veteran QB to try and hold things down.  

Exactly I like Haener in round 5 over Hooker in round 3. I actually like Haener more as a prospect. I’m drafting a potential starting QB in round 5 if I have a chance, wouldn’t be mad in the 4th either.