We Suck - 2026 NFL Mock Draft Thread

[AnonEmouse]

Us trading up for anyone makes no sense. What collateral do we have that makes any of the top 6 worth losing it for? Arguably we could use all of the guys slated 2-7, and whoever we get should be an immediate starter so why give up capital? Especially for a running back in this day and age.

[calia]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

Us trading up for anyone makes no sense. What collateral do we have that makes any of the top 6 worth losing it for? Arguably we could use all of the guys slated 2-7, and whoever we get should be an immediate starter so why give up capital? Especially for a running back in this day and age.

Agreed. Totally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[skinsnut]

Skinsnut board for Commanders:
(top 5 are potential stars /playmakers IMO)
1. Bailey edge, not likely
2. Reese edge, not likely
3. Downs safety, possible
4. Love RB, unlikely
5. Styles LB, possible
6. Bain DL, likely
7. Delane CB, likely
8. Tate WR, meh

So, according to this theory, it's Downs vs Styles and they pick Downs due to film over measurables. But it really comes down to if either Love or Styles are picked. I see Downs as being likely. CB is backup plan, they guy is good and ideal positional value. I don't see a #1 wr worth our pick which should be used on a future household name otherwise we settle for a 7 year guy like bain or a cb.

I personally think the top 5 here are can't miss, so I'd target them in this order (although reese is a bit of a projection) it is also possible Bain could be great too, but the short arm thing will hurt him in the NFL and he could get slowed every play.
Thoughts?

[skinsnut]

Adjusted board:

Skinsnut board for Commanders: (Imo)

1. Bailey edge, not likely available 10% available
2. Reese edge, not likely available 20% available
3.(4) Love RB, not likely available 25% available
4.(5) Styles LB, possible, ideal 50% available
5.(7) Delane CB, most likely, very good 60% available
6.(3) Downs safety, likely available 80% available
7.(6) Bain DL, likely available, not scheme fit 70% available
8. Tate WR, meh 2nd wr 70% available

I think we're gonna get Delane

[calia]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Adjusted board:

Skinsnut board for Commanders: (Imo)

1. Bailey edge, not likely available 10% available
2. Reese edge, not likely available 20% available
3.(4) Love RB, not likely available 25% available
4.(5) Styles LB, possible, ideal 50% available
5.(7) Delane CB, most likely, very good 60% available
6.(3) Downs safety, likely available 80% available
7.(6) Bain DL, likely available, not scheme fit 70% available
8. Tate WR, meh 2nd wr 70% available

I think we're gonna get Delane

I'd drop Love from 3 to 6 (bumping Styles up to 3) mostly because of positional value and because I still think we need more help on D than O, and then flip Downs (now 4) and Delane (now 5). But I agree with the rest of this.

[skinsnut]

Originally Posted by skinsnut

Adjusted board:

Skinsnut board for Commanders: (Imo)

1. Bailey edge, not likely available 10% available
2. Reese edge, not likely available 20% available
3.(4) Love RB, not likely available 25% available
4.(5) Styles LB, possible, ideal 50% available
5.(7) Delane CB, most likely, very good 60% available
6.(3) Downs safety, likely available 80% available
7.(6) Bain DL, likely available, not scheme fit 70% available
8. Tate WR, meh 2nd wr 70% available

I think we're gonna get Delane

I was wrong, mainly because we got lucky someone drafted Delane over Styles.
We got lucky here with Styles dropping to us as he is ideal for us, although Delane could heen our top pick if Styles was gone.
This was MY draft for Washington, Adam Peters said he thought the floor for Tate was 9, meaning, they were Not going to take him, so that seems to fit.
I would not be surprised if this list matches the Skins board.
We may never know, but I sure am happy our top pick if what was realistic occured and we got Styles.

The key here is our front 7 is now complete, this means the middle of the field and run defense, that forces 3rd downs, remember those?