PFF Mock Draft Simulator

[adam]

So I tried another simulator, I think this one is a little more realistic with the trades than with others. Here is what I came up with.

https://www.pff.com/draft/nfl-mock-draft-simulator

 

[adam]

I ran this simulator multiple times and the sweet spot of the draft seemed to be between 70-120.

I traded out of 43 to 71, but picked up a 4th and a 5th. There were no trades available at 50, so I went BPA with a Safety. I couldn't pass up Claypool at 71 and thought he would provide some matchup challenges for other teams, especially with Graham on the other side. I watched a ton of talent go off the board between 72 and 112, and then thought Gibson was the best choice to compliment Monty and can split out wide. Between Claypool as WR/TE and Gibson as RB/WR, would provide a ton of dual-threat options for Nagy. At 152, it was hard to pass on Montez as a QB to groom. I went BPA at 163 for a CB, then at 186 for Edge, and 196 for WR. I reached a little get Runyan at 200 because I knew he would not last to 233. Then at 233, I went with a Kicker to challenge Pineiro. Overall, I thought it was a solid draft with one trade to pick up a few extra picks.

[Stinger226]

I've been using  the THE DRAFTNETWORK  draft simulator and it's the  most realistic one I've used.. if you trade the 43th pick to Cincinnati for 65, 107 and 147 , it always accepts that trade. I've been using FIRSTPICK.COM but the trades are unrealistic. 

[Stinger226]

34 minutes ago, adam said:

I ran this simulator multiple times and the sweet spot of the draft seemed to be between 70-120.

I traded out of 43 to 71, but picked up a 4th and a 5th. There were no trades available at 50, so I went BPA with a Safety. I couldn't pass up Claypool at 71 and thought he would provide some matchup challenges for other teams, especially with Graham on the other side. I watched a ton of talent go off the board between 72 and 112, and then thought Gibson was the best choice to compliment Monty and can split out wide. Between Claypool as WR/TE and Gibson as RB/WR, would provide a ton of dual-threat options for Nagy. At 152, it was hard to pass on Montez as a QB to groom. I went BPA at 163 for a CB, then at 186 for Edge, and 196 for WR. I reached a little get Runyan at 200 because I knew he would not last to 233. Then at 233, I went with a Kicker to challenge Pineiro. Overall, I thought it was a solid draft with one trade to pick up a few extra picks.

What's nice about this site it gives in depth player profiles, I have not tried PPF yet . I'll give it a go.

[adam]

37 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

What's nice about this site it gives in depth player profiles, I have not tried PPF yet . I'll give it a go.

Yeah, I like the in depth info. The PFF one is limited but it seemed like the trades were more realistic as sometimes you get a trade and other times there is no interest, compared to having a trade available every pick.

I don't have premium on the TDN site, so I couldn't do trades.

[adam]

My THE DRAFTNETWORK draft with no trades: 

43 Austin Jackson, OT
USC

50 K.J. Hamler, WR
Penn State

163 Antoine Brooks Jr., S
Maryland

196 Nevelle Clarke, CB
UCF

200 Kendall Coleman, EDGE
Syracuse

226 Calvin Throckmorton, OT
Oregon

233 Rodrigo Blankenship, K
Georgia
 

 

[adam]

The more and more I do these mocks, it is pretty clear that trading back is almost a requirement. We can't go 112 picks between picks in the 2nd and 5th rounds. Those are all in the meat of the draft. The problem is teams know this and are probably going to be less likely to trade up unless someone drops. However, I would take a later 2nd or early 3rd for 43 and/or 50 if it gives you at least a 4th.

[dawhizz]

43 minutes ago, adam said:

The more and more I do these mocks, it is pretty clear that trading back is almost a requirement. We can't go 112 picks between picks in the 2nd and 5th rounds. Those are all in the meat of the draft. The problem is teams know this and are probably going to be less likely to trade up unless someone drops. However, I would take a later 2nd or early 3rd for 43 and/or 50 if it gives you at least a 4th.

I think we also need to take into account that it might be harder to complete trades this year because so many war rooms will be spread out, so getting everyone on the same page might take more effort.  Personally, I think the ideal situation is to trade down 7-10 spots in the 2nd and pick up a 4th and a 5th.  That gives you some flexibility at the end of the second to still land two top-64 players or to trade one of them, ideally to a team like the Pats or Broncos for two of their third round picks.  Now you've eliminated the 112 pick gap in picks.

