The 2026 Draft Thread - 1st Round - 7th overall

[KDawg]

It is a great show. Not sure about the pull punches part, a little bit more so from Mensch. Todd is typically about hyping the prospects he likes.

For what its worth, he actually shares the intel he gets. Usually the criticism from him is him repeating what he's heard from his FO sources

McShay is pretty critical, actually. But it’s baked in his takes. He gives a full outlook and points out his criticisms but then goes back over the positives again.

Honestly it’s pretty similar to my overall way of doing things.

I work with kids. Some kids I’ve worked with are heading to big D1s this year. I know how hard this process is.

People think I hate David Bailey - I just don’t think he’s what many think he is. If we were discussing Bailey in the mid teens, I’d feel better. I’d be on board then. He’s kinda similar to Saadiq, Ioane, etc. to me. And I like those dudes.

My Bailey take is that he’s not some out of the box stud that is must draft and he has a lot of shortcomings in his game, but had a high ceiling.

So if he were framed as a mid first prospect I’d be all about it.

Honestly I’m starting to feel that way a little bit about Downs, but not quite. I actually think I like Thienemann enough that they are real close for me. Downs’ knee is a major concern for me.

Anyways; this got a bit off the point. But McShay is pretty critical. It’s just not in your face.

 

[skinsinparadise]

The challenge for the draft media I think for them is a key resource for their info are agents. And the draft has becoming more gossipy than the past where guys like Kiper and others admit their mocks are more guided by what they hear from NFL sources more so than the past. Some of the media draft people have admitted that they are lobbied sometimes from agents to influence their mocks and also been giving a hard time by them if they don't think highly of their clients.

So the media for example talking about Bain's arm length and at the same time dismissing it - helps the player. I don't find them mentioning the length as meaningful. It actually helps the argument -- saying this is what people say is a problem and responding in the same sentence why it isn't a problem makes the argument for the player stronger not weaker. Don't get me wrong they might truly love the player. But I get why its more sunshine and rainbows about these players.

But yeah all the gossip has become a bigger part of the draft process. And whether its right or wrong, fans like us gobble it up.

The rest of this isn't directed at you. As to referencing gossip in general. Some here will say for example how can anyone know what Peters is thinking because he doesn't talk. So when a reporter 2 years ago said they are leaning Jayden Daniels over Maye, he must be just spit balling and has no idea. Because if Peters isn't talking to reporters how the heck can a reporter know where he's leaning -- so don't be so naive to think otherwise?

To me its not that complicated and its certainly not about being naive but about seeing how the sausage is made from personal experience. The way you do it is Peters and that FO have conversations with others. So yeah its not just about Peters directly, I doubt the typical GM shares anything directly with a reporter let alone it being a Peters kind of thing -- but as to the draft specifically, you can get a sense sometimes about what they think via conversations with others, sometimes those are agents, sometimes other coaches, sometimes scouts who work for the team. Craig Hoffman for example revealed at one point he had good relationships with scouts on the team and they would tell him things that he found interesting, including leanings.

It came out later that Peters had conversations with other coaches in the league that he trusted and got their takes about these QBs. The whole process of pulling info is not some type of pure linear exercise. It's not purely about the GM lol talking to a reporter and spilling it all -- of course that doesn't happen. But its not as if he doesn't talk to the reporter with some odd tell all conversation, the reporter is a lost puppy and has zero other avenues to pull info.

Also, the other point some will say, hey if they aren't reporting gossip, then its not real otherwise it would be a report. I get the point. But if you deal with the media, like I have to do in my business and I do so a lot, the point is a bit silly. If a reporter calls me and asks for background on a situation I am involved in and tells me they won't publish, I talk freely. And over time if a reporter promises to do this and again and again fulfills that promise, I trust them more and feel comfortable telling them more. If I tell them something and it ends up in print, that's the end of my trust with that reporter. So when I think about certain reporters who cover the team and clearly know people yet have zero inside or gossip about the team -- my educated guess would be at one point they were trusted with info and they broke that trust.

