An experiment in draft needs and the future of the roster

[Dcash4]

Incoming text wall for a boredom project I was thinking about. 

Around this time I feel like we (myself very much included) lose sight of the fact that the draft is a vehicle for the future of the roster, not the immediate upcoming season. Yes, players will plug and play and you see that more and more now, but the true value of the draft is taking effect in years 2-3 and beyond and adding depth that, hopefully, becomes starters. 

I have been thinking a lot about the "needs" conversation and everyone has a different definition. Is Edge a need? What about WR? ILB? CB? I wanted to look at the roster starting after this year and understand where the contracts where in hopes to find the immediate spaces that we need bodies and a future. Below is the list of non-camp bodies by their contract expiration date past this season. Blue signifies a 5th year option available and green highlights a player on their rookie deal. None represents that we have no one on roster in 2024 at this stage. 

Offense:

QB (2 or 3):
- Starter (1): 2025
- Backups: None

RB/FB (3 or 4):
- Starter (1): 2024
- Backups: 2024

WR (5 or 6)
- Starters (3): 2024, 2025, 2024
- Backups: 2025

TE: (3)
- Starter (1): 2024
- Backup: 2025

OT (3 or 4)
- Starters (2): 2024, 2024
- Backup: None

IOL (5 or 6)
- Starters (3): 2024, 2024, 2025
- Backups: 2024, 2024 (this is Kendrick Green…)

Defense:

DL (6)
- Starters (3): 2024, 2025
- Backups: 2025, 2024

Edge (4)
- Starters (2): 2025
- Backups: None

ILB (4)
- Starters (2): 2025, 2024
- Backups: 2025

CB (6)
- Starters (3): 2024
- Backups: None

S (4)
- Starters (2): 2026, 2024
- Backups: 2024, 2024

Analysis:

- First thing that jumps off the page but shouldn't be a surprise to anyone is just how vastly different this offense is to the defense. Far younger with rookie contract starters filling out 5 of the 11. The defense has 0 of 12 (NT and 3rd CB are both starters IMO) has someone on a rookie deal. Defense needs, NEEDS, to be heavily addresses this draft. 

- Let's look at players, not just numbers. Things change wildly at edge if Highsmith is extended. Depth is important, but it goes from a top need to a middle tier. DL has 2 backups on rookie deals, but is Leal a DL or a hybrid edge? That will change the future outlook a bit. The other is Loudermilk, who needs to really show something. Depending on where those two actually land this could be a tier 1 need, not a middle group, especially considering Cam will be 35 next year and Larry O is pretty inconsistent. The future here can get bleak fast. It's way too important of a position group to fill with JAGs. 

-  OT and IOL I view as being in similar spots, but the additional bodies really change things. They are covered through the next two years, but you are going to start paying the piper soon without a younger body and both have very limited prospects for extension. OT is more of a concern though, as there is no one behind the top 2 and both are middling players. At least IOL has options, so it goes a little lower. 

- That one corner....will be 34 in 2024. That position is scary right now. Maybe Levi Wallace gets an extension? Still leaves a lot to be desired. 

Looking at the draft:

Next, I broke down the positions into what I think are our draft needs. They are in 4 tiers:

- Tier 1, the Danger Zone: we NEED bodies and they NEED to be high impact picks. Address this in the first or second round
- Tier 2, You should really think about it: Low numbers, older starters, and young impact could be big moving forward. 1st through 4 rounds 
- Tier 3, Bodies needed: Basically as it sounds. We are good, but lack depth, especially depth on rookie deals. After round 4
- Tier 4, All set: Based on starters and depth contracts, it's really not a need. This would be a big luxury pick anywhere before the backend of the draft

Tier 1: CB, Edge
Tier 2: OT, DT
Tier 3: IOL, QB, RB, TE, S, ILB
Tier 4: WR

Looking ahead to the draft:

- Not going to be surprised if 2 of our first 4 picks go to CBs. It's a good draft for them and we have a desperate need. 

- IMO, their thoughts on Highsmith will dictate where Edge is taken. If he is an extension candidate, throw it down the list. If they are unsure, 32 and 49 wouldn't be a shock. If they do like Highsmith, Corner really stands alone as the biggest need and IMO it's not really close. 

- OT and IOL are get a guy you love or skip. We are covered, but there are some needs coming quickly. If they love one of the top OTs or see great value with an IOL in the 2nd/3rd, think it's a pick well spent despite the fact that our starters are covered. 

- DT falls a bit into no man's land. Not a great draft for the high end talent, but I also don't think it should be ignored as we don't have a great looking future.  

- ILB is probably the one that sticks out most. Personally, I don't value it and we do have NFL bodies on contracts for another year. It probably could have a category all its own of "if there is a stud...." So maybe consider there to be a 5th tier. But I wouldn't take an ILB before I took someone in tier 1. 

