2019 Draft Ranking for Positions
 

Not a good year to try for a CB1 or Safety. Makes DJLN's pick of a center sound even better...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...est-to-weakest

It's a GREAT year to try for a CB1 or S - in the 2nd round. They're not top heavy but they're super deep.

Besides, if you want to go strictly by the this article, DL and edge are both better than interior OL and the Chiefs have needs there as well.

I think interior OL and Edge are very similar which is good for us.

I'm just worried there won't be an edge guy there that can be a difference maker very quickly there at 29.

I agree but most DL and Edge will be gone by 29. I like the idea of taking the best Center in the draft and going CB/S in the second.
I would like DL or Edge too but if there isnt a top guy there, I'll take THE top Center all day.

Can't agree. I don't think the CB1 options are all that great in any round.

There aren't any CB1s in the 2nd. There's 1 CB1 in the whole draft.

It's deep for complementary CBs but there's nobody in this draft with the ability to step in quickly and be a lock-down CB. The draft is deep there, yes, but there's just no top end at all. These guys we're calling great values in the 2nd round are in the 2nd round every year and oftentimes in the 3rd.

They're being pushed up because there's no top end and folks are looking at need ahead of prospect value.

Well, taking a CB or S in the 2nd round isn't a "bad year for DB's".

You're kind of contradicting yourself a bit. ;)

I'm not sure any of those corners are ever more than say, what Steven Nelson amounted to.

Now that's not necessarily bad, but if you're needing a top end guy, meh.

There are a few guys that could be available in the 2nd that have CB1 potential, as unlikely as that may be. None of them are going to be CB1's day 1 but then again, that's exactly why they signed Breeland to a 1-year deal is to give them that flexibility.

I'm not suggesting you draft any of them at 29, so no, I'm not pushing them up. I've never advocated drafting any of them anywhere other than our 2nd round picks or after. And I've repeatedly stated I'm not interested in trading up.

I don't care really if they draft an interior lineman at 29. But to say this is a "bad draft for DB's" just simply isn't true. It's a bad draft if you need a true shutdown guy but the Chiefs don't. They need depth and competition with upside, at both CB and S.

Who said the Chiefs need a top end guy right now? They need some guys they can develop.

Do you believe a draft must be completely bereft of 2nd day talent in order to be weak at a particular position?

It's not a good year to be looking for immediate help. At best you have some guys with the physical tools to be solid CBs upon significant development. Well hell, that's Charvarius Ward and he went undrafted. You can find a half dozen of those every single year.

What determines the 'strength' of a draft class is its top end more than its depth. You can move around within a letter grade based on depth, but what controls the letter grade itself is the top end, notably their ceiling and ability to immediately contribute.

By my eyes that's a C draft for CBs made a C+ by virtue of the depth of the class. It isn't a strong one for CBs at all. And when the top safety in the class is likely Adderley and his quality of competition concerns or CGJ and his likely long-term FS outlook, it's pretty damn hard to say that compares to say the 2010 class with Berry, Earl Thomas and TJ Ward. Your 2nd tier guys (Taylor Mays and Nate Allen) are more akin to the level of prospect you're seeing at safety in this year's draft.

It ain't a truly good DB draft class. It's adequate at best and that adequate is due to depth.

If that's the case, then this isn't really a great year for anything other than DL, edge, and TE.

They need top end guys pretty quickly. Why wouldn't they?

If you are looking for a CB1, there is ONE who wont be available at 29. So yeah, you could take one in the second but it wont be a 1. Safety may be the same situation.

So, not a good year to use a first round pick on a DB. Could get very similar value in round 2.

Which is why I've said multiple times that the folks that were so gung-ho on Baker are gonna be damn disappointed when he turns out to be a slightly better version of Nelson in 2 seasons and a worse version of him in year 1.

As for the idea that there's depth to be found that could develop into a CB1 - I reiterate, how is that any different from any draft class?

Take Lattimore and Humphrey out of the 2017 draft class, make Byron Murphy your Adoree Jackson, Greedy Williams is Tre'Davious White and I think you're looking at what we have here in 2019. Most of these guys are no different than guys like Tabor, Awuzie, Witherspoon, King, etc....

Knock the top off the 2017 draft class and you're left with a class that is, at best, meh.

At CB and S? Several people here just got done saying they don't need them. So which position are you talking about?

There's a couple of guys that COULD be 1's with the right coaching.

