2024 NFL Draft

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

3 wrs in the top 10 feels like a lot when we are probably also getting 3 QBs and 2 OTs in the top 10

 

Oh and a tight end 

I thought so too, which is why I see them staying at 9 and not trading up to get one

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

3 wrs in the top 10 feels like a lot when we are probably also getting 3 QBs and 2 OTs in the top 10

 

Oh and a tight end 

If the Chargers don't take Bowers, he's probably not going top 10. At this point I feel pretty safe in saying the top 10 locks are 

Williams

Maye

MHJ

Alt

Fashanu

Daniels

Nabers

 

The rest could be filled in with combination of Odunze, Bowers, Penix, Verse, Turner, etc.

[Tryptamine]

I'm so torn on center. Sedrick Van Pran stands a a pretty good chance at being there in the 3rd, but the guy you really want is Jackson Powers-Johnson. His blocking and passing grades are incredibly high, but if you want him you're going to have to probably take him in the middle of the 2nd. I'm not sure how comfortable I am going that early on a center. 

[minnesotacubsfan]

2 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I'm so torn on center. Sedrick Van Pran stands a a pretty good chance at being there in the 3rd, but the guy you really want is Jackson Powers-Johnson. His blocking and passing grades are incredibly high, but if you want him you're going to have to probably take him in the middle of the 2nd. I'm not sure how comfortable I am going that early on a center. 

It also presumes a trade to get that 2nd rd pick.

 

im not shy about drafting interior lineman in the 2nd, if powers-Johnson really is the a difference maker, use the 2nd rd pick

 

[BigSlick]

Am I crazy to think that trading up in the nfl draft is almost always a value-losing move? If you got to, out of desperation, do it, then do it. But the payoff is almost always negative to the assets you possess

[jersey cubs fan]

18 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Am I crazy to think that trading up in the nfl draft is almost always a value-losing move? If you got to, out of desperation, do it, then do it. But the payoff is almost always negative to the assets you possess

Yes, it’s dumb. Scouting is a make believe business and valuations are subjective nonsense. Moving up for your guy is just arrogance using somebody else’s credit card. 

[raw]

49 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I'm so torn on center. Sedrick Van Pran stands a a pretty good chance at being there in the 3rd, but the guy you really want is Jackson Powers-Johnson. His blocking and passing grades are incredibly high, but if you want him you're going to have to probably take him in the middle of the 2nd. I'm not sure how comfortable I am going that early on a center. 

Be very comfortable. I think JPJ is the best C in this draft, and I've had a man crush on Van Pran for 2 years. I have no problem taking him in the early-to-mid 2nd if you get a pick there somehow. He's also played some guard in 2022, as a heavily used reserve. So, if you get a FA center and add him in the 2nd, you have at worst some competition for the mediocre Davis and an injury hedge for Jenkins and a best, he's one of your best 5 and you have pretty good depth. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

56 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Yes, it’s dumb. Scouting is a make believe business and valuations are subjective nonsense. Moving up for your guy is just arrogance using somebody else’s credit card. 

The correlary to that would be you should almost always trade down then, and I honestly don't have a great argument against it even though I do really like Williams 

[Outshined_One]

1 hour ago, BigSlick said:

Am I crazy to think that trading up in the nfl draft is almost always a value-losing move? If you got to, out of desperation, do it, then do it. But the payoff is almost always negative to the assets you possess

Frequently, yes.

However, I think your perspective may be negative on the matter simply because we hear more about the trades that didn't work out than the ones that did. The Bills, Chiefs, and Packers all traded up for their current QBs, but we don't hear as much about those trades as we do the infamous ones.

[raw]

It's good to trade up at a reasonable price for someone good. Bad to trade up for someone bad.

[minnesotacubsfan]

19 minutes ago, raw said:

It's good to trade up at a reasonable price for someone good. Bad to trade up for someone bad.

Awesome. Who’s going to tell us which is which?

 

 

[Bertz]

You trade up for a QB or when there's an industry agreement on a tier change. E.g. the Eagles moving up for Jalen Carter who was the last consensus blue chipper left on the board.  You absolutely 100% do not move up because you think you're smarter than the industry and can tell the difference between two guys the industry thinks are more or less evenly rated.

[PackLandVA]

23 minutes ago, Bertz said:

You trade up for a QB or when there's an industry agreement on a tier change. E.g. the Eagles moving up for Jalen Carter who was the last consensus blue chipper left on the board.  You absolutely 100% do not move up because you think you're smarter than the industry and can tell the difference between two guys the industry thinks are more or less evenly rated.

I don't know if it's as simple as this statement seems to make it. The "industry" consensus on similarly skilled players is very often wrong.  It happens every year, especially in the top 10 to 20 picks.  You'll have clusters of positional players rated the same and a few years into careers, you'll see huge differences in performance.  Just because Mel Kiper thinks two or three WRs are all going to be stars doesn't make it so.

[minnesotacubsfan]

40 minutes ago, PackLandVA said:

I don't know if it's as simple as this statement seems to make it. The "industry" consensus on similarly skilled players is very often wrong.  It happens every year, especially in the top 10 to 20 picks.  You'll have clusters of positional players rated the same and a few years into careers, you'll see huge differences in performance.  Just because Mel Kiper thinks two or three WRs are all going to be stars doesn't make it so.

Otoh, bertz, like I have had to suffer through brilliant moves like Shea McClellin, which is probably more to his point

 

 

 

 

 

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, PackLandVA said:

I don't know if it's as simple as this statement seems to make it. The "industry" consensus on similarly skilled players is very often wrong.  It happens every year, especially in the top 10 to 20 picks.  You'll have clusters of positional players rated the same and a few years into careers, you'll see huge differences in performance.  Just because Mel Kiper thinks two or three WRs are all going to be stars doesn't make it so.

That further proves the point, right?  If the small army of public draft analysts that contribute to the public zeitgeist (many of whom with input directly from teams as well) can get things so hilariously wrong, just imagine how easy it is for one team's scouting department to muck things up.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Chiefs moved up to get Mahomes when the industry wasn't sure about him or Watson, I think?

[Outshined_One]

10 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Chiefs moved up to get Mahomes when the industry wasn't sure about him or Watson, I think?

As memory serves, Mahomes had a similar problem to Aaron Rodgers, in that he had all of the measurables and skills you'd want out of a QB, but he played in a system that historically produced non-entities at QB and there were concerns that he wouldn't translate into the NFL.  My recollection was that Mahomes was projected to go at the back half of the first round to a team that could afford to stash him.  The Chiefs moved up to get him when the industry was generally uncertain of Mahomes, whereas Trubisky and Watson were both generally considered Top 5 picks.

Most of the pre-draft discussion was whether Trubisky or Watson would go first.  I can't remember anyone projecting Mahomes would go first over either.

[PackLandVA]

14 hours ago, Bertz said:

That further proves the point, right?  If the small army of public draft analysts that contribute to the public zeitgeist (many of whom with input directly from teams as well) can get things so hilariously wrong, just imagine how easy it is for one team's scouting department to muck things up.

I get what you're saying because the draft is mostly an exercise in luck - misjudged ability/ceiling, injury, system, etc. At the end of the day, though, the top personnel person(s) have to make a decision.  And I don't think you just assume, in the example above, that the three WRs projected to be top 10 picks are all the same., and any of the three fill the need the same way. If you believe one to be/not to be a standout, you may consider making the move.  I'm not suggesting "trade-ups" are the way to go.  As mentioned by someone else, ill-advised trade-ups are magnified. But there are plenty of instances where trade-ups were great moves.

[jumbo]

5 hours ago, Outshined_One said:

As memory serves, Mahomes had a similar problem to Aaron Rodgers, in that he had all of the measurables and skills you'd want out of a QB, but he played in a system that historically produced non-entities at QB and there were concerns that he wouldn't translate into the NFL.  My recollection was that Mahomes was projected to go at the back half of the first round to a team that could afford to stash him.  The Chiefs moved up to get him when the industry was generally uncertain of Mahomes, whereas Trubisky and Watson were both generally considered Top 5 picks.

Most of the pre-draft discussion was whether Trubisky or Watson would go first.  I can't remember anyone projecting Mahomes would go first over either.

I read somewhere that Mahomes fed the Chiefs information that another team was going to draft him if he slid to their position. When they heard that they paid the price to move up. 

Their evaluation of him is a separate matter than the cost to get him, of course. 

 

[BigSlick]

Feel free to ignore, but I'm listening to Hub Arkush's interview from last Friday on the Score and he said he thought JJ McCarthy is the best QB prospect currently available and likened him to Patrick Mahomes.

 

How the heck was he considered an NFL smart guy? Dear god. 

[minnesotacubsfan]

16 hours ago, BigSlick said:

Feel free to ignore, but I'm listening to Hub Arkush's interview from last Friday on the Score and he said he thought JJ McCarthy is the best QB prospect currently available and likened him to Patrick Mahomes.

 

How the heck was he considered an NFL smart guy? Dear god. 

McCarthy is white, that’s all Hub can scout

[Tryptamine]

I struggle to think of McCarthy as a 1st round QB let alone the best QB prospect in the draft. You've got to be really lost in the sauce to convince yourself of something like that. 

[UK]

Hub loves Michigan players.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'm a huge fan of McCarthy going pro now, but I think he's an easy top 5 pick next year with a good season.

[minnesotacubsfan]

4 minutes ago, Ding Dong Johnson said:

I'm a huge fan of McCarthy going pro now, but I think he's an easy top 5 pick next year with a good season.

Must be an incredibly weak qb class if that’s true