2016 NFL Draft Discussion

The Game Room
1

A scant couple weeks until the NFL draft, and we have some huge news, with the Rams trading away their future to move up from 15 to the #1 pick. Great job by the Titans to take advantage of a QB needy team. All told, the Rams are giving up their first pick (#15), two second round picks (43 and 45), and their third rounder (76) in this years draft, AND their first and third round picks in next year’s draft. To me, this is clearly Jeff Fisher trying to buy more years as a mediocre NFL coach, and the Rams of trying to get excitement from a new fan base. I praised them when they fleeced the Washington professional football team in the RGIII trade, and I’ll laugh at them now.

And, as usual, here’s my list of players I like in this year’s draft, along with the round I think they’d be good value in.

My guys:

First Round:

Myles Jack, LB, UCLA – It all depends on his knee. If healthy, he could be Luke Kuechly. If not, he could be Marcus Lattimore.

Deforest Buckner, DE, Oregon – After making Dion Jordan one of my biggest “my guys” busts, I decided to swing again on another highly athletic, a bit raw Oregon defensive end.

Second Round

Ryan Kelly, C, Alabama. My preference for smart, good technicians over athletic freaks is showing.

Third Round

Jeremy Cash, S, Duke – He can play Safety, Slot Cornerback, or linebacker. I love me some versatility.

Jordan Howard, RB, Indiana. Bruising, productive runner who could be great in a zone run scheme and a be three down back. He runs way too upright, so he’s a huge injury risk.

Fourth Round

Kevin Byard, S, Middle Tennessee State. Too small and short armed, but his production makes him worth a flyer.

Fifth Round

Willie Henry, DT, Michigan. Rotational guy on the defensive line, he has a nice first step.

Sixth Round

Mike Thomas, WR, Southern Miss – not to be confused with Michael Thomas, the likely first round WR from Ohio State. Could be a solid #2 WR.

Kevin Hogan, QB, Stanford – He’s no Andrew Luck and is woefully inconsistent, but has the arm talent and experience to be a backup QB with some upside.

7th/FA

Nick Arbuckle, QB, Georgia State. As with Kevin Hogan, I’m a big believer in always drafting a project QB, and Nick Arbuckle is a small school project QB. Likely too short and not a strong enough arm.
Nick VanHoose, CB, Northwestern. Too slow and small to be taken earlier, he’s a very good coverage corner and plays faster and bigger than his measurables indicate.
DIBS
Jourdan Lewis, CB, Michigan – Although he went back for his senior year at Michigan, I really love this kid and I think he could be a stud in the NFL. I call Dibs.

Your guys

Carson Wentz – I look at him and see Blake Bortles, complete with questions about his decision making and level of competition. He does flash the QB skills, arm talent, and measurable to be a starting NFL QB though. But considering the price the Rams paid for him, I simply don’t see it working out well for them.
Christian Hackenburg
Kenneth Dixon
Ezekiel Elliott
Braxton Miller
Paxton Lynch
Josh Doctson

Finally, my favorite names in this year’s draft:

Eli Apple
Jihad Ward
Scooby Wright III
Geronimo Allison
Aziz Shittu
Silverberry Mouhon
Zeek Bigger
Thor Jozwiak

So, lets here your thoughts on the 2016 NFL Draft.

2

Wow, I had not heard about that Rams deal. There is no QB in this draft worth half of that.

Apparently Robert Nkemdiche’s stock is dropping due to character issues, but I’m tell you the guy’s a stud. He looked like a man among boys, even in the SEC.

3

I, too, think the Titans largely fleeced the Rams here, and as a fan of a Rams division rival, that pleases me. That said, I think there’s still a 30% chance or so that they take Goff. Either way, they’re giving up too much.

For the Titans, with a good draft or two (and they’ve built up a lot of chances this year and next), they can dominate that division for years.

