The 2025 Draft Thread

[DWinzit]

I really wanted Josh Simmons in the draft and he has looked very good for KC. Conerly had better pan out, or that is going to look like a huge mistake. It’s looking like our team would be way better this year with Simmons.

Yeah he needs to pan out and really at T or that's two years, two players drafted high to play T that may end out at G. Honestly though, Coleman was not a disaster at T and I'm giving Conerly time. It's too early to judge OL, especially if they are playing in new positions. He is up against a much less talented DL this week even though there is one top DE. I'm expecting the whole offense to look much improved even with the potential injury issues of Ekeler, Bates and Daniels. Conerly may miss Bates more than Daniels if both are out.

 

[method man]

I really wanted Josh Simmons in the draft and he has looked very good for KC. Conerly had better pan out, or that is going to look like a huge mistake. It’s looking like our team would be way better this year with Simmons.

I was a Simmons guy too. He obviously had the injury and there were some character issues. Should’ve still taken him

 

[method man]

Lot of cases now in AP drafts where the better player at the same position went within 20 picks later:

- Fiske & Sweat after Newton
- Phillips after Sainristil
- Franklin after McCaffrey
- Muasau after Hampton
- Simmons after Conerly

 

[skinsinparadise]

Lot of cases now in AP drafts where the better player at the same position went within 20 picks later:

- Fiske & Sweat after Newton
- Phillips after Sainristil
- Franklin after McCaffrey
- Muasau after Hampton
- Simmons after Conerly

Good point. I forgot about Franklin but he was definitely more hyped from the draft media by far compared to McCaffrey.

 

[RedWolf]

Lot of cases now in AP drafts where the better player at the same position went within 20 picks later:

- Fiske & Sweat after Newton
- Phillips after Sainristil
- Franklin after McCaffrey
- Muasau after Hampton
- Simmons after Conerly

Show us the results of your last 21 stock purchases? Everybody talks about their winners but nobody talks about their losers. Nobody can predict the future. It's easy to punch holes on someone

 

[Bulldog]

Originally I thought we should have kept our pick in round 2 in 2024 and taken Cooper DeJean.

That would have opened us up in 2025 to use that #2 pick on an edge rusher.

I like Sainristil’s compete level but a very good outside starting corner is worth the higher pick.

 

[method man]

Show us the results of your last 21 stock purchases? Everybody talks about their winners but nobody talks about their losers. Nobody can predict the future. It's easy to punch holes on someone

This is analogy doesn’t work. Are we a bunch of hedge fund managers? AP is a professional at this with a big staff

Were you making this argument for Ron?

 

[method man]

Given just

Originally I thought we should have kept our pick in round 2 in 2024 and taken Cooper DeJean.

That would have opened us up in 2025 to use that #2 pick on an edge rusher.

I like Sainristil’s compete level but a very good outside starting corner is worth the higher pick.

I really wanted us to double dip on tackles given we needed two, the insane depth of the 2024 draft and how hard good ones are to find. My thought was also that we’d have better odds 1/2 working out vs 1/1.

 

[SkinsNumberOne]

You guys are hanging Conerly on AP but it sounded like Kliff really wanted Conerly. The early read on AP is it is very much a collaborative process with player selection which is good and bad. I think the Slye issue many of us are a little put off by, it was triggered by a connection with McManus by one of the ST coaches (theory but seems likely).

So I think AP may need a little experience.
I hope he has enough data to see stuff like what method man pointed out. That is a few too many predictable issues for my comfort and whether it comes from collaborating with coaches or not, it needs to be looked at with clear eyes and a recognition that improvement can be made.

 

[RedWolf]

This is analogy doesn’t work. Are we a bunch of hedge fund managers? AP is a professional at this with a big staff

Were you making this argument for Ron?

Are you an NFL GM? Sure it works. Never defended Ron.

Hindsight is 20/20

 

[method man]

Are you an NFL GM? Sure it works. Never defended Ron.

Hindsight is 20/20

I don't understand your point.

Separately, another way to look at it is AP could've not made the trade and followed Mel Kiper's board and done better than he actually did. Here it is.

Would've yielded us

2. Daniels
36. DeJean
40. E. Cooper
67. TJ Tampa
78. Adissa Isaac
100. Troy Franklin

Would've resulted in a couple more impactful. DeJean and Cooper both look like superstars on defense. Franklin looks like a legitimate starting WR. Tampa and Isaac both are ?s but, let's say for the sake of this argument, both guys are busts. That would've still given us a better haul than the one we ended up getting.

 

[Primus Porcus]

I don't understand your point.

Separately, another way to look at it is AP could've not made the trade and followed Mel Kiper's board and done better than he actually did. Here it is.

Would've yielded us

2. Daniels
36. DeJean
40. E. Cooper
67. TJ Tampa
78. Adissa Isaac
100. Troy Franklin

Would've resulted in a couple more impactful. DeJean and Cooper both look like superstars on defense. Franklin looks like a legitimate starting WR. Tampa and Isaac both are ?s but, let's say for the sake of this argument, both guys are busts. That would've still given us a better haul than the one we ended up getting.

Meaning we have no idea what the rationale was about their decision.... but i guarantee there was rationale. It's easy to say "we could have had X, Y, and Z" after the fact. The time leading up matters. The analysis matters. 32 teams could have chosen to pick Tom Brady 5 different times. Perfection is impossible. They may not have had Dejean on their board that high... or Cooper. Every year we're going to be able to look back and say "we could have taken player X instead of player Z." EVERY single team has that same stance because of how imperfect the process is.... by no fault of anyone.

There are clear and obvious instances like not drafting Christian Darrisaw, instead taking Jamin Davis... but that was Rivera and Co... Peters and Co deserve a chance to build.

 

[36ST21]

I don't understand your point.

Separately, another way to look at it is AP could've not made the trade and followed Mel Kiper's board and done better than he actually did. Here it is.

Would've yielded us

2. Daniels
36. DeJean
40. E. Cooper
67. TJ Tampa
78. Adissa Isaac
100. Troy Franklin

Would've resulted in a couple more impactful. DeJean and Cooper both look like superstars on defense. Franklin looks like a legitimate starting WR. Tampa and Isaac both are ?s but, let's say for the sake of this argument, both guys are busts. That would've still given us a better haul than the one we ended up getting.

That is downright depressing.

 

[method man]

Meaning we have no idea what the rationale was about their decision.... but i guarantee there was rationale. It's easy to say "we could have had X, Y, and Z" after the fact. The time leading up matters. The analysis matters. 32 teams could have chosen to pick Tom Brady 5 different times. Perfection is impossible. They may not have had Dejean on their board that high... or Cooper. Every year we're going to be able to look back and say "we could have taken player X instead of player Z." EVERY single team has that same stance because of how imperfect the process is.... by no fault of anyone.

There are clear and obvious instances like not drafting Christian Darrisaw, instead taking Jamin Davis... but that was Rivera and Co... Peters and Co deserve a chance to build.

There are proven truths about the NFL draft and one of them is you don't reach for talent. This has been studied by analysts. Here is the consensus board from 2024. It suggests while not BPA, Newton and Sainristil were good value at their draft slots. On the other hand, Sinnott was overdrafted by 27 picks, Coleman was overdrafted by 33 picks and Luke was overdrafted by 36 picks. Basically, each guy was taken roughly a round earlier than consensus value.

For perspective, I would think we'd be more fine with Sinnott's struggles if he'd been taken at the Coleman pick and Luke's struggles if we'd taken him Day 3 (had we had a pick). While Coleman was solid as a rookie OT, we should note that he has been terrible so far this season at guard.

In the 2025 draft, Conerly and Harris went around consensus. However, there were a bunch of receivers ahead of Lane on consensus boards who were taken after including Ayomanor, Royals and Horton. In fact, Lane was taken 41 picks ahead of consensus. It'll be interesting to see how we think about the pick by the end of the year. For reference, Ayomanor is a starting outside receiver for the Titans and Tory Horton is Jaylin's role in Seattle.

 

[Primus Porcus]

There are proven truths about the NFL draft and one of them is you don't reach for talent. This has been studied by analysts. Here is the consensus board from 2024. It suggests while not BPA, Newton and Sainristil were good value at their draft slots. On the other hand, Sinnott was overdrafted by 27 picks, Coleman was overdrafted by 33 picks and Luke was overdrafted by 36 picks. Basically, each guy was taken roughly a round earlier than consensus value.

For perspective, I would think we'd be more fine with Sinnott's struggles if he'd been taken at the Coleman pick and Luke's struggles if we'd taken him Day 3 (had we had a pick). While Coleman was solid as a rookie OT, we should note that he has been terrible so far this season at guard.

In the 2025 draft, Conerly and Harris went around consensus. However, there were a bunch of receivers ahead of Lane on consensus boards who were taken after including Ayomanor, Royals and Horton. In fact, Lane was taken 41 picks ahead of consensus. It'll be interesting to see how we think about the pick by the end of the year. For reference, Ayomanor is a starting outside receiver for the Titans and Tory Horton is Jaylin's role in Seattle.

