Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Best and Worst pick of Round 1.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Techbert


Joined: 24 Apr 2014
Posts: 996
Location: Orion Spur
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

91jmay wrote:
Thoughts on the Raiders pick? Not going to pretend I know anything about the kid, CB has been Reggie's worst draft position thus far and the off field stuff is a concern even if he is innocent (putting yourself in that situation few weeks before the draft is mind numbingly stupid).

Can he play?


He can play.

If he's innocent, it's a good pick. If he's guilty, he's a nightmare pick. If the truth is somewhere in-between the value of the pick depends on how Conley behaves himself.

As an aside, I think Conley made an innocent yet foolish mistake and will be a good player for the Las Vegas Gamblers, I mean... Raiders.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TankWilliams


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 17054
Location: Chicago
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bears are deserving of all the flak they are getting for trading up in this draft, and I'm not sold on the pick either.

That being said, they traded roughly the equivalent that the NFL point chart states to move up the one spot, and Adam Jahns of the Chicago tribune has stated that he heard from sources that NYJ, Jax, and KC were all in talks for a potential trade up to 2, apparently. Not sure how accurate that is, but I do respect the fact that Ryan Pace wanted to be sure to not leave it to question on whether or not he'd get his guy. Just hope he's actually the right guy, I would have taken Watson instead.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LETSGOBROWNIES


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 15144
Location: CINCINNATI
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RuskieTitan wrote:
Heimdallr wrote:
ttitansfan4life wrote:
Heimdallr wrote:
All of the teams that took horrible reaches at QB/WR in the top-10 instead of grabbing an elite defensive player completely blew it.

SF and CLE killed it.

Corey Davis wasn't a horrible reach. If he was able to workout, he's an elite prospect.

I strongly disagree. I don't think he is even close to the level of Amari Cooper or AJ Green or Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans. And definitely not a better prospect than Jamal Adams.

Not as bad as a reach as John Ross though. Yikes.


Well, guess we will just have to trust Jon Robinson's opinion over yours. It's a tough call with which of you is more qualified and spent more time scouting and preparing for the draft.

Maybe, just maybe, the Titans will luck out and Davis pans out.


Using that logic there's no point in discussing any of these picks, they're all gonna be great because the experts chose them, right
_________________


First Ballot Cleveland Browns Forum Hall of Fame Inductee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senor Mortgage


Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 2709
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TankWilliams wrote:
Bears are deserving of all the flak they are getting for trading up in this draft, and I'm not sold on the pick either.

That being said, they traded roughly the equivalent that the NFL point chart states to move up the one spot, and Adam Jahns of the Chicago tribune has stated that he heard from sources that NYJ, Jax, and KC were all in talks for a potential trade up to 2, apparently. Not sure how accurate that is, but I do respect the fact that Ryan Pace wanted to be sure to not leave it to question on whether or not he'd get his guy. Just hope he's actually the right guy, I would have taken Watson instead.


They paid the right price according to the old, Jimmy Johnson chart, which overvalues top picks. According to more modern statistical models, the Bears paid about 150% on the dollar. The main reason trading down works so well on average is because of how overvalued high picks are based on the traditional chart.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
minutemancl


Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 14593
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:49 am    Post subject: Re: Best and Worst pick of Round 1. Reply with quote

CalhounLambeau wrote:
Counselor wrote:
Denver could have traded down if they really wanted Bolles.

There is no way you can know this.


Yup. I hate this argument so much, especially because most of the time, it isn't true. I know for a fact the Giants would have taken him at 23, so unless Denver only wanted to move back 2 spots, no, they couldn't have moved back and still gotten him.
_________________
aceinthehouse wrote:

1st yr head coaches rarely see success their 1st yr, if at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheMonarch1110


Joined: 09 Mar 2013
Posts: 618
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LETSGOBROWNIES wrote:
RuskieTitan wrote:
Heimdallr wrote:
ttitansfan4life wrote:
Heimdallr wrote:
All of the teams that took horrible reaches at QB/WR in the top-10 instead of grabbing an elite defensive player completely blew it.

SF and CLE killed it.

Corey Davis wasn't a horrible reach. If he was able to workout, he's an elite prospect.

I strongly disagree. I don't think he is even close to the level of Amari Cooper or AJ Green or Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans. And definitely not a better prospect than Jamal Adams.

Not as bad as a reach as John Ross though. Yikes.


Well, guess we will just have to trust Jon Robinson's opinion over yours. It's a tough call with which of you is more qualified and spent more time scouting and preparing for the draft.

Maybe, just maybe, the Titans will luck out and Davis pans out.


Using that logic there's no point in discussing any of these picks, they're all gonna be great because the experts chose them, right


Exactly. Close the thread down. Close the whole site.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 15927
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TankWilliams wrote:
Bears are deserving of all the flak they are getting for trading up in this draft, and I'm not sold on the pick either.

That being said, they traded roughly the equivalent that the NFL point chart states to move up the one spot, and Adam Jahns of the Chicago tribune has stated that he heard from sources that NYJ, Jax, and KC were all in talks for a potential trade up to 2, apparently. Not sure how accurate that is, but I do respect the fact that Ryan Pace wanted to be sure to not leave it to question on whether or not he'd get his guy. Just hope he's actually the right guy, I would have taken Watson instead.


It really has everything to do with how you view Trubisky. I would bet that the Bears would have been criticized (albeit a bit less harshly) by most of the same people if they had stayed at 3 and selected him there. If he pans out, most of the criticism will probably go away.
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bucsfan333


Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 38041
Location: mike23md on the sig
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:54 am    Post subject: Re: Best and Worst pick of Round 1. Reply with quote

Broncofan wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:
Counselor wrote:
Denver could have traded down if they really wanted Bolles.

There is no way you can know this.


Very fair. But you could have gotten Ramczyk at 31 or sooner or Robinson. If Bolles doesn't outplay them Counselor's point holds about being able to trade back for T (assuming they all stay at T). If he outplays them then "who knows" definitely applies.

They didn't know that.
_________________

Adopt-a-Buc Mike Evans 96 RECs 1,321 YDs 12 TDs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
minutemancl


Joined: 06 Jan 2007
Posts: 14593
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 11:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TankWilliams wrote:
Bears are deserving of all the flak they are getting for trading up in this draft, and I'm not sold on the pick either.

That being said, they traded roughly the equivalent that the NFL point chart states to move up the one spot, and Adam Jahns of the Chicago tribune has stated that he heard from sources that NYJ, Jax, and KC were all in talks for a potential trade up to 2, apparently. Not sure how accurate that is, but I do respect the fact that Ryan Pace wanted to be sure to not leave it to question on whether or not he'd get his guy. Just hope he's actually the right guy, I would have taken Watson instead.


You go and get your guy. The Bears had to make that move to get Trubisky, I do not doubt that. I respect that. Doesn't make it a good trade though. In the end, for these quarterback picks/trades, it doesn't matter what we think. A team could give up 3 entire drafts and if he's the next Peyton Manning, it's worth it. How good the pick was for KC, Houston, and Chicago is going to be solely based on how good that QB becomes.
_________________
aceinthehouse wrote:

1st yr head coaches rarely see success their 1st yr, if at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TankWilliams


Joined: 11 Dec 2007
Posts: 17054
Location: Chicago
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

minutemancl wrote:
TankWilliams wrote:
Bears are deserving of all the flak they are getting for trading up in this draft, and I'm not sold on the pick either.

That being said, they traded roughly the equivalent that the NFL point chart states to move up the one spot, and Adam Jahns of the Chicago tribune has stated that he heard from sources that NYJ, Jax, and KC were all in talks for a potential trade up to 2, apparently. Not sure how accurate that is, but I do respect the fact that Ryan Pace wanted to be sure to not leave it to question on whether or not he'd get his guy. Just hope he's actually the right guy, I would have taken Watson instead.


You go and get your guy. The Bears had to make that move to get Trubisky, I do not doubt that. I respect that. Doesn't make it a good trade though. In the end, for these quarterback picks/trades, it doesn't matter what we think. A team could give up 3 entire drafts and if he's the next Peyton Manning, it's worth it. How good the pick was for KC, Houston, and Chicago is going to be solely based on how good that QB becomes.


Not disputing that, I still would have ideal stayed at 3 and hoped that either Trubisky was still there, and if not, grabbed Thomas, Adams, or even Watson. I do at least see the logic behind it, I just don't know if Trubisky was the right player to give up that chunk of change. If it were Myles Garrett there at 2 instead of Trubisky, I don't think anyone would have questioned how much they gave up for that 1 spot.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One pick I wanted to mention, partly because of the move made and situation created, and I'm not sure this is actually the worst pick of the 1st, but I really don't like how Atlanta's GM goes about his business, so I wanted to mention that trade up Atlanta made in the 1st. They give up their 3rd to move from 31 to 26. Not only did they lose value on the trade according to the trade value chart, Atlanta is now left with only 3 more picks in this Draft (2.31, 4.30, and 5.31).

As for McKinley himself, I don't love these EDGE rushers including McKinley. He brings quite a bit of risk, too, coming off a shoulder injury and he lacks a lot of times. Don't get me wrong, there are things to like about McKinley if you look at him optimistically, but with the situation, I feel if he busts it's really going to set Atlanta back, and he's risky for the reasons I mentioned.

I remember when Atlanta traded up for Julio Jones. I really didn't like the trade at the time. Julio was a great prospect, but Atlanta moved from #27 Overall to #6 Overall, which costed them a ton of Draft capital and mortgaged their future. If Jones would've busted it would've destroyed Atlanta. He didn't bust, and even now you can make the argument that even though Jones became about as great as you can expect, the Falcons still could've been better off not making the trade. Atlanta has been a serious contender, although it has not netted them a Super Bowl yet (came close). But now again, here they are, with only 4 picks in the Draft (McKinley and 3 more). ESPN has them listed with 5 major needs. And what if McKinley doesn't work out? I think again it's really going to hurt Atlanta. It really feels like Atlanta made a push and could come up short because they just don't draft enough depth for their team, and it could cost them. The McKinley trade isn't as risky as the Jones trade, but Atlanta's GM really likes to ride that fine line in a way that I'm not a big fan of.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3528
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Best and Worst pick of Round 1. Reply with quote

minutemancl wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:
Counselor wrote:
Denver could have traded down if they really wanted Bolles.

There is no way you can know this.


Yup. I hate this argument so much, especially because most of the time, it isn't true. I know for a fact the Giants would have taken him at 23, so unless Denver only wanted to move back 2 spots, no, they couldn't have moved back and still gotten him.


To be fair to Counselor, though, he amended his statement to "they could have traded down if they really wanted a T with same or better skill level" - since Ramczyk went 12 picks later, and Robinson is still around (who might not stick at LT, I don't think he stays a T TBH, but ppl believe he could and they kept getting lumped together as the top T tier, so I'll defer), that's an entirely fair premise.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.


Last edited by Broncofan on Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Underwood


Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 2304
Location: Texans Nation
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

minutemancl wrote:

Worst pick: Houston selecting Deshaun Watson
I think just about every pick was a good fit for the team, so this comes down to value. And I like Deshaun Watson a lot, but I can't get over how much Houston gave up for him. Simplified down, they gave up 2 first round picks, a second, and Osweiler to the Browns. That's insane.
HM: Chicago selecting Mitchell Trubisky


I've seen this thinking more than once lately and I just don't get it.

You can't lump those trades together and act like it was all of that for Watson. They are two separate trades. The first one was to get rid of the Lobster's contract and free up money that could be used for signing another QB like Romo (womp womp) or to sign our other players to extensions.

Even if you were able to lump them together, they didn't just get Watson. They got a QB that our coaching staff actually wants and believes in, while getting rid of a guy who they had problems with. They freed up money to potentially sign players like Hopkins and Clowney to extensions. They also got a 4th rounder (wheeee).
_________________

Sig by Eaglezphan21
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 349
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Best and Worst pick of Round 1. Reply with quote

minutemancl wrote:
CalhounLambeau wrote:
Counselor wrote:
Denver could have traded down if they really wanted Bolles.

There is no way you can know this.


Yup. I hate this argument so much, especially because most of the time, it isn't true. I know for a fact the Giants would have taken him at 23, so unless Denver only wanted to move back 2 spots, no, they couldn't have moved back and still gotten him.


What I hate about that argument is that it's not really adding to the conversation. It's simply stating the obvious. Everybody knows that when you trade down 2 spots you don't know what 2 players will come off, but you can have a pretty good idea. It's just getting technical in a way that doesn't take the spirit of what someone is really arguing. It's just something annoying to have to deal with.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Broncofan


Joined: 02 Dec 2013
Posts: 3528
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Underwood wrote:
minutemancl wrote:

Worst pick: Houston selecting Deshaun Watson
I think just about every pick was a good fit for the team, so this comes down to value. And I like Deshaun Watson a lot, but I can't get over how much Houston gave up for him. Simplified down, they gave up 2 first round picks, a second, and Osweiler to the Browns. That's insane.
HM: Chicago selecting Mitchell Trubisky


I've seen this thinking more than once lately and I just don't get it.

You can't lump those trades together and act like it was all of that for Watson. They are two separate trades. The first one was to get rid of the Lobster's contract and free up money that could be used for signing another QB like Romo (womp womp) or to sign our other players to extensions.

Even if you were able to lump them together, they didn't just get Watson. They got a QB that our coaching staff actually wants and believes in, while getting rid of a guy who they had problems with. They freed up money to potentially sign players like Hopkins and Clowney to extensions. They also got a 4th rounder (wheeee).


Everything with Os is a sunk cost. Agree you can't criticize the Watson pick by itself on that basis. Given the hand they were dealt, getting Watson was likely their best result.

Now, you can go after HOU's whole QB approach. That's fair. That's what got them there. But it's not related to this pick. My only objection with HOU's pick is that I don't think HOU needed to move up that far - out of the teams left to deal for a QB we're hearing (JAX, ARI, maybe PIT & NYG long-term), none of them were ahead of HOU except NYG, only a few spots ahead (and who clearly opted to go win-now with Engram). Now maybe one of them jumps ahead of HOU if they don't act - but they moved a ton when likely moving up in the late teens would have done it.
_________________
steelpanther wrote:
This is like playing checkers with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, sooner or later the pigeon is going to crap on the board, then puff his chest out and strut around like he won something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL Draft All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group