2024 Draft Countdown/NFL Prospects thread

[Chopper0080]

Yeah you missed the 2nd part of the equation I discussed.

The choice isn't between an average guard and an average edge. The choice would be between the best guard in the draft and the 4th to 6th best Edge.

Also, Leonard Floyd was the 9th overall pick and was generally considered a bust until he was 28 years old. The point being, all this talk about taking Edge or Guard or whatever position at #27 is meaningless. Nobody knows what they are getting at #9, or #16 or #27. You set the board and you take the best player.

If we get to #27 and the board says Barton or JPJ is better than whoever else is available you take him. No matter what position they play. Just draft good players.

I agree on positional value. I wouldn't draft anything but QB, WR, EDGE or CB in the top 10. Possibly DT if there is a great one. But by #27 that's long out of the window and you just take BPA.

But we know that the draft can be such a crap shoot that the 4th best EDGE can end up being the best EGE in the draft, and that nothing guarantees the top OG actually becomes the top OG. All that taking the top OG does is prevent you from getting a potential top player at a premium position. You can't win the lottery if you don't play.

 

[ajcardfan]

Harbaugh made a comment that he thought this kid would end up being the 1st QB picked...thought it was absolutely crazy at the time, but maybe it's got legs. Maybe he won't go 1st, but may still go 1st round?????

Good chance both he and Penix will go in the back half of the first round. The league is so QB hungry.

Starting to see a lot of mocks with Jayden Daniels going in the top 3. This is what the Cards need to happen. But, if either of these two QBs jumping into the first knock a really good DL or OL player down to us at #28, so much the better.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Opening day of FA is our Super Bowl lol

That's the draft. The Cards rarely do anything in FA.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I'd rather have the Guard. An average Guard can start for you for years. An average pass rusher is someone your always looking to replace.

What is "average" though? I don't think the Cardinals have a single average guy on the roster and would welcome "average" right now and it would actually move the needle quite a bit. I don't think an average LG would have nearly as much.

Your own rules are defeating your argument. A guard at #27 is probably the best Guard in the draft because Guards shouldn't be drafted earlier. An Edge at #27 is probably the 5th or 6th best Edge.

Probably. Maybe. Could be. History demonstrates you can find guards around round four that are pretty good players.

So the Guard has a much better chance of being a hit than the Edge guy.

I wouldn't necessarily focus on edge, so this argument you are making is slightly "straw man-ish". Personally, I'm looking for a DT or an OT depending on the circumstances. Obviously what happens with pick #4 and what happens from pick #5 to pick #27 matters as well. Free agency also matters as well.

I agree the positions have more value, but would you rather have Zach Martin on the team or Shaq Lawson?

I mean you are picking a likely surefire hall of famer against a quasi-bust player. And there is no guard in the class that is even close to as highly rated as Zach Martin was.

Would you rather have Kevin Zeitler or Shane Ray? Would you rather have Chris Lindstrom or K'Lavon Chaisson?

Same thing here. Would you rather have Kevin Zeitler or Reggie White? The range of possibilities again point to taking the pass rusher when you compare the impact of the average player.

You just take the better player.

You won't win a lot of game with really good guards, full backs, long snappers, and other lesser positions when your edge, cornerbacks, receivers, and QBs suck.

 

[reebokalone2001]

No dice on former QBs turned Wr. Unless he just has an outrageous combine.

Ricky Pearsall in round 3 >>

My fellow sun devils. His production, work ethics and coachability are all top notch.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Right which is why you never take a guard in round one! If you can't guarantee it, then what's a worse pick for a first rounder? An average guard or an average pass rusher?

I learned my lesson watching Steve Keim, but you apparently have not.

Man there are a lot professional gms that are dumber than you . . .

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

But we know that the draft can be such a crap shoot that the 4th best EDGE can end up being the best EGE in the draft, and that nothing guarantees the top OG actually becomes the top OG. All that taking the top OG does is prevent you from getting a potential top player at a premium position. You can't win the lottery if you don't play.

But teams do place grades on players. If you grade out the guard significantly higher than the edge rusher and take the edge just bc of position . . . well, you deserve the crap sandwich you’re putting together.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Man there are a lot professional gms that are dumber than you . . .

