Jump to content

2018 NFL Draft Discussion


squire12

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, JBURGE25 said:

I know that you probably aren't serious but @HorizontoZenith you would take HHCD over Odell Beckham? 

I'd take a well made peanut butter and jelly sandwich over 2017 HHCD.

Seriously considering Burnett and Jones as the longterm (next 3ish years) and bye bye to HHCD if he continues to be the massive disappointment he's been. Ever since he was named to the Pro Bowl before the Vikings game in 2016 he's been one of the worst starting safeties in the NFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Unfortunately, that's the problem with numerical rankings.  If you go by tier-based rankings, you aren't "forced" to draft a position that has less of an impact.  If you're in a tier-based rankings, you're afforded the flexibility that you wouldn't have in a numerical rankings.  If you've got Courtland Sutton and Bradley Chubb as your top two ranked players, who do you select?  In a numerical-based rankings, if you've got Courtland Sutton ranked as the 7th best player while Chubb is the 8th best player, you're supposed to draft Sutton.  But if in your a tier-based rankings, you aren't restricted to that.  It's one of the reasons why I've been tempted to do away with numerical rankings and go purely on tier-based rankings.

But... what if you have Sutton as a say 2nd their and Chubb as the top 3rd their player. 

What if you have Von Miller and Mach as your OLB and Chubb is a 1st tier player and Sutton is a 2nd tier player and they are the top 2 players on your board?

i like the tier idea but you can still find yourself in tuff positions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

I think people are crazy if they think teams don't factor in positional value when drafting.  If there's a draft and develop team, and if they have 5 players rated just as high, the next factor they're looking at is position. 

True, but there were 3 WRs in the top 9 this year, so the positional value of that spot is far higher than you make it seem league wide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MantyWrestler said:

But... what if you have Sutton as a say 2nd their and Chubb as the top 3rd their player. 

What if you have Von Miller and Mach as your OLB and Chubb is a 1st tier player and Sutton is a 2nd tier player and they are the top 2 players on your board?

i like the tier idea but you can still find yourself in tuff positions. 

In the case of your first scenario, you have to weigh is the player clearly better than the player you have a tier below to ignore the positional value difference.  Secondly, I think it'd take a perfect storm situation where you have a WR whose the clear high value in terms of players available.  Going past the last 3 years, I think the only WR I would have had a clear grade lean would have been DGB back in 2015, and he would have been off the board because of character concerns.  I just don't see a realistic scenario where we're looking at a WR being the clear BPA, and even then you're going away from BVA (Best Value Available).

As for the second hypothetical, I'd take another pass rusher.  You can never have too many pass rushers.  But ignoring positions for a second, you have to weigh needs into your evaluations.  That doesn't mean you're going to push players up or down based on their position, but it impacts your decision making process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) edge/pass rushing DE

2) WR

3) Corner

4) pass rushing DE/edge

5) interior OL

6) OT

7) edge 

modify based on availability/comp picks. 

 

Im in the camp a cheering for a victory every week but accepting a loss. This may be the last chance we have to nab a blue chip prospect with Rodgers over his last 5ish years. Throw in the 4 or so supplemental picks and we could easily end up with a top 10 pick and a trade up into the end of the round. OR a top 10 pick that we turn into 18ish and a future first from a QB needy team, and an extra 2nd or 3rd.

 

Trades and FA are not how we are going to get him his 2nd (hopefully more) ring. It's having a Seattle-esque draft, landing 3 or 4 top notch starters on super cheap contracts, allowing us the flexibility to go after some big FA while retaining our own. 

 

Losing sucks, but I'd much rather go 5-11 than 8-8 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

True, but there were 3 WRs in the top 9 this year, so the positional value of that spot is far higher than you make it seem league wide.

Yeah, to crap teams that don't know how to run a franchise.  Do you think it's any wonder the Vikings have spent more first round picks on receiver than any other team over the past ten years? 

Cardinals, Falcons, Ravens, Bills, Panthers, Bears, Bengals (2), Cowboys, Broncos, Lions, Texans (2), Colts (2), Jaguars, Chiefs (2), Chargers (2), Dolphins (2), Vikings (4), Saints (2), Giants (2), Raiders (2), Eagles, Niners (2), Rams, Buccaneers, Titans (3), Redskins.   Those are the teams that have drafted a receiver in the first round since 2007.  How many of those teams have gone to the playoffs three years in a row at any point since 2007? 

But this will be ignored like literally every other reason I've pointed out as to why it's a bad idea to draft a receiver in the first round.  Because we just know that the Cardinals, Bills, Bears, Bengals, Lions, Colts, Jaguars, Vikings... have all been so great at running their franchises over the past 10 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is pure gibberish. There isnt a correlation to taking WR in the first and being a terrible franchise. Baltimore made the playoffs 5 years in a row.

8 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Yeah, to crap teams that don't know how to run a franchise.  Do you think it's any wonder the Vikings have spent more first round picks on receiver than any other team over the past ten years? 

Cardinals, Falcons, Ravens, Bills, Panthers, Bears, Bengals (2), Cowboys, Broncos, Lions, Texans (2), Colts (2), Jaguars, Chiefs (2), Chargers (2), Dolphins (2), Vikings (4), Saints (2), Giants (2), Raiders (2), Eagles, Niners (2), Rams, Buccaneers, Titans (3), Redskins.   Those are the teams that have drafted a receiver in the first round since 2007.  How many of those teams have gone to the playoffs three years in a row at any point since 2007? 