4

I doubt the Titans will be dominating the same division that has the Colts and the Texans in it. (But they will at least finish above the Jaguars, for whatever that’s worth.)

5

That was a idiot move by the Rams that will hamstring them for 3-5 years. No one in this draft was worth what they gave away and losing all of those picks when they have so many holes will keep whatever player they pick from being competitive (it will be Wentz. That is the only player they would have to jump CLE for). They would have been better off going with Lynch at 15 and using the 2nd and 3rd round picks to upgrade WR/OL/DB/LB.

A middling to good QB and some 4ths and 6ths will not help them for the next three years.

6

I don’t think the Rams deal is all that terrible. I mean, in general I think giving away a ton of high picks to move up is a bad idea, but if there’s a team that should be doing it, it’s the Rams. Their defense is superb (and deep). They have no obvious holes except at QB and WR, where they have some guys that could be ready to turn into stars.

So if you’re LA, it makes sense to bet the farm on a quarterback- if you think there’s a really good QB available. I haven’t been paying too much attention to Wentz and Goff, but neither seems like a star to me.

My biggest problem with this deal is that it should not have cost so much to move up when the Titans really had no interest in staying where they were.

As for my time, the Bucs, we are apparently taking a cornerback or edge rusher in the first round. Both would fill glaring holes on a team that otherwise doesn’t have any. I haven’t really developed a preference for anyone in the draft at either position, but the team’s social media people seem to be trying to prepare the fans for Vernon Hargreaves or Jalen Ramsey.

7

I don’t see why not. Neither the Colts nor the Texans are powerhouses, nor show any particular sign of becoming one. They could both be good teams, if Luck develops or Clowney becomes fully healthy and effective, but they both strike me as teams that will be on the cusp (or just over) of making the playoffs every year. Not good enough to go deep in the playoffs, not bad enough to get high draft picks. Perpetually mediocre.

The Titans, on the other hand, have a potential franchise quarterback, plus they picked up an extra pick in each of the first three rounds over the next two years. Plus, an extra extra second-rounder this year. Sure, they could waste that, and if any team can, it’s the Browns, but if any other team can, it’s the Titans. But it sets them up nicely for a good couple of drafts.

8

I disagree. The Rams have huge holes along their offensive line (according to PFF, they had only one O lineman who earned a positive grade in pass protection), they lost their only tight end worth anything (welcome to Green Bay Jared Cook), and while their D line was very, very good, their linebackers are worse than average and their safeties aren’t good either. They were, as usual under Fisher, very good at one aspect of football and bad at the rest. Plus, with Gurley, they should be a defense/run first type team that shouldn’t need a stud QB to succeed. They’re weakening what they were good at in an effort to chase a dream (and buy a couple years for Fisher and Snead while the QB develops).

Which doesn’t bother me a bit, as I’m more than content to watch them flounder in mediocrity for another couple years.

9

Alright, let’s start mixing it up a bit. It’s that time of year.

I think that it’s always fashionable to bash a team that gives up a kings ransom for a QB. Hamlet loves attacking these teams, be it Washington with RG3, the Bears with Cutler, the Browns like 5 different times, whoever. And of course it’s a defensible position because it’s tough to justify that one player is ever worth 4, 5, 6 or more high picks and long term strategy should outweigh short term needs.

But, this argument is like the GOP bashing Obamacare. What the hell is your alternative? Do you dismiss the fact that the Rams are never going anywhere and they will be wasting the primes of Todd Gurley, Aaron Donald and a great defense as long as they don’t have a star QB? Forget that while you can bolster the O line, WRs and LBs in this draft you’re also never making the playoffs with Case Keenum taking snaps?

You can’t win without a QB and everyone knows it, so there’s no chance to get one cheap unless you get real lucky and have a down year at just the right time, win the lottery with a Brady or Wilson, or land an aged veteran with huge question marks in FA.

Look at the QBs who have appeared in the last 10 Super Bowls. You have Wilson and Brady in 5 of them. You have 1st overall picks in 5 of them (7 if you count Peyton post trade). You have 1st round picks in 5 of them. The remaining 5 were FAs (Peyton -2, Brees - 1, Warner 1) and an early 2nd rounder (Kaepernick - 36th overall)

Sitting back and hoping for the next Brady or Wilson is not a plan, and as much as those teams fans like to imagine that they were just smarter than everyone else, there was a sizable portion of luck involved too. Staying put in the draft and rolling the dice with Lynch, Cook or Hackenberg is most likely not going to work out if you’re the Rams, Browns or Broncos/49ers. There isn’t a Manning, Warner or Brees floating around in free agency this year.

I mean seriously, if you’re going to bash the Rams for trading up for one of these QBs you need to offer a better solution. Lynch at 15? Sign Fitzpatrick for $10M? Trade for Kaepernick and pay him $12M+? Roll with Keenum and hope for you’re drafting in the top 3 overall next year so you can maybe roll the dice with Watson?

Trading up for the 1st pick is terrible idea, except its a better idea than all the other ones when you have nothing at QB.

10

The Rams paid way less to move up to #1 from #15 than the Redskins paid to move up to #2 from #6.

Rams - Titans trade:
Rams get: 2016: 1st (1), 4th (113), 6th (177)
Titans get: 2016: 1st (15), 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 2017: 1st (15-30?), 3rd (TBD)

Redskins - Rams trade:
Redskins get: 2012: 1st (2)
Rams get: 2012: 1st (6), 2nd (39), 2013: 1st, 2014: 1st

I think you underestimate the Jags. Granted they are snakebit, but they have a potentially potent and young offense. I like their upside at least as much as the Colts and Texans who seem to be basically the inverse of each other (talented, no QB vs. good QB, no talent).

11

Build a defense and running game. Worked for Denver last year. Worked for Seattle. Worked for the 49ers. Worked for the Ravens. You know what hasn’t worked? Giving up a ton of draft picks to grab a lottery ticket QB, ala the Redskins.

If you want to give up a kings ransom for a proven elite QB, by all means, do it. They’re worth their weight in gold and put your team in contention almost every year. But the #1 pick of the draft, isn’t that proven commodity. It’s a lottery ticket. A very expensive lottery ticket.

The Rams aren’t going anywhere now either, unless that defense and Gurley carry them, or, in the rare chance, Wentz or Goff turn into a stud.

Yet teams continue to prove this thinking wrong. Peyton Manning last year was, by most measures, a bad QB. Yet the Broncos won it all. Because of their defense. Sure, the teams that are stuck in mediocrity certainly think as you do, and they go ahead and do something like what the Rams did, and it doesn’t work. While teams like the Cardinals build their defense, and pick up a QB for a 4th round pick and make the playoffs, and almost the Super Bowl. Which was won by a team with a QB who, by most every measure, sucked.

A third round draft pick and a 6th round draft pick. Neither obtained by ransoming your future to grab them #1 overall.

But we’ve danced this dance before. Many, many times. When the Redskins did it, we had this discussion. How did that work out? Or when the Bears did it to get Cutler? How’d that work out?

And every year, a team like last years’ Broncos, or the Seahawks, or the Cardinals or the 49ers continue to show that you don’t need an elite QB to compete for the championship. Seeing as how there are maybe 4 elite QB’s in the league at any given time, I’d be all for selling everything to get one. But that’s not what your doing when you do what the Rams did. You’re selling everything for a “chance” at one of them. Which hasn’t worked.

12

There’s been maybe 5 examples in 20 years. I dismiss the idea that the Seahawks fit that category, Wilson has been every bit the star QB. If you’re referring to Hasselbeck in '05, well that was a great running team but the defense was mediocre and the offense was 1st overall.

And the Rams are exactly that kind of team right now, and no one thinks they are a OT and a few LBs from being the next Broncos or Ravens. I’ll also note that all of those teams have a very short apex. The degree of difficulty on creating a defense-first Super Bowl champion is higher and the payoff is far shorter than getting behind a franchise QB.

This is a fallacy. There has never been a deal for a proven elite QB. It simply has never happened. You can get a damaged goods guy and hope for the best, but this statement is utterly meaningless and doesn’t exist in reality…the GOP policy comparison holds up!

The Rams were damned if the do, damned if they don’t. They are taking a chance that they’ll get that QB which can give them a decade of sustained success. There are examples of this. There aren’t any modern examples of sustained success through defensive dominance.

And that’s the point…they now have a chance. Might be fools gold, but it might be something. I think the odds are better that Wentz or Goff will be a quality starter for a decade and appear in multiple Super Bowls, than those several picks all panning out and the defense and Gurley carrying them to a Super Bowl before the salary cap dooms them.

Its easy to point to examples where trades for QBs don’t pan out. It’s hard to isolate instances where teams did nothing, focused on building a defense and ultimately got nowhere. But it happens all the time. Shit, that pretty much defined the Bears for 2 decades and in spite of making to a Super Bowl with Sexy Rexy we never were considered contenders.

And your order of operations is wrong. The Cardinals and Broncos went out and locked up a veteran QB first…then built the defense around them. The Broncos were rolling the dice with Tebow before that, they weren’t focusing on drafting defense. It’s a good strategy when it’s there, but there isn’t a veteran out there to get and waiting for one isn’t an option. You always disregard the time cost of doing nothing. T

The Rams built the defense, they’ve been one of the best defenses for the last 5 or 6 seasons, and it hasn’t happened for them. Bradford didn’t pan out. It’'s time to try something different. The Texans are pretty similar to the Rams and they took a different tactic and tied up a ton of money in a unproven QB, we’ll see if that’s better. The Jets are similar and they will probably be going back for round 2 of the Fitzpatrick experiment (previously known as the Dilfer), we’ll see if it pans out.

I think we all can see that a season starting Case Keenum or Paxton Lynch is a wasted season…and there’s no getting that back once it’s gone.

13

Wilson is a fine QB. Drafted in the3rd round. And benefiting from a great running game and an offense that usually required the top 5 least amount of pass attempts in the league. If that’s what it takes to be a “star”, then I fear we have differing definitions. Seattle has been this good on the basis of their defense, not their offense. To argue it’s because of their “star” QB is, to me, just silly.

I was illustrating the rarity of the “elite” QB. Of course you can’t get one. Unless you draft and develop them. Which does nothing to disprove anything I’ve said.

Here. Let me highlight the biggest flaw in your thinking here: “They are taking a chance that they’ll get that QB which can give them a decade of sustained success.” You’re trying to prove buying a lottery ticket is smart because there is someone who won it. It’s ridiculous.

Every year there are 31 teams that don’t “pan out”. We’re talking about the odds. And the odds are that if you don’t have an elite QB (which a vast majority of NFL teams don’t), then the best way to win a championship is to build your defense and running game and get a QB who won’t fuck it up.

We agree, the best way to increase your odds to win a championship is to get an elite QB. But you treat that as if its the ONLY way, which leads to the idea that any risk to get one will be worth it. So you, and many of the teams that have floundered the last decade, spend their assets to try and get an elite QB, and end up stuck in mediocrity, while teams like the Broncos, Seattle, San Fran, Arizona, build their defenses, keep their assets, and put themselves in contention (and actually winning) for championships without those elite QB’s.

But neither of them threw away draft picks to spin the wheel of elite QB’s and hope. The Broncos got Manning and the Cards got Palmer for so much less than you advocate the Rams do.

Change for changes sake. Great.