Dumber than me? This isn't exactly a novel strategy. People will point out how the Ravens took Linderbaum in the first round and how successful they have been...but how many rings do they have to show with their strategy of taking ILBs and IOL high in the draft? None recently.

Meanwhile the Chiefs have an OL barren of high picks and they now look to be the next dynasty. I'm not the one who figured this out, but it's just bad value to draft positions that you can find routinely after the premium portions of the draft.

Run stopping DTs, IOL, TEs, LBs can all be found later. Using a high pick is how you end up with guys like Zaven Collins...and I say this as someone who doesn't think Collins is a bad player, but he's turned out to be bad pick because of positional value. He's a decently average player. Well drafting decent players at positions of lesser value with high picks is how you fail at the draft. If the Cardinals draft a GUARD and miss out on a good starter at Edge/corner/WR/OT then it wasn't a good use of their assets.

 

[Stout]

Dumber than me? This isn't exactly a novel strategy. People will point out how the Ravens took Linderbaum in the first round and how successful they have been...but how many rings do they have to show with their strategy of taking ILBs and IOL high in the draft? None recently.

Meanwhile the Chiefs have an OL barren of high picks and they now look to be the next dynasty. I'm not the one who figured this out, but it's just bad value to draft positions that you can find routinely after the premium portions of the draft.

Run stopping DTs, IOL, TEs, LBs can all be found later. Using a high pick is how you end up with guys like Zaven Collins...and I say this as someone who doesn't think Collins is a bad player, but he's turned out to be bad pick because of positional value. He's a decently average player. Well drafting decent players at positions of lesser value with high picks is how you fail at the draft. If the Cardinals draft a GUARD and miss out on a good starter at Edge/corner/WR/OT then it wasn't a good use of their assets.

Sure would suck to be in the conference championship game lol

 

[football karma]

JJ McCarthy, QB Michigan

his agent must be doing lots of work, because talk to him going top 3 is twittering / lock for round 1 is going around

 

[BritCard]

But we know that the draft can be such a crap shoot that the 4th best EDGE can end up being the best EGE in the draft, and that nothing guarantees the top OG actually becomes the top OG. All that taking the top OG does is prevent you from getting a potential top player at a premium position. You can't win the lottery if you don't play.

This is basically the same argument as "We should draft running backs only after round 5 because Damien Pierce and Chris Carson were good".

I'm willing to bet that the best guard (or any position) in the draft makes a better player in the NFL at a much higher rate than the 4th or 5th ranked at any position in the draft.

Yes, there will always be the Justin Jeffersons or Danielle Hunters, but there are also far more busts.

Just take the best player.

 

[BritCard]

Same thing here. Would you rather have Kevin Zeitler or Reggie White? The range of possibilities again point to taking the pass rusher when you compare the impact of the average player.

Reggie White was the 4th pick. Were talking about players that are the 4th or 5th in their position group late in the 1st round.

 

[Garthshort]

That's the draft. The Cards rarely do anything in FA.

History, yes. But with a new (almost) FO, we really don't know what they'll do.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Dumber than me? This isn't exactly a novel strategy. People will point out how the Ravens took Linderbaum in the first round and how successful they have been...but how many rings do they have to show with their strategy of taking ILBs and IOL high in the draft? None recently.

Meanwhile the Chiefs have an OL barren of high picks and they now look to be the next dynasty. I'm not the one who figured this out, but it's just bad value to draft positions that you can find routinely after the premium portions of the draft.

Run stopping DTs, IOL, TEs, LBs can all be found later. Using a high pick is how you end up with guys like Zaven Collins...and I say this as someone who doesn't think Collins is a bad player, but he's turned out to be bad pick because of positional value. He's a decently average player. Well drafting decent players at positions of lesser value with high picks is how you fail at the draft. If the Cardinals draft a GUARD and miss out on a good starter at Edge/corner/WR/OT then it wasn't a good use of their assets.

This post is fraught with bad arguments.

1. The super bowl as the sole indicator of successful team building strategy.

2. Utilizing the sole team with the undisputed generations top QB as the rule. As if any other team could have mahomes.

3. Using a bust of a draft pick (he’s not even playing the position he was drafted for) as an example to base your argument upon. Ironically he’s being used as an edge now where you think he’s a good player - that kinda flies in the face of your argument.