What's good look like?

Running a mock based on the above exercise. Trying to stay true to my tiers. I am going to assume that a 25 year old Highsmith is getting an extension but since we don't know at this point I won't change anything. Also, no trades just for purposes of staying simple. 

1.17: Deonte Banks, CB, Maryland
2.32: Dawand Jones, T, Ohio State
2.49: Felix Anudike-Uzomah, Edge, Kansas State
3.80: Gervon Dexter, DT, Florida
4.120: Tre Tomlinson, CB, TCU
7.241: Tommy DeVito, QB, Illinois
7.251: Brenton Strange, TE, Penn State

I did two things I hoped to accomplish 1) crossed the top two tier needs off the list and 2) added more green and blue marks to the defensive side of the ball. Corner takes a big swing in tiers and a Levi Wallace extension would keep it off this list headed into 2024 off-season. DL would still probably head the list in 2024 followed by IOL, ILB, and S. 

None of this is earth shattering, but it really did point out to me how high edge has been on this list ( @AFF has been all over that this off-season) and that Corner isn't just a need, but a dire one. I've mocked a lot of ILB, but it's pushed itself off the list for me when I match what's there vs other positions. Tackle is a position it seems like we could ignore (maybe in lieu of a ILB), but feels like the draft works really well for us to take a guy around that end of 1st/early second. 

Perfect world: We would have young talent fairly evenly distributed across both sides of the ball, but unfortunately we lean heavy offense. A draft like this would help to even that out headed into a 2024 off-season I think we all are hoping to go for it. 

[3rivers]

you put a lot of effort into this thread, even with some colour added 

for me what stands out the most is the CB situation - in a passing league. Talk about being at a crossroads or nearing the end.  Because of this and the depth of the CB class,  I have had some mocks with 3 CB's of all things. Even if 1 doesn't turn out, there are still 2 that are left 

Don't like Dexter and with our signings IDL, I would save that for an early pick next year or if we trade down then it's worth a try (but prefer someone else of course)

If P.Johnson or B.Jones aren't near 17, then I would trade down.  it's risky because Wright could be gone shortly after if not already.   

Simms has Henley as his #1 LB, not good for my mocks having  him in them but usually around 80 

While many keep pounding the table to replace Moore, it might not be so easy or sudden especially considering how Moore improved as the season went on.   Who steps in and is a substantial improvement? Some claim B.Jones needs to improve Pass Pro, Wright  some say might not be as well suited for the LT.  

This team isn't 1 player away just yet, but at least they have a GM that is trying.  Trading down and capitalizing on the depth  in the draft  at positions of need (CB, OC , Edge)  has been more appealing for me with mocks.  lots of trading down and with our picks it helps fill in the draft board from 49-80 then 80-120.

The other problem with trading up, is if the player is just decent (barely an improvement)  , it's a major setback when considering if they traded down and got  some good players in areas of need that then turn into strengths. 

If you give up 17+49  that 296 +118

32 is 184

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp?RequestTeam=steelers

 

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

- Not going to be surprised if 2 of our first 4 picks go to CBs. It's a good draft for them and we have a desperate need. 

all for this, glad I'm not the only one thinking like this, but lets see what the FO does

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

- IMO, their thoughts on Highsmith will dictate where Edge is taken.

too bad they never got this all sorted out before the draft. Now they don't know, and it seems as though vets might not want to sign here if they want to play lots (remember Ingram and Harrison not getting the snaps they wanted and both wanted out)

 

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

OT and IOL are get a guy you love or skip. We are covered, but there are some needs coming quickly.

I used to think this as well. Recently though OC seems like a great idea with the depth of the OC in this class.   OT  would be Wright or B.Jones most likely since Skoronski is projected to OG and Johnson will go too early. I think Bergeron will be a steal and have had mocks with him,  elite run blocker and really quick. Maybe our OL coach could work with him and be a steal  while we have a few extra picks early in the draft .

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

DT falls a bit into no man's land. Not a great draft for the high end talent, but I also don't think it should be ignored as we don't have a great looking future.  

agree here, but if they get extra picks, there could be someone in Rd4 worth a try and then maybe really late just  as a flyer.

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

- ILB is probably the one that sticks out most. Personally, I don't value it and we do have NFL bodies on contracts for another year. It probably could have a category all its own of "if there is a stud...." So maybe consider there to be a 5th tier. But I wouldn't take an ILB before I took someone in tier 1. 

I like the signings, but have in previous years. It might be history repeating itself, but lets hope not.  It would be nice to get this sorted out, even if the scheme needs to change a bit to make it happen.  No answers here for this especially if they want the ILB to cover  players they can't.  The run defence should be much improved with our signings, but will they still have issues vs the pass?

