Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Draft depth


Panthero

Recommended Posts

Looks like there are starters at DT to be had in the first two rounds

Starters at cb to he had in the first three rounds.

LB doesnt look great except at the very beginning. Only three guys really capable of playing three downs unless you count Kyle Dugger as a will/nickle lb (on third down). 

Several solutions at guard/center should be available in the 4th round. 

Rb,we could get a potential (after a year or so) starter in the fourth or fifth. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deepest positions in this draft are cb and wr.  Safety is not that far behind.  LB has actually a lot of guys in the 2nd and 3rd day that are pretty good.  The kid from App State, the one from Texas Tech, and the kid from either Montana or Wyoming (I forget which) are all 3 down guys that may be able to start mid way through their rookie season, at least by season 2.  

Tackle, offensive and defensive, are everywhere.  Outside of the first 2 DT i don't see any starting day one but you could name maybe 10 that could see alot of playing time.  OT is kind of the same there is about 5 or 6 that could start day one but you can find solid backups all the way into sometime on day 3 with the Kansas kid. 

TE sucks, DE sucks, RB is not much better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll see. Just like every other draft class, there will be steals and there will be busts. There will be guys everyone overlooked who end up as late round picks who become very good pros and there will be some guys drafted in the 1st who are out of the league or fighting just to make a roster after just a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bababoey said:

The deepest positions in this draft are cb and wr.  Safety is not that far behind.  LB has actually a lot of guys in the 2nd and 3rd day that are pretty good.  The kid from App State, the one from Texas Tech, and the kid from either Montana or Wyoming (I forget which) are all 3 down guys that may be able to start mid way through their rookie season, at least by season 2.  

Tackle, offensive and defensive, are everywhere.  Outside of the first 2 DT i don't see any starting day one but you could name maybe 10 that could see alot of playing time.  OT is kind of the same there is about 5 or 6 that could start day one but you can find solid backups all the way into sometime on day 3 with the Kansas kid. 

TE sucks, DE sucks, RB is not much better. 

lol the safety draft is terrible.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jared Patterson said:

lol the safety draft is terrible.....

This is off the top of my head and I can't remember names but here are the guys I this could start this year:

Alabama kid

LSU kid

Cal kid

Both the guys from Utah

Southern Illinois kid (Chinn I think) 

Gardner Webb kid

Minnesota kid

Maybe the Aurburn kid

That's 9 and that's just ones that I see could start this year.   About 4 or 5 more that could start next year and that is without looking back at the list I made.  That's better than what you have most years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McKinney could fall to the end of the first.  The talent elsewhere is just way too good but safety isn't awful, just not a coveted position and a mixed bag.  Not a Delpit fan but Dugger and Chinn look to be rising. 

CB is sneaky good.  Thought it was kind of light on talent at first but have come around to the guys in the 2nd-3rdish projection range.  About 5-6 instant starters overall.

WR goes for miles but there will be 3 very happy teams that end up with Lamb, Hamler and Jefferson.  A random shoutout--Coulter out of RI is a late rounder I'm a fan of. 

LSU's big ugly captain in Cushenberry, who knows Brady's blocking schemes could be an interesting R2 trade up for us.  His chatter has been quiet but he's a top OL prospect. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, TheSpecialJuan said:

If we don't draft Isaiah Simmons at #7 we won't select a LB until the mid-rounds. We need LB depth but D-line and secondary are major needs right now. So knowing that I think we pass on Simmons even if he's there at number 7 and take one of the two DT's

I wouldn't be shocked by us drafting say Patrick Queen or Kenneth Murray at #38 if they were sitting there on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I wouldn't be shocked by us drafting say Patrick Queen or Kenneth Murray at #38 if they were sitting there on the board.

If Murray is there at 38 he must have been caught with a live boy or a dead girl in his bed the day before the draft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bababoey said:

If Murray is there at 38 he must have been caught with a live boy or a dead girl in his bed the day before the draft. 

Weird stuff happens every draft. Seems like once you get past the absolute cream of the crop blue chip prospects it turns into a crap shoot pretty quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I think it's decent after the 1st, it's just weak at the top. This isn't a good year to be sitting in the top 15 or so wanting a safety.

Exactly, there's not a Derwin James in this year's draft, but he's an exception.  I couldn't see us spending a top 10 pick at safety anyhow, even without Rivera.  As many as 8 safeties could go before round four.  That's hardly weak.  Just because there's not a stud in the top 10 doesn't mean the entire class is weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...