NFL Draft 2018 / NFL off-season 2018

[touch]

Why take a short qb?

 

Rofl.

 

Why take a guy who cant ever be remotely resembling a drop back qb?

 

The guy will take massive shots trying to prove himself worthy and, God forbid, end up like RG 3.

 

Shocking the stupidity of people who run these companies.

 

Sounds like a lot of teams want this short, no good qb.

 

http://www.espn.com/...-baker-mayfield

 

Yes I heard that on Collin Cowherd this afternoon and said, "WOAH , wait what!"

Bill B. must have liked a lot of what he saw in Baker's ability. That says a great deal.

I at least think so.

[scratchswinger]

Why take a short qb?

 

Rofl.

 

Why take a guy who cant ever be remotely resembling a drop back qb?

 

The guy will take massive shots trying to prove himself worthy and, God forbid, end up like RG 3.

 

Shocking the stupidity of people who run these companies.

 

Sounds like a lot of teams want this short, no good qb.

 

http://www.espn.com/...-baker-mayfield

 

Yes I heard that on Collin Cowherd this afternoon and said, "WOAH , wait what!"

Bill B. must have liked a lot of what he saw in Baker's ability. That says a great deal.

I at least think so.

 

Sounds like NE was not the only team that had Baker on the top of their draft boards. I wonder who knows more, those guys or these guys?

[Schley]

Tell the cowboys of the 90s that more picks don't matter;

 

the tried and true formula in the NFL is quality of depth; how'd you explain eagles winning with that pass rush and a back up qb.

 

Not arguing with Mayfield as the pick but rather where he went. He is no no.1 pick. And Ward is bad value.

 

More picks don't matter at all. We see that all the time, be it the Browns, Rams (RG3 trade), Redskins (Ricky Williams trade), my niners under Baalke. If you aren't hitting on any of your picks it doesn't matter how many you have. Teams like the Steelers or Pats, consistently don't have as many picks as others and still have a perennial winning team. The key is to hit on the picks you have, regardless of how many.

 

Its not the 90s anymore and teams are built with a mix of draft hits and FA hauls. Eagles last year were a team built through a mix of heavy FA classes/trades and some timely draft hits. Foles, Jeffrey, Torrey Smith, Chris Long, Bradham, Jernigan, Blount, Malcolm Jenkins, Brandon Brooks, Ajayi, Barwin, Darby all were big time impact guys, and didn't come via draft.

 

Also assessing draft value 2 seconds after a guy was picked is pointless. If Ward becomes a lockdown corner, and Mayfield becomes a player behind center, nobody cares where they are picked. If they bust out, hindsight is 20/20 and thats falls on scouting and the player.

 

More picks do matter. You look at the success % of 1st round picks and it is like 40-50% that are starters in the league for 3-4 years on average only. So if I have more bullets in my gun I am going to take them. I love 2-4 round choices and would trade down to continue to accrue draft capital in the process. If you don't hit on your draft picks, guess what no team is head and shoulders above the rest, everyone misses via injuries, off field issues, etc.

[adam667220]

Tell the cowboys of the 90s that more picks don't matter;

 

the tried and true formula in the NFL is quality of depth; how'd you explain eagles winning with that pass rush and a back up qb.

 

Not arguing with Mayfield as the pick but rather where he went. He is no no.1 pick. And Ward is bad value.

 

More picks don't matter at all. We see that all the time, be it the Browns, Rams (RG3 trade), Redskins (Ricky Williams trade), my niners under Baalke. If you aren't hitting on any of your picks it doesn't matter how many you have. Teams like the Steelers or Pats, consistently don't have as many picks as others and still have a perennial winning team. The key is to hit on the picks you have, regardless of how many.

 

Its not the 90s anymore and teams are built with a mix of draft hits and FA hauls. Eagles last year were a team built through a mix of heavy FA classes/trades and some timely draft hits. Foles, Jeffrey, Torrey Smith, Chris Long, Bradham, Jernigan, Blount, Malcolm Jenkins, Brandon Brooks, Ajayi, Barwin, Darby all were big time impact guys, and didn't come via draft.

