Jump to content

Todd McShay releases his big board


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sewell at 2 no matter what 

or

Have you guys done the mock draft simulators? Unless you really like chalky white twinks, it’s pretty depressing, especially at 23 and 34. The move is to trade those picks for Watson or Wilson.

Posted Images

6 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

You can't get everything in one year. I know you're a Wilson guy. I respect that.

I'm not, though. 

And that being the case, I think Sewell and Chase are safe, excellent prospects that can have a huge impact on this offense.  

What offense? We have an offense? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

Yeah, lets use the #2 draft pick on ANOTHER franchise LT, but the bonus is this one is under the age of 23 and has both his knees in braces....

Exactly.....This team is not taking a RT at 2....it’s either QB,WR,CB or edge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Picking RT with # two is dumb. 

We'll get plenty of other shots at lineman with our 9 high picks in the next three years and in FA.

It's not like elite RT play is what's keeping us from winning.  It's lack of play makers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T0mShane said:

<McShay hands in his Top 100>

Editor: Todd, you literally just printed out WalterFootball dot com’s list and crossed out the URL.

McShay: Hello it is called research.

I laughed, but when I looked, walterfootball has Pitts 2, Chase 4 and Smith 5.  Parsons is 8 and Wilson 32.  Fields is 6 and Lance 14.  If I had to guess, you like that list much better.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

I laughed, but when I looked, walterfootball has Pitts 2, Chase 4 and Smith 5.  Parsons is 8 and Wilson 32.  Fields is 6 and Lance 14.  If I had to guess, you like that list much better.  

Walter Football still around?!

image.gif.29339fb74cf231519d49f8c4bbc8ce53.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

@Mogglez

Don't you dare try to low-key like this and not give any inside scoop on Jets + Ja Marr Chase ;)

I believe Chase or Pitts will be two names to watch verrrrry closely in the event of a trade down.

 

 

 

 

 

 

🤭

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, #27TheDominator said:

I laughed, but when I looked, walterfootball has Pitts 2, Chase 4 and Smith 5.  Parsons is 8 and Wilson 32.  Fields is 6 and Lance 14.  If I had to guess, you like that list much better.  

I’ve watched maybe eight quarters of NCAA football this year so I’m keeping my mouth shut on all these prospects 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 1:15 PM, sirlancemehlot said:

Sewell and Becton change this team, period.  We never sniffed the playoffs until we had that beast oline in front of sanchez.  Then it was 2 AFCCG.  Darnold is better than sanchez.

I think that’s overstated. Sewell doesn’t really change this team very much (over merely upgrading from Fant). Also, unfortunately it’s far, far from being any type of certainty that Darnold is better than Sanchez (a bust in his own right). He hasn’t shown it on the field, that’s for sure. 

Having the best OL does not require burning the #2 pick in the draft after we’ve already got a terrific young LT. That has been the recipe for success from zero SB winners. Not even sure any SB losers did that either. The only OL pick that justifies a need in the top half of round 1 is LT and the Jets have already done that. That line that protected Sanchez? Ferguson was the only top-25 pick. The guards were an UDFA and either a has-been Faneca followed by a 2nd-year 6th round pick who never even saw the field as a rookie. 

Sewell is massive overkill for what he’d add to the team compared to using that resource elsewhere (either at QB or by trading down). 

This team could use a RT upgrade, no doubt. Using the #2 overall pick to further such an easily-attained goal is absurd, no matter how much of a hardon anyone has for Sewell as a prospect. They’re infinitely better off making offers to trade its #23 or 34 pick for a proven elite veteran RT, and keep its #2 pick. Or just pay Trent Williams $15MM/year and keep all the picks. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wonderboy said:

What offense? We have an offense? 

..not yet  😟..we're a  " work in progress "  😉

 

 

cheers ~ ~ 

:beer:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

I've said before, I'm very happy with Chase at 2. Both scenarios are a home run. 

