2018 Draft Prospects Thread

King Stannis said:

Maybe Putin wants another Super Bowl ring.

Click to expand...

RichieRichPaul said:

I like how people on here truly believe they can evaluate a qb

The dudes who are picking this have watched more film than u, done countless hours more research, have decades of nfl scouting experience and know exactly what to look for in workouts. This isnt sashi crushing numbers.

I truly belive whoever they pick is the best prospect.

Click to expand...

They've watched more film, done countless hours of research, know what to look for in workouts, and have failed to pick the best quarterback in a class more than half the time. That's not just the Browns, that's the league as a whole. And nearly half the time the 1st chosen QB was just outright mediocre, at best.

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/ScoutingGiants/status/975062016783249408


Was looking on Matt Miller's twitter and here's a response to his mock of having the Giants take Barkley at 2

It would appear fan bases are now playing hot potato with Barkley as well lol

thedarkness2332 said:

I agree with the QB at 1.

However, at 4, it depends on the offer. Certainly we’d be pleased at just taking a guy at 4. However, if you get a godfather offer from Buffalo like 12, 22, 53 and a future 2nd, that’s a lot of cheddar.

Likewise, if you can flop Denver on the threat of Buffalo trying to come up and get a 2nd out of them, you should. Get every last grain of value you can get.

It’s stupid to fear a trade down just because past regimes were burned by shitty drafting.

I also think that if you acquired 12, 22, 53, and a future 2nd from Buffalo, it’s very likely that you can package 53 with 12 to get you back as high as you can. Perhaps that 7-9 range to get Denzel Ward.

In said scenario, we end up with the guy we might’ve like best had we stayed at 4 while also adding #22 and a future 2nd.

Browns have the capital to monopolize this bitch. Let’s go out and set our franchise up for the long haul.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of getting a 3rd from Den to flip 4/5, get the guy you wanted anyways, and then you can package the 3rd with pick 33 to move up to 23/24 range and get another blue chipper.

Anyone else super confident that the ONE time we take a Buckeye in the recent string of all pro talent buckeyes to come out it’s going to be the one bust?

@Chris i know you’ve had this same thought lol

As we discuss every little detail about all of the QB prospects, this seemed interesting:

View: https://twitter.com/guga31bb/status/975085398698414080

Hurl Bruce said:

As we discuss every little detail about all of the QB prospects, this seemed interesting:

View: https://twitter.com/guga31bb/status/975085398698414080

Click to expand...

Sure, but how much does Pig Pen skew this by weighing more than all his linemen?

Hurl Bruce said:

As we discuss every little detail about all of the QB prospects, this seemed interesting:

View: https://twitter.com/guga31bb/status/975085398698414080

Click to expand...

Take that for data!

Nice look at some of Rosen's deep balls. I'm becoming more and more open to taking him.

View: https://twitter.com/MattWaldman/status/975464107800498177

Hurl Bruce said:

Nice look at some of Rosen's deep balls. I'm becoming more and more open to taking him.

View: https://twitter.com/MattWaldman/status/975464107800498177

Click to expand...

Take him and dont look back. Kid is going to be a star and if the Browns pass, we'll get the pleasure of watching him become the next great Giants QB for a decade.

Saw this in a tweet. It's all the first round QBs 1990-2014. Where on this list would you be content that for the Browns QB to end up? I think for me the absolute lowest I'd go is 23.

Second hypothetical...

Let's say you could draft 1999 Tim Couch onto this team with the 1st pick? 4th pick? Would you do that? If not, what's the highest pick you'd use on him given his potential at the time?

Just think about how bad that O-Line was back then before you answer.

Mr. Orange said:

Take that for data!

Click to expand...

That data is meaningless for QB's, though. It simply counts the number of different injuries incurred by a player, without regard to either their duration or severity. Here's a direct quote from the article, which reveals the two huge loopholes in the conclusion:

Injury rates are presented per 1,000 athlete-exposures (AEs); one AE is one player participating in one practice or game. An injury was defined as any new physiological event appearing on the NFL's weekly injury reports.

Click to expand...

1) By only counting "new" injuries, this methodology ignores how long a player was sidelined by a particular injury. An injury that lasts for three weeks is scored the exact same as an injury that lasts one week. And apparently, suffering an injury of sufficient severity that it keeps you on the list for three weeks is "three times better" than suffering three different, but far more minor, injuries that only last a week. What' the logic of ignoring the severity of injuries?

2) Maybe a bigger problem is that the standard for what constitutes a countable injury is "appearing on the NFL's weekly injury report". But not whether or not the player actually played in the game..

What they should have counted was the number of games missed because of injury. But that's not what they did, so it's worthless in terms of drawing a useful conclusion about injury likelihood.

Hurl Bruce said:

Second hypothetical...

Let's say you could draft 1999 Tim Couch onto this team with the 1st pick? 4th pick? Would you do that? If not, what's the highest pick you'd use on him given his potential at the time?

Just think about how bad that O-Line was back then before you answer.

Click to expand...

Easily would be the 1st pick.