I’ll tell you what. We’ll just add this to the pile of “we will see” things we have disagreed on. If Wentz or Goff lead the Rams to the holy land with a mediocre defense, I will give you credit for seeing the wisdom of their decision before I did. Until then, I’ll rest contented knowing the Redskins flamed out, the Bears have been mediocre, and that teams winning because of their defense and with non-elite QB’s continue to compete for championships.

14

If he’s a “star” is just semantics. Where does Wilson rank amongst starting QBs? Top 5? Top 10? And because they drafted him they’ve had him cheap. I agree Wilson probably isn’t “elite” enough to carry a team to a Super Bowl on his own the way Brady, Brees and Manning have, but he’s probably every bit as good as Flacco. That’s the level you need to get to to have a sustained chance at winning, and drafting a QB is really the only option.

Well, it kind of does. You need to draft one. And the odds of drafting one with the top overall pick is basically equal to drafting one at any other position in the draft.

Your metaphor of the lottery ticket is not my metaphor. Picking a QB at #1 overall is more like buying a blue chip stock. Picking a QB in the 4th round or later is like buying a penny stock. Waiting for the next Tom Brady to come out of nowhere, or for the next Manning to miraculously appear in free agency is the lottery picket.

Its about investing, and investing in the top QB prospect in the draft is the safest investment you can make. It’s still a big gamble and it’s expensive, but history has shown that is the highest likelihood for a payoff.

Of course it’s better to get lucky and draft Aaron Rodgers at 24 in a rare year when few teams at the top of the draft are targeting a QB. Of course it’s better to find a beast of a QB at 11 when there’s 3 studs available. Neither of those things are options for the Rams this year.

You’re welcome to argue that the Rams should have stood pat and drafted Lynch or rode out Keenum on week 1, and if Wentz/Goff are busts you’ll have been right, but the Rams are still stuck starting Lynch or Keenum with absolutely no certainty of doing better next year or the ear after that. It’s simple pragmatism. Trading away a ton isn’t want anyone WANTS to do, its simply the best of a bunch of bad options.

If you don’t have one you’re right, that’s the best option, but this is the draft. When you have the opportunity to change that fact. And history bears it out that there are far more success stories with teams having 1st overall picks at QB than elite defenses, the latter is the harder path. It’s true that most have drafted those players without trading up, but that also meant those teams have basically bottomed out. If you’re the Rams, how do you go about bottoming out to get a crack at that stud organically?

Its not the only way, it’s simply the most practical way. If successful it pays off a lot longer than the alternative.

No one thinks the Broncos have any chance of repeating. That team is done for, and they didn’t draft half of their best defensive players. Those free agents came to Denver to try and win a ring with Peyton, great that they did it without him, but it’s not exactly a scalable model to follow.

If there was a veteran equivalent out there for the Rams to get that’s absolutely the better option than trading away a ton to get a pick…but there isn’t one. So this argument isn’t relevant to the Rams, it’s just dogma.

I’m sure that’s how it’ll probably play out. The odds are certainly in your favor. But it’s basically confirmation bias. You see the trades that don’t work out, they are obvious. You don’t see all the times that the conservative approach doesn’t pan out. Like you said, it’ll fail for 31 of 32 teams and 1 of those 31 will have taken a shot and 30 will have stood pat.

All I can say is that if I had an expansion team to assemble and I had the choice of drafting Andrew Luck and only had 3 pick for the next 2 years, or if I had the full 14 picks I’d choose the former every time. You would choose the latter apparently and frankly would kick my ass for 2 or 3 years, but for the next 7 I like my odds.

15

Both sides of the trade have their merit. I’ll only add that I think it’s funny that the team that should know better than anyone not to trade up for a QB prospect just did it.

What I really want to add here is that, if you think Russell Wilson isn’t elite, you’re just wrong. He just had the best month-long stretch of any QB in the history of the NFL last season. He’s at 3+ TDs for every INT over his four seasons, while also passing over 8 YpA, in a run-first (run-second…) offense with few aerial weapons.

16

I think it’s a bit silly to assume that 2017 first-rounder will be in the last half. I think you’re making the (common) sports fallacy of assuming that the team will be the exact same as last year, except plus a better QB, and that’ll mean playoffs. I think there’s a better chance that the team goes in the crapper and Fisher finally gets fired. They’ve got a great D-line and that’s about it… and they still play in the same division as the Seahawks and Cardinals.

I like Goff (if the Rams take Wentz they’re morons), but I still think trades like these are generally a bad idea for the team giving it all up for one player. QB is definitely important, but putting holes in your roster on other spots immediately blunts any impact the QB can make.

History isn’t kind to those trading up into the top 5 to take QBs… since 1990 those trades have resulted in Jeff George, Kerry Collins, Ryan Leaf, Mike Vick, Mark Sanchez and RG3. Ouch. I do wonder how much of it is self-selection bias (probably using the wrong term here) in that teams are only willing to trade out of taking a QB in the top-5 when they’re not sold on the guys there, and those doubts end up being well-founded. I wonder how many teams would’ve passed on taking Luck if they magically had the #1 pick in 2012, even if they already had a young great QB.

17

What are you talking about with the Browns? They haven’t spent their top pick on a QB since 1999, let alone traded away a lot of picks for one. Are you talking about trading a third to move up a few spots to grab Manziel?

The Browns problem is that they’ve actually consistently underinvested in QB, and not tried to make the sort of drastic moves you’re talking about. Instead they try to pick up a second or third tier prospect on the cheap. The opposite of what you’re saying.

I agree with your greater point, by the way, you just used the wrong example to get in an extra bash on the Browns. Nothing in the NFL is more important than finding your QB, and by a large margin - it’s worth the risk.

18

Oh, and I’m hoping hard they take Wentz. Rumors are that they like Wentz, and there’s no reason for them to put up a smokescreen with the #1 pick. I’ve been wary of Wentz’ rise out of nowhere after throwing 600 passes against FCS competition and never took him seriously as the top QB of the draft. I’ve been worried all along the Browns would take him over Goff, or some team would trade for #1 and take Goff.

So if the Rams jump up there and take Wentz, it’d be the best thing that could happen.

… Until the Browns draft Tunsil #2 or something retarded and I shoot myself.

19

How good do Wentz/Goff have to be to make you feel like you’re right about this trade? Certainly if they’re busts, the trade would be viewed as a major mistake, ala RGIII. But would you consider yourself right if they’re just average NFL QB’s like Alex Smith, Teddy Bridgewater or Kirk Cousins? Because, to me, if they’re anything less than elite, the price is still too high. By giving up that much to draft them at #1, you’re hamstringing your team for years, so they better be worth it. But I’m wondering just how well you think they have to perform to make it worth what they paid.

Does it? Over the last decade, #1 QB’s have been: Alex Smith. Jamarcus Russell. Sam Bradford. Matthew Stafford. Cam Newton. Andrew Luck. All with 0 championships. Cam could, if you ignore the Carolina defense creating 39 turnovers last year (10 more than the next highest team) and his complete floundering in the Super Bowl, maybe prove your point. Andrew Luck is a once a decade player who I wouldn’t have a problem making the Rams trade for, so I don’t count him. And I don’t see Wentz or Goff as Andrew Luck.

Baloney. It didn’t work for the Redskins. It didn’t work for the Bears. It hasn’t worked for many teams that give up so much to spin the wheel of QB. And I’ll say it won’t work out now. So we can wait a few years, just like we did with RGIII and Cutler, and judge it then. But, with that much given up, Wentz/Goff (and I think it’s really telling that neither of those guys are a clear #1 like Luck was) need to be elite to make it worth it.

I think this horse is dead. Again.

20

I didn’t realize Wentz went to North Dakota State. Jesus. I mean, I know the Flacco pick worked out okay for the Ravens, but a #1 pick?