Official NFL Draft Thread (General Discussion for Draft)

[Armsteeld2]

Here’s a lil something for y’all....... 

 

[jebrick]

Which

18 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

If you want to play the "Handpick a reach that panned out" game, I'm sure I will win handpicking the ones that didn't. Before the draft, did YOU think Edmunds would be drafted in the1st?

which is the entire point of not judging the pick until they have played

[Chieferific]

Just now, jebrick said:

Which

which is the entire point of not judging the pick until they have played

We're not allowed to do that? Obviously everything is based on conjecture. You seem to not want to even entertain the idea that Value exists. There is a surplus of individuals that are similar to Edmunds thus lowering his Value. Obviously the Steelers valued him over the others that will be there @ #60. Only they know why.  Of course we don't know how he will pan out. Every year players outplay or underplay their draft position. That doesn't change their Value on draft day. 

[warfelg]

1 hour ago, Dcash4 said:

He CAN potentially fill the absolute, hands down, biggest hole on our roster -- a guy who can cover sideline to sideline in the middle of the field. Whether its him in that position, or Burnett comfortably there with Edmunds filling the back end role, that is something we did not currently have on the roster and its something that we may have now out of sub packages in an age where you live in sub packages. 

Ok, but what about that makes him a 1st round pick?  You plugged the biggest hole with 2/5ths of what we need out of that position.  We also needed a guy that can stop the run coming downhill or sideline to sideline.  A smart guy that can diagnose the play and make that call and change his intent on the fly.

Quote

I have said it before, but a ILB that can move was our biggest need. There did not seem like a lot of guys that could plug and be an upgrade there, especially after Evans and LVE were gone (who I still had great questions about). Maybe they thought outside the box on how to fix that problem.

Don't disagree that they had to change on the fly.  Don't disagree there wasn't a lot of plug an play.  Doesn't mean you have to address that right away.  Doesn't mean you have to think outside the box.

Quote

They brought in Burnett who is terrific in that TYPE of role. Edmunds is a guy who can fit that mold as well, and be the future of the position in a larger scale. We love big Nickle. Its pretty simple to see the correlation between the guys on the roster, the amount of time spent in sub packages, the skill sets that the guys have at the safety position, and the biggest need defensively fitting into place. 

Ok, here's where IMO you put yourself in a hole:

Quote

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. 

So you said this when I said we have a bunch of similar players.  So if you're going to say that to me saying we brought in another of what we have a bunch of, and you argue that using a pick on a guy to be the future at the spot is silly because we have a guy for another year, you can't also argue Edmunds is a good pick because he's the future at a place we just signed a terrific player in that role.  So why is it at safety it's ok to have extra players that play the same style, but at other positions its not ok to take players to rotate in and groom at other positions?  Sorry but this is coming off very hypocritical to say both things.

Quote

These are things that i think REGARDLESS OF PLAYER. I am not trying to convince anyone who doesn't like Edmunds that he, as a player, was the correct pick. But he does fit a mold that can immediately help this team be better in their largest area of weakness. You can argue the schematics of the specific player by name and pundits draft thoughts, but his position and the flexibility of who the three Safeties will be CAN put is in a better spot now post Shazier. This is what the team needed and I think this may be the outside of the box way of finding its solution. 

Sorry but what?  Your not going to try to convince anyone that he's the right player, but then you say he's the right player?  This reads very much like you were deciding to plug a hole there no matter what, no matter who was there.  Lets say Josh Allen was still there (I know hypothetical); would you have skipped him with a higher grade just because you put yourself in this spot that you feel like you needed to draft a 3rd safety type?  What if ti was Jiare Alexander?  Marcus Davenport?  I think it's hard to tell yourself "this is what we need and this is what we're going to take for our team".  That's how GM's lose their jobs.  Stay true to your board, let the draft come to you, and don't force yourself to have to take something.  If you get down to this spot and no one really dropped, the needs don't match the top of your board, you can look to move.  Because of the 5th year options teams look to move up; personally I don't think it's as valuable as most other people think.  You don't think the Giants (34), Broncos (40), Dolphins (42), even to the Bengals (44) weren't trying to call to get into the late first for the purpose of taking Guice, Jones, Jackson, Rudolph, or maybe a few others?  I would be willing to get if you were a fly on the wall you would see those calls coming into the war room.

