2016 Draft a Franchise: Discussion Thread

[usmccharles]

3 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

There are a few positions I value more, but two of them are getting cleaned out pretty quickly.  I would have said late 20s.  Teens wouldn't surprise me though if someone sees an opportunity. 

Yea, I think its just the way you want to build your team.

[ludy51]

One Raider wil go at some point in the remaining first, and another should go mid-to-late second

Edited May 10, 2016 by ludy51

[regz1997]

1 hour ago, Jaybirds said:

If I was building a team right now, there's only one other guy at the position I'd want before him.  And that other guy is definitely going in the first round. 

Surprisingly, that position is somewhat undervalued in this game. That's why I highly doubt the guy in question (the second or third best guy) will be taken in the first.

Edited May 10, 2016 by regz1997

[ludy51]

1 minute ago, regz1997 said:

Surprisingly, that position is very undervalued in this game. That's why I highly doubt the second or third best guy will be taken in the first.

Just don't do what I did last year and overload.

People did enjoy bringing that one up

[Jaybirds]

1 minute ago, regz1997 said:

Surprisingly, that position is somewhat undervalued in this game. That's why I highly doubt the second or third best guy will be taken in the first.

To use a video game term, I think that position defines the NFL's metagame right now, it's forced the values and changes at all the others. 

[regz1997]

1 minute ago, Jaybirds said:

To use a video game term, I think that position defines the NFL's metagame right now, it's forced the values and changes at all the others. 

Yes, but given that QB is the most influential position, most teams will grab a franchise QB in the first. Either that or pick a game changing defensive player. This pushes very elite guys at this specific position down the board into the second. 

[Jaybirds]

1 minute ago, regz1997 said:

Yes, but given that QB is the most influential position, most teams will grab a franchise QB in the first. Either that or pick a game changing defensive player. This pushes very elite guys at this specific position down the board into the second. 

There's a weird dynamic between the two positions that creates a chicken-or-the-egg argument.  But I think a run-heavy offense doesn't need a franchise quarterback the same way (Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl).  But run-heavy offenses aren't winning games right now, which goes back to what I was saying.   I think the QB position got a HUGE boost in value a few years ago, which this draft is reflecting.  But that's pretty much just because of the other changes we're not directly naming. 

[regz1997]

15 minutes ago, Jaybirds said:

There's a weird dynamic between the two positions that creates a chicken-or-the-egg argument.  But I think a run-heavy offense doesn't need a franchise quarterback the same way (Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl).  But run-heavy offenses aren't winning games right now, which goes back to what I was saying.   I think the QB position got a HUGE boost in value a few years ago, which this draft is reflecting.  But that's pretty much just because of the other changes we're not directly naming. 

I agree with you on this point, but no matter how good the guy is at the-position-that-shall-not-be-named, the ball is in the hands of the QB. He touches the ball every single play, and he is responsible for leading the offense down the field and making reads. As seen with teams that have lost their franchise QB due to injury, no matter how good the pass catchers are, if the QB is only serviceable, he will bring down the team more due to turnovers. As seen with Cam Newton and other guys I can't specifically name, an elite quarterback can produce no matter what. Having talented guys to throw to helps, but it is not essential to win games. This is why I think they get pushed down the board.

 

Also I must point out that when Dilfer won a Super Bowl in 2000, the league looked just a little bit different. He also had the greatest defense of all time on the other side of the ball. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by regz1997

[RaineV1]

I wouldn't blame someone for going offensive talent outside of QB in the first. There's a limited number of truly game changing defensive players, and of QBs capable of carrying an offense and making those around them better. If you can't get a true franchise QB, then it's not a bad strategy to go for an elite offensive weapon in the first and a 2nd tier QB in the 2nd round. A game managing QB can win playoff games if he has the right talent around him.

Edited May 10, 2016 by RaineV1

[Jaybirds]

24 minutes ago, regz1997 said:

I agree with you on this point, but no matter how good the guy is at the-position-that-shall-not-be-named, the ball is in the hands of the QB. He touches the ball every single play, and he is responsible for leading the offense down the field and making reads. As seen with teams that have lost their franchise QB due to injury, no matter how good the pass catchers are, if the QB is only serviceable, he will bring down the team more due to turnovers. As seen with Cam Newton and other guys, an elite quarterback can produce no matter what. Having talented guys to throw to helps, but it is not essential to win games. This is why I think they get pushed down the board.

