2019 Draft Ranking for Positions

[chiefforlife]

Not a good year to try for a CB1 or Safety. Makes DJLN's pick of a center sound even better...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...est-to-weakest

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Still no.

Now if I were looking at a board with Lindstrom as the top of the position on the IOL and somehow my BPA, I'd probably do it.

But I think we're poopooing the responsibilities of a C a bit here. That's a toooouuuuugh position to play, especially in this system and with a young QB under center witha chance to build a half-decade or more of rapport there, I don't see C as any 'worse' a position to take as just about anything being suggested in the alternative.

It's just a less sexy one.

I have no problem taking a center there. I've covered for you on that in the mock thread and this is the thanks I get? ****.

It would depend to me on if they have guys rated similarly. If they truly believe the end of the first is gonna be similar to the back of the 2nd in terms of who they can get, go trade that pick for Clowney or Ramsey and sign them.

It's a way to get blue chippers which you need (unless your New England and we ain't New England)

[BryanBusby]

Bradbury is the top Center, but hell Jenkins and McCoy are right there with him.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

But wouldn't you rather have the guy you have actually rated as the top of said supposed run of say, corners? Unless you have them all rated that similarly and if you do that, aren't you doing something wrong?

If I only had 1 pick, sure.

But if I have 2 picks, one of which I can then allocate elsewhere to a position with a starker drop-off and no similar depth, I'll use that pick on the more extreme tier and be comfortable that I can still get something awfully close to my preference with the other pick.

Because one thing you're forgetting is that deep tiers yield erratic rankings. My top of that tier may be the bottom for most other teams (and an irrelevant consideration for still others).

And that's how a Chris Jones happens.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

If I only had 1 pick, sure.

But if I have 2 picks, one of which I can then allocate elsewhere to a position with a starker drop-off and no similar depth, I'll use that pick on the more extreme tier and be comfortable that I can still get something awfully close to my preference with the other pick.

Because one thing you're forgetting is that deep tiers yield erratic rankings. My top of that tier may be the bottom for most other teams (and an irrelevant consideration for still others).

And that's how a Chris Jones happens.

So you're talking about the 2 2nd rounders? ok, i'm on board now.

What youre saying is if there are say 3 CB's you love and you're up at 61, take another position you love because you know one will be there at 63.

Ok, I got it. I'm not dumb.

[chiefforlife]

You guys are great and I appreciate these conversations.

I dont watch college ball so I have to learn the entire draft from February to April. Thanks for the help.

Chiefs will pick someone none of us expect, like usual.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

Bradbury is the top Center, but hell Jenkins and McCoy are right there with him.

I thought that at first blush but I think Bradbury has a level of athleticism that the other two don't have. And it comes out in his raw strength.

His feet absolutely blow McCoy out of the water and is a little better than Jenkins. And to combine that with exceptional raw strength - I think y'all are really underselling him. That's a combination of crazy strong and incredibly athletic that you just don't see very often.

He may not be seen as a consensus 1st rounder right now but I think A) there's a better than 50/50 chance he's not there for us when we pick and B) a better than 50/50 chance that we take him if he is.

I do think there's a much bigger gap between Bradbury and McCoy/Jenkins than you're suggesting. Hell, you can throw McGovern in that group and not see a noticeable dropoff, IMO. Michael Jordan may have a higher ceiling than all 3 of them. But Bradbury has the highest ceiling of all of them AND the highest floor. He's unquestionably the top of the IOL class, IMO. And as I looked into it more and more, I decided it probably isn't even very close.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I thought that at first blush but I think Bradbury has a level of athleticism that the other two don't have. And it comes out in his raw strength.

His feet absolutely blow McCoy out of the water and is a little better than Jenkins. And to combine that with exceptional raw strength - I think y'all are really underselling him. That's a combination of crazy strong and incredibly athletic that you just don't see very often.

He may not be seen as a consensus 1st rounder right now but I think A) there's a better than 50/50 chance he's not there for us when we pick and B) a better than 50/50 chance that we take him if he is.

I do think there's a much bigger gap between Bradbury and McCoy/Jenkins than you're suggesting. Hell, you can throw McGovern in that group of 3 and not see a noticable dropoff, IMO. Michael Jordan may have a higher ceiling than all 3 of them. But Bradbury has the highest ceiling of all of them AND the highest floor. He's unquestionably the top of the IOL class, IMO. And as I looked into it more and more, I decided it probably isn't even very close.

It was more of a general statement that you can take either of those guys, plug them in and you have a 10 year starter.

[chiefforlife]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I thought that at first blush but I think Bradbury has a level of athleticism that the other two don't have. And it comes out in his raw strength.

His feet absolutely blow McCoy out of the water and is a little better than Jenkins. And to combine that with exceptional raw strength - I think y'all are really underselling him. That's a combination of crazy strong and incredibly athletic that you just don't see very often.

He may not be seen as a consensus 1st rounder right now but I think A) there's a better than 50/50 chance he's not there for us when we pick and B) a better than 50/50 chance that we take him if he is.