 

Also assessing draft value 2 seconds after a guy was picked is pointless. If Ward becomes a lockdown corner, and Mayfield becomes a player behind center, nobody cares where they are picked. If they bust out, hindsight is 20/20 and thats falls on scouting and the player.

 

More picks do matter. You look at the success % of 1st round picks and it is like 40-50% that are starters in the league for 3-4 years on average only. So if I have more bullets in my gun I am going to take them. I love 2-4 round choices and would trade down to continue to accrue draft capital in the process. If you don't hit on your draft picks, guess what no team is head and shoulders above the rest, everyone misses via injuries, off field issues, etc.

 

This was posted in 2015 with draft data from 2005-2014. Their definition of a starter was for "at least half their career" but didn't specify any minimum number of years to qualify.

 

 

 

I guess my argument to number of picks not mattering is that the extra picks you're generally getting have such a low success rate, not to mention impact, that you're not necessarily getting any further ahead versus just drafting the cream of the crop when you can. These are stats just for generic starters, many of which are going to be run of the mill players that you can make due with. There's obviously always the rare few late picks that end up being Pro-Bowlers, but not frequent enough to design a draft around. Unless you're looking for depth only, then (I think) you're better off getting the highest caliber players you can going in that can have a day 1 impact.

[thegoomba]

That's agent B S on the Pats trading up to number two to draft Mayfield, they did not have the picks needed to move up that high.

[Schley]

Tell the cowboys of the 90s that more picks don't matter;

 

the tried and true formula in the NFL is quality of depth; how'd you explain eagles winning with that pass rush and a back up qb.

 

Not arguing with Mayfield as the pick but rather where he went. He is no no.1 pick. And Ward is bad value.

 

More picks don't matter at all. We see that all the time, be it the Browns, Rams (RG3 trade), Redskins (Ricky Williams trade), my niners under Baalke. If you aren't hitting on any of your picks it doesn't matter how many you have. Teams like the Steelers or Pats, consistently don't have as many picks as others and still have a perennial winning team. The key is to hit on the picks you have, regardless of how many.

 

Its not the 90s anymore and teams are built with a mix of draft hits and FA hauls. Eagles last year were a team built through a mix of heavy FA classes/trades and some timely draft hits. Foles, Jeffrey, Torrey Smith, Chris Long, Bradham, Jernigan, Blount, Malcolm Jenkins, Brandon Brooks, Ajayi, Barwin, Darby all were big time impact guys, and didn't come via draft.

 

Also assessing draft value 2 seconds after a guy was picked is pointless. If Ward becomes a lockdown corner, and Mayfield becomes a player behind center, nobody cares where they are picked. If they bust out, hindsight is 20/20 and thats falls on scouting and the player.

 

More picks do matter. You look at the success % of 1st round picks and it is like 40-50% that are starters in the league for 3-4 years on average only. So if I have more bullets in my gun I am going to take them. I love 2-4 round choices and would trade down to continue to accrue draft capital in the process. If you don't hit on your draft picks, guess what no team is head and shoulders above the rest, everyone misses via injuries, off field issues, etc.

 

This was posted in 2015 with draft data from 2005-2014. Their definition of a starter was for "at least half their career" but didn't specify any minimum number of years to qualify.

 

 

 

I guess my argument to number of picks not mattering is that the extra picks you're generally getting have such a low success rate, not to mention impact, that you're not necessarily getting any further ahead versus just drafting the cream of the crop when you can. These are stats just for generic starters, many of which are going to be run of the mill players that you can make due with. There's obviously always the rare few late picks that end up being Pro-Bowlers, but not frequent enough to design a draft around. Unless you're looking for depth only, then (I think) you're better off getting the highest caliber players you can going in that can have a day 1 impact.

Interesting chart...... what is the source?

 

Let's keep in mind of positions that are multiple spots, like OL is 5 possible positions and players readily move from c-g and t-g etc. At QB or TE there is basically one spot. This chart confirms accruing more picks is a better strategy. For example you can trade a 1st round pick for at least 2 second rounders and probably a 3/4 as well. Look at OL for example. You take 3 OL for 70,70,40 percent of hitting vs. 1 of 83 percent in addition you hedge yourself against injury as the more good players you have the more depth.