 

Also I must point out that when Dilfer won a Super Bowl in 2000, the league looked just a little bit different. He also had the greatest defense of all time on the other side of the ball. 

The league looking different is what I was calling the metagame.  So yeah, no way it happens today.  But that's what I'm trying to describe. 

I agree about Cam's value being independent from....... other positions.   I think there's a number of QBs like that:  <redacted>, <redacted>, and Rodgers come to mind.  Probably <redacted> as well.    But then Derek Carr just got taken very early in this draft, and I'm not certain he's that kind of player just yet.   Is Carr any different than, for example, <redacted, brother of redacted>? 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Jaybirds

[Mt. Crushmore]

I probably won't be around when I pick, so @allblackraven, @52520Andrew and @-Truth- have my board.

[regz1997]

Again, please try to refrain from name dropping. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by regz1997

[Jaybirds]

2 minutes ago, RaineV1 said:

I wouldn't blame someone for going offensive talent outside of QB in the first. There's a limited number of truly game changing defensive players, and of QBs capable of carrying an offense and making those around them better. If you can't get a true franchise QB, then it's not a bad strategy to go for an elite offensive weapon in the first and a 2nd tier QB in the 2nd round. A game managing QB can win playoff games if he has the right talent around him.

I completely agree, especially pass rushers.  There are QBs I would have taken first, but I'm not at all surprised that Watts and Mack are already gone. 

[ludy51]

Name dropping record?

[PuRock]

I like the Carr pick.  He was a tough one to factor in since he's so young and the arrow is shooting straight up.  He's yet to prove himself on the big stage and has a solid team (specifically OL protecting him).  But even though you are mostly playing on potential, he has shown a lot in his seasons to be able to count on him more than just a shot in the dark.  

[Jaybirds]

Just now, PuRock said:

I like the Carr pick.  He was a tough one to factor in since he's so young and the arrow is shooting straight up.  He's yet to prove himself on the big stage and has a solid team (specifically OL protecting him).  But even though you are mostly playing on potential, he has shown a lot in his seasons to be able to count on him more than just a shot in the dark.  

I agree "the"  arrow is pointing up.  And he's pretty high on my own rankings.  But I can't say for sure it's HIS arrow.  Can't say anymore until later. 

[regz1997]

@Jaybirds

In response to your last post in our discussion, the selection of Derek Carr helps prove my point. All the young QBs with upside will go in the first. You can't comfortably pick a reciever and simply hope for the guy you want to run your offense to fall to the second. 

[Jaybirds]

Just now, regz1997 said:

@Jaybirds

In response to your last post in our discussion, the selection of Derek Carr helps prove my point. All the young QBs with upside will go in the first. You can't comfortably pick a reciever and simply hope for the guy you want to run your offense to fall to the second. 

I agree that's where they're all going to go.  I'm saying that it's too high a value for some of them.  There's a few picks that could be made late in the first that could offset not getting a top QB. 

Rodgers, Luck, Cam, and Wilson I agree with.  I think Carr was too soon (his offense has been healthy so far into his career).  Mariotta I'm not sure about.  But with both of those guys gone, I'm really surprised Someone Else is still available.  

So yeah, that's the market.  I'm just bearish on it. 

[regz1997]

Somewhere, a certain defensive end is bawling his eyes out over not being the number one pick  @ravensdan

[codizzle]

id rather try it with a young QB that's shown something than just a few years top rental QB 

 

just my apporach 

[Jaybirds]

Just now, codizzle said:

id rather try it with a young QB that's shown something than just a few years top rental QB 

 

just my apporach 

I'm not disagreeing with that.  I'm just saying the maybe the Raider's offense wasn't just Carr.  If there's a young QB who's already the team MVP, or will be soon, then go for it.  I'm not sure that's Carr.

[PuRock]

1 minute ago, codizzle said:

id rather try it with a young QB that's shown something than just a few years top rental QB 

 

just my apporach 

It's a good approach when starting a franchise today.  You might have the next elite stud at the position, or at the very least if you surrond the guy with talent, you know you can win games with him. 

