The Draft Network mock sim

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Man, if he's the 'top safety prospect' in this class for Miller, I don't see how he can have any safeties going in the 1st round.

He's just not a 1st round guy. He's just not good enough in coverage to justify that. I guess you could try to argue that his upside is Landon Collins but that seems like a maaaaajor reach.

He looks like a pure strong safety who's most comfortable in the box. That's not a 1st round talent these days IMO.

Oh I agree, I’m just pointing out that the majority are much higher on him than CP is.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I don’t see any way that happens.

Matt Miller has him #1 and just about everybody has him in their top 5 safeties.

It looks like the NFL College Advisory Board told him he'd be a 1st round pick.

The same group of people that told Mahomes he'd be a third rounder, FWIW.

And yeah, he's probably in the top 5 safeties. That doesn't make him a 1st rounder.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It looks like the NFL College Advisory Board told him he'd be a 1st round pick.

The same group of people that told Mahomes he'd be a third rounder, FWIW.

And yeah, he's probably in the top 5 safeties. That doesn't make him a 1st rounder.

I never called him one.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Depending on how he does at workouts, he could be a 2nd round pick. He could also drop to like the 4th. He's not anywhere near a first-rounder - who has him that high?

There's little separating him from Hooker in terms of 'pure prospect value' so if there's an argument for Hooker in the 2nd, there's an argument for Rapp.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

There's little separating him from Hooker in terms of 'pure prospect value' so if there's an argument for Hooker in the 2nd, there's an argument for Rapp.

For sure. Like I said, his workouts will end up determining that. As will Hooker's. Both of them are probably median 3rd round picks with 2nd round upside if they workout well.

[O.city]

I think Rapp is and could be a good player, I just don't know that he really has the athletic ceiling to be that high of a pick.

Now maybe i'm overrating what I'd like to have in the 2nd round or what the actual expectations of said player should be, but i'm gonna have to see how he tests before I took him that high.

[O.city]

Yeah, I think the value for those "big box safeties" are pretty much gone these days. They're essentially small linebackers that can cover.

As we saw last year with DOD, those aren't the most difficult thing to find.

If i'm taking a safety that high, i'm looking for one that can cover and make plays on the ball first.

[O.city]

I will say that if you get a nice solid safety there, i'd take him in the 2nd.

It would be a bit like the Morse pick was a few years ago for me. Kinda "what the ****" when they took him then he ends up being a nice solid player.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

I will say that if you get a nice solid safety there, i'd take him in the 2nd.

It would be a bit like the Morse pick was a few years ago for me. Kinda "what the ****" when they took him then he ends up being a nice solid player.

Sure, but there's a lot of 'if' there.

It would be like taking a road grader of a guard with that pick.

Sure, 5 years ago you take a solid starting guard who's excellent in the running game but has limitations in space with a 2nd and consider it a win if he's a solid every down player for 4 years.

But now I think the priorities are reversed there and if you're gonna lean on a single strength, it can't be the ground game in the 2nd round.

You just have to be a lot more comfortable with his range than I am there. To my eyes, the guy you're describing that I'd be annoyed about in real time but likely ultimately accepting of would be Hooker.

If he turns into a 'solid player' he'll be a solid coverage safety with some deficiencies in the box. Okay, it's not perfect but with a late 2nd it's good enough.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Sure, but there's a lot of 'if' there.

It would be like taking a road grader of a guard with that pick.

Sure, 5 years ago you take a solid starting guard who's excellent in the running game but has limitations in space with a 2nd and consider it a win if he's a solid every down player for 4 years.

But now I think the priorities are reversed there and if you're gonna lean on a single strength, it can't be the ground game in the 2nd round.

You just have to be a lot more comfortable with his range than I am there. To my eyes, the guy you're describing that I'd be annoyed about in real time but likely ultimately accepting of would be Hooker.

If he turns into a 'solid player' he'll be a solid coverage safety with some deficiencies in the box. Okay, it's not perfect but with a late 2nd it's good enough.

Yeah, I think we've kinda had our fill of "box" safeties around here, but if you play them right they can really help.

Look at San Diego this year.

The problem is that at some point, you've gotta be able to do the other thing, whichever that is.

Like you, i'd prefer to have a guy that may have to come up and tackle everyonce in a while but is really good in the secondary than the alternative.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Yeah, I think we've kinda had our fill of "box" safeties around here, but if you play them right they can really help.

Look at San Diego this year.

The problem is that at some point, you've gotta be able to do the other thing, whichever that is.

Like you, i'd prefer to have a guy that may have to come up and tackle everyonce in a while but is really good in the secondary than the alternative.

Do we have Derwin James?

I could play strong safety alongside Derwin James.

Addae is a nice player, but he gets graded on a curve when the Chargers have a guy like James that can play single high OR get down in the box. He's what Berry was for the 7 or 8 games that Berry played over the course of his career where he was completely healthy.

And Berry covered for a lot of issues on the other side of him.

I just don't think your best safety can be a box safety type. That's what the Giants try to in building their secondary around Collins and I just don't think it works all that well for them. An elite rangy safety can do a lot to make up for the shortcomings of a very good box safety but I don't think there's nearly as strong an inverse relationship there. I don't think that knife cuts both ways.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Do we have Derwin James?

I could play strong safety alongside Derwin James.

Addae is a nice player, but he gets graded on a curve when the Chargers have a guy like James that can play single high OR get down in the box. He's what Berry was for the 7 or 8 games that Berry played over the course of his career where he was completely healthy.

And Berry covered for a lot of issues on the other side of him.

I just don't think your best safety can be a box safety type. That's what the Giants try to in building their secondary around Collins and I just don't think it works all that well for them. An elite rangy safety can do a lot to make up for the shortcomings of a very good box safety but I don't think there's nearly as strong an inverse relationship there. I don't think that knife cuts both ways.

They had Philips back there too, who I wouldn't be opposed to the Chiefs taking a look at.

Yeah, having that "HOF" type safety back there makes a big difference.

Which is why the Chiefs are about to sign Earl Thomas in a few weeks.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Sure, but there's a lot of 'if' there.

It would be like taking a road grader of a guard with that pick.

Sure, 5 years ago you take a solid starting guard who's excellent in the running game but has limitations in space with a 2nd and consider it a win if he's a solid every down player for 4 years.

But now I think the priorities are reversed there and if you're gonna lean on a single strength, it can't be the ground game in the 2nd round.

You just have to be a lot more comfortable with his range than I am there. To my eyes, the guy you're describing that I'd be annoyed about in real time but likely ultimately accepting of would be Hooker.

If he turns into a 'solid player' he'll be a solid coverage safety with some deficiencies in the box. Okay, it's not perfect but with a late 2nd it's good enough.

Hooker is a pretty good tackler, just not as tough at the point of attack as some of the other box guys. On the other hand, he can play just about anywhere in the defensive backfield in pass coverage and that versatility elevates him for me.

I want range in my safeties. That's why I want Adderley. After that, I'm not seeing much that really satisfies that. There's a lot of bigger hitters in this draft but not a lot of quality coverage guys, IMO.

[O.city]

Look around at the "big hitting safeties" and their records of health. You just can't really be that size, play that way, and stay healthy.

Being what, 6"1 ish, 215-225 and flying around hitting RB's, TE's and WR's, having to take on OL in the screen game. You just can't keep guys healthy that way. It's the same thing I think when people want big bruising RB's that will run over people. They're great for the 7 or 8 games their healthy, but you just can't play that way.

Give me the guys that can avoid getting hit, or the safeties that can tackle but don't make their living being hitters.