[AZ54]

32 minutes ago, adam said:

The more and more I do these mocks, it is pretty clear that trading back is almost a requirement. We can't go 112 picks between picks in the 2nd and 5th rounds. Those are all in the meat of the draft. The problem is teams know this and are probably going to be less likely to trade up unless someone drops. However, I would take a later 2nd or early 3rd for 43 and/or 50 if it gives you at least a 4th.

We will need a team that either has a significant need like Dallas does at Edge or CB, or a team that has so many picks they'd rather just move up to grab to ensure they get their targeted players.  I've done several mocks where Dallas either goes CB in Rd 1 then trades up with us to get Edge in Rd 2 or vice versa.   Y'all know Jerry always feels like he has a playoff team right now and needs that one guy to make it work.   

FWIW I'm not opposed to trading Cohen to help get additional picks.  There are a multitude of players in Rd 4 who can provide what he does as a returner/receiver or be better at RB than he is.  We might even find a UDFA RB in JJ Taylor who is better as a RB.  If we were to draft Reagor then he can handle Cohen's WR role while he learns the playbook.  Grab a RB, which we need anyway, on day 3.  We still have Patterson for the occasional trick play stuff.  

[BearFan PHX]

Here's what I got. Once you get past the first four or five picks, I really have no idea. Davis would be a steal at 98 to play DE for us, and be a multiplier for Quinn.
 

[ASHKUM BEAR]

PFF is harder to follow bc it blocks who you picked and it would be nice to sort by position sometimes. This one had a CB drop I like.

 

[Stinger226]

11 hours ago, adam said:

Yeah, I like the in depth info. The PFF one is limited but it seemed like the trades were more realistic as sometimes you get a trade and other times there is no interest, compared to having a trade available every pick.

I don't have premium on the TDN site, so I couldn't do trades.

Adam , I don't have a premium account but follow them on Twitter and I just click on the link and it let's me do trades.  After you  do enough of them is shows many different scenarios that a player drops to us. I have had Ruiz, Delpit,Hamler and Austin Jackson drop at different times. It's never the same players if you make the same pick selection. 

[Stinger226]

20 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

PFF is harder to follow bc it blocks who you picked and it would be nice to sort by position sometimes. This one had a CB drop I like.

 

That would be an excellent draft but  there is no way Jackson drops  to 98, he's a top 50 player all day. 

[BearFan PHX]

Here's another. This would be an amazing draft and get Pace GM of the year again. Unfortunately, it could never happen. Some of these guys will never drop like this.

[adam]

On 4/10/2020 at 10:25 PM, Stinger226 said:

Adam , I don't have a premium account but follow them on Twitter and I just click on the link and it let's me do trades.  After you  do enough of them is shows many different scenarios that a player drops to us. I have had Ruiz, Delpit,Hamler and Austin Jackson drop at different times. It's never the same players if you make the same pick selection. 

Odd, I follow them too, but when I try to run a mock sim, the trade button says "Exclusive for Premium" and is greyed out.

[adam]

So the more this gets discussed, the more I think the Bears won't be able to trade down in this year's draft. With that, I did another run without trades and came up with the following. This would be a great draft IMO, we address a ton of need spots with players perfect for our system. What do you think?

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

2 hours ago, adam said:

So the more this gets discussed, the more I think the Bears won't be able to trade down in this year's draft. With that, I did another run without trades and came up with the following. This would be a great draft IMO, we address a ton of need spots with players perfect for our system. What do you think?

 

 

I personally like it.  Was just saying in another post that a speedy WR is not a need of the first few rounds.  I like that Hodgins kid you have at 226.  He’s a ‘big frame’ kid that would be better in contested throws but would need some more meat on his bones.  
 

Not sure what to think of your RB pick and would’ve preferred seeing a TE earlier.  
 

The QB is also a great add and based on the ranking, looks to be high value at that spot.  

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The more I learn about this Gordon kid the more I like. Threw for over 5,500 yards with 48 TDs last year (second only to Joe Burrow).  And watching this highlight reel shows not only patience but some exceptional ball placement.  Would be an absolute steal in round 4 on down. 
 

 

[AZ54]

50 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

The more I learn about this Gordon kid the more I like. Threw for over 5,500 yards with 48 TDs last year (second only to Joe Burrow).  And watching this highlight reel shows not only patience but some exceptional ball placement.  Would be an absolute steal in round 4 on down. 
 