[RavensFanMania]

50 minutes ago, regz1997 said:

Again, please try to refrain from name dropping. 

Even mentioning the team can give hints.

[RavensFanMania]

9 hours ago, -Truth- said:

Newton had a terrific TE, and an outstanding interior OL, and the running game was effective when their lead back was healthy, but he also had arguably one of the most talent-depleted WR corps in the league, if not the worst. He made a lot out of nothing in that department.

He Made Ted Gin look like insert elite WR here.

[-Truth-]

8 minutes ago, RavensFanMania said:

He Made ________ look like insert elite WR here.

 

[BmoreBird22]

8 hours ago, -Truth- said:

Their best WR ranked 43rd among his peers in receiving, which comes as no surprise. That's based on a ranking that grades the result of the play, meaning it doesn't necessarily outline the impact that one position makes on another. Newton either threw his receivers open or delivered dimes on enough occasions this season to earn the benefit of the doubt that his WRs undoubtedly profited from his level of play, and they were still unable to crack the Top 40. The 6th ranked TE helped mitigate the otherwise uninspiring grades, so the overall of the group is harshly elevated by the outlier. In an ideal setting, arguably none of their Top 3 WRs would be generally considered as more than No.3. In my eyes, and I assume in many others, his receiving group didn't come close to being a Top 5 group as far as talent is concerned.

They admitted that their tight end definitely pulled up the overall grade, but apparently this accounted for every the top four receivers, not just top three, so one player isn't going to severely skew the average to put them at fourth with five players being taken into account. 

When I watched the Panthers, they had some issues with drops, but those guys had wheels and their issue was not with getting open or making plays. Those guys could win at any point in the game, and they often did. I'd imagine their grades were heavily pulled down by drops, but as a unit, they all performed better than anyone would have thought.

No, not a single one was a superstar, but when taking into account all his receivers, they were all a piece in the puzzle that all fulfilled their roles very well and really played well all things considered. No, it wasn't to the level of Arizona or Pitt, but it definitely was not a passing game like Baltimore has historically been where the top guy really dominates the catches and yardage. 

[PuRock]

12 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

They admitted that their tight end definitely pulled up the overall grade, but apparently this accounted for every the top four receivers, not just top three, so one player isn't going to severely skew the average to put them at fourth with five players being taken into account. 

When I watched the Panthers, they had some issues with drops, but those guys had wheels and their issue was not with getting open or making plays. Those guys could win at any point in the game, and they often did. I'd imagine their grades were heavily pulled down by drops, but as a unit, they all performed better than anyone would have thought.

No, not a single one was a superstar, but when taking into account all his receivers, they were all a piece in the puzzle that all fulfilled their roles very well and really played well all things considered. No, it wasn't to the level of Arizona or Pitt, but it definitely was not a passing game like Baltimore has historically been where the top guy really dominates the catches and yardage. 

It's not like those receivers were hot commodities while they sprinkled around the league.  Something to be said that perhaps Cam helped elevate their level of play.  They enjoyed playing with the guy and fed off his energy.  Does PFF have a grade for that?  Hell, even his blindside looked like a different player from the one we knew.   

Edited May 10, 2016 by PuRock

[ludy51]

Suprised at Bortles going before a certain other young QB

 

Crush'll be happy though

Edited May 10, 2016 by ludy51

[Jaybirds]

1 hour ago, Jaybirds said:

I agree that's where they're all going to go.  I'm saying that it's too high a value for some of them.  There's a few picks that could be made late in the first that could offset not getting a top QB. 

Rodgers, Luck, Cam, and Wilson I agree with.  I think Carr was too soon (his offense has been healthy so far into his career).  Mariotta I'm not sure about.  But with both of those guys gone, I'm really surprised Someone Else is still available.  

So yeah, that's the market.  I'm just bearish on it. 

Bortles.  I was talking about Blake Bortles. 

I had him higher than Carr and Mariotta, personally.  That may be subjective.  But yeah, the way he fed two good receivers enough for both to put up legit WR1 numbers all year, usually from his back, really impressed me. 

[BALTIMOREFLACCO]

Just now, ludy51 said:

Suprised at Bortles going before a certain other young QB

I believe in the Jaguars!