Quote

If you want to tell me you dont like the player, fine. But do not tell me that the thought process cannot be useful to win now and that the potential cannot be impact in the future. We live in sub packages. You can make the argument that this TYPE of player will be used far more than a backup OLB, a run stuffing NT, a 3rd WR, a vert stretching TE, a future QB, or a 3rd RB...and you can make the argument that it wont. But by my estimation, they believe they took the best player with the best possible fit to help us immediately with a high enough ceiling to justify the future. 

That's not my argument at all.  It's that if you are going to say that he's a great win now pick, I disagree.  My stance is that the impact he would have on the team now at #1 is not the same as the later impact those other guys can have.  And on top of that the impact you are looking for out of this pick, and the type of guy you were looking for with it, was there in the 2nd and 3rd as well.

 

So what ends up happening is you compound an unfortunate break, with telling yourself you needed something, added with forcing yourself to do it early.  That's how you make bad picks.

[Chieferific]

Possible picks based on the top  SPARQ scores

RB: Boone (Cinci), Cannon (VA St.), Chubb, Scarborough, Ballage

WR: Cantrell, Trinnaman (BYU), Chark, Smallwood, Sutton 

Edge: Carter (ILB), Sweat, Lewis, Aruna, Landry, O.O., Fitts 

ILB: Thomas (FSU), Burks, Poling (Ohio), Jefferson, Franklin (Syracuse), Avery

CB: Campbell (PSU), Moseley (Tenn), Crossen (Western Carolina), Meeks, J. Jackson, Maddox, Chachere (SJSU)

[Money]

With Edmunds think Deone Bucannon with better coverage skills. Shazier showed the value of this kind of player and Pittsburgh West and a number of teams copied this approach with the hybrid S/LB playing LB in sub packages. The Steelers tweet of the Edmunds article said in the text he would help in the back end of the defense. He's the future starting SS. He will compete with Burnett for the starting SS position early on and the loser will play sub package LB. I would think the ILB position has been covered with Bostic for obvious run downs and Burnett/Edmunds for sub package looks. They will still address ILB for depth concerns maybe with the next pick. I like Josey Jewell #60/#79 and he's another four down player. 

What I'd like to see is shoring up the run defense with an interior DL and an EDGE guy. Tim Settle AND Trent Thompson would add some teeth to that DL and give us a rotation comparable to Jacksonville. Also throwing in some ILB and I'd even take another safety or CB

 

Ogbonnia Okoronkwo EDGE

Tim Settle NT/DT

Trent Thompson DT

Josey Jewell ILB

Marquis Haynes EDGE

Jessie Bates FS

[Chieferific]

I'm not trying to be the guy that just keeps hammering this pick. I actually think there is a lot to like about the PLAYER. However, his coverage skills are getting significantly exaggerated. Play the tape. His feet are clunky. He's heavy footed in transition in and out of breaks. He is a Zone Safety. I personally do not call Zone players good in coverage. Obviously they are responsible for coverage but that's just now how I think of it. 

[Money]

I like the Edmunds pick the more I think about it because it gives them a future starting SS and helps fill some of what Shazier can bring to the table. He gives the defense some team speed and versatility so looking at improving the defense he kills two birds with one stone with the ILB/SS positions. Instead of going ILB and S the first two picks you get both with Edmunds in terms of sub package looks at ILB. He might've just been a "B" Steelers grade but what he offers the team short-term and long-term they valued him at a 1st rd pick and made the selection

[Armsteeld2]

5 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

I'm not trying to be the guy that just keeps hammering this pick. I actually think there is a lot to like about the PLAYER. However, his coverage skills are getting significantly exaggerated. Play the tape. His feet are clunky. He's heavy footed in transition in and out of breaks. He is a Zone Safety. I personally do not call Zone players good in coverage. Obviously they are responsible for coverage but that's just now how I think of it. 

