2041 Draft Discussion

[IrishGuy65]

My 1st round review... We had three picks. Tried to move in to get a fourth but no luck.

So let's see if I am a master of the 39 rating or just dumb. I say I got top 10 talent with my 1.18 and 1.20 and good value with my 1.29.

I have some good o-line players but no stud. I needed a stud guard in the middle to help my running game. Camden Talley should provide that. There were some top o-line players in the draft - not sure where Talley stacks up against them but he should be close. Scouts had U.

At 1.20 we grabbed WLB Dustin Terry. He may move to SLB forcing Oates to MLB. Or I may go to a 3-4. Sometimes I just find these uber stud LBs outside of the top 10 and they force me to shift away from my usual 4-3. Terry might be that kind of guy. Scouts had VU.

I really needed a starting RB bad after trading Sisco away last season. So with the 1.29 I took Marcus Paniagua. In terms of running he does not look like a Sisco but he looks to be decent with upper crust pass catching ability. Scouts had him U.

Maybe I suck on the new setting, we'll see. Also my scouts are not the best. But I am slow to change my ways.

I had Talley rated just outside the top 20, maybe 22 or 23. But I reduce guys who don't have combines, because I like to verify bars with combine numbers where I can. He has great bars, so if he holds them he'll be really good.

Terry... As a WLB in a 3-4, he looks like a monster, with top notch PRS and PRT. But I don't put a premium on WLB like I used to, because they don't play every down. If you move him elsewhere in the dime, his coverage skills look weak. He is only, in my opinion, a pass rusher. While great for a 4-3 DE, not so great for a LB, and an LB picked in the first round should be able to play well on every down. He is only 213 pounds also, which I think may be a problem in the game. I think he should able to average 10 sacks a season at WLB in a 3-4. Any other use for him I think would be bad. This is why I don't think he's a top 20 guy.

Paniagua I didn't like much. The reason is like I said earlier, I like guys that I can equate bars with combines. His combines sucked really, really bad. Now, things are different with the '39' setting, so who knows? But I wouldn't pick him in the past because of the combine, and until I learn more about the '39' setting, I wouldn't pick him now. I had Turner, Lindsay, one other guy, and Reid with better bars. So he was 5th as far as bars, IMO.

Overall, I think Terry and Talley are definite contributors, if you move to a 3-4 defense and use Terry at WLB. Paniagua is bad to me until he proves otherwise, which he could possibly do.

[Guest]

I reserve any judgement on picks until after ex.2

Hahaha. So true.

[Guest]

Rob and IrishGuy: that is great discussion. Irish, I think one of us will learn something from my RB pick. I have been wrong before and have done absolutely 0 testing on the 39 setting. But for whatever reason I feel pretty confident about that pick.

Rob: I agree on the LBs, I just have a hard time passing up studs at any position. I wouldn't usually take a LB in the top 10 but when you throw me one at 1.20, I jump on it.

[IrishGuy65]

To compare, chuck, I'll say why I liked my players. A debate now with the '39' setting will be awesome.

1.10 Dan Rinaldi, CB. I think everyone agrees he is the top CB in this draft. He has the best bars of any CB in this draft, and very good 40 and agility combine, to help back up some of the bars. Plus is 14 bench is a cusp number. My worry is his INT bar, which is important to me, will not be too high. But I took a flyer on the '39' setting hoping the other stuff was enough to show he was a great player. I had him rated #13 overall... again mostly because of his low PD and sole combines.

1.14 ILB Jason Hopkins. He was my #3 ILB, behind obviously Gray and Johannsen. You don't see so many good ILBs in one draft, so I wanted to grab one while I had the chance. Hopkins was #14 overall for me. He has all the bars, although PRS and PD are a little lower than the rest. He can play both SILB and WILB, but he will play all downs wherever he ends up. To back up all the bars, his Sole and PD were the only ones that were average. Again, to me, this shows a connection strong enough for me to be happy to make the pick, especially with the average Sole and the worst bar being PD... seems very connected to me.

1.24 OLB Jack Longwell. I had him #11. The reason I had him ahead of Mozart is he has an affinity. Otherwise, I felt they were basically identical. His Run D and Play Diagnosis were his two worst bars. Everything else is very good or better. His 40 and PD were his only average combines, plus 2 red combines. Again, enough good bars AND good combines to warrant him being 'legitimate' to me.

