2024 NFL Draft Discussion

[15412]

9 minutes ago, Leader said:

I'm a big K-State fan and Ben is going to have a long NFL career.  I would never compare him to Deguara, that's slight.  Yes they both were used all over the field in college, fullback, H back, wideout, TE, slot.  Big diff i Ben is an NFL TE and can still do all of the other things if called upon while being a good ST player and move in ready to block type guy.   We're deep at TE so it's unlikely he'll end up in GB but I'd be really happy if he did.  Honestly if he did he might end up our best overall TE.

 

[Packer_ESP]

1 hour ago, Scoremore said:

See it with QB's all the time.  Teams give away the farm to take them.  Most times they are not as highly rated as other players on the board.  But they need a QB so they definitely reach.  Too make matters worse not only do they not take the highest rated player they trade away multiple 1st rounders for the privilege. SF and Trey Lance comes to mind.  But there are many examples of this.  

Yeah it definitely happens with QBs, that's true. Was referring more to other positions where people call picks reaches based on what I believe to be incomplete information.

[spilltray]

3 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

Yeah it definitely happens with QBs, that's true. Was referring more to other positions where people call picks reaches based on what I believe to be incomplete information.

Is it reaching or is it a difference of opinion, mostly on the weight of positional value? If the QB hits, was it still a reach?

[Packer_ESP]

Just now, spilltray said:

Is it reaching or is it a difference of opinion, mostly on the weight of positional value? If the QB hits, was it still a reach?

Well, I could certainly accept that it could be a difference of opinion. I just feel like with QBs being so essential and with them going so early in the draft, teams without one are willing to "gamble" on them more than they would on another position.

[skibrett15]

16 hours ago, squire12 said:

Thats defining a pick as a reach based on someone ( many other peoples) rankings that is not the actual team making the selection.   Its all personal opinion on where a player supposed should have been drafted.

If only all 32 teams shared their draft boards so it would be easier to not make a pick that is not deemed a reach by some.  

having a sense of a consensus board helps you to make educated guesses as to the perceived value of a player.

even if the player is at the top of YOUR board, the NFL draft is full of error. 

And if you dismiss the general value of a player at the expense of only considering what YOU think of the player, you are much more likely to select a good player at a spot where you could have gotten that player later in addition to your 2nd choice now.

owning the fact that your board and everyone else's board is very very wrong from the true state of things can really help navigate the draft.   This is why you see good teams trading down a lot.  They accept the fact that there are slots that are "too early" even for their top ranked player.

[Kampfgeist]

ESPN apparently did a 2 rnd "re-draft" of last yrs rookies.    This is where GB's picks fell:

• WR Jayden Reed (34th)
• EDGE Lukas Van Ness (42nd)
• TE Luke Musgrave (45th)
• WR Dontayvion Wicks (55th)
• DE Karl Brooks (56th)
• TE Tucker Kraft (59th)

Nobody taken in the 1st rnd but several making big leaps up the board.    I don't have access to the full 1st-2nd rnd so don't know picks other than GB's

[squire12]

54 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

having a sense of a consensus board helps you to make educated guesses as to the perceived value of a player.

even if the player is at the top of YOUR board, the NFL draft is full of error. 

And if you dismiss the general value of a player at the expense of only considering what YOU think of the player, you are much more likely to select a good player at a spot where you could have gotten that player later in addition to your 2nd choice now.

owning the fact that your board and everyone else's board is very very wrong from the true state of things can really help navigate the draft.   This is why you see good teams trading down a lot.  They accept the fact that there are slots that are "too early" even for their top ranked player.

when all it takes is 1 of the other 31 teams to take a player sooner than the supposed "consensus" spot the player is supposed to go, is it better to "reach" and take the player sooner vs risk missing out on the player completely?

for me, it comes back to the point that if a player is the highest ranked player on a teams draft board, it is not a reach for them.  

[HighCalebR]

4 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said:

ESPN apparently did a 2 rnd "re-draft" of last yrs rookies.    This is where GB's picks fell:

• WR Jayden Reed (34th)
• EDGE Lukas Van Ness (42nd)
• TE Luke Musgrave (45th)
• WR Dontayvion Wicks (55th)
• DE Karl Brooks (56th)
• TE Tucker Kraft (59th)

Nobody taken in the 1st rnd but several making big leaps up the board.    I don't have access to the full 1st-2nd rnd so don't know picks other than GB's

LVN falling to 42 is hilarious and makes this whole thing mute

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

is it better to "reach" and take the player sooner vs risk missing out on the player completely?

for me, it comes back to the point that if a player is the highest ranked player on a teams draft board, it is not a reach for them.  

It is not better to reach IMO.  for all the times that being the only one in on a guy works out in that teams favor there are times when it doesn't make sense to be alone on that island.