I do think there's a much bigger gap between Bradbury and McCoy/Jenkins than you're suggesting. Hell, you can throw McGovern in that group of 3 and not see a noticable dropoff, IMO. Michael Jordan may have a higher ceiling than all 3 of them. But Bradbury has the highest ceiling of all of them AND the highest floor. He's unquestionably the top of the IOL class, IMO. And as I looked into it more and more, I decided it probably isn't even very close.

SOLD!!

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

So you're talking about the 2 2nd rounders? ok, i'm on board now.

What youre saying is if there are say 3 CB's you love and you're up at 61, take another position you love because you know one will be there at 63.

Ok, I got it. I'm not dumb.

Nope, I'm gambling more heavily than that.

I'm saying that if I'm at 29 and there are 6 guys that I think are all within the ballpark, I don't want to take 1a at 29 only to see 1e go off the board at 59. I've gotten so little heavy lifting out of my additional 30 spots of draft capital and I've done no...is 'arbitrage' the right word here? I think it is.

I'm gonna gamble. I'm gonna take the risk that there are enough fungible assets between 29 and 61 that while 1e may not be quite as good as 1a, there's a chance he'll still be there due to board irregularities and even if he isn't, the difference in value from 1e to 1a is less than the difference in value between the guy I took at 29 and his 'replacement' further down.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

It was more of a general statement that you can take either of those guys, plug them in and you have a 10 year starter.

I think you can, but more of a Casey Weigman type of 10 year starter. Solid but not amazing.

I mean maybe a Billy Price type? Pat Elflein if you're unlucky. But if you're looking to get a Travis Frederick or, I dunno, Alex Mack? You're looking at Bradbury. His ceiling is well beyond theirs and I think his bust potential is nothing near theirs.

Argue that the Cowboys haven't won shit with a C who's arguably destined for the HoF if you'd like - it's not a completely unfair argument to make. But I think Bradbury has the ability to be something similar and I don't think there's much of an argument to make that Frederick isn't the best C in football. He has been for pretty much his entire NFL career. That's the blueprint for this pick. The potential is there for it to work out that well.

[BryanBusby]

I've seen great tape from all 3. Heck, I wouldn't be worried at all if I were KC and landed one of the top 5 options. But I also.am not dying to find an elite guy. Be a aolid guy in all aspects is good enough for me.

I have a really hard time buying into taking IOL Day 1 generally though.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think you can, but more of a Casey Weigman type of 10 year starter. Solid but not amazing.

I mean maybe a Billy Price type? Pat Elflein if you're unlucky. But if you're looking to get a Travis Frederick or, I dunno, Alex Mack? You're looking at Bradbury. His ceiling is well beyond theirs and I think his bust potential is nothing near theirs.

Argue that the Cowboys haven't won shit with a C who's arguably destined for the HoF if you'd like - it's not a completely unfair argument to make. But I think Bradbury has the ability to be something similar and I don't think there's much of an argument to make that Frederick isn't the best C in football. He has been for pretty much his entire NFL career. That's the blueprint for this pick. The potential is there for it to work out that well.

That was who I was kind of envisioning if that's the route they go. Really, Frederick isn't the reason they haven't won (I'd say taking a Rb at #4 overall would be a bigger reason but that's another argument) anything and he's a phenomenal talent. Sometimes we look at other teams and justify not taking x or y because they have the best and they haven't won.

It's hard as shit to win. Just give me as many blue chippers as you can. If I can come out of 29 with an all pro C, fine. I'll grit my teeth and do it.

I said it the other day but that would be a pick we'd all kind of bemoan and wine about but in 3 years when he's (ideally) the best C in the game, you'd love it.

It's not the route I hope they go, but if they did, I get it.

[chiefforlife]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

I've seen great tape from all 3. Heck, I wouldn't be worried at all if I were KC and landed one of the top 5 options. But I also.am not dying to find an elite guy. Be a aolid guy in all aspects is good enough for me.

I have a really hard time buying into taking IOL Day 1 generally though.

If its round 1 then I want a TOP guy.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by BryanBusby

I've seen great tape from all 3. Heck, I wouldn't be worried at all if I were KC and landed one of the top 5 options. But I also.am not dying to find an elite guy. Be a aolid guy in all aspects is good enough for me.

I have a really hard time buying into taking IOL Day 1 generally though.

In the past, i'd agree.

But with the quick game everyone runs now, interior pressure and DL is the new fad and some of these teams have frickin monsters in there. Not just space eaters but badasses.

I think it's kind of an undersold reason the Pats are always so good up front. For one, Brady takes shallow drops to give his tackles room to run people by and their interior OL is just damn good.

[BryanBusby]

Originally Posted by O.city

In the past, i'd agree.

But with the quick game everyone runs now, interior pressure and DL is the new fad and some of these teams have frickin monsters in there. Not just space eaters but badasses.

I think it's kind of an undersold reason the Pats are always so good up front. For one, Brady takes shallow drops to give his tackles room to run people by and their interior OL is just damn good.

That's more of a case for having a quality scouting department and OL coaching.