The 'pure value' draft

[gimmesix]

I feel like there's a good chance that all of our early targets on defense will be gone, so that will test No-Schott's comment about going with "pure value." I don't believe that we will, of course, but the first test could be at No. 12.

12. T Spencer Fano, Utah
20. Trade down with Miami. Cowboys get LB Jordyn Brooks and No. 30, while Dolphins get T Tyler Guyton in addition to the pick
30. DT Kayden McDonald, Ohio State
92. CB Julian Neal, Arkansas
112. DE/OLB Nadame Tucker, Western Michigan
152. RB Nick Singleton, Penn State
177. ILB Keyshaun Elliott, Arizona State
180. S Louis Moore, Indiana
218. DT Renee Konga, Louisville

I do like that we get to address linebacker, defensive tackle and cornerback in the top 100, while still getting a top offensive tackle, but don't like that we didn't get possible pass rush help until the fourth round.

 

[tm1119]

Not that I think Guyton has a lot of value…but that’s way too much for Brooks. The difference between pick 20 and 30 is already a high 3rd pick (#72) in value for Brooks, arguably too much to begin with for an expiring contract. I get the frustration with Guyton, but throwing him in a trade just to get rid of him is pointless.

 

[gimmesix]

Not that I think Guyton has a lot of value…but that’s way too much for Brooks. The difference between pick 20 and 30 is already a high 3rd pick (#72) in value for Brooks, arguably too much to begin with for an expiring contract. I get the frustration with Guyton, but throwing him in a trade just to get rid of him is pointless.

I think the value of a first-team All-Pro linebacker is a second-round pick, so I disagree with you. Guyton gets Miami to not ask for our third-rounder in addition to trading 20 for 30, which together would be a second-round value.

I think some of you undervalue Brooks.

 

[Killerinstinct]

I think the value of a first-team All-Pro linebacker is a second-round pick, so I disagree with you. Guyton gets Miami to not ask for our third-rounder in addition to trading 20 for 30, which together would be a second-round value.

I think some of you undervalue Brooks.

I think his point is that Brooks would be a rental not that he undervalues Brooks. Length of contract left has a huge baring on what compensation should be paid.

 

[gimmesix]

I think his point is that Brooks would be a rental not that he undervalues Brooks. Length of contract left has a huge baring on what compensation should be paid.

All-Pro Trent McDuffie was in the last year of his contract when the Rams traded the 29th pick, a fifth, a sixth and next year's third for him. Linebacker isn't a premium position so there's no way the Dolphins get that kind for deal for him, but I don't think they are looking to give anyone a discount on a first-team All-Pro.

 

[Killerinstinct]

All-Pro Trent McDuffie was in the last year of his contract when the Rams traded the 29th pick, a fifth, a sixth and next year's third for him. Linebacker isn't a premium position so there's no way the Dolphins get that kind for deal for him, but I don't think they are looking to give anyone a discount on a first-team All-Pro.

The Rams extended McDuffie with a new 4 year contract. Our front office is horrible with contracts. Last year when they traded for Pickens there was no extension. I would expect the same if we trade for Brooks.

 

[gimmesix]

The Rams extended McDuffie with a new 4 year contract. Our front office is horrible with contracts. Last year when they traded for Pickens there was no extension. I would expect the same if we trade for Brooks.

And then probably him being tagged if he plays well, just like Pickens has been. Just because we have a different way of operating does not change the player's value.

 

[LouBrown]

All-Pro Trent McDuffie was in the last year of his contract when the Rams traded the 29th pick, a fifth, a sixth and next year's third for him. Linebacker isn't a premium position so there's no way the Dolphins get that kind for deal for him, but I don't think they are looking to give anyone a discount on a first-team All-Pro.

Mcduffie is 25 and plays a far more valuable position

 

[gimmesix]

Mcduffie is 25 and plays a far more valuable position

Understood, and he went for a much higher price. What works out to a second-round value for a first-team All-Pro linebacker still in his prime isn't close to asking for a first, fifth, sixth and third next year.

 

[tm1119]

And then probably him being tagged if he plays well, just like Pickens has been. Just because we have a different way of operating does not change the player's value.

Can you find a single source talking about a Brooks trade that says his value is higher than a 3rd? I think you are running with your gut feeling and ignoring all of the facts. 29 year old off ball LB’s that need contract extensions aren’t highly valued, that’s an objective fact.

Roquan Smith was 25, coming off an all-pro season, on the last year of his rookie deal, and was traded for a 2nd and 5th. Add 4.5 years to a LB making more $ and it’s 100% logical to think that equates to a 3rd round pick max.