[adam667220]

Tell the cowboys of the 90s that more picks don't matter;

 

the tried and true formula in the NFL is quality of depth; how'd you explain eagles winning with that pass rush and a back up qb.

 

Not arguing with Mayfield as the pick but rather where he went. He is no no.1 pick. And Ward is bad value.

 

More picks don't matter at all. We see that all the time, be it the Browns, Rams (RG3 trade), Redskins (Ricky Williams trade), my niners under Baalke. If you aren't hitting on any of your picks it doesn't matter how many you have. Teams like the Steelers or Pats, consistently don't have as many picks as others and still have a perennial winning team. The key is to hit on the picks you have, regardless of how many.

 

Its not the 90s anymore and teams are built with a mix of draft hits and FA hauls. Eagles last year were a team built through a mix of heavy FA classes/trades and some timely draft hits. Foles, Jeffrey, Torrey Smith, Chris Long, Bradham, Jernigan, Blount, Malcolm Jenkins, Brandon Brooks, Ajayi, Barwin, Darby all were big time impact guys, and didn't come via draft.

 

Also assessing draft value 2 seconds after a guy was picked is pointless. If Ward becomes a lockdown corner, and Mayfield becomes a player behind center, nobody cares where they are picked. If they bust out, hindsight is 20/20 and thats falls on scouting and the player.

 

More picks do matter. You look at the success % of 1st round picks and it is like 40-50% that are starters in the league for 3-4 years on average only. So if I have more bullets in my gun I am going to take them. I love 2-4 round choices and would trade down to continue to accrue draft capital in the process. If you don't hit on your draft picks, guess what no team is head and shoulders above the rest, everyone misses via injuries, off field issues, etc.

 

This was posted in 2015 with draft data from 2005-2014. Their definition of a starter was for "at least half their career" but didn't specify any minimum number of years to qualify.

 

 

 

I guess my argument to number of picks not mattering is that the extra picks you're generally getting have such a low success rate, not to mention impact, that you're not necessarily getting any further ahead versus just drafting the cream of the crop when you can. These are stats just for generic starters, many of which are going to be run of the mill players that you can make due with. There's obviously always the rare few late picks that end up being Pro-Bowlers, but not frequent enough to design a draft around. Unless you're looking for depth only, then (I think) you're better off getting the highest caliber players you can going in that can have a day 1 impact.

Interesting chart...... what is the source?

 

Let's keep in mind of positions that are multiple spots, like OL is 5 possible positions and players readily move from c-g and t-g etc. At QB or TE there is basically one spot. This chart confirms accruing more picks is a better strategy. For example you can trade a 1st round pick for at least 2 second rounders and probably a 3/4 as well. Look at OL for example. You take 3 OL for 70,70,40 percent of hitting vs. 1 of 83 percent in addition you hedge yourself against injury as the more good players you have the more depth.

 

Didn't track all the way back to the original source, but the article using it was quoting it as coming from Pro Football Focus.

[raynorfan1]

This chart confirms accruing more picks is a better strategy. For example you can trade a 1st round pick for at least 2 second rounders and probably a 3/4 as well. Look at OL for example. You take 3 OL for 70,70,40 percent of hitting vs. 1 of 83 percent in addition you hedge yourself against injury as the more good players you have the more depth.

 

The joy of football is in the complexity of its systems. You could take 3 OL, but then you've got a half-rookie offensive line. The 53 man roster serves as a cap to this "draft as many guys as you can!" mentality. You don't have an infinite number of roster spots. Teams are picking an average of 8 guys, so if you trade down for more players, you're taking 10+ guys, and you can't have 20% of your roster be rookies. The Ravens took 12 guys this year - they're going to have to cut guys who can make it on other teams.

[touch]

How awesome is this!

 

[scratchswinger]

Tom is such a freak! The suit reminds me of Liberace.

[touch]

Thanks scratchswinger for liking my zany posts here on the NFL threads.

One comment on Facebook said Tom looks like a white version of Prince. lol

Another commented that if your wife looks like Gisele, you wear anything she wants you to wear.

