2014 Official Draft Thread

[Steve]

I think the point I keep driving home, if there is a WR who is a good all around player, and has deep speed, it is probably worth trading up to get them. A good WR is worth something to us. But a guy who is a deep threat on top of being a good WR is worth a ton to any team, but especially to us.

A team like Washington, they need receiver help in general, so they should just focus on anyone who is any good. I just think we should be a little more choosy, or possibly even draft more then 1, as long as it lands the guy with some speed.

I keep thinking back to teams like our Air Coryell teams, Greatest Show on Turf (Rams)... where a team had the combination of speed and quickness in their WR corp. Those teams often got defenses to play pre-spread out and flat footed. DB rarely got good jumps on passes and often little dinky passes got a lot of yards. WR caught passes got the ball wide open all alone, and then got a ton of yards after the catch. I don't think our WR are that far away from being that kind of group. But it takes that speed element.

No S is going to line up close and start trying to jump the short routes if you have enough speed, and that opens up more then the occasional pass over the top because you fool someone. Dallas was sort of the classic game with that happening, both of Woodhead's TD, as well as Gates to win the game. But I think we can do better. And we are pretty close, but we need that speed.

[Yubaking]

Except that if you don't have the speed to threaten the S, the D will line up their S up at 10 yards instead of 12-15, and ask them to sit on the short routes, and the short zone defenders will drop to 5-7 yards, and then there are no seams to hit. This is in fact what teams started to do to us last year. They didn't respect our deep passing, and they started clamping down on our short passing. Fortunately, the running game came up pretty big.

But in games late in the season, did you see how many times Brown and Allen had just one guy tucked in tight on them, with a S late coming over the top?

I agree 100% with this and this is exactly why we need a legitimate deep threat, which means not only fast, but also someone with leaping ability and a bigger catch radius than a smaller receiver like Cooks offers. Also, I continue to believe that Cooks is susceptible to physical press coverage in a way in which Moncrief would not be. Cooks is a great player, but so is Moncrief and Moncrief is a better fit for the offense in terms of giving us what we lack.

[Fleet]

I think the point I keep driving home, if there is a WR who is a good all around player, and has deep speed, it is probably worth trading up to get them. A good WR is worth something to us. But a guy who is a deep threat on top of being a good WR is worth a ton to any team, but especially to us.

A team like Washington, they need receiver help in general, so they should just focus on anyone who is any good. I just think we should be a little more choosy, or possibly even draft more then 1, as long as it lands the guy with some speed.

I keep thinking back to teams like our Air Coryell teams, Greatest Show on Turf (Rams)... where a team had the combination of speed and quickness in their WR corp. Those teams often got defenses to play pre-spread out and flat footed. DB rarely got good jumps on passes and often little dinky passes got a lot of yards. WR caught passes got the ball wide open all alone, and then got a ton of yards after the catch. I don't think our WR are that far away from being that kind of group. But it takes that speed element.

No S is going to line up close and start trying to jump the short routes if you have enough speed, and that opens up more then the occasional pass over the top because you fool someone. Dallas was sort of the classic game with that happening, both of Woodhead's TD, as well as Gates to win the game. But I think we can do better. And we are pretty close, but we need that speed.

Cooks or Moncrief at 25 would really put this offense over the top imo. I know we need defense but theres other rounds and other ways to get those players. And obviously ive mentioned the amount of money we will have next year to bring in defensive players. I think in this draft we can set our offense up for years. Rivers at the end of the day is still our strength so it makes sense to keep his chambers filled with bullets. Id also add OL depth to keep our running game stout.

[Steve]

If you use the point differential as a proxy for the strength of the team, we are very close to being a lot better then our record. We didn't get blown out and we didn't really completely struggle on one side in any game last year. We had quarters or halves where we struggled, but we always seemed to be able to compensate somewhat. To me, that suggests we don't have to do anything. We need to keep getting better, but it can be anywhere. I can read the roster, and from that point, D is the obvious choice, but given our roots, scoring more points and the nice weather and existing pieces make drafting O help attractive. Plus, I think this draft is LOADED at most offensive positions.

We still only have a few players we can draft. I don't think we will fill every need entirely to our satisfaction, no matter how well we do. So, then it comes down to how well we can fill a few with guys who we can take. I still think that the WR thing, we are getting close, and if we get the right piece, the offense will be much better then the sum of all the parts would be alone. Again, just adding any old rookie WR might not have that big an improvement by themselves, but adding the right guy could have an effect way beyond the guys individual talents.

OL depth I see as a preventive thing. Unless they are really sold on being able to resign Clary, I think we have to have someone to potentially fill in. I like Troutman, and I hope to see him take over 1 OG spot, but I still see us as needing someone else to replace Clary. Ideally, I would like to add someone like the Bills Eric Woods, who could play either OG or C, and then we have depth for both spots, as well as a potential guy to groom behind Hardwick.

I love the idea of drafting D, but I am not convinced the draft will fall that way. I know we will be able to get a good choice, but have no idea who that would be. But this year, we have some great guys to serve as mentors on D. JJ, Freeney..... I wouldn't mind drafting some raw but talented guys later and seeing if we can develop some guys at OLB and CB. S I think we are OK, and same at ILB. NT is a spot I could go either way. If the guy can play DE too, then fine, but otherwise there are big guys like that every year and you don't have to get a NT in the 1st. Plus, I want to see how Liuget and Reyes pan out. I am not going to be a big fan of theirs much longer, if they don't start to play better.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Cooks or Moncrief at 25 would really put this offense over the top imo. I know we need defense but theres other rounds and other ways to get those players. And obviously ive mentioned the amount of money we will have next year to bring in defensive players. I think in this draft we can set our offense up for years. Rivers at the end of the day is still our strength so it makes sense to keep his chambers filled with bullets. Id also add OL depth to keep our running game stout.

