Daniel Jerimiah Top 50

[casear2727]

(02-02-2023, 06:10 PM)Whatever Wrote: You have to stick to your board.  You can't just say best T or CB available in the 1st when there are none worth the pick.

Yes you absolutely can, teams do it every year.  Tyler Smith was a Rd 2 projection at best and the Cowboys took him in the 1st and he started at guard, they lost their LT and he moved to LT.  Excellent decision. 

Cole Strange was a projected backup and 4th rounder the Patriots took in the 1st and he is starting.

If a lineman we want is an early to mid 2nd rounder we absolutely should take him, having a RT to fill that spot with LC out that could hold down that down for the next 10 years is way worth reaching several picks.  

We dont have the luxury of BPA currently, IMHO.

[*Synric*]

(02-02-2023, 06:21 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Yes you absolutely can, teams do it every year.  Tyler Smith was a Rd 2 projection at best and the Cowboys took him in the 1st and he started at guard, they lost their LT and he moved to LT.  Excellent decision. 

Cole Strange was a projected backup and 4th rounder the Patriots took in the 1st and he is starting.

If a lineman we want is an early to mid 2nd rounder we absolutely should take him, having a RT to fill that spot with LC out that could hold down that down for the next 10 years is way worth reaching several picks.  

We dont have the luxury of BPA currently, IMHO.

You are mistaking media "round projections" to teams big boards. They are never the same. 

[casear2727]

(02-02-2023, 06:22 PM)Synric Wrote: You are mistaking media "round projections" to teams big boards. They are never the same. 

Im not mistaking anything, just like I wasn't mistaken on the Tag.....

We dont know the team's big boards, we only know the media boards and this conversation is regarding reaching based on the media boards, thus my comment. 

Geez.

[*Synric*]

(02-02-2023, 06:26 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Im not mistaking anything, just like I wasn't mistaken on the Tag.....

We dont know the team's big boards, we only know the media boards and this conversation is regarding reaching based on the media boards, thus my comment. 

Geez.

Look guy. These ranking especially for Daniel Jeremiah, because he literally just started watching the college tape, will change this week after the Senior Bowl and they will change again after the combine. They will tighten down in the media during the pro days but we are always gonna see teams high on players than others because they want specific skillsets.


I get your all gung ho about draft right now but the process is just starting and reading profiles and Mel Kipers big board isnt going to tell you anything.

[casear2727]

Look GUY, I owned a sports media firm, worked with ESPN and Fox Sports South, I covered the combine before it was televised. I’ve been to the Sr Bowl.

I’ve been to the draft, twice.

You seem to want to know more than everyone, but as we have seen today, you don’t. So take your condescending attitude elsewhere.

[*Synric*]

(02-02-2023, 06:46 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Look GUY, I owned a sports media firm, worked with ESPN and Fox Sports South, I covered the combine before it was televised.  I’ve been to the Sr Bowl.

I’ve been to the draft, twice.

You seem to want to know more than everyone, but as we have seen today, you don’t.  So take your condescending attitude elsewhere.

Doubt it but ok. Damn google scouts.

[casear2727]

(02-02-2023, 06:51 PM)Synric Wrote: Doubt it but ok. Damn google scouts.

I was part of a group that eventually became the Rivals Recruiting Network along with Jim Heckman, Tom Lemming, Shannon Terry, Greg Gough, JC Shurbutt and many others. Later became Insiders then Scout. We started the football camp and mini combine circuit for college recruiters, established the star system and the first to provide public highlight films of high school prospects. We also provided footage of the NFL combine to media outlets before it was televised.  My crew actually covered Lebron James playing football in high school. 

I knew Todd McShay when he is was still in college.  Guys like Kretz, Horton, Moll were instrumental in the early days of ranking high school recruits for college and college recruits for the NFL.  Kiper would use (steal) much of our material for his Scouting Preview/Reports that he sold to NFL teams... as did Max Emfinger and others.

So yeah, I know a couple things about scouting and experienced it long before Google was the primary search engine.  

[Whatever]

(02-02-2023, 06:21 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Yes you absolutely can, teams do it every year.  Tyler Smith was a Rd 2 projection at best and the Cowboys took him in the 1st and he started at guard, they lost their LT and he moved to LT.  Excellent decision. 

Cole Strange was a projected backup and 4th rounder the Patriots took in the 1st and he is starting.

If a lineman we want is an early to mid 2nd rounder we absolutely should take him, having a RT to fill that spot with LC out that could hold down that down for the next 10 years is way worth reaching several picks.  