 

[gimmesix]

Can you find a single source talking about a Brooks trade that says his value is higher than a 3rd? I think you are running with your gut feeling and ignoring all of the facts. 29 year old off ball LB’s that need contract extensions aren’t highly valued, that’s an objective fact.

Roquan Smith was 25, on the last year of his rookie deal, and was traded for a 2nd and 5th. Add 4.5 years to a LB making more $ and it’s 100% logical to think that equates to a 3rd round pick max.

I've seen speculation that he may draw as much as a second. Maybe he'll draw less than that, but that's what I went with in my mock. Can you provide a definitive source that says his value is no higher than a third?

 

[visionary]

I feel like there's a good chance that all of our early targets on defense will be gone, so that will test No-Schott's comment about going with "pure value." I don't believe that we will, of course, but the first test could be at No. 12.

12. T Spencer Fano, Utah
20. Trade down with Miami. Cowboys get LB Jordyn Brooks and No. 30, while Dolphins get T Tyler Guyton in addition to the pick
30. DT Kayden McDonald, Ohio State
92. CB Julian Neal, Arkansas
112. DE/OLB Nadame Tucker, Western Michigan
152. RB Nick Singleton, Penn State
177. ILB Keyshaun Elliott, Arizona State
180. S Louis Moore, Indiana
218. DT Renee Konga, Louisville

I do like that we get to address linebacker, defensive tackle and cornerback in the top 100, while still getting a top offensive tackle, but don't like that we didn't get possible pass rush help until the fourth round.

Sorry but i hate this
Trading our LT to create a hole just so we can pick a new LT
Also, no way do i trade down from 20-30 and give up our starting LT for a MLB on the last year of his contract
Also, youre not getting McDonald at 30

 

[gimmesix]

Sorry but i hate this
Trading our LT to create a hole just so we can pick a new LT
Also, no way do i trade down from 20-30 and give up our starting LT for a MLB on the last year of his contract
Also, youre not getting McDonald at 30

I didn't say I liked it. I was trying to do a pure value draft. If we're stuck at 12, the value is probably going to be on offense, either WR or OL. ... If we're going to draft an OL, I was just trying to put together a mock that allowed us to still fill defensive holes.

And the rankings I was going by had McDonald lower than 30. I don't know what his true value will end up being. I've seen mid-20s to 30s.

I don't blame you for hating it. I'd prefer we not draft an offensive player early. If the defensive players are gone, I'd prefer we trade down from 12 (but stay in the first round) and get an extra Day 2 pick to try to address our needs.

 

[visionary]

I didn't say I liked it. I was trying to do a pure value draft. If we're stuck at 12, the value is probably going to be on offense, either WR or OL. ... If we're going to draft an OL, I was just trying to put together a mock that allowed us to still fill defensive holes.

And the rankings I was going by had McDonald lower than 30. I don't know what his true value will end up being. I've seen mid-20s to 30s.

I don't blame you for hating it. I'd prefer we not draft an offensive player early. If the defensive players are gone, I'd prefer we trade down from 12 (but stay in the first round) and get an extra Day 2 pick to try to address our needs.

Buddy this is not ‘value’
The only really good player you are getting is Fano and there are questions about him too
You are rolling the dice that McDonald is there at 30 when that is very unlikely

Lets look at the alternative

Keep Guyton (starting LT)

12: McCoy or Thienemann (starting CB or nickel/FS)
20: McDonald (starting NT/DE)
92: (trade up to early rd 3 with a 5th rd pick): Golday (starting LB)

Way way better IMO

this is value

 

[J-man]

I feel like there's a good chance that all of our early targets on defense will be gone, so that will test No-Schott's comment about going with "pure value." I don't believe that we will, of course, but the first test could be at No. 12.

12. T Spencer Fano, Utah
20. Trade down with Miami. Cowboys get LB Jordyn Brooks and No. 30, while Dolphins get T Tyler Guyton in addition to the pick
30. DT Kayden McDonald, Ohio State
92. CB Julian Neal, Arkansas
112. DE/OLB Nadame Tucker, Western Michigan
152. RB Nick Singleton, Penn State
177. ILB Keyshaun Elliott, Arizona State
180. S Louis Moore, Indiana
218. DT Renee Konga, Louisville

I do like that we get to address linebacker, defensive tackle and cornerback in the top 100, while still getting a top offensive tackle, but don't like that we didn't get possible pass rush help until the fourth round.

