- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Consensus big board for NFL draft - updated
Posted on 4/9/24 at 8:27 am to Handsome Pete
Posted on 4/9/24 at 8:27 am to Handsome Pete
quote:
Instead of arguing about where a prospect is ranked, let nerds do the work!
This is interesting to look at, but the problem with these things--just mocks in general, but certainly a consensus of several--is that by the time the draft rolls around, every year fans (not us on ST, we are way above that
) convince/delude themselves that these accurately reflect the consensus of the actual teams' big boards. And they're just not. At least for confident organizations that have a clear vision for the traits they're looking for, their ability to identify them, and trust in their scouting departments' evaluations. And don't care about what post-draft grade they're given. Almost all fans wind up judging a draft simply based on the perceived value of each pick, with those perceptions being based solely on these mocks. How many spots lower can you get a guy than his ranking. That's it. You got the consensus #5 overall guy at 14? GREAT pick!! You took the consensus overall #28 at 14? Who plays the same position? HORRIBLE pick!! You should be fired!!! Despite the fact that, in that hypothetical, the team clearly had the #28 player ranked higher than the #5 one. I used the Saints and OTs (Alt from Notre Dame is at 5 and Guyton from OU is at 28) because it's easy to understand, and I recently saw a mock on YouTube (may have been a couple of PFF guys, but not 100% sure) and one of the guys didn't love Alt for some reason. He still had him as his #1 tackle, but there was something he didn't love about him, maybe him being 6'9" might be a detriment to blocking shorter, speed-rushing edges.
They didn't love Latham or Mims (didn't like how little football Mims played in college. Way too few snaps. Remember the correlation--that still exists, I believe--with the number of games QBs started in college and their overall NFL success that was talked up so much for a while? This was similar to that. Like there is a clear delineation of college snaps that correlate to NFL success. Provided they have the requisite physical traits. Which leads me to Fashanu from Penn State. I think they were concerned with his lateral movement in pass pro--said he got beat some laterally, but his arms were so long and he was so strong that he could overcome it by just stoning them as soon as he got his hands on them. But he may not have ideal traits for a zone blocking/rushing team. And the Saint may just not be able to get over his abnormally small hands (for a human, much less what you hope will be a Pro Bowl LT).
1
Posted on 4/9/24 at 8:58 am to Hot Carl
They both really seemed to like the Fautanu guy from Washington. (I'm not sure this was a true mock as much as them just talking about guys at certain positions, and these are not meant to reflect my personal takes at all btw). Thought he was probably the most versatile OL in the draft and the guy most guaranteed not to bust as an NFL OL, though not sure where he'd settle. They thought he could play tackle at "only" 6'4" and would be devastating in the run game. But that may be too short for some teams to take a tackle at 14. It probably would have been for the Saints before the new offensive staff was hired. Maybe they've adjusted the traits they're looking for.
But this dude is ranked consensus 18. How bad would this place freak out if the Saints took him at 14 if Fashanu (10), Fuaga (13), and Latham (16) were still there? Not that he would be a reach at 14, but that "we could have traded back to 18, gotten another pick, and STILL got him!!" Putting aside the fact that you need a trade partner, what if the Saints just really like Fautanu and have him ranked significantly higher than those other 3 and don't want to take that chance? If we love him that much, chances are some other team does too. Any fan who says "we could have traded back (however many spots) and still got "insert specific player" is a fricking moron. All it takes is 1.
You want to play the value game to a certain extent, of course--The Broncos should't take Michael Pratt at 12, no matter how much Sean may like him--but not at the expense of losing the right player. There's been a little buzz lately on the Yale tackle who's ranked 71 on here. What if the Saints have him ranked as the #1 tackle on their board, #12 overall, and he's BPA when we pick at 14? AND Alt is still there? But they like the Yale kid more. (What the frick with the names of all these tackles this year? Jesus Christ.).
Do they take Alt (cause he's the better perceived value and will get you a better grade from the draft experts and fanbase) and cross your fingers you were the only team to properly identify and evaluate him and he's still there at 45? Are you willing to take a player you like less higher because you know he won't be available when you pick again, but the player you actually like better might? You don't want to be reckless with pick value, but you also don't want to be reckless in thinking you know every other team's board. Because all it takes is 1.
But this dude is ranked consensus 18. How bad would this place freak out if the Saints took him at 14 if Fashanu (10), Fuaga (13), and Latham (16) were still there? Not that he would be a reach at 14, but that "we could have traded back to 18, gotten another pick, and STILL got him!!" Putting aside the fact that you need a trade partner, what if the Saints just really like Fautanu and have him ranked significantly higher than those other 3 and don't want to take that chance? If we love him that much, chances are some other team does too. Any fan who says "we could have traded back (however many spots) and still got "insert specific player" is a fricking moron. All it takes is 1.
You want to play the value game to a certain extent, of course--The Broncos should't take Michael Pratt at 12, no matter how much Sean may like him--but not at the expense of losing the right player. There's been a little buzz lately on the Yale tackle who's ranked 71 on here. What if the Saints have him ranked as the #1 tackle on their board, #12 overall, and he's BPA when we pick at 14? AND Alt is still there? But they like the Yale kid more. (What the frick with the names of all these tackles this year? Jesus Christ.).
Do they take Alt (cause he's the better perceived value and will get you a better grade from the draft experts and fanbase) and cross your fingers you were the only team to properly identify and evaluate him and he's still there at 45? Are you willing to take a player you like less higher because you know he won't be available when you pick again, but the player you actually like better might? You don't want to be reckless with pick value, but you also don't want to be reckless in thinking you know every other team's board. Because all it takes is 1.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News