Depth of the draft- helping decide which positions to draft during which rounds

[MHS831]

Since the threads are getting a bit routine and boring (understandably--there is literally no wind to move our schooner) I thought I would bring science into it.  As you know, "science" means "to know," so this brand of science methodically breaks down all of the things about the NFL draft in a manner that proves it is impossible to know a damn thing about it.

Round>	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
WR
TE
OT
G
C
QB
RB
DT
DE
CB
S
LB

 

Here is how I see the talent being distributed in the draft.

·        Dark Blue:  Starter or key rotational player as a rookie.

·        Blue: Contributor with a strong chance to start very soon if not day 1

·        Light blue:  Will probably make the roster and fill a spot as a role player/special teamer/depth guy

·        White:  A pick of that position in that round is probably a wasted pick.

 

Based on this highly unscientific, biased, subjective, unresearched and speculative data, I would make the argument, I would trade back IF I could get a top DT (kinlaw or Brown) AND maybe a CB.  In round 2, I think you almost have to take CB or C—I would take CB if I did not already have one (due to a trade back).  If not, I think you have take a C. 

Based on Rhule comments and things I see trending in NFL offenses (see Ravens, Baltimore), I would not be surprised to see a WR in round 2.  They want explosive, threatening, “you can’t cover all of us” WRs.

You could break down each round like this too—for example, identifying dropoff points, especially early on.  I do not see the 38^th pick, for example, and the 63^rd pick having a lot in common in terms of quality.`

Just a fun, fluid activity that helps me navigate the draft as a pretend GM based on fragmented, flawed information that was written by crackheads who have a computer, the internet, and enough disposable income to afford a website so they can parade as an expert.

DEFENSE:  Based on my observations, I do not see a group (2 or more) players at positions in the white areas that are worth a pick in the round identified.  TE, S, RB, G, C, for example—beware of drafting a player in the first round.   I think it would be stupid.

[Panthero]

21 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Since the threads are getting a bit routine and boring (understandably--there is literally no wind to move our schooner) I thought I would bring science into it.  As you know, "science" means "to know," so this brand of science methodically breaks down all of the things about the NFL draft in a manner that proves it is impossible to know a damn thing about it.

Round>	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
WR
TE
OT
G
C
QB
RB
DT
DE
CB
S
LB

 

 

Here is how I see the talent being distributed in the draft.

 

·        Dark Blue:  Starter or key rotational player as a rookie.

 

·        Blue: Contributor with a strong chance to start very soon if not day 1

 

·        Light blue:  Will probably make the roster and fill a spot as a role player/special teamer/depth guy

 

·        White:  A pick of that position in that round is probably a wasted pick.

 

 

 

Based on this highly unscientific, biased, subjective, unresearched and speculative data, I would make the argument, I would trade back IF I could get a top DT (kinlaw or Brown) AND maybe a CB.  In round 2, I think you almost have to take CB or C—I would take CB if I did not already have one (due to a trade back).  If not, I think you have take a C. 

 

Based on Rhule comments and things I see trending in NFL offenses (see Ravens, Baltimore), I would not be surprised to see a WR in round 2.  They want explosive, threatening, “you can’t cover all of us” WRs.

 

You could break down each round like this too—for example, identifying dropoff points, especially early on.  I do not see the 38^th pick, for example, and the 63^rd pick having a lot in common in terms of quality.`

 

Just a fun, fluid activity that helps me navigate the draft as a pretend GM based on fragmented, flawed information that was written by crackheads who have a computer, the internet, and enough disposable income to afford a website so they can parade as an expert.

 

DEFENSE:  Based on my observations, I do not see a group (2 or more) players at positions in the white areas that are worth a pick in the round identified.  TE, S, RB, G, C, for example—beware of drafting a player in the first round.   I think it would be stupid.

 

Appreciate the effort here. Agree for the most part. 

[section543]

25 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Since the threads are getting a bit routine and boring (understandably--there is literally no wind to move our schooner) I thought I would bring science into it.  As you know, "science" means "to know," so this brand of science methodically breaks down all of the things about the NFL draft in a manner that proves it is impossible to know a damn thing about it.

Round>	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
WR
TE
OT
G
C
QB
RB
DT
DE
CB
S
LB

 

 

Here is how I see the talent being distributed in the draft.

 

·        Dark Blue:  Starter or key rotational player as a rookie.

 

·        Blue: Contributor with a strong chance to start very soon if not day 1

 

·        Light blue:  Will probably make the roster and fill a spot as a role player/special teamer/depth guy

 

·        White:  A pick of that position in that round is probably a wasted pick.

 

 

 

Based on this highly unscientific, biased, subjective, unresearched and speculative data, I would make the argument, I would trade back IF I could get a top DT (kinlaw or Brown) AND maybe a CB.  In round 2, I think you almost have to take CB or C—I would take CB if I did not already have one (due to a trade back).  If not, I think you have take a C. 

 

Based on Rhule comments and things I see trending in NFL offenses (see Ravens, Baltimore), I would not be surprised to see a WR in round 2.  They want explosive, threatening, “you can’t cover all of us” WRs.

 

You could break down each round like this too—for example, identifying dropoff points, especially early on.  I do not see the 38^th pick, for example, and the 63^rd pick having a lot in common in terms of quality.`

 

Just a fun, fluid activity that helps me navigate the draft as a pretend GM based on fragmented, flawed information that was written by crackheads who have a computer, the internet, and enough disposable income to afford a website so they can parade as an expert.

 

DEFENSE:  Based on my observations, I do not see a group (2 or more) players at positions in the white areas that are worth a pick in the round identified.  TE, S, RB, G, C, for example—beware of drafting a player in the first round.   I think it would be stupid.

 

Love the breakdown! Although I think there may be some serviceable CB and DT in later rounds

[MHS831]

8 minutes ago, section543 said:

Love the breakdown! Although I think there may be some serviceable CB and DT in later rounds

I do too---the CBs are hard to gauge.  If so, it could mean that we draft either position later than we think.

[LinvilleGorge]

Take an OT in the 1st and a WR in the 2nd would probably be getting maximum value out of the talent in this draft class.

Unfortunately, we're going into the draft absolutely desperate at DT and CB.

[grimesgoat]

Agree with your chart -

Been saying a while Round 1/2: DT and CB (in whatever order)

Round 3: G/C (spot duty, 10-year starter starting in 2021)

Round 4: WR (someone good will fall)

Round 5: DT and LB - rotation/special teams.  May start in year 2-3.

Rounds 6-7: CB, S (or maybe a QB for the practice squad)

Should be decent options in each round.

 

[Moonstone]

"I know, therefore I science."

- some ancient dude probably