But this will be ignored like literally every other reason I've pointed out as to why it's a bad idea to draft a receiver in the first round.  Because we just know that the Cardinals, Bills, Bears, Bengals, Lions, Colts, Jaguars, Vikings... have all been so great at running their franchises over the past 10 years. 

This is pure gibberish. There isnt a correlation to taking WR in the first and being a terrible franchise. Baltimore made the playoffs 5 years in a row. There are multiple teams you listed that can say they were the best team in league in the last 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with teams drafting WRs high isn't inherent to the position. The problem is a little like QB. Teams think they really need that WR and draft guys like Troy Williamson, Percy Harcvin,  Laquon Treadwell, and Cordarlle Patterson, just using the Vikings as an example. They draft guys with the height/weight/speed that COULD pan out, but obvious red flags like poor hands, sloppy routes, off the field questions, or the ability to digest and function in an NFL offense. I think part of why it looks so bad is that these teams are bad at evaluation in the first place and just see impressive athletic test numbers and want to believe they can make it work.

 

If an actual GOOD WR prospect is there, and the Packers picked him, I'd be willing to trust they are better at their job than most of those picks you are referencing. When Thompson has picked WRs high he's hit, even if they have been 2s and 3s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

The problem with teams drafting WRs high isn't inherent to the position. The problem is a little like QB. Teams think they really need that WR and draft guys like Troy Williamson, Percy Harcvin,  Laquon Treadwell, and Cordarlle Patterson, just using the Vikings as an example. They draft guys with the height/weight/speed that COULD pan out, but obvious red flags like poor hands, sloppy routes, off the field questions, or the ability to digest and function in an NFL offense. I think part of why it looks so bad is that these teams are bad at evaluation in the first place and just see impressive athletic test numbers and want to believe they can make it work.

 

If an actual GOOD WR prospect is there, and the Packers picked him, I'd be willing to trust they are better at their job than most of those picks you are referencing. When Thompson has picked WRs high he's hit, even if they have been 2s and 3s.

Exactly, Jennings and Nelson were high 2nd round picks and I obviously have no issue with them.

WR is an important position. This is reflected by how many have been taken in the 1st. Taking one in the 1st because he's the best player on your board doesn't make you have a bad defense. Hell we've taken a defensive player in the 1st for like the last decade and still don't have a very good defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kenrik said:

This is pure gibberish. There isnt a correlation to taking WR in the first and being a terrible franchise. Baltimore made the playoffs 5 years in a row. There are multiple teams you listed that can say they were the best team in league in the last 10 years.

I was hoping somebody would say that.  Ravens haven't made the playoffs since they drafted Perriman.  The Bills haven't made the payoffs once.  The Cardinals have made the playoffs 4 times in Fitzgerald's career.  Four times.  Panthers have made it 3 times.  You gonna tell me they made it to the Super Bowl?  Okay, I'll tell you they made it to the Super Bowl the year Kelvin Benjamin was out for the season before the season started.  Bears have been a horrible franchise the past ten years and I'll hear no arguments to the contrary.  Bengals have been a horribly run franchise the past ten years and I'll hear no arguments to the contrary.  The Cowboys have been a horribly run franchise the past ten years and I'll hear no arguments to the contrary, and they only changed this when Jerry started drafting all offensive linemen in the first, and they're living off that stroke of genius by him.  Unless you think Dez Bryant is a pillar of their success.  The Broncos?  They were a horribly run franchise before Elway took over, and Thomas was taken a year before he took over.  If you feel otherwise, I'm sure Norm has a Tim Tebow jersey to sell you.  Let's not even venture into the problems of the LionsColts?  Lol.  Jaguars?  Lol.  Texans?  Mention me when they win a playoff game.  Chiefs?  Where are their receivers?  Chargers?  You're talking about the worst run franchise in professional sports possibly.  Dolphins?  How many playoffs have they made in the past ten years when Brady hasn't been injured?  Vikings?  I think all four of their first round receivers have busted.  Saints have done nothing since their Super Bowl win, which they won by stocking up on free agents, not by taking Robert Meachum.  The Giants aren't  even a good offensive team and they have the best receiveri n the game.   The rest of the teams have all gone through massive playoff droughts or talent deficiencies as a direct result of taking receivers in the draft. 

Every time I bring something up, I'm hit back with, "Correlation does not equal causation..." How many times do I have to bring up repeated patterns associated with taking a receiver in round one before ONE of the patterns out of DOZENS of patterns SUGGESTS causation?  It's a bad idea to take a receiver in round one, especially more so today when teams are passing on less physically complete receivers in early rounds only to find that  they turn into all-pros even with those limitations?  The best receiver in the NFL was a 6th round pick.  The Vikings took 4 receivers in the first round in the past ten years and their two best since Randy Moss and Cris Carter have been late round draft picks, and I think Thielen was undrafted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

WR is an important position.

I have yet to hear a single argument for how they're a more important position or as important as safety, CB, pass rusher, DL, OL, QB, or RB in today's NFL. 

I'm not against having good receivers, I'm against using the most important draft pick there is in order to get one.  That's literally all I'm against.  People want that generational talent at WR because they think it will make us impossible to stop with Rodgers, but that's simply not true.  Teams will still be able to shut us down.  It happened in 2011 when we had prime Nelson, Jones, Jennings, Driver and Finley.  Unstoppable offenses are easily stoppable in the playoffs when the quality of defense doubles and you can't have one bad week. 

I continue to argue against a first round receiver because we've gotten Murphy, Jennings, Jones, Adams, Nelson, Cobb, Montgomery (check out his game against the Seahawks in his rookie year at WR) all in the second and third rounds. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...