Peter King: Rumors, Realities, and Ruminations on Draft Eve

[26CornerBlitz]

Peter King's Mailbag: Final Draft Rumors

By PETER KING  April 25, 2018

 

This could help your enjoyment and understanding of the draft this weekend. I asked a team in the top half of the draft—a team that wants action on its pick when its 10-minute period begins Thursday night—how it views the depth of the top half of the draft. This is what my source said:

 

• His team has 15 players with first-round grades.

• His team has 30 to 35 players with second-round grades.

• His team has about 45 players with third-round grades.

• His team has “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players.

[Lagoon Blues]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Peter King's Mailbag: Final Draft Rumors

By PETER KING  April 25, 2018

 

This could help your enjoyment and understanding of the draft this weekend. I asked a team in the top half of the draft—a team that wants action on its pick when its 10-minute period begins Thursday night—how it views the depth of the top half of the draft. This is what my source said:

 

• His team has 15 players with first-round grades.

• His team has 30 to 35 players with second-round grades.

• His team has about 45 players with third-round grades.

• His team has “starter” or “potential starter” grade on “about 90” players.

That is pretty interesting to me.  I wonder if 15 for first round grades is typical or low?

[ddaryl]

its low this year

 

[LeGOATski]

I wonder if he's referring to the Bills. 

 

[Lagoon Blues]

I guess this falls in line with a few reports I have read where people stated there is more value than normal in the 2nd round this year.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Lagoon Blues

[DCOrange]

3 minutes ago, Lagoon Blues said:

That is pretty interesting to me.  I wonder if 15 for first round grades is typical or low?

It's a little low, but I think the usual number is around 20 give or take.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, LeGOATski said:

I wonder if he's referring to the Bills. 

 

 

The Bills from all reports are trying to move up. 

[TheElectricCompany]

1 minute ago, Lagoon Blues said:

I guess this falls in line with a few reports I have read where people stated more value than normal in 2nd round this year.

Yep, and that picks in the 20s are not as valuable, it's a very top heavy draft. 

[CommonCents]

Just now, TheElectricCompany said:

Yep, and that picks in the 20s are not as valuable, it's a very top heavy draft. 

Just as Breer said the other day.

[ganesh]

3 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

its low this year

 

disagree...I think 50% is about right.  In every draft,  players above 10 and beyond have mixed grades of 1st and 2nd round grades.

 

[LeGOATski]

4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The Bills from all reports are trying to move up. 

 

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by LeGOATski

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, LeGOATski said:

 

 

The example he cited in the piece was the Bills moving up. 

 

And so, let’s envision teams in the top half of the first round with potentially hugely valuable picks: Cleveland (with the number four pick), Denver (five), Indianapolis (six). There’s a reason why in my mock draft I had Denver and Indianapolis trading down—because the value of quarterbacks is immense, and because the premium on second and third-round picks in this draft is similarly big. That’s why if I’m the Broncos or the Colts (or the Bucs or Bears or Niners, if Josh Rosen falls down the first round more than we think), I’m asking for two or three lower picks rather than two higher ones.

 

Example: If the Bills want Denver’s pick at five, and I’m Broncos GM John Elway, I don’t want the 12th and 22nd picks in return. I want 12, 53, 56 and maybe 96, and I’d flip a lower pick back to Buffalo. That would get the Bills what they want, a quarterback. That would get Denver the kind of depth a deep second and third round could provide—unless, of course, it’s Baker Mayfield sitting there for Elway at five, and he can’t resist the temptation.

[Kirby Jackson]

6 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

I wonder if he's referring to the Bills. 

 

My guess is the Colts. They’ve aggressively added day 2 picks and are looking for more. That would seem to line up with this.

[GunnerBill]

14 minutes ago, Lagoon Blues said:

That is pretty interesting to me.  I wonder if 15 for first round grades is typical or low?

 

It is. I have 19 and that is the lowest number I have had in any year I have done it. Last year I had 125 players graded in the top 3 rounds. This year to get to 125 you are right on my 4th / 5th round borderline. 

[Chuck Wagon]

Giving up 12 / 53 / 56 / 96 for 5 or 6 to land one of the QBs (preferably Rosen) would be ideal.  One team has 15 players as 1st rounders / I've heard 18, it doesn't take much for a "1st round grade" to be there at 22.  

[MrEpsYtown]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is. I have 19 and that is the lowest number I have had in any year I have done it. Last year I had 125 players graded in the top 3 rounds. This year to get to 125 you are right on my 4th / 5th round borderline. 

 

Gunner, how do you think that affects trade chart type values? I'm assuming our 12 paired with some second round picks would be what people would want in order  to trade down.

[aristocrat]

every year they say there are 20 or so first round picks.  then we get a guy like tre white who ends up being a legit first rounder available late in the first. i always find those comments about grades suspect. 

[Pete]

stockpile 2nd and 3rd round picks and stack this roster!

[thurst44]

24 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

It's a little low, but I think the usual number is around 20 give or take.

