KDF's POST DRAFT GRADES (1 Viewer)

kennydfresh

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
2,845
Reaction score
1,921
Age
38
Offline
Sticky Post
Okay the draft is finally over and now we can focus on the release of the NFL schedule then training camp. BTW shout out to the Carolina Panthers and their A+ draft. And now on to the grades:

1. Payton Turner: C- Marcus Davenport 2.0, we drafted what i hate the most in any player..........POTENTIAL!! I am hoping I'm wrong about him, I actually spent some more time researching him some more today and I came up with the same conclusion, we could have had him in the late 2nd round.

2. Pete Werner: B- Scott Shanle 2.0, nothing wrong with this pick except we could have gotten him lower, he is smart, good tackler, and rarely out of position. Just don't expect anything more than average and you won't be disappointed. Not the sideline to sideline backer I wanted. But Meh. Average.

3. Paulson Adebo: B+ I love the pick. Good but not great speed for a CB, enough twitch in his hips for the position, and a ballhawk. I knew the Saints were going to gift Kris Richard for coming over and now they have. Now finish this story off and go sign Richard Sherman.

4. Ian Book: C- Don't understand this pick one bit, but I can say this about every pick except Adebo. Not a fan of his arm strength, his balls float, and he has a tendency to just take off after going through his reads (something that he can teach Taysom Hill to do). If we drafted him with the intentions of him never starting and just holding a clipboard then B+ if we did expecting anything more shame on you.

5. Landon Young: B+ I like this pick alot. Some teams have a knack at drafting a certain position and getting it right everytime, when it comes to OL there is no one better than the Saints. This is a massive man that is not going to be asked to start or play right away and will get to learn from some of the best in the game. Awesome selection, Awesome pick. Go get'em big fella.

6. Kawaan Baker: C Meh. TQS 2.0, this a recurring theme. Ran a nice 40 at 4.43, when i watched his tape, I guessed 4.44. He played against subpar competition and put up subpar numbers......soooooo....Dollar store version TQS. I would have rather we drafted the Guard from Grambling. He is no threat to any WR currently on the roster, he is just TQS replacement when he leaves next offseason.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,094
Reaction score
22,353
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
What I said: that Rankins contributed early.

Okay. But the end result for the team on the field is the same regardless of when each player was taken. The only difference is the rhetoric around the picks.
 

gregg2g

Rookie
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
235
Reaction score
413
Age
42
Offline
Unless Rankins contributed early and was set back by the injury bug, while Onye panned

Unless Rankins contributed early and was set back bt the injury bug, while Onye took his time and finally panned out in the best possible way for a project player. See, this is exactly where you want to draft immediate starters and projects: 1st, and 4th
So, are you saying that Rankins was the better draft pick? Or are you saying that you draft 1st round traffic only for the following year and not long term overall success?

Teams have plans for players. Not all players drafted in the first round are penciled in as immediate starters. Personally, I think planing for the future is smart. Sometimes taking a player for immediate returns is smart. It all depends on what the plan is for the team, what's available in the draft, and many other factors. Again, when the Packers drafted Rodgers, it wasn't the plan for him to start immediately and that has worked out fairly well for them.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,094
Reaction score
22,353
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Again, when the Packers drafted Rodgers, it wasn't the plan for him to start immediately and that has worked out fairly well for them.

Yeah, right up until they drafted another young QB to groom behind a future Hall of Fame QB. :)

Seriously, I agree that not all picks are for the present and just because a first round pick takes awhile to develop it doesn't make it a bad pick. As long as they do develop, it's fine. And, you can't force a pick to be an immediate contributor if your scouting doesn't have a guy that can do that available and graded in the spot where you are picking. All a team can do is scout players, stack their board, and trust in their grading when they pick. A team is only reaching if they have a player rated as a later round player on THEIR board and they reach because it is a position of need. And that's a bad idea.
 

gregg2g

Rookie
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
235
Reaction score
413
Age
42
Offline
Yeah, right up until they drafted another young QB to groom behind a future Hall of Fame QB. :)

Seriously, I agree that not all picks are for the present and just because a first round pick takes awhile to develop it doesn't make it a bad pick. As long as they do develop, it's fine. And, you can't force a pick to be an immediate contributor if your scouting doesn't have a guy that can do that available and graded in the spot where you are picking. All a team can do is scout players, stack their board, and trust in their grading when they pick. A team is only reaching if they have a player rated as a later round player on THEIR board and they reach because it is a position of need. And that's a bad idea.
True, the fault in their plan was not drafting a wr in the second round or signing a good free agent wide out. I think if they would have, they would be in a different situation they are now. It's absolutely crazy to not work with your hall of fame qb who is capable of winning the MVP.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,094
Reaction score
22,353
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
True, the fault in their plan was not drafting a wr in the second round or signing a good free agent wide out. I think if they would have, they would be in a different situation they are now. It's absolutely crazy to not work with your hall of fame qb who is capable of winning the MVP.

That didn't help, but I think the first mistake was not talking to Rodgers before they drafted Love. I think had they told him that the plan was to groom him until he was ready to retire and, if he decided to stay past Love's contract, to trade him to get picks to help the team, he would have been okay with the plan.
 
