Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

1st round pick other than QB?

W

Wolf6151

All Pro
Pick a position, player, and make a case for your pick other than a QB in the 1st round. What would you do, not what you think Rick Smith might do. No trading down, pick a player.
 
Last edited:
Goff, Lynch and Cook are off the board:
Bosa DE, Tunsil OT or Stanly OT are still on the board for some outrageous reason. Any of those are a better choice than QB options. A more likely possibility is Ezekiel Elliot dropping just because of the negative RB bias.

Billings or Robinson would also probably be better pickups to groom as replacement NT than the next level of QBs.
 
Marshall said:
Goff, Lynch and Cook are off the board:
Bosa DE, Tunsil OT or Stanly OT are still on the board for some outrageous reason. Any of those are a better choice than QB options.
Click to expand...

Erasmus Jones DE, Alex Barron OT, Jammal Brown OT - clearly better options than Aaron Rodgers.

Oh wait, Travis Johnson DT.
 
infantrycak said:
Erasmus Jones DE, Alex Barron OT, Jammal Brown OT - clearly better options than Aaron Rodgers.

Oh wait, Travis Johnson DT.
Click to expand...
If you seek the exception by looking in hindsight, you will find it. But for every Aaron Rodgers you will find two Ryan Leafs.
 
Marshall said:
If you seek the exception by looking in hindsight, you will find it. But for every Aaron Rodgers you will find two Ryan Leafs.
Click to expand...

Same can be said for every JJ Watt. See this is where y'all's little value scale fails. All the other positions fail too.

Say hi to Charles Rogers for me.
 
This exercise is impossible at this point. We don't know our pick, we don't know who is in front of us, and we don't know who will be in the draft.

I'm as guilty (maybe more) as everybody else when it comes to obsessing over the draft. But it's just not that simple. Everybody wants to make lists and rankings but it just doesn't work that way. There's so much that goes into it besides what position they play and what number they are on your board. It's not just about physical talent. It's about the particular skill set that each player has and how it meshes with the team.

Case in point, when looking at physical talent only, I thought Clowney was a better NFL prospect than Khalil Mack. But specifically for the Texans, I would have drafted Mack over him without hesitation. Because Mack's skills are better suited to what we lack on defense, whereas Clowney's strengths are where we are already strong and he's weak where we are already weak.

Anyway, that was long-winded. But what it all means is that it's much more complex than just picking a position and saying who you would grab.
 
Having said all that, I can't help myself when it comes to the draft.

There are four QBs on my radar right now: Goff, Cook, Wentz, Lynch. In that order. I do whatever possible to get Goff. If it's not possible or the price is back-breaking then I do whatever possible to get Cook. And so on and so on.

Some people will say that's bad value and you can't reach like that. I don't believe in "reaches". I believe that there does exist a certain range where a prospect will be drafted. So if you really like a guy you will have to go above that range to make sure you get him. Nobody looks back on that and says you reached unless the guy ends up sucking. And if that's the case, you moving up to get the guy wasn't the problem. Your evaluation of the player was.

Obviously if we don't like our options we don't take one just to take one. But this franchise can't move forward until we do something there. Which means that if our options are limited we're going to have to go get the guy instead of hoping he falls to us.
 
Last edited:
bah007 said:
Having said all that, I can't help myself when it comes to the draft.

There are four QBs on my radar right now: Goff, Cook, Wentz, Lynch. In that order. I do whatever possible to get Goff. If it's not possible or the price is back-breaking then I do whatever possible to get Cook. And so on and so on.

Some people will say that's bad value and you can't reach like that. I don't believe in "reaches". I believe that there does exist a certain range where a prospect will be drafted. So if you really like a guy you will have to go above that range to make sure you get him. Nobody looks back on that and says you reached unless the guy ends up sucking. And if that's the case, you moving up to get the guy wasn't the problem. Your evaluation of the player was.

Obviously if we don't like our options we don't take one just to take one. But this franchise can't move forward until we do something there. Which means that if our options are limited we're going to have to go get the guy instead of hoping he falls to us.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Lets put it this way, would you give up 3 1st rd picks for Aaron Rodgers?

I equate Goff to Matt Ryan ability wise. So for me that equates to a 1st and a 3rd this yr and a 2017 1st. I do believe Goff is a franchise QB and the cost is prohibitive but that's what it will take at a minimum to land a franchise QB, maybe even more.
 
bah007 said:
This exercise is impossible at this point. We don't know our pick, we don't know who is in front of us, and we don't know who will be in the draft.

