Jump to content

My Hopes on the Draft


Rings
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2/20/2021 at 10:15 AM, Rings said:

Same.  More we get the happier I’ll be, I don’t care if that means trading out of the first if we add 5+ picks on day two this year and next.  Much better chance of those six players making a bigger holistic impact than one.  Wishful thinking though for sure.

I'm not sure that I want to trade out of first. Definitely like idea of trading back. But I do think 9im pretty sure that you said this} I like the idea of Sewell if we stay at 4.

I hear folks go on and on about QB BEING HARD TO GET DUE TO DRAFT POSITION. A legit and elite LT available is even harder. Jake is good at LT, but he's expensive. Second, he might just be the all pro LG we've wanted.

An OL of:

LT Sewell

LG Jake

OC Henny

RG Lindstrom

RT McGary

Is pretty badass and extends drives in addition to making scoring easier. That has a positive symbiotic effect on the defense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MSalmon said:

I'm not sure that I want to trade out of first. Definitely like idea of trading back. But I do think 9im pretty sure that you said this} I like the idea of Sewell if we stay at 4.

I hear folks go on and on about QB BEING HARD TO GET DUE TO DRAFT POSITION. A legit and elite LT available is even harder. Jake is good at LT, but he's expensive. Second, he might just be the all pro LG we've wanted.

I like Sewell a lot and if I'm not picking a QB and not trading down he is who I'm picking but the counter argument is once you get past QB, having an elite player at any one specific position isn't a requirement for winning the Super Bowl. The last two Super Bowl LTs are Donovan Smith and Eric Fisher. Both top out at the solid level. The last elite Super Bowl LT was Jason Peters from the 2017 season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one take I have on this draft is that it will be easy this year to add significant talent to our secondary.  Safety appears stacked, and there are also a lot of good cornerbacks.  Running back will also be deep.  Center also appears to be fairly deep in this draft.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rings said:

It doesn’t take much to trade up in the third round where Kamara went, it costs a lot more to trade up back into the first.  By doing so you are still giving away another depth player we desperately need.  Every year studs are available at pick 35.  Chubb was taken at 35 a couple years ago.  There is no need to trade up.

Most years I would be completely against trading up for a RB because as we all know, you can usually find quality RB's mid-late-UDFA. But the fact that we absolutely have to come away from this draft with a "blue chip" RB (barring adding a FA), I have no issue trading back into the 1st or if we have to just trade up to #33 to get him. Preferably in a situation where we have already traded back from #4 and have extra ammo.  Just a matter of opinion. My main issue was claiming one if not all 3 would definitely be available at our pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MSalmon said:

I'm not sure that I want to trade out of first. Definitely like idea of trading back. But I do think 9im pretty sure that you said this} I like the idea of Sewell if we stay at 4.

I hear folks go on and on about QB BEING HARD TO GET DUE TO DRAFT POSITION. A legit and elite LT available is even harder. Jake is good at LT, but he's expensive. Second, he might just be the all pro LG we've wanted.

An OL of:

LT Sewell

LG Jake

OC Henny

RG Lindstrom

RT McGary

Is pretty badass and extends drives in addition to making scoring easier. That has a positive symbiotic effect on the defense. 

I would’t hate Sewell, but I’d rather keep Sewell and Matthew’s as my bookends and kick MgGary inside so he has some help on either side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Clark Kent™ said:

Most years I would be completely against trading up for a RB because as we all know, you can usually find quality RB's mid-late-UDFA. But the fact that we absolutely have to come away from this draft with a "blue chip" RB (barring adding a FA), I have no issue trading back into the 1st or if we have to just trade up to #33 to get him. Preferably in a situation where we have already traded back from #4 and have extra ammo.  Just a matter of opinion. My main issue was claiming one if not all 3 would definitely be available at our pick. 

Why do we absolutely “need” a blue chip RB?  And what guarantees getting into the first to take one over #35?  It doesn’t.  We have depth issues from trading up so much over the TD years, we need every pick we have plus some to fill starters on roster and depth.  Like you said you can find RBs all over day two and early day three every year.  8/10 leading rushers last year were taken on day two or later. When we had our best running game the last decade it was Turner (5th round pick), Freeman (4th round pick), Coleman (3rd round pick).  We have proven ourselves you don’t need a top guy to have a really good run game.
 

Trading up for a RB screams desperation on what we’ve been missing the last few years in a run game and thinking a RB is going to fix that.  You put Chubb or Henry in Dirks scheme last year and they aren’t a top 10 back.  Our run game dramatically increased with Dirk was let go and Smith was brought in.  We still need a back no doubt, but we don’t need to spend at least two picks on one player to accomplish that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/20/2021 at 10:33 PM, Rings said:

There are more QBs this year at the top and more teams that need one this year, just look at the trades already for QBs.

