Thanks! Good job!
Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍
TTalk Big Board
- Thread starter thunderkyss
- Start date
Thanks! Good job!
Perhaps DE was a bad place to start.
Naaah... this is good. Next step, IMO, is to decide where you want to cut the list off. Do we want our board to stop looking for DEs after round three or do you want the list to contain the best 25-30 prospects? And maybe the answer to those questions, those criteria, should have been ground rules going in.
And which position are we looking at next? CB? WR? ILB?
This is good.
Thank you. I propose we start here. Let's "rank" these guys, add anyone you think is an obvious miss & we'll see what's what.
So, what are we looking for? I use Igor Olshansky as my prototypical 3-4 DE. 6-4, 6-5 300 lbs, not an ounce of fat. Jj Watt would probably be close to my minimum... 6-5, 290... if it weren't for those long arms, I probably wouldn't have looked at him at all for the 3-4
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Jared Crick 6'4" 279 lbs
JJ Watt 6'6" 290 lbs
Calais Campbell 6'8" 282 lbs
Darnell Docket 6'4" 293 lbs
Haloti Ngata 6'4" 335 lbs
Chris Canty 6'7" 286 lbs
Cameron Heyward 6'5" 280 lbs
Brett Keisel 6'5" 285 lbs
Ray McDonald 6'4" 276 lbs
Justin Smith 6'4" 270 lbs
Antonio Smith 6'3" 274 lbs
Not many 3-4 DEs meeting your prototypical.
I look at how good a player is 1st and foremost. For instance Crick was undersized coming out of college but added some weight and turned into a solid starter last yr.
This shouldn't exclude guys like Preston Smith and Derrick Lott.
Not a lot of QBs either. Doesn't mean they can't play, just for the physical attributes, that's where I like to start. It's not a "go, no go" type thing.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Different way of looking at things I guess. You like to have an almost mythical ideal and say you are taking points away from it not being met. I'd start with the reality of the highest level around, actual NFL starters, and then say if it is exceeded it's a positive.
Realistically, teams don't pick the 300 lbs guys very much because they rarely can provide any pass rush and while that isn't the primary role of a 3-4 DE they'd like some and find it in players 20+ lbs lighter.
Just a suggestion but this is where this exercise needs a couple of guys to play Crennel. Someone who thinks they know what type of guys would make the defensive scheme successful. To me, that's who sets the rankings.
Any volunteers?
Yeah, but the only DE on the roster that Crennel didn't inherit is 6'3" 310lb Jeoffrey Pagan. I think every prospect needs to be evaluated on an individual basis rather than flat out dismissing them on size.
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
I completely agree with that. Didn't mean to imply otherwise if it seemed that way.
No, I think tk was trying to do that in the previous post that you were responding to.
I think you sort that out after you evaulate the talent. For instance, if hypothetically USC's Leonard Williams became available, do you pass him up? That's why you rank the prospects by position, then stack them by round and priority.
TexansSeminole
Hall of Fame
I actually don't think I will be much help here. I haven't seen enough of the majority of the players at each position to rank them.
True, but I thought this was supposed to be a Texans specific big board of draftable players. Of course if one of the top guys drops then we draft, but realistically, Williams won't be there for us. So, how do we do this to get an accurate picture of who the Texans may be targeting?
To be clear... I'm not dismissing anyone on size.
The Goal here is to look at these players, grade them, then rank them. I threw out my specs for what I call prototypical & just like any other position, the prototypical player is rare & there's no guarantee he can even play.
It's just a "standard" we can use to say, "Physically, this guy's an A, that guy's a B, that fellow is a C-"
We should be able to define the parameters we are looking for. I don't see how physical size & build can not be part of the equation. Motor, intelligence, leadership, motivation, etc....
We might use GPA as a standard by which we'll compare these players. Shouldn't be much of a surprise when we find out most of them aren't 4.0 students.
For a 3-4 DE, I like 6'5" 300lbs, low BMI athletes. What do you like to see physically? 5'8" 330 lbs? If so, I'm fine with that. Or maybe we can compromise somewhere in between.
Leonard Williams is close enough, like Mario, to be considered prototypical to me. However, if this guy has uncanny speed for his size, we may be wasting him in a 3-4... Or he could play whatever position we're calling Jj Watt's position, which is not a traditional 3-4 or 4-3 position, pretty much a new position made for that guy.
This makes no sense to me. If you're looking for a QB, then you rank all QB's, if not then why rank them? Sure you'll have a big board of all prospects, but I thought it was agreed that we have that already and were doing a Texans specific board. We need to know what positions we are targeting and then set those guys in tiers.
For instance I highly doubt we need a SS or a kicker so I'm not going to bother ranking them on my board.
This may be confusing as no one seems to know what we are trying to do
OK, that's what he's trying to do. How about this: Take nominations for the Texans picks, based upon availability from a well known internet draft board (CBS Sports, for instance). Nominate guys who would be available within -5 or less of the Texans draft position, to make it realistic. Then, you can have posters make a case for who should be ranked higher than whom. That would produce enough prospects to fill a virtual board.
