2026 Draft Week Chatter Thread...

Cotton said:
The pundits weren't too high on M-Law where we picked him. Don't really care. We know what we got. And he is going to fix a lot of what was ailing our defense last year. Dude has elite explosiveness and bend. I just wish I had started watching him earlier in the draft season. Anyway, here are my short thoughts on the 1st round.
Click to expand...
These guys get stuck on their boards and almost take it personally when reality doesn't go that way.

Anyway, we've been talking about it for months now: Premium position + elite athletic traits and no red flags for character or effort concerns = draft riser. It's pretty simple. There's still a lot of projection from college to the NFL and this guy had that high ceiling that teams want. Even if the internet gurus didn't notice him at first because he wasn't from a helmet school.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
These guys get stuck on their boards and almost take it personally when reality doesn't go that way.

Anyway, we've been talking about it for months now: Premium position + elite athletic traits and no red flags for character or effort concerns = draft riser. It's pretty simple. There's still a lot of projection from college to the NFL and this guy had that high ceiling that teams want. Even if the internet gurus didn't notice him at first because he wasn't from a helmet school.
Click to expand...

The thing people miss every year in terms of draft "rankings" is that these media guys are putting together lists based on nameless, faceless teams that are scheme agnostic.

Teams are drafting against a certain scheme and for certain traits that fit what they need in that scheme, whereas the media rankings are just based on a generic value system averaged out across 32 teams, based on what the media pundit thinks is valuable on average.

Booker last year was a perfect example, for a zone-heavy team like SF he might've not been a first round pick, but for a gap/power team like us or Baltimore he might've been a top 10 prospect.

Lawrence is another good example, I said a month or two ago I didn't think he was much of a 4-3 fit because he's very average against the run and only 250, but for a 3-4 team? Especially one specifically looking for speed rush off the edge?

He's a seamless fit and could conceivably have been ranked roughly equal to, or possibly even higher, than guys like Bain, Mesidor and certainly Faulk.
 
A few thoughts on our division:

-Love Reese as a prospect but the Giants taking him, and basically replicating the same skillset as the only legitimate difference makers on the roster (Burns/Carter), feels like an exercise in futility. It would've been like if we had taken Tate at 12, is it good value? Sure, but there are marginal returns adding the same sort of skillset when the rest of your roster is middling. I guess just going pure BPA with the idea of a slow build to compete 2-3 years from now is never a bad idea, but I don't see any significant improvement out of them this year unless they have some sort of ridiculous run of luck like Washington in 2024. Mauigoa will be solid but at the end of the day they have a retarded (and average at best) QB/RB who are happy to slam their heads into brick walls, and their only legitimate WR isn't going to be ready to start the year.

-On Washington, I love Styles but I'm glad they didn't get a falling Love, primarily because that was the easiest way for them to elevate themselves for the next year or two with one pick. They've focused everything on adding to their shitty defense, similar to what we did, but the difference is that we already have an elite or nearly elite offense, while theirs is average at best and they've done absolutely nothing to improve it, and in fact may have actively made it worse by cutting Biadasz. They have no legit targets in the passing game after McLaurin (now 31 by the way), have one of the worst RB groups in the league, plus an average OL. Their only chance at having just an above average offense is if Daniels runs around mindlessly every game and somehow stays healthy for 17 games, but I think we all know where that leads.

-Eagles also got good "value" in Lemon but I just don't love the fit given the rest of the roster similar to the Giants/Reese. What made Brown/Smith so dangerous is how they brought different skillsets that fit seamlessly, similar to Lamb and Pickens. Having two small and not overly physical WR's with a QB like Hurts is way less than ideal. That pick doesn't change the calculus much for me for the next year or two, they're still going to need their defense to be top 3-5 in the league this year to even sniff the playoffs. Conversely, I think after our draft that we've quietly built a defensive depth chart that challenges what the Eagles have, given some of their FA losses. The big difference is we know Fangio is an elite DC (although he might have one foot out the door), and Parker is a complete unknown, but outside of ILB I could argue that we have a better DL/edge rush group, and a secondary that's potentially even with theirs.
 
Simpleton said:
The thing people miss every year in terms of draft "rankings" is that these media guys are putting together lists based on nameless, faceless teams that are scheme agnostic.

Teams are drafting against a certain scheme and for certain traits that fit what they need in that scheme, whereas the media rankings are just based on a generic value system averaged out across 32 teams, based on what the media pundit thinks is valuable on average.

Booker last year was a perfect example, for a zone-heavy team like SF he might've not been a first round pick, but for a gap/power team like us or Baltimore he might've been a top 10 prospect.

Lawrence is another good example, I said a month or two ago I didn't think he was much of a 4-3 fit because he's very average against the run and only 250, but for a 3-4 team? Especially one specifically looking for speed rush off the edge?

He's a seamless fit and could conceivably have been ranked roughly equal to, or possibly even higher, than guys like Bain, Mesidor and certainly Faulk.
Click to expand...

I agree, they evaluate these guys based on very generic scheme fit, I think Lawrence is a much better projection if you are looking for a 3-4 OLB than the concerns you might have (size and holding up against the run) if you are playing 4-3.

They should really tier out the lists, too.

And even within tiers you can have higher and lower guys.

But the bigger a tier gets (and that will correspond with the later in the draft you get), the more the rankings are mostly liquid.

Still, usually there is a sizeable gap between a player you can get at 20 or 23 and a player more like 35 on consensus rankings.

This year, I'm not sure that's the case and many of us said so in advance, that the player you get at 20 is very similar to the player you get at 39, so why not trade 12 and 20 for 6 and 39?
 
Simpleton said:
A few thoughts on our division:

-Love Reese as a prospect but the Giants taking him, and basically replicating the same skillset as the only legitimate difference makers on the roster (Burns/Carter), feels like an exercise in futility. It would've been like if we had taken Tate at 12, is it good value? Sure, but there are marginal returns adding the same sort of skillset when the rest of your roster is middling. I guess just going pure BPA with the idea of a slow build to compete 2-3 years from now is never a bad idea, but I don't see any significant improvement out of them this year unless they have some sort of ridiculous run of luck like Washington in 2024. Mauigoa will be solid but at the end of the day they have a retarded (and average at best) QB/RB who are happy to slam their heads into brick walls, and their only legitimate WR isn't going to be ready to start the year.

-On Washington, I love Styles but I'm glad they didn't get a falling Love, primarily because that was the easiest way for them to elevate themselves for the next year or two with one pick. They've focused everything on adding to their shitty defense, similar to what we did, but the difference is that we already have an elite or nearly elite offense, while theirs is average at best and they've done absolutely nothing to improve it, and in fact may have actively made it worse by cutting Biadasz. They have no legit targets in the passing game after McLaurin (now 31 by the way), have one of the worst RB groups in the league, plus an average OL. Their only chance at having just an above average offense is if Daniels runs around mindlessly every game and somehow stays healthy for 17 games, but I think we all know where that leads.

-Eagles also got good "value" in Lemon but I just don't love the fit given the rest of the roster similar to the Giants/Reese. What made Brown/Smith so dangerous is how they brought different skillsets that fit seamlessly, similar to Lamb and Pickens. Having two small and not overly physical WR's with a QB like Hurts is way less than ideal. That pick doesn't change the calculus much for me for the next year or two, they're still going to need their defense to be top 3-5 in the league this year to even sniff the playoffs. Conversely, I think after our draft that we've quietly built a defensive depth chart that challenges what the Eagles have, given some of their FA losses. The big difference is we know Fangio is an elite DC (although he might have one foot out the door), and Parker is a complete unknown, but outside of ILB I could argue that we have a better DL/edge rush group, and a secondary that's potentially even with theirs.
Click to expand...

If you are going to have lots of something, though, pass rusher is the thing.

They (Giants) won a Super Bowl that way.

Re: The Eagles, I'm not even really that high on Lemon. Think he has a big bust factor.
 
Smitty said:
This year, I'm not sure that's the case and many of us said so in advance, that the player you get at 20 is very similar to the player you get at 39, so why not trade 12 and 20 for 6 and 39?
Click to expand...
Because a lot of good players are gone in those 19 picks. Like we're saying, the generic ratings might be similar but you miss choosing your best fit for need, scheme fit, etc.

Now if Reese or Bailey were at 6, okay, but they weren't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom