My general expectations for draft picks

[*ochocincos*]

I know this can be easily debated and no one has a definitive answer with facts, but as we (hopefully) get into the season, I wanted to at least share my typical expectations for when I expect draft picks to see significant snaps on offense/defense and play well enough in those snaps to be considered a decent player.

My general guidance is 500+ snaps and a PFF rating of 60+.

Rd 1 - I expect a 1st round pick to be able to, in most occasions, play at a decent level with significant snaps as a rookie if/when called upon.

Rds 2-4 - Add a year by round for when I expect to see a player contribute well on offense/defense. So Rd 2 is by (end of) year 2, Rd 3 is by year 3, Rd 4 is by year 4 (typically their last year under rookie contract).

Rds 5-7 - Similar to above, add a year each round. However, since all rookie contracts after Rd 1 don't go beyond 4 years, I don't expect any player drafted Rd 5 or later to play significant defensive/offensive reps until their next contract (if at all). If a Rd 5-7 pick ends up just as a core STer, that's understandable in my eyes.

Some key exceptions I have for the above are players who miss significant time due to injury.

Anyone else have similar expectations for draft picks? Or completely different?

[corpjet]

Agree for the most part, I expect:

Rd 1 - Day one starter regardless of position

Rds 2-3 to get regular snaps and contribute on their respective side of the ball

Rds 4-5 solid back ups, who are ready to step in if needed

Rds 6-7 Special Teamers maybe even practice squad guys

[Essex Johnson]

(06-03-2020, 01:56 PM)corpjet Wrote: Agree for the most part, I expect:

Rd 1 - Day one starter regardless of position

Rds 2-3 to get regular snaps and contribute on their respective side of the ball

Rds 4-5 solid back ups, who are ready to step in if needed

Rds 6-7 Special Teamers maybe even practice squad guys

So you then would start Love over Rodgers this year ??

[*bengalfan74*]

I'm pretty much in line with your thoughts.

Rd1 - I expect them to basically step right in and contribute with significant snaps. More or less plug and play.

Rd2 and 3 - I lump together. They should be accomplished players that can contribute their first season but may need a little coaching to make it to starter status. By their 2nd season they should be regular contributors. They should be starters by year 3 for sure.

Rd4 - I give a little more leeway, they're kinda on the bubble. They should be contributing by the end of their rookie contract.

Rds5-7 - umm they're pretty much a crap shoot. Especially 6 and 7. Getting regular starters down there is sporadic at best.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-03-2020, 01:53 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I know this can be easily debated and no one has a definitive answer with facts, but as we (hopefully) get into the season, I wanted to at least share my typical expectations for when I expect draft picks to see significant snaps on offense/defense and play well enough in those snaps to be considered a decent player.

My general guidance is 500+ snaps and a PFF rating of 60+.

Rd 1 - I expect a 1st round pick to be able to, in most occasions, play at a decent level with significant snaps as a rookie if/when called upon.

Rds 2-4 - Add a year by round for when I expect to see a player contribute well on offense/defense. So Rd 2 is by (end of) year 2, Rd 3 is by year 3, Rd 4 is by year 4 (typically their last year under rookie contract).

Rds 5-7 - Similar to above, add a year each round. However, since all rookie contracts after Rd 1 don't go beyond 4 years, I don't expect any player drafted Rd 5 or later to play significant defensive/offensive reps until their next contract (if at all). If a Rd 5-7 pick ends up just as a core STer, that's understandable in my eyes.

Some key exceptions I have for the above are players who miss significant time due to injury.

Anyone else have similar expectations for draft picks? Or completely different?

Same expectations, just varies considering the player at what position of need.

For example I expect Logan Wilson to see more snaps as a rookie on Defense than say Tee Higgins.

That is, unless injuries happen once again to our top WR's.

[BengalChris]

Given that there's a 53 man roster and you only get 7 pick each year, they're going to come along a lot faster than taking years to contribute especially for a team that relies on the draft. Also, it's not just about becoming a starter, but they have to play at starter level, unlike some of our recent OL picks. If you lose 4 starters each year on average, let's say, then you gotta draft 4 eventual starters each year, on average.