And the argument for a center or guard isn’t take that position over other positions of relatively same value. It’s take the center/guard if you’ve graded him more highly than the other available positions.

 

[SoonerLou]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Krangodnzr]

This post is fraught with bad arguments.

1. The super bowl as the sole indicator of successful team building strategy.

A team that routinely has no real shot at winning the Super Bowl because they are deficient at positions that matter...

I laugh every year when fans say "It's Baltimore's year," because they usually have some hole in their team that's going to pop up that will doom them in the playoffs.

The Steeler are another team that generally fits that model and they also use premium picks on non-premium positions.

2. Utilizing the sole team with the undisputed generations top QB as the rule. As if any other team could have mahomes.

That was just one instance. There are other well built teams that follow the same method. I really don't feel like pulling out all the examples.

3. Using a bust of a draft pick (he’s not even playing the position he was drafted for) as an example to base your argument upon. Ironically he’s being used as an edge now where you think he’s a good player - that kinda flies in the face of your argument.

Isaiah Simmons. Jonathan Cooper. I mean I don't have to just use Collins.

He's being used as an edge that doesn't rush the pass all of the time. Listening to Alexander talk about all the other roles he's used for on any given play other than just rushing the passer was eye opening. He's not being used as a premium player, he's being used as a super role player. That's a waste of a pick, but it's hilarious to see people still parroting the Steve Keim method of selecting players.

And the argument for a center or guard isn’t take that position over other positions of relatively same value. It’s take the center/guard if you’ve graded him more highly than the other available positions.

The flip side argument is that the fifth pass rusher is very often more valuable than the #1 guard because the guard will almost always be less valuable.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

A team that routinely has no real shot at winning the Super Bowl because they are deficient at positions that matter...

I laugh every year when fans say "It's Baltimore's year," because they usually have some hole in their team that's going to pop up that will doom them in the playoffs.

The Steeler are another team that generally fits that model and they also use premium picks on non-premium positions.

That was just one instance. There are other well built teams that follow the same method. I really don't feel like pulling out all the examples.

Isaiah Simmons. Jonathan Cooper. I mean I don't have to just use Collins.

He's being used as an edge that doesn't rush the pass all of the time. Listening to Alexander talk about all the other roles he's used for on any given play other than just rushing the passer was eye opening. He's not being used as a premium player, he's being used as a super role player. That's a waste of a pick, but it's hilarious to see people still parroting the Steve Keim method of selecting players.

The flip side argument is that the fifth pass rusher is very often more valuable than the #1 guard because the guard will almost always be less valuable.

Okay where to start . . .

Those chiefs you’re trumpeting as the model took a center at 31 - is 27 a material difference? No.

Baltimore has taken more than one receiver in the first round and you’re essentially saying they are losers because they haven’t won a super bowl (a patently ridiculous argument btw).

When you pull up Simmons and cooper you’re not arguing in good faith. Listing busts as representative of drafting certain positions isn’t good faith. It’s more an indictment on the decisionmakers ability to identify talent than the positions being discussed.

No one is parroting keim. No one is arguing to take an ILB or guard with the fourth pick. Or to draft players and play them outta position. Or to be poor at talent identification.

Your last paragraph is circular reasoning, a failure in and of itself. Again, please read this slowly, we are talking about drafting a guard or center who the teams football talent evaluation professionals have graded HIGHER than the players available at other positions. It doesn’t matter how many of the other position have been drafted (I part from Brit here in his logic - there could be 5 edges rated more highly than the highest rated center). The players grades are the players grades. And I would assume that really good front offices probably factor in both need and positional value when grading/slotting players.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Okay where to start . . .

Those chiefs you’re trumpeting as the model took a center at 31 - is 27 a material difference? No.

Creed Humphrey was pick #63. That's a good spot for a good center. That's a winning draft strategy.

Baltimore has taken more than one receiver in the first round and you’re essentially saying they are losers because they haven’t won a super bowl (a patently ridiculous argument btw).

When they are chasing the top team, yes what they are doing is clearly not optimal.

When you pull up Simmons and cooper you’re not arguing in good faith. Listing busts as representative of drafting certain positions isn’t good faith. It’s more an indictment on the decisionmakers ability to identify talent than the positions being discussed.

So pulling out more examples of the folly of drafting non-premium positions isnt arguing in good faith? That's silly. It's called bolstering an argument.

The draft is a crapshoot at there is a range of outcomes. The range of outcomes is much more dubious with non-premium positions. Middle round prospects can replicate the performance of highly drafted prospects of non-premium prospects much more often than they can with premium prospects.

The Rams draft Ernest Jones the same year the Cardinals draft Zaven Collins and Jones is a much better player and they used a third round pick on Jones. What did the Cardinals miss out by taking Collins when they could have just taken Jones later?

Jaelen Phillips, Christian Darrisaw, and Greg Newsome were all drafted within 15 picks and are all at impact positions.

No one is parroting keim. No one is arguing to take an ILB or guard with the fourth pick. Or to draft players and play them outta position. Or to be poor at talent identification.

Zaven Collins was largely seen as a really good player. It wasn't crazy to think of him as one of the best LBs in the draft. What is crazy is to take positions that aren't high impact positions.

Your last paragraph is circular reasoning, a failure in and of itself. Again, please read this slowly, we are talking about drafting a guard or center who the teams football talent evaluation professionals have graded HIGHER than the players available at other positions.

Now you are lower yourself to the level of just trying to be insulting. Am I winning this argument with you so thoroughly that you have no other option?

To use an absurd analogy, why not take the #1 ranked long snapper over #12 ranked guard? Because long snapper doesn't have the same impact. Positional value DOES MATTER.

It doesn’t matter how many of the other position have been drafted (I part from Brit here in his logic - there could be 5 edges rated more highly than the highest rated center). The players grades are the players grades. And I would assume that really good front offices probably factor in both need and positional value when grading/slotting players.

As I demonstrated earlier, there is a real opportunity cost that is incurred when you take non-premium positions over premium positions. You miss out on real game changing plays.

I used to believe what you believed until I looked over all of the examples of teams ignoring this paradigm and truly missing out on game changing players.

I'll use this analogy. Drafting guards is kind of like using your monthly paycheck to pay for a trip to Disneyland when you haven't paid your rent. Rich people (well built teams) can afford to take those kind of gambles, but poor people (bad teams) can not.

 

[oaken1]

Creed Humphrey was pick #63. That's a good spot for a good center. That's a winning draft strategy.

When they are chasing the top team, yes what they are doing is clearly not optimal.

So pulling out more examples of the folly of drafting non-premium positions isnt arguing in good faith? That's silly. It's called bolstering an argument.

The draft is a crapshoot at there is a range of outcomes. The range of outcomes is much more dubious with non-premium positions. Middle round prospects can replicate the performance of highly drafted prospects of non-premium prospects much more often than they can with premium prospects.

The Rams draft Ernest Jones the same year the Cardinals draft Zaven Collins and Jones is a much better player and they used a third round pick on Jones. What did the Cardinals miss out by taking Collins when they could have just taken Jones later?

Jaelen Phillips, Christian Darrisaw, and Greg Newsome were all drafted within 15 picks and are all at impact positions.

Zaven Collins was largely seen as a really good player. It wasn't crazy to think of him as one of the best LBs in the draft. What is crazy is to take positions that aren't high impact positions.

Now you are lower yourself to the level of just trying to be insulting. Am I winning this argument with you so thoroughly that you have no other option?

To use an absurd analogy, why not take the #1 ranked long snapper over #12 ranked guard? Because long snapper doesn't have the same impact. Positional value DOES MATTER.

As I demonstrated earlier, there is a real opportunity cost that is incurred when you take non-premium positions over premium positions. You miss out on real game changing plays.

I used to believe what you believed until I looked over all of the examples of teams ignoring this paradigm and truly missing out on game changing players.

I'll use this analogy. Drafting guards is kind of like using your monthly paycheck to pay for a trip to Disneyland when you haven't paid your rent. Rich people (well built teams) can afford to take those kind of gambles, but poor people (bad teams) can not.

you miss out on game changing plays when your QB cant get a pass off because the pocket drops back with him.
you also miss out on average plays...which makes them game changing plays for the defense.

like or dislike IOL...doesnt matter. The truest fact in football is that you aint going to win many games if your IOL plays the entire game on skates.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Creed Humphrey was pick #63. That's a good spot for a good center. That's a winning draft strategy.