I never suggested using a first round pick on a DB. I've said SECOND ROUND multiple times.

I think they need top end guys back there, I don't think anyone in this draft that will be available to the Chiefs will be that, atleast not very quickly.

That would be my reason for taking Bradburry, if they think he's a high end player.

It isn't. They still need quality depth with the potential to start. That's what the 2nd and 3rd rounds are supposed to be for, are they not?

The top end CB's in this draft look to me like the normal guys that go at the end of the 1st/middle of the 2nd every year.

Kind of a high end #2 corner that you can pair with your guy on the other side. It's just damn hard to get a legit guy as they go so early. Kind of the same with, well, every position these days.

So they need top end guys but since you can't guarantee anybody will be there, you just throw up your hands and give up?

Again, I don't have a problem with Bradbury in the first, as long as they get a DB in the 2nd. Right now, they don't have enough guys in the secondary to even play a game and despite all the attempts to say otherwise, the depth they have there isn't adequate at all.

I think it's a good year for OL as well.

I mean damn, how many positions in any class do you expect to be good? DL, Edge, OL and TE is not a small number of available 'strong' groups.

I think that's exactly where the line is drawn. Starting with those groups you have various iterations of the same creatures; position groups that are strong in their depth or just flat out bad. WR and DB is the former, I'd say off-ball linebacker is the latter. I've been saying all along that apart from White and Bush, I don't see a great MLB candidate and outside of Walker and Pratt I don't even see a Sam that stands out. It's a flat out bad class for LBs but it's definitely a below average group for CBs.

No I don't throw my hands up. As I said, i'd take the guy rated the highest on my board. Be that a WR (another class that seems a little weak to me), interior OL, pass rusher etc.

I'd take those 2 2nd rounders and look for guys that have the upside to atleast become starters at worst in the secondary but I wouldn't necessarily force it.

I've come around to Sweat or one of the DE prospects but those guys tend to get picked pretty quickly

Sure, but it's still all relative.

And relative to other positions and other years, this is a poor class for defensive backs. It's a deep class and so there SHOULD be a solid 2nd day value to be had at CB or safety.

But I think you can say that most years. We're talking maybe one or 2 more guys than is normal in that 2nd tier of 'solid but unspectacular' DB prospects.

The offensive tackle class is very, very good. There's probably 5 or 6 guys with first round grades.

But we're talking about interior lineman. Bradbury is the only center that anybody has a first round grade on and even then, a lot of sites have him as a 2nd rounder.

At guard, you have the EXACT situation you're talking about with CB's - there's nobody there that's really worth a first and some guys like Jordan and and Deiter are going to get pushed up because of it.

I mean, NFL Rough Draft, who has the highest success rate picking the top 100 the last 3 years, has ZERO interior linemen with a 1st round grade.

I don't like Sweat, I've made my feelings known about that one. I'm definitely in on DL/DE though.

To simplify things, do you take the 6th best DL or the 7th best Edge guy or the TOP Center?

If we are taking BPA that also happens to be at a position of need, thats what you do.

Of course we are assuming based on Mock drafts and such that this is how things will fall but who knows? Maybe a TOP guy at another position will be there but I doubt it.

I actually wouldn't be upset at taking on the of tackles at 29 if they dropped to them in the event Fisher or Schwartz price themselves out next year.

I don't know what you do with said player for a year though. LOL.

It fell that way in the CP mock. I don't think it will in real time. Teams boards will be all over the place so some of the guys at the top of the 2nd will go mid first etc.

If Bradburry is the best player fine. I don't think the situation where that happens will occur.

That's fair; I was lumping OL together (as I have DL) into a mass to make for larger groups of players but if you want to break out OT and OG, that's fine.

DL, Edge, OT, TE are all standout groups. I'd put IOL a tick ahead of WR as pretty average for a given year. then I'd put CB and S about neck and neck at below average with QB just a tick after them. Then RB and LB as pretty poor.

DBs are on the backside of the bell curve here, IMO.

The Chiefs don't currently have a 2nd TE on the roster. Maybe we're missing the elephant in the room on who they want in round 1?

Depends on whether or not they're actually the BPA.

If the 6th best DE is ranked 32nd on the big board and the #1 center is ranked 40th, I take the 6th best DE.

Again, Garrett Bradbury isn't a consensus first round pick. So if you're taking him, you better be damn sure you're not passing up better talent just because he's the best player available at that position. This team has needs all over the field on both sides of the ball.

