2018 NFL Draft Thread

[Keepleyland2 760]

On 1/29/2018 at 8:40 AM, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Honestly, it really boils down to who is available when you pick relative to the next best option(s).  If you value 8 players roughly the same, then you trade down 6 spots and add a pick.  If you highly value one guy over everyone else, you draft him rather than trade down.

But, what I'm trying to get at is nobody is valued at roughly the same. Even those 8 players you're going to have one you like more than the other 7. You're going to have 2 you like more than the other 6, etc. 

Trading down and passing on the player you like more, to just add an extra player that will stink is vastly overrated in my mind. 

[Mr. Bigglesworth 3,207]

It is entirely possible to value a sub-group of players roughly the same.

[Keepleyland2 760]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

It is entirely possible to value a sub-group of players roughly the same.

I disagree. If that was the case on draft day if you had four people all rated the same, you'd just throw names in a hat. There is something that makes you pick player 1, over player 2,3,4. 

I think the talk of "well we hated these guys all rated rougly the same" is just a cop out. And the word "roughly" shows that you think one guys is better or worse than the others you are comparing. Otherwise it wouldn't be roughly. 

[cruzer1 176]

Not all players make every team's boards. I think Quinn said they only had about 40 players or so left on their board on draft day. I think they dig more for the udfas after the draft than the draft itself.

[Mr. Bigglesworth 3,207]

9 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

I disagree. If that was the case on draft day if you had four people all rated the same, you'd just throw names in a hat. There is something that makes you pick player 1, over player 2,3,4. 

I think the talk of "well we hated these guys all rated rougly the same" is just a cop out. And the word "roughly" shows that you think one guys is better or worse than the others you are comparing. Otherwise it wouldn't be roughly. 

I said roughly the same, not exactly the same.  I can think 4 guys are roughly the same but slightly prefer player A to B, C and D.

And what cop out?  If I think the extra pick(s) is(are) more valuable than the loss in value in the quality of the player I get by dropping down in the draft, I should drop down in the draft.

It seems like you made a strawman argument, but I don't even understand what argument you are making.

[Jason_R 165]

It seems like you made a strawman argument, but I don't even understand what argument you are making.

He’s basically talking about the Cleveland Browns strategy for the past few seasons. Which nobody but the Cleveland Browns uses, and even then for only a short time before they realize, “Oh, we really could have used a QB.”

Other than them, nobody actually passes a player they REALLY, REALLY like, who fits their team, to add draft picks. They may pass up players they think are mediocre, whose skills don’t fit the team’s needs, or who aren’t better than existing roster options.

[Shelton 1,371]

18 hours ago, Keepleyland2 said:

But, what I'm trying to get at is nobody is valued at roughly the same. Even those 8 players you're going to have one you like more than the other 7. You're going to have 2 you like more than the other 6, etc. 

Trading down and passing on the player you like more, to just add an extra player that will stink is vastly overrated in my mind. 

I understand what you are getting at. I agree that if you definitely like one guy more than others, even if it is only by a small amount, then it could make sense to not want to move down even one slot. 

But it’s still a pretty subjective exercise. If you have four guys with a projected “WAR” or something of 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4, and you get an offer to trade down three spots in return for a pick that projects at 1 war, it could be worth it. 

It’s just really dependent on what your particular draft board looks like

[Mr. Bigglesworth 3,207]

Plus there is the issue that it is a group of people involved in the discussion and not everyone has the same opinion.  So that further muddies the waters.

[Shelton 1,371]

 Not draft related, but I just saw that Goodell wants to change the catch rule. It sounds like the thing about maintaining possession throughout contact with the ground could go away. 

I would expect if they got rid of that requirement, those times when a guy catches the ball but it comes loose when they land would end up being called fumbles. In most cases the player still holds on to the ball after it came loose, so it probably won’t lead to too many extra fumbles. 

[cruzer1 176]

2 hours ago, Shelton said:

 Not draft related, but I just saw that Goodell wants to change the catch rule. It sounds like the thing about maintaining possession throughout contact with the ground could go away. 

I would expect if they got rid of that requirement, those times when a guy catches the ball but it comes loose when they land would end up being called fumbles. In most cases the player still holds on to the ball after it came loose, so it probably won’t lead to too many extra fumbles. 

I think that would be counter intuitive. I think they should leave the catch rule as is. If the ball hits the ground it's not a catch. I don't know if they can clean up the process at all.

[hardyaf 62]

I think the catch rule makes perfect sense as is tbh. My issue is that it is not called consistently at all, and this season they went away from the "incontrovertible evidence" portion of reviews, and seemed to try to rule in the favor of "what most likely happened". 