Time to keep dis chambers filled.

[Panamamike]

I will happily maintain my minority opinion as for what I would like to see happen in this draft. First two picks go to pass rush and CB, the order depending n how the draft is flowing. WR in the third round at the highest.

If we TRADE UP for a WR in this draft, and give up more than a fifth rounder this year, I will puke! I don't understand the thought of trading up to get a WR in a WR heavy draft. If we have similar ratings on a pass rusher, CB, and WR, I hope like hell we wait to pick WR later in the draft. There are a couple interesting CB that are going to slide because of injury. I hope we take a day 3 flyer on another CB. In this pass happy league, having an abundance of quality CB is very important.

[Panamamike]

Any opinions of DT Quarles from South Carolina in the 4th or 5th?

[Beerman]

I agree 100% with this and this is exactly why we need a legitimate deep threat, which means not only fast, but also someone with leaping ability and a bigger catch radius than a smaller receiver like Cooks offers. Also, I continue to believe that Cooks is susceptible to physical press coverage in a way in which Moncrief would not be. Cooks is a great player, but so is Moncrief and Moncrief is a better fit for the offense in terms of giving us what we lack.

Moncrief has that raw ability, but not the production. The reason I'm so high on Cooks is because he's already been effective in the Pac 12 with entire defenses game planning to take him away. I don't think guys like Moncrief have faced that type of coverage (correct me if I'm wrong). Cooks I'm 100% sure will be a stud at the next level. No questions with him whatsoever. I see your point about pressing him, but just like Allen, he has had fantastic technique at the line of scrimmage to get loose. He also has that crazy 4.3 speed that will make teams pay for jamming him and missing.

Just for comparison look at the game logs

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/511476/brandin-cooks

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/512013/donte-moncrief

Clearly they are coming from different offenses, but it's just amazing to me that Cooks got a minimum of 6 receptions in every single game despite all the defensive attention. He also scored in all but 3 games.

[Panamamike]

Moncrief has that raw ability, but not the production. The reason I'm so high on Cooks is because he's already been effective in the Pac 12 with entire defenses game planning to take him away. I don't think guys like Moncrief have faced that type of coverage (correct me if I'm wrong). Cooks I'm 100% sure will be a stud at the next level. No questions with him whatsoever. I see your point about pressing him, but just like Allen, he has had fantastic technique at the line of scrimmage to get loose. He also has that crazy 4.3 speed that will make teams pay for jamming him and missing.

Just for comparison look at the game logs

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/gamelog/_/id/511476/brandin-cooks

http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/512013/donte-moncrief

Clearly they are coming from different offenses, but it's just amazing to me that Cooks got a minimum of 6 receptions in every single game despite all the defensive attention. He also scored in all but 3 games.

I like Jordan Matthews out if Vandy as well, and prefer him to Moncrief.

[Steve]

I will happily maintain my minority opinion as for what I would like to see happen in this draft. First two picks go to pass rush and CB, the order depending n how the draft is flowing. WR in the third round at the highest.

If we TRADE UP for a WR in this draft, and give up more than a fifth rounder this year, I will puke! I don't understand the thought of trading up to get a WR in a WR heavy draft. If we have similar ratings on a pass rusher, CB, and WR, I hope like hell we wait to pick WR later in the draft. There are a couple interesting CB that are going to slide because of injury. I hope we take a day 3 flyer on another CB. In this pass happy league, having an abundance of quality CB is very important.

To me, it is not about adding a WR, but the right one. I would not be in favor of a guy who is similar to Allen. But give me a guy who is a better deep threat, and I am fine with it.

Cooks really is impressive in the sense that he got used a lot of different ways in a pro style offense, with Riley as his HC. To me, this suggests that he is probably going to be more NFL ready then a lot of other guys. Plays all the spots (and does it well), knows how to beat a lot of different coverages, plays best in big games, and can really take over a game.

I see the height/jumping thing as more of a plus, rather then downgrading Cooks. If a guy had VJ or Floyds big radius or leaping ability, I give them a bit of extra consideration. But I don't think it is fair to downgrade someone. Look at Steve Smith's career. He was a great WR for a long time, but he is not big or tall. You love it if you can find those guys, and I think we do need someone like that, but it doesn't have to be our deep guy. It is hard enough to find great WR, without taking too many qualities onto one guy.

Biasing yourself into thinking that a guy HAS to have qualities that are not that important leads you to sometimes overlook good players. It is like being prejudiced. It leads you to exclude good candidates who can help, while you search for the IDEAL guy. And there just are not that many WR who are speed guys to begin with.

[Fleet]

Mannion is a much better QB than Wallace. Sort of unfair imo. Moncrief played in the SEC which is head and shoulders above the Pac 12 in regards to secondary talent. In fact i cant remember the last Pac 12 CB to get drafted in the 1st. Was it Trufant? While the SEC as we know produces studs almost every year.

Saying Moncrief didnt face that type of coverage sort of dosnt make sense to me. Most will say the SEC is the best division in football and its been that way for a while.

Cooks also didnt really have to compete for limited balls with a capable #2 WR opposite of him. And again coming from a pretty mediocre QB.

I love both players and would be stoked with either. If i had to pick i would take Cooks but Moncrief isnt far behind him.

We might be able to move back a bit and take Moncrief and acquire another pick.

[Beerman]

By type of coverage, I meant being double and triple teamed on multiple snaps. I watched quite a bit of Ore St. games and while the CB's are likely not as good as the guys in the SEC, I doubt Moncrief faced the type of defensive attention that Cooks faced. Teams knew where the ball was going and still couldn't really stop him.