Post-Draft Talk

[Totty]

To me, there was a lot of players left on the board at serious position needs.  C until those units probe me right or wrong.  

[Jerry]

I gave it a B. No way to tell how good our draft is until 3 years from now. I personally like Mayer. I’ll say now he’s my favorite pick of the draft even though I didn’t really want a TE in the second. Glad we got some DBs. Understand why we drafted the way we did. We needed a backup QB, needed a PR/KR. The players we picked all produced in college, hopefully production translates to the NFL level.

[Humble_Beast]

1 hour ago, Jerry said:

I gave it a B. No way to tell how good our draft is until 3 years from now. I personally like Mayer. I’ll say now he’s my favorite pick of the draft even though I didn’t really want a TE in the second. Glad we got some DBs. Understand why we drafted the way we did. We needed a backup QB, needed a PR/KR. The players we picked all produced in college, hopefully production translates to the NFL level.

 didnt we sign Carter to return punts, and Abdullah to return kicks? 

[Humble_Beast]

4 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

Reference to copy/paste if you want:

• R1 (7): DE Tyree Wilson - 
• R2 (35): TE Michael Mayer - 
• R3 (70): DT Byron Young - 
• R3 (100): WR Tre Tucker - 
• R4 (104): CB Jakorian Bennett - 
• R4 (135): QB Aidan O’Connell - 
• R5 (170): S Christopher Smith II - 
• R6 (203): LB Amari Burney - 
• R7 (231): DT Nesta Jade Silvera - 

picks I really liked: Wilson, Mayer, Bennett, Smith 

Sleeper: Burney - I think he can be a sleeper. Good pick 

Picks I didn't like: Young, Tucker, O'Connell, Nesta Jade 

my GRADE: C of course you won't know for 3-4 years 

[ronjon1990]

8 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

 didnt we sign Carter to return punts, and Abdullah to return kicks? 

That's sorta the point of frustration for some of us. 

They'll identify a need, and that's good. But then they will throw a ton of wasted capital at filling that one hole while hardly touching other ones, particularly on defense. They'll sign a guy for a role, like returner, but then turn around and burn a decent pick on one too. 

I mean, competition is nice and all, but we just signed/brought back Carter, Cole, Dorsett, Johnson, Lacy, Meyers, Sims, and Turner to add to Adams and Renfrow* and now drafted Tucker. We know at least half of them are going to be gone week 1, and outside of Meyers, none are really all that impressive to me as contributors. Could've done without like 3 of them and used the money/slots elsewhere or on UDFA WRs at that point. There's a lot of bodies, but the competition itself isn't saying a whole lot to me.

For Turner, I hope he can be our return specialist and we can let Abdullah walk and maybe Carter can focus on being a deep threat. So there's potential positives. But it feels like we're just swapping parts we already have in-and-out and treading water. 

 

[Humble_Beast]

8 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

That's sorta the point of frustration for some of us. 

They'll identify a need, and that's good. But then they will throw a ton of wasted capital at filling that one hole while hardly touching other ones, particularly on defense. They'll sign a guy for a role, like returner, but then turn around and burn a decent pick on one too. 

I mean, competition is nice and all, but we just signed/brought back Carter, Cole, Dorsett, Johnson, Lacy, Meyers, Sims, and Turner to add to Adams and Renfrow* and now drafted Tucker. We know at least half of them are going to be gone week 1, and outside of Meyers, none are really all that impressive to me as contributors. Could've done without like 3 of them and used the money/slots elsewhere or on UDFA WRs at that point. There's a lot of bodies, but the competition itself isn't saying a whole lot to me.

For Turner, I hope he can be our return specialist and we can let Abdullah walk and maybe Carter can focus on being a deep threat. So there's potential positives. But it feels like we're just swapping parts we already have in-and-out and treading water. 

 

I think they like Tucker for a lot of reasons: he's a home run hitter, he has the juice in a WR lacking in speed, he can play slot, someone to put heat on Renfrow, also is a returner. He might be Hunter long term replacement, or a speedster who plays a role in the return game. More day 3 pick tho 

 

we have a lot of competition with RB, WR but everyone would have liked it on OL and defense. 

[Humble_Beast]

11 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

That's sorta the point of frustration for some of us. 

They'll identify a need, and that's good. But then they will throw a ton of wasted capital at filling that one hole while hardly touching other ones, particularly on defense. They'll sign a guy for a role, like returner, but then turn around and burn a decent pick on one too. 