A much bigger travesty is the stupid offensive fumble out of the endzone rule. 

[Shelton 1,371]

I don’t have a problem with the rule as it is, and I don’t think it’s been inconsistent. 

But if they were to change it, if a guy secured the ball and gets two feet down, that could work just fine as a rule. That right there could be the defined process that needs to be completed. 

[sagnam 61]

I don’t have a problem with the rule as it is, and I don’t think it’s been inconsistent. 

But if they were to change it, if a guy secured the ball and gets two feet down, that could work just fine as a rule. That right there could be the defined process that needs to be completed. 

 

That will result in significantly more fumbles if they actually were to enforce it that way. Ball “secured” and two feet happens a lot on passes over the middle just before a hit jars the ball free. That criteria really only works in the end zone and on the sidelines.

[Mr.TaterSalad 390]

Out of the non-Saquon Barkley crop of running backs, that the Lions have a reasonable shot at getting, who do you like best?

Bo Scarbrough/Alabama

Derrius Guice/LSU

Kerryon Johnson/Auburn

Nick Chubb/Georgia

Rashaad Penny/San Diego St

Ronald Jones/USC

Royce Freeman/Oregon

Sony Michel/Georgia

[Nastradamus 270]

11 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Out of the non-Saquon Barkley crop of running backs, that the Lions have a reasonable shot at getting, who do you like best?

Bo Scarbrough/Alabama

Derrius Guice/LSU

Kerryon Johnson/Auburn

Nick Chubb/Georgia

Rashaad Penny/San Diego St

Ronald Jones/USC

Royce Freeman/Oregon

Sony Michel/Georgia

Kerryon is the most complete while still being physical so I go him

[Mr.TaterSalad 390]

3 hours ago, Nastradamus said:

Kerryon is the most complete while still being physical so I go him

I'm torn between him, Jones and Michel. While I'd be ok with the Lions picking anyone of the three, Jones is the one I probably have the most hesitation over. I've both seen comparisons of him to Jamaal Charles and scouting reports that worry about him being big and durable enough to be an every down back in the NFL.

[Brian 13]

The Lions can upgrade the woeful running game (or lack there of) in rounds 3-4. A kid I'm pretty high on is Grambling's Martez Carter 

 

[Buddha 855]

On 2/10/2018 at 7:33 PM, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Out of the non-Saquon Barkley crop of running backs, that the Lions have a reasonable shot at getting, who do you like best?

Bo Scarbrough/Alabama

Derrius Guice/LSU

Kerryon Johnson/Auburn

Nick Chubb/Georgia

Rashaad Penny/San Diego St

Ronald Jones/USC

Royce Freeman/Oregon

Sony Michel/Georgia

guice

[Buddha 855]

what about isaiah wynn in round one?  play him at guard and beef up the oline to make holes for whatever running back you find?

[Nastradamus 270]

14 hours ago, Buddha said:

what about isaiah wynn in round one?  play him at guard and beef up the oline to make holes for whatever running back you find?

I like the general idea here, but Wynn isn't good enough for 20 IMO. Pretty deep top 15 or so this year, hopefully a value falls. Wynn as a move up candidate in round 2 maybe? I love the idea of plugging LG and that LG being able to play OT in a pinch tho. Martinas Rankin a similar type. I think Billy Price is a top target for us 

[RandyMarsh 514]

On 2/12/2018 at 11:08 PM, Buddha said:

guice

That's who Kiper has us taking in his latest mock.  I wouldn't totally be against it but I'd still prefer either a NT or pass rusher.  

[Mr.TaterSalad 390]

14 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

That's who Kiper has us taking in his latest mock.  I wouldn't totally be against it but I'd still prefer either a NT or pass rusher.  

No need to take a RB in the first round (save for Barkley miraculously falling to us) when you can likely get one of Michel, Chubb, Johnson, Penny, Jones or Freeman in the second.

[Buddha 855]

i bet guice, barkley, and jones all go in round 1.

depends on the combine numbers.

[84 Lives!!! 213]

I'd still rather wait until the 2nd to pick up a RB...

[cruzer1 176]

On 2/10/2018 at 8:33 PM, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Out of the non-Saquon Barkley crop of running backs, that the Lions have a reasonable shot at getting, who do you like best?

Bo Scarbrough/Alabama

Derrius Guice/LSU

Kerryon Johnson/Auburn

Nick Chubb/Georgia

Rashaad Penny/San Diego St

Ronald Jones/USC

Royce Freeman/Oregon

Sony Michel/Georgia

If I had my pick, it would be Ronald Jones.  He'll blow up the combine.