I'm as guilty (maybe more) as everybody else when it comes to obsessing over the draft. But it's just not that simple. Everybody wants to make lists and rankings but it just doesn't work that way. There's so much that goes into it besides what position they play and what number they are on your board. It's not just about physical talent. It's about the particular skill set that each player has and how it meshes with the team.

Case in point, when looking at physical talent only, I thought Clowney was a better NFL prospect than Khalil Mack. But specifically for the Texans, I would have drafted Mack over him without hesitation. Because Mack's skills are better suited to what we lack on defense, whereas Clowney's strengths are where we are already strong and he's weak where we are already weak.

Anyway, that was long-winded. But what it all means is that it's much more complex than just picking a position and saying who you would grab.
Click to expand...

I disagree, this exercise gets us to focus on other positions besides QB and look at the draft from a different perspective. We all want a top QB but it may not happen, look at the 1st round from a worst case scenario. I realize it's more complex than just picking a player, surely they must fit our team needs, but it also gives us all the chance to play junior GM for a little while and say what we would do in those shoes. Personally I'd go for a top OT, maybe Stanley, Decker, or Conklin to improve the O-line starters at the same time improving our depth all of which is greatly needed. I could also go for Ramsey and maybe move him to FS, we could use a stud FS. Treadwell would improve our WR corp. and start opposite Nuk, again improving our starters and depth with one pick. If we don't re-sign Crick I could see us picking Nkemdiche as a possible replacement.
 
I can't stand another season seeing Alfred Blue starting, I'm going Ezekiel Elliot at RB. The last Ohio St RB worked out pretty good for us...them
 
R. Stanley
L. Tunsil
J. Ramsey
J. Smith
M. Jack
E. Elliott

That's pretty much my non-QB checklist as of right now.
 
Texian said:
The best answer I can give at this point and it is cliche but it's true is BPA.
Click to expand...

BPA could mean different things to different organizations, doubt every teams draft board grades are exactly same? So BPA depends on need, time horizon, measureables, character & intangibles.
 
beerlover said:
BPA could mean different things to different organizations, doubt every teams draft board grades are exactly same? So BPA depends on need, time horizon, measureables, character & intangibles.
Click to expand...
Clearly my BPA means something entirely different than your BPA. My BPA means that you take the very best football player available on your draft board.
 
Texian said:
Clearly my BPA means something entirely different than your BPA. My BPA means that you take the very best football player available on your draft board.
Click to expand...

Nobody does that. Everyone has some sort of BPA at a position of need. The only variation is how much of a finger they put on the scales for need.
 
Texian said:
Clearly my BPA means something entirely different than your BPA. My BPA means that you take the very best football player available on your draft board.
Click to expand...

What I was getting at is you can't use a true BPA by removing the most important position, QB.
 
Strip away QB & strip away most pressing needs, my pick, middle of first round would be DeForrest Buckner, DL, Oregon 6-7 300lbs. From Waianae HI. Think a mixture of Erik Armstead & Haloti Nagata.
 
I'll play along: I want a QB, but this is your rule.

Reggie Ragland ILB Alabama Sr 6-2 252
Michael Thomas WR Ohio State rJr 6-3 210
Corey Coleman WR Baylor rJr 5-10 190
Derrick Henry RB Alabama Jr 6-2 242
Jayron Kearse SS Clemson Jr 6-4 220
Scooby Wright III ILB JR 6-1 246 Arizona, If he comes out - also I have not seen any highlights of him in coverage skills.

Would be happy with any of these guys, Kearse is being projected as an early 2nd currently. Let's see what he runs.
Henry is just a beast, but Bama has the best lines year after year. So how good is he.
Coleman lacks length, but man can jump, might be the slot guy we need to par with Nuke and hopefully improved Strong.
Thomas being picked might mean Strong is not liked. I think (hope) Strong is just getting the rookie treatment from BOB.

My favorite pick is Henry. He is a beast and we need a beast that can run.


i would also be happy with a player that can start and return punt and kicks, so that is usually a CB or WR. i don't know the CB that well.
 
Last edited:
infantrycak said:
If you don't think both consider need you're a fool.
Click to expand...
Another definition of fool from Mr. Know It All............yes they do consider need from time to time but they will also more often than not, stay true to their board and take the best player available. I don't think any of this really matters to you, I think you're here mostly just to argue and hurl insults.

Here is the thing about taking the BPA regardless of position, your team will be better for it.
 
infantrycak said:
If you don't think both consider need you're a fool.
Click to expand...
Texian said:
Another definition of fool from Mr. Know It All............yes they do consider need from time to time but they will also more often than not, stay true to their board and take the best player available. I don't think any of this really matters to you, I think you're here mostly just to argue and hurl insults.

