The 'pure value' draft

[visionary]

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.

If Love is there you either trade down or take him
Too much long term value

 

[gimmesix]

If Love is there you either trade down or take him
Too much long term value

Yeah, and as much as I love the player, he doesn't help us improve this defense. Would be a value pick, but offense wasn't the problem for us.

So, let's substitute Love for Fano, and do the same pure value scenario, except we'd have to probably throw in our third to get Brooks (trading down to 30 and our third works out to a second-round value).

12. RB Jeremiyah Love, Notre Dame
20. (Traded to Miami along with pick No. 92 for LB Jordyn Brooks and pick No. 30)
30. DE/OLB T.J. Parker, DT Peter Woods, Clemson, or CB Colton Hood, Tennessee

I guess my main purpose with this exercise was to come away in the first round with two defensive players even if there was an offensive unicorn at 12. (It wasn't really about which defensive player we'd get at 30.) The one way I can see to do that is by trading 20 for 30 and Brooks. That allows us to address one of our other defensive holes in the first round.

So I guess this scenario is if we drafted offense at 12, would you rather have Brooks and whoever you can get at 30 or whoever you can get at 20 and whoever you can get at 92?

 

[J-man]

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.

It's centered around the trade. IMHO, that's a terrible trade, value wise.

 

[CWR]

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.

Id trade Steele ahead of Guyton. There's still hope for Guyton to mature and improve.

 

[gimmesix]

It's centered around the trade. IMHO, that's a terrible trade, value wise.

I just don't think Guyton has much value. Right now, he's an unimpressive first-round pick. I think Brooks' value is a second-rounder, but Miami is not going to get that. The Dolphins may get a third and another late-rounder, but a second will be a little steep. Trading down from 20 to 30 has a value of a third-rounder. Guyton would be the throw-in to get it to a second-round value.

 

[gimmesix]

Id trade Steele ahead of Guyton. There's still hope for Guyton to mature and improve.

And I'd be OK with that. if we were going to go "pure value" and it ended up being an OT, I'd want to at least trade one of them. I'm not sure either has much value on his own, though, which is why my trade was the 20 and Guyton/Steele for the 30 and Brooks ... if we took an OT.

 

[xwalker]

Yeah, and as much as I love the player, he doesn't help us improve this defense. Would be a value pick, but offense wasn't the problem for us.

So, let's substitute Love for Fano, and do the same pure value scenario, except we'd have to probably throw in our third to get Brooks (trading down to 30 and our third works out to a second-round value).

12. RB Jeremiyah Love, Notre Dame
20. (Traded to Miami along with pick No. 92 for LB Jordyn Brooks and pick No. 30)
30. DE/OLB T.J. Parker, DT Peter Woods, Clemson, or CB Colton Hood, Tennessee

I guess my main purpose with this exercise was to come away in the first round with two defensive players even if there was an offensive unicorn at 12. (It wasn't really about which defensive player we'd get at 30.) The one way I can see to do that is by trading 20 for 30 and Brooks. That allows us to address one of our other defensive holes in the first round.

So I guess this scenario is if we drafted offense at 12, would you rather have Brooks and whoever you can get at 30 or whoever you can get at 20 and whoever you can get at 92?

Love makes for a better discussion than Fano because Love is easily BPA at 12.

The most I would give for Brooks is this year's 3rd. I'd prefer to get him for next year's 3rd.

Age
Not elite in coverage.
Only 1 year under contract.

 

[gimmesix]

Love makes for a better discussion than Fano because Love is easily BPA at 12.

The most I would give for Brooks is this year's 3rd. I'd prefer to get him for next year's 3rd.

Age
Not elite in coverage.
Only 1 year under contract.

Well, I was trying to be somewhat realistic. I expect Fano to be there, but as I originally wrote, I don't expect any of the top defenders to be there. We could go for McCoy or Thienemen, but I'm not sure either is a value pick at 12 ... although McCoy might be after his pro day performance.

I'd trade what I wrote about Brooks (20 and our third-rounder for 30) because I believe Brooks and what we'd get at 30 will be of much greater value than holding onto 92 so we can draft at 20. I'd rather get a first-rounder and Brooks than a first-rounder and a third-rounder. More than half of third-rounders don't even turn out to be starters.

Of course, I'd be happy if we could get him for just a third-rounder, but I think his value is higher than that. We'll see.

 

[xwalker]

Well, I was trying to be somewhat realistic. I expect Fano to be there, but as I originally wrote, I don't expect any of the top defenders to be there. We could go for McCoy or Thienemen, but I'm not sure either is a value pick at 12 ... although McCoy might be after his pro day performance.

I'd trade what I wrote about Brooks (20 and our third-rounder for 30) because I believe Brooks and what we'd get at 30 will be of much greater value than holding onto 92 so we can draft at 20. I'd rather get a first-rounder and Brooks than a first-rounder and a third-rounder. More than half of third-rounders don't even turn out to be starters.

Of course, I'd be happy if we could get him for just a third-rounder, but I think his value is higher than that. We'll see.

I would have offered more to either Walker or Lloyd than they ended up getting (13.5M and 15M AAV respectively).
- No draft picks required.
- C'est la vie

 

[Hawkeye0202]

G....you put up a good fight here but let's take this on the chin and live to fight another day