Some reporters like Schefter are playing the game of reports, you get it out before anyone else. Some reporters are more about wanting to know the background of what's up, and want to know a lot about what's up and later on it helps them write the story and or cover the team where they come off in the know. One time, I was contacted by a reporter about a story and we got into an off the record conversation and I was stunned how much they knew about a scenario that I was directly involved in and also stunned that they didn't report a lick about it considering it was a sexy story -- but they clearly talked to multiple people off the record and protected those sources.

Bringing this back to agents. The idea is they are sources for the media as to so many players and on so many things, that you got to tread carefully and cultivate those relationships clearly. If Kiper just for example ripped Bain to shreds lol good luck with Bain's agent in the future whoever he is.

 

[HoggLife]

I think I’m going to start prepping myself for Delane or Tate, instead of Styles or Love.

Good news is, less than 3 weeks to the draft.

Those are the only 4 players on my list. We should have the choice of 2 of them.

 

[skinsinparadise]

McShay is pretty critical, actually. But it’s baked in his takes. He gives a full outlook and points out his criticisms but then goes back over the positives again.

Honestly it’s pretty similar to my overall way of doing things.

I work with kids. Some kids I’ve worked with are heading to big D1s this year. I know how hard this process is.

People think I hate David Bailey - I just don’t think he’s what many think he is. If we were discussing Bailey in the mid teens, I’d feel better. I’d be on board then. He’s kinda similar to Saadiq, Ioane, etc. to me. And I like those dudes.

My Bailey take is that he’s not some out of the box stud that is must draft and he has a lot of shortcomings in his game, but had a high ceiling.

So if he were framed as a mid first prospect I’d be all about it.

Honestly I’m starting to feel that way a little bit about Downs, but not quite. I actually think I like Thienemann enough that they are real close for me. Downs’ knee is a major concern for me.

Anyways; this got a bit off the point. But McShay is pretty critical. It’s just not in your face.

I've been a McShay guy and talked about it for a long time, so I am familar with his style. I find his negativity is more general, not so much ripping players to shreds. For example, I recall back when he did the podcast with Kiper talking about his sources telling him how bad it was to work in Washington and he recommended to someone looking for a job to avoid Washington. Or referencing scouts issues with some of the QBs in this draft.

But he on my observation is a sunny side up dude as for covering players. He likes a lot of guys.

 

[burgold]

In fairness, I can't imagine working as a football reporter during the Snyder years would be anything anyone would encourage.

 

[skinsinparadise]

In fairness, I can't imagine working as a football reporter during the Snyder years would be anything anyone would encourage.

In McShay's scenario I mentioned it was for a dude who was looking for a job in their FA and McShay advised him not to take that job and talked about it in the podcast did with Kiper.

My point is McShay can give some strong takes indeed that can come off negative -- but its usually not so much him ripping a player he evaluated, from time to time yes, but rarely from what I recall.

The negativity is usually more broad or citing someone else's negativity actually ironically like in Bain's case where he references that within "the NFL" Bain is polarizing. Unlike the draft media where he isn't polarizing. Brugler had the identical take.

 

[bird_1972]

It is what it is. I’m on my island with Bain / Bailey. And I own it.

I may have missed it, but what is your take on Bain? Fan or would rather pass on him?

 

[skinsinparadise]

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

McShay's show IMO is great. There is always a little clickbait with all these guys because heck its a business. But his show is my fav right now. Maybe he's a bit too enthusiastic about players, he's got some Logan Paulsen in him, where the glass is always half full but I don't mind that.

But yeah as far as Bain goes -- the draft media is consistent. It's not just with him. Over the years, they fall in love with production. And its sort of cool to go on TV and the radio and go off about that silly combine, and metrics and who gives a crap -- in Scot McCloughan style voice lol they will say he's a football player, enough said.

I know there are differences and I like Bain's chances much more so than Ryan Anderson. But some of the narrative about both players remind me of each other -- and I recall most of the draft media were like get out of here about Ryan's meh combine, short arms, etc -- the dude is a baller, leader, look at his stats, look at what Saban says about him, etc. He's too much of a leader, and plays too angry and tough to fail.

