Jump to content

Current 2018 Draft Order


Recommended Posts

* Strength of Schedule (SoS) is the NFL's tiebreaker for teams with identical records, and it placed teams with weaker schedules higher in the draft order.

* The SoS calculations below take in all 16 games on a team's schedule, including opponents who haven't been played yet.

* Record and the SoS tiebreaker are used to determine the first 20 spots in the draft order.

* The 12 teams that make the playoffs are at the bottom and fill out the remainder of the order as they're eliminated.  Wild Card losers pick 21-24, Divisional losers pick 25-28, Conference Finals losers pick 29-30, with the order in that group determined by Record and SoS.  Super Bowl losers pick 31, Super Bowl winners pick 32.  Playoff teams are listed in the table below on Record/SoS, not on the projected order of finish in the playoffs.

* Teams with identical records and SoS will flip a coin to break the tie.

* Because of trades, CLE owns HOU's first round pick, and BUF owns KCC's.

--- CLE traded 2017 first round pick (No 12 - Deshaun Watson, QB Clemson) to HOU for 2017 first round pick (No. 25, Jabril Peppers, S Michigan) + 2018 first round pick

-- BUF traded 2017 first round pick (No 10 - Patrick Mahomes, QB Texas Tech) to KCC for 2017 first round pick (No 27, Tre'Davious White, CB LSU) + 2017 third round pick (No 91 - traded to LAR) + 2018 first round pick

 

2018 Draft Order (through 11/13/2017)

1: CLE (0-9) 0.000
2: SFF (1-9) 0.100
3: NYG (1-8) 0.111
4: IND (3-7) 0.300
5: CIN (3-6) 0.333 SoS= 0.469
6: DEN (3-6) 0.333 SoS= 0.482
7: LAC (3-6) 0.333 SoS= 0.486
8: CLE (from HOU (3-6) 0.333 SoS= 0.510)
9: CHI (3-6) 0.333 SoS= 0.537
10: TBB (3-6) 0.333 SoS= 0.562
11: NYJ (4-6) 0.400
12: BAL (4-5) 0.444 SoS= 0.458
13: ARI (4-5) 0.444 SoS= 0.489
14: OAK (4-5) 0.444 SoS= 0.500
15: WAS (4-5) 0.444 SoS= 0.524
16: MIA (4-4) 0.500
17: DAL (5-4) 0.556 SoS= 0.482
18: DET (5-4) 0.556 SoS= 0.486
19: GBP (5-4) 0.556 SoS= 0.527
20: ATL (5-4) 0.556 SoS= 0.576

 

Currently In Playoffs:
21: w-BUF (5-4) 0.556

22: w-JAX (6-3) 0.667 SoS= 0.425
23: d-TEN (6-3) 0.667 SoS= 0.438
24: BUF (from d-KCC (6-3) 0.667 SoS= 0.472)
25: w-SEA (6-3) 0.667 SoS= 0.476
26: w-CAR (6-3) 0.667 SoS= 0.544

27: d-PIT (7-2) 0.778 SoS= 0.448
28: d-LAR (7-2) 0.778 SoS= 0.489
29: d-MIN (7-2) 0.778 SoS= 0.500
30: d-NEP (7-2) 0.778 SoS= 0.506
31: d-NOS (7-2) 0.778 SoS= 0.548
32: d-PHI (8-1) 0.889
 

w-Wild Card Team

d-Division Champion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's shaping up as a bad year for us to get a high draft pick and get a great player in a major area of need. They say Mcglinchey struggles against premium talent. Is Quenton Nelsen worth a top 5 pick? Hopefully they can pull off a Mccarron trade and get additional picks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, schotzee said:

Well it's shaping up as a bad year for us to get a high draft pick and get a great player in a major area of need. They say Mcglinchey struggles against premium talent. Is Quenton Nelsen worth a top 5 pick? Hopefully they can pull off a Mccarron trade and get additional picks. 

I don't know about that, S, DT, and LB are surely looking like potential spots of need outside of needing desperate OL help. If the draft was today I wouldn't mind seeing any of the big Bama prospects taken (Fitzpatrick, Payne, Harrison).

 

There are quite a few decent OTs that should be available in the early 2nd round. We're looking at 3 potential comp picks with Z (3rd), Whit (5th), and Hunt (7th).