Hock and Fant ain't happening. Smith might but I doubt it.

But I could very easily see them going TE in the 2nd or 3rd.

I think it's gonna be a weird ass draft where we'll see guys who went in the 2nd of the mock in the mid first and vice versa etc.

That's fair.

Maybe not. I could see Irv being there at 29. If so, i'd take him.

That always happens. ;)

So if you could take that first and trade it for a current player, seeing as though you may end up taking a center there in the draft, do you do it?

True.

You dipshits are terrible at drafting. You're all lucky I sat out this year or i'd be just demolishing that thing.

Well I had my heart set on a CB/S in round 1 but this article and much of the other research, mock drafts and articles now have me thinking differently.
Unless we trade up in round 1 (edge/DL/CB), I see Bradbury as a viable even probable option.

I don't think they'd not take any of those players in round 1. Just have to wait and see.

A whole month from the draft? What the ****, why do they have so much time?

Mostly true.

But its worth pointing out that Bradbury IS the consensus top of his position. In a vacuum that's not a huge consideration but it is when discussing opportunity cost, especially in a draft where you have 2 second rounders.

If you can have the 30th ranked player on your draft board who's the top of the C position with a clear drop off after or the 25th ranked player on your draft board who's mashed in the middle of a group of 6 similarly situated corners, it's a worthwhile gamble to see who's gonna end up coming back around to you in the 2nd.

It isn't just 'take the guy at the top'. It's also a question of setting yourself up for the rest of the draft to avoid being duplicative or boxing yourself in. When the strength of the CB class is its depth with no real standout, if most of that depth is still sitting there when you pick, you're probably better served letting the depth do some heavy lifting for you, taking the top off a different position and getting a 1a, b, c, d or whatever at the deeper position in the 2nd.

Basic positional scarcity as applied to the NFL draft. Your best bet is to be in the back of a run on similarly situated players, IMO. I hate being the guy that kicks a run like that off because you've done nothing with your additional draft capital and you're no more likely than anyone after you of getting a stud from it.

But wouldn't you rather have the guy you have actually rated as the top of said supposed run of say, corners? Unless you have them all rated that similarly and if you do that, aren't you doing something wrong?

Still no.

Now if I were looking at a board with Lindstrom as the top of the position on the IOL and somehow my BPA, I'd probably do it.

But I think we're poopooing the responsibilities of a C a bit here. That's a toooouuuuugh position to play, especially in this system and with a young QB under center witha chance to build a half-decade or more of rapport there, I don't see C as any 'worse' a position to take as just about anything being suggested in the alternative.

It's just a less sexy one.

I have no problem taking a center there. I've covered for you on that in the mock thread and this is the thanks I get? ****.

It would depend to me on if they have guys rated similarly. If they truly believe the end of the first is gonna be similar to the back of the 2nd in terms of who they can get, go trade that pick for Clowney or Ramsey and sign them.

It's a way to get blue chippers which you need (unless your New England and we ain't New England)

Bradbury is the top Center, but hell Jenkins and McCoy are right there with him.

If I only had 1 pick, sure.

But if I have 2 picks, one of which I can then allocate elsewhere to a position with a starker drop-off and no similar depth, I'll use that pick on the more extreme tier and be comfortable that I can still get something awfully close to my preference with the other pick.

Because one thing you're forgetting is that deep tiers yield erratic rankings. My top of that tier may be the bottom for most other teams (and an irrelevant consideration for still others).

And that's how a Chris Jones happens.

So you're talking about the 2 2nd rounders? ok, i'm on board now.

What youre saying is if there are say 3 CB's you love and you're up at 61, take another position you love because you know one will be there at 63.

Ok, I got it. I'm not dumb.

You guys are great and I appreciate these conversations.

I dont watch college ball so I have to learn the entire draft from February to April. Thanks for the help.

Chiefs will pick someone none of us expect, like usual.

I thought that at first blush but I think Bradbury has a level of athleticism that the other two don't have. And it comes out in his raw strength.

His feet absolutely blow McCoy out of the water and is a little better than Jenkins. And to combine that with exceptional raw strength - I think y'all are really underselling him. That's a combination of crazy strong and incredibly athletic that you just don't see very often.

He may not be seen as a consensus 1st rounder right now but I think A) there's a better than 50/50 chance he's not there for us when we pick and B) a better than 50/50 chance that we take him if he is.

I do think there's a much bigger gap between Bradbury and McCoy/Jenkins than you're suggesting. Hell, you can throw McGovern in that group and not see a noticeable dropoff, IMO. Michael Jordan may have a higher ceiling than all 3 of them. But Bradbury has the highest ceiling of all of them AND the highest floor. He's unquestionably the top of the IOL class, IMO. And as I looked into it more and more, I decided it probably isn't even very close.

It was more of a general statement that you can take either of those guys, plug them in and you have a 10 year starter.

SOLD!!

Nope, I'm gambling more heavily than that.

I'm saying that if I'm at 29 and there are 6 guys that I think are all within the ballpark, I don't want to take 1a at 29 only to see 1e go off the board at 59. I've gotten so little heavy lifting out of my additional 30 spots of draft capital and I've done no...is 'arbitrage' the right word here? I think it is.

I'm gonna gamble. I'm gonna take the risk that there are enough fungible assets between 29 and 61 that while 1e may not be quite as good as 1a, there's a chance he'll still be there due to board irregularities and even if he isn't, the difference in value from 1e to 1a is less than the difference in value between the guy I took at 29 and his 'replacement' further down.

I think you can, but more of a Casey Weigman type of 10 year starter. Solid but not amazing.

I mean maybe a Billy Price type? Pat Elflein if you're unlucky. But if you're looking to get a Travis Frederick or, I dunno, Alex Mack? You're looking at Bradbury. His ceiling is well beyond theirs and I think his bust potential is nothing near theirs.

Argue that the Cowboys haven't won shit with a C who's arguably destined for the HoF if you'd like - it's not a completely unfair argument to make. But I think Bradbury has the ability to be something similar and I don't think there's much of an argument to make that Frederick isn't the best C in football. He has been for pretty much his entire NFL career. That's the blueprint for this pick. The potential is there for it to work out that well.

I've seen great tape from all 3. Heck, I wouldn't be worried at all if I were KC and landed one of the top 5 options. But I also.am not dying to find an elite guy. Be a aolid guy in all aspects is good enough for me.

I have a really hard time buying into taking IOL Day 1 generally though.

That was who I was kind of envisioning if that's the route they go. Really, Frederick isn't the reason they haven't won (I'd say taking a Rb at #4 overall would be a bigger reason but that's another argument) anything and he's a phenomenal talent. Sometimes we look at other teams and justify not taking x or y because they have the best and they haven't won.

It's hard as shit to win. Just give me as many blue chippers as you can. If I can come out of 29 with an all pro C, fine. I'll grit my teeth and do it.

I said it the other day but that would be a pick we'd all kind of bemoan and wine about but in 3 years when he's (ideally) the best C in the game, you'd love it.

It's not the route I hope they go, but if they did, I get it.

If its round 1 then I want a TOP guy.

In the past, i'd agree.

But with the quick game everyone runs now, interior pressure and DL is the new fad and some of these teams have frickin monsters in there. Not just space eaters but badasses.

I think it's kind of an undersold reason the Pats are always so good up front. For one, Brady takes shallow drops to give his tackles room to run people by and their interior OL is just damn good.

That's more of a case for having a quality scouting department and OL coaching.

If I could have Scarnechia sure. But that's not happening so i'll take the most talent I can get.

Can't coach the ability to be cock-strong and have fast feet.

Think of the Smith vs. Mahomes dichotomy, though to a far less extreme degree. Reid is no smarter than he's ever been, but he could do things with Mahomes he could never do with Smith because Mahomes simply has physical gifts that Smith could never dream of. Those tools open up every trick in Andy's book.

Bradbury's combination of functional strength and agility is on par with the best in the NFL right now, if not surpassing them. That dude has a ton of tools man.

And with that, the kind of blocking we can do on the interior is just different when we're not trying to paper over poor functional strength or heavy feet (the case with Reiter). Yes, coaching can cover for weaknesses, but a lack of weaknesses can open up a lot of additional coaching.

It goes both ways.

Some may just have the philosophy of no IOL in the first round, which, I understand. I wouldn't necessarily be against that philosophy myself in the past but I've come around to it a bit just with the amount guards and centers are getting and how important blocking up in there has become.

It doesn't really compare. Interior OL just doesn't hold value like other positions because the athletic requirements, even with a trend of interior pressure, aren't as strenuous.

It's different when you run as much out of the shotgun as we do, though.

