2024 NFL Draft - five picks in the first three rounds (seven in four! [probably])

[ReasonablySober]

I watched both of these games already. I watched several games Jayden Daniels played in last year(along with Caleb, Maye, & McCarthy). Throwing over the middle is absolutely something he did alot less of then the other 3, and if it was just that that one thing alone I'd wash over it, every one of these guys has atleast 1 flaw. But it's the lack of throwing over the middle, it's his frame, it's the fact he didn't play this well until he was 23, it's the fact he essentially takes off right away to run if his first read isn't there, he had an extremely high pressure to sack rate despite playing behind one of the best offensive lines in college football. There are just so many areas that make me skeptical with Daniels compared to the other 3.

Read on Twitter

I mean, sorry dude. You're just wrong.

Not really. 58% is much lower than 63% & 64%. Plus I'll add again it's not only the middle of the field things, it's everything else I listed that you've for whatever reason decided to ignore

He throws the ball often over the middle and he's highly successful when doing it. As often as others? Not really, but again, look at the offense and look at the personell. He clearly spreads the ball around and moves off of targets regularly. He does pull the ball down and run, but that's because he was incredibly good at it, and LSU designed that into their offense.

If there's a criticism to be had about Daniels is he took a **** ton's worth of hits last season. He's going to have to slide more. That said, he's not small, and he's got a frame that could support 10-15 more lbs if needed.

[ReasonablySober]

Every criticism Daniels faces about age, transferring, offensive system, and players around him was something that Joe Burrow faced four years ago when he went #1 overall. He's been awesome in the NFL.

[Ron Swanson]

Daniels is legit. It's McCarthy and Drake Maye that I think are the hella overrated guys this year. They're the kind of guys that are gonna get GM's fired for picking them in the Top-5.

[MVP2110]

Read on Twitter

I mean, sorry dude. You're just wrong.

Not really. 58% is much lower than 63% & 64%. Plus I'll add again it's not only the middle of the field things, it's everything else I listed that you've for whatever reason decided to ignore

He throws the ball often over the middle and he's highly successful when doing it. As often as others? Not really, but again, look at the offense and look at the personell. He clearly spreads the ball around and moves off of targets regularly. He does pull the ball down and run, but that's because he was incredibly good at it, and LSU designed that into their offense.

If there's a criticism to be had about Daniels is he took a **** ton's worth of hits last season. He's going to have to slide more. That said, he's not small, and he's got a frame that could support 10-15 more lbs if needed.

"Tice also noted that Daniels did not utilize the middle of the field as a passer often. According to Telemetry Sports, Daniels was 23 of 35 for 505 yards, six touchdowns and one interception on throws in between the numbers from 11-20 yards downfield. That represents just 9.3 percent of his total attempts. The previous season, 11.8 percent of his pass attempts were thrown intermediate between the numbers, so this has been a trend."

"Daniels scrambled on 14.1 percent of dropbacks. The Athletic’s Nate Tice noted on his comprehensive scouting report on Daniels that since 2019, his scrambling rate ranks third among 196 qualifying quarterbacks."

https://theathletic.com/5314638/2024/03/05/drake-maye-vs-jayden-daniels-film-review?source=user-shared-article

On the Athletic Football Podcast this morning they were actually discussing the top QBs and Nate Tice brought up two stats for Daniels. When he gets knocked off his first read he scrambles 45% of the time whereas most QBs are in the 20 percent range so he looks to scramble about twice as often as the other top QBs and when he's pressured he only makes a pass attempt 50% of the time compared to about 66-70% for the other top QBs. His sack rate is also much higher than the other top QBs.

I know you love Daniels, but to me there are just way more things that make me skeptical then the other top guys, the main of which imo is the fact he didn't play this well until he was a 5th year senior with 2 first round WRs to throw too, his other 4 years he was a mediocre QB.

