whatdrought Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 1 minute ago, BarleyNY said: I think you’re proving my point with your example, but I don’t want to go down the Allen debate path here. If I am picking where the Rams are (20th) I’m taking Baker Mayfield. Then I’m going after the best CB, Edge or WR with my next pick. If I am picking in a spot where the best QBs are gone then that’s a different story. If, say, 20 QBs are gone and I don’t see much of a difference between QB 21 and QB 26 then I’m going in a different direction. At some point the only QBs on the board will be ones I expect to have to replace anyway , so why not shore up other positions with elite, young players? The biggest problem with that mock is that they let the writers draft players on their own teams. Lots of homer moves that don’t make sense. They should not have allowed any players that were on a team in ‘19 or will be on a team in ‘20 to have been picked by that team. You are correct in general, but there aren’t close to 32 QBs out there that you’d want to build a franchise around. If you’re picking 31st or 32nd are you still taking a QB if 30 are off the board? I get the point, but from day one if you don't have a QB who can play football, you're screwed. Even if he's the 32nd best QB in the league, he's better than the risk of the 50th best in the next round. I guess the later picks have some flexibility assuming nobody is going to double up and they'll have a relatively similar QB board come their next pick, but the idea that anything but QB goes top 15 or 20 is just crazy. I agree, lot of dumb picks in this.
Billl Posted June 9, 2020 Author Posted June 9, 2020 2 hours ago, whatdrought said: Nick Bosa and Nick Foles Bosa all day every day.
BarleyNY Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 1 hour ago, whatdrought said: I get the point, but from day one if you don't have a QB who can play football, you're screwed. Even if he's the 32nd best QB in the league, he's better than the risk of the 50th best in the next round. I guess the later picks have some flexibility assuming nobody is going to double up and they'll have a relatively similar QB board come their next pick, but the idea that anything but QB goes top 15 or 20 is just crazy. I agree, lot of dumb picks in this. Yeah. I wasn’t expecting any teams to double up at QB. And I agree that there’s little reason to take any other position in at least the first half of the first round. But if I’m picking past the point where I can get a good QB, then I think it’s better to play a longer game. I live with a placeholder for a year while I build at the rest of the premium positions and get one the next year. 1
DCOrange Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 3 hours ago, whatdrought said: Say you pick with the 20th pick. Would you rather have: Josh Allen and Danielle Hunter or Nick Bosa and Nick Foles. Building a team always begins with the QB. If you don't have one, you forsake all other positions in an attempt to get one. Every single time. If i have no players on my roster, I'm taking the very best QB available to me with my first pick. No it isn't. We see this every year. Chase Young was a better prospect than Joe Burrow. When you don't have a QB, your first job is to fix that problem. This issue with this of course is Cinci didn't take Burrow to lock him in as the 32nd best QB in the league. They took him because they think he can be an elite QB just like Young can be an elite pass rusher. This fantasy draft is a completely different concept, especially considering the rules in place. Why take the 32nd best QB in the first round when you'll still get the 32nd best QB in the 4th round? With the rules they had in place, once you got to a certain point in the draft, you knew you'd be able to get a QB from a certain tier no matter when you pick them, so you might as well take elite talent elsewhere and get the same QB you would have taken anyways. Your logic works in terms of arguing against taking Aaron Donald at #5 for example. But once you get like 20ish QBs in, there's really no point in taking a QB until the end (unless of course there is one QB at that point that you value significantly higher than the rest).