A 1st round pick should become a starter quickly and not eventually. Quickly meaning early in the season.

A 2nd round pick should be a starter by the end of year 1. This isn't too unreasonable considering many 2nd round picks become starters in year 1, so why not take someone who is going to improve the team now? Some examples are Chad Johnson, Corey Dillon, Joe Mixon, Bates, Cris Collinsworth, Eric Steinbach, Andy Dalton, Tyler Boyd, Carlos Dunlap, Rey Maualuga, Andrew Whitworth, Darney Scott, Tony McGee. Some bad 2nd picks were Jake Fisher, Devon Still, Marco Battaglia, Charles Fisher, Keiwan Ratliff. Gio Bernard was a so-so 2nd round pick.

A 3rd round pick should contribute in his rookie year and become an eventual starter. Starting in his second year with solid contributions off the bench his rookie year would be a decent 3rd pick. Of course that's qualified by good play when he starts.

A 4th round pick should contribute during his rookie year and, at the very least be a viable backup who isn't letting his team down when he comes in. Special teams contributor is a must. If he can't do that for the duration of his first contract then he wasn't a very good pick. If he becomes a front line starter, like say Atkins, then we was a awesome pick.

5th through 7th round are long shots. Those that step in and contribute decent play on teams or as a backup were good picks.

[Mobster]

(06-03-2020, 10:38 PM)BengalChris Wrote: Given that there's a 53 man roster and you only get 7 pick each year, they're going to come along a lot faster than taking years to contribute especially for a team that relies on the draft. Also, it's not just about becoming a starter, but they have to play at starter level, unlike some of our recent OL picks. If you lose 4 starters each year on average, let's say, then you gotta draft 4 eventual starters each year, on average.

A 1st round pick should become a starter quickly and not eventually. Quickly meaning early in the season.

A 2nd round pick should be a starter by the end of year 1. This isn't too unreasonable considering many 2nd round picks become starters in year 1, so why not take someone who is going to improve the team now? Some examples are Chad Johnson, Corey Dillon, Joe Mixon, Bates, Cris Collinsworth, Eric Steinbach, Andy Dalton, Tyler Boyd, Carlos Dunlap, Rey Maualuga, Andrew Whitworth, Darney Scott, Tony McGee. Some bad 2nd picks were Jake Fisher, Devon Still, Marco Battaglia, Charles Fisher, Keiwan Ratliff. Gio Bernard was a so-so 2nd round pick.

A 3rd round pick should contribute in his rookie year and become an eventual starter. Starting in his second year with solid contributions off the bench his rookie year would be a decent 3rd pick. Of course that's qualified by good play when he starts.

A 4th round pick should contribute during his rookie year and, at the very least be a viable backup who isn't letting his team down when he comes in. Special teams contributor is a must. If he can't do that for the duration of his first contract then he wasn't a very good pick. If he becomes a front line starter, like say Atkins, then we was a awesome pick.

5th through 7th round are long shots. Those that step in and contribute decent play on teams or as a backup were good picks.

You think Charles Fisher was a bad pick? Gotta disagree there.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-03-2020, 02:33 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: I'm pretty much in line with your thoughts.

Rd1 - I expect them to basically step right in and contribute with significant snaps. More or less plug and play.

Rd2 and 3 - I lump together. They should be accomplished players that can contribute their first season but may need a little coaching to make it to starter status. By their 2nd season they should be regular contributors. They should be starters by year 3 for sure.

Rd4 - I give a little more leeway, they're kinda on the bubble. They should be contributing by the end of their rookie contract.

Rds5-7 - umm they're pretty much a crap shoot. Especially 6 and 7. Getting regular starters down there is sporadic at best.

That is a pretty good template to go by.  Just keep in mind that some guys are overdrafted every year, due to runs on position groups, etc., thus causing other, perhaps even more talented players to slip to later rounds.  I mean, if the draft was perfect, hardly any players drafted after the 4th round would ever achieve full time starter status, and no players drafted in the 3rd or higher would ever "bust".