 

Make sure you watch some full games on him so you get to see his WTF moments.  

[Alaskan Grizzly]

3 hours ago, AZ54 said:

Make sure you watch some full games on him so you get to see his WTF moments.  

Well I’m not suggesting we trade up to get him 2nd overall...that would be just silly.  His stats are comparable to Mahomes his senior year at Texas Tech. Which by the way is another ‘Air Raid’ style offense.  
 

The Bears still need to look at a QB somewhere in the later rounds.  Didn’t Pace say he was going to draft QBs every year anyhow?   

[Alaskan Grizzly]

On 4/11/2020 at 12:26 PM, BearFan NYC said:

Here's another. This would be an amazing draft and get Pace GM of the year again. Unfortunately, it could never happen. Some of these guys will never drop like this.

Another decent draft.  Like Eason too although his stats seem low (north of 3100 yards) for all the huge passes he’s known for.  

[AZ54]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Well I’m not suggesting we trade up to get him 2nd overall...that would be just silly.  His stats are comparable to Mahomes his senior year at Texas Tech. Which by the way is another ‘Air Raid’ style offense.  
 

The Bears still need to look at a QB somewhere in the later rounds.  Didn’t Pace say he was going to draft QBs every year anyhow?   

I don't think we have any reason to look at a QB in the later rounds.  We just paid Tyler Bray $45k guaranteed and around $900k salary to be our 3rd string QB.  He knows this offense far better than any mid-to-late Rd rookie will this year.  We also have two QBs who have taken their teams to the playoffs, one to a Superbowl.   Whether either will return to form is a question but that won't be solved by adding a subpar prospect who will need at least one and likely two years of backup play to get rid of his bad habits.  Note his physical limitations (arm strength) won't be getting better in Soldier Field's weather conditions.  If both Foles and Trubisky fail this year then having Anthony Gordon on the roster will not change the fact we need to draft a starting caliber QB in 2021. 

We know Foles won't get us great QB play, he's a serviceable QB but he could win with a great defense.  That's Foles' ceiling, it's a known commodity and we should not expect more.  The only question is if Trubisky can achieve his ceiling for which his potential is much higher.  If Trubisky continues to struggle as he did last year then we'll be going with Foles.  The only irony here is that for a missed FG Trubisky would have beaten Foles in the playoff game.  

I have no clue who exactly was left on the board in that draft with Gordon at 196 but there are many players who can be capable backups in this area of the draft who will have future starting potential:  Ben Bartch OG (Adam already drafted an OG), Joe Reed WR, Dane Jackson CB, Lynn Bowden Jr. WR.  Since Gordon will not answer the starting QB question for 2021 we should make the rest of the roster stronger so we can trade up/whatever next year to get the QB. 

Guys like Gordon who struggle outside the numbers and downfield end up as a backups or maybe occasional starters.   Yet you can find that type of QB every year in the draft, or in FA as a backup if you prefer experience.  

https://sports.yahoo.com/quantifying-quarterbacks-anthony-gordon-164323496.html

Quantifying Quarterbacks is an NFL Draft focused quarterback charting project geared toward providing as much information about as much of a quarterback's recent career as possible. Over 20 data points are recorded for any given pass attempt, ranging from down-and-distance, personnel grouping, play-action, depth of target, accuracy, and much more. Quantifying Quarterbacks charts the entirety of a quarterback's final college season, as well as a smaller sample (four games) from their previous season. All of this charting is done manually by me during and after the college football season. For a more in-depth look at what exactly Quantifying Quarterbacks is, here is a link to last year's final product: 2019 Quantifying Quarterbacks.

Anthony Gordon Charting Profile

Distance (Usage Rate)Left OutsideLeft MiddleRight MiddleRight OutsideTotal

20+ (9.83%)2/11 (2 INT)4/6 (3 TD)5/11 (2 TD, 1 INT)4/12 (2 TD, 1 INT)15/40 (7 TD, 4 INT)

16-20 (4.67%)1/14/6 (2 INT)2/26/10 (2 INT)13/19 (4 INT)

11-15 (13.76%)0/114/22 (1 TD, 1 INT)15/21 (2 TD, 1 INT)7/12 (2 TD, 1 INT)36/56 (5 TD, 3 INT)

6-10 (11.79%)3/4 (1 TD)9/12 (1 TD)19/27 (2 TD)4/5 (1 TD)35/48 (5 TD)