[ReasonablySober]

Did you forget that Daniels just came off of one of the most historic seasons in college football history? He threw ball where he did and scrambled as often as he did because he's awesome at it.

[MVP2110]

Did you forget that Daniels just came off of one of the most historic seasons in college football history? He threw ball where he did and scrambled as often as he did because he's awesome at it.

Daniels was absolutely awesome this year in college. But it's not lost on me he only did that after 4 years of being mediocre and with 2 1st round WRs to throw to. There have been a lot of college QBs who were awesome that didn't translate well to the NFL

[M-C-G]

Daniels is legit. It's McCarthy and Drake Maye that I think are the hella overrated guys this year. They're the kind of guys that are gonna get GM's fired for picking them in the Top-5.

McCarthy I get it, but I don't think Drake Maye is overrated at all. I would not be surprised at all if he is the best QB out of this class in 5 years.

But I also think it says a lot about how good of a QB (and WR) class this really is. Other than Caleb, I think the success of the next top guys will be completely tied to the situation they land in and if their offense is built around them or not.

If any of these guys go to a Arthur Smith led offense in Pittsburgh (and I know they have their guys already), they are going to look like busts. If you guy to somewhere like Minnesota with modern play calling and a ton of talent, they will probably look great. Just a really fun class, where almost all the guys are absolutely unique in their own way. Will be fun to see play out.

[Matches Malone]

Read on Twitter

[Profound23]

For the first time I have no clue who the QB busts will be, but I just hope it ends up being whoever Chicago and Minnesota draft.

[coolhandluke121]

OC? I'd hate to use anything but a day 3 pick on an offensive coordinator, especially since MLF already does a very good job calling plays IMO.

Seriously though, why wouldn't they just say C if he is a center? And why would they be labeling him a center when he's considered one of the more versatile OLs in the draft? I'm warming up to the idea of drafting him early, fwiw.

[M-C-G]

OC? I'd hate to use anything but a day 3 pick on an offensive coordinator, especially since MLF already does a very good job calling plays IMO.

Seriously though, why wouldn't they just say C if he is a center? And why would they be labeling him a center when he's considered one of the more versatile OLs in the draft? I'm warming up to the idea of drafting him early, fwiw.

My guess is that some of these guys that MAY be centers preferred to have their RAS scored against Centers. Smaller pool of results, so the really athletic ones shine more than if they just did OL or even up against the OG.

I wouldn't mind if we got went higher on a OC and tried pushing Myers to RG. I know Myers finished the year ok, but I do wonder if he is a below average center that might be an above average guard. Also possible he had nagging injuries again this year that held him back, but that is basically every year with him at this point.

[Matches Malone]

OC? I'd hate to use anything but a day 3 pick on an offensive coordinator, especially since MLF already does a very good job calling plays IMO.

Seriously though, why wouldn't they just say C if he is a center? And why would they be labeling him a center when he's considered one of the more versatile OLs in the draft? I'm warming up to the idea of drafting him early, fwiw.

I wouldn't get too caught up in with his position labeling. You can change it to guard or tackle, and it still shows elite traits at both spots. He's got great size and athleticism to meet Packer thresholds, is only 21 still and can be your starting guard day 1, while providing you swing tackle capabilities in a pinch and can possibly be your future center if they decide to move on from Myers next season.

[Matches Malone]

Sub 4.47 shuttle...

Read on Twitter

[ReasonablySober]

TBH, Barton's size scares me.

[MVP2110]

TBH, Barton's size scares me.

Why? He measured in at 6'5 311.

For reference Zach Tom is 6-4 304 & Elgton Jenkins is also 6'5 311(both per the Packers website). What size issue is there?

[Matches Malone]

Yeah, I'm not really getting the size complaint. He fits perfectly for what the Packers look for. His reach might be a bit smaller if you're projecting him on the outside fulltime, but even then, I don't think he's at a massive disadvantage with the way he can move laterally.

[jakecronus8]

I'm categorically against a first round o-lineman mainly because of the success Guter has had finding those gems in the mid rounds that are overlooked because of size. Most of the first round T's I see that "fall" to them are not the archetype they look for in a tackle size/movement wise and I am not interested in spending a first on an interior guy.


Re: Daniels
He is what would've happened to Russell Wilson had be been 6'1 or 6'2. I would have no issues with him being #1 on people's draft board overall.

[coolhandluke121]

I'm categorically against a first round o-lineman mainly because of the success Guter has had finding those gems in the mid rounds that are overlooked because of size.

I'm not convinced that this is a statistically significant trend, as opposed to just one of those little streaks that happens sometimes. Going into the 1997 draft, you would have looked at the Packers' recent history in the 3rd round and said they should stockpile as many 3rd-rounders as possible, and now we say the team has a 3rd-round curse.

And even if there is something to it, such as scouting acumen for OLs or ability to develop them, wouldn't drafting a blue chip OL higher imply that they see potential greatness in him? Why trust the team's judgment and coaching with mid-round OLs but not with first-rounders? If they can make day 2 or 3 picks good, wouldn't the same logic suggest that they can make a late first-round OL great? And it's a pretty big assumption to assume that there wasn't some luck involved to begin with. Several of their recent OL picks probably had a 25% chance of being solid starters, and a few more than expected beat the odds. I don't think that's a strong argument against drafting an OL who might have a 75%+ chance of being a very good starter though.

Also, if there's a systematic bias in terms of other teams under-valuing certain OLs, surely they've noticed just as you have and will try to correct it. I'd frankly be pretty happy if they take Barton at 25 after seeing those RAS numbers.

[stillgotgame]

TBH, Barton's size scares me.

Why? He measured in at 6'5 311.

For reference Zach Tom is 6-4 304 & Elgton Jenkins is also 6'5 311(both per the Packers website). What size issue is there?

Crazy how similar Barton is to Tom. Same 40, and within a 1/10 of a second on the agility drills. Sounds like a Packer lineman to me.

Read on Twitter

?s=46

[Treebeard]

I'm categorically against a first round o-lineman mainly because of the success Guter has had finding those gems in the mid rounds that are overlooked because of size.

I'm not convinced that this is a statistically significant trend, as opposed to just one of those little streaks that happens sometimes. Going into the 1997 draft, you would have looked at the Packers' recent history in the 3rd round and said they should stockpile as many 3rd-rounders as possible, and now we say the team has a 3rd-round curse.

And even if there is something to it, such as scouting acumen for OLs or ability to develop them, wouldn't drafting a blue chip OL higher imply that they see potential greatness in him? Why trust the team's judgment and coaching with mid-round OLs but not with first-rounders? If they can make day 2 or 3 picks good, wouldn't the same logic suggest that they can make a late first-round OL great? And it's a pretty big assumption to assume that there wasn't some luck involved to begin with. Several of their recent OL picks probably had a 25% chance of being solid starters, and a few more than expected beat the odds. I don't think that's a strong argument against drafting an OL who might have a 75%+ chance of being a very good starter though.

Also, if there's a systematic bias in terms of other teams under-valuing certain OLs, surely they've noticed just as you have and will try to correct it. I'd frankly be pretty happy if they take Barton at 25 after seeing those RAS numbers.

There's the usual possibility of a QB & WR at the top of the first, and solid potential for a bunch of defenders and OTs to go after that. By the time the Packers pick(if they stay at #25) comes along, Barton may legitimately be the top BPA on the Pack's target list.

If not Barton, I wouldn't bitch if they used one, maybe two of the day two picks for OLine guys, especially versatile ones.

Given the expected state of play for the team, they'd better have acquired an O-Line help that can be ready to play significant downs as the season goes on and the inevitable accumulation of injuries takes the starters off the field. To expect a developmental lineman to fill that demanding role is risky, regardless of past draft history.