I agree, there are proven truths. One of them is that there are players that are picked high that don't work out, and players that are picked late that perform above their draft position. It's inevitable....


I would lean more toward not coming up with some sort of a conclusive decision on a player after 2 games. Probably not even after an entire season. I personally also don't think some sort of long lasting determination on success should include their draft status. There shouldn't be a set "Players taken at 51st overall need to achieve 'X' in order to justify the pick". There are way too many factors just within the player themselves that determine their own success and failure, and more importantly, the 51st player in the draft is always going to be different because there have NEVER been the same exact player entering the draft more than one time. Developmental factors, external factors, schematic issues, all things that effect the speed in which a player's success is able to be analyzed, so it's impossible to truly compare them. The same issues come down to the 'consensus' you referenced. The consensus 51st 'best' player in the draft may not work here because his number he's worn all his life is number 17, and he wouldn't be able to wear it here. He may play nice but it would throw him off his game just enough to not play to the best of his ability. Yes I understand that's a relatively trivial example, but this is the NFL, a game of absolute inches, so there's no real telling exactly how many things need to be 'perfect' in order for a player to be able to play at their own highest level. EVERY situation is different, so factors we don't even consider could effect a player from being successful on one team, but falling short on another.


Personally I don't want a GM that lives within the consensus. I want them to have their own board, and not give two hoots about what anyone else thinks about players. All up and down the draft there are guys that fall short of their 'consensus' also, so where does it become justified? A GM can get away with a failed pick because the player chosen was within a 'consensus' range of their draft position? Let's ask Chase Young what it's like to be the 'consensus' top player in the draft. How about Caleb Williams? How about when Detroit took Jahmyr Gibbs?

 

[skinsinparadise]

I don't mind going against consensus but if you do, I'd like to see you hit of course and the consensus pick not do as well.

I think we are a bit gun shy as to adopting this approach because Ron seemed to major in and swung and missed way too much -- with the consensus pick often killing it -- see Darrisaw, C. Gonzalez, K. Hamilton.

So far when Peters has done the same, it hasn't looked hot from initial returns but I agree it all needs more time to play out. Also, unlike Ron, he's made plenty of other good decisions. So he has much more slack with me.

The joke about Howie Roseman from some is the draft geeks have loved his picks because he's done what they would do. And in recent years, its worked.

Granted there are plenty of draft geeks out there with different opinons, some I like, some I don't. but for example if you watch college football you know that Kyle Hamilton is a super star and game changer. Then you got some draft geeks calling him a top 5 pick. It doesn't feel that hard and it all flows together about some players as to the eye test, pedigree, etc that when they drop in the draft, it feels like they would be a steal. It's no shocker that Kyle Hamilton is a stud.

Left tackles don't grow on trees, so when you got a high pedigreed one like Darrisaw drop all the way to 19 you take them -- versus a raw weakside LB. When you got a CB, who looks built out of a movie as to being a prototype CB, with freakish size-speed and who is ascending including having 3 picks the season before -- you take them -- instead of the 165 pound scrawny CB who would be a major outlier if they would succeed in the NFL.

 

[skinsinparadise]

Speaking of players I liked in the draft, lol, it was painful to see Skattebo emerge last week

 

[method man]

I don't mind going against consensus but if you do, I'd like to see you hit of course and the consensus pick not do as well.

I think we are a bit gun shy as to adopting this approach because Ron seemed to major in and swung and missed way too much -- with the consensus pick often killing it -- see Darrisaw, C. Gonzalez, K. Hamilton.

So far when Peters has done the same, it hasn't looked hot from initial returns but I agree it all needs more time to play out. Also, unlike Ron, he's made plenty of other good decisions. So he has much more slack with me.

The joke about Howie Roseman from some is the draft geeks have loved his picks because he's done what they would do. And in recent years, its worked.

Granted there are plenty of draft geeks out there with different opinons, some I like, some I don't. but for example if you watch college football you know that Kyle Hamilton is a super star and game changer. Then you got some draft geeks calling him a top 5 pick. It doesn't feel that hard and it all flows together about some players as to the eye test, pedigree, etc that when they drops in the draft, it feels like they would be a steal. It's no shocker that Kyle Hamilton is a stud.

Left tackles don't grow on trees, so when you got a high pedigreed one like Darrisaw drop all the way to 19 you take them -- versus a raw weakside LB. When you got a CB, who looks built out of a movie as to being a prototype CB, with freakish size-speed and who is ascending including having 3 picks the season before -- you take them -- instead of the 165 pound scrawny CB who would be a major outlier if they would succeed in the NFL.