1-5 (34.64%)6/6 (1 TD)43/51 (2 TD)57/68 (1 TD, 2 INT)11/16 (1 TD)117/141 (5 TD, 2 INT)

0 (22.36%)3/438/40 (3 TD)36/36 (1 TD)10/1187/91 (4 TD)

Total (407 plays)15/27 (2 TD, 2 INT)112/137 (10 TD, 3 INT)134/165 (8 TD, 4 INT)42/66 (6 TD, 4 INT)303/395 (26 TD, 13 INT)

Games Charted: North Colorado, Houston, New Mexico State, UCLA, Oregon, Utah, Oregon State, Washington (all from 2019)

 

 

CHARTING EXTRAS

Blatant Drops: 9

Forced Adjustments: 11 (2.70%)

Contested Drops: 20

Passes Defended: 30

Explosive Plays: 44 (10.81%)

Throwaways: 12

Air Raid often gets conflated as "vertical passing offense" when that is not necessarily the case. As for Anthony Gordon's year behind center at Washington State, Mike Leach's Air Raid offense certainly was not a vertical attack. Not even 15% of Gordon's pass attempts were beyond the 15-yard mark -- still an average to slightly below-average rate, but certainly not one of a highly-aggressive offense. Of course, this low percentage of deep passes is in part because Washington State "replaces" running plays with screens and short passing concepts while throwing 50+ times per game, which skews the passing rates away from deep passing. Even still, Gordon's target frequency down the field is no different than the average quarterback, Air Raid or otherwise. 

Perhaps the most notable trend in Gordon's passing chart is how little he targeted outside the numbers. Just under 25% of Gordon's attempts were to the outside portion of the field. Whereas most quarterbacks have fairly even spreads throughout each of the quadrants, Gordon almost entirely played between the numbers. Given Gordon does not have the strongest arm and only has the one year of tape, it is a minor concern that Gordon seemed unwilling and unable to throw outside the numbers. On only throw outside the numbers, Gordon held just a 61.83% adjusted accuracy rate, which is significantly lower than his base adjusted accuracy of 74.56%. Surely every QB is somewhat worse outside the numbers, but the stark drop-off in accuracy combined with the low target rate is enough evidence for this to be an issue for Gordon's profile.

If I were to guess, part of Gordon's issue throwing outside is how lazy his feet are. While Gordon does have a flexible upper body with a strong, consistent release, footwork still plays a role in accuracy, especially when throwing outside the numbers. Gordon often fails to move his feet throughout his progressions or reset them upon throwing, which can lead to issues with his body being discombobulated as he is trying to get the ball out. 

Gordon is a stud over the middle, though. How much that can outweigh his struggles outside the numbers is up for debate, but a handful of quarterbacks such as Jared Goff, Case Keenum, and Andy Dalton have shown some success despite being notably worse outside the numbers than they are over the middle. Gordon may be able to fall into a similar archetype. 

  

[Stinger226]

I think with the QBS that would be  available in the later rounds, it would just be a wasted pick. Training camps will be limited because of beer virus and they won't be able develop one this year.  The competition between Foles and Mitch will go a long way in painting the QB room for the next few years.  Mitch is still there developing QB. Next year they have all their picks and will have some answers as if Mitch is going to be here next year. 

[Stinger226]

4 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Another decent draft.  Like Eason too although his stats seem low (north of 3100 yards) for all the huge passes he’s known for.  

This would be an excellent draft   imo  because you address 3 OL positions .You address both future OT spots and lemieux is rated a lot higher on numerous draft boards  . Instead of a QB I would take a WR prospect that would contribute this year.  Both OTs will take a yr to develop so  higher  picks need to contribute. Duggar could start otherwise Kmet is your only draft pick that probably contributes this year in a smaller role. Lemieux could be a future starter but not this year. 

[BearFan PHX]

7 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

This would be an excellent draft   imo  because you address 3 OL positions .You address both future OT spots and lemieux is rated a lot higher on numerous draft boards  . Instead of a QB I would take a WR prospect that would contribute this year.  Both OTs will take a yr to develop so  higher  picks need to contribute. Duggar could start otherwise Kmet is your only draft pick that probably contributes this year in a smaller role. Lemieux could be a future starter but not this year. 

I dont really know enough about Eason to know whether I predict he will succeed or fail, and a speed WR would definitely be a need.