whatdrought Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, DCOrange said: This issue with this of course is Cinci didn't take Burrow to lock him in as the 32nd best QB in the league. They took him because they think he can be an elite QB just like Young can be an elite pass rusher. This fantasy draft is a completely different concept, especially considering the rules in place. Why take the 32nd best QB in the first round when you'll still get the 32nd best QB in the 4th round? With the rules they had in place, once you got to a certain point in the draft, you knew you'd be able to get a QB from a certain tier no matter when you pick them, so you might as well take elite talent elsewhere and get the same QB you would have taken anyways. Your logic works in terms of arguing against taking Aaron Donald at #5 for example. But once you get like 20ish QBs in, there's really no point in taking a QB until the end (unless of course there is one QB at that point that you value significantly higher than the rest). I see what you're saying regarding Burrow and Young, but the problem still persists. If you have no QB, you have nothing. I agree with all of this, though I do think that reality still demands a run on at least 30 QB's because at each pick there's one that's better than the other and even slim margins of preference are going to have a sway with the most important position in Sports. Definitely the argument against taking anything but a QB in the first 20 or so picks is obvious as can be. 1 hour ago, BarleyNY said: Yeah. I wasn’t expecting any teams to double up at QB. And I agree that there’s little reason to take any other position in at least the first half of the first round. But if I’m picking past the point where I can get a good QB, then I think it’s better to play a longer game. I live with a placeholder for a year while I build at the rest of the premium positions and get one the next year. I guess that dips into the rules that exceed the hypothetical. One could argue that if there's a regular draft next year, you're better off passing on the 29th best QB right now or whoever in order to get blue chip talent and hope to fail hard enough to get an A+ qb next year. I always imagine this hypothetical as a one year to win deal, in which case any margin of improvement at QB is worth sacrificing at the lesser positions. Edited June 9, 2020 by whatdrought
BarleyNY Posted June 9, 2020 Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I guess that dips into the rules that exceed the hypothetical. One could argue that if there's a regular draft next year, you're better off passing on the 29th best QB right now or whoever in order to get blue chip talent and hope to fail hard enough to get an A+ qb next year. I always imagine this hypothetical as a one year to win deal, in which case any margin of improvement at QB is worth sacrificing at the lesser positions. Funny thing. I just re-read the rules and it changes things a bit for me. One rule was that the starters other than the 4 drafted players would be average NFL talent. So the QB issue would boil down to this for me: I’d take the best QB I could in the first round if they were better than average. But I wouldn’t burn any pick on an average or worse QB since I‘D have that on the roster anyway. Edited June 9, 2020 by BarleyNY 2
BillsCelticsAngelsBama Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 15 hours ago, whatdrought said: Say you pick with the 20th pick. Would you rather have: Josh Allen and Danielle Hunter or Nick Bosa and Nick Foles. Building a team always begins with the QB. If you don't have one, you forsake all other positions in an attempt to get one. Every single time. If i have no players on my roster, I'm taking the very best QB available to me with my first pick. No it isn't. We see this every year. Chase Young was a better prospect than Joe Burrow. When you don't have a QB, your first job is to fix that problem. If 31 QB's went ahead of you and you take QB #32 then you should be taken out and immediately be sent to the gallows. And I'd take Bosa and Foles over Allen and Hunter, every day. There are QB's in the draft better than Allen every year and usually more than 1. He's not elite so why bother. Take the elite position player over the mediocre QB.
DCOrange Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 15 hours ago, BarleyNY said: Funny thing. I just re-read the rules and it changes things a bit for me. One rule was that the starters other than the 4 drafted players would be average NFL talent. So the QB issue would boil down to this for me: I’d take the best QB I could in the first round if they were better than average. But I wouldn’t burn any pick on an average or worse QB since I‘D have that on the roster anyway. I think that rule was meant to be for other positions since everyone was required to draft a QB. I do agree with the idea that since this exercise was about winning a ring in the next 5 years, it might be best if you miss out on the good/average QBs to just stack the deck at other positions and draft a QB the following year (though I wonder if they were allowed to even think about it like that for this exercise lol). 1
Alphadawg7 Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 Fun concept, and my friends and I do similar things when just sitting around drinking and shooting the *****. However...this draft was executed by idiots. First off, I acknowledge Tom Brady as the GOAT. BUT...for ***** sake, he is ancient and there is no way in hell any team building a NEW roster is drafting him in the first 4 rounds. The ONLY value Tom Brady has is to a team that was fully built for a SB run and needed a guy to make a one year push. In a full redraft of the league, no one team is going to be leveraged to make a one year or two year push like that. Will Tom get drafted? Of course, but it aint going to be anywhere near the first 4 rounds because that team who takes them would have to stack the roster every where else to the point its a major SB contender and needs a vet to make that short push. Drafting Tom early literally completely counters that approach. Drew Brees I seriously doubt goes in the first 4 rounds either. And I seriously doubt that the first 15 picks dont include at least 13 QB's, if not 15. And I dont care about journalists opinions, Josh Allen would without question be a first round pick and so would Darnold. In fact, both would go in the top 15 IMO as both are viewed as very promising young QB's on the rise and will have way more value to a GM than an aging veteran when trying to build a team for the future and sustained success in a full redraft. I mean I was looking at some of the drafts for the teams and they are utterly ridiculous and so far from reality its not even funny.
hjnick Posted June 10, 2020 Posted June 10, 2020 1) A much better way to do a draft of all NFL players as free agents would be an auction draft. Use the salary cap as how much you can spend in the draft and draft your players. Why should Cincinnati be the only club with the option to get Mahomes? 2) This draft was performed by a bunch of homers for each of the teams they cover. I think some of them might have gotten confused with the final rule, "Each GM was asked to draft with intentions of winning a Super Bowl within five years." 3) Terrible 1st Round Picks if you are starting a NEW franchise. 6. L.A. Chargers: Ronnie Stanley, OT8. Arizona: Drew Brees, QB12. Las Vegas: Aaron Rodgers, QB14. Tampa Bay: Tom Brady, QB16. Atlanta: Matt Ryan, QB18. Pittsburgh: Teddy Bridgewater, QB25. Minnesota: Ryan Tannehill, QB28. Baltimore: Matthew Stafford, QB
Recommended Posts