2018 NFL Draft Discussion

[Gopackgonerd]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's been a very long time since a Guard has gone top 10. 

The Bears edge rushers are Leonard Floyd, Howard Jones, Sam Acho, and Aaron Lynch. All 4 combined for 9.5 sacks last year. I would have a very hard time drafting a Guard with that as my rush rotation. 

Also true, damn bears have so many options at that spot

[ChaRisMa]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Anchor Fatties are too common on defense. Even the best running teams are having to adapt to outside zone runs, trickery, and even the zone read. Chunk yardage is still key and the passing game offers that.  

You ever think about what the next big phase of the NFL is going to be?

For a minute it was elite defenses. Then it was the WC offense. Then RBs that catch the ball was huge. Then TEs got in on the passing game. It's just been pass, pass, pass pretty much since Brees entered the league seemingly.

I hope its trick plays for entertainment sake. If teams started winning and losing based on if their 6th OL can catch a fade route I think that'd be incredible..

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

It's been a very long time since a Guard has gone top 10. 

The Bears edge rushers are Leonard Floyd, Howard Jones, Sam Acho, and Aaron Lynch. All 4 combined for 9.5 sacks last year. I would have a very hard time drafting a Guard with that as my rush rotation. 

I dont want the Bears getting anybody "special" - but I've read alot saying they're gonna snag Edmunds - so I'd settle for them taking a Guard instead.

[Rodjahs12]

Bears are definitely going to grab someone we want. Could easily see them taking either Landry or Davenport if not Edmunds and probably Ward as well. Then there’s Washington right in front of us who will likely want another of our guys. 

[Leader]

1 hour ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

While this is true - no team uses BPA strictly because honestly that is a stupid way to build a team. 

Should we take a QB at 14 if we have him ranked a tier higher then the rest of the players. I would say no. What about a guard? Or Center? Or FB?

You pick the player at the greatest need in the tier you are in. Almost every team does this. 

The context for the comment centered around all the QBs intended to be drafted early - leaving perceived "superior" or sure things on the board. In essence, he was saying the QBs were going to be overdrafted.

[packfanfb]

27 minutes ago, Golfman said:

I love Quenton Nelson. In fact, I love him so much I hope he and 3 QBs are drafted in the first 4 picks. Perfect scenario for us is having to choose between Davenport and Edmunds. I'd jump on Edmunds if you thought he could at some point become an EDGE rusher. Heck, I'd take Edmunds either way. 

I've got my eyes on 5 defenders and would take him in this order if they were to fall to us. I understand 4 or them probably don't make it to us and maybe all five. 

1. Chubb

2. Ward

3. Edmunds

4. Davenport

5. Smith

I love James but don't think he's a luxury we can afford with this pick. I think Smith is higher rated, but Davenport fits more of a need. I'd trade down if those 5 are gone. I'm not a big fan of Fitzpatrick. I only want a defender with this pick. 

 

 

 

Chubb -- no brainer

Ward -- hard to pass on him if he's there, depends on what we do in FA yet at CB

Edmunds -- wouldn't argue with it, he's a freak you can move around. Although I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers had LVE ranked just as high. 

Davenport -- I don't get the love for Davenport over Landry. Davenport is much riskier IMO. Landry is a better pass rusher. I used to like Davenport more but at this point, I'd be pretty disappointed if GB took Davenport over Landry. 

Smith -- I'm souring on him a bit as well. If James, Landry, Ward, etc are all gone, if we don't trade down, I'd take LVE over Smith. 

Agree on Fitzpatrick. I think he's going to be good a many things but not great at any of them. James I would take if he's there. Don't forget he's not just a S, he can play slot CB as well so he does address the CB need in a way and we are not exactly deep at SS...we are placing are our money on Jones panning out. Drafting James gives us options in the defensive backfield, and maybe a future All-Pro. 

[AlexGreen#20]

7 minutes ago, ChaRisMa said:

You ever think about what the next big phase of the NFL is going to be?

For a minute it was elite defenses. Then it was the WC offense. Then RBs that catch the ball was huge. Then TEs got in on the passing game. It's just been pass, pass, pass pretty much since Brees entered the league seemingly.

I hope its trick plays for entertainment sake. If teams started winning and losing based on if their 6th OL can catch a fade route I think that'd be incredible..

It's going to turn further and further into basketball on grass. Athletes are getting better and that style of play leads to fewer injuries. Five good athletes who can all catch the football and probably two who can run it with a QB who can either run or pass. 

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, Leader said:

The context for the comment centered around all the QBs intended to be drafted early - leaving perceived "superior" or sure things on the board. In essence, he was saying the QBs were going to be overdrafted.