I think that kind of athleticism really allows you to do some things in your run game blocking on the edges that you can't do with a 'normal' center.
That's why I say that a guy with more tools can allow Reid to do more things. And if you have to respect the possibility of that C pulling out and wiping you out on the edge, you have to be a little more cognizant of that in both run support AND when rushing the passer.

It isn't just a question of what it takes to play the position competently (i.e. Alex Smith). It's a question of what you can do with a guy who has truly standout tools at said position.

I'm more concerned with just having a unit of 5 where one piece isn't a total turd sieve and that they can work well as a unit.

You still arguing your Center pick at 29 everywhere DJ? :P

Erik McCoy is more athletic. Why didn't you take him? Inquiring minds want to know why it is you were hell bent on Bradbury. haha

Edit: Shall I instead say "every bit as athletic?" I hate to say "more" in the general sense.

I don't think McCoy is even 'as' athletic. Perhaps in straight line speed (hard to tell) but I think Bradbury has much better feet and lateral agility.

Bradbury is far more athletic than McCoy.

McCoy had an 8.28 3 cone...yikes

Ah, I don't care what lineman run at the underwear Olympics. On the field, McCoy is every bit the athlete that Bradbury is. He's projected to be available at the end of round 2. I really don't think there's a fundamental difference between the two players, yet one is being argued to be a great pick in round 1 while the thought of getting the other at the end of 2 is dismissed.

And here's why I bring it up. It is being argued that Bradbury is a much better player available than the cluster of DBs that were available at the end of 1 and part of that reasoning is that he stands out. He simply doesn't. I'd lump Bradbury in with a group of McCoy, Jenkins, McGovern, Dieter, Jordan, and Piersbacher all as good centers and all should perform well in the NFL. Some of those guys may end up playing guard, especially McGovern, Dieter, and Jordan, but they all are capable of playing center and it's more team dependent. I think that lump of talent is no more distinguishable than the safety talent.

We can argue semantics about individual players, but I can't accept an argument that Bradbury is undoubtedly better than any of those others.

If that’s how their board sets, I’m good with it. If they have the centers all clumped up, wait

But lets get to the real issue at hand. I feel better about Reiter taking over at Center than Cam Erving continuing at LG.

How does Mackenzie compare #s wise with Bradbury?

I remember Veach doing a video where he showed KM at his proday and said his times and reps would put him in the top 10 on IOL in most drafts.

I honestly think they have the guy penciled in to start

Be wrong all you want.

Bradbury will go 20 spots before McCoy.

Bradbury is a first round talent, McCoy a mid-late 2nd.

McKenzie
6'3" 314
31-1/2" arms
5.15 40yd
26 reps
29.5" Vertical
105.0" Broad
7.94 3-Cone
4.68 Short Shuttle


Bradbury
6'3" 306
31-3/4" arms
4.92 40yd
34 reps
31.0" Vertical
104.0" Broad
7.41 3-Cone
4.53 Short Shuttle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/arrowhe...e-lineman/amp/

With Kahlil, we certainly knew of him. He’s one of those guys who is a talented enough player to be a very productive member on any team as a defensive lineman. But every now and then a pro day will catch your attention. This was a pro day that caught our attention, because they worked Kahlil out on the offensive line. So we came back and watched this work out, and when you see a 350 lb. guy move like this, just on a simple pull draw. I mean, this is stuff you’d see from a guard that was taken in the top 20 picks of the NFL Draft … This isn’t a guy who failed at defensive line and wants to be an offensive guard. This guy has a chance to maybe be a special offensive lineman.

I'm not arguing that Bradbury has a slight edge in the likelihood to go round 1. What I'm saying is you think he's light years better from a talent perspective, which was anything but true in college. Until the combine happened, guess who was talked about as a potential first and who was a 3rd round pick? Jenkins was the 1st round guy and Bradbury the 3rd round guy. Bradbury didn't magically get better on the field cuz he ran well in shorts.

In terms of athleticism Bradbury is definitely up there. Having him get out in front of screens and such with that athleticism would be nice

Him at center with McKenzie at LG could be nice

Question for those of you that are very high on Bradbury.

Do you think he’s a day 1 upgrade from Morse? I know he’s obviously much cheaper, but he almost has to be for me to justify it. At the very least, he needs to be as good off the bat.

I’d think he could be a similar player immediately and maybe a bit more physically strong