How Many Of Us Agree With This Plan

[Nikolai]

 

[Wozzy]

After QB, WR and Pass Rushers are the highest paid positions in the NFL.

So it's not a matter of whether Membou is as talented at RT as Carter is at rushing the passer, it's the value of the position itself.

Highest paid changes pretty regularly, up until yesterday left tackles were among the highest paid. Now that money is pretty evenly spent across the entire line.

When it comes to the draft teams should take the BPA at a position of need… but err on the side of BPA. To the Pats a franchise left tackle should be priceless.

 

[Wozzy]

Your hype or Kiper's?

Where did I suggest one or two players were impossible to pass up?

Oh yeah, I didn’t…

 

[Clonamery]

Where did I suggest one or two players were impossible to pass up?

Oh yeah, I didn’t…

That's your hype, baby.

 

[Huckleberry1]

BB has left. They are not trading down.

That depends. If they have the OT’s clustered in the same tier then they risk almost nothing by trading down to 10 with the Bears.

Picks 1-4 The only team that would take an OT is the Patriots, and no team trading up to #4 would take an OT with that pick.

Picks 5-9 Say the Patriots have Campbell, Membou, Simmons, and Conerly all on the same tier, the only way all four would be gone would be for 4 of them to go in picks 5-9, and I would put the probability of that at .00001 %. So if they made a trade with the Bears at 10 they would pick up either pick 39 or 41, and still get one of those 4 offensive tackles. And in all likelihood they would have their choice of at least 2-3 of them. And I forgot to include Banks in that equation, who you could either substitute for one of the tackles I listed, or add to that tier, in which case they are guaranteed 1 of them.

The harder part is finding the right trade partner, and getting the pick you want in return. Ideally that would be the 39th pick from Chicago, as it would give them the 38&39 picks in the draft, which they could either use, or would be an ideal trade package to move back up into the 1st. And the pairing of those two picks would make the deal much more attractive than just the draft value chart points. It would actually be a really good deal for Chicago, as just the 39th pick to go to 4, would get them Jeanty, Warren, or a WR if they wanted one.

Overall trading down would be a good move for them, if they could pull off this move, and if they have the OT’s on the same tier. But if they have Campbell and Membou a tier above the rest then it changes the math, and makes the decision tougher.

 

[Love The Drake]

How many of us agree with this plan?
1) Draft Hunter or Carter if he is available.
2) If not, trade down a few spots or more, once or twice.
3) Draft a LT in the first round, even it takes trading a couple of picks to move back into the first.

This is my draft plan in a nutshell.
Or identity a game changer in Jeanty.

 

[denverpatsfan]

That depends. If they have the OT’s clustered in the same tier then they risk almost nothing by trading down to 10 with the Bears.

Picks 1-4 The only team that would take an OT is the Patriots, and no team trading up to #4 would take an OT with that pick.

Picks 5-9 Say the Patriots have Campbell, Membou, Simmons, and Conerly all on the same tier, the only way all four would be gone would be for 4 of them to go in picks 5-9, and I would put the probability of that at .00001 %. So if they made a trade with the Bears at 10 they would pick up either pick 39 or 41, and still get one of those 4 offensive tackles. And in all likelihood they would have their choice of at least 2-3 of them. And I forgot to include Banks in that equation, who you could either substitute for one of the tackles I listed, or add to that tier, in which case they are guaranteed 1 of them.

The harder part is finding the right trade partner, and getting the pick you want in return. Ideally that would be the 39th pick from Chicago, as it would give them the 38&39 picks in the draft, which they could either use, or would be an ideal trade package to move back up into the 1st. And the pairing of those two picks would make the deal much more attractive than just the draft value chart points. It would actually be a really good deal for Chicago, as just the 39th pick to go to 4, would get them Jeanty, Warren, or a WR if they wanted one.

Overall trading down would be a good move for them, if they could pull off this move, and if they have the OT’s on the same tier. But if they have Campbell and Membou a tier above the rest then it changes the math, and makes the decision tougher.