Here is the thing about taking the BPA regardless of position, your team will be better for it.
Click to expand...

When I do the fanspeak mock draft simulator , I'm always given the choice of Stanley or Tunsil as the top ranked player on the board and I take them . If it was real and you're picking at 11 and the 3rd ranked player is there , d take him .
 
Wolf6151 said:
I disagree, this exercise gets us to focus on other positions besides QB and look at the draft from a different perspective. We all want a top QB but it may not happen, look at the 1st round from a worst case scenario. I realize it's more complex than just picking a player, surely they must fit our team needs, but it also gives us all the chance to play junior GM for a little while and say what we would do in those shoes. Personally I'd go for a top OT, maybe Stanley, Decker, or Conklin to improve the O-line starters at the same time improving our depth all of which is greatly needed. I could also go for Ramsey and maybe move him to FS, we could use a stud FS. Treadwell would improve our WR corp. and start opposite Nuk, again improving our starters and depth with one pick. If we don't re-sign Crick I could see us picking Nkemdiche as a possible replacement.
Click to expand...

At some point this franchise will run out of excuses. A top QB may not fall to us but that doesn't stop us from moving up for one, assuming that there is one worth moving up for. I think there is.

Based on this regime's history I think it is safe to say that we come out of the first round without a QB though. We apparently either don't value the position or we believe this ridiculous BPA at all costs notion, in which you draft players based on physical athleticism with no regard for their strengths and weaknesses or how compatible they are with our system. That is how we ended up with Clowney after all, the "best player in the draft" but he's a 43 SDE who we are trying to turn into a LB.

I'll play along though. I'm assuming we are picking around #20. Here are the guys I would consider in the first round at this moment:

QB Goff, California - We would have to trade up and it would be expensive.
QB Cook, Michigan St - Could maybe fall to us but we'd probably have to trade up to be safe.
QB Wentz, North Dakota St - Call it a reach if you want but there's no such thing if you truly believe he has franchise potential. You could even trade back a little bit if you're sure he'll still be there.
WR Treadwell, Mississippi - Not likely at all. He's probably a top 15 pick.
WR Doctson, TCU - I actually think he would be a better fit for us. Very different skill set than Treadwell, who is a similar player to Hopkins.
OT Tunsil, Mississippi - Will never happen. He's a top five pick.
OT Stanley, Notre Dame - Not likely at all. He's the #2 OL and will be gone in the top 15.
NT Robinson, Alabama - This could possibly happen. He's talented, he fits, and it's a huge need.
LB Smith, Notre Dame - Not likely at all. He's probably a top ten pick.
CB White, LSU - Best CB in the draft IMO. He could potentially be there. And yes, I would have no problem going CB again if we aren't going QB. He and KJo would settle the position for years.
S Ramsey, Florida St - Not likely at all. He's probably a top ten pick.

So you're likely looking at trading up for Goff/Cook or sitting where you are and choosing from Wentz, Doctson, Robinson, and White.
 
Texian said:
Another definition of fool from Mr. Know It All............yes they do consider need from time to time but they will also more often than not, stay true to their board and take the best player available. I don't think any of this really matters to you, I think you're here mostly just to argue and hurl insults.

Here is the thing about taking the BPA regardless of position, your team will be better for it.
Click to expand...
It is rare that the draft board is so set that BPA is distinct from BGA or a group of players of roughly equal potential. When that happens, need becomes a tie-breaker, even in BPA mode. Drafting for need means bypassing better player in order to fill a need.

As far as I ca tell, there are about 8 or 9 players bunched at the top and another 8 or 9 players a step off the pace. After that, a bunch of players will be on different draft boards for various reasons. So any in the first group still available would be great, second group good or others merely OK if we pick in the low 20s.
 
Marshall said:
It is rare that the draft board is so set that BPA is distinct from BGA or a group of players of roughly equal potential. When that happens, need becomes a tie-breaker, even in BPA mode. Drafting for need means bypassing better player in order to fill a need.

As far as I ca tell, there are about 8 or 9 players bunched at the top and another 8 or 9 players a step off the pace. After that, a bunch of players will be on different draft boards for various reasons. So any in the first group still available would be great, second group good or others merely OK if we pick in the low 20s.
Click to expand...
I disagree, I believe that most draft boards are set by BPA. In fact some draft boards will only rank 15-20 players as 1st rd draft picks.
 
Strange to consider that most draft boards are set so strictly by BPA when pick after pick early in the draft is so often completely in tune with team needs.

