NFL Draft Day Thread - DTWD

[DuvalsKing]

11 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

my OL guys in no particular order: james Daniels, Braden Smith, Orlando brown, Chukwuma Okorafor.  Brian O'Neil, Martinas Rankins, Joseph Noteboom are all intrgiuing guys. O'Neil and Noteboom both seem to be pretty athletic guys.  Rankins seems like a guy who could go to guard or tackle. 

I like Daniels i'd be all for him and moving Linder back to G but this team already priced him out by paying him as a center so i'm sure they will leave him there thats why I don't see him as a possible selection for this team. Yet Orlando Brown is one of your top oline guys yet you take into account Crosby isn't strong enough but Orlando Brown pushed out 14 reps at the combine and upped it to 18 for the pro day @ 6'8 345lbs ?.

[LinderFournette]

Just now, DuvalsKing said:

Orlando Brown is one of your top oline guys yet you take into account Crosby isn't strong enough but Orlando Brown pushed out 14 reps at the combine and upped it to 18 for the pro day @ 6'8 345lbs ?.

i didnt make the scouting report. im just saying what a scout said to a football place regarding a Prospect.   Crosby has some skinny ankles.  

[Tugboat]

23 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

 

i dunno the scout Bob McGinn Football talked to but this was on rotoworld.  Conner is being considered a Guard cuz of his arm length not to mention he struggled this year and the Big 12 didnt have good edge rushers. he also has an Injury history. 

Bob McGinn Football also had a scout that said he thinks Crosby will bust because he isnt strong enough(17 reps), skinny ankles, and reportedly be a guard only because of his poor feet. 

 

 

Those Bob McGinn quotes are good for giving context, but really can't be taken as gospel.  It's just one scout's thoughts, and there are negatives for pretty much everyone.  Especially as we get into Day 2 and beyond.  I mean, i'm sure you could go back and read some things last year that suggested Cam Robinson would be utterly worthless.  So...take those comments for what they are.

I don't think Williams struggled that badly.  Compared to last year, sure...but he was also dealing with injury/return.  It's entirely possible he does end up a guard, but even if he does...i don't have a problem with that.  It'd be better if he holds some RT utility, but we need a RG anyway.

As for Crosby...i don't know that i'd really describe him as "not strong enough" on the tape.  He may be more of a functional strength guy than a bench press guy and "big ankles" though.

 

19 minutes ago, LinderFournette said:

my OL guys in no particular order: james Daniels, Braden Smith, Orlando brown, Chukwuma Okorafor.  Brian O'Neil, Martinas Rankins, Joseph Noteboom are all intrgiuing guys. O'Neil and Noteboom both seem to be pretty athletic guys.  Rankins seems like a guy who could go to guard or tackle. 

I'd lean toward Williams first and foremost, then Crosby, Rankins, Corbett.  Brian O'Neill is interesting with his movement ability if you can get him stronger and a lot more polished, but that's a guy that i see as having more of a strength problem than Crosby.  Braden Smith would be alright as a Day 2 guy, but i'd almost be starting to look toward tomorrow and guys like KC McDermott and Wyatt Teller who i think i'm higher on than most, and don't value that far behind Smith.

Maybe just lean TE or WR, make sure i can grab my pick of them, if pickings are looking slim by our pick.

[Speedyg]

2 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

I think this is what it comes down to.  If you really, truly, confidently believe Lamar Jackson is going to be a "Franchise QB"...any other pick at all is going to be an extremely tough sell.

There are multiple problems with that though.

1.There's nothing even close to resembling a guarantee that Jackson is even going to be a good QB in the league, much less a franchise guy.  The potential is there, but there's big bust potential as well. Of course, but that goes for any player, especially QB.

