2015 Draft Prospect Thread

[manxman2601]

I really would like the NFL to go with a 53 man active roster on gamedays. I think it would impact the DL position most. Would allow you dress 8-9 and rotate them. Maybe, have a kid who's not an ideal scheme fit for you on your roster. Because, he can get after the qb. One rule change to help defenses wouldn't hurt, would it??

I don't understand why you'd have players on your roster that you can't dress. But then there's a bunch of NFL rules I don't understand; compensatory picks chief among them.

 

[mayoclinic]

I don't understand why you'd have players on your roster that you can't dress. But then there's a bunch of NFL rules I don't understand; compensatory picks chief among them.

The biggest reason I can think of is that teams almost always have 4-5 guys who are dinged up. This gives teams a reason to keep them out without being at a major disadvantage. Otherwise one team might have 46 healthy players and the other 50+. There might be more back-of-the-roster juggling in order to make changes, and more shenanigans with the injury report (there are already plenty). I have no idea if this was part of the decision but it's the best reason I can think of.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The biggest reason I can think of is that teams almost always have 4-5 guys who are dinged up. This gives teams a reason to keep them out without being at a major disadvantage. Otherwise one team might have 46 healthy players and the other 50+. There might be more back-of-the-roster juggling in order to make changes, and more shenanigans with the injury report (there are already plenty). I have no idea if this was part of the decision but it's the best reason I can think of.

According to BB, preventing that scenario is the reason for the rule.

 

[captain stone]

...But then there's a bunch of NFL rules I don't understand; compensatory picks chief among them.

Hey, I like compensatory picks.

 

[manxman2601]

Hey, I like compensatory picks.

Why give a team an extra pick because they are too cheap to re-sign a player?

 

[mayoclinic]

Updated top 100 prospect rankings out from Robby Esch at the Huddle Report (pay per site). Of interest:

25. Alvin Dupree, DE/OLB, Kentucky
26. Shilique Calhoun, DE/OLB, Michigan St.
27. Bernardrick McKinney, LB, Mississippi St.
29. Eddie Goldman, DT, Florida St.
30. Ronnie Stanley, OL, Notre Dame
34. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
35. TJ Clemmings, OL, Pittsburgh
36. Malcolm Brown, DT, Texas
38. Danielle Hunter, DE/OLB, LSU
39. Ty Sambrailo, OL, Colorado St.

Yum. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many players that I like for the Pats in a 15 pick range. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ronnie Stanley and TJ Clemmings as the top 2 linemen taken. And nice to see Manx's boy Odighizuwa getting some love. Find some way to get a DL and an OL out of that group and I'm very, very happy.

For comparison purposes with CBS Sports' rankings, Esch has the following in his top 40:

- 3 QBs (he includes Connor Cook)
- only 1 RB; Todd Gurley, Ameer Abdullah, TJ Yeldon and Tevin Coleman are all just outside the top 40
- 8 WRs
- 7 Offensive linemen
- 13 Defensive linemen (includes DTs, DE/DTs, DEs and DE/OLBs)
- 2 LBs
- 6 DBs

 

[manxman2601]

Updated top 100 prospect rankings out from Robby Esch at the Huddle Report (pay per site). Of interest:

25. Alvin Dupree, DE/OLB, Kentucky
26. Shilique Calhoun, DE/OLB, Michigan St.
27. Bernardrick McKinney, LB, Mississippi St.
29. Eddie Goldman, DT, Florida St.
30. Ronnie Stanley, OL, Notre Dame
34. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
35. TJ Clemmings, OL, Pittsburgh
36. Malcolm Brown, DT, Texas
38. Danielle Hunter, DE/OLB, LSU
39. Ty Sambrailo, OL, Colorado St.

Yum. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many players that I like for the Pats in a 15 pick range. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Ronnie Stanley and TJ Clemmings as the top 2 linemen taken. And nice to see Manx's boy Odighizuwa getting some love. Find some way to get a DL and an OL out of that group and I'm very, very happy.