I was going to make that same exact point about Howie. If you go pick by pick evaluating his recent drafts, he doesn't deviate much from consensus. The one Day 1 / Day 2 pick I can think of was Jalyx Hunt who was not the most straightforward prospect - not many prospects go from safety at Cornell to edge rusher at Houston Baptist.

 

[method man]

I agree, there are proven truths. One of them is that there are players that are picked high that don't work out, and players that are picked late that perform above their draft position. It's inevitable....


I would lean more toward not coming up with some sort of a conclusive decision on a player after 2 games. Probably not even after an entire season. I personally also don't think some sort of long lasting determination on success should include their draft status. There shouldn't be a set "Players taken at 51st overall need to achieve 'X' in order to justify the pick". There are way too many factors just within the player themselves that determine their own success and failure, and more importantly, the 51st player in the draft is always going to be different because there have NEVER been the same exact player entering the draft more than one time. Developmental factors, external factors, schematic issues, all things that effect the speed in which a player's success is able to be analyzed, so it's impossible to truly compare them. The same issues come down to the 'consensus' you referenced. The consensus 51st 'best' player in the draft may not work here because his number he's worn all his life is number 17, and he wouldn't be able to wear it here. He may play nice but it would throw him off his game just enough to not play to the best of his ability. Yes I understand that's a relatively trivial example, but this is the NFL, a game of absolute inches, so there's no real telling exactly how many things need to be 'perfect' in order for a player to be able to play at their own highest level. EVERY situation is different, so factors we don't even consider could effect a player from being successful on one team, but falling short on another.


Personally I don't want a GM that lives within the consensus. I want them to have their own board, and not give two hoots about what anyone else thinks about players. All up and down the draft there are guys that fall short of their 'consensus' also, so where does it become justified? A GM can get away with a failed pick because the player chosen was within a 'consensus' range of their draft position? Let's ask Chase Young what it's like to be the 'consensus' top player in the draft. How about Caleb Williams? How about when Detroit took Jahmyr Gibbs?

Yes, there are plenty of examples of players who were taken around consensus not working out. However, the studies folks have done show that the odds are better a pick works out if a pick is taken around consensus. The "wisdom of the crowds" is a real thing. A lot of the folks who build mock drafts have inside information that never reaches the public about prospects. It's not just folks like Daniel Jeremiah and Mel Kiper who get this information but, as we learned through the draft process, even nobodies like the guy from NC who Logan had on his draft pod a bunch of times get plenty of inside information that informs what they do in their mocks.

 

[Primus Porcus]

I don't mind going against consensus but if you do, I'd like to see you hit of course and the consensus pick not do as well.

I think we are a bit gun shy as to adopting this approach because Ron seemed to major in and swung and missed way too much -- with the consensus pick often killing it -- see Darrisaw, C. Gonzalez, K. Hamilton.

So far when Peters has done the same, it hasn't looked hot from initial returns but I agree it all needs more time to play out. Also, unlike Ron, he's made plenty of other good decisions. So he has much more slack with me.

The joke about Howie Roseman from some is the draft geeks have loved his picks because he's done what they would do. And in recent years, its worked.

Granted there are plenty of draft geeks out there with different opinons, some I like, some I don't. but for example if you watch college football you know that Kyle Hamilton is a super star and game changer. Then you got some draft geeks calling him a top 5 pick. It doesn't feel that hard and it all flows together about some players as to the eye test, pedigree, etc that when they drop in the draft, it feels like they would be a steal. It's no shocker that Kyle Hamilton is a stud.

Left tackles don't grow on trees, so when you got a high pedigreed one like Darrisaw drop all the way to 19 you take them -- versus a raw weakside LB. When you got a CB, who looks built out of a movie as to being a prototype CB, with freakish size-speed and who is ascending including having 3 picks the season before -- you take them -- instead of the 165 pound scrawny CB who would be a major outlier if they would succeed in the NFL.

I agree completely about everything except your first sentence.

I don't want my front office being 'swayed' by the consensus, so they should have no fear about 'going against' it. I want them to have their own board, much of which will likely align with other football minds, but if they think Conerly is worth 29 overall, then they take him. That's also not to say they believe he's the 29th best player. They may have him rated in the 40s, but because of multiple factors including whos is gone that they expected to be their, when their next pick is, what they're hearing about the direction of the draft to come... etc. Conerly so far appears to be 'inferior' pick to Simmons, but Simmons is coming off an injury that ended his season in October, was there concern there? Their board might have had Conerly at 35, but because of the landscape they picked him 'early'..