We dont have the luxury of BPA currently, IMHO.

Strange was tied with Volson for the 5th most sacks allowed by a G this year and had the 9th most penalties.  I don't see how he supports your argument.  He was a reach and didn't show he was worth a 1st round pick.

Currently, we have 4 OT's that are still in their rookie deals, not counting PS guys.  You reach for one in the first in what's reportedly a bad draft class, and we'll be right back here again next year saying we need to draft an OT.  Actually hitting on your draft picks is 10x more important than drafting certain position groups.  You don't hit by reaching.

[*psychdoctor*]

(01-31-2023, 05:55 PM)Goalpost Wrote: Tyrique Stevenson and Deonte Banks, both CB's, seem like solid options if either is there at the end of round two.

Stevenson is even better than CTB IMO

[Bengalstripes9]

(02-02-2023, 06:10 PM)Whatever Wrote: You have to stick to your board.  You can't just say best T or CB available in the 1st when there are none worth the pick.

Agree. 

I'm all for the best player available. 

That could be G/T/DT/DE/CB, and I'd be ecstatic to hit one of those positions. 

But if the best player is a RB or TE or even WR? I think you are forced to take that player in that situation.

I don't want another Billy Price/Oguebi/insert bust lineman here. Stick to 'your' board, not the consensus throwing of a dart type drafting strategy where we reach based on need.
Who are we most sure about being a great player? Who has the most potential and the best mental makeup?

If there's a similar or better prospect at a position of higher need go for it.
If there's a lot of similar players in the prospect's position group later in the draft, just pick the best player available.

[Bengalstripes9]

(02-02-2023, 06:21 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Yes you absolutely can, teams do it every year.  Tyler Smith was a Rd 2 projection at best and the Cowboys took him in the 1st and he started at guard, they lost their LT and he moved to LT.  Excellent decision. 

Cole Strange was a projected backup and 4th rounder the Patriots took in the 1st and he is starting.

If a lineman we want is an early to mid 2nd rounder we absolutely should take him, having a RT to fill that spot with LC out that could hold down that down for the next 10 years is way worth reaching several picks.  

We dont have the luxury of BPA currently, IMHO.

I'm all for reaching if he's the Best Player Available on Our Board.
I don't care about the medias board.
I don't care about position group.
Pick the best player with the best mental makeup.

This strategy gives you options.
Missing on the pick doesn't give you any options in the future because you failed.

Some years the value isn't there at one position group.
Take advantage of the position groups that do have great value instead--even if they are lesser needs.
If you don't draft this way you are setting yourself back as future drafts will likely have different position groups with great value.

This strategy is called striking while the kettle is hot? Or something like that.

If all things are equal target your guy at a position of need like you say.
But I say strike when you see value to build depth and give yourself options in the future.

[casear2727]

(02-02-2023, 10:52 PM)Whatever Wrote: Strange was tied with Volson for the 5th most sacks allowed by a G this year and had the 9th most penalties.  I don't see how he supports your argument.  He was a reach and didn't show he was worth a 1st round pick.

Currently, we have 4 OT's that are still in their rookie deals, not counting PS guys.  You reach for one in the first in what's reportedly a bad draft class, and we'll be right back here again next year saying we need to draft an OT.  Actually hitting on your draft picks is 10x more important than drafting certain position groups.  You don't hit by reaching.

(02-03-2023, 02:19 AM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: Agree. 

I'm all for the best player available. 

That could be G/T/DT/DE/CB, and I'd be ecstatic to hit one of those positions. 

But if the best player is a RB or TE or even WR? I think you are forced to take that player in that situation.

I don't want another Billy Price/Oguebi/insert bust lineman here. Stick to 'your' board, not the consensus throwing of a dart type drafting strategy where we reach based on need.
Who are we most sure about being a great player? Who has the most potential and the best mental makeup?

If there's a similar or better prospect at a position of higher need go for it.
If there's a lot of similar players in the prospect's position group later in the draft, just pick the best player available.

(02-03-2023, 02:38 AM)Bengalstripes9 Wrote: I'm all for reaching if he's the Best Player Available on Our Board.
I don't care about the medias board.
I don't care about position group.
Pick the best player with the best mental makeup.

This strategy gives you options.
Missing on the pick doesn't give you any options in the future because you failed.

Some years the value isn't there at one position group.
Take advantage of the position groups that do have great value instead--even if they are lesser needs.
If you don't draft this way you are setting yourself back as future drafts will likely have different position groups with great value.