For comparison purposes with CBS Sports' rankings, Esch has the following in his top 40:

- 3 QBs (he includes Connor Cook)
- only 1 RB; Todd Gurley, Ameer Abdullah, TJ Yeldon and Tevin Coleman are all just outside the top 40
- 8 WRs
- 7 Offensive linemen
- 13 Defensive linemen (includes DTs, DE/DTs, DEs and DE/OLBs)
- 2 LBs
- 6 DBs

34. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
35. TJ Clemmings, OL, Pittsburgh
36. Malcolm Brown, DT, Texas

At least from my perspective, that's some sweet spot. Clemmings would get the edge, but not by much.

As an aside, someone I follow on Twitter called Odighizuwa's performance against USC the best performance he's seen by a DL (I presume this year). I'm looking forward to that one appearing on Draft Breakdown.

 

[mayoclinic]

34. Owamagbe Odighizuwa, DE, UCLA
35. TJ Clemmings, OL, Pittsburgh
36. Malcolm Brown, DT, Texas

At least from my perspective, that's some sweet spot. Clemmings would get the edge, but not by much.

As an aside, someone I follow on Twitter called Odighizuwa's performance against USC the best performance he's seen by a DL (I presume this year). I'm looking forward to that one appearing on Draft Breakdown.

I think Clemmings and Ronnie Stanley will both end up being top 15 picks (assuming Stanley comes out). With Cedric Ogbuehi falling and Brandon Scherff having a more limited upside as a tackle, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those 2 and La'el Collins as the top 3 linemen off the board.

I like every player that I listed in that 15 player range (there were 10 of them). Some more than others, but I'd be quite content with any of them for the Pats.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Why give a team an extra pick because they are too cheap to re-sign a player?

The whole idea of the draft is, in theory, to help parity.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the draft didn't exist and teams were free to recruit players at will (subject to rules on roster number, etc.). How much easier of a time would the Patriots have signing top talent compared to, say, the Bills? The point of the draft is to help equalize the playing field.

The same goes for comp picks: the idea is to equalize the playing field by giving extra draft picks to teams that, in theory, suffered a net loss of talent. Granted, the way it works is rather weird, but the principle IMO is sound.

 

[manxman2601]

The whole idea of the draft is, in theory, to help parity.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the draft didn't exist and teams were free to recruit players at will (subject to rules on roster number, etc.). How much easier of a time would the Patriots have signing top talent compared to, say, the Bills? The point of the draft is to help equalize the playing field.

The same goes for comp picks: the idea is to equalize the playing field by giving extra draft picks to teams that, in theory, suffered a net loss of talent. Granted, the way it works is rather weird, but the principle IMO is sound.

But they only had a net loss of talent through their own failings; by either choosing not to re-sign a player or by being too cheap and being out-bid. It amuses me that sport in the US is the only country in the world that rewards failure considering the capitalist nature of the economy.

 

[mayoclinic]

The whole idea of the draft is, in theory, to help parity.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the draft didn't exist and teams were free to recruit players at will (subject to rules on roster number, etc.). How much easier of a time would the Patriots have signing top talent compared to, say, the Bills? The point of the draft is to help equalize the playing field.

The same goes for comp picks: the idea is to equalize the playing field by giving extra draft picks to teams that, in theory, suffered a net loss of talent. Granted, the way it works is rather weird, but the principle IMO is sound.

But they only had a net loss of talent through their own failings; by either choosing not to re-sign a player or by being too cheap and being out-bid. It amuses me that sport in the US is the only country in the world that rewards failure considering the capitalist nature of the economy.

There is no system that is not subject to human influence. The bad teams are usually bad for a reason - poor management, constant turnover, inconsistent direction. They get "rewarded" for their incompetence with high draft picks, which they often squander through the same kind of poor decision making that got them to that point in the first place. Similarly, they overpay free agents in a desperate attempt to infuse "talent", while the smart teams are disciplined and don't overpay, and are rewarded with compensatory picks. So ostensibly the system operates to promote "parity", while in actuality the rich get richer while the poor get poor.

Sounds pretty similar to the way our tax laws operate.

 

[captain stone]

Why give a team an extra pick because they are too cheap to re-sign a player?

