2018 Draft Thread I

[Forge]

Mary Kay Cabot is reporting the choice is down to Allen / Mayfield for the Browns, which means with almost 100% certainty that the pick is Darnold lol

[Forge]

Charlie Campbell updated his mock today - has Roquan available at our pick and has us selecting him (though he does not that apparently we love Minkah, which I've heard several times now). He has McGlinchey going the next pick to the Raiders. 

[oldman9er]

 

 

[J-ALL-DAY]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

Charlie Campbell updated his mock today - has Roquan available at our pick and has us selecting him (though he does not that apparently we love Minkah, which I've heard several times now). He has McGlinchey going the next pick to the Raiders. 

Either are fine by me and MUCH better choices than McGlinchey. 

Lawd if Foster ends up staying on the team and we pair him up with Smith. Buckner will be able to wreck havoc like Justin Smith, but all we would be missing is our Aldon Smith. 

[Forge]

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

Either are fine by me and MUCH better choices than McGlinchey. 

Lawd if Foster ends up staying on the team and we pair him up with Smith. Buckner will be able to wreck havoc like Justin Smith, but all we would be missing is our Aldon Smith. 

Its so funny...there were several picks I was sort of "meh" on at 9. most know I didn't care for Landry at 9. I love Ward as a prospect, but think he's a bit wasted for us at 9. Some others I'm not super sold on...but with one random Peter King quote that has seemed to catch on like wildfire, everything I was meh on before has become instantly okay and good in the wake of potentially drafting McGlinchey instead LOL. 

[Forge]

So if we stay at 9, who are your three most likely selections for the niners? Not the guys you want us to draft, but the guy you think we will. I'd probably say: 

1. Smith

2. Edmunds

3. Minkah

[J-ALL-DAY]

4 minutes ago, Forge said:

So if we stay at 9, who are your three most likely selections for the niners? Not the guys you want us to draft, but the guy you think we will. I'd probably say: 

1. Smith

2. Edmunds

3. Minkah

I may need to add McGlinchey in there with all the recent talk of him and so I won't be as disappointed since it will be kind of expected lol.

Will the Colts take Nelson or Ward? That factors in this as well. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

I may need to add McGlinchey in there with all the recent talk of him and so I won't be as disappointed since it will be kind of expected lol.

Will the Colts take Nelson or Ward? That factors in this as well. 

I still refuse to believe the McGlinchey scuttle. It just makes no sense - unless we have a trade in place to move down, or we have a trade in place for Trent Brown. Possible, but I just don't see it. I also don't see how they could ever think that McGlinchey is a fit for the offensive line scheme. As much as I hate to admit it (because he's not worth a first rounder but will be massively overdrafted), Kolton MIller makes more sense for what we do. That would be such a massive reach,(McGlinchey and Miller) and for a team that seems to over value scheme fit in free agency, would be bizarre to draft in the opposite manner with regards to the ND product. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

Trading Brown accomplishes what though? We will be back in the tackle market next year looking for Staley's replacement.

This just came out of nowhere. Was Lynch referring to McGlinchey as one of the 12 potential pro bowl players from this draft class? Lol.

[JIllg]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

I still refuse to believe the McGlinchey scuttle. It just makes no sense - unless we have a trade in place to move down, or we have a trade in place for Trent Brown. Possible, but I just don't see it. I also don't see how they could ever think that McGlinchey is a fit for the offensive line scheme. As much as I hate to admit it (because he's not worth a first rounder but will be massively overdrafted), Kolton MIller makes more sense for what we do. That would be such a massive reach,(McGlinchey and Miller) and for a team that seems to over value scheme fit in free agency, would be bizarre to draft in the opposite manner with regards to the ND product. 

I agree about Kolton Miller. Worried that his false steps are not going to be fixed at the next level and he needs to anchor better. But he's much more like the athlete we would like to play left tackle. I would be angling for Brian O'Neill, personally. Another that is a relatively unpolished athlete and an even worse problem with anchoring, but to my eye his false steps aren't as bad and the draft capital wouldn't be as rich.

[Forge]

Just now, J-ALL-DAY said:

Trading Brown accomplishes what though? We will be back in the tackle market next year looking for Staley's replacement.

