DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk 2024 NFL Draft The Draft

What do you think of Mike Hall? Supposedly the Browns have shown a lot of interest. Hard to figure out how much of that is just because he's local (and won't count against the 30 prospect limit? I think that's still a thing), though.

I'm guessing he'll rise into that 2nd round discussion (if not higher) due to skill set. Interior pass rush is hard to find. I'm not sure where I'd put Hall, I haven't done enough digging at the top with our lack of a 1st rounder. It could also be a case where teams don't have 32 1st round grades or 2nd round grades, so a guy with a "3rd round grade" will end up going higher.

Which is where I've gotten to myself. It's so hard to predict not having any picks until that late on not only who they have targeted but if they'll still even be on the board at that point in the draft.

And while it is somewhat frustrating at draft time, it a great situation to be in that Berry has addressed all the glaring needs in the FA market to the point we have no glaring needs to guide us as to which positions he may or may not be targeting to address. All I can do is venture a guess. But with Wills being on the last year of his contract and Conklin becoming more and more injury prone, I would tend to think he may be leaning on the OT department. Getting Dewand Jones at pick #111 gives me hope he can do so with the picks they have.

I'm with you. That's kind of why I'm thinking looking at the guys Berry is bringing in for visits and trying to decide whether or not I like them is as good a method of draft prep as any this go around.

Bone, you can't see it as getting more picks trading down. The person(s) on their board will be available later in the draft, so they can trade down and get two players off their board instead of one.

The thing is I think we believe in everybody we draft. It not what's the point?

I do agree we will probably look at some O linemen. It's a strong OL draft and we have some current and future needs. It all adds up.



This isn't the best draft. I don't know that we really gain anything by adding late round picks this year. I think it is why we have traded some away. I don't think we need a large draft class. Everybody we draft either gets cut of takes a spot from someone else.

Just a thought, we bring in more DT's. I am not sure we are very high on Ika.

j/c,

I have seen a lot of talk about us taking an OT with our 54th Draft selection. The probable prospects to be avaliable are...

-- OT Kiran Amegadjie, Yale
I have watched his tape vs lower level competition and he really didn't stand out to me for a player taken with such a high selection playing in said lower level competition.
He does have nice measurables tho.

-- OT Blake Fisher, Notre Dame
Has the physical tools for the position, but his technique shows that he will need a lot of work and is probably a reach at pick #54.

-- OT Roger Rosengarten, Washington
He might need to slide inside to OG, but again probably a reach at pick #54

We have brought back or signed 3 DTs'
But I would personally still take
DT Ruke Orhorhoro over any of the aforementioned OT prospects we need some infusion of youth to develop for the near future, and if he is off the board then we should have a pick of some good CBs' prospects still on the board.

I'm not one advocating moving on from Greg Newsome just yet, at least not until we gave another CB option in that room.

[Edit] Yes, I am not high on Ika. He did show me anything to think that he belongs in our system.

Might have to dig into Dorlus. Didn't have great numbers for a DE, but if he's gonna grow into more of an interior guy, I should probably give him a look. I think of more zoom zoom on the edge with Schwartz, so kind of passed over him.

I didn't really come away a fan of Colson in my limited viewing so far.

Thanks, I see those players as being a reach at 54 and moreso valued with our 85th selection.

Just a word on "reach" picks. If you have the player high on your board and you feel he won't be available the next time you select, I don't really consider that a reach. I don't look at his draft projected position and think there are 20 higher rated players, so it was a reach. We look at all the draft boards and see the same guys listed in somewhat the same position. What we don't think about is how is a player going to fit in to our team and what we want to do. Some of those guys don't even get on to our draft board.

We don't go in to the draft with a couple of hundred names on the board. We might have 50 targets on the list. Then maybe another 50 with draftable grades.

If all of your 2nd round targets are gone, then maybe you draft the #1 3rd round target.

I know some of you play fantasy sports. I don't think the NFL is all that much different as far as the draft.. You get to a point in the draft where the no brainers are picked and you sort of punt a round and start selecting guys a round early. In order to get the guys you want, you have to get a round ahead of the league.

The write ups make sense. Just as with OL, we will need defensive line help next year. If Berry drafts for needs, and everybody does to some extent, he has shown to draft for those needs a year early. Bring them in a year early hoping they develop. That was the hope with IKA. As I said earlier, I am not sure we are still excited with the guy, but this is his year to show up, make some gameday rosters and work in some reps of meaning.

Good teams dont' reach for a player they.can get later, they trade back if possible. Even if they only have 85 players on their board they stick to their evaluation of those prospects. That's how it works.

I agree with the trade back part if possible. I guess what I am saying is we don't have any clue where we have guys rated. Just because a few draft sites have players rated one way or another doesn't me we do.

The "problem" with trading back is that teams don't know where other teams have players rated. You can't necessarily rely on the guys lasting until they're exactly where you have them rated.

I feel like we've tried doing it before, and the guys we were targeting weren't there any more and we had to hurriedly figure out what we were going to do. I.e, instead of Nico Collins we ended up with Anthony Schwartz.

Personally, if there's a player you believe in, and you think they can help the team, Take them when you can.

Now if there's a pod of evenly ranked players and you can trade back and still be guaranteed one of the guys in that pod, sure, go for it. Maybe that is what happened with Schwartz.

But if you have a guy with a much higher grade than the other guys left on your board, I don't think it generally makes sense to trade back in the hopes he will still be there even if it's a round or so early.

I do wonder how much time teams spend on projecting other teams' boards. And how much espionage goes on. It's easy to look at "needs." But I'm thinking about how different teams actually grade players differently; How they value different things.