This strategy is called striking while the kettle is hot? Or something like that.

If all things are equal target your guy at a position of need like you say.
But I say strike when you see value to build depth and give yourself options in the future.

We can have 10 tackles on rookie deals but if they are dogshit who cares?  Adeniji, Smith and Cochran are wasted roster spots if Hakeem is the best of that group.

Let me be clear, I am not talking about reaching for a player that is estimated to go an entire round or 2 later.

I am talking about a player like Dawand Jones or Wright - the 2 two top RT's in the draft expected to go early 2nd round.  I would absolutely reach up and take either to man RT for the next decade because they will be long gone before #60.

Tell me what position group is a greater need 5-10 spots earlier than either of these 2 guys (assuming they are rated the same on our internal board)?

If Bell isnt signed, the #1 safety from Bama?  Ok
If Apple isnt signed, a Top 3 CB?  OK

Otherwise who would it be?  We must protect Joe, LC will not be ready this year IMO.  The other 4 spots on the line should be adequate, this is the only position requiring a starter day one.

[casear2727]

PFF guys seem to agree with me with their post Senior Bowl recommendations...

https://youtu.be/_hH9Xh34R4M?t=2092

[Whatever]

(02-03-2023, 11:16 AM)casear2727 Wrote: We can have 10 tackles on rookie deals but if they are dogshit who cares?  Adeniji, Smith and Cochran are wasted roster spots if Hakeem is the best of that group.

Let me be clear, I am not talking about reaching for a player that is estimated to go an entire round or 2 later.

I am talking about a player like Dawand Jones or Wright - the 2 two top RT's in the draft expected to go early 2nd round.  I would absolutely reach up and take either to man RT for the next decade because they will be long gone before #60.

Tell me what position group is a greater need 5-10 spots earlier than either of these 2 guys (assuming they are rated the same on our internal board)?

If Bell isnt signed, the #1 safety from Bama?  Ok
If Apple isnt signed, a Top 3 CB?  OK

Otherwise who would it be?  We must protect Joe, LC will not be ready this year IMO.  The other 4 spots on the line should be adequate, this is the only position requiring a starter day one.

If you have 4 T's on rookie deals and feel the need to spend a 1st on another one, what does that tell you about your ability to evaluate T prospects?  It tells you that you aren't very good at it, and we're going to compound that by reaching in a bad class?

I seriously don't want to hear about Jones.  Every single year, there's a massively over hyped OSU OL that everyone locks onto that turns out to be a massive disappointment.  Last year, it was NPF who was poor on the worst OL in the league.  Year before, it was Wyatt Davis, who has already been cut by multiple teams and isn't under contract to anyone currently, iirc.  And Wright is the consensus #56 prospect, so a massive reach in the 1st.

It's not like we haven't tried and failed using your philosophy, either.  That's how we wound up with Billy Price.

[*Synric*]

(02-03-2023, 12:50 PM)Whatever Wrote: If you have 4 T's on rookie deals and feel the need to spend a 1st on another one, what does that tell you about your ability to evaluate T prospects?  It tells you that you aren't very good at it, and we're going to compound that by reaching in a bad class?

I seriously don't want to hear about Jones.  Every single year, there's a massively over hyped OSU OL that everyone locks onto that turns out to be a massive disappointment.  Last year, it was NPF who was poor on the worst OL in the league.  Year before, it was Wyatt Davis, who has already been cut by multiple teams and isn't under contract to anyone currently, iirc.  And Wright is the consensus #56 prospect, so a massive reach in the 1st.

It's not like we haven't tried and failed using your philosophy, either.  That's how we wound up with Billy Price.

Never scout the helmet. Also NPF played well for a rookie on a bad team.


As for Wright you could tell he came into Senior Bowl week a little heavy. The first day Wright was jump setting heavily I'm betting someone told him to vary his sets because he mixed them up Wednesday and Thursday. Wright allowed guys to attack his edges and that was something he didnt do on Tape. He still showed great hand technique intelligence and recovery.


Jaelyn Duncan was a bright spot dude looks ready for the draft process. He had issues when they flipped him to the RT spot Wednesday but cleaned that up Thursday. He was shutdown all week on the Left Side. Bergeron also had a great week played both tackle spots and had an entire day at LG. 

The interior guys really stole the show this week. John Michael Schmitz, O’Cyrus Torrence, Emil Ekiyor, Steve Avila, and Cody Mauch.