[*ochocincos*]

(06-03-2020, 09:35 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Same expectations, just varies considering the player at what position of need.

For example I expect Logan Wilson to see more snaps as a rookie on Defense than say Tee Higgins.

That is, unless injuries happen once again to our top WR's.

True, but if both were in the same situation in regards to depth chart, I would expect Higgins to be a quality performer with significant snaps sooner than I would Wilson.

[Essex Johnson]

(06-04-2020, 10:53 AM)ochocincos Wrote: True, but if both were in the same situation in regards to depth chart, I would expect Higgins to be a quality performer with significant snaps sooner than I would Wilson.

I do see a big difference, one was picked in 2nd round round, the other 3rd round.. both were picked as potential starters.. I actually see Wilson as more well rounded as a player at LB  than Higgins at Wr, at this time I only see him as an outside WR not a slot/inside Wr 

[*ochocincos*]

(06-04-2020, 10:58 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I do see a big difference, one was picked in 2nd round round, the other 3rd round.. both were picked as potential starters.. I actually see Wilson as more well rounded as a player at LB  than Higgins at Wr, at this time I only see him as an outside WR not a slot/inside Wr 

I see your point. I think his size might allow him to play some inside, but I wouldn't have him as the primary inside WR.

[BengalChris]

(06-04-2020, 12:39 AM)Mobster Wrote: You think Charles Fisher was a bad pick? Gotta disagree there.

I forgot about his injury. Saw his name and remembered that I don't remember him ever doing anything at all, which he didn't.

[Essex Johnson]

(06-04-2020, 11:18 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I see your point. I think his size might allow him to play some inside, but I wouldn't have him as the primary inside WR.

But we are just talking this year.. it was a smart move to get a type of WR like Higgins especially if this is AJ's last year.... To me "Tate" is more key to this team than "Ross" .  We have Boyd he can play the slot and move around... we need that 3rd WR to take the middle of the field.. make the tough catches, compete with LB's... especially if we go more 3/4 WR sets with less emphasis on the TE... I think Tate fits that perfect....

Thoughts?

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(06-04-2020, 10:53 AM)ochocincos Wrote: True, but if both were in the same situation in regards to depth chart, I would expect Higgins to be a quality performer with significant snaps sooner than I would Wilson.

Yeah, with the weakness at Linebacker Wilson has the best opportunity to get significant snaps.

That along with his strengths in tackling and covering.

Tee has great hands which could lead to him getting some major snaps if players in front of him start dropping balls or get injured.

[*ochocincos*]

(06-04-2020, 12:51 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: But we are just talking this year.. it was a smart move to get a type of WR like Higgins especially if this is AJ's last year.... To me "Tate" is more key to this team than "Ross" .  We have Boyd he can play the slot and move around... we need that 3rd WR to take the middle of the field.. make the tough catches, compete with LB's... especially if we go more 3/4 WR sets with less emphasis on the TE... I think Tate fits that perfect....

Thoughts?

I have to disagree with you actually in regards to Tate being more key to the team than Ross.
Ross offers speed and agility that other WRs aside from AJ Green don't have.
Tate just has size and hands, but Green, Boyd, and Higgins have hands and good size too.

Tate is fine as a WR4 or 5 to fill in for injuries or give a guy some rest, but he doesn't get enough separation to be a full time starter or slot WR.
Tate is a move-the-chains kind of guy, which is already covered by at least one other WR on the roster.
I mean Ross had about as many yards and actually had more TDs than Tate did last year, and he had 244 less offensive snaps.

Ross is more frustrating than Tate due to injury and occasional drops, but there's no doubt that Ross has a (much) higher ceiling than Tate.
To me, Tate is not going to be more than a 500-700 yard guy.

[Essex Johnson]

(06-04-2020, 04:56 PM)ochocincos Wrote: I have to disagree with you actually in regards to Tate being more key to the team than Ross.
Ross offers speed and agility that other WRs aside from AJ Green don't have.
Tate just has size and hands, but Green, Boyd, and Higgins have hands and good size too.