OP

kennydfresh

ALL-MADDEN TEAM
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
2,845
Reaction score
1,921
Age
38
Offline
So I watched NFL Live today and Mel Kiper was on to grade our draft and he gave us a C+ which is right where I have us. He and Marcus Spears mentioned the Peyton Turner pick and how there were better prospects on the board at the time of the pick. The way they sounded it was like how most of us felt, that the draft was lackluster.
 

sfidc3

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
4,843
Online
So I watched NFL Live today and Mel Kiper was on to grade our draft and he gave us a C+ which is right where I have us. He and Marcus Spears mentioned the Peyton Turner pick and how there were better prospects on the board at the time of the pick. The way they sounded it was like how most of us felt, that the draft was lackluster.

I suddenly feel so much better about our draft now....Thanks
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
536
Reaction score
744
Location
Rome, Italy
Offline
Okay. But the end result for the team on the field is the same regardless of when each player was taken. The only difference is the rhetoric around the picks.
No. Because Onye sat for almost three years I believe. That’s three years of value wasted. If not for the injuries, Rankins’ value would have been head and shoulders above. Nothing to do with rethoric
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
536
Reaction score
744
Location
Rome, Italy
Offline
So, are you saying that Rankins was the better draft pick? Or are you saying that you draft 1st round traffic only for the following year and not long term overall success?

Teams have plans for players. Not all players drafted in the first round are penciled in as immediate starters. Personally, I think planing for the future is smart. Sometimes taking a player for immediate returns is smart. It all depends on what the plan is for the team, what's available in the draft, and many other factors. Again, when the Packers drafted Rodgers, it wasn't the plan for him to start immediately and that has worked out fairly well for them.
Rankins was the better draft pick. He had an outstanding 2018. His three injuries were not predictable. Now I guess that if Onyemata plays well another couple of years, he will become the best pick; but at the moment they drafted them, there’s no doubt that Rankins was a first, and Onyemata a fourth
 

gregg2g

Rookie
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
235
Reaction score
413
Age
42
Offline
Rankins was the better draft pick. He had an outstanding 2018. His three injuries were not predictable. Now I guess that if Onyemata plays well another couple of years, he will become the best pick; but at the moment they drafted them, there’s no doubt that Rankins was a first, and Onyemata a fourth
You might want to go look back at both of their career stats. Based on value and performance Onyemata was the better draft pick. Not saying that Rankins should not have been a first, he should have been. Not saying that Onyemata should not have been a 4th, he should have been. But so far, this 4th rounder was a better pick than the 1st rounder
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,094
Reaction score
22,353
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
No. Because Onye sat for almost three years I believe. That’s three years of value wasted. If not for the injuries, Rankins’ value would have been head and shoulders above. Nothing to do with rethoric

Onyemata has played in the rotation basically since he was drafted and played really well. That's how he earned the contract he got. Rankins has also played in the rotation since he was drafted. He looked on the verge of being great before he tore his achilles, but hasn't been the same since. The team clearly knew they could not sign both and they chose to sign Onyemata because he earned the contract and didn't have the injury issue that Rankins did.

Regardless, the point is that it doesn't really matter who was drafted in the 1st or who was drafted in the 4th. They have both played and contributed to the team and those contributions are there regardless of what "value" you assign to where they were drafted.
 

St. Widge

Socially Distant
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
38,094
Reaction score
22,353
Age
49
Location
4th Ward Soldier
Offline
Rankins was the better draft pick. He had an outstanding 2018. His three injuries were not predictable. Now I guess that if Onyemata plays well another couple of years, he will become the best pick; but at the moment they drafted them, there’s no doubt that Rankins was a first, and Onyemata a fourth
Getting a DT who starts and is part of the DT rotation for 5 years, but doesn't earn a second contract, is about the least you want from a fairly high draft pick. On the other hand, you are usually happy if a 4th round pick makes the team and contributes. Onyemata has played really well, started, been in the rotation, and earned a second contract. That's a lot more than you expect from most 4th round picks and makes it a much better value than the Rankins pick.

That is if the "value" of draft picks really means anything in the end. I mean, there is an opportunity cost if you draft a guy too high in that you could have taken a better player there and then taken him later, but that's hindsight. Frankly, Rankins was probably taken about where he should have been taken. Onyemata is great value for a 4th round pick because there probably aren't many other guys taken after him, if any, that have performed better.
 

sfidc3

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
4,843
Online
No. Because Onye sat for almost three years I believe. That’s three years of value wasted. If not for the injuries, Rankins’ value would have been head and shoulders above. Nothing to do with rethoric

You believe wrong....I mean it takes 2 seconds to google and find out he actually started in 6 games his 2nd year (and played in all of them). The last 2 years he has started every game. That is the exact opposite of value wasted....

I think he turned into what we thought Rankins would. And that is nothing against Rankins, the only problem he had here was he just wasn't on the field enough due to injuries....
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2019
Messages
536
Reaction score
744
Location
Rome, Italy
Offline
You might want to go look back at both of their career stats. Based on value and performance Onyemata was the better draft pick. Not saying that Rankins should not have been a first, he should have been. Not saying that Onyemata should not have been a 4th, he should have been. But so far, this 4th rounder was a better pick than the 1st rounder
You said it better. My point is, they were both drafted at the correct round, based on the information they had. The discussion was about Turner: I don’t know if he’s worth the first round or not (the FO knows way better), but he could be a bit of a reach based on the information we have. Maybe he will play out like Onyemata, Rankins, a bust or a hall of famer, this is not the point.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom