While on some level, it seems we got faster and addressed a position of need in LT, it's kinda hard for me to be really enthusiastic about rounds 2-3 at the moment for a few reasons. But here are some of my thoughts.
Round 2, Pick 33: Tyson Campbell-while I really didn't discuss himpre draft-I like what he offers. Seemingly all of the Georgia DBs were flying during their Pro Day 40s. We got the one with the size. One concern expressed on this board concerned where he would play. I think that was alleviated in part by UM's press conference where he highlighted his ability to play S. That made pick click for me. Assuming CJ Henderson isn't quitting or demanding a trade or will otherwise go AWOL, Campbell could enable us to either have three good cover guys in nickel defense, or, if you lined him up at S, provide the equivalent of nickel caliber coverage in base defense. He makes our secondary bigger and faster.
Round 2, Pick 45: Walker Little-One by one, guys we talked about for our 25 and 33 picks came off the board before 45. I thought Friermuth would be our guy at 45. But it turns out we addressed a T position in Walker Little. I see three potential issues with him: Injury, rust, and position. Assuming his injury is healed-and he will be two full years away from his ACL injury by training camp-the second issue would be rust. Since it's been two years since he saw any game action-or likely any quality practice action, it will take him a while to not only shake off the rust in his technique, but to enhance his technique to get it just to the rookie OL level. This will really test Warhop's teaching ability. On top of that, there is the question of whether he will play LT or RT. I'm not sure which he should be prepared to play, which position he should be trained for, and how much training for either side slow his development. That said, if he's healthy, he has the size and feet to be a good one once the rust comes off. If you are content to be patient, it would be close to ideal because he could sit behind Cam Robinson working his last year under the franchise tag. But if urgency to improve the T positions are paramount, he might start earlier if he plays RT.
Round 3, pick 65: Andre Cisco-before I get into this, there were guys that came off the board at the bottom of the second round that really hurt-as always. As always, there were guys that somehow made it to us that excited me-including Dyami Brown. When they announced Cisco as the pick, I was thinking "Damn we got another ACL guy! What they said about Baalke was true!" But once that thought left my head, I realized we got a good player who shows hitting ability and good hands for the interception. I would not be surprised to see TC and the Cisco kid as our starting safeties as rookies.
As I feared, we would miss out on Friermuth thanks to the Steelers, who are drafting as though they are planning a tank year. According to UM, the team has been in talks with other teams exploring a trade. During the press conference after the Cisco pick, UM wa sdirectly asked if we were talking with Atlanta about a trade for Hayden Hurst. UM stated they were in talks with teams about the TE position, but not Atlanta. I'm thinking Cleveland for Njoku and Philadelphia for Ertz. There are maybe a couple of rookies that could possibly help, but the fact they are talking to teams lets me know they are not counting on the available rookies to do anything to improve the room. In order, I'd prefer Hayden Hurst, David Njoku, and then Zack Ertz.
There are still some good players left who could help and possibly even start. Trey Smith and Jabril Cox are two players I have in mind in round four. I think taking Smith at 105 and dealing away the 130 for one of the TEs would be ideal.
I find it interesting that both Indy and Tennessee had defense heavy drafts.
I figured given the hole they have at LT, Idy would at least have their first round pick as a LT. But both of their picks were allocated to DE, That lets me know that Justin Houston may not be returning and they may not be thrilled with Turay.
Tennessee's defense fell off last year, so a heavy defensive emphasis is not surprising. They needed a RT and they drafted Radunz in the second round. Not sure how much of a fit he is for them. Good player, but not a power guy, which is what I would think they'd want at RT given their running game. So far, I think Tennessee has had a really strong draft.
Terrible, terrible picks on day 2. The only saving grace was drafting Cisco. He wasn't in my top 3 choices for Safety, but he is a good player and should be a decent upgrade over what we had at the position.
The day started out bad as we had a lot of talent on the board and still decided to take a CB, which makes no sense at all. We had our starters set, so why did we need a 4th CB so early in the draft? Campbell isn't a bad player, but he certainly wasn't the best player on the board or even the best CB. With that said, he should be a contributor, there were just much better choices left on the board, so I will give this selection a C.