So in short, I'd expect the draft media to have Bain's back. They typically do in the production versus measurables debate.

The dirty little secret between “I like Mel” and “I like Todd” is Todd was probably the better analyst.

I’m on record saying I think Mel should be in the HOF as a contributor. What he did to expand the draft coverage launched an entire industry.

However, he wasn’t right very often. He has a photographic memory, ability to recall facts and debate without notes, is great on TV, and he developed a lot of connections over the years.

But his analysis has never been great.

McShay on the other hand has been more correct (in general) and I appreciate his analysis more. I actually think in the early days when they paired Mel and Todd it was because they wanted another qualified analyst to balance Mel, maybe even elevate the analysis.

Anyway, I don’t listen to the McShay podcast often, but I do like him.

maybe I’ll start listening more.

I don’t know if I agree entirely with the short arms dismissal for Bain in general.

Sometimes measurables matter. You can’t play power forward for the Knicks at 6-2 190lbs. (Maybe you could for the Wizards but that’s a different story)

There was this really good tennis player (I can’t remember his name) all through the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic era. He was consistently top 10. He was 5-11. Because of that he couldn’t generate the power necessary to compete with the big three. He had something like a 80-90% win rate against the field, and I don’t think he ever beat any of the big three in his career. He just couldn’t generate enough power to push them. But for maybe 2-3 more inches of height and the ability to put on a few more pounds of muscle, he might have been able to compete against them.

I guess my point is at the top end of competitive sports, 1-2 inches of height, arm length, etc. can make a huge difference. Maybe not at lower levels of competition.

It doesn’t always matter. Burrow hysterically announced his retirement due to small hands and it hasn’t affected him at all. Pickett had other problems other than small hands why he never developed into a good QB.

And sometimes being deficient in one area is compensated for by being overly strong in another.

So sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn’t.

However I’m slightly more hesitant to just dismiss the measurables than others maybe.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

No idea of this is true, but if somebody traded up to 6, I doubt it would be for Tate. Maybe Love. Meaning if the Browns trade out Tate should be there. NOTE: I don’t think anybody is trading up to 6. However in this hypothetical, I think it would be for Love. Because he’s an immediate impact player.

In that case we shouldn't overthink it and take Tate.

I keep feeling we’re going to get stuck with either Downs, Bain, or some other defensive player because the two offensive guys + Styles will be gone.

I’m penciling Styles to the Giants. Though they could take Downs. But I think Styles just feels like a perfect John Harbaugh fit.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

EDIT: and that’s what made winnning the last couple games we won so frustrating.

MAYBE we end up picking the same guy at 7 as we would have at 4 or 5. But we would have the option rather than being forced into whoever is left.

Grump. I don’t say this often, but this is one time when I wish Harris would have stepped in and said “Adam, Dan. You’re benching every player over 29. You’re stating Hartman. If you win, fine. But we’re playing developmental guys and we’re playing for next year not this year. If you don’t like it, I’ll accept your resignation on my desk.”

I don’t want meddling owners. But this was a meddle that needed to happen.

 

[Gooseneck]

EDIT: and that’s what made winnning the last couple games we won so frustrating.

MAYBE we end up picking the same guy at 7 as we would have at 4 or 5. But we would have the option rather than being forced into whoever is left.

Grump. I don’t say this often, but this is one time when I wish Harris would have stepped in and said “Adam, Dan. You’re benching every player over 29. You’re stating Hartman. If you win, fine. But we’re playing developmental guys and we’re playing for next year not this year. If you don’t like it, I’ll accept your resignation on my desk.”

I don’t want meddling owners. But this was a meddle that needed to happen.

I would have brought in Jeff George to play the last game.

 

[burgold]

EDIT: and that’s what made winnning the last couple games we won so frustrating.

MAYBE we end up picking the same guy at 7 as we would have at 4 or 5. But we would have the option rather than being forced into whoever is left.

