2018 Draft Thread I

[y2lamanaki]

1 minute ago, John232 said:

Man, I still have my Wagon hitched to Davis. A bit salty we didn't take him still. 

Yeah, I would have preferred a safety (Hooker/Adams) or Davis or Thomas, but it was rough without a real set #2 player last year.

[John232]

1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said:

Yeah, I would have preferred a safety (Hooker/Adams) or Davis or Thomas, but it was rough without a real set #2 player last year.

Yeah, same. Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Thomas and Davis we're the guys I was fine with at the spot. Davis was just the top of the pecking order for me. 

so far, Outside of Thomas and Williams i've been really encouraged by our draft. Even Kittle and Taylor have shown they can be consistent contributors. 

[y2lamanaki]

2 minutes ago, Forge said:

I need Chubb at the combine. I love him as a player. My concerns are entirely scheme/position fit related

Really? That's one of the reasons I'm most drawn to him. I think he'd be an excellent Leo. And Chubb, Buckner, Mitchell, Thomas is a line I could truly get behind. 

That said, I'm still with you - Nelson, even as high as #2 - is what I'm most interested in. Unheard of in the modern NFL (hasn't happened since Bill Fralic in 1985), I think he's going to be one of the greatest of this generation. And that type of player is worth the #2 overall pick. 

[John232]

1 minute ago, y2lamanaki said:

Really? That's one of the reasons I'm most drawn to him. I think he'd be an excellent Leo. And Chubb, Buckner, Mitchell, Thomas is a line I could truly get behind. 

That said, I'm still with you - Nelson, even as high as #2 - is what I'm most interested in. Unheard of in the modern NFL (hasn't happened since Bill Fralic in 1985), I think he's going to be one of the greatest of this generation. And that type of player is worth the #2 overall pick. 

I will say this. Not since Iuapati has there been a interior lineman highlight real that's as entertaining as his. Definition of blocking to the whistle. 

[y2lamanaki]

7 minutes ago, John232 said:

Yeah, same. Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Thomas and Davis we're the guys I was fine with at the spot. Davis was just the top of the pecking order for me. 

so far, Outside of Thomas and Williams i've been really encouraged by our draft. Even Kittle and Taylor have shown they can be consistent contributors. 

Eh...I'm okay with Thomas's production so far. He's been what I expected him to be - a guy who his a solid run defender who will need time to match up his pass-rush ability at the NFL-level. What we're seeing is not far away from what I expected. And like you, he was still one of the guys I was happy with at the top (add Foster to your group above, and you'll have my full list). 

[John232]

26 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

see a guy just oozing raw talent - a size/speed combo hardly ever seen in one body.  But I don't see a particularly skilled or runner

Can you expand on what you think a skilled runner is because clearly we don't have the same definition and I'm genuinely curious. Maybe @Forge so I can understand what you're seeing. Because this is the only substantive point you've provided that I want to dig into. Otherwise you're just manipulating statistics for your argument. 

 

27 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

If you want to have fun do a play by play of his carries against OSU.

I watched the whole game. That's why I didn't want to pick that one. He was getting hit in the backfield almost every single play and their interior line couldn't get any push. It was a putrid performance by the offense as a whole and Barkley being able to break a couple big plays was the reason they were even in that game. And again, you seem to hold this against him. You seem to think that if a guy is truly a phenomenal prospect, he should be able to do this against all odds

 

28 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

And another reason that I worry about him is that pure speed that leads to 60 or 70 yard runs in college often leads to 10 to 20 yard runs in the NFL wherre LBs run 4.5s and CBs run 4.4s and 4.3s

So do you just worry about the speed in general? Because it's already been reported he has 4.4- speed and it shows on film. Or do you just even have issues with how he gets huge runs. I would also argue that most of his big runs are coming from his ability to cut and see lanes in the open field. Not just pure speed. But the break away speed is for real.  

32 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

ure his o-line will be better, but defenses wil lbe a lot better too. If you take away his longest runs and he gets next to nothing on his other runs, then what have you got?

I've already addressed this in one game. This is such a weak way to analyze a game as a whole.  I wasn't trying to disprove a single game performance. I was trying to explain why I think your methodology for your criticism is flawed. How you're approaching analyzing these games statistically; You're looking at the long run, removing it, then taking the rest of the averages and saying "see bad". or maybe your taking it the next step and looking at the result of each touch. but unless you're willing to actually watch every single play and see why play x led y negative result, then your just postulating. I just went through that Pitt game and was able to look at every single negative play, none of the ones I watched were his fault. If he doesn't have those negative plays, all of which were exclusively as a result of guys firing through unblocked, you're looking at at least 170+ total yards of offense. And this a guy who doesn't get nearly as many touches as he should.

 

43 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

88 yard game. OK, that's a nice game. B

You've also again failed to address his receiving ability in your analysis. 

 

45 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

About your analysis - I mentioned 7 games in which he only had a single good run in 5 of them and next to nothing on all the rest of his runs in all 7 of those games. And I mentioned an 8th game, and then finally the Pitt game.  So you're taking what I think is his 9th worst game,

I had no idea you expected me to extrapolate rankings from that post. I picked the Pitt game because it was a great game statistically, but you used your form of analysis on that to then under cut with a "meh" and then I went through play, by play and told you why you were wrong to do that.

 

So again, in my mind, in a year where Barkley's QB play has been sub-standard. His interior line has been awful, receivers below average, he's still producing great numbers despite everyone keying on him. This might be a agree to disagree, but I really don't think you've convinced me of anything using the "Take away his best play, what's he got, nothing". analysis. 

 

and again, this disagreement came over you saying he wasn't int he same conversation as Elliot. I think he's a better prospect than Elliot, but I do think Elliot runs in between the tackles better and doesn't have/never had, the habit of trying to bounce plays outside. The reason why Barkley does that is his interior line play has been awful for most of his career. I also think that's something that can be easily coached out of him. 

[J-ALL-DAY]

27 minutes ago, Forge said:

I mean, in the end, we all have preferences and I don't think any of us see an issue regardless of what structure we choose to fill the holes. We all largely agree on whats needed, so at that point its just preference. I've had my wagon hitched to Nelson for a while, and some have it hitched to Barkley, then you have the weirdos like @J-ALL-DAY who like Chubb (just kidding!)

Chubb or Nelson or Key!!!!!!

[rudyZ]

59 minutes ago, John232 said:

Yeah, all fair points. Part of the reason why I'd rather we go Barkley in the top ten then any receiver is:

A) I don't think there's a clear first round talent  at Receiver. Some real nice physical freaks though, but half of which seem to be small school, one hit wonders, unproven etc

B) This class has a deep interior line and we could probably pick up a good prospect for guard/center in the second and third rounds

With that said, if we drafted Minkah Fitzpatrick, Roquan Smith, Arden Key, Chubb or even Ferrell, I wouldn't object. This past year I really wanted us to grab Corey Davis but I was fine with Thomas.  

If we let go of Hyde and just decide to draft another back in the mid to late rounds, I won't love it, but I'll get it. Breida and another guy would seem more than capable of sharing the load. And two back backfields seem to be another favorite for Shanny,

Yeah, I wanted Corey Davis last year. Too bad he's been injured (and some of that, I feel, is the titans wanting the be cautious with their WR of the future, on top of having decent depth at WR for this year), because when he's on the field, he makes amazing plays. WR or edge rusher was what I really wanted. I wanted to trade back even further and draft Barnett, if we were going to go defense. Solomon will be a very good player, but we didn't really need him that much.

This year, I'd be more than fine with edge rusher again. Or a legit lockdown corner. But I've always said that the best possible player makes you the best possible team. Even if it means having a logjam at a position where you already have good players, forcing you to trade one for less than ideal value, or play someone out of position. I don't know if Thomas last year was the best possible player, but I find it odd that we took him and then kinda played him out of position. And then we played Armstead out of position. All less than ideal. Corey Davis would have been a beautiful pick.

[big9erfan]

1 hour ago, John232 said:

Yeah, same. Lattimore, Hooker, Adams, Thomas and Davis we're the guys I was fine with at the spot. Davis was just the top of the pecking order for me. 

so far, Outside of Thomas and Williams i've been really encouraged by our draft. Even Kittle and Taylor have shown they can be consistent contributors. 

Yeah.  Thomas grew on me as a choice, but I always thought we needed a deep safety to help cement our defense.

[big9erfan]

I really like what I've seen from Denzell Ward this year.  Just not sure at what spot I'd be interested in him.

[rudyZ]

Just asking for a friend, but we're not going with a QB in the first in 2018 now, do we?

[big9erfan]

4 hours ago, y2lamanaki said:

I have no idea why you'd be amazed, given that the bolded is true of just about every running back (and was often an argument used against Frank Gore, no less). That said, I want nothing to do with Barkley and cannot imagine why others think drafting him would be a good decision when we have a running back staff known for its ability to get a lot out of lower-pedigree backs. We need an offensive line, not a running back. (Signed the biggest fan of running backs)

Really?  I mean like 7 full games with 110 runs with 105 of them yielding 200 yards? I'll try looking into that sometime..

[y2lamanaki]

3 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Really?  I mean like 7 full games with 110 runs with 105 of them yielding 200 yards? I'll try looking into that sometime..

Yeah, but Barkley's doing the same thing. This happens to every great RB - you give them the ball for a bunch of short gains that wear a team down, and you count on the great ones to bust it open for a few big runs. I mean, I'm more in line with your thoughts that I don't want him, and I'm even willing to say that he's more in line with a guy like Gurley than Elliott/Fournette in terms of prospects (still a compliment). I just don't think your reasoning is what causes me to say it. 

[John232]

15 minutes ago, big9erfan said:

Yeah.  Thomas grew on me as a choice, but I always thought we needed a deep safety to help cement our defense.

 

Irony is we're all admitting to wanting those safeties when safety play has been the most consistent aspect of our team.

[y2lamanaki]

1 hour ago, John232 said:

 

Irony is we're all admitting to wanting those safeties when safety play has been the most consistent aspect of our team.

Yeah, who would have thought we'd pick up a pretty good safety in the 7th to go along with a former 2nd round pick really coming alive.