What all would you have to do to try to simulate each team's board and keep them updated through a draft? You could look at historical data and try to reverse engineer grades based on where players were taken and how you had their traits rated and compare with traits of players still on the board. It would be very hard to factor in coach/scout movement, so trying to isolate the key decision makers would be important.

...might be something to try plugging AI into. Ask questions like based on this data (our grades) what does X team value? Or perhaps break it down more into how does X team value X trait for each position and trait? Would be interesting to see what could be come up with.

J/c

If you covet a guy, take him even.if general consensus is that you are taking.him early.

That said , its a crap shoot even in round 1 to.some extent and depending on the position . . . So general 5,000 ft view/opinion , I like trading back. Means more picks. More pick means improved odds overall. Jmo but seemingly supported by many an NFL GM.

I have no problem with us using a day 3 pick on him. All the physical traits you would want in an NFL QB but there is a serious lack of accuracy and timing. Very hard to fix those faults.

I wonder if the new 3rd QB rule might be a factor. Having a huge armed desparation Hail Mary guy on the practice squad could make sense. I wouldn't want him to play regularly, but down 4-8 with time running out on the wrong side of the field, let him chuck it to the end zone.

I don't know that we would draft a guy just for that purpose, but it never hurts to have a big armed QB. I don't know where all of our current QB's stand on the arm strength scale, but both Watson and Winston throw deep.

I am just trying to understand the reason why we are doing this? The optics are a bit confusing.

Maybe we just have Milton rated highly and want a 1 on 1 talk in the event he falls?

Maybe we have some early offers from other teams about our current room with 4 QB's on board? At most we would keep 3 QB's on the roster. Two would dress for the game roster and one would be dressed but only able to play if the others got hurt and couldn't return. Somebody is getting cut or put on the PS if he clears waivers, and that is with the players we already have signed.

I would pay most attention to their top 30 visits.

Cohen OG, Amegadjie OT, Hall DT, Corley WR, and Milton QB (maybe they see him as possible TE).

NO...!

link
Trey Benson nearing full recovery from major knee injury, vying for No. 3 running back role for Oregon Ducks

Updated: Aug. 11, 2021, 7:29 p.m.|Published: Aug. 11, 2021, 2:36 p.m.

EUGENE — Trey Benson remembers the day immediately.

December 1st, the Tuesday practice before Oregon’s game at Cal, the freshman running back suffered a season-ending knee injury.

“Basically,” Benson said. “I tore everything.”

Benson tore his anterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament, lateral meniscus, medial meniscus and another tendon.

I respect Bones opinions and TB may turn out to be a good pro. However, I feel the best OL,DL, LB or Edge Rusher would serve us better at pick 54. JMO

So do you think we shouldn't have taken Nick Chubb? He had basically the same thing happen as a sophomore at Georgia.

Benson has since come back to play well. 2021 was a while ago. If you would rather go elsewhere because of positional value or needs of the roster, I could see it. He's had over 300 carries since the injury, and it doesn't seem to have lingered. His RAS was 9.77, so his current athletic ability is exceptional and doesn't seem to have been lost due to injury. He was also a teen when he was injured and young guys tend to heal pretty well, and he seems to have had an optimal recovery.

The only reason Bull compared the two is because of your response to Bone. You said no and posted the above article which leads everyone to believe you are saying no because of the injury.

Your last post is laughable because Bull (and Bone for that matter) never said that is why they were pimping Benson.

You just posted what I was going to say. I think the FO feels we have higher priorities at that point in the draft where he would be available but I have no way of knowing if that's true or not. He's certainly a high quality RB if that's the route they choose to take.

But I remember people saying the exact same thing about Chubb and his major knee injuries in college. If one is basing their opinion on his injury I disagree with them the same way I did with the Chubb detractors at that time.

Yet you said none of that in your initial post and based EVERYTHING on his injury. You are truly a chameleon.

I'm not sure how I feel about Franklin. He's not a bad player, but I think he benefited a lot from the volume of targets he saw and the offense he was in. It looked like the tempo Oregon used led to a fair number of defensive breakdowns that he exploited/was the beneficiary of more than he just ran by people. I came away liking how he did on in breaking routes more than the down the field stuff. He seemed to do better when the ball was "in front of him" the whole way rather than outside the numbers over the shoulder type stuff in the 4 games I watched his targets from. There's nothing (inherently) wrong with a guy that is good on post routes and in breaking stuff, it just seemed to me he was being sold as more of a go route, take the top off guy that I didn't necessarily see as his strength. I might have been influenced by the drop early in the Utah game which was the first one I watched.

Don't have a firm take on him. Just early observations from a quick-ish sample. He could be a good NFL receiver, I'm just not sure he's what I went in thinking he was going to be, and so I've got to kind of re-think how he might fit with the guys we've got.

Right now, I think I prefer Legette over Franklin. It is kind of hard to compare them because the surrounding situations were quite different. I see more examples of the things Watson showed he was able to work with in Legette. He has some Hopkins like ball skills and hops. Probably not the savvy, but as far as "see ball, get ball" Legette looks pretty impressive.

Xavier also has that extra gear he can get to. I feel like the struggles of the South Carolina OL didn't allow him to show it off as much as Franklin. Rattler was almost always under duress. Legette rarely got balls thrown where catching them in stride was even a possibility. Legette also just faced better competition in the SEC than Franklin saw in the PAC12.

There are some negatives as far as age and breakout age, so I'm not sure he fits the standard AB profile, but I think "external" factors were a big part of that late breakout. Maybe the age "negative" is the only reason he might be available to us. I think he gives a different element to the offense that "completes the group" better.

I'd love to see what Stefanski/O'Shea/Watson/Cooper could do with him. Does have some route running stuff he can clean up, but, if he does, watch out. I think we have surroundings he could thrive in.