As for the left tackle v right tackle thing, I don't think the distinction matters as much anymore, except, of course, when they're getting paid. 

We'd have time to sort that out, though, and I don't think it's a bad allocation of resources to pay both tackles premium money. If you locked both up before they became free agents and paid them well, I'd have absolutely no problem with that. 

Left or Right, tackle is a premium position in this sport and clearly integral to winning (see KC or GB vs Tampa Bay). 

But to the larger point, I don't think you can go wrong with Chase @ 2 and the OT later or Sewell @ 2 and the WR later. I'm happy with either outcome.

The big mistake, IMO, is taking one of the quarterbacks not named Trevor Lawrence at the second pick. 

There are 5 RTs making more than $9MM/year. There are 32 teams; 16th-highest paid RT makes $4.5MM (about on par with TE). 

RT is not a premium position. LT is a premium position. 

A couple teams paid heavily for their RTs because they already had a cheaper LT locked up, and figured it’s a hedge (no different total tackle cost than the bulk of teams that have more expensive LTs and cheaper RTs).

One of the other non-Lawrence QBs may very well be a big mistake. But ultimately upgrading RT by using the #2 overall pick is a colossal waste of a premium resource to fill a non-premium position.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Greensleeves said:

Much of what you said I agree with, but Sewell is a left tackle and we have a left tackle for the next decade - you can't ignore that point. 

The point is fine, but the decade is a joke.  His contract runs through 2024 with a team option for 2025.  That's not a decade.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

There are 5 RTs making more than $9MM/year. There are 32 teams; 16th-highest paid RT makes $4.5MM (about on par with TE). 

RT is not a premium position. LT is a premium position. 

A couple teams paid heavily for their RTs because they already had a cheaper LT locked up, and figured it’s a hedge (no different total tackle cost than the bulk of teams that have more expensive LTs and cheaper RTs).

One of the other non-Lawrence QBs may very well be a big mistake. But ultimately upgrading RT by using the #2 overall pick is a colossal waste of a premium resource to fill a non-premium position.

That depends on if you think the right tackle market is being judged appropriately.

I think more and more as the game evolves, both tackles are extremely important. I think the distinction of Left v Right, other than in contractual terms, is dying.

Granted, we'd have to face that new contractual reality and pay both very well.

Thankfully we can think outside the box as we're largely building a team from scratch at this point.

It's certainly unconventional, but I don't think it's a bad reading of where the strategy of the game is presently/and is going in the future. Besides, we'd have a number of years to try it out, and when it comes to contract negotiation time three years from now, before either can leave, we'd be able to deal them to another team if the cost was prohibitive to keep both and the experiment failed. 

And in that scenario, trading a 25 year old tackle, we could very well recoup a day 1 pick, or at the very least, a premium day 2 pick. 

I'm still open to Chase or trading down, but I think having two premier tackles might just put us ahead of the curve, from a strategical roster building standpoint, for the first time in a long time. 

It's something seriously worth entertaining. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

That depends on if you think the right tackle market is being judged appropriately.

I think more and more as the game evolves, both tackles are extremely important. I think the distinction of Left v Right, other than in contractual terms, is dying.

Granted, we'd have to face that new contractual reality and pay both very well.

Thankfully we can think outside the box as we're largely building a team from scratch at this point.

It's certainly unconventional, but I don't think it's a bad reading of where the strategy of the game is presently/and is going in the future. Besides, we'd have a number of years to try it out, and when it comes to contract negotiation time three years from now, before either can leave, we'd be able to deal them to another team if the cost was prohibitive to keep both and the experiment failed. 

And in that scenario, trading a 25 year old tackle, we could very well recoup a day 1 pick, or at the very least, a premium day 2 pick. 

I'm still open to Chase or trading down, but I think having two premier tackles might just put us ahead of the curve, from a strategical roster building standpoint, for the first time in a long time. 

It's something seriously worth entertaining. 