Because if you play your cards right, then compensatory picks - and draft picks in general - help provide
a never-ending supply of young, healthy, less expensive talent ready to replace older, less healthy, more
expensive veterans, which in turn could provide cap space to acquire the one or two players needed to
plug holes due to injury, trade, etc.

 

[manxman2601]

Sorry, but no-one can persuade me that compensatory picks are in any way logical.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Sorry, but no-one can persuade me that compensatory picks are in any way logical.

Here is very long post about the general thought process behind them, to the best of my knowledge. That said, I do agree with you - that the way the NFL rules are set up, compensatory picks don't make logical sense.
---
I believe the NFL's system is modeled after Major League Baseball's. Initially all American sports leagues took MLB's lead in having a reserve clause standard in its contracts, which was generally been interpreted to mean that the players were bound to their teams in perpetuity even if their contract was up, unless a team specifically released them from their contract.

Once baseball's reserve clause was struck down by the courts, baseball owners were afraid that New York and LA would sign all the good players due to their ability to pay and high profile locations. Unlike football, it takes years to develop a major league baseball player - a college player drafted typically takes 2-4 years to make the big leagues, and a high school/foreign player often 4 - 7 years. There were legitimate concerns over competitive balance - especially with no salary cap to restrict these signings. At first, the owners tried to bargain for a system where if they lose a free agent, they would get to draft (with certain exclusions) from that signing team's roster. The union balked at it - felt that it restricted free agency too much.

They eventually settled on a system where a team who lost a free agent would receive a "sandwich" pick between the 1st and 2nd round of the draft, plus the signing team's 1st or 2nd round pick (depending in large part on the expected size of the contract). This system remained in place for years - from the early 1980s to about 3 years ago. Given the long timeframe between drafting a player and that player making the majors (plus a much lower correlation between high draft picks and success in MLB versus other sports), the union didn't think this significantly restricted free agency so was ok with it. The biggest flaw in the system is that it encouraged teams to sign other teams' players rather than their own. To put it into football terms - if Brady and Manning were both free agents, and Brady signed with the Broncos and Manning signed with the Pats, both the Broncos and the Pats would receive compensation. Whereas if they both resigned with their own teams, there would be no compensation.

Jump ahead to the early 1990s NFL. There was no salary cap and only "plan B free agency" which was very restrictive. The union wanted full free agency, the owners wanted a salary cap and had the same competitive balance concerns with free agency. When the agreement was finally reached with both sides getting what they wanted, they took baseball's compensation solution as their model. It was basically the same solution with tweaks. They lowered the draft pick positioning (and removed forfeiture of 1st/2nd round picks) due to the higher immediate impact of high picks in the NFL, and they also corrected the flaw where teams were incentivized to sign other teams' players instead of their own.

My suspicion is that it's the union (not the league) that wants the compensatory pick formula to be a secret precisely so that teams cannot strategize around them - and thus making "restrictions" on unrestricted free agency.

In my opinion, while I understand all the above, I believe that the salary cap and salary floor features of the NFL (that baseball didn't/doesn't have) makes this a moot concern. These features on their own should be enough to "compensate" the team losing free agents and making sure they still have a chance to be competitive.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

My suspicion is that it's the union (not the league) that wants the compensatory pick formula to be a secret precisely so that teams cannot strategize around them - and thus making "restrictions" on unrestricted free agency.

The only problem with this is that even if it is technically a secret—as are the rookie salary cap allotment figures(!)—anybody with a few hours on their hands and access to a spreadsheet can figure about 95% of it out.

 

[manxman2601]

Here is very long post about the general thought process behind them, to the best of my knowledge. That said, I do agree with you - that the way the NFL rules are set up, compensatory picks don't make logical sense.
---
I believe the NFL's system is modeled after Major League Baseball's. Initially all American sports leagues took MLB's lead in having a reserve clause standard in its contracts, which was generally been interpreted to mean that the players were bound to their teams in perpetuity even if their contract was up, unless a team specifically released them from their contract.