Tate is fine as a WR4 or 5 to fill in for injuries or give a guy some rest, but he doesn't get enough separation to be a full time starter or slot WR.
Tate is a move-the-chains kind of guy, which is already covered by at least one other WR on the roster.
I mean Ross had about as many yards and actually had more TDs than Tate did last year, and he had 244 less offensive snaps.

Ross is more frustrating than Tate due to injury and occasional drops, but there's no doubt that Ross has a (much) higher ceiling than Tate.
To me, Tate is not going to be more than a 500-700 yard guy.

first.. speed in it self is so overrated.. they talk about 40 time of Ross but that means very little in the game of football.. getting off the line... make the quick cut is way more important.. why is it that Boyd has done so well over Ross in the slot because he does those two things.. AJ and Higgins with their height and speed can stretch the field.. what we miss is that big body in the slot that has solid hands and can battle the LBs (ross is either fall down and get knocked down) and fit the sweet zone... 

[*ochocincos*]

(06-04-2020, 09:11 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: first.. speed in it self is so overrated.. they talk about 40 time of Ross but that means very little in the game of football.. getting off the line... make the quick cut is way more important.. why is it that Boyd has done so well over Ross in the slot because he does those two things.. AJ and Higgins with their height and speed can stretch the field.. what we miss is that big body in the slot that has solid hands and can battle the LBs (ross is either fall down and get knocked down) and fit the sweet zone... 

Dude, Ross has some of the best quickness on the team. I'm trying to find the video, but there was something that broke down his actual quickness and burst off the line, which was also elite. He's not just a long speed guy. I don't know why you think he's just a 40 time.

Also, Boyd is the best slot receiver. That's where he's best at. I'm keeping him there as much as possible.

It sounds like you're in favor of putting Green, Boyd, and Higgins out there as the first three WRs, right? If so, you're talking about Ross, Tate, and Erickson competing for WR4. Wouldn't you want a difference maker out there as the 4th WR? Ross has that elite ability, as evidenced by his 18.1 YPC last year. Ross was 5th in the NFL in YPR with 20+ receptions. Sure, he may have injury concerns and he may drop some passes, but he's the best threat to get big yards aside from Green.

I understand why you like the slow and steady in Tate because he's consistent, but his ceiling, if everyone is healthy, is 5th WR on the team behind Green, Boyd, Higgins, and Ross.

[Essex Johnson]

I believe Tate is more on upswing than Ross, he also has his own talents Ross does not possess that is  important.  Ross has been a major disappointment and I dont see him much more than situational player , Tate wont see the field a ton either but I favor him over Ross.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-03-2020, 01:56 PM)corpjet Wrote: Agree for the most part, I expect:

Rd 1 - Day one starter regardless of position

Rds 2-3 to get regular snaps and contribute on their respective side of the ball

Rds 4-5 solid back ups, who are ready to step in if needed

Rds 6-7 Special Teamers maybe even practice squad guys

 Normally I'd agree with this....but our picks were at the top of each round so tighten it up by one more round. 

[TJHoushmandzadeh's Shiny Shoes]

Rd 1 - yr 1 starter. Probably get spotty production flashing both highlight reel plays but also plenty of mistakes; generally improving as the year progresses
Rd 2 - starter by yr 2
Rd 3 - role player for yr 1, expanded role by yr 2 and for a top half of rd 3 a starter by yr 3
Rd 4 - career role player from yr 1 OR inactive yr 1 but developing into potential starter by yr 3
Rd 5 - back-up player yr 1, developing into a role player by years 2 and 3
Rd 6 - career back-up/special teams player
Rd 7 - special teams if WR/RB/TE/LB/S otherwise PS

(06-03-2020, 09:35 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Same expectations, just varies considering the player at what position of need.

For example I expect Logan Wilson to see more snaps as a rookie on Defense than say Tee Higgins.

That is, unless injuries happen once again to our top WR's.

I expect to see Tee Higgins have more snaps as a rookie on Offense than Logan Wilson though