I didn’t say RT was unimportant. I said it’s not a premium position, and it isn’t. It’s about on par with TE.

I don’t at all think it’s where the game is going, any more than those scolding me that drafting safeties as building blocks is where the game is going.

People are way overstressing the importance after seeing the Packers & Chiefs playing with their backup tackles against a talented defense playing to its talent level. 

I don’t think it’s worth entertaining. I think it’d waste resources better spent spreading it around the team. 

There’s only one scenario under which it’s a good idea, and that’s if it’s a foregone conclusion that they’d draft a bust in Sewell’s place. I’d rather have Sewell than a bust. But what I’d really rather have is a team building block they can’t very adequately fill with a later pick or via FA pretty much on demand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I didn’t say RT was unimportant. I said it’s not a premium position, and it isn’t. It’s about on par with TE.

I don’t at all think it’s where the game is going, any more than those scolding me that drafting safeties as building blocks is where the game is going.

People are way overstressing the importance after seeing the Packers & Chiefs playing with their backup tackles against a talented defense playing to its talent level. 

I don’t think it’s worth entertaining. I think it’d waste resources better spent spreading it around the team. 

There’s only one scenario under which it’s a good idea, and that’s if it’s a foregone conclusion that they’d draft a bust in Sewell’s place. I’d rather have Sewell than a bust. But what I’d really rather have is a team building block they can’t very adequately fill with a later pick or via FA pretty much on demand.

Respectfully, I disagree.

With the proliferation of the Wide Zone Shanahan offense, athletic, moving, mauling tackles are incredibly valuable.

The ability to run said wide zone concept, and in the screen game, with the flexibility of dominant tackles at the edge in each scenario could be a distinct strategic advantage. 

And if it's overkill or cost prohibitive, the likelihood of us being able to recoup a valuable pick for one of those tackles in a few years is exceedingly likely.

There are a ton of dominant receivers in this game picked outside the first round. There are great RB's to be had on day 3 every year. The only true pieces that generally require first round investment are QB's, Tackles, Edges and Corners. 

Right now, there are no edges or corners worth that pick. The argument should generally be about the QB prospects vs Sewell.

But when I look at the Browns, and how they play a Shanahan system and just invested a huge contract in Conklin and a top pick in Jedrick Wills, I feel like there's absolutely a case to be made that they're on to something and that we could do it even better with Becky and Sewell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

Respectfully, I disagree.

With the proliferation of the Wide Zone Shanahan offense, athletic, moving, mauling tackles are incredibly valuable.

The ability to run said wide zone concept, and in the screen game, with the flexibility of dominant tackles at the edge in each scenario could be a distinct strategic advantage. 

And if it's overkill or cost prohibitive, the likelihood of us being able to recoup a valuable pick for one of those tackles in a few years is exceedingly likely.

There are a ton of dominant receivers in this game picked outside the first round. There are great RB's to be had on day 3 every year. The only true pieces that generally require first round investment are QB's, Tackles, Edges and Corners. 

Right now, there are no edges or corners worth that pick. The argument should generally be about the QB prospects vs Sewell.

But when I look at the Browns, and how they play a Shanahan system and just invested a huge contract in Conklin and a top pick in Jedrick Wills, I feel like there's absolutely a case to be made that they're on to something and that we could do it even better with Becky and Sewell.

I don’t see a team (already with a good young LT) finding another tackle as such an insurmountable task that we have to burn the #2 pick in the country. RTs can be found every single season without anywhere near that investment. 

If we badly needed a LT? That’d be different. Very, very different. 

There isn’t a team in the league that’s needed a #2 overall pick RT the year after drafting a LT. If the system asks for that, then find another system. 