I mean, competition is nice and all, but we just signed/brought back Carter, Cole, Dorsett, Johnson, Lacy, Meyers, Sims, and Turner to add to Adams and Renfrow* and now drafted Tucker. We know at least half of them are going to be gone week 1, and outside of Meyers, none are really all that impressive to me as contributors. Could've done without like 3 of them and used the money/slots elsewhere or on UDFA WRs at that point. There's a lot of bodies, but the competition itself isn't saying a whole lot to me.

For Turner, I hope he can be our return specialist and we can let Abdullah walk and maybe Carter can focus on being a deep threat. So there's potential positives. But it feels like we're just swapping parts we already have in-and-out and treading water. 

 

post draft: Abdullah, Carter, OJ Howard, Teamer, Cole

[ronjon1990]

Wilson is a B for me. I wasn't a huge fan, but maybe he impresses. Straight up, the meds scared me off of him. 

Mayer is a B+ for me. I get a lot of people love the pick. And he's a good player. But TE was made a need by some pretty questionable circumstances in the first place and to me the selection was predicated on fixing a self-inflicted hole. I don't think we needed to trade up to get him, and really would've preferred a more patient approach for luxury items. But, hey, I hope he tops 1k and becomes the league's TE1. 

Young, I give a C-. Too early, imo. And I just don't see what he's bringing to the table that's unique. Felt like a reach for a need for the sake of filling one at the expense of better players at other needs. Didn't like it. 

Tucker, F. I'd give it an F- if such existed. This was our annual Tanner Muse WTF Award pick. Hopefully he pushes Abdullah out of returns, but was a top 100 pick necessary to just swap a role guy around instead of going for a need at a more shallow spot? I don't think so. 

Bennett, B+. I loved Clark Phillips, but I get the Shelley/Amik comps. No complaints about Bennett really at all. 

O'Connell, I give a C+. A QB was coming and we knew it would. It was needed. I'd have given it a B, but trading up for him just irked me. We'll trade up for a QB2, but sit on our hands while good guys that could feasibly start fall off the board? The whole goal is for O'Connell to never see the field, lol. I do like the player himself though, and liked him more than Haener. And for the system, I like him more than other QBs that were available. 

Smith, I'll give a C+ with potential up to a B+. His speed worries me a bit. But I don't know a whole lot else about him. Some folks really really like the pick, so I won't harp too much on it. 

Burney and Silvera both get B-'s from me. They filled holes, that's a plus. The likelihood that they have a ton of potential is low but that's what you're usually getting in the 7th round. Personally, at that point I'd look for someone that was falling from a higher expected spot, but meh. 

As usual, the UDFA class is fluid until the dust settles. But I give our UDFA class so far an A+. I love picking up Curtis. Martin seems like a productive guy. Hearn, Grant, and the LB from NcSt are fantastic pickups for UDFA guys. The Ark OT and the Boise Edge guy are mehs since I've just never heard of either. Overall, touché to the UDFA class we seem to have grabbed up to this point. 

Overall draft/UDFA grade is a C-. We plugged holes we needed to, but did so way later than we should have while taking luxury picks and reaching for non-descript interchangeable parts. Outside of Tucker, and no offense to the guy himself, I actually don't dislike most of the players taken. I hated the asset management and the rank-order of apparent priorities though. Otherwise, I'd have happily given it a B- with the understanding that some of the players may have changed a bit. The idea was there, but I found the execution to be lacking. 

It's non-persuasive to say "trust the process" when the process is so heavily skewed towards accumulating excess weapons on offense while filling defensive roles with flyers, reaches, and back end guys. On paper, give it to McZiggle, they can build an offense for sure as long as they put like 80% of our resources into it. But can they build a defense that's not near league bottom? 

Moreover, my biggest question at this point is can they even build a functional offense without ignoring the D? Next year, we have to find a QB. We probably still need an OG or OT and possibly both, we may be looking for a WR by then, possibly 2, and RB is a total unknown- and we know virtually nothing about White or Brittain as starters. So we may well be stuck being very offense-centric again with the numerous short deals we signed, and nothing about how we spent on excess WRs and TEs strikes me proof they can adequately manage FA without getting skill-player happy. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by ronjon1990

[Humble_Beast]

53 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Wilson is a B for me. I wasn't a huge fan, but maybe he impresses. Straight up, the meds scared me off of him. 

Mayer is a B+ for me. I get a lot of people love the pick. And he's a good player. But TE was made a need by some pretty questionable circumstances in the first place and to me the selection was predicated on fixing a self-inflicted hole. I don't think we needed to trade up to get him, and really would've preferred a more patient approach for luxury items. But, hey, I hope he tops 1k and becomes the league's TE1. 

Young, I give a C-. Too early, imo. And I just don't see what he's bringing to the table that's unique. Felt like a reach for a need for the sake of filling one at the expense of better players at other needs. Didn't like it. 

Tucker, F. I'd give it an F- if such existed. This was our annual Tanner Muse WTF Award pick. Hopefully he pushes Abdullah out of returns, but was a top 100 pick necessary to just swap a role guy around instead of going for a need at a more shallow spot? I don't think so. 

Bennett, B+. I loved Clark Phillips, but I get the Shelley/Amik comps. No complaints about Bennett really at all. 

O'Connell, I give a C+. A QB was coming and we knew it would. It was needed. I'd have given it a B, but trading up for him just irked me. We'll trade up for a QB2, but sit on our hands while good guys that could feasibly start fall off the board? The whole goal is for O'Connell to never see the field, lol. I do like the player himself though, and liked him more than Haener. And for the system, I like him more than other QBs that were available. 

Smith, I'll give a C+ with potential up to a B+. His speed worries me a bit. But I don't know a whole lot else about him. Some folks really really like the pick, so I won't harp too much on it. 

Burney and Silvera both get B-'s from me. They filled holes, that's a plus. The likelihood that they have a ton of potential is low but that's what you're usually getting in the 7th round. Personally, at that point I'd look for someone that was falling from a higher expected spot, but meh. 

As usual, the UDFA class is fluid until the dust settles. But I give our UDFA class so far an A+. I love picking up Curtis. Martin seems like a productive guy. Hearn, Grant, and the LB from NcSt are fantastic pickups for UDFA guys. The Ark OT and the Boise Edge guy are mehs since I've just never heard of either. Overall, touché to the UDFA class we seem to have grabbed up to this point. 

Overall draft/UDFA grade is a C-. We plugged holes we needed to, but did so way later than we should have while taking luxury picks and reaching for non-descript interchangeable parts. Outside of Tucker, and no offense to the guy himself, I actually don't dislike most of the players taken. I hated the asset management and the rank-order of apparent priorities though. Otherwise, I'd have happily given it a B- with the understanding that some of the players may have changed a bit. The idea was there, but I found the execution to be lacking. 

It's non-persuasive to say "trust the process" when the process is so heavily skewed towards accumulating excess weapons on offense while filling defensive roles with flyers, reaches, and back end guys. On paper, give it to McZiggle, they can build an offense for sure as long as they put like 80% of our resources into it. But can they build a defense that's not near league bottom? 

Moreover, my biggest question at this point is can they even build a functional offense without ignoring the D? Next year, we have to find a QB. We probably still need an OG or OT and possibly both, we may be looking for a WR by then, possibly 2, and RB is a total unknown- and we know virtually nothing about White or Brittain as starters. So we may well be stuck being very offense-centric again with the numerous short deals we signed, and nothing about how we spent on excess WRs and TEs strikes me proof they can adequately manage FA without getting skill-player happy. 

I like this breakdown. I agree with most but just a few different opinions 

• R1 Wilson A - honestly has as much potential as any edge in this draft class. I wold have preferred Carter but I can understand the logic. I liked we targeted the DL
• R2 Mayer A-- I think he was a good pick. I could see him having a long Jason Witten type of career. It was a great TE class and we needed D help, could we have played to the strength of the draft and waited on TE. Washington drop and we needed to improve the defense. Good prospect
• R3 Young D- I'm not that impressed. Feel like we reached on a need in a weak DT class. His ceiling is an average starter, more likely a rotation DT
• R3 Tucker F- same thought as you 
• R4 O'Connell F- sorry I just don't like the pick. Going be 25, no mobility, no rocket arm. 
• R5 Smith A- getting an all American, all sec in the late 5th is great. If his instincts carry over, he will be a steal. 3rd safety type who can emerge as a starter. Lack of speed might limit his ceiling but he can still thrive 
• R6 Burney B- in the 6th, nice to grab a potential sleeper at a position of need. He has the size, athletic profile, speed, position of need to be worth a pick. Could surprise, if not provide depth and help on special teams. 
• R7 Silvera C- position of need. kinda sucks they seem to not be that confident in Farrell. A few sites high on him, so not a bad pick. 

[ronjon1990]

8 minutes ago, Humble_Beast said:

I like this breakdown. I agree with most but just a few different opinions 

• R1 Wilson A - honestly has as much potential as any edge in this draft class. I wold have preferred Carter but I can understand the logic. I liked we targeted the DL
• R2 Mayer A-- I think he was a good pick. I could see him having a long Jason Witten type of career. It was a great TE class and we needed D help, could we have played to the strength of the draft and waited on TE. Washington drop and we needed to improve the defense. Good prospect
• R3 Young D- I'm not that impressed. Feel like we reached on a need in a weak DT class. His ceiling is an average starter, more likely a rotation DT
• R3 Tucker F- same thought as you 
• R4 O'Connell F- sorry I just don't like the pick. Going be 25, no mobility, no rocket arm. 
• R5 Smith A- getting an all American, all sec in the late 5th is great. If his instincts carry over, he will be a steal. 3rd safety type who can emerge as a starter. Lack of speed might limit his ceiling but he can still thrive 
• R6 Burney B- in the 6th, nice to grab a potential sleeper at a position of need. He has the size, athletic profile, speed, position of need to be worth a pick. Could surprise, if not provide depth and help on special teams. 
• R7 Silvera C- position of need. kinda sucks they seem to not be that confident in Farrell. A few sites high on him, so not a bad pick. 

I feel like O'Connell may be the most polarizing overall pick. He's the tyoe of QB some love and some absolutely hate. 

[Humble_Beast]

9 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I feel like O'Connell may be the most polarizing overall pick. He's the tyoe of QB some love and some absolutely hate. 

forgot Bennett lol. That's an A grade 

[reddevil]

Feeling pretty satisfied - not elated, but satisfied, which is a far cry from years previous.

Much like @NickButera, my main hopes going into this were:

a) no wtf picks early

b) players being picked in the positions they were due to be picked

And I feel we did both of those things (barring Tucker). You’re always going to have slight discrepancies - but all in all it felt like Zeig had a plan and a type of player in mind - explosive with potential playmaking and with specific character traits (why they picked so many senior bowl attendees) 

My other hopes were:

c) to fill needs on defense early and offense later

d) to come away with defensive starters at each level 

And this is where I think we fell short. And really it all comes down to the Tucker pick. Because, not only was that a complete waste given our investment in WRs in FA and it being way too early for a gadget/special teams guy, but it shifted each important defensive position picked down a round while also meaning we had one less chance at a defensive starter. 

That said, it is my only real gripe as I feel that:

- in Wilson and Meyer we have bonafide impact starters with major potential to be really good for a very long time

- a very solid rotation piece in Young  with a sneaky good late pick in Silvera  who I really liked at that position, giving us some real options along the dline 

- some really exciting DBs in Bennett and Smith with playmaking upside (loved these picks)

- a prototypical McD QB who has the chance to be a solid backup 

I’d give it a solid B+ due to the quality of the first 2 picks and the playmaking upside of the later ones and the fact that for the first time in an age there seemed to be a sensible plan of attack and the head scratching was kept to a minimum

 

[reddevil]

What I will add though is that there does seem to be a slight disconnect somewhere. I mentioned in one of the threads yesterday, like we are operating at 65% capacity.

You see some good decisions, sensible choices with a clear and good rationale. They seem to align with what Zeig is saying, both in terms of the long term approach and to the type of player he wants to bring into the organisation (explosive and coachable with high character)

But you don’t see that all the time and it doesn’t fully come off across the board.

Im gonna go out on a limb here and say it’s McDs influence. Whether he is given a bit more say in choosing certain offensive players or he is pushes them prioritise the offense which skews weighting choices in that direction, but it’s hard not to imagine him in the war room, pulling at Zeigs jacket when someone like Tucker is on the board going, ‘pick him, pick him, pleeeaasssee!!’ 

[Darbsk]

10 hours ago, Jeremy408 said:

Here's how I would rank the pick/player

1. R4 (104): CB Jakorian Bennett - very good prospect who was a good player in college and has the potential to really help us out in the back end. Very similar to like an Adoree Jackson who while he doesn't have the coveted height he can jump and has excellent recovery speed. With that said he's the same height as the corner that went fifth overall in the draft and he's more athletic than that guy and played in the same power five conference(therefore he can't be pigeonholed into the nickel role). Great find in the fourth round for sure. What kind of move that moves the needle in the long run. Could be a max Crosby type fourth rounder.(A)