 

[warfelg]

It's good in theory, and the mock turned out nicely, but I think the reasoning is not the best.  Putting assets to defense just because you have a lack of rookie contracts isn't the best.

Like looking at edge: We need a backup, but if we extend Highsmith both OLB's are young and the depth is best by being someone who can be a pinch starter high floor guy for injury concerns.  Spending a pick on it just because you don't have a rookie contract there isn't the most sound logic.  

Additionally you need more than just contract end dates because the quality of those contracts matter.  Wallace and Peterson are a better duo at CB than Roberts and Holcomb.  Personally I would put 1 at both positions because Roberts is a pure run stuffing LBer, and so is your depth in Robinson.  But on the flip side Wallace and Peterson are both more complete, and even though Maulet needs upgraded, 1 CB gives you flexibility because of Peterson's ability to move inside.  

Personally, this is a bad draft to be missing a 5 and 6 in because if you did, a double dip at corner could come from those rounds.  Spending a 4th on a 2nd CB (or NCB) when you have that other need at ILB is big.  Or because your top of the DL rotation is more set (Heyward, Ogunjobi, Watts, Big F) you could look at a developmental like Pickens or Brooks in the 4th, and open up the 3rd to be used elsewhere.

Lastly you need to consider depth of position in the draft.  OT is not as deep as CB, so if one of the upper end guys is there at 17, I would take one of them over CB.  Especially if it's one of the guys that's coming into the league playing LT.  Wright and DJones are lower down my list because they are RT's who's projection to LT is that.  The other 3 are guys who can come in to play LT and fall to elsewhere on the line if they don't succeed.  I know people make the "DJones played LT and was good!" comments - but then why did Paris Johnson unseat him then.  If Jones is that good he would have won the position.

[Dcash4]

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

Spending a pick on it just because you don't have a rookie contract there isn't the most sound logic.

That’s not the main logic though. It was to look at all position groups and understand where we are to make decisions on for the future - which is where the draft has most benefit. 

Edge has 1 player signed next year. I mentioned the caveat of a Highsmith extension changing the tier for need, but we don’t know what we don’t know. Right now, Highsmith isn’t signed on the roster - so I need to work off what I know. 

1 hour ago, warfelg said:

Wallace and Peterson are a better duo at CB than Roberts and Holcomb.

I agree with you they are likely more talented, but the issue here is that Wallace (and Maulet, who you mention later) are not on the 2024 roster. Roberts and Holcomb both are, as is their depth piece in Robinson.

CB has one player at a group that starts 3 and rosters 5-6. The additional caveat that that one player will be 34 makes CB the no brainer need for not just one pick, but multiple while ILBs build pushes it down the list. 

I wouldn’t pass up taking a really good ILB prospect, but I’m also not taking it over the higher tier options if I had a choice — which is what happened during my mock. 

2 hours ago, warfelg said:

Lastly you need to consider depth of position in the draft.  OT is not as deep as CB, so if one of the upper end guys is there at 17, I would take one of them over CB.

To be fair, this was done…but I didn’t really care to share the entire mock thought process. Paris and Broderick were both gone at 17 and Porter and Banks were both available. 32 was a spot I considered ILB, but saw T as the bigger beneficiary of a top talent piece. 

[3rivers]

my mocks tend to have Paris and Broderick gone by around 10.  There is a chance we trade with the bears 17+49 to get the OT if the ones of interest are there.  Lets hope the bears don't want to get even with us for the claypool trade. I doubt Khan gets robbed, he seems to have won the trades thus far!

[AFF]

They need a significant infusion of talent in the secondary…they have no one to play slot and need replacement players probably 1 of Peterson and Wallace due to age or FA.

Best case scenario might be Branch at 32 and then getting a good mid round size/speed project in the 3rd or 4th to groom for a year.

[AFF]

Btw @Dcash4, let’s see if I can guess what Edge I think they’ll pick here next week when I do my only mock draft.

The funny part is if I’m on other message boards or Facebook, people fight me tooth and nail saying how wrong it would be to take an edge high up until the last week or 2…people finally connected the dots after pro days and visits.

[Dcash4]

16 minutes ago, AFF said:

Btw @Dcash4, let’s see if I can guess what Edge I think they’ll pick here next week when I do my only mock draft.

The funny part is if I’m on other message boards or Facebook, people fight me tooth and nail saying how wrong it would be to take an edge high up until the last week or 2…people finally connected the dots after pro days and visits.

I definitely came around to it the deeper we have gotten. I tend to brush depth off a lot as it's just not something that readily exists in the NFL that often. But another angle I keep thinking about is how important each position group is and edge is in the top 3-4. Even if we draft a guy in the 2nd AND re-sign Highsmith, overkill options at that position isn't a bad thing. 

Looking forward to the mock!