2018 NFL Draft

Even Rudolph cost them Bryant, who they then had to replace with Washington in the second round. Washington seems to do some of the things Bryant struggled with, like winning battles for contested balls, but he doesn't have the height or speed.

My complaint is that they drafted for the long term rather than for 2018. I don't think that is the right approach for a team that at least has an outside shot at a Super Bowl, an aging quarterback and a running back who is likely to be gone after this season.

Washington will have to help this season. I think Samuels will be useful as well. I'm guessing you will see him in the slot some and you will see some heavy formations with McDonald, Samuels and Nix all on the field together with Bell.

The defense, which is the biggest area of need, didn't get much help. Maybe Edmunds or Allen takes Gay's role as a dime defensive back, but I doubt either guy will start any time soon unless Burnett gets hurt or Davis falters. Burnett and Bostic were decent pick-ups as free agents, but they aren't going to turn that into even a competent defense. Their real hope is improvement from players already on the roster such as Dupree, Tuitt, Hargrave, Davis and Burns. They were all disappointments in 2017. There was talk of Dupree, Tuitt and Hargrave playing through injuries, so maybe they get healthy and step up, but that's far from a sure thing.

 

But the tactical and the technique interrelate. If a team is pushing receivers to the sideline aren't they playing man to man. If they are in a zone they are pushing the receivers to the middle of the filed where the DB's know they have help.

 

Ever since reading this in the draft pick list, I've been fascinated by the evolution of the 250th pick:

Finally got a minute to chase it down tonight. Apparently it went like this.
1) It was originally Philadelphia's pick. They sent it to Seattle, along with a fifth-rounder (No. 156), for offensive lineman Ryan Tobin
2) Seattle traded it to New England for defensive back Justin Coleman
3) New England traded it back to Seattle, along with No. 168, for defensive end Cassius March
4) Seattle traded it back again to the Eagles as part of the Michael Bennett trade. Wide receiver Marcus Johnson and the No. 156 pick -- which the teams had previously swapped -- also went to Seattle.
5) The Eagles, now with their original pick of No. 250, trade it again to the Patriots to move up 17 spots and take the rugby player.
6) The Patriots, with only six picks left before the end of the draft, have no one left to trade with. They use the pick on Florida State tight end Ryan Izzo.

So, if you're keeping score, the Patriots, Seahawks and Eagles each owned the 250th pick twice at some point and repeatedly traded it amongst themselves, eventually affecting more than a dozen players when you factor in a few other spinoff trades.

Going further down the rabbit hole, the 156th pick was also included in both of the Seattle-Philly trades. After getting it back, Seattle traded it and another seventh-rounder to Denver for the No. 149 pick.
The No. 149 pick had originally been Washington's, but was traded to Denver in the Su'a Cravens trade. Denver also traded the No. 109 pick as part of that trade, which it had gotten from the 49ers for running back Kapri Bibbs.
Near as I can tell, that's where the trade ends, but there is more.
The No. 233 pick that the Eagles used on the rugby player had been traded twice, from Arizona to Kansas City and then to New England. One of the picks the Patriots got in the last leg of that trade was No. 198, which it had acquired from the Rams in the Brandin Cooks trade.
The Rams also got the No. 136 pick in the Cooks trade, which they sent to Carolina for No. 147 and No. 197. No. 147 had already been traded three times by the time the Rams finally used it to take Virginia linebacker Micah Kaiser.

That's some Six Degrees of Separation/CSI: Draft shit right there. I bet if I had enough time I could connect every team and at least a third of the 256 players selected to the Eagles' rugby player.

 

Damn, Batman, you have waaaaaaaay too much time on your hands.

 

Impressive work.

 

Sadly, I never seem to have enough time.
I was really just intrigued and confused by how that No. 250 pick went through the same teams three times and then started trying to trace its origins through the various trade notes on the draft's Wiki page. Then, from there, it was a 30-minute rabbit hole of, "Wait, so THIS is tangentially connected too? And so is THIS? Wait, so this pick was traded for that pick after it was acquired in another trade!?"
Before long, it becomes fascinating to diagram how one late seventh-round pick was such a commodity as to be connected to a dozen or more trades. Like I said, that No. 147 pick was traded a couple of times as well so you could probably connect another dozen players to it. If I really had time it would be fun to see just how many picks and players you could run through from that chain before you hit a true dead end.
Or to really examine how valuable a commodity a seventh-round pick is. It looks like 21 of the 37 picks in the seventh round were traded at some point. Last year it was 22 out of 34. Might even be an interesting piece for some NFL writer to do, examining why those picks are traded so often.

 

Sort of. Tactics obviously inform technique, but I'm speaking more about how it's done.

People want to see it as this or that was a bad play call. But in truth, play-calls are kind of antiseptic. There are some defenses that fare worse against inside zone, power, counter, smash or four verts. But it's often hard to pick out.

But playing one's technique, plus talent, make the difference in a lot of individual battles, and those make a far bigger difference. When a player catches a 8 yard hitch (especially on 3rd and 7) that's about the CB playing well enough to close and recognizing what's happening vs. the receiver making a sharp enough break to come open. A linebacker having his feet under him might mean a sure tackle, which could mean the difference between 2nd and 9 and 2nd and 5 or 6, and that across a few plays can loom large.

(Also, for fun, a lot of folks like to talk "spying the quarterback" against runners, which is something that almost never happens and really isn't a great thing to do most of the time)

 

I only made it through about Page 20 of this thread, so perhaps it has been addressed, but given that the top four QBs never really separated themselves according to public reports, I really don't get why the Browns didn't take Barkley at No. 1, then take their choice of two of the remaining top 4 QBs at No. 4. It doesn't make much sense to me, but the Browns have a history of doing things right, so who am I to argue?

 

It's interesting reading various analyses of the draft. Some teams choices are "credited" to the GM, other to the coach. Gruden seems to have a lot of roster input for the Raiders - which I think is dangerous for a team when the coach has a 10 year contract. Granted, I figure he got input in the contract negotiations, but he can kill the franchise for 10 years with bad picks and the team is on the hook for his contract.

 

FWIW, the Browns got a pretty good RB at No. 35 with Nick Chubb. So maybe that was their plan, was to get their QB, fill a need with Ward, and then get somebody like that early in the second round.

 

Fair enough, but the Browns are the only ones who had Mayfield as the best player on their board, as near as I can tell. There's distinct chance he would have been on the board at No. 4.

 

I wonder how much difference there was in the grades the Browns assigned the top four quarterbacks. Because the Browns could have traded with the Bills for their draft picks and picked a quarterback at four. While it was clear the Jets were going to take a QB I don't think the Giants were going to. So the Bills would have had their chance at a QB (probably Mayfield anyway) and still gotten Ward at 12 with the Bills pick. Fitzpatrick was considered the top CB and he went at 11.

I also think that it is to bad Sashi Brown got fired, We can see the benefits of his strategy. In the long run it will not matter if the Browns went 0-16 or 3-13. They have a chance to get a lot better quickly. But it is very difficult to see the benefits of Hue Jackson as a coach.