The Little selection sent me over the edge. We passed up on some very good OT prospects to select a player that hasn't played football in 2 years. That makes makes absolutely no sense at all. Meyer was preaching taking the BAP, which we now find out is a flat out lie. No reasonable person can explain how a guy that hasn't played football in 2 years can be better than the hundreds of good football players who were left on the board. It just doesn't compute. Not to mention how high the took this guy. You just don't spend that high of a pick on a guy you have no information on. You can't have any scouting information when he hasn't played since Stanford's opening game of 2019. There is no scouting to be had! You can't come to a conclusion about something without having any evidence and there was no evidence, because it doesn't exist. Whether or not this guy turns out to be good is irrelevant. They blindly used a high pick on a guy with nothing to back up the selection. They might as well of thrown a dart at their draft board and selected who ever it landed on. That is totally irresponsible drafting and made me lose any confidence in their abilities to make rational decisions. This guy should not have been selected by any team until the final two rounds of the draft, based upon the lack of a body of work. For that, I give the player a grade of I for incomplete, since we basically know nothing about him since 2018. For the pick itself, I give it an F, due to the incompetence and lack of reasoning by the front office.
As for Cisco, he is by far, the best pick we have made outside of Lawrence. I give this pick a B.
Etienne - As Mariuchi said last night before the draft started, Etienne was a want, not a need. There were great players available who filled actual needs on the team, and we could have picked an RB in Round 3. - Grade: C
Campbell - we didn't need a CB so I give this a C. Sounds like he may play Safety, which is good - but I think there were better Safety options available, or even better, a defensive lineman.
Little - I thought we were drafting starters, Urb? The guy looks like he COULD be a beast, ultimately, but Round 2 is an expensive place for picking risky development players. They said on NFL Network last night that Little was chosen for his high school ranking . . . really??? I think there were more start-ready linemen available at 45, and we could have got Little later in the draft so he was a reach. Grade: C
Cisco - Good 3rd round pick. Grade B
(05-01-2021, 09:19 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Terrible, terrible picks on day 2. The only saving grace was drafting Cisco. He wasn't in my top 3 choices for Safety, but he is a good player and should be a decent upgrade over what we had at the position.
The day started out bad as we had a lot of talent on the board and still decided to take a CB, which makes no sense at all. We had our starters set, so why did we need a 4th CB so early in the draft? Campbell isn't a bad player, but he certainly wasn't the best player on the board or even the best CB. With that said, he should be a contributor, there were just much better choices left on the board, so I will give this selection a C.
The Little selection sent me over the edge. We passed up on some very good OT prospects to select a player that hasn't played football in 2 years. That makes makes absolutely no sense at all. Meyer was preaching taking the BAP, which we now find out is a flat out lie. No reasonable person can explain how a guy that hasn't played football in 2 years can be better than the hundreds of good football players who were left on the board. It just doesn't compute. Not to mention how high the took this guy. You just don't spend that high of a pick on a guy you have no information on. You can't have any scouting information when he hasn't played since Stanford's opening game of 2019. There is no scouting to be had! You can't come to a conclusion about something without having any evidence and there was no evidence, because it doesn't exist. Whether or not this guy turns out to be good is irrelevant. They blindly used a high pick on a guy with nothing to back up the selection. They might as well of thrown a dart at their draft board and selected who ever it landed on. That is totally irresponsible drafting and made me lose any confidence in their abilities to make rational decisions. This guy should not have been selected by any team until the final two rounds of the draft, based upon the lack of a body of work. For that, I give the player a grade of I for incomplete, since we basically know nothing about him since 2018. For the pick itself, I give it an F, due to the incompetence and lack of reasoning by the front office.
As for Cisco, he is by far, the best pick we have made outside of Lawrence. I give this pick a B.
While I wasn't enthusiastic about the Campbell pick, I wasn't necessarily ANTI Campbell. I wanted Teven Jenkins there, but adding speed and versatility to the secondary is not a bad thing. But I think that selection triggered a chain reaction, where everyone we discussed at 25 and 33 just about all came off the board after 33 and before 45. Barmore, Jenkins, Grant, Eichenberg and Moehrig all came off the board in front of usThe only guy remaining among those most frequently discussed was Friermuth, and very few wanted him at 45. I think once Moehrig came off the board, attention turned to T, and that's when Little came to be the target. Perhaps if their intent was to take Campbell at 33, they would have been advised to try to move up from 45. I think there was SOME basis by which to make an informed decision on Little. But the time away due to Covid just added more questions about his rehab and rust. I'm certainly not going to say there's no basis for concern, but based on what I've seen, he has some size and ability. A bigger question is can Warhop bring him up to speed, and if so, how quickly? I know you have no faith in Warhop. I'm not thrilled with him. But if Little ends up starting in his rookie year because he actually supplanted one of the incumbents and upgrades that position this year, then all would have to give credit to both Baalke for recognizing his ability and Warhop for getting it out of him.
I like the Cisco pick. It's been a while since we've had a S who can come up with the INT.
Trevor Lawrence- one of the top QB prospects in the drafts, ever. Has the potential to materially change this franchise. Grade: A+
Travis Etienne- a rotational RB for speed could have been found later. I don't buy Etienne as the next Kamara/McCaffrey, but a good player. Grade: B
Tyson Campbell- good CB but too high for one that will not be starting on the outside. Likely the new nickel CB for now. Grade: C+
Walker Little- was a little early for a boom or bust OT, but applaud the insight to develop and challenge the OTs. Grade: C
Andre Cisco- one of the best ball hawks in this draft and new FS, good value that dropped for injury. Grade: B+
Overall grade thus far: B-
(05-01-2021, 10:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 09:19 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Terrible, terrible picks on day 2. The only saving grace was drafting Cisco. He wasn't in my top 3 choices for Safety, but he is a good player and should be a decent upgrade over what we had at the position.
The day started out bad as we had a lot of talent on the board and still decided to take a CB, which makes no sense at all. We had our starters set, so why did we need a 4th CB so early in the draft? Campbell isn't a bad player, but he certainly wasn't the best player on the board or even the best CB. With that said, he should be a contributor, there were just much better choices left on the board, so I will give this selection a C.
The Little selection sent me over the edge. We passed up on some very good OT prospects to select a player that hasn't played football in 2 years. That makes makes absolutely no sense at all. Meyer was preaching taking the BAP, which we now find out is a flat out lie. No reasonable person can explain how a guy that hasn't played football in 2 years can be better than the hundreds of good football players who were left on the board. It just doesn't compute. Not to mention how high the took this guy. You just don't spend that high of a pick on a guy you have no information on. You can't have any scouting information when he hasn't played since Stanford's opening game of 2019. There is no scouting to be had! You can't come to a conclusion about something without having any evidence and there was no evidence, because it doesn't exist. Whether or not this guy turns out to be good is irrelevant. They blindly used a high pick on a guy with nothing to back up the selection. They might as well of thrown a dart at their draft board and selected who ever it landed on. That is totally irresponsible drafting and made me lose any confidence in their abilities to make rational decisions. This guy should not have been selected by any team until the final two rounds of the draft, based upon the lack of a body of work. For that, I give the player a grade of I for incomplete, since we basically know nothing about him since 2018. For the pick itself, I give it an F, due to the incompetence and lack of reasoning by the front office.
As for Cisco, he is by far, the best pick we have made outside of Lawrence. I give this pick a B.
While I wasn't enthusiastic about the Campbell pick, I wasn't necessarily ANTI Campbell. I wanted Teven Jenkins there, but adding speed and versatility to the secondary is not a bad thing. But I think that selection triggered a chain reaction, where everyone we discussed at 25 and 33 just about all came off the board after 33 and before 45. Barmore, Jenkins, Grant, Eichenberg and Moehrig all came off the board in front of usThe only guy remaining among those most frequently discussed was Friermuth, and very few wanted him at 45. I think once Moehrig came off the board, attention turned to T, and that's when Little came to be the target. Perhaps if their intent was to take Campbell at 33, they would have been advised to try to move up from 45. I think there was SOME basis by which to make an informed decision on Little. But the time away due to Covid just added more questions about his rehab and rust. I'm certainly not going to say there's no basis for concern, but based on what I've seen, he has some size and ability. A bigger question is can Warhop bring him up to speed, and if so, how quickly? I know you have no faith in Warhop. I'm not thrilled with him. But if Little ends up starting in his rookie year because he actually supplanted one of the incumbents and upgrades that position this year, then all would have to give credit to both Baalke for recognizing his ability and Warhop for getting it out of him.
I like the Cisco pick. It's been a while since we've had a S who can come up with the INT.
He has no information on him since one game in 2019. That's hardly enough to judge a guy on. An informed decision has to have evidence behind it and there hasn't been a shred of evidence since that time. What has he done since then? Has he improved? Has he regressed? There is simply no way of knowing until he faces real competition in a real game. We might as well of thrown a dart at a bunch of names with this pick. It would've made just as much sense. You cannot rationally select a guy based on what he did in one full season 2 years ago. That's nuts! Even if he does supplant one of the OT's (
which I desperately hope he does,) I will not credit the front office for it, because it will be based on luck, not research. There is nothing to research since 2019. I'm not indicting the player, I'm condemning the process in which this selection was made.
You mean you haven't seen him since 2019. Lots of trainers and coaches and teams have seen him since 2019 and their praise has been pretty effusive.
(05-01-2021, 10:34 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]You mean you haven't seen him since 2019. Lots of trainers and coaches and teams have seen him since 2019 and their praise has been pretty effusive.
They haven't seen him in a game though. That is the only way to scout a player
accurately. Lots of guys can run around in gym shorts and look like they can play football, but that doesn't mean they can. Trainers and coaches are merely guessing that he will play like he did in 2018, because he hasn't even played an entire game since then. This is not a hard concept.
(05-01-2021, 10:39 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:34 AM)Upper Wrote: [ -> ]You mean you haven't seen him since 2019. Lots of trainers and coaches and teams have seen him since 2019 and their praise has been pretty effusive.
They haven't seen him in a game though. That is the only way to scout a player accurately. Lots of guys can run around in gym shorts and look like they can play football, but that doesn't mean they can. Trainers and coaches are merely guessing that he will play like he did in 2018, because he hasn't even played an entire game since then. This is not a hard concept.
You had problem putting Sewell to the Bengals at 5 though who didn't play a game last year
(05-01-2021, 10:30 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]While I wasn't enthusiastic about the Campbell pick, I wasn't necessarily ANTI Campbell. I wanted Teven Jenkins there, but adding speed and versatility to the secondary is not a bad thing. But I think that selection triggered a chain reaction, where everyone we discussed at 25 and 33 just about all came off the board after 33 and before 45. Barmore, Jenkins, Grant, Eichenberg and Moehrig all came off the board in front of usThe only guy remaining among those most frequently discussed was Friermuth, and very few wanted him at 45. I think once Moehrig came off the board, attention turned to T, and that's when Little came to be the target. Perhaps if their intent was to take Campbell at 33, they would have been advised to try to move up from 45. I think there was SOME basis by which to make an informed decision on Little. But the time away due to Covid just added more questions about his rehab and rust. I'm certainly not going to say there's no basis for concern, but based on what I've seen, he has some size and ability. A bigger question is can Warhop bring him up to speed, and if so, how quickly? I know you have no faith in Warhop. I'm not thrilled with him. But if Little ends up starting in his rookie year because he actually supplanted one of the incumbents and upgrades that position this year, then all would have to give credit to both Baalke for recognizing his ability and Warhop for getting it out of him.
I like the Cisco pick. It's been a while since we've had a S who can come up with the INT.
He has no information on him since one game in 2019. That's hardly enough to judge a guy on. An informed decision has to have evidence behind it and there hasn't been a shred of evidence since that time. What has he done since then? Has he improved? Has he regressed? There is simply no way of knowing until he faces real competition in a real game. We might as well of thrown a dart at a bunch of names with this pick. It would've made just as much sense. You cannot rationally select a guy based on what he did in one full season 2 years ago. That's nuts! Even if he does supplant one of the OT's (which I desperately hope he does,) I will not credit the front office for it, because it will be based on luck, not research. There is nothing to research since 2019.
My thing is it took me a minute tops to find game footage of him. I'm sure with their scouting and various contacts, they could have gotten more coaches footage and insight into him. There was SOME basis of information...but the Covid issue on top of that is what complicated things. Being generally risk averse, I share many of your concerns about a guy being out that long being a 2nd round pick. But I won't say there's zero basis for their decision. He has some good traits going for him. I think at the end of the day, a lot of your opinion amounts to holding his decision to sit out during Covid against him. Considering very few people knew the particulars of Covid, I can't blame people for sitting out. Heck, the PAC-12 and Big 10 didn't know if they were going to play, and many schools wound up playing truncated seasons. Were there no Covid and Little came out after 2019, how would you have felt about him then? Sewell sitting out didn't dissuade you from advocating the Bengals take him at 5.
(05-01-2021, 10:42 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:39 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]They haven't seen him in a game though. That is the only way to scout a player accurately. Lots of guys can run around in gym shorts and look like they can play football, but that doesn't mean they can. Trainers and coaches are merely guessing that he will play like he did in 2018, because he hasn't even played an entire game since then. This is not a hard concept.
You had problem putting Sewell to the Bengals at 5 though who didn't play a game last year
One season is
a lot different than 2 seasons and one was due to Covid and the other to injury and Covid.