It’d be a tragedy along the lines of drafting a safety at #6 if the team filled its RT-upgrade need using the 2nd pick in the draft. Luckily it looks like there’s a very, very, very slim chance of it happening & Douglas (the guy drafting for that very system) will trade down before making such a selection. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m just glad we’re most likely going QB and Sewell never plays a snap for the Jets. Please don’t feed the Sewell trolls. An RT isn’t getting picked at 2. It’s flat out laughable to even suggest it. 0% chance 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People saying that picking another lineman at 2 is dumb....picking any player that's not a QB at 2 and not taking advantage of the Zach Wilson hype is dumb.  Trade back to 8, 9, or 12 pick up the extra draft capital and draft Waddle, Pitts, Slater, a CB, or whoever.  You don't give up 2 extra first rounders because you like Chase over Waddle or Sewell over Slater.  Under no circumstances should the Jets be picking a player that's not a QB at 2.  Plus I remember 90 percent of this board wanted Smith at 2 a month ago and was killing me for saying Chase and Waddle are better prospects...now everyone is in love with Chase and I can't find those Devonta Smith fans.  And if you don't take a playmaker with the first pick take Toney, Harris, or Etienne at 23 there's not 5 good players in the draft.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don’t see a team (already with a good young LT) finding another tackle as such an insurmountable task that we have to burn the #2 pick in the country. RTs can be found every single season without anywhere near that investment. 

If we badly needed a LT? That’d be different. Very, very different. 

There isn’t a team in the league that’s needed a #2 overall pick RT the year after drafting a LT. If the system asks for that, then find another system. 

It’d be a tragedy along the lines of drafting a safety at #6 if the team filled its RT-upgrade need using the 2nd pick in the draft. Luckily it looks like there’s a very, very, very slim chance of it happening & Douglas (the guy drafting for that very system) will trade down before making such a selection. 

I agree that finding a RT isn't an 'insurmountable task'.

Clearly it isn't.

But the idea is to have two, franchise tackle bookends that play at a dominant level. 

A better version of what the Browns have presently. 

For the record, the #2 would be the LT and the #11 last year would become the right, if that makes you feel better about positional value. 

I agree that it's not the most likely scenario and it is, to some degree, unconventional. But I think having mirror image super freak tackles at either side of a wide zone Shanahan scheme could be something special. And with four picks in the first two rounds over the next two years, no edge or corner worth the #2, and an array of 'get yourself excited about someone not named Trevor Lawrence' quarterback prospects, we most definitely do have the luxury to be unconventional. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

I agree that finding a RT isn't an 'insurmountable task'.

Clearly it isn't.

But the idea is to have two, franchise tackle bookends that play at a dominant level. 

A better version of what the Browns have presently. 

For the record, the #2 would be the LT and the #11 last year would become the right, if that makes you feel better about positional value. 

I agree that it's not the most likely scenario and it is, to some degree, unconventional. But I think having mirror image super freak tackles at either side of a wide zone Shanahan scheme could be something special. And with four picks in the first two rounds over the next two years, no edge or corner worth the #2, and an array of 'get yourself excited about someone not named Trevor Lawrence' quarterback prospects, we most definitely do have the luxury to be unconventional. 

Curious-Would you trade the 2nd overall pick for Tristan Wirfs? 
 

That way you can keep Becton at LT where he is most comfortable and Wirfs will continue to be an All Pro at RT. There is no certainty that Sewell is going to be better than Becton or Wirfs. He’s only played 18 collegiate games (in the Oregon offense). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, RedBeardedSavage said:

But the idea is to have two, franchise tackle bookends that play at a dominant level. 

 

And it's a BAD idea. 

If you could get Sewell with the #23 pick, different story.  But not with the #2 pick overall for a RT.

  • Thumb Down 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

And it's a BAD idea. 

If you could get Sewell with the #23 pick, different story.  But not with the #2 pick overall for a RT.

Becton would be the rt 

And before we call him Orlando brown, remember that Becton did not make it to pro bowl, missed 2 games for a chest cold and gave up 7 sacks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

And it's a BAD idea. 

If you could get Sewell with the #23 pick, different story.  But not with the #2 pick overall for a RT.