 

1. S (looks to be a good year with 3 guys that could be top prospects)

2. OT

3. OG/C/LB/DT

3(comp). OG/C/LB/DT

4-7. BPA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, turningpoint said:

I'm confused on need at Safety? Illoka and Williams have long term deals....

 

S is not a need over OT sorry just not even close. 

I don't think anyone has said S is a bigger need than OT. I don't think you're understanding my point here.

 

If you're picking #5, you have a chance to land the best safety and a good OT in round 2. How it stands right now, it seems like any OT would be a reach at #5 overall and all of the good safeties are off the board before our 2nd round pick. See? That's not saying S is a bigger need, it just makes more sense if you're in the market for S and OT.

 

A lot of stuff can change before draft day, but I'm going by the prospects right now along with our current draft spot. My ordered list was who I thought we should take with our current picks, not the prioritization of needs. Bad teams force positions in the draft, good teams take a strategic BPA-of need approach.

 

Our safeties haven't been getting it done this year, and this is coming from a HUGE Iloka fan. I know it's a lot easier to point fingers at CBs for the random NFL fan, but if you watch the tape, our safeties are out of position and not giving our corners the help they should be getting. Not justifying some bad plays by our CBs, but they aren't solely to blame. "Long term deals", yep, but they both have cheap outs after 2017 is over. The dead money from their contracts drops massively heading into 2018.

 

I know people like to think that OL is the only possible way to go in the 1st round or else we're all doomed, and yes we need a lot of OL help, but I hope we don't go OL and OL only in the 1st and take a look around at who could be available in rounds 2-3 if we can land a playmaker elsewhere with a top 5-10 pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, omgdrdoom said:

I don't think anyone has said S is a bigger need than OT. I don't think you're understanding my point here.

 

If you're picking #5, you have a chance to land the best safety and a good OT in round 2. How it stands right now, it seems like any OT would be a reach at #5 overall and all of the good safeties are off the board before our 2nd round pick. See? That's not saying S is a bigger need, it just makes more sense if you're in the market for S and OT.

 

A lot of stuff can change before draft day, but I'm going by the prospects right now along with our current draft spot. My ordered list was who I thought we should take with our current picks, not the prioritization of needs. Bad teams force positions in the draft, good teams take a strategic BPA-of need approach.

 

Our safeties haven't been getting it done this year, and this is coming from a HUGE Iloka fan. I know it's a lot easier to point fingers at CBs for the random NFL fan, but if you watch the tape, our safeties are out of position and not giving our corners the help they should be getting. Not justifying some bad plays by our CBs, but they aren't solely to blame. "Long term deals", yep, but they both have cheap outs after 2017 is over. The dead money from their contracts drops massively heading into 2018.

 

I know people like to think that OL is the only possible way to go in the 1st round or else we're all doomed, and yes we need a lot of OL help, but I hope we don't go OL and OL only in the 1st and take a look around at who could be available in rounds 2-3 if we can land a playmaker elsewhere with a top 5-10 pick.

I understand what your saying. Just a little disappointing if we end up drafting top 5 and can't get a stud offensive or defensive lineman. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, schotzee said:

I understand what your saying. Just a little disappointing if we end up drafting top 5 and can't get a stud offensive or defensive lineman. 

I'd be fine with a DT too if someone like Payne continues to look great and is worth the pick.

 

I just don't see the top OT being a stud necessarily, and IMO the dropoff between the best safety and 2nd round safeties is a lot bigger than the best OT vs OTs that will be there early 2nd round. I could be wrong, opinions around the league and media could change, who knows what will actually happen.

 

OL is absolutely the biggest problem on the team, but I don't know if it needs addressed with a top 5 pick if we can grab a gamechanger elsewhere and still get a more than solid OT with our early 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No other position or group is holding us back more than O-line right now. I’m normally all on board with BPA.  But in this instance if we pass on an OT worth the draft slot at all, I’ll need a new TV, and maybe a new team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

No other position or group is holding us back more than O-line right now. I’m normally all on board with BPA.  But in this instance if we pass on an OT worth the draft slot at all, I’ll need a new TV, and maybe a new team. 

If the team feels McGlinchey is the pick then by all means take him. I'm just not so sure he's a LT in the NFL and in that case I'd rather have the best safety or DT with a top pick.

 

Going to lol if we take a WR or TE with a top 10 pick next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

I don't think anyone has said S is a bigger need than OT. I don't think you're understanding my point here.

 

If you're picking #5, you have a chance to land the best safety and a good OT in round 2. How it stands right now, it seems like any OT would be a reach at #5 overall and all of the good safeties are off the board before our 2nd round pick. See? That's not saying S is a bigger need, it just makes more sense if you're in the market for S and OT.

 

A lot of stuff can change before draft day, but I'm going by the prospects right now along with our current draft spot. My ordered list was who I thought we should take with our current picks, not the prioritization of needs. Bad teams force positions in the draft, good teams take a strategic BPA-of need approach.

 

Our safeties haven't been getting it done this year, and this is coming from a HUGE Iloka fan. I know it's a lot easier to point fingers at CBs for the random NFL fan, but if you watch the tape, our safeties are out of position and not giving our corners the help they should be getting. Not justifying some bad plays by our CBs, but they aren't solely to blame. "Long term deals", yep, but they both have cheap outs after 2017 is over. The dead money from their contracts drops massively heading into 2018.

 

I know people like to think that OL is the only possible way to go in the 1st round or else we're all doomed, and yes we need a lot of OL help, but I hope we don't go OL and OL only in the 1st and take a look around at who could be available in rounds 2-3 if we can land a playmaker elsewhere with a top 5-10 pick.

I agree, but I would hope they would trade down. Should the bengals pass on Sam Darnold if he's available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, turningpoint said:

I agree, but I would hope they would trade down. Should the bengals pass on Sam Darnold if he's available?

Yeah probably, but I'd take Jackson or Rosen if they're available. We have a couple teams ahead of us that will almost surely be looking QB. I'd hate to take the 3rd-4th best QB with a top 10 pick. I really think I'll be bummed out if we end up with a top 5 pick and don't walk away with McGlinchey, Fitzpatrick, Payne, or one of the top 2 QBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, omgdrdoom said:

I don't know about that, S, DT, and LB are surely looking like potential spots of need outside of needing desperate OL help. If the draft was today I wouldn't mind seeing any of the big Bama prospects taken (Fitzpatrick, Payne, Harrison).

 

There are quite a few decent OTs that should be available in the early 2nd round. We're looking at 3 potential comp picks with Z (3rd), Whit (5th), and Hunt (7th).

 

1. S (looks to be a good year with 3 guys that could be top prospects)

2. OT

3. OG/C/LB/DT

3(comp). OG/C/LB/DT

4-7. BPA

10 yr vets are not compensated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as we need an OT,  I'm all for BPA in the 1st round.  And before you ask, no; drafting an undersized, oft-injured WR because he runs a tenth of a second faster 40's than most players does not constitute the BPA, in my mind. 

 

Honestly given our luck with high draft picks I'd rather we trade down if there's not an absolute bad-ass there for the taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr Tarzan said:

10 yr vets are not compensated.

10 year vets can't get you higher than a 5th rounder but they're compensated. For example, we'd get a 3rd rounder for Whit if he wasn't a 10 year vet, but we'll get a 5th for him since he is. Unless that has changed very recently without my knowledge of course. 

53 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

Much as we need an OT,  I'm all for BPA in the 1st round.  And before you ask, no; drafting an undersized, oft-injured WR because he runs a tenth of a second faster 40's than most players does not constitute the BPA, in my mind. 

 

Honestly given our luck with high draft picks I'd rather we trade down if there's not an absolute bad-ass there for the taking.

Check out Bamas safeties this year. If you want a playmaker then look no further than Minkah Fitzpatrick. That's who I really want if the team doesn't love McGlinchey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, T-Dub said:

 

For a guy likely headed to the Pro Bowl (since he's in LA now & all.)  That we replaced with soggy cardboard box.  I do not understand the math.

 Can't get higher than a 5th round comp for a 10+ year vet regardless of any other factors that typically determine the comp pick. 

 

Just the way it is. Another one of those random "cause we said so" type of rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too bad the failed Skidmark deal for McWebb fell through.  Having the 5th, 32nd, 65th, & 70th picks (along with our 3rd & 4th rounders as well as a couple of 3rd/4th round comps) would have allowed for several OLine picks as well as a safety & a couple of BPAs or even given us the versatility to maybe deal a pick or two for a veteran LT or maybe a center.

 

If there is a QB you really like available at the fifth pick (and no suitable OL worth picking there), would you consider taking him and dealing Dalton for an LT, then letting the first rounder compete with McWebb for the starting spot?  You have to add a viable LT before mini camps start.  If there's not a LT in the Draft, maybe that's an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...