2.In the sort of thing @DuvalsKing was touching on previously, bringing a high profile guy like Jackson in behind Bortles is a ready-made precarious QB controversy, pretty much immediately.  QB controversies are bad for business, on a team with championship aspirations.  So if you're taking Jackson...you'd better be ready to roll with him and commit fully to it.  And to do so sooner, rather than later.  Because Bortles will stumble and have rough games. I'm not concerned with this in our locker room. These guys were 10 minutes away from the big game. They will do anything that will take them there. If Blake is the right guy for it, they'll roll with him. And if he's not, then why are we rolling with him? Why are we waiting for WHEN Bortles stumbles and have his rough games again? This team, especially the defense, carried this offense for most of the season. Sure, Blake had arguably his best games vs. Seattle and Pittsburgh (and he was ok vs. Patriots), but he was really baby-sat for most of the season.

3.Following on from the above...if you want to put Jackson in a position to succeed early, you're going to run a significantly different offense with Bortles vs Jackson.  This team however, has been built primarily to play Bortle ball, and mask his particularly glaring flaws as best as possible.  I'm sure you could make it workable with Jackson, but it'd be a significant reconfiguration of the offensive playbook and gameplan, and a big adjustment for the players around them. See, I don't agree with this. The offense has already been simplified for Blake. We do tons of crossers on manageable distance, which is one of the easier reads for a QB. We do lots of read-options, which Jackson already does. We run play-action and rollouts, which becomes even more deadly with the kind of runner that Lamar is. There might be more turnovers with him, but there will also be more big plays.

4.Even further to that, and on the idea of our craptastic "backup QB" situation right now...I think there's some cause to wonder if Jackson would actually be ready to step in and run the offense right away, even as a backup.  You can only "dynamic athlete" your way so far in the NFL.  There's a lot of stuff Blake does that goes unnoticed i think, just in managing our run game on the field.  That's not something Lamar Jackson did at a significant level in college.  It's also likely the biggest factor in why he very nearly slipped out of the 1st round.  We've seen otherwise reasonably talented guys (like Tyler Wilson) come out of that Bobby Petrino offense with absolutely no clue how to handle an NFL playbook.  It may have some "pro looking" route concepts...but its underpinnings are extremely simplified and gimmicky as heck.  And Jackson not only scored poorly on his wonderlic, but has had rumours floating around for a while now that he didn't impress with his "chalk talk" in meetings.  Which loops back to point #3 - you're going to be doing some very different things with Jackson running the offense, especially year 1.  People will point to Watson last year, but i think it's pretty evident that coming out, Watson had a deeper, more sophisticated football knowledge base to work from.  Which allowed him to step in so early and succeed. Well, obviously, we won't know this. And while teams passed on him, the Ravens (in Ozzie's final draft), traded basically an extra 2nd round pick to grab him. And there's also no proof that Watson has a "deeper more sophisticated football knowledge base", because the Texans changed their offense to fit his style...and was successful because of it. When you have a dynamic playmaker like Watson and Jackson, you don't ask them to be Blake Bortles. You let him play like the playmaker that he is.

5.To the backup point...we've still got 6 rounds of the draft to go, and all but 5 QBs still on the board.  We could still very reasonably get a backup QB "upgrade".  Very probably one who would slide more naturally into the Bortle ball offense.  People rag on the Air Raid system, but through the draft process i think it's been fairly evident that even a guy like Luke Falk coming out of there, has a stronger grasp on some applicable pro concepts and the management of the run game.  Which...in our offense, managing the run game is quite literally ~50% of the QBs job.  So there's still time to find someone who will leave us less hooped than Kessler, if Bortles can't (or shouldn't) play for some reason. If managing a football is all you're looking for, then heck, just play Kessler. He'll do just fine doing that. Just hope that our offensive line and Fournette holds up health wise. And that our defense doesn't have the injuries it avoided last season. And that Lambo misses ONE kick all year long.  Because if those guys are asked to try and win the games for us when our defense or run game falters, that's it. There's our window. Then next season we cut this player, and that player. And we try and replace them with this player and that player. 