This just came out of nowhere. Was Lynch referring to McGlinchey as one of the 12 potential pro bowl players from this draft class? Lol.

The only thing trading Brown would accomplish is securing an asset for a guy we have no intention of bringing back. We have cap space and have been active in landing free agents through both years of this regime, so I would assume a comp pick for Brown is out of the question. Trading him now would only allow us to get something back for him before he's gone for nothing. This is, of course, under the idea that we have no interest in bringing him back. Then I get it. 

[Forge]

1 minute ago, JIllg said:

I agree about Kolton Miller. Worried that his false steps are not going to be fixed at the next level and he needs to anchor better. But he's much more like the athlete we would like to play left tackle. I would be angling for Brian O'Neill, personally. Another that is a relatively unpolished athlete and an even worse problem with anchoring, but to my eye his false steps aren't as bad and the draft capital wouldn't be as rich.

I get O'Neill, and I could see that at the back end of round 2. I'm a little higher on Geron Christian who I think we could land in round 3, but same premise as what you're talking about here. Miller is a huge project despite his weird first round draft pick projection (his tape is just not good). If we are going to take a risk on that kind of athleticism and upside, but have to iron out the kinks, give me the guys in rounds 2/3 who have comparable ceilings but for whatever reason aren't viewed as first rounders like Miller is. 

McGlinchey is a plug and play competent tackle for someone...I have no issues saying that. I absolutely understand why he's going in the first round. The entire thing surrounding us though is just bizarre. I don't get that match, and I don't get why you would do that at #9 while there are significant needs elsewhere. 

[Forge]

I find this super fascinating

First-round RBs don’t do much better than later picks

Yards per carry, Defense-Adjusted Value Over Average and yards from scrimmage per game, by running backs’ draft round, 2002-17

	Efficiency
Round	Number of running backs	YFS/G	Yards per carry	Rushing DVOA
1	36	72.2	4.22	-1.2
2	40	59.5	4.21	-0.3
3	41	52.5	4.33	+0.2
4	66	31.8	4.13	-0.7
5	49	24.7	4.28	+0.5
6	65	22.2	4.04	-4.2
7	76	22.7	4.23	-0.9

 

I know that you can find guys at every position later in the draft and have this sort of argument, but I find this interesting because of the sample size being somewhat large (the lowest total number in any round being 36, the highest 76), and the amount of rounds that have comparable total number of selections. Rounds 1-3 are pretty close in the total number drafted, so this isn't a case where you're just throwing darts at a dartboard in later rounds and one massive outlier is carrying a load either negatively or positively. These guys are also being graded on the same criteria - there's no curve here for value above expected performance based on draft position. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

31 minutes ago, Forge said:

So if we stay at 9, who are your three most likely selections for the niners? Not the guys you want us to draft, but the guy you think we will. I'd probably say: 

1. Smith

2. Edmunds

3. Minkah

Landry, Edmunds, or Smith. 

[y2lamanaki]

1 hour ago, Forge said:

I find this super fascinating

First-round RBs don’t do much better than later picks

Yards per carry, Defense-Adjusted Value Over Average and yards from scrimmage per game, by running backs’ draft round, 2002-17

	Efficiency
Round	Number of running backs	YFS/G	Yards per carry	Rushing DVOA
1	36	72.2	4.22	-1.2
2	40	59.5	4.21	-0.3
3	41	52.5	4.33	+0.2
4	66	31.8	4.13	-0.7
5	49	24.7	4.28	+0.5
6	65	22.2	4.04	-4.2
7	76	22.7	4.23	-0.9

 

I know that you can find guys at every position later in the draft and have this sort of argument, but I find this interesting because of the sample size being somewhat large (the lowest total number in any round being 36, the highest 76), and the amount of rounds that have comparable total number of selections. Rounds 1-3 are pretty close in the total number drafted, so this isn't a case where you're just throwing darts at a dartboard in later rounds and one massive outlier is carrying a load either negatively or positively. These guys are also being graded on the same criteria - there's no curve here for value above expected performance based on draft position. 

Almost always, Adrian Peterson aside, the best RB is not the first one taken. I don't see the value in a first round RB unless you're picking in the last 10 picks and RB is your lone need.