5 OTs were drafted in the first 18 picks last season. They better not trade down too far.

 

[pazrul72]

I think that's reasonable. There are other reasonable scenarios, of course - "Take the best potential LT at 4" would be another. Then there's "take the best player available," but that raises the question, "According to whom?" and ""What about the O-line?" because we know the best player available ain't gonna be an O-lineman. Maybe your suggestion is sort of a "take the best player available" move, which is fine.

I actually think it is more important that they get "solid contributor" types further down the draft. Our starters are poor at many positions, but our depth is also lacking. I suppose this might argie for the trade down scenario, which would net you more picks further down the draft, presumably. It doesn't help, of course, that they have foolishly created additional needs at (backup?) center and at backup QB for essentially negligible return, if - net - any return at all.

As long as the guy at 4 - and most of the draftees further down - aren't busts, I won't squawk too much. The draft is a crapshoot under the best of circumstance: when it's a strong draft and you have guys deciding what player to draft whom you know for sure to be competent at it. I don't think we can say that about Wolf, for example, and Wolf will definitely have a significant role on selecting draftees later in the draft. The other factor is that the roster is so bad that even the very best decisions at 4 and down the line are not going to transform the team into one genuinely competitive re the post season. Rebuilding this mess will take a couple of years anyway. I just want them to make progress, and I hope they ignore fanboy needs for shiny objects - "proven players" (i.e. players about to decline or already on the downslide) who won't be worth a damn when the team will finally be in a position to make effective use of them.

I think a key thing in any draft, which you touched on here, is getting contributors over busts. They dont even have to be superstars or game changers just guys who come in and do something over outright busts. Just think if even one of Polk or Baker had caught 40 balls for 500 yards and 4 TDs. Thats not crazy production but WR goes from a big hole that drafting Hunter #4 isnt unreasonable, to we can trade down and pick up a Edge, FS, and TE instead. Just as an example due to the other gaping wound at LT due to not drafting anyone capable. Again forget star i would accept not among the worst in the league. I think a team that had the 10th - 15th best player at every position on the field would actually be pretty good, they wouldnt lose a lot of games, and more games are lost then won. Its more important to make sure you hit a single, over going for the home run and striking out. At least until the 4th or 5th round then go ham on all the home runs you want.

 

[Water Boy]

If we take Campbell at 4, I think the conversation may be more about moving down from 38 and then having more ammunition to move up from 69 if needed.

 

[Huckleberry1]

5 OTs were drafted in the first 18 picks last season. They better not trade down too far.

That’s why I said they could go to 10 and still get one of their top 4 tackles, guaranteed. If they go further than that it gets risky, as there will likely be a run on them between 11-16.

 

[gobesmug]

Highest paid changes pretty regularly, up until yesterday left tackles were among the highest paid. Now that money is pretty evenly spent across the entire line.

When it comes to the draft teams should take the BPA at a position of need… but err on the side of BPA. To the Pats a franchise left tackle should be priceless.

LT, yes, not RTs, OGs, RBs and TEs though.

Membou is a RT who you hope can play LT. Campbell is LT you hope can beat the odds of being undersized and might have to convert to OG in the NFL.

 

[Huckleberry1]

LT, yes, not RTs, OGs, RBs and TEs though.

Membou is a RT who you hope can play LT. Campbell is LT you hope can beat the odds of being undersized and might have to convert to OG in the NFL.

Campbell isn’t undersized, he’s 6’6 320, his arms are 2/2 an inch too short by some measurements, others have him at 33”, which is the cutoff point, and his overall wingspan is shorter than desirable. He could easily put on 10 lbs without losing any athleticism, and 6’6 330 is plenty big.

 

[gobesmug]

Campbell isn’t undersized, he’s 6’6 320, his arms are 2/2 an inch too short by some measurements, others have him at 33”, which is the cutoff point, and his overall wingspan is shorter than desirable. He could easily put on 10 lbs without losing any athleticism, and 6’6 330 is plenty big.

Shorter wingspan is undersized. It's not impossible for him to succeed at LT but traditionally that wingspan is put at OG.

Isaiah Wynn was shorter but had a longer wingspan but most people viewed him as OG on the NFL. He failed at OT and had to switch to OG.

Titans drafted Peter Skoronski in 23 to be their LT but had to move him to OG by training Camp. They drafted Latham, who was a RT in college last year to be their LT but they overpaid for a true LT this FA.

Again, Campbell could succeed but the odds do not favor him excelling at LT in the NFL. Im not opposed to drafting him but you can't ignore the red flags either

 

[p8ryts]

Shorter wingspan is undersized. It's not impossible for him to succeed at LT but traditionally that wingspan is put at OG.

Isaiah Wynn was shorter but had a longer wingspan but most people viewed him as OG on the NFL. He failed at OT and had to switch to OG.

Titans drafted Peter Skoronski in 23 to be their LT but had to move him to OG by training Camp. They drafted Latham, who was a RT in college last year to be their LT but they overpaid for a true LT this FA.

Again, Campbell could succeed but the odds do not favor him excelling at LT in the NFL. Im not opposed to drafting him but you can't ignore the red flags either

Wynn wasn't terrible, he just couldn't stay on the field.

 

[jdlboot14]

At #4 - I want to draft a franchise playmaker to bolster our average position... that boils down to TE.
We all know WR is a crapshoot, and to likely bust with a WR at the top of 1st round is a travesty.
Take the future at TE - Warren is a sure thing for 10+ years. (more than Carter & Hunter are in the NFL)

I lean toward Conerly Jr being the safest bet at LT - at the bottom 1st or top 2nd. (or Simmons as 2nd option)
Consider it this way, would you rather have:
Campbell & Taylor or
Warren & Conerly/Simmons

 

[Tunescribe]

 

[Thelonious]

I'm crossing my fingers and taking Campbell at 4.

That has been my thought for a while: rebuilding the O-line is the team's greatest need, I think. But if you consider that this rebuild (Every year, it seems, we are starting a new rebuild.) is likely to take at least two years, and consider that the O-line options in the draft this year are not great, maybe it really does make sense to pick the best player in a position where there is an arguable need (which might be all of them except for starting QB!). I'm not sure, but I'm not gonna squawk whichever way they go. The only upside of needing help at virtually every position, after all, is that almost anybody you take is gonna fill some need. Eesh.

 

[Thelonious]

Oh great. The d---d pictures are getting even bigger. Maybe I'll switch over to my desktop with its 27-inch screen, so I can capture every little nuance of the point you are making here. Hey Ian, any chance we can get audio with these things? Maybe smell-0-vision? How about banning the written word altogether. (Hi, Tunescribe: just playin'.)

 

[Huckleberry1]

Shorter wingspan is undersized. It's not impossible for him to succeed at LT but traditionally that wingspan is put at OG.

Isaiah Wynn was shorter but had a longer wingspan but most people viewed him as OG on the NFL. He failed at OT and had to switch to OG.

Titans drafted Peter Skoronski in 23 to be their LT but had to move him to OG by training Camp. They drafted Latham, who was a RT in college last year to be their LT but they overpaid for a true LT this FA.

Again, Campbell could succeed but the odds do not favor him excelling at LT in the NFL. Im not opposed to drafting him but you can't ignore the red flags either

Shorter wingspan is shorter wingspan, 6’3 295 is undersized, not 6’6 320.

 

[Hugepatsfan]

I don't want to draft "a" LT in the first round. That terminology is a major red flag. Needs to be a name to it. You draft players, not positions. LT is a premium position, hard to get other than the draft, and our biggest need. If they like one of the LTs as a legit solution there, then move mountains to get him. Actually don't move mountains, just take him if #4. It's not complicated. But if they don't see that guy there don't take one. You only solve the LT problem by getting a good option there. Drafting someone who busts doesn't solve the problem, it just wastes a pick. Don't take a prospect you don't like. Very simple stuff.