Without the information we had in the past, I can only speculate that looking for the correlations between bars and combines, especially for top picks in the first and second rounds, are very important in deciding how legitimate a player is. I think good bars and bad combine can still be a good player now, from what I've read so far, and bad bars and good combines, as in the past, can still be a good player. But it isn't guaranteed. I think the closest thing to a guarantee, right now, is when everything matches up. Until we learn more, that's what I'll go by.

[IrishGuy65]

Rob and IrishGuy: that is great discussion. Irish, I think one of us will learn something from my RB pick. I have been wrong before and have done absolutely 0 testing on the 39 setting. But for whatever reason I feel pretty confident about that pick.

Rob: I agree on the LBs, I just have a hard time passing up studs at any position. I wouldn't usually take a LB in the top 10 but when you throw me one at 1.20, I jump on it.

Haha. I think BOTH of us will learn something from your RB pick. But that one player will be such a small sample size, we won't be able to take it too seriously. I'm seriously looking forward to getting more seasons in and learning more about the '39' setting.

[Guest]

RB Marcus Paniagua @ 1.29 - I really like Paniagua. I interviewed him and got back VU. I was hoping I could trade into the early 2nd to draft him. I hoped that he would still be there.

By the way, interesting side note here. I have seen people get different reads (like U or VU). In the past, you could think that one scout got it wrong. However, with the scout bar variation, I think it could be that both scouts got it right.

For example, last season in the USFL, I drafted a WR and had U on him. Others had O. I was a bit scared. It turned out that he did actually drop a bit for them but gain a bit for me. It is just that by my scout he started out at a lower rating.

Sorry for the rant, I just find stuff like that interesting.

[IrishGuy65]

I love the conversation. A lot to be learned here, and the more conversation, the more opportunity to learn.

[Aston]

Great stuff, guys. I'm going to have to pore over this in more detail later. That's a good note from chuck on how a player might legitimately be O for one scout, U for another. And I concur with Irish that when I'm looking for a (outside of volatility) guarantee, I have to see everything match up. That's grade/development, bars, combines.

If things start not matching up I see it as a risk, and try to qualify the kind of risk. I.e, "What are reasons these bars might hold anyway?" and "How credible is the idea that his bars jump?"

My understanding is the overall talent composition of a draft class is much the same. How many good players, how many average players, how many useless ones. It's just harder to pinpoint and there's more noise, possibly misdirection? in the signals.

[Guest]

I think it is important to note that the additional noise is only with the combines. As I understand it, the mechanics of the bars are the same.

I am postulating that it goes further than that and that the combine "factor" to the bars is still approximately the same. So if a guy has bad combines but good static bars, you still want to take a closer look.

[Delandis]

I think it is important to note that the additional noise is only with the combines. As I understand it, the mechanics of the bars are the same.



I am postulating that it goes further than that and that the combine "factor" to the bars is still approximately the same. So if a guy has bad combines but good static bars, you still want to take a closer look.

I thought I read in one of the threads you guys posted that "static bars" were less of a tell.

[irabowman]

I love RB Marcus Paniagua I was planning on trying to move up and get him with picks 2.14 & 2.15. In SP games I am hitting home runs with the 39 setting and bars like his 90% time. I don't even worry about the combines. My RBs with bars like that are hitting 68-82 most of the time. I will probley be kicking myself for drafting QB Clark & not RB Paniagua when all done and said.

[Matt]

Since NO is not signed up do they pick or do we wait? Just curious since I'm next.

[irabowman]

Since NO is not signed up do they pick or do we wait? Just curious since I'm next.

Timer ran out on them 16 mins ago making for a boring draft.

[Aston]

Teams that aren't signed up have 'autopick' checked. If it's not doing that right away, I'm not exactly sure why...

[IrishGuy65]

It was because, when I initially imported the files, I set the 2nd through 7th round to 0 time limit. After I went in and changed 2 and 3 to 1 hour, New Orleans was picked.

It was my fault, but it should be fixed now. We just need to set 4 through 7 to 30 minutes once the draft stops at 3.1