(05-01-2021, 10:43 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:30 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]He has no information on him since one game in 2019. That's hardly enough to judge a guy on. An informed decision has to have evidence behind it and there hasn't been a shred of evidence since that time. What has he done since then? Has he improved? Has he regressed? There is simply no way of knowing until he faces real competition in a real game. We might as well of thrown a dart at a bunch of names with this pick. It would've made just as much sense. You cannot rationally select a guy based on what he did in one full season 2 years ago. That's nuts! Even if he does supplant one of the OT's (which I desperately hope he does,) I will not credit the front office for it, because it will be based on luck, not research. There is nothing to research since 2019.
My thing is it took me a minute tops to find game footage of him. I'm sure with their scouting and various contacts, they could have gotten more coaches footage and insight into him. There was SOME basis of information...but the Covid issue on top of that is what complicated things. Being generally risk averse, I share many of your concerns about a guy being out that long being a 2nd round pick. But I won't say there's zero basis for their decision. He has some good traits going for him. I think at the end of the day, a lot of your opinion amounts to holding his decision to sit out during Covid against him. Considering very few people knew the particulars of Covid, I can't blame people for sitting out. Heck, the PAC-12 and Big 10 didn't know if they were going to play, and many schools wound up playing truncated seasons. Were there no Covid and Little came out after 2019, how would you have felt about him then? Sewell sitting out didn't dissuade you from advocating the Bengals take him at 5.
If he wasn't coming off a serious, season ending injury the year before, I wouldn't care about him opting out last season. But we need to see how that knee holds up in real game situations. Sewell had no injury before he sat out. Little did. Sewell sat out 1 year, Little was out 2 years. Big difference. Huge difference.
D+ No cedit for easy pick TLaw, picks that took brains and guts were awful.
Lawrence = Easy A+
RB = F
CB = D-
OT = D+
S = B+
(05-01-2021, 10:49 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]D+ No cedit for easy pick TLaw, picks that took brains and guts were awful.
Lawrence = Easy A+
RB = F
CB = D-
OT = D+
S = B+
What was the problem with the Campbell pick?
(05-01-2021, 10:49 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]D+ No cedit for easy pick TLaw, picks that took brains and guts were awful.
Lawrence = Easy A+
RB = F
CB = D-
OT = D+
S = B+
That's a pretty severe grade for someone as talented as Etienne. Yeah perhaps mildly overdrafted and not a need but he's still a likely difference maker on offense.
(05-01-2021, 11:22 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 10:49 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]D+ No cedit for easy pick TLaw, picks that took brains and guts were awful.
Lawrence = Easy A+
RB = F
CB = D-
OT = D+
S = B+
That's a pretty severe grade for someone as talented as Etienne. Yeah perhaps mildly overdrafted and not a need but he's still a likely difference maker on offense.
Nothing to do with Etienne and everything to do with value.
(05-01-2021, 11:28 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 11:22 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]That's a pretty severe grade for someone as talented as Etienne. Yeah perhaps mildly overdrafted and not a need but he's still a likely difference maker on offense.
Nothing to do with Etienne and everything to do with value.
I guess, but an F? It's not like it's a reach that won't help the team.
(05-01-2021, 11:28 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 11:22 AM)MarleyJag Wrote: [ -> ]That's a pretty severe grade for someone as talented as Etienne. Yeah perhaps mildly overdrafted and not a need but he's still a likely difference maker on offense.
Nothing to do with Etienne and everything to do with value.
To clarify, do you not think he represented value because you believe RBs should not be taken in the first, or do you not think Etienne was not worth a first round pick? If you are saying it has nothing to do with Etienne, then I surmise it isn't the latter.
Or was Etienne less valuable to the Jaguars because he was not as much of a need as someone at another position?
(05-01-2021, 11:32 AM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ] (05-01-2021, 11:28 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing to do with Etienne and everything to do with value.
To clarify, do you not think he represented value because you believe RBs should not be taken in the first, or do you not think Etienne was not worth a first round pick? If you are saying it has nothing to do with Etienne, then I surmise it isn't the latter.
Or was Etienne less valuable to the Jaguars because he was not as much of a need as someone at another position?
Just my 2 cents. For the role I believe he will play, I don't see much of a difference between what Etienne will bring to the team and what guys like Michael Carter, Kenneth Gainwell, Trey Sermon, Chuba Hubbard or Jaret Patterson would've brought later in the draft. Therefore, a true position of need could've been filled by an elite player. Instead, by drafting RB so early, another need position will suffer.