 

Accepting that your board is wrong because of the uncertainty in the NFL draft. I would only draft a guy 1 tier above whatever you project his natural state to be.  E.g. if you have a first round grade on a guy who is in the 3rd round tier, it's fine to be a little early on him by taking him in the 2nd round.  You get a 1 round "surplus" vs your board, and balance it with a 1 round deficit vs the consensus board.  It also matters who else is available and who you are "giving up" to take this player high.  IF you have another prospect who is close to your top guy but also more universally regarded as a higher tier player, I think it's a no brainer to take that player now and try to see if you can't land your top guy in the next round.

 

It's hard to imagine what you're giving up by taking the best guy on your board, but it's the chance at getting your guy a round later plus whoever else is available.

[squire12]

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

It is not better to reach IMO.  for all the times that being the only one in on a guy works out in that teams favor there are times when it doesn't make sense to be alone on that island.

But how do you know a team is the only team in on a guy at any draft spot?   just because a supposed consensus of draftnik has a player as round 5 doesn't mean all 31 other teams do as well.   when it only takes 1 other team, staying true to your board is the right move to make vs going with the consensus

1 minute ago, skibrett15 said:

 

Accepting that your board is wrong because of the uncertainty in the NFL draft. I would only draft a guy 1 tier above whatever you project his natural state to be.  E.g. if you have a first round grade on a guy who is in the 3rd round tier, it's fine to be a little early on him by taking him in the 2nd round.  You get a 1 round "surplus" vs your board, and balance it with a 1 round deficit vs the consensus board.  It also matters who else is available and who you are "giving up" to take this player high.  IF you have another prospect who is close to your top guy but also more universally regarded as a higher tier player, I think it's a no brainer to take that player now and try to see if you can't land your top guy in the next round.

 

It's hard to imagine what you're giving up by taking the best guy on your board, but it's the chance at getting your guy a round later plus whoever else is available.

but why would you take a guy that is not the highest on your draft board??   that is "reaching" for a player over another player you have rated higher

[turf toe]

4 minutes ago, HighCalebR said:

LVN falling to 42 is hilarious and makes this whole thing mute

this ranking is connected to 2023 production, so naturally LVN is ranked 2nd round, it is not calculating future potential, strictly what did the player do as a rookie

Personally I would have ranked Reed late 1, he'll get a K this season, draft people consider him a slot WR, but we saw him succeed at every route in our tree

[HighCalebR]

4 minutes ago, turf toe said:

this ranking is connected to 2023 production, so naturally LVN is ranked 2nd round, it is not calculating future potential, strictly what did the player do as a rookie

Personally I would have ranked Reed late 1, he'll get a K this season, draft people consider him a slot WR, but we saw him succeed at every route in our tree

It doesnt matter if tuli tuipolotu and Will anderson are 1st rounders. They both got starter snaps and and barely outperformed statistically.

Edited February 7 by HighCalebR

[skibrett15]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

But how do you know a team is the only team in on a guy at any draft spot?   just because a supposed consensus of draftnik has a player as round 5 doesn't mean all 31 other teams do as well.   when it only takes 1 other team, staying true to your board is the right move to make vs going with the consensus

You don't know.  It's a risk/reward scenario.  Of course you may not get the player.  And that will be seen as a bad thing in the moment.  But given the high level of uncertainty, it could be a good thing or a bad thing in the long run.   When that player doesn't work out, and your "2nd choice" does work out.  Or they might both not work out.  So you weight the value you give up by taking your 2nd guy against the possibility that your top guy will be there in the next round.  And you should be pretty certain that your 2nd guy will NOT be available in the next round, so you maximize your chances of getting both players rather than just your top guy.  

 

I don't think this is that revolutionary a concept and I think teams are already practicing it to some extent.  Look at what the seahawks did with Russell Wilson.  They had an extremely high grade on him, but they knew nobody else did.  So they waited till the 3rd round.  Most of the room was freaking out and wanted to take him in the 2nd.  Instead they took Bobby Wagner.

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

but why would you take a guy that is not the highest on your draft board??   that is "reaching" for a player over another player you have rated higher

 

[Mazrimiv]

30 minutes ago, squire12 said:

for me, it comes back to the point that if a player is the highest ranked player on a teams draft board, it is not a reach for them.  

This is basically what it boils to.  If the GM isn't taking a player who falls within the highest remaining tier on their board, what is the point of having the board in the first place?  

[ChaRisMa]

4 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

This is basically what it boils to.  If the GM isn't taking a player who falls within the highest remaining tier on their board, what is the point of having the board in the first place?  

So tier your board carefully. It’s supposed to encompass all of your decision making on draft day ahead of time. It’s literally the plan of attack.