I hope the draft board is leaked again

[Killerinstinct]

It will be interesting to see how they had the players ranked.

Watching live it appeared their no 1 target was Adoree Jackson.

Then I saw disappointment when Peppers was drafted.

Then when Atl traded in front of them and took Takk I saw disappointment.

Then I saw phone activity like they were considering trading down. That may have been in case Buffalo took Taco.

I suspect the trade that the Packers made with Cle right after us was on the table for us and we decided not to take it when Taco was left.

If Adoree or Peppers would have been there it would have changed the entire draft strategy. IMO

Maybe Rivers in the 2nd If they had landed Adoree or Maybe they would have gone SS in the 2nd.

If they landed Peppers then it would be interesting to know if they would have gone CB in the 2nd or DE?

We may never know.

 

[speedkilz88]

Less likely now that they have digital boards at the Star.

 

[Vintage]

I hope the board is leaked. Easily the coolest thing about the draft when it does. But I suspect it doesn't.

 

[DFWJC]

Always fun to see the board, but I never understood why they would allow it.
Just invites thousands of amateurs to FURTHER question their every move.
Me being one of them

anyway, they spill the beans a ton anyway.
I do agree seeing the actual board is less likely at the new facility.

fwiw, looking disappointed in the draft room could be for a few reason.
Just having a DB or DE taken way before us (regardless of where we rank them) would have theoretically taken one off the board that another team may have wanted, thus making the one we wanted more likely to get taken.

 

[ThreeandOut]

What else are we going to do all summer if it's not leaked?

 

[xwalker]

It will be interesting to see how they had the players ranked.

Watching live it appeared their no 1 target was Adoree Jackson.

Then I saw disappointment when Peppers was drafted.

Then when Atl traded in front of them and took Takk I saw disappointment.

Then I saw phone activity like they were considering trading down. That may have been in case Buffalo took Taco.

I suspect the trade that the Packers made with Cle right after us was on the table for us and we decided not to take it when Taco was left.

If Adoree or Peppers would have been there it would have changed the entire draft strategy. IMO

Maybe Rivers in the 2nd If they had landed Adoree or Maybe they would have gone SS in the 2nd.

If they landed Peppers then it would be interesting to know if they would have gone CB in the 2nd or DE?

We may never know.

The No Fun League should make teams release their draft boards. They really don't lose anything from doing it and the fans pay their salaries.

 

[tm1119]

Well Stephen said we got 5 of our top 68 on the board...that's a pretty specific # to lie about. That's pretty huge

 

[YosemiteSam]

Less likely now that they have digital boards at the Star.

Why does that make it less likely?

 

[big dog cowboy]

 

[AzorAhai]

Whatever you think you saw from Peppers being taken was almost assuredly from them finding out about Takk. What we saw and where the draft actually was was nowhere close to synchronized. If you listen to the interviews m, it was stated that they wanted to see it on film. That's a reason Watt got knocked down some. If they knocked Watt down for not having his hand in the ground, why on earth would they do something completely different and take Peppers? He's an even bigger projection than Watt.

 

[tyke1doe]

The No Fun League should make teams release their draft boards. They really don't lose anything from doing it and the fans pay their salaries.

This definitely would not be a good idea for teams. It could create tension between team and player, particularly if player has another visual clue that the player wasn't a team's first choice.
Then you also would have situations where fans could see which players were reaches and which players were overvalued.
Of course, we would enjoy it. I doubt very seriously teams would.

 

[xwalker]

This definitely would not be a good idea for teams. It could create tension between team and player, particularly if player has another visual clue that the player wasn't a team's first choice.
Then you also would have situations where fans could see which players were reaches and which players were overvalued.
Of course, we would enjoy it. I doubt very seriously teams would.

No, teams would not enjoy it, but the fans pay for everything. It wouldn't hurt the teams other than their feeling if they received criticism. There is no strategic dis-advantage because it's a completely new set of players the following year and team needs will be different.

 

[DBOY3141]

I'm sure you will see that Woods was rated higher than Switzer, yet they took Switzer.

 

[Alexander]

Well Stephen said we got 5 of our top 68 on the board...that's a pretty specific # to lie about. That's pretty huge

Depends on the size of the board.

New England had an incredibly short board, less than a 100 players.

Most team boards go 150 or so, all of them specifically tailored to their team the deeper it goes. They aren't going to bother listing positions they don't want to draft in much detail.

So if a team had say, 75 players on it and after the first 20 or so that had "first round grades", probably already were wiped out, as our's was with the exception of one by our first pick. We probably don't want to hear it, but it is likely most team boards have a narrow focus.

Teams don't have this board all encompassing board like you see the mock draft sites have with 100s of players. And no team board is going to be the same. We didn't need a kicker, punter, etc. but another team does and has that player probably high. Right there you are not approaching things from the same grocery list.

