2018 Draft Recap/Grades

[bizarro]

I'd never draft a punter, personally.

Weird. I'd trade up. Say, in the 3rd round.

Ah, good ol' Mike. U71 til I die!

[bizarro]

Weird. I'd trade up. Say, in the 3rd round.

Ah, good ol' Mike. U71 til I die!

I guess I should add:

[ReasonablySober]

Look, I think that Saquon Barkley could have the impact that Kamara had. That's nice. They got some good players elsewhere.

I also don't really like this QB crop, so I can even understand not using a high pick on any of them.

Their top 2 picks were at 2 of the least important positions on the field even with the evolution of RB where Barkley should have 60+ catches.

What in the flying **** is so impressive about that?

"This is so special. The Giants are embracing the modern age with a dynamic RB that can make all sorts of plays in space and took the increasingly important guard position. Oh, by the way, new age football also means having a QB that can move a bit and/or put the ball in the air 40 times. The Giants will do that with, uhhh, Eli Manning for now and probably draft his replacement next year. Once that QB is drafted and develops, it'll be 2020 or 2021. Odell Beckham will be long gone and they'll be pondering whether or not they'll want to pay Saquon Barkley $15 million/year a few years after. Just fantastic work. If I could give an A+++ I would."

Barnwell had a really smart piece about why you really shouldn't be picking Barkley high.

Part of the value of the draft is selecting players who will make a fraction of their true market value over the course of their rookie contract. Take Carson Wentz, who played at an MVP level in his second season before suffering a torn ACL. If Wentz were an unrestricted free agent this offseason, the 25-year-old would have no trouble finding a contract that would pay him $30 million per year for the next three seasons.

Instead of giving Wentz $90 million, if you prorate Wentz's signing bonus, the Eagles will be responsible for a total of $15.7 million over the next two years before picking up the quarterback's fifth-year option, which will be somewhere in the range of $22.8 million. (They could even franchise Wentz for another year at $27.4 million or so, but let's stop there.)

There's no stat that translates player performance into money, but we can use the current quarterback market to estimate what a top-tier passer gets in free agency to illuminate just how much of a bargain Wentz has been and will be if he continues to play at a high level. The top of the market was worth $25 million in 2017, will be somewhere around $27.5 million in 2018 and should hit $30 million when Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan sign their new deals. If Wentz continues to play at a Pro Bowl level and is one of the five best quarterbacks in football, he'll save the Eagles more than $75 million

Unlike rookie quarterbacks, who don't come close to making what the most expensive players at their position earn, highly drafted running backs such as Ezekiel Elliott and Leonard Fournette enter the league as some of the highest-paid players at their position. Elliott would probably top LeSean McCoy and make more than $8 million per year if he became a free agent, but upper-echelon running backs aren't coming close to the $25 million to $30 million annual going rate for signal-callers.

Le'Veon Bell will end up resetting the running back market next offseason, but it probably would take an MVP-caliber season for the Steelers star to get something in excess of $15 million per year. That's what Mike Glennon got from the Bears in free agency last offseason. No veteran starting quarterback on a multiyear deal will have a lower average annual salary than Bell, and he might be the only running back in football making more than $8 million per season.

Enter Barkley. The draft's second overall pick is locked into a four-year deal for something in the range of $32 million this offseason, all of which is fully guaranteed at signing. Before taking an NFL snap, Barkley would have more guaranteed money than any other running back in the NFL. He'd be tied with McCoy for the largest annual average salary for any running back on a multiyear deal. His four-year cash -- the money he would be in line to pocket over the next four seasons -- would be third in the league behind that of McCoy and Devonta Freeman.

Let's run the same table for Barkley that we ran for Wentz and assume a similarly favorable outcome. Barkley's $32 million is guaranteed, and former NFL executive Joe Banner projects that the running back would be in line to make about $13 million for his fifth-year option in 2022. Let's assume that Barkley plays at a Pro Bowl-level for each of the five years of his rookie deal without getting injured. Let's also assume that the market value of top-tier running backs will rise over the next five years by $1 million per season, despite the fact that their price tag has come down over the past five seasons, as Warren Sharp pointed out.

[Balls2TheWalls]

Yep. Draft contract structure almost dictates that you pick a highly paid position in the first 4 picks or you will be incredibly overpaying the player. Saquon Barkley coming into the league with an 8M+ dollar contract is absolutely insane.

[BUCKnation]

I get the contract idea, but if you don't like the qb crop, you don't like it and may as well go BPA. They likely won't be this high next year, but they'll still probably be high enough to get someone they may like better.

[Balls2TheWalls]

I get the contract idea, but if you don't like the qb crop, you don't like it and may as well go BPA. They likely won't be this high next year, but they'll still probably be high enough to get someone they may like better.

If you don't like the QB crop, trade down. Not only is RB a dying position, but paying a running back who disappeared in games against teams like Indiana 8 million dollars a season is insane.

[Kerb Hohl]

I get the contract idea, but if you don't like the qb crop, you don't like it and may as well go BPA. They likely won't be this high next year, but they'll still probably be high enough to get someone they may like better.

This may be very simplistic from my side, but I'd have traded the pick if that's the case.

Maybe I'm underrating the hell out of Barkley, but you can find a pass-catching RB in the 4th round that gives you 80% of what Barkley does. Maybe I'm underrating his ability to be a runner, but so far, his weakness appears to be that he's not a great back between the tackles. He's going to break some big plays, but he had several sub-100 yard games running the ball against some weak competition because he tries to make too much of plays laterally.

Point being, there are a lot of positions like pass rusher, QB, maybe corner, where 80% of the best player at that position is way, way worse than the best player at that position. I'd rather just take the next James White later in the draft and throw him 60 bubble screens and dump off passes rather than pay Barkley a lot of money, use a high pick on him, and craft my offense around him that happens to have an aging, probably garbage QB. I do trust Schurmur to use him well and maybe they'll do something unorthodox at QB like go to Webb or swing a trade or sign someone next year, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

[BUCKnation]

I get the contract idea, but if you don't like the qb crop, you don't like it and may as well go BPA. They likely won't be this high next year, but they'll still probably be high enough to get someone they may like better.

If you don't like the QB crop, trade down. Not only is RB a dying position, but paying a running back who disappeared in games against teams like Indiana 8 million dollars a season is insane.

Maybe no one wanted to pay near a fair price for that pick. The Redskins had no top picks for like 3 years after trading for RG3.

[BUCKnation]

I get the contract idea, but if you don't like the qb crop, you don't like it and may as well go BPA. They likely won't be this high next year, but they'll still probably be high enough to get someone they may like better.

This may be very simplistic from my side, but I'd have traded the pick if that's the case.

Maybe I'm underrating the hell out of Barkley, but you can find a pass-catching RB in the 4th round that gives you 80% of what Barkley does. Maybe I'm underrating his ability to be a runner, but so far, his weakness appears to be that he's not a great back between the tackles. He's going to break some big plays, but he had several sub-100 yard games running the ball against some weak competition because he tries to make too much of plays laterally.

Point being, there are a lot of positions like pass rusher, QB, maybe corner, where 80% of the best player at that position is way, way worse than the best player at that position. I'd rather just take the next James White later in the draft and throw him 60 bubble screens and dump off passes rather than pay Barkley a lot of money, use a high pick on him, and craft my offense around him that happens to have an aging, probably garbage QB. I do trust Schurmur to use him well and maybe they'll do something unorthodox at QB like go to Webb or swing a trade or sign someone next year, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

I think from the Giants POV they haven't had a decent RB in years and they have one of the highest rated prospects in years sitting right there. They didn't like the QB's available, couldn't find a fair trade to move back (unless a team loved Darnold, there was no point in trading up) and they didn't rate Ward, Chubb and etc.

I do think he might struggle next year though. Their line is terrible and he wasnt overly impressive with a bad line last year even against bad comp.

[Balls2TheWalls]

https://overthecap.com/position/running-back/

He immediately becomes the #4 average contract per year at running back *in the league*. He better be an all-pro from day 1, or you made a mistake drafting him.

[Kerb Hohl]

I get the contract idea, but if you don't like the qb crop, you don't like it and may as well go BPA. They likely won't be this high next year, but they'll still probably be high enough to get someone they may like better.

This may be very simplistic from my side, but I'd have traded the pick if that's the case.

Maybe I'm underrating the hell out of Barkley, but you can find a pass-catching RB in the 4th round that gives you 80% of what Barkley does. Maybe I'm underrating his ability to be a runner, but so far, his weakness appears to be that he's not a great back between the tackles. He's going to break some big plays, but he had several sub-100 yard games running the ball against some weak competition because he tries to make too much of plays laterally.

Point being, there are a lot of positions like pass rusher, QB, maybe corner, where 80% of the best player at that position is way, way worse than the best player at that position. I'd rather just take the next James White later in the draft and throw him 60 bubble screens and dump off passes rather than pay Barkley a lot of money, use a high pick on him, and craft my offense around him that happens to have an aging, probably garbage QB. I do trust Schurmur to use him well and maybe they'll do something unorthodox at QB like go to Webb or swing a trade or sign someone next year, but it just doesn't make sense to me.

I think from the Giants POV they haven't had a decent RB in years and they have one of the highest rated prospects in years sitting right there. They didn't like the QB's available, couldn't find a fair trade to move back (unless a team loved Darnold, there was no point in trading up) and they didn't rate Ward, Chubb and etc.

I do think he might struggle next year though. Their line is terrible and he wasnt overly impressive with a bad line last year even against bad comp.

If the Packers hadn't had a good center in a decade, would you draft one #2 overall?

[Flames24Rulz]

If you would have told me that we would get Alexander and Jackson and a 2019 first round pick and that was it, I'd say it was a hell of a draft and worth trading all of our other picks to get back up in the first round and snag another CB of that quality.

And I wouldn't read too much in to punter and LS, I mean you had 10 day three picks (or whatever the number was) and a 53 man roster. If you are confident that is your starting punter and that is your long snapper for the next 5 years, they are worth a day three pick instead of adding a 4th WR or whatever. Now I will say if either of those guys gets cut, that is looking pretty damn stupid.

Also to note, I would not have drafted either position personally, but I just think it isn't a big deal.

That's exactly how I feel as well. With all of the draft picks that we had, I don't really have a problem using two of them on specialists. As sad and pathetic as it was, the long snapper position was a huge liability last year. If we've found our long snapper for the next 10 years, that was absolutely worth a mid-late round selection. I didn't think Vogel was bad last year, but obviously Gute doesn't seem like he's the long term answer there. Again, if you've found your punter for the foreseeable future in the late 5th round (three other teams took punters too), I have no problem whatsoever with that either.

Obviously we have to wait to see how these guys actually play once the season starts, but I thought for Gute's first draft, he did about as well of a job as possible.

[BUCKnation]

If the Packers hadn't had a good center in a decade, would you draft one #2 overall?

If there was a center rated that highly sure, but there wont be anytime soon. I'm not even the highest on Saquon, but I can easily see them picking him from their POV.

[BUCKnation]

I'm not mad in the least at taking a P there but I think in this case I would have rather taken a flyer on someone like Cichy.

[Balls2TheWalls]

The reason we drafted a punter was simple. Vogel was a bad holder. It is clear that Crosby did not want Vogel holding for him. The scouts and Gute would not come out and say it, but if you watch the exit interview from McCarthy on the Packers site -- he makes it no secret that the reason we drafted a punter was holding. If you draft a Vogel who doesn't make holding mistakes, then you made a good draft pick; even in the 5th round. By all accounts Scott is a generational talent at punter. He averages a hangtime that you simply don't see in college football. He punted in big games and, in those games, was touted as a weapon on special teams.

[M-C-G]

The reason we drafted a punter was simple. Vogel was a bad holder. It is clear that Crosby did not want Vogel holding for him. The scouts and Gute would not come out and say it, but if you watch the exit interview from McCarthy on the Packers site -- he makes it no secret that the reason we drafted a punter was holding. If you draft a Vogel who doesn't make holding mistakes, then you made a good draft pick; even in the 5th round. By all accounts Scott is a generational talent at punter. He averages a hangtime that you simply don't see in college football. He punted in big games and, in those games, was touted as a weapon on special teams.

Yeah, I can recall Crosby giving him the death stare after several missed FG. No idea if this guy will be better, but it had everything to do with holding.

[Kerb Hohl]

If the Packers hadn't had a good center in a decade, would you draft one #2 overall?

If there was a center rated that highly sure, but there wont be anytime soon. I'm not even the highest on Saquon, but I can easily see them picking him from their POV.

Should a RB ever be graded this high? Especially when his productive window likely is not going to overlap very much with your QB's window?

[M-C-G]

If the Packers hadn't had a good center in a decade, would you draft one #2 overall?

If there was a center rated that highly sure, but there wont be anytime soon. I'm not even the highest on Saquon, but I can easily see them picking him from their POV.

To take a guard or center at two, they would pretty much need to have a big red cape, a giant S on their chest and have been born on Krypton.

[Balls2TheWalls]

The reason we drafted a punter was simple. Vogel was a bad holder. It is clear that Crosby did not want Vogel holding for him. The scouts and Gute would not come out and say it, but if you watch the exit interview from McCarthy on the Packers site -- he makes it no secret that the reason we drafted a punter was holding. If you draft a Vogel who doesn't make holding mistakes, then you made a good draft pick; even in the 5th round. By all accounts Scott is a generational talent at punter. He averages a hangtime that you simply don't see in college football. He punted in big games and, in those games, was touted as a weapon on special teams.

Yeah, I can recall Crosby giving him the death stare after several missed FG. No idea if this guy will be better, but it had everything to do with holding.

Don't get me wrong. It is not *all* holding. JK Scott is a special leg talent at punter. It is the fact that being able to only do half of your job is a problem. The Packers want a punter that can do both. Vogel was a pro-bowl alternate for his leg strength, but I believe we muffed 6 snaps last year? The consistency of your setup in the field goal game is everything.

[Balls2TheWalls]

If the Packers hadn't had a good center in a decade, would you draft one #2 overall?

If there was a center rated that highly sure, but there wont be anytime soon. I'm not even the highest on Saquon, but I can easily see them picking him from their POV.

To take a guard or center at two, they would pretty much need to have a big red cape, a giant S on their chest and have been born on Krypton.

Nelson is the only interior lineman I would have been okay with drafting top 5 in the last decade.