When they are chasing the top team, yes what they are doing is clearly not optimal.

So pulling out more examples of the folly of drafting non-premium positions isnt arguing in good faith? That's silly. It's called bolstering an argument.

The draft is a crapshoot at there is a range of outcomes. The range of outcomes is much more dubious with non-premium positions. Middle round prospects can replicate the performance of highly drafted prospects of non-premium prospects much more often than they can with premium prospects.

The Rams draft Ernest Jones the same year the Cardinals draft Zaven Collins and Jones is a much better player and they used a third round pick on Jones. What did the Cardinals miss out by taking Collins when they could have just taken Jones later?

Jaelen Phillips, Christian Darrisaw, and Greg Newsome were all drafted within 15 picks and are all at impact positions.

Zaven Collins was largely seen as a really good player. It wasn't crazy to think of him as one of the best LBs in the draft. What is crazy is to take positions that aren't high impact positions.

Now you are lower yourself to the level of just trying to be insulting. Am I winning this argument with you so thoroughly that you have no other option?

To use an absurd analogy, why not take the #1 ranked long snapper over #12 ranked guard? Because long snapper doesn't have the same impact. Positional value DOES MATTER.

As I demonstrated earlier, there is a real opportunity cost that is incurred when you take non-premium positions over premium positions. You miss out on real game changing plays.

I used to believe what you believed until I looked over all of the examples of teams ignoring this paradigm and truly missing out on game changing players.

I'll use this analogy. Drafting guards is kind of like using your monthly paycheck to pay for a trip to Disneyland when you haven't paid your rent. Rich people (well built teams) can afford to take those kind of gambles, but poor people (bad teams) can not.

Ah you’re right about creed. I read #31, but it was #31 of 2nd round.

Hmm what Baltimore is doing is “non-optimal.” Again, they took receivers in the first round more than once. Also, if your argument is that every team that isn’t Baltimore is a loser it’s a terrible argument. You know that.

But you’re not pulling out examples of drafting a position as folly. You’re purposefully cherry picking busts at the position. That’s not arguing in good faith. I could pick out Jalen reagor, treylon burkes, ruggs, nkeal Harry, Corey Davis, Ross, Corey Coleman, Josh doctson, Laquon treadwell, Kevin white, Perriman, Dorsett , Watkins, austin, etc to argue receiver in the first is a bad idea but it’s disingenuous bc it’s ignoring the picks at the position that panned out.

Middle round players of value can be found at virtually every position other QB. Arguing that it’s more prevalent at one position over another is going require hard data not anecdotal cherry picking to bear any weight in an argument.

No one is arguing that position value doesn’t matter. Stop trying to force a narrative that no one is arguing against. It undermines your credibility. And your argument about the long snapper is absurd. Special teams generally fall entirely outside the scope of this conversation - I’m pretty sure everyone on ASFN can actually agree on that. Not to mention, again, it fails to address my ACTUAL argument, that a team is more likely to take a MORE HIGHLY GRADED PLAYER (and again, I’m sure grading incorporates ability, potential, need, positional value) than another verses your dogmatic “never take position X” in the first round. I would be surprised if a single GM in the nfl adopted your inflexible position.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

you miss out on game changing plays when your QB cant get a pass off because the pocket drops back with him.
you also miss out on average plays...which makes them game changing plays for the defense.

like or dislike IOL...doesnt matter. The truest fact in football is that you aint going to win many games if your IOL plays the entire game on skates.

You’re even more likely to be bad to mediocre forever if you draft in such a dogmatic fashion that you consistently draft position over superior talent as krang is arguing.

 

[RON_IN_OC]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Yeah I’d be pretty happy with that draft. MHJ, Murphy, wiggins, beebe, edge, and OT in first three rounds.

 

[CardNots]

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

Solid draft!

 

[SoonerLou]

If we let the Chiefs get Rodney Hudson like they wanted I dont think the Chiefs win multiple Super Bowls.
Just think about how bad their wr drafts have been. Forced to rely on Justin Watson. Tackles not that great.

You lose a top 2 or 3 center in the league and they are screwed.

Chiefs lucked out because Keim wanted to secure his toys in Zaven and Rondale.