Or maybe that's just massive coincidence.
 
Mollywhopper said:
Strange to consider that most draft boards are set so strictly by BPA when pick after pick early in the draft is so often completely in tune with team needs.

Or maybe that's just massive coincidence.
Click to expand...
Most teams have more than 1 hole to fill. And when the BPA on the board in RD 1 is a QB and you already have Rodgers you go the next man on the board. If the BPA is not is apostion not already filled by a Pro Bowler then you probably take him.
 
Docston for me and across from Nuk would be awesome and help out all offensive players. In addition he scores points. If EE there it might sway me to go that direction as a franchise type and also puts points on board.
 
Mollywhopper said:
Which is pretty much what everyone else has been saying ...
Click to expand...
I think you will find that teams that are more consistent and frequent playoff teams, more often than not, will take the BPA, while teams that are more average and ordinary are more interested in filling a hole.
 
Texian said:
I think you will find that teams that are more consistent and frequent playoff teams, more often than not, will take the BPA, while teams that are more average and ordinary are more interested in filling a hole.
Click to expand...

One thing to consider... most playoff teams are good and therefore don't have as many holes to fill as the also rans.
 
otisbean said:
One thing to consider... most playoff teams are good and therefore don't have as many holes to fill as the also rans.
Click to expand...
Considered....and so the perennial playoff teams more often than not keep picking the BPA and inevitably keep getting better as a result.
 
Last edited:
Texian said:
Considered....and so the perennial playoff teams more often than not keep picking the BPA and inevitably keep getting better as a result.
Click to expand...

And is not something most teams can afford to do... chicken or egg?

How many teams do you consider perennial playoff teams?
 
JB said:
And is not something most teams can afford to do... chicken or egg?

How many teams do you consider perennial playoff teams?
Click to expand...

Probably just the teams that already have an established elite QB and thus can afford to occasionally pass on a need to take a better player at a different position. Because guys like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers can make any hole on your roster look smaller than it really is.

People get confused with this BPA method because they assume that need is never considered. No NFL team operates like that. But that does not mean that you always draft to fill the biggest need, or even for the most immediate need. A lot of the top franchises in the league draft players to fill a hole that hasn't even opened up yet, but they have the foresight to see that it will become a need in the future and by drafting the player a year or two early he will already be indoctrinated into the system by the time he is needed to step up and fill the hole.
 
bah007 said:
Probably just the teams that already have an established elite QB and thus can afford to occasionally pass on a need to take a better player at a different position. Because guys like Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers can make any hole on your roster look smaller than it really is.

People get confused with this BPA method because they assume that need is never considered. No NFL team operates like that. But that does not mean that you always draft to fill the biggest need, or even for the most immediate need. A lot of the top franchises in the league draft players to fill a hole that hasn't even opened up yet, but they have the foresight to see that it will become a need in the future and by drafting the player a year or two early he will already be indoctrinated into the system by the time he is needed to step up and fill the hole.
Click to expand...
or as I like to think of it, the BPA on the board is a current position that is already filled with a BIG contract that will be due in less than two years and the BPA is expected to be equal or better replacement. Thus providing substantial salary cap relief in two years. GM Think, YES, not so much HC Think.
 
I expect to get hammered for this, but Billings if still there, A'shawn Robinson or Jarran Reed.

This assumes some very good players are off the board as expected. But BPA if one or more of these falls into our laps.

My case is built on replacing a high quality NT BEFORE our old one retires. Good is not enough in a three four scheme. You have to have outstanding to push really big center guard combinations into the backfield to disrupt things. He HAS TO demand at least a double team on every play.

The line moves early for quality and receivers are abundant in the middle and late rounds. RBs are also a huge gamble this early.

While I doubt Jaylon Smith or Reggie Ragland will be available at our pick, those are two players I would jump at if unexpectedly available. There is a huge falloff for ILBs after that so go early or not at all.
 
Last edited:
Texian said:
Here is the thing about taking the BPA regardless of position, your team will be better for it.
Click to expand...
Only if that player gets to start.
Say you have Aaron Rodgers and the BPA is a QB. Why burn that pick on someone who won't start for years??
Examine your needs, prioritize them and take the BPA at the position of greatest need.
 
ObsiWan said:
Only if that player gets to start.
Say you have Aaron Rodgers and the BPA is a QB. Why burn that pick on someone who won't start for years??
Examine your needs, prioritize them and take the BPA at the position of greatest need.
Click to expand...
Are the Green Bay Packers better off for taking the BPA, Aaron Rodgers knowing he wouldn't start for years?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top