2. R5 (170): S Christopher Smith II - Great football player that plays faster than he tests. On film you're not gonna really find any problems and he was a great player in college. All of his issues are centered around Ken what he did in college translate to the NFL. It seems like he's a good fit for the Patrick Graham thinking man's defense because he's a smart player with really good instincts and tackles well. He's very much like a Chuck Clark or fuller the safety from Ohio State that went to the rams type. The type of player that can start down the line potentially. Very good pick for the fifth round. Could be a Hunter Renfrow type fifth rounder(A-)

3. R2 (35): TE Michael Mayer - Good complete tight end who is limited athletically but he's a good football player and that should start. Like I've mentioned probably 100 times right now the main issues are that 1. In a tight end deep draft, why with all the needs we had did we have to get one in the second round with a lot of good defensive player still left on the board and a lot of defensive needs. 2. TE wasn't even a need a little over a month ago and I thought we addressed it adequately enough to not have to draft one in the second round. (B-)

4. R1 (7): DE Tyree Wilson - what he has going for him right now is that he is a good run stopping bass end but obviously that's not why he was drafted seventh overall he was drafted seven overall because he has 36 inch arms and has a potential to maybe be more than that because of his potential to pass rush inside. As an edge rusher though I think he leaves a lot to be desired in terms of explosiveness and I don't see him being that great on the edge. There's not a lot of guys that get drafted that high that are the inside outside rush types it's more of a theoretical day 2 thing. And if these times don't work out then we just wasted a top 10 pick that we could've used on more of a sure thing that also has potential.(The misconception is that I don't like potential no that's not true I love potential I just like more sure bets with potential). And then of course there's the issue of the foot injury... I hope he proves me wrong(C+)

5. R6 (203): LB Amari Burney - Great athlete that could have really good outside here. Realistically I don't know how this is gonna turn out or if he'll even make the team. But the potential is he could be a starter.(C+)

6. R3 (70): DT Byron Young - Run stopping defensive tackle with the potential to be a pass rusher I feel like we've heard this story before. With better players on the board didn't like this one because well it helps stop the run one of our bigger problem is that we plan a division where two of the three teams are primarily passing teams they don't necessarily even need to run the ball so stopping the run well obviously important shouldn't supersede stopping the pass which is why we should've invested in more things that deal with that higher in the draft(C)

7. R7 (231): DT Nesta Jade Silvera - nose tackle was a need in the seventh round is a good place to be the reason why I put him low is because he's kind of under size for a nose tackle.(C)

8. R3 (100): WR Tre Tucker - there was no need to do this one due to the fact two were already stacked receiver(which to be honest is actually our best position which made this worse) and do it with size he's more than likely never going to start for us which means that his main contribution that he's going to help us is on special teams. Which means that we really drafted a kick returner in the third round (\which if you're not Devin Hester level than it doesn't make sense).(F)

9. R4 (135): QB Aidan O’Connell - we traded up in the fourth round over other glaring needs for someone who's highest potential is a back up quarterback because of "value". Don't need to say more here(F)

Good write up, don’t agree with everything but I enjoy reading people’s thoughts on the picks. Mayer I actually really liked, top 15 pick that was just too good to pass up and best TE in the class even though it wasn’t a ‘need’ as such. Feel the same way about Wilson though.

[Dessie]

Solid draft imo. Disappointing that we didn’t come away with an OG but I’m happy with the players we picked. It looks like we picked up a number of players that should contribute early.

Young DT is an intriguing pick, given we’ve got rid of a number of scouts from last year maybe Butler and/or Farrell are on notice. They also had a disciplinary issue. We’ve built up the depth at DT which can only be good. 

Bennett is another that plays on ST and has NFL speed, again the CB room has some depth although I’d like a #1 ideally. Hobbs, Facyson, Long, Shelley, Robertson, Hall and Webb. 

Tucker is the pick I didn’t like, if we went WR I thought we would go a bigger body type, but he looks like he will contribute on all ST. 

O’Connell looks a good fit for JMD and hopefully be a good backup at least. After the contract we gave Jimmy G I never thought we were looking for a replacement this year. 

Smith has the body of a CB but again he’s another big contributor for ST and has good instincts. Played FS in a 3-3-5 defense which again could be his role in our 4-2-5 D. 

As I’ve said previously it’s hard for us armchair GMs to talk about value, the likes of Sanders, Simpson, Torrance, Washington were all in play at #38 according to this forum and it’s a fact we were well off. (I had Ekiyor going in the 4th ffs🤦‍♂️) 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Dessie