Actually @Forge gave a pretty good breakdown on the particular injury that Simmons sustained and the prognosis historically. Kinda scared me off him. Or I wouldn’t have dropped back. I like Ersery, don’t love him. But he does use his size quite well. And he’s a nasty run blocker. The Chiefs did interview him. I tried to talk myself into other players. But it’s such a need position and I know they’re looking at him. So the war room justifies this pick after a slight trade down. What will we do with our extra 4th
Someone is going to take him, I believe. He had great injury reviews at the combine. He will be ready for the opening of training camp.
The rush on OL has been less frantic compared to the last mock. Turns out I didn’t need to trade up and still could’ve gotten my preferred LT option at 38 but he and Simmons are close so I wanted to diverge a bit from the last one this time. Simmons does have the highest ceiling if he’s healthy and seems more like the type Wolf would prefer. If he doesn’t go in the 1st, we’ll know the medicals scared teams off because he was shaping up to be OT1 otherwise.
"Great". I haven't been so selective. He's got some mixed prognosis. He may be ready by camp but the concerns are on how it will affect him going forward and potential for re-injury. If the medical teams think he isn't a major risk for re-injury he'll be considered in the 1st by those teams.
Saw this coming. If it wasn't you, I have a sneaking suspicion @BowserBroncos would have found a way to come up for him soon.
Hot response. He probably should. Got me thinking back to some questionable devy takes only 14 months ago how this RB group has sorted out. Teaching me not to reach too far ahead for devy RBs. Edit: This is more of an Ollie tweet than anything lol
Back to an earlier thought. I have really come around however on certain analytics. And I guess for better or worse I have to credit PFF. And the specific ones I'm talking about (Because I don't always side with in-game analytics/percentages), are the quantifiable metrics that when you're discussing a bottom 10 NFL roster, I just don't think you can justify an RB or TE inside the top 10. I just think a large enough data sample has amassed over the last 15 years (this is where I'm crediting PFF) that shows that even a selection as "good" as T.J. Hockenson did not add to the win column. And the secondary contract details are the other part of this discussion. Look at Saquon in N.Y. I mean you can try and argue "the team did this or that, wrong coach", whatever. But the results are just hard to dispute. You can't use Philly to dispute it, because they never picked that high to begin with. Atlanta took Bijan, and are they really that much better?? Picking 15 instead of 8 or 9. And by the time you build up the rest of the roster the wear and tear has begun, your OL is aging out, etc. It's a debate that's fun to have. And those of us with time could probably spend half a day trying to research examples to counter. In my opinion, it's one of the analytics I've bought into. I just don't think long-term it serves a franchise the best. And even I admit there are possibly exceptions. IF you could guarantee me the next prime Adrian Peterson, or Todd Gurley (I might have been his biggest fan fwiw), then fine. I guess follow up, is Jeanty that good?? Separate debate, still a debate.
I think Henderson probably goes #3 because of his diverse skill set but Hampton probably goes in the 1st before him.
Poor Ollie. I think this draft has helped me see that pass catching is what to target for devy RBs. Henderson, Jeanty, Hampton. Hold value if athletic and you can catch.
Another slightly less-hot take. I'm not as convinced Hampton goes in the 1st, even if he's the 2nd RB drafted. Now if I'm simply betting over-under, yeah he will. But again, positional value doesn't scream do it. In a strong draft year at the position with lots of later options. And lastly, I do like him. Just maybe not as much as consensus seems to. I would definitely need the right roster to do it.
I think it simplifies the issue way too much. If the Raiders draft Jeanty in the first and find the next Brock Purdy on Day 3, then they will be much better off and have taken a RB in the top ten. Outside of a QB, no individual pick will make you that much better in terms of record. It is an ecosystem of coaching, QB play, ownership, and good drafting/decisions as a whole. I'll say the Raiders would have been better drafting Bijan than Tyree Wilson Or the Falcons are better having drafted Bijan than Lukas Van Ness
I can see him falling to the 2nd because of the whole RB thing but anything past say 41 would shock me.
Yes. My brother and I have frequently had this discussion though. If an RB is "that good" wouldn't any team over a two year stretch teach him to catch a bit?? I think we started having this convo around the 2nd-3rd straight year that Alfred Morris got 1000+ yards. He was consistent as all he!!, but it was always said he didn't play passing downs. And he faded away. Leonard Fournette might have been another. Didn't people question Derrick Henry's pass game chops once upon a time??
That's fair. And another reality I've definitely become more aware of; coaching can overcome a lot. Remember when Shanahan/John Lynch took over in San Fran? They had two 1's the very first year. They essentially burnt both, and still started making regular appearances in the Superbowl within 3 seasons. But the higher hit rate in the draft can change the equation too. That's partially why I used the phrasing over a bigger sample size, just because it mitigates those anomalies, since they are pretty rare. I might still argue Brock Purdy is less huge late hit, and more "coaching overcoming a lot".