Grump. I don’t say this often, but this is one time when I wish Harris would have stepped in and said “Adam, Dan. You’re benching every player over 29. You’re stating Hartman. If you win, fine. But we’re playing developmental guys and we’re playing for next year not this year. If you don’t like it, I’ll accept your resignation on my desk.”

I don’t want meddling owners. But this was a meddle that needed to happen.

I wouldn't have supported it if put that way, but tweaking the language to

"Adam, Dan, Kliff. We're benching vets. Starting Hartman and all the pups. We need to see what we got and start developing players."

I would have been like "Hail Yeah!"

It amounts to the same thing, but really other than giving Wagner his milestone there was no advantage to playing those crusty one-year vets we were not bringing back any reps. Why not see what the Kain Madrano's can do? Give Sinnott a starter's shot? Empty the practice squad and see if we have any diamonds in the ruff.

Beating the Eagles felt fine. Beating them in a way that may have cost them a bye and their ended their playoff run early felt fine, too. Beating them with a forty-year old fourth stringer that you never plan on keeping on the team feels like a waste. Put the pup out there. If Hartman is worth having on the roster then let him play.

 

[burgold]

I would have brought in Jeff George to play the last game.

But would you have benched Daron Payne to play a fifty year old Albert Haynesworth?

 

[burgold]

No idea of this is true, but if somebody traded up to 6, I doubt it would be for Tate. Maybe Love. Meaning if the Browns trade out Tate should be there. NOTE: I don’t think anybody is trading up to 6. However in this hypothetical, I think it would be for Love. Because he’s an immediate impact player.

In that case we shouldn't overthink it and take Tate.

I keep feeling we’re going to get stuck with either Downs, Bain, or some other defensive player because the two offensive guys + Styles will be gone.

I’m penciling Styles to the Giants. Though they could take Downs. But I think Styles just feels like a perfect John Harbaugh fit.

Actually, when I think of the Ravens I think of amazing safety play ahead of linebacker play. Sure, you can counter with Ray Lewis, but I think of Ed Reed and Hamilton and a bunch of safety led teams.

I can see Harbaugh really falling in love with Downs.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I would have brought in Jeff George to play the last game.

George at 58 might still be better than Hartman. And he wasn’t ever really good except for one year when he went bombs away to Carter, Moss and Reed.

I think it’s hard to put into words how atrocious Hartman was in preseason.

And I bet 58 year old George still has a better arm than Hartman.

I’m picking Hartman for my tank.

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

I wouldn't have supported it if put that way, but tweaking the language to

"Adam, Dan, Kliff. We're benching vets. Starting Hartman and all the pups. We need to see what we got and start developing players."

I would have been like "Hail Yeah!"

It amounts to the same thing, but really other than giving Wagner his milestone there was no advantage to playing those crusty one-year vets we were not bringing back any reps. Why not see what the Kain Madrano's can do? Give Sinnott a starter's shot? Empty the practice squad and see if we have any diamonds in the ruff.

Beating the Eagles felt fine. Beating them in a way that may have cost them a bye and their ended their playoff run early felt fine, too. Beating them with a forty-year old fourth stringer that you never plan on keeping on the team feels like a waste. Put the pup out there. If Hartman is worth having on the roster then let him play.

You said the same thing slightly nicer than I do.

My comment would be after they told me they were planning on being stupid. And at that point, niceness is out the window.

 

[Gooseneck]

Only Hartman if he shaved his head

 

[Voice_of_Reason]

Actually, when I think of the Ravens I think of amazing safety play ahead of linebacker play. Sure, you can counter with Ray Lewis, but I think of Ed Reed and Hamilton and a bunch of safety led teams.

I can see Harbaugh really falling in love with Downs.

Yeah, I can see that. However Stykes is much more of a physical freak and I think Harbaugh would be drawn to that also.

 

[burgold]

Yeah, I can see that. However Stykes is much more of a physical freak and I think Harbaugh would be drawn to that also.

Oh sure, but I'd rather Harbaugh take Downs lol