Official NFL Draft Thread (General Discussion for Draft)

[Armsteeld2]

Just now, warfelg said:

Ugh....if that's the case I'm even more pissed.  We had actual places of need and we did this.

Safety titles don’t determine every play where they’ll line up.  You can be a Free Safety yet on this play I want you playing press coverage against a TE.  Next play you’re 15 yards off the LOS and playing Single High or deep thirds.  Responsibilities constantly change.  I’m wondering what Wilcox’s role on the team is.  Cap casualty or will Steelers draft another Safety? ? 

[Dcash4]

Just now, warfelg said:

Ugh....if that's the case I'm even more pissed.  We had actual places of need and we did this.

You know there is no rule against using three safeties?   

The biggest place of need we have is a guy that can play in the middle of the field and run -- filling the rule of shazier. I dont think there were any ILBs after Evans (and I wasnt even super high on him) that could do that. Maybe this was the backup plan to the ILB not being there. Let Burnett, Davis, and now Edmunds play taking off a guy like Williams and let them fly around in sub packages. 

[Armsteeld2]

56 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

I just dont get this pick. Edmunds either wont start or starts over Davis. Either way, Harold Landry, Justin Reid, Lamar Jackson, Ronnie Harrison, Guice wouldve been better.

Sub package defense and matchup player from day 1.  Landry has a back issue (supposedly), Reid lacks discipline in coverage, Jackson will be on the bench for 2 years if Ben stays, Harrison could play same role as Edmunds but Steelers love SPARQ guys, Guice would be a backup to Bell.

[warfelg]

I get there's no rule against 3 safeties, sub packages, yada yada yada.

 

But we drafted this same player 2 years ago.

We traded for this same player last year.

We signed this same player this offseason.

 

Now try to tell me why taking a guy in the 1st that's similar to the 3 guys we spent on the last 3 offseasons makes it a good pick.

[Dcash4]

1 minute ago, Armsteeld2 said:

Safety titles don’t determine every play where they’ll line up.  You can be a Free Safety yet on this play I want you playing press coverage against a TE.  Next play you’re 15 yards off the LOS and playing Single High or deep thirds.

It might just be from my own experiences, but I do kinda like the idea of all three safeties being able to share similar responsibilities. As a QB, I hated not knowing what safeties were going to do. Drove me nuts to have two good ones and were interchangeable. Didn't happen terrible often, but when it did I would hate the match ups. Give me a guy who is purely a free safety and at least I have a really good idea from where you line up to where you will be off the snap. 

[Armsteeld2]

2 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

It might just be from my own experiences, but I do kinda like the idea of all three safeties being able to share similar responsibilities. As a QB, I hated not knowing what safeties were going to do. Drove me nuts to have two good ones and were interchangeable. Didn't happen terrible often, but when it did I would hate the match ups. Give me a guy who is purely a free safety and at least I have a really good idea from where you line up to where you will be off the snap. 

Well said.  That’s why I wanted the 49ers to draft Roquan Smith.  Smith and Foster would have been a terrific tandem.  

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, Dcash4 said:

It might just be from my own experiences, but I do kinda like the idea of all three safeties being able to share similar responsibilities. As a QB, I hated not knowing what safeties were going to do. Drove me nuts to have two good ones and were interchangeable. Didn't happen terrible often, but when it did I would hate the match ups. Give me a guy who is purely a free safety and at least I have a really good idea from where you line up to where you will be off the snap. 

The bolded is the problem.  Burnett is good.  Edmunds is a question mark and bound to make rookie mistakes.  Davis is average at best.  There isn't 2 good ones.  There's 1 good one, 1 unknown, and 1 mistake prone player.

And knowing this coaching staff Davis is going to start most the year despite all the mistakes and Edmunds will only end up ok.

[Armsteeld2]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

The bolded is the problem.  Burnett is good.  Edmunds is a question mark and bound to make rookie mistakes.  Davis is average at best.  There isn't 2 good ones.  There's 1 good one, 1 unknown, and 1 mistake prone player.

And knowing this coaching staff Davis is going to start most the year despite all the mistakes and Edmunds will only end up ok.

JJ Wilcox will be in this equation somewhere as well.  We have an interesting group of Safeties.  Most are known as being big hitters.

JJ Wilcox

Morgan Burnett

Sean Davis

Nat Berhe

Terrell Edmunds

[warfelg]

1 minute ago, Armsteeld2 said:

JJ Wilcox will be in this equation somewhere as well.  We have an interesting group of Safeties.  Most are known as being big hitters.

JJ Wilcox

Morgan Burnett

Sean Davis

Nat Berhe

Terrell Edmunds

You don't see a problem with how they are all basically copy and paste versions of each other?  And Berhe is mostly a ST only guy.  Wilcox and Davis make bonehead mistakes.  Burnett is the only one I trust but he's very injury prone.  You might think interesting, I think blah.

[3rivers]

19 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Ugh....if that's the case I'm even more pissed.  We had actual places of need and we did this.

this is what I don't like about the FO. Wasting RD1 picks is up there with me, but when there are needs throughout the D and they do this, it really doesn't help .  How does this pick compare to the raiders drafting mitchell in RD1 way back?

[Dcash4]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

I get there's no rule against 3 safeties, sub packages, yada yada yada.

 

But we drafted this same player 2 years ago.

We traded for this same player last year.

We signed this same player this offseason.

 

Now try to tell me why taking a guy in the 1st that's similar to the 3 guys we spent on the last 3 offseasons makes it a good pick.

