GMs Chris Ballard and Dorsey believe there are only 15 first round talents

[Iconic]

This is just the opinion of one GM but I thought it might be interesting to all in regards to mock drafts.

Ballard: “All of these mock drafts are wrong” Reporter: “Aren’t they always?” Ballard: “Yea but this year they’re really wrong.”

Ballard explains that he sees 14 players in this draft who are blue chip, elite level players. From 15 through the top of the third, “the talent level is consistent.”

The takeaway here is Ballard is saying that the back half of the first and the second round are going to be very different than what people think. What that means for mock drafters is don’t be afraid to put guys higher than the crowd thinks because you might be right. A lot of these solidified late 1st guys won’t go that high, according to him.

Secondly

In breaking down the trade on the Move the Sticks podcast with Bucky Brooks (filling in for Daniel Jeremiah), NFL.com’s Lance Zierlein dropped the knowledge nugget. “I had heard that the Browns considered there to be 15 players that are first round players in this year’s draft,” Zierlein explained. “That sounds about right. About 15 guys who are first round picks. Analytics is always about quantifying value so, for them, that 17th pick, they considered that a second round player, generally speaking. In the Browns’ mind, they considered they were giving up a second-round player and not a first round player. That makes even more sense right now,”

So in response who do you believe are the 15 elite level players in this draft?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by mcaj22

even if this is true, isn't the value of having that 5th year option in the first round on a guy that might be second round talent more than worth it from the salary cap perspective? Especially with the way teams are massively overpaying the top end of today's NFL talent pool. Like, just because the grades take a nose dive, do you really want to just sit on your heels and drop the second because of grade value?

Isn't the value in locking a guy down for 5 years (6 with a tag) in the first round so much better than picking that same guy in the 2nd or 3rd? Assuming the pick hits of course. (Or if the pick takes a couple seasons to develop, you still have some control)

I tend to agree, yes.

For the value you get in moving down into the 2nd from 29 (probably a 4th rounder; maybe 3rd if you chip back a 6th or something), I would almost invariably rather keep the 5th year option.

I'd almost never get out of the 1st because too many teams adhere to the 'draft value chart' these days so I'd never get the return I would demand to make the move. I'd want at least an additional 2nd. So unless I'm sitting in the late teens, I'm probably not gonna get the return I want.

So yeah, I'd generally just stay at 29 and if I can't get one of the top 20 guys, well I'd rather take the 30th guy and have him for an extra year than get him for 4 and get the 130th ranked guy thrown in on top.

I understand those who see it differently, but I just can't agree with them.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I still don’t see the disadvantage in staying put. There will be good players at our pick.

shrug.

There will be. A lot of those guys have comparables that will be there until the late 2nd. If you can move down and pick up another second or third, you can get an extra player of pretty solid value.

I'd prefer that to moving up, but can see Veach moving up for a particular player if there's a guy they just love.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

shrug.

There will be. A lot of those guys have comparables that will be there until the late 2nd. If you can move down and pick up another second or third, you can get an extra player of pretty solid value.

I'd prefer that to moving up, but can see Veach moving up for a particular player if there's a guy they just love.

Like Speaks.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

shrug.

There will be. A lot of those guys have comparables that will be there until the late 2nd. If you can move down and pick up another second or third, you can get an extra player of pretty solid value.

I'd prefer that to moving up, but can see Veach moving up for a particular player if there's a guy they just love.

A 3rd would be borderline for me but if it's an early 3rd, I'd consider it. Sitting 29 just takes so much leverage out of it; really the only benefit of being 29 rather than 40 in this draft is probably that 5th year option and I'm just not sure many teams really value that all that much.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by FAX

What an odd thing ...

Two guys who can't see eye-to-eye when they're with the Chiefs are now simpatico because their numbers seem to match? It's a crazy world.

FAX

What they don't tell you is that between them they are talking about 29 different players total with no overlaps.

[Jerok]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19

I definitely don’t see Veach sticking at 29.

I think he probably goes up to the teens, but if not, goes down to R2.

The question I have is if this is the case, why would any other GM trade up to 29?

I guess it's situational, they have a player they see as a 1st round that others don't.

But still, it's like making a trade with Reid or Belichick, you know you're getting screwed, you're just not sure how.

[YontsRBake]

Originally Posted by Iconic

Heard some buzz that the Jets are desperate to trade down and the Falcons/Lions are interested in doing so as well.

#3 and #8 are pretty unrealistic but #14? At that spot we'd be in perfect range to get the guy we want.

I think the Titans spot at 19 seems like a likely spot. If we're after Greedy, we'll want to move up to above the Seahawks with the least amount of trade off, and the Steelers at 20 i'm guessing would tell us to fk off.

[New World Order]

If we don't like anyone that much when the 20th pick or so comes, I'd love to trade back and then use that ammo to get back in the early second round.

Two early second round picks like Greedy and Mack Wilson would be awesome.

[kcjayhawks5]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I still don’t see the disadvantage in staying put. There will be good players at our pick.

Same. **** trading up or back. Stay put. Hold onto your picks in the future and just choose somebody. Quit trying to get cute.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by FAX

What an odd thing ...

Two guys who can't see eye-to-eye when they're with the Chiefs are now simpatico because their numbers seem to match? It's a crazy world.

FAX

Never heard anything that Ballard and Dorsey couldn't see eye-to-eye.
Link?

[pugsnotdrugs19]

Originally Posted by kcjayhawks5

Same. **** trading up or back. Stay put. Hold onto your picks in the future and just choose somebody. Quit trying to get cute.

I don’t think it’s getting cute by any means. If you trade up, you’re increasing the odds of getting a foundational player who makes a big difference from day one. If you trade back, you have more opportunities to hit on your day 2/3 lottery tickets.

There’s a method to every direction they may go, including pros and cons.

[In58men]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19

I don’t think it’s getting cute by any means. If you trade up, you’re increasing the odds of getting a foundational player who makes a big difference from day one. If you trade back, you have more opportunities to hit on your day 2/3 lottery tickets.

There’s a method to every direction they may go, including pros and cons.

Most importantly, we’re not the experts.

I’m pretty sure we won’t **** it up regardless what they decide to do.

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by pugsnotdrugs19

I don’t think it’s getting cute by any means. If you trade up, you’re increasing the odds of getting a foundational player who makes a big difference from day one. If you trade back, you have more opportunities to hit on your day 2/3 lottery tickets.

There’s a method to every direction they may go, including pros and cons.

careful, dude. You're speaking logically.

[Kiimo]

I really really want to endorse moving up.

But if you move up for Speaks-level quality?

Ugh I'll give that kid some time I guess but man I was sure they were going for Josh Jackson.

[dannybcaitlyn]

Well that’s sort of good news since our division rival Raiders have 3 first round picks.