I mean...if Jackson goes on to become a real long-term franchise QB, and Bortles takes a step back, it's going to be absurdly frustrating.  But there are plenty good reasons to have passed on him.  It's really just a matter of Franchise QB >>> Anything else.  If you have an unshakable belief that Jackson is going to be one of those...anything else is going to suck as a pick.

I mean, that's the reality of the NFL though, isn't it? Unless you have that one QB that you can rely on year after year, you're going to have up-and-downs. Obviously, no one's going to fault TC for winning 2 SBs in New York, and we all would absolutely love to be so lucky to win 1 much less 2 trophies. But you look at those teams and its contender for 2 years, 3rd place in division next 2. Then contender 2 years, then fall out again. They were constantly yo-yoing into being good enough to be in the playoffs, but also being a 3rd place team on their division. Because that's what happens when you build a great team around an above-average if inconsistent QB in Eli while paying him like an elite franchise QB. You pick up guys on FA to reload, then you dump others 2 years later. Rinse and repeat. And Blake's peak hasn't been close to Eli's peak, I don't think.

 

[.Buzz]

7 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

Those Bob McGinn quotes are good for giving context, but really can't be taken as gospel.  It's just one scout's thoughts, and there are negatives for pretty much everyone.  Especially as we get into Day 2 and beyond.  I mean, i'm sure you could go back and read some things last year that suggested Cam Robinson would be utterly worthless.  So...take those comments for what they are.

I don't think Williams struggled that badly.  Compared to last year, sure...but he was also dealing with injury/return.  It's entirely possible he does end up a guard, but even if he does...i don't have a problem with that.  It'd be better if he holds some RT utility, but we need a RG anyway.

As for Crosby...i don't know that i'd really describe him as "not strong enough" on the tape.  He may be more of a functional strength guy than a bench press guy and "big ankles" though.

 

I'd lean toward Williams first and foremost, then Crosby, Rankins, Corbett.  Brian O'Neill is interesting with his movement ability if you can get him stronger and a lot more polished, but that's a guy that i see as having more of a strength problem than Crosby.  Braden Smith would be alright as a Day 2 guy, but i'd almost be starting to look toward tomorrow and guys like KC McDermott and Wyatt Teller who i think i'm higher on than most, and don't value that far behind Smith.

Maybe just lean TE or WR, make sure i can grab my pick of them, if pickings are looking slim by our pick.

[Tugboat]

Just now, .Buzz said:

Nah.  He'd be alright i guess, but i'm way more lukewarm on him than the amateur scouting community seems to be as a whole.  Outside of his few highlight reel grabs, he's just a lot of "meh" to me, and seems like probably a better fit as a high volume target in a different sort of offense anyway.

[.Buzz]

1 minute ago, Tugboat said:

Nah.  He'd be alright i guess, but i'm way more lukewarm on him than the amateur scouting community seems to be as a whole.  Outside of his few highlight reel grabs, he's just a lot of "meh" to me, and seems like probably a better fit as a high volume target in a different sort of offense anyway.

I'm a big fan of his. Any of Kirk, Sutton, Miller, Washington, etc. would be great value imo.

Seen a couple mocks with us taking Deon Cain. Haven't watched a ton of him.

[Tugboat]

Just now, .Buzz said:

I'm a big fan of his. Any of Kirk, Sutton, Miller, Washington, etc. would be great value imo.

Seen a couple mocks with us taking Deon Cain. Haven't watched a ton of him.

Yeah.  There are good options out there.

Cain i'm not as big on either, but he does seem like a guy this staff would like.  He looks like an amazing receiver, right up until the ball arrives.    Like a mashup of Marqise Lee+Donte Moncrief basically.

[.Buzz]

6 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

Yeah.  There are good options out there.

Cain i'm not as big on either, but he does seem like a guy this staff would like.  He looks like an amazing receiver, right up until the ball arrives.    Like a mashup of Marqise Lee+Donte Moncrief basically.

That's not what I want to hear...