Ed Reed was the Best Zone Safety, ever.

[Chieferific]

5 minutes ago, Armsteeld2 said:

Ed Reed was the Best Zone Safety, ever.

I'm missing the point. There's nothing wrong with Zone Safeties (if that's what you thought I was saying). Edmunds doesn't (to me) have the hips and footwork to Man-up. Therefore he needs to be a Zone Safety. Which is fine. But (to me) those are not guys that I would say have good coverage skills. They're are placed in Zone because there coverage skills are a weakness. I do not think bringing Edmunds down to cover Slot WRs or certain TEs Man-to-Man is a good idea. Now Ed Reed prolly would have excelled at both.  

[Money]

7 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

I'm not trying to be the guy that just keeps hammering this pick. I actually think there is a lot to like about the PLAYER. However, his coverage skills are getting significantly exaggerated. Play the tape. His feet are clunky. He's heavy footed in transition in and out of breaks. He is a Zone Safety. I personally do not call Zone players good in coverage. Obviously they are responsible for coverage but that's just now how I think of it. 

The play I really like was 2:08. He showed intelligence in the zone and good ball skills to locate the ball and jump up and grab it at its highest point. It looks like cover 3 and he's playing free and he takes away the skinny post. 0:50 - 1:02 kind of remind me of plays that Sean Taylor would make in the run game. I think he offers FS/SS flexibility with sub package ILB looks. 

 

 

[43M]

3 hours ago, warfelg said:

And that’s fair enough, but like I’ve said I think the next window that could have been opened and maintained from Jackson is better than the small help we would get from Edmunds now. 

 

Trust me I’m for the team going win now mode....but this didn’t feel like that at all. It feels like a “I think he can help, we’ll see” move. 

 Isn't that like... Every draft pick?

By no means am I saying this was a good pick . The Steelers track record with drafting and developing defensive backs is not good. This guy is obviously Raw and needs time to develop. However, as I said numerous times, there was no player at that player I was pounding the table for. I just know I would have been pissed off if we had drafted a running back at that point unless we were planning to trade Bell. And I'm not sure how much I could get behind drafting Lamar Jackson because we don't know how much longer Ben will play, and I don't want a Garoppolo situation.

 

[Chieferific]

3 minutes ago, Money said:

The play I really like was 2:08. He showed intelligence in the zone and good ball skills to locate the ball and jump up and grab it at its highest point. It looks like cover 3 and he's playing free and he takes away the skinny post. 0:50 - 1:02 kind of remind me of plays that Sean Taylor would make in the run game. I think he offers FS/SS flexibility with sub package ILB looks. 

Nice Highlight reel. Really cool music. The play you referenced was where he was in Zone. In case you missed it, that's what I think he is. However, I've seen to many posts applauding his coverage ability and that he should cover TEs. To me, that means 1 on 1. I do not think that is where he belongs. Again, I think they plan (and should) to use him in a Kam Chancellor role. Hopefully he can be 1/2 as good. 

[warfelg]

6 minutes ago, Money said:

The play I really like was 2:08. He showed intelligence in the zone and good ball skills to locate the ball and jump up and grab it at its highest point. It looks like cover 3 and he's playing free and he takes away the skinny post. 0:50 - 1:02 kind of remind me of plays that Sean Taylor would make in the run game. I think he offers FS/SS flexibility with sub package ILB looks. 

 

 

That was a crap throw and a crap decision by the QB.  Yes Edmunds made a great play on the ball.  Can't deny that.  But it was thrown into triple coverage.

[Livewire]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000928854/article/2018-nfl-draft-best-players-available?campaign=sf187934890

Check out #87 on players who are still available.