IMHO, for a "pure value draft" that's way off in value.

 

[Croomraider]

Not that I think Guyton has a lot of value…but that’s way too much for Brooks. The difference between pick 20 and 30 is already a high 3rd pick (#72) in value for Brooks, arguably too much to begin with for an expiring contract. I get the frustration with Guyton, but throwing him in a trade just to get rid of him is pointless.

Plus Brooks is 28 and turns 29 in October! lol and not getting any younger and this whole scenario barely addresses our D which needs a massive overhaul.

 

[gimmesix]

Buddy this is not ‘value’
The only really good player you are getting is Fano and there are questions about him too
You are rolling the dice that McDonald is there at 30 when that is very unlikely

Lets look at the alternative

Keep Guyton (starting LT)

12: McCoy or Thienemann (starting CB or nickel/FS)
20: McDonald (starting NT/DE)
92: (trade up to early rd 3 with a 5th rd pick): Golday (starting LB)

Way way better IMO

this is value

I'm just trying to consider based on No-Schott's comments that anything can be addressed based on value. Fano is a top 10-15 player. McCoy may be too, but he also may be off our board. Thienemen is only considered a value at 12 by a few based on his combine.

You're drafting McDonald at 20, so obviously at 30, he would be a value. I've seen draft experts rank him around where I took him, so who knows?

Getting Brooks and keeping a first-round pick would be a value. Yes, we give up Guyton to do it because of taking Fano as a value pick, but that's the only way that I could stomach going with an offensive player with 12, by getting our LB and still being able to pick up another defensive player there.

Again, I'm just basing this on No-Schott's statement that could indicate that they would take an offensive player at 12 if that's the best "pure value." Fano is a better value than McCoy or Thienemen stockwise from everything I've seen unless McCoy blows everyone out of the water leading up tot he draft.

I'll toss that back to you then. Mock those picks if Dallas takes the best pure value and it's an offensive player. What would you hope to do after 12 if Dallas takes a OL, WR or RB? That was the exercise for me with this mock, not what I would prefer.

 

[visionary]

I'm just trying to consider based on No-Schott's comments that anything can be addressed based on value. Fano is a top 10-15 player. McCoy may be too, but he also may be off our board. Thienemen is only considered a value at 12 by a few based on his combine.

You're drafting McDonald at 20, so obviously at 30, he would be a value. I've seen draft experts rank him around where I took him, so who knows?

Getting Brooks and keeping a first-round pick would be a value. Yes, we give up Guyton to do it because of taking Fano as a value pick, but that's the only way that I could stomach going with an offensive player with 12, by getting our LB and still being able to pick up another defensive player there.

Again, I'm just basing this on No-Schott's statement that could indicate that they would take an offensive player at 12 if that's the best "pure value." Fano is a better value than McCoy or Thienemen stockwise from everything I've seen unless McCoy blows everyone out of the water leading up tot he draft.

I'll toss that back to you then. Mock those picks if Dallas takes the best pure value and it's an offensive player. What would you hope to do after 12 if Dallas takes a OL, WR or RB? That was the exercise for me with this mock, not what I would prefer.

I think one of Delane or Mccoy will be there at 12 so i tale them
If both are gone i think Thienemann is good there

To me, value is value for my team not value based on some arbitrary draft expert

 

[gimmesix]

IMHO, for a "pure value draft" that's way off in value.

Again, it's based on No-Schott's comment that we're in shape to take the best "pure value," even if that is offense.

Fano is clearly valued around where I took him. What's off about the rest for you. Is McDonald not a value at 30?

If this mock is "way off in value," explain where it misses.

 

[gimmesix]

I think one of Delane or Mccoy will be there at 12 so i tale them
If both are gone i think Thienemann is good there

To me, value is value for my team not value based on some arbitrary draft expert

If Delane is there, I think he's the pick because the value is right. I'm not sure on McCoy or Thienemen. I'm hoping No-Schott is blowing smoke on "pure value," because we clearly need to go defense. even if we have to move around to get good value.

It's impossible to say how the team has them stacked up valuewise. But, for example, if Love were to slip to our pick, he'd clearly be the best "pure value." So based on No-Schott's comments, do we take him at 12 and ignore the defensive needs?

I mean, pick 12 doesn't have to be Fano in this scenario. I just chose him because he's rated around our pick (slightly higher or slightly lower depending on what draft expert you ask). Now, Fano works better for me in getting value back because we can trade Guyton. ... I'm just trying to consider the options if "pure value" actually means that we'd take an offensive player with that pick.