[Tugboat]

8 minutes ago, Speedyg said:

1.Of course, but that goes for any player, especially QB.

Exactly.  Especially for QB.  That's what makes a QB pick there riskier.  Either they're starting games, or they're not.  There's much less "in between" like there is with a DLineman in particular, who is going to be in a normal rotation.

 

Quote

2.I'm not concerned with this in our locker room. These guys were 10 minutes away from the big game. They will do anything that will take them there. If Blake is the right guy for it, they'll roll with him. And if he's not, then why are we rolling with him? Why are we waiting for WHEN Bortles stumbles and have his rough games again? This team, especially the defense, carried this offense for most of the season. Sure, Blake had arguably his best games vs. Seattle and Pittsburgh (and he was ok vs. Patriots), but he was really baby-sat for most of the season.

I think that's naive.  There is no way you bring in a flashy, high profile, Heisman-winning Quarterback like Lamar Jackson, without causing some form of controversy and disruption in the room.  I mean, i'm not big believe in Bortles, i really wish we had something better...but just as he's going to have his bad games, Jackson is going to have growing pains of his own.  You can't just go full Sean McDermott and flip flop all over on who your QB is going to be week to week.  Especially considering all the changes you'd be making to the offense for each.  You can't do a "QB rotation".  Stability and continuity at the position is too important.
 

Quote

 

3.See, I don't agree with this. The offense has already been simplified for Blake. We do tons of crossers on manageable distance, which is one of the easier reads for a QB. We do lots of read-options, which Jackson already does. We run play-action and rollouts, which becomes even more deadly with the kind of runner that Lamar is. There might be more turnovers with him, but there will also be more big plays.

 

You're talking about some specific route types and the concept of running the ball to set up manageable down and distance for Bortles.  That's just philosophically how this staff run an offense, and yes...some things have been eliminated or minimized to keep Bortles from scuttling our chances with his arm.  But the offense itself has actually become more sophisticated as Bortles has had more time to build and grow in the nuance of the system.
 

Quote

 

4.Well, obviously, we won't know this. And while teams passed on him, the Ravens (in Ozzie's final draft), traded basically an extra 2nd round pick to grab him. And there's also no proof that Watson has a "deeper more sophisticated football knowledge base", because the Texans changed their offense to fit his style...and was successful because of it. When you have a dynamic playmaker like Watson and Jackson, you don't ask them to be Blake Bortles. You let him play like the playmaker that he is.

 

They traded up to get Jackson's 5th year option, more than anything else.

And yes, i think there has been clear indication that Watson came out with a higher level understanding of translatable offensive concepts and verbage.  I don't think it's even debatable.  There's a reason the even more dynamic athlete was drafted later.

 

Quote

5.If managing a football is all you're looking for, then heck, just play Kessler. He'll do just fine doing that. Just hope that our offensive line and Fournette holds up health wise. And that our defense doesn't have the injuries it avoided last season. And that Lambo misses ONE kick all year long.  Because if those guys are asked to try and win the games for us when our defense or run game falters, that's it. There's our window. Then next season we cut this player, and that player. And we try and replace them with this player and that player. 

It's about managing the offense, not just "managing the football" by not turning it over.  The guy still has to make the throws.  I think this offense under Bortles last year was a lot more sophisticated and nuanced than you're giving it credit for.  It's not just 2-3 word playcall or look to the sidelines, line up and go.  It's managing a lot of details in the huddle, managing checks at the line, altering plays and and managing reads pre and post snap that Jackson has never been asked to handle on anywhere even close to that level.  His ability to do that stuff is a total unknown...with some real risk there if the chalkboard sessions didn't go well, much less doing it on the field with a roaring crowd and ticking play clock.

 

I mean, you don't have to sell me on the fact that Bortles (and this offense) aren't likely to be enough to carry the team if some other things don't go as well as last year.  I don't like that either.  But Bortles and our offenses limitations and extreme reliance on Fournette are a halfway separate issue to whether or not Lamar Jackson would be the right fit for this team, this year (in our window).  Just bringing Jackson in isn't going to make them completely stand their team philosophy on its head and start playing the sort of shoot from the hip run 'n gun "sputter and quick strike" offense that Jackson executed at Louisville.  That type of game just doesn't jive with the "control the ball and eat them alive on defense" team concept.  It's not just the QB here...our team isn't really built to play shootout football.

 

Quote

I mean, that's the reality of the NFL though, isn't it? Unless you have that one QB that you can rely on year after year, you're going to have up-and-downs. Obviously, no one's going to fault TC for winning 2 SBs in New York, and we all would absolutely love to be so lucky to win 1 much less 2 trophies. But you look at those teams and its contender for 2 years, 3rd place in division next 2. Then contender 2 years, then fall out again. They were constantly yo-yoing into being good enough to be in the playoffs, but also being a 3rd place team on their division. Because that's what happens when you build a great team around an above-average if inconsistent QB in Eli while paying him like an elite franchise QB. You pick up guys on FA to reload, then you dump others 2 years later. Rinse and repeat. And Blake's peak hasn't been close to Eli's peak, I don't think.

And that's what it comes down to.  If you really, truly, confidently think Lamar Jackson is going to be a consistent franchise QB in the NFL year after year that you can rest a team completely on his shoulders...then duh, you take him with the 29th pick and don't look back.  I think there's reason to be skeptical of that.

Much as i don't care for puttering around with Bortles during our prime "window" to contend (especially not while paying him significant money)...i think you're kind of overselling how sure a thing Lamar Jackson would be here, in year 1 and 2 with our "window".  There's a very good chance he's just as inconsistent, and brings just as many glaring flaws to the field every Sunday as Bortles.  Just different flavours of QB with limitations.

That's all it is though.  If you firmly believe Jackson is going to be a star right away...there's no other pick that would even come close to "value".  There's not much else to say in that case.

[DuvalsKing]

im not excited he is not a big bodied target size looks like every other wideout that we currently have.

[Speedyg]

21 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

Exactly.  Especially for QB.  That's what makes a QB pick there riskier.  Either they're starting games, or they're not.  There's much less "in between" like there is with a DLineman in particular, who is going to be in a normal rotation.

 

I think that's naive.  There is no way you bring in a flashy, high profile, Heisman-winning Quarterback like Lamar Jackson, without causing some form of controversy and disruption in the room.  I mean, i'm not big believe in Bortles, i really wish we had something better...but just as he's going to have his bad games, Jackson is going to have growing pains of his own.  You can't just go full Sean McDermott and flip flop all over on who your QB is going to be week to week.  Especially considering all the changes you'd be making to the offense for each.  You can't do a "QB rotation".  Stability and continuity at the position is too important.
 

You're talking about some specific route types and the concept of running the ball to set up manageable down and distance for Bortles.  That's just philosophically how this staff run an offense, and yes...some things have been eliminated or minimized to keep Bortles from scuttling our chances with his arm.  But the offense itself has actually become more sophisticated as Bortles has had more time to build and grow in the nuance of the system.
 

They traded up to get Jackson's 5th year option, more than anything else.

And yes, i think there has been clear indication that Watson came out with a higher level understanding of translatable offensive concepts and verbage.  I don't think it's even debatable.  There's a reason the even more dynamic athlete was drafted later.

 

It's about managing the offense, not just "managing the football" by not turning it over.  The guy still has to make the throws.  I think this offense under Bortles last year was a lot more sophisticated and nuanced than you're giving it credit for.  It's not just 2-3 word playcall or look to the sidelines, line up and go.  It's managing a lot of details in the huddle, managing checks at the line, altering plays and and managing reads pre and post snap that Jackson has never been asked to handle on anywhere even close to that level.  His ability to do that stuff is a total unknown...with some real risk there if the chalkboard sessions didn't go well, much less doing it on the field with a roaring crowd and ticking play clock.

 

I mean, you don't have to sell me on the fact that Bortles (and this offense) aren't likely to be enough to carry the team if some other things don't go as well as last year.  I don't like that either.  But Bortles and our offenses limitations and extreme reliance on Fournette are a halfway separate issue to whether or not Lamar Jackson would be the right fit for this team, this year (in our window).  Just bringing Jackson in isn't going to make them completely stand their team philosophy on its head and start playing the sort of shoot from the hip run 'n gun "sputter and quick strike" offense that Jackson executed at Louisville.  That type of game just doesn't jive with the "control the ball and eat them alive on defense" team concept.  It's not just the QB here...our team isn't really built to play shootout football.

 

And that's what it comes down to.  If you really, truly, confidently think Lamar Jackson is going to be a consistent franchise QB in the NFL year after year that you can rest a team completely on his shoulders...then duh, you take him with the 29th pick and don't look back.  I think there's reason to be skeptical of that.

Much as i don't care for puttering around with Bortles during our prime "window" to contend (especially not while paying him significant money)...i think you're kind of overselling how sure a thing Lamar Jackson would be here, in year 1 and 2 with our "window".  There's a very good chance he's just as inconsistent, and brings just as many glaring flaws to the field every Sunday as Bortles.  Just different flavours of QB with limitations.

That's all it is though.  If you firmly believe Jackson is going to be a star right away...there's no other pick that would even come close to "value".  There's not much else to say in that case.

Well, you're clearly not a Jackson supporter so I'm not going to change your views and you're not going to change mine either. Only time will tell. But i hope to heavens that we're not sitting here again in September banging our heads against the wall as our team tries to win 17-10.

[Speedyg]

56 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

I'm a big fan of his. Any of Kirk, Sutton, Miller, Washington, etc. would be great value imo.

Seen a couple mocks with us taking Deon Cain. Haven't watched a ton of him.

Any of those guys would be nice value, but I'm still hoping one of our target OL slips a bit or we move up to get them. Problem is 2nd and 3rd round is pretty nice for this draft, so I don't really want to give up our 3rd round pick, and Im not sure our late 4th does it. and I'm not dealing a future pick either. Might just have to roll with whoever is left at 61. There's bound to be a pretty nice player there, it just might not be the player we necessarily prefer.

[.Buzz]

5 minutes ago, Speedyg said:

Any of those guys would be nice value, but I'm still hoping one of our target OL slips a bit or we move up to get them. Problem is 2nd and 3rd round is pretty nice for this draft, so I don't really want to give up our 3rd round pick, and Im not sure our late 4th does it. and I'm not dealing a future pick either. Might just have to roll with whoever is left at 61. There's bound to be a pretty nice player there, it just might not be the player we necessarily prefer.

That's my mindset. I don't want to lose a 3rd to move up.

Someone will be there at 61.

[Tugboat]

11 minutes ago, Speedyg said:

Well, you're clearly not a Jackson supporter so I'm not going to change your views and you're not going to change mine either. Only time will tell. But i hope to heavens that we're not sitting here again in September banging our heads against the wall as our team tries to win 17-10.

I think Jackson could be successful, just think there's a lot of risk there...not really sold on this team and staff being a good fit for that to work.  We could probably have Tom Brady under center, and still be out there trying to win 17-10.  

 

9 minutes ago, Speedyg said:

Any of those guys would be nice value, but I'm still hoping one of our target OL slips a bit or we move up to get them. Problem is 2nd and 3rd round is pretty nice for this draft, so I don't really want to give up our 3rd round pick, and Im not sure our late 4th does it. and I'm not dealing a future pick either. Might just have to roll with whoever is left at 61. There's bound to be a pretty nice player there, it just might not be the player we necessarily prefer.

Yeah.  There are a few guys i wouldn't mind trading up for...but with how many quality players are there for today, i wouldn't cough up a 3rd to move.  That should still be a potential starter with our 3rd that we'd be giving up.