FWIW, Krabb last night on WGR justified his Pats-get-Rosen trade (ugh) by saying some teams have 30 players with first down grades, thus 49ers might be fine with 23/31, so it's always hard to know, but my sense would be a lower number of (probably)-can't-misses with a deep pool of round 2-round 3 types

[Formerly Allan in MD]

35 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The example he cited in the piece was the Bills moving up. 

 

And so, let’s envision teams in the top half of the first round with potentially hugely valuable picks: Cleveland (with the number four pick), Denver (five), Indianapolis (six). There’s a reason why in my mock draft I had Denver and Indianapolis trading down—because the value of quarterbacks is immense, and because the premium on second and third-round picks in this draft is similarly big. That’s why if I’m the Broncos or the Colts (or the Bucs or Bears or Niners, if Josh Rosen falls down the first round more than we think), I’m asking for two or three lower picks rather than two higher ones.

 

Example: If the Bills want Denver’s pick at five, and I’m Broncos GM John Elway, I don’t want the 12th and 22nd picks in return. I want 12, 53, 56 and maybe 96, and I’d flip a lower pick back to Buffalo. That would get the Bills what they want, a quarterback. That would get Denver the kind of depth a deep second and third round could provide—unless, of course, it’s Baker Mayfield sitting there for Elway at five, and he can’t resist the temptation.

If I'm the Bills, I'd seriously consider it for 12, 53, and 56, but not both first round picks.

[The Jokeman]

3 minutes ago, thurst44 said:

FWIW, Krabb last night on WGR justified his Pats-get-Rosen trade (ugh) by saying some teams have 30 players with first down grades, thus 49ers might be fine with 23/31, so it's always hard to know, but my sense would be a lower number of (probably)-can't-misses with a deep pool of round 2-round 3 types

If we lose Rosen because the Patriots out traded us I will be ill. Moreso than if we passed on someone like Lamar Jackson and he ends up getting taken by the Patriots and McDaniels develops him like he tried with Tebow. Yet I don't see the latter happening at all. 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Formerly Allan in MD said:

If I'm the Bills, I'd seriously consider it for 12, 53, and 56, but not both first round picks.

 

Would no doubt be great to retain 22 to pick up an additional starter.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

My guess is Denver. They don't seem to want the stress of drafting a QB high right now, with their recent troubles, and would be happy to stockpile picks and take a QB later. That's why King has been hyping us trading with them and giving them more lower round picks than just a couple of high rounders.

[xxxxxxxx]

Team need and positional depth are the real blind spots here, so its difficult, if not impossible, to put alot of stock into what is being said.

The draft is deep at some positions, shallow at others. If you need interior lineman, rbs, and help in the secondary, why not trade down.

Lots of round 2 players and round 3 players regularly exceed expectations, and plenty of 1st rounders bust, irregardless of where they are slotted.

[billrooter]

40 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

Giving up 12 / 53 / 56 / 96 for 5 or 6 to land one of the QBs (preferably Rosen) would be ideal.  One team has 15 players as 1st rounders / I've heard 18, it doesn't take much for a "1st round grade" to be there at 22.  

If they move up like in your scenario, I sure as hell hope it doesn't take all that to do it. I would much rather em stay put at 12 and keep those picks.

[2003Contenders]

King's source is more or less echoing what Gil Brandt said a few weeks ago. Basically, he sees very little separating the 15th or 16th rated prospect from, say, the 50th. Lots of "value" to be found in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and this is a year where beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

[GunnerBill]

43 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

every year they say there are 20 or so first round picks.  then we get a guy like tre white who ends up being a legit first rounder available late in the first. i always find those comments about grades suspect. 

 

Last year was a much deeper first round in my opinion. I had 27 firsts last year I think. Tre was one of them. I don't love this class. Beyond QB, LB, RB and interior defensive line I am not sure there is a huge amount to excite. The good news for Buffalo is other than Wide Receiver (where I only have 3 graded in the 1st or 2nd) those positions do match our needs quite well. 

4 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

King's source is more or less echoing what Gil Brandt said a few weeks ago. Basically, he sees very little separating the 15th or 16th rated prospect from, say, the 50th. Lots of "value" to be found in the 2nd and 3rd rounds, and this is a year where beauty really is in the eye of the beholder.

 

That is certainly true. At a lot of positions I think guys are scheme specific fits. 

[Kirby Jackson]

Just now, GunnerBill said:

 

Last year was a much deeper first round in my opinion. I had 27 firsts last year I think. Tre was one of them. I don't love this class. Beyond QB, LB, RB and interior defensive line I am not sure there is a huge amount to excite. The good news for Buffalo is other than Wide Receiver (where I only have 3 graded in the 1st or 2nd) those positions do match our needs quite well. 

I like the interior OL too. There are some positions though (like edge) that are just atrocious.

[GunnerBill]

3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I like the interior OL too. There are some positions though (like edge) that are just atrocious.

 

I think interior OL through the first couple of rounds is good that is true. Not quite as sure on the depth whereas those other positions I think you can get contributors through rounds 5 and 6. 

 

I think EDGE, WR and DB are really poor classes and while I have three 1st round OTs the depth there sucks.