[casear2727]

(02-03-2023, 12:50 PM)Whatever Wrote: If you have 4 T's on rookie deals and feel the need to spend a 1st on another one, what does that tell you about your ability to evaluate T prospects?  It tells you that you aren't very good at it, and we're going to compound that by reaching in a bad class?

I seriously don't want to hear about Jones.  Every single year, there's a massively over hyped OSU OL that everyone locks onto that turns out to be a massive disappointment.  Last year, it was NPF who was poor on the worst OL in the league.  Year before, it was Wyatt Davis, who has already been cut by multiple teams and isn't under contract to anyone currently, iirc.  And Wright is the consensus #56 prospect, so a massive reach in the 1st.

It's not like we haven't tried and failed using your philosophy, either.  That's how we wound up with Billy Price.

Seriously?  Our best 2 olinemen we have drafted in the last decade are Jonah and Volson, of course we are terrible at evaluating them.  Thus my theory to draft the highest rated one possible and hope the tons of analysts that have evaluated him are correct.  I'd rather not take a chance on a lower rated lineman because our in-house guys think he is a gem......

The number of the prospect in the first 2 rounds doesnt mean much to me as you must remove the 10-12 QBs and WRs ahead of him that we would not consider.  I want the the very best RT, which will almost never be the top OT.  

Ryan Ramczyk is an example of  a projected 2nd Rounder but taken in the 1st and is a perennial top OT.  And who is really to say Wright is #56?  What number is his rank at RT? 

PFF thinks he is a fantastic fit for us at 28, so massive based on who?  

https://youtu.be/_hH9Xh34R4M?t=2099

Complaining about the school a player went to is kind of bogus and fansy...    

What position group do you think we should take before the top RT, be it Wright or Jones, assuming we sign Bell and Apple or another vet at those positions?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-03-2023, 11:16 AM)casear2727 Wrote: Let me be clear, I am not talking about reaching for a player that is estimated to go an entire round or 2 later.

that clears that up.
If "your" guy isn't likely to be there on your next pick, and you draft him, then it's not really a reach, as it's a slim possibility he won't be there, so no harm, no foul. 
If high chance they will still be there 2 or more rounds later, then yeah, reach.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-03-2023, 01:39 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Seriously?  Our best 2 olinemen we have drafted in the last decade are Jonah and Volson, of course we are terrible at evaluating them.  Thus my theory to draft the highest rated one possible and hope the tons of analysts that have evaluated him are correct.  I'd rather not take a chance on a lower rated lineman because our in-house guys think he is a gem......

The number of the prospect in the first 2 rounds doesnt mean much to me as you must remove the 10-12 QBs and WRs ahead of him that we would not consider.  I want the the very best RT, which will almost never be the top OT.  

Ryan Ramczyk is an example of  a projected 2nd Rounder but taken in the 1st and is a perennial top OT.  And who is really to say Wright is #56?  What number is his rank at RT? 

PFF thinks he is a fantastic fit for us at 28, so massive based on who?  

https://youtu.be/_hH9Xh34R4M?t=2099

Complaining about the school a player went to is kind of bogus and fansy...    

What position group do you think we should take before the top RT, be it Wright or Jones, assuming we sign Bell and Apple or another vet at those positions?

no issues with Darnell Wright if he's there. Collins might not be ready to start anyways. I understand wanting to pass on OSU Linemen, not the best track record.

CB would be another position i'd look at. Never seem to have enough of them.
 

[WVUHomer]

(02-04-2023, 08:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: no issues with Darnell Wright if he's there. Collins might not be ready to start anyways. I understand wanting to pass on OSU Linemen, not the best track record.

CB would be another position i'd look at. Never seem to have enough of them.
 

I'll have to rewatch the senior bowl game but it seemed as the game went on, Wright started letting up more and more pressures.

[casear2727]

(02-04-2023, 08:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: that clears that up.
If "your" guy isn't likely to be there on your next pick, and you draft him, then it's not really a reach, as it's a slim possibility he won't be there, so no harm, no foul. 
If high chance they will still be there 2 or more rounds later, then yeah, reach.

(02-04-2023, 08:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: no issues with Darnell Wright if he's there. Collins might not be ready to start anyways. I understand wanting to pass on OSU Linemen, not the best track record.

CB would be another position i'd look at. Never seem to have enough of them.
 

Precisely my point if you want a guy that wont be there by the next pick it isnt a reach, perfectly stated.

CB is so highly valued and we are not sure how Chido comes back, en elite CB is hard to pass.
If we do not sign Bell or another vet and Brian Branch is sitting there, he may be a take as well (but I hate 2 safeties in a row at #1).