Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho
Thanks, OP. I'm just a big old nerd with too much time on his hands and a brain that doesn't stop until I'm asleep.
Here's my thoughts on grade:
Present: B+.
I actually really like everything the Chiefs did in this draft, aside from the amount of risk they took on in Round 1. Royals and Smith are excellent fits and should help add some explosion back to the offense. Williams and Bassa and Gillotte are all immediate nice depth pieces, and possible future starters. Anudike-Uzomah doesn't take a step? Fine. Flush him and slide in Gillotte as your cheap partner for Karlaftis on his second deal. Tranquill sucks ass again in coverage? Bassa offers an alternative. Watson gets hurt, Fulton gets hurt, Josh Williams continues to make the staff not trust him? Hello, Nohl. Norman-Lott is probably never a starter, but you can see the value of the player.
So why is it a B+ if I love that all so much? It's Josh Simmons.
I'll reference the Barney Stinson crazy-hot X-Y axis theorem. We'll call it the Duncan Idaho Draft Nerd Risk-Reward X-Y axis. Theory goes, a potential partner must be as hot as they are crazy. If they are crazier than they are hot, you should stay away. For me, Simmons' potential reward factor IS significant. Like, a 9 on a scale of 10. The problem is that I see the risk factor as a true 10/10. The risk is as bad as it can get. I will acknowledge that some might disagree and see the reward factor as higher, or the risk factor as lower (though I think you're layering on an awful lot of hope in that case). But for me, this pick by itself is a D. Maybe a D+ if I inflate my grades a bit.
Simmons - D+ (which, if the team is right, morphs into an A+)
Norman-Lott - B
Gillotte - B+
Williams - A
Royals - A+
Bassa - B+
Smith - A+
Potential: A+.
Because if Simmons is healthy, he's going to be an above-average LT.
|
I've moved my Simmons grade up to a C/C+.
A -- I wasn't
quite as out on him as you were to start. I'd have very possibly gambled on him with a 2 anyway. So if you figure I'd have probably taken him with that Titans 3rd at worst (as I wouldn't have felt like I needed to take Gillotte until the end of 3), we took him about 35 spots sooner than I would've. That's a disconnect, but not a horrifying one.
B -- the way the rest of the draft went kinda took some of the sting out of the opportunity cost.
If we take Burden at 32, we probably don't take Royals. If we take Henderson we don't take Smith. It just makes the 'math' difficult when I'm trying to figure opportunity cost for either of them. Ezeiruaku is another guy that I'd have looked really hard at there but I wonder if he's just a little too small for Spags.
So in trying to come up with a pure proxy without having to take anyone else off, I'm' looking at maybe Sanders (who can play the Nose), JT Tuimoloau, Mason Taylor, Nic Scourton.
I sait it in the Simmons thread -- the interesting question, and what would've kept this in the D range for me due purely to risk and opportunity cost, is Conerly. Had he been there and we'd have taken Simmons instead, that would've been too much for me.
As it stands, I still wouldn't have done it. But the rest of the draft mitigated some of that opportunity cost.
So I'll give it a C(ish) pick.
Draft as a whole then gets a B+. If only because I can't give a 1st round pick a C and then the draft writ large an A.