I can get on board with this. However, I think we need to come to a consensus of positions of need and then rank those positions.
I think team needs are wr, ilb, fs, cb
All dependent on who they retain as fa's of course. I think they'll resign KJ, not sure about JJo. Newton will probably be resigned as will Reed. Graham may be let go in which case we'll need to add TE to the list
Any assumptions being made here one way or the other regarding Mallett?
infantrycak
Hall of Fame
Of course you do at times. For example a team with an elite QB is going to pass on QBs until some just whack situation develops.
I agree that no team does what badboy (no offense) seems to do and sticks needs in order and says "can't use higher than a 4th on WR."
Having said that I think you overplay the talent differential and there are always several players and several positions who are close in talent. Not every position so you can go strictly down your need priority list but generally you can take both need & talent into consideration.
no but we already have a big board. If we're doing a realistic board of who the Texans will draft, then yeah you look at need. If we're just doing an overall big board then what's the point?
Its rare but there are always exceptions.
Fine, then throw realistic out the window. We're not going to draft Winston or Williams but certainly let's waste our time duplicating a hundred big boards out there
Exactly!
bah007
Hall of Fame
When I list rankings here I generally do it in listings of a 43 base defense, because that is what most colleges use. So I might list two guys in the DE category but in a 34 one would play DE and the other would play OLB.
If y'all would like, I could generate a list in accordance to where I would position each player specifically in our scheme. And then the group could begin the re-ranking in the order they see fit for the board.
Offensively, this kind of thing is not very difficult, because positions are pretty well established. You might move a college OT inside to OG for the NFL but generally the required skill sets are similar across positions. But it is tricky on defense. Because according to the scheme, the job responsibility for a specific position such as DE can be drastically different.
If y'all would like, I could generate a list in accordance to where I would position each player specifically in our scheme. And then the group could begin the re-ranking in the order they see fit for the board.
Offensively, this kind of thing is not very difficult, because positions are pretty well established. You might move a college OT inside to OG for the NFL but generally the required skill sets are similar across positions. But it is tricky on defense. Because according to the scheme, the job responsibility for a specific position such as DE can be drastically different.
And that's what I thought we were doing since TK used your lists for a starting point
You mentioned earlier that we already have a board & as such, you thought we were reinventing the wheel. If you're looking at bah007's board thinking that's the board, then that's where the disconnect is.
bah007's board is his board, as if he were GM, & all the scouts. I wanted this to be similar to what all 32 teams have to do. Director of college scouting will have to get all his scouts together and consolidate their lists into one big list.
I want all the people knowledgeable about the college players to put their 2 cents in on the players they like, the players they don't like, etc... I wouldn't mind having a GM, or director of college scouting, but we decided to consolidate our list more or less through voting.
And, think of Demeco Ryans, or Louis Nix, players who probably weren't on our radar but I bet both were on their big boards which helped quantify the value of getting Ryans in the second & hopefully Nix in the third.
Ranking all the players also helps a team anticipate how the draft will fall and prepare for particular situations such as trading up, down, or deciding between two or three players.
So you think the Texans only draft for need? Did we really need a TE last year when we drafted CJ? A lot of people didn't think we needed a DE when we drafted Watt.
The point is the get a big board of draftable players. The Texans aren't going to pass on far superior talent to draft just for need. Now if a payer doesn't fit scheme thats different. That payer isn't draftable for us.
For example, say there is a non need position player available that we have ranked a high first round talent. Every other player at a need position is rated as a second rounder at best, what do you do?
You just can't go into a draft and say we are going to draft purely for need. If you do that you are missing out on better players.
Thank you for participating.
I respect you opinion, so don't take this the wrong way. I mean no offense.
Do you think the reported weights of Randy Gregory & Danielle Hunter to be less than accurate? Do you think they're much stronger than such a svelte frame would suggest?
Or do you think a guy like Willie Jefferson (hoping everyone remember Willie Jefferson) can play DE in a 3-4?
That is my OLB list.
ok, I misunderstood what you were wanting to do. I'll stay out of the way
Thanks
I believe we need a Big Board to start with and your big boards are more realistic than say Walter's/Rang etc...
Not what I'm saying at all. I thought we were looking at who might be available to draft for us at each round, not who we would draft if the cards all fell for us and a top 5 guy fell to us in round 5
TexansSeminole
Hall of Fame
The way I see it, you can never predict what's going to happen in the draft. Everyone should be on your board.
The value of this exercize, in my eyes, is a) creating a board that takes into account our 3-4 scheme and b) accounting for everyone's differing views on the value of the prospects. My view of the intent may be off, but that's how I see it.
I understand that. TK said early to list your top 5 guys. I thought he meant we would each list our top 5 guys... That we thought might be available for us to draft each round, and then we would make a big board from that.
It's a no brainer to me that if Williams or Scherf etc. fell to us then they would be taken.
I thought the exercise was to rank players that would be available, not just rank players. My bad!
now if ya'll will stop quoting me then I can go back to reading this thread instead of wasting everyone's time.
TexansSeminole
Hall of Fame
Do you think he might fall to us? If so, would you take him over all other prospects that might fall to us?