All in all, we visited with 30 "officially". Had another 30-40 or so that we were very serious about, but did not invite to Dallas. That is 70 players. Halfway there even if you had 150 players on it.

So we got five of the top 68 players we had. Well you almost would like to hope you did in a way or you had some serious bad luck.

 

[DFWJC]

Why does that make it less likely?

Hey Sam...hope all is good.
The digital board can disappear with a 1 second push of the button, the list is blacked out vs being on a written board all day.
The board would be on the ipads or laptops and then only pop up on the big screen when requested.

 

[DFWJC]

Depends on the size of the board.

New England had an incredibly short board, less than a 100 players.

Most team boards go 150 or so, all of them specifically tailored to their team the deeper it goes. They aren't going to bother listing positions they don't want to draft in much detail.

So if a team had say, 75 players on it and after the first 20 or so that had "first round grades", probably already were wiped out, as our's was with the exception of one by our first pick. We probably don't want to hear it, but it is likely most team boards have a narrow focus.

Teams don't have this board all encompassing board like you see the mock draft sites have with 100s of players. And no team board is going to be the same. We didn't need a kicker, punter, etc. but another team does and has that player probably high. Right there you are not approaching things from the same grocery list.

All in all, we visited with 30 "officially". Had another 30-40 or so that we were very serious about, but did not invite to Dallas. That is 70 players. Halfway there even if you had 150 players on it.

So we got five of the top 68 players we had. Well you almost would like to hope you did in a way or you had some serious bad luck.

True.
Dallas' board is generally 150

 

[Alexander]

True.
Dallas' board is generally 150

Could have been even shorter considering our narrow focus this year. Most of the prospects we devoted a lot of time and energy into were DBs and DLs.

This was a horrible year for OL and not very deep at QB either.

So for arguments sake, say our board were constructed like this, trying to keep round numbers just for argument's sake:

QB - 5
RB - 10
WR - 20
C - 2
OG - 5
OT - 10
DE - 20
DT - 15
OLB - 8
ILB - 5
CB - 30
S - 20

Excluding placekickers, punters and long snappers which have no shot at replacing our current players. There is your 150 and even this is stretching it a bit.

This could easily be pared down to knock out non-system fits, bad character players and those areas where we felt that drafting a player was a waste of time.

It could be trimmed down realistically to a 100 or less, all of which were in areas we knew we would address.

All in all, we picked 4 DBs, 3 DL. We should have hit on that if that is how the board stacked. The 5 of the top 68 does not necessarily mean they got an even distribution of the best players overall, they got a proportion of how they weighted their board. Just a guess of course.

 

[AzorAhai]

Depends on the size of the board.

New England had an incredibly short board, less than a 100 players.

Most team boards go 150 or so, all of them specifically tailored to their team the deeper it goes. They aren't going to bother listing positions they don't want to draft in much detail.

So if a team had say, 75 players on it and after the first 20 or so that had "first round grades", probably already were wiped out, as our's was with the exception of one by our first pick. We probably don't want to hear it, but it is likely most team boards have a narrow focus.

Teams don't have this board all encompassing board like you see the mock draft sites have with 100s of players. And no team board is going to be the same. We didn't need a kicker, punter, etc. but another team does and has that player probably high. Right there you are not approaching things from the same grocery list.

All in all, we visited with 30 "officially". Had another 30-40 or so that we were very serious about, but did not invite to Dallas. That is 70 players. Halfway there even if you had 150 players on it.

So we got five of the top 68 players we had. Well you almost would like to hope you did in a way or you had some serious bad luck.

This is true and a very good point. Didn't they also say they had 3 or 4 of them graded as 2nd or 3rd Round players as well though? I'm having a hard time remembering the exact quote.

 

[Plankton]

Prior to Parcells coming on board, the Cowboys draft board was over 200 players. This is one of the changes that he put through - narrow the board so you focus on the players that truly fit what you do.

There's no point in listing guys incapable of playing 4-3 DE, or listing 0T DTs incapable of playing the 1T/3T position. Listing 5Ts is probably not necessary either.

Listing the scheme fits only will pare the board down. Removing guys from the board who don't fit from a character profile also helps.

Allegedly, the Patriots had 85 players on their board.

 

[xwalker]

Prior to Parcells coming on board, the Cowboys draft board was over 200 players. This is one of the changes that he put through - narrow the board so you focus on the players that truly fit what you do.

There's no point in listing guys incapable of playing 4-3 DE, or listing 0T DTs incapable of playing the 1T/3T position. Listing 5Ts is probably not necessary either.

Listing the scheme fits only will pare the board down. Removing guys from the board who don't fit from a character profile also helps.

Allegedly, the Patriots had 85 players on their board.

They made a big change when McClay got bumped up to the top spot. Stephen said prior to that they usually had about 220 players on their board, but after the change, they averaged about 120.

The concept is that it's OK if you miss some players that were not on your board, but you increase your probability of success with the players that you do pick.