They are a true "Power Couple" aren't they?

 

[touch]

Tom is such a freak! The suit reminds me of Liberace.

Tom is such a freak! The suit reminds me of Liberace.

 

that jacket sure could have been in his closet.

[bubbagump]

Tell the cowboys of the 90s that more picks don't matter;

 

the tried and true formula in the NFL is quality of depth; how'd you explain eagles winning with that pass rush and a back up qb.

 

Not arguing with Mayfield as the pick but rather where he went. He is no no.1 pick. And Ward is bad value.

 

More picks don't matter at all. We see that all the time, be it the Browns, Rams (RG3 trade), Redskins (Ricky Williams trade), my niners under Baalke. If you aren't hitting on any of your picks it doesn't matter how many you have. Teams like the Steelers or Pats, consistently don't have as many picks as others and still have a perennial winning team. The key is to hit on the picks you have, regardless of how many.

 

Its not the 90s anymore and teams are built with a mix of draft hits and FA hauls. Eagles last year were a team built through a mix of heavy FA classes/trades and some timely draft hits. Foles, Jeffrey, Torrey Smith, Chris Long, Bradham, Jernigan, Blount, Malcolm Jenkins, Brandon Brooks, Ajayi, Barwin, Darby all were big time impact guys, and didn't come via draft.

 

Also assessing draft value 2 seconds after a guy was picked is pointless. If Ward becomes a lockdown corner, and Mayfield becomes a player behind center, nobody cares where they are picked. If they bust out, hindsight is 20/20 and thats falls on scouting and the player.

 

More picks do matter. You look at the success % of 1st round picks and it is like 40-50% that are starters in the league for 3-4 years on average only. So if I have more bullets in my gun I am going to take them. I love 2-4 round choices and would trade down to continue to accrue draft capital in the process. If you don't hit on your draft picks, guess what no team is head and shoulders above the rest, everyone misses via injuries, off field issues, etc.

 

Its really a chicken or egg thing, more picks are of course great in theory…….…if you're hitting them. If not, they don't really matter. We've seen time and time again GMs armed with picks and can't do anything with them, and on the flip side good GMs capitalizing on minimal picks. Thats why I think its way more important to hit on them no matter how many you have. I agree the practice of stockpiling picks is wise for sure, but again….need to do something with them or its all for nothing.

 

The Steelers, Pats and the likes never are among teams with a boatload of picks, yet they find quality talent with the picks they have.

[touch]

NFL Memes has always had a dislike of Dem Boyz. Today's post reflects just that.

Pretty funny. Had to share.

 

httr

[touch]

Anyone else feel that the popping of pads, the airing it out, and the nasty hits can't come soon enough?

[adam667220]

Anyone else feel that the popping of pads, the airing it out, and the nasty hits can't come soon enough?

 

Yep. Baseball season can't end soon enough (thanks a lot Royals!). Ready to see what my Chiefs can do with the upgraded offense and practically new defense. Probably lose in the first round of the playoffs like usual, but we'll see.

[scratchswinger]

I’m ready to watch Ruben Foster aka “human missle” to start poppin.

[touch]

[touch]

[touch]

LOL

[adam667220]

LOL

 

That's 100% on Andy. Who on earth was drafting Reggie Bush in fantasy in 2016? Was it a 30 team league?

[SnapHooker_307]

At least we can all agree that Green Bay is going 16-0 and winning the Super Bowl now that they will finally have a defense.

[adam667220]

I don't know that I can agree with that, but most of us should be able to agree that the initial SB odds are kind of a joke.

 

 

[jerebear21]

just read up on a stat on antonio brown. since 2015, they threw the ball at him over 500 times. 7 drops. Ridiculous.

 

in other news, shady mccoy accused of the entire kitchen thrown at him. of course he denies it.

[touch]

[doctoro]

LOL

 

That's 100% on Andy. Who on earth was drafting Reggie Bush in fantasy in 2016? Was it a 30 team league?

Maybe it was a pissed off commissioner that put a 3 rb 2 swing rb/wr player limit with a 16 team league LoL Even then he's staying off my team.