Easy to make this comment when your team isn't going to go 4-12 with a McCown at the helm, no matter how productive your rookie class is. 

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Easy to make this comment when your team isn't going to go 4-12 with a McCown at the helm, no matter how productive your rookie class is. 

I think Bucky Brooks has some stature. Lets not pretend the only QBs in the world are those advertized to get drafted in the top 10. 

I'm hearing theres some kid in Oklahoma (?? Not sure about the school) who might be just as good. 

In any case, its a general rule. Clearly teams are going to draft for need - he's cautioning against passing up serious talent simply because it doesnt fit a current need.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000922784/article/stop-overdrafting-quarterbacks-plus-jpp-trade-fallout-and-more

 

 

 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

9 minutes ago, Leader said:

I think Bucky Brooks has some stature. Lets not pretend the only QBs in the world are those advertized to get drafted in the top 10. 

I'm hearing theres some kid in Oklahoma (?? Not sure about the school) who might be just as good. 

In any case, its a general rule. Clearly teams are going to draft for need - he's cautioning against passing up serious talent simply because it doesnt fit a current need.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000922784/article/stop-overdrafting-quarterbacks-plus-jpp-trade-fallout-and-more

 

 

 

 

Think about how much even average QB prospects are pushed up the board. We've got middling prospects slated to go in the top 15. Then think about how mediocre of a prospect you have to be compared to the guys already in the league to be a mid round QB. If Mason Rudolph (I assume you're talking about him out of OK state and not Baker Mayfeld) was thought capable of being a franchise signal caller, he wouldn't be available in the third round (assuming he doesn't end up in the first round anyway, which he might).

Then think about what happens if you're a success. Your rookies come through for you and push you from 3-13 to 7-9. Well ****, I'm tapped out at QB and now my record is too good to go and get a real potential game changer at that spot in the draft. QB purgatory is hell, and it takes several years of elite drafting at other spots and then lucking into a QB via one of the other statistically less likely avenues in order to get out of it. Far more likely your drafting isn't unsustainable elite, you shed talent when it gets expensive, you fall back in record and then you get fired.

[SpeightTheVillain]

28 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Think about how much even average QB prospects are pushed up the board. We've got middling prospects slated to go in the top 15. Then think about how mediocre of a prospect you have to be compared to the guys already in the league to be a mid round QB. If Mason Rudolph (I assume you're talking about him out of OK state and not Baker Mayfeld) was thought capable of being a franchise signal caller, he wouldn't be available in the third round (assuming he doesn't end up in the first round anyway, which he might).

Then think about what happens if you're a success. Your rookies come through for you and push you from 3-13 to 7-9. Well ****, I'm tapped out at QB and now my record is too good to go and get a real potential game changer at that spot in the draft. QB purgatory is hell, and it takes several years of elite drafting at other spots and then lucking into a QB via one of the other statistically less likely avenues in order to get out of it. Far more likely your drafting isn't unsustainable elite, you shed talent when it gets expensive, you fall back in record and then you get fired.

Exactly. It's super easy to think long term when you're not the one getting fired. GMs have to have a good QB in order to keep their jobs

[Leader]

8 minutes ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

Exactly. It's super easy to think long term when you're not the one getting fired. GMs have to have a good QB in order to keep their jobs

Did you read the article?

It cited many QBs that were selected based on need - they turned out to be less than stellar talents - whereas a whole host of players that performed better were passed over.

It's an evaluation process, which is never going to be equal between teams - but the theme of his comments was not to overvalue QBs. I think theres some merit to the thinking.

[SpeightTheVillain]

2 minutes ago, Leader said:

Did you read the article?

It cited many QBs that were selected based on need - they turned out to be less than stellar talents - whereas a whole host of players that performed better were passed over.

It's an evaluation process, which is never going to be equal between teams - but the theme of his comments was not to overvalue QBs. I think theres some merit to the thinking.

Yeah but that's easy for you and Bucky Brooks to say because you aren't the ones getting fired. You have to have a good QB to win. Period. 

Of course they are going to be overvalued because they are a must. They take the best RB, EDGE, or CB, instead of a QB and are at 6-10 or 8-8 and then no longer have a job. Might as well take a chance on a QB that can take you to 12-4 and job security. 

 

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Did you read the article?

It cited many QBs that were selected based on need - they turned out to be less than stellar talents - whereas a whole host of players that performed better were passed over.

It's an evaluation process, which is never going to be equal between teams - but the theme of his comments was not to overvalue QBs. I think theres some merit to the thinking.

It is always best to value the QB's (and other players) that are going to be good.   Teams (GM's) should bypass the players that will suck.  

[Rodjahs12]

Justin Reid would be the #1 in a lot of safety classes.