Respectfully disagree, Steve.

As @bitonti said, Becton is the right (at #11 overall in 2020) and Sewell is the Left.

Either way, I genuinely thinking have two freakish beast bookend tackles that fit the scheme would be incredible.

I still like Chase. I still entertain trade downs and will look at value.

But I don't think you can go wrong at all with Sewell. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mock Draft Date 1st pick 2nd pick 3rd pick 4th pick
Football Fan Spot 2/18 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Fields P. Sewell
CBS Sports - Wilson 2/17 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson P. Sewell M. Jones
Washington Post - Clayton 2/17 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase P. Sewell
CBS Sports - Trapasso 2/17 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase C. Farley
San Diego Union Tribune 2/17 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase J. Fields
CBS Sports - Edwards 2/17 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Fields T. Lance
CBS Sports - Prisco 2/17 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase P. Surtain
Walter Football 2/16 T. Lawrence J. Fields D. Smith Z. Wilson
NFL.com - Jeremiah 2/16 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase J. Fields
PFF - Gayle 2/15 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Fields T. Lance
Walter Football - Charlie 2/15 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase J. Fields
EDSFootball - Hanson 2/10 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase J. Fields
Yahoo Sports! - Edholm 2/9 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson D. Smith J. Fields
ESPN - McShay 2/9 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson T. Lance J. Fields
Maize n Brew 2/9 T. Lawrence J. Fields J. Chase Z. Wilson
Loaded Box Podcast - Ben 2/8 T. Lawrence J. Fields D. Smith Z. Wilson
PFF - Renner 2/8 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson P. Sewell J. Fields
NFL.com - Reuter 2/8 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson P. Sewell J. Fields
Bleacher Report - Sobleski 2/8 T. Lawrence P. Sewell J. Chase Z. Wilson
Bleeding Green Nation 2/7 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase T. Lance
Bleacher Report - Tansey 2/7 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson D. Smith M. Parsons
Sporting News - Iyer 2/6 T. Lawrence Z. Wilson J. Chase J. Fields

@LionelRichie Guess you could be right, but a lot of folks disagree

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 10:48 AM, GreekJet said:

For those of you who don’t pay extra for this brilliant analysis.

QBs

1.1 Lawrence

2.5 Wilson 

3.12 Lance

4.13 Fields 

His Top 5 players 

Lawrence, Chase, Sewell, Parsons, Wilson 

I certainly hope that is a sarcastic tone here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 11:18 AM, bitonti said:

Sewell at 2 no matter what 

I completely agree.  Face it folks, it is a two-player draft at the top.  While many have made good arguments on who they want, you have to go for the gold jacket guys when they are there.  That is Sewell. 

I would greatly prefer that we trade down, but only IF it is an on the card offer.  I believe that it is too expensive for other teams to consider.  #2 is just too high a cost for them. 

I believe we will pick Sewell if we cannot trade back for value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 5:41 PM, RedBeardedSavage said:

I've said before, I'm very happy with Chase at 2. Both scenarios are a home run. 

As for the left tackle v right tackle thing, I don't think the distinction matters as much anymore, except, of course, when they're getting paid. 

We'd have time to sort that out, though, and I don't think it's a bad allocation of resources to pay both tackles premium money. If you locked both up before they became free agents and paid them well, I'd have absolutely no problem with that. 

Left or Right, tackle is a premium position in this sport and clearly integral to winning (see KC or GB vs Tampa Bay). 

But to the larger point, I don't think you can go wrong with Chase @ 2 and the OT later or Sewell @ 2 and the WR later. I'm happy with either outcome.

The big mistake, IMO, is taking one of the quarterbacks not named Trevor Lawrence at the second pick. 

I too think it a nuts to reach for the QB at #2 with the franchise OT on the board.  When you suck, you must hit on your picks. 

While I love Chase and rank him 3d in this class, I must pick Sewell if I cannot trade back.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...