So what prospect should we have taken? That doesnt have holes and doesnt have players already in their spaces? 

OLB? To your remarks, we already have two 1st round drafted players. We shouldnt take another. 

CB? The room is full of highly drafted guys who have multi years left on contracts?

RB? We still have Bell, and to my argument, would be worse without him at least this year.

QB? And pass the opportunity to improve the defense. 

ILB is the one glowing hole that needs to be filled (phrasing). But the top guys were gone, and honestly, I don't know if there is anyone else in the draft at the position that I think is any sort of immediate help. 

I get that you don't like the pick or the value...but I dont think this is a great draft in regards of talent fitting us and there isnt anyone else on the board that i would have been pounding the table for. I think is a long list of "meh" players who regardless of taking we could rip apart the decision. 

Personally, I don't think there was any player that was plug and play and we instantly got better. I think you had to draft the guys that have the potential to make you stronger and I think that Edmunds can allow us to do some things in sub-packages that will be advantageous to us. I think that Edmunds or Burnett now become a pseudo inside linebacker, which by my estimation helps our biggest need -- that coverage guy in the middle of the field to replace Shaziers abilities. 

[warfelg]

How about the don't force a pick option?  The trade down option?

The OLB think makes more sense to me because Dupree hasn't shown much and we lack depth there anyways.  CB has more questionmarks than safety IMO.  Ok, you have RB with Bell this year...but what about next year?  QB....so screw the future?

Add on top of that at this SS/ILB hybrid style player this draft is really deep with them, but you spent early on a guy projected to be there later.  You can keep justifying it, but to me there was more reasons to look elsewhere and think of other options.

[jebrick]

28 minutes ago, Armsteeld2 said:

JJ Wilcox will be in this equation somewhere as well.  We have an interesting group of Safeties.  Most are known as being big hitters.

JJ Wilcox <-- Can't cover

Morgan Burnett <-- can Cover

Sean Davis<-- Can't cover( still have hope)

Nat Berhe<-- Can't cover

Terrell Edmunds<-- can Cover ( we hope)

 

[warfelg]

Ok quick best case/worst case here:

Best Case - We play a lot of big nickel sub packages, Edmunds plays about 50% of the snaps. Maybe supplants Davis or Burnett (which is still bad because then you wasted a 2nd or cap space). Picks off a few more passes than expected. 

Worst case - We don’t use a lot of big nickel. Can’t beat out Davis or Burnett. Plays 40% or less of the snaps. Has no real impact on the field. 

 

To me that makes this pick a lose lose. Even in the best case we still wasted something away. 

I would have taken Landry:

Best case - He supplants Dupree, Dupree never gets hurt, we can cut Dupree with no cap hit (or trade him). 

Worse case - he’s a pass rushing rotational guy with Dupree, who in sub packages let’s us move Dupree to an off ball backer where he can blitz, cover, or play the run from inside (so really that helps Dupree). 

With Landry even our worst case (other than not playing) still outweighs the best case from Edmunds IMO. 

I think I’m going to take the classic @FourThreeMafia Stance on this. I’m going to hate it til he proves me wrong. 

[Dcash4]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

How about the don't force a pick option?  The trade down option?

Promise we had the option? Every year someone says this and we have zero clue what went on in that room. Maybe we tried? Maybe no one wanted the pick? Maybe we were stuck? Or maybe they just really like the guy. 

4 minutes ago, warfelg said:

The OLB think makes more sense to me because Dupree hasn't shown much and we lack depth there anyways.  CB has more questionmarks than safety IMO.  Ok, you have RB with Bell this year...but what about next year?  QB....so screw the future?

Here is the fun thing about all of this...there is no black or white in searching for a right answer. I fully agree with Dupree, but there is no one in this draft that I immediate think was better than him. CB has a 22 (turning 23 in a couple days) 3rd year starter and former first rounder,  a guy drafted in the 3rd that they liked a lot last year, a highly paid vet who played well for us, and Mike Hilton who did very well. I'll agree there are question marks, but man do I ever hope they didnt take these guys to give up on their potential development before their 23rd bday.

What about next year with RB? Lets take one.....wait for it....next year! QB, same thing. The front office will know better than we will. What if Ben has told them he is truly committed to 2-3 years? What if they didnt like any of the QBs at this point? Without even considering searching for RB or QB prospects of 2019, I bet rolling into next year -- we are going to have more prospects come up....So we are not completely missing out on the position. You are worried about value in terms of who we took -- do you really think the value of a 1st round QB or RB would have been high?

Again, I dont think there is any one at the OLB or CB that makes our team instantly better nor do I believe planning for the future on a super bowl aspiring team with defensive inefficiencies makes a ton of sense. Regardless of the player himself, I can envision the TYPE of player they took as having an impact in our largest area of weakness where as other positions I see as non-impact depth immediately. 

11 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Add on top of that at this SS/ILB hybrid style player this draft is really deep with them, but you spent early on a guy projected to be there later. 

Key word. Promise he woulda been there? All it takes is one team to like a guy. People were expecting Penny to go 2nd or 3rd round mostly -- there is is gone in the first. If your a team that loved that guy, you better take him before someone else does. And I am sure you can dig in a find where Penny was selected in the first round places, but that leads to my greater point -- what in the world do projects mean outside of fans having fun and giving ESPN something to talk about in April?

18 minutes ago, warfelg said:

you can keep justifying it, but to me there was more reasons to look elsewhere and think of other options.

And you can keep knocking it. That's the fun of this sports world where there is a giant area of shaded grey. Keep on keeping on brother.