Once baseball's reserve clause was struck down by the courts, baseball owners were afraid that New York and LA would sign all the good players due to their ability to pay and high profile locations. Unlike football, it takes years to develop a major league baseball player - a college player drafted typically takes 2-4 years to make the big leagues, and a high school/foreign player often 4 - 7 years. There were legitimate concerns over competitive balance - especially with no salary cap to restrict these signings. At first, the owners tried to bargain for a system where if they lose a free agent, they would get to draft (with certain exclusions) from that signing team's roster. The union balked at it - felt that it restricted free agency too much.

They eventually settled on a system where a team who lost a free agent would receive a "sandwich" pick between the 1st and 2nd round of the draft, plus the signing team's 1st or 2nd round pick (depending in large part on the expected size of the contract). This system remained in place for years - from the early 1980s to about 3 years ago. Given the long timeframe between drafting a player and that player making the majors (plus a much lower correlation between high draft picks and success in MLB versus other sports), the union didn't think this significantly restricted free agency so was ok with it. The biggest flaw in the system is that it encouraged teams to sign other teams' players rather than their own. To put it into football terms - if Brady and Manning were both free agents, and Brady signed with the Broncos and Manning signed with the Pats, both the Broncos and the Pats would receive compensation. Whereas if they both resigned with their own teams, there would be no compensation.

Jump ahead to the early 1990s NFL. There was no salary cap and only "plan B free agency" which was very restrictive. The union wanted full free agency, the owners wanted a salary cap and had the same competitive balance concerns with free agency. When the agreement was finally reached with both sides getting what they wanted, they took baseball's compensation solution as their model. It was basically the same solution with tweaks. They lowered the draft pick positioning (and removed forfeiture of 1st/2nd round picks) due to the higher immediate impact of high picks in the NFL, and they also corrected the flaw where teams were incentivized to sign other teams' players instead of their own.

My suspicion is that it's the union (not the league) that wants the compensatory pick formula to be a secret precisely so that teams cannot strategize around them - and thus making "restrictions" on unrestricted free agency.

In my opinion, while I understand all the above, I believe that the salary cap and salary floor features of the NFL (that baseball didn't/doesn't have) makes this a moot concern. These features on their own should be enough to "compensate" the team losing free agents and making sure they still have a chance to be competitive.

Top post. I certainly can understand the pragmatic reasons behind compensation picks. It's fascinating being British where we have none of the complexities in our organised sports that the Americans have. Here, there are no restrictions on roster building. No limits on the number of players on a team, no salary caps and completely unlimited free agency. I find the juxtaposition between socialist Europe and its 100% capitalistic sports organisation and the capitalistic America and its socialist sport fascinating.

 

[mayoclinic]

Top post. I certainly can understand the pragmatic reasons behind compensation picks. It's fascinating being British where we have none of the complexities in our organised sports that the Americans have. Here, there are no restrictions on roster building. No limits on the number of players on a team, no salary caps and completely unlimited free agency. I find the juxtaposition between socialist Europe and its 100% capitalistic sports organisation and the capitalistic America and its socialist sport fascinating.

It would be extremely interesting to see what would happen if there was no roster limit and no salary cap.

 

[Luxusdk]

It would be extremely interesting to see what would happen if there was no roster limit and no salary cap.

First of all, then I dont think US sport teams can be brought by rish people around the grobe WHO needs a "toy/s" as in Premier League etc.
Second you got 2-3 teams in each country WHO sits on top, with 2-3 teams ( Barcelona - Real and Bayern ) WHO basicly sits on top of the rest.

Basicly go back in time where you have "Dynastys"

 

[mayoclinic]

First of all, then I dont think US sport teams can be brought by rish people around the grobe WHO needs a "toy/s" as in Premier League etc.
Second you got 2-3 teams in each country WHO sits on top, with 2-3 teams ( Barcelona - Real and Bayern ) WHO basicly sits on top of the rest.

Basicly go back in time where you have "Dynastys"

Maybe, if I understand your post correctly. Though I think in large part the salary cap exists to save the owners from themselves. I'm not so sure it would work out that way.

 

[manxman2601]

Has anyone heard anything about how ECUs linebacker Maurice Falls has played this year? He started the year on the 'freaks' list and seems like a good potential Pat at 6-3, 247lbs, 36" vert and runs in the 4.4s supposedly. I know he has experience playing special teams so a late day three pick he could be interesting.