The Dolphins are really the prime trade up spot not us if anything teams will be trying to jump us for a QB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JetJones11 said:

The Dolphins are really the prime trade up spot not us if anything teams will be trying to jump us for a QB

They could be, I think a lot are assuming QBs go 1-3 because a lot of mocks have that, but that has happened like once in the last 20 years.  I wouldn’t be surprised if Sewell or a WR go early that shocks a lot of people.  One of the best parts of the draft is all the surprises every year.  If one of those go, or someone desperately needs a tackle or wants their WR and not #2 or #3 they could easily go up.  We also don’t know which three QBs people have at the top.  Some could have Lance above Fields and vise Versa.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Herr Doktor said:

The one take I have on this draft is that it will be easy this year to add significant talent to our secondary.  Safety appears stacked, and there are also a lot of good cornerbacks.  Running back will also be deep.  Center also appears to be fairly deep in this draft.  

Feel like safety is deep but not much top end, especially a versatile free safety.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rings said:

I would’t hate Sewell, but I’d rather keep Sewell and Matthew’s as my bookends and kick MgGary inside so he has some help on either side.

That's not a bad idea either. Both scenarios solidi0the trenches for a long time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Rings said:

Why do we absolutely “need” a blue chip RB?  And what guarantees getting into the first to take one over #35?  It doesn’t.  We have depth issues from trading up so much over the TD years, we need every pick we have plus some to fill starters on roster and depth.  Like you said you can find RBs all over day two and early day three every year.  8/10 leading rushers last year were taken on day two or later. When we had our best running game the last decade it was Turner (5th round pick), Freeman (4th round pick), Coleman (3rd round pick).  We have proven ourselves you don’t need a top guy to have a really good run game.
 

Trading up for a RB screams desperation on what we’ve been missing the last few years in a run game and thinking a RB is going to fix that.  You put Chubb or Henry in Dirks scheme last year and they aren’t a top 10 back.  Our run game dramatically increased with Dirk was let go and Smith was brought in.  We still need a back no doubt, but we don’t need to spend at least two picks on one player to accomplish that.

Because our current roster doesn't have enough to provide a good enough run game. There are no guarantees. But if 2 of the 3 are gone then its well worth the risk of moving up 5 or so spots if you feel there is a significant drop off in talent. 

I personally don't mind what people may view as "screams desperation" as long as it fixes our run game. We traded up for a RT 2 years ago in a move that "screamed desperation" but if it fixes our O line (or if it would have) then no one would care. 

If the Saints woulda taken Kamara in the 1st round a few years ago and he performed like he has, no one would care. 

Yeah we definitely do need a back. I'm open to hearing your mid-late round favorites because I haven't found many and we both agree on the idea that it is not optimal to have to trade back into the first for a RB. I'm just more ok with it than you. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clark Kent™ said:

Because our current roster doesn't have enough to provide a good enough run game. There are no guarantees. But if 2 of the 3 are gone then its well worth the risk of moving up 5 or so spots if you feel there is a significant drop off in talent. 

I personally don't mind what people may view as "screams desperation" as long as it fixes our run game. We traded up for a RT 2 years ago in a move that "screamed desperation" but if it fixes our O line (or if it would have) then no one would care. 

If the Saints woulda taken Kamara in the 1st round a few years ago and he performed like he has, no one would care. 

Yeah we definitely do need a back. I'm open to hearing your mid-late round favorites because I haven't found many and we both agree on the idea that it is not optimal to have to trade back into the first for a RB. I'm just more ok with it than you. 

 

I just think you get a bigger lift in your run game from fixing the offense line, which also helps your passing game.  If a big goal is fixing the run game in my opinion you’d be better off taking a guard at 35 and a back in round 3 than the other way around.  Much better chance on hitting on a back in round 3 than a guard.  

As far as players I haven't gone all in on draft mode yet so I haven’t watched a ton of tape. I do like Williams out of NC, but not sure where teams will value him.  I haven’t watched many of the projected day three guys, I’ll hopefully get to that over the next month.  I think even if Etienne or Harris are gone by #35 (I don’t think both will but they could be), he would likely still be there at #35.  I highly doubt three backs go before our second pick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rings said:

I just think you get a bigger lift in your run game from fixing the offense line, which also helps your passing game.  If a big goal is fixing the run game in my opinion you’d be better off taking a guard at 35 and a back in round 3 than the other way around.  Much better chance on hitting on a back in round 3 than a guard.  

As far as players I haven't gone all in on draft mode yet so I haven’t watched a ton of tape. I do like Williams out of NC, but not sure where teams will value him.  I haven’t watched many of the projected day three guys, I’ll hopefully get to that over the next month.  I think even if Etienne or Harris are gone by #35 (I don’t think both will but they could be), he would likely still be there at #35.  I highly doubt three backs go before our second pick.

If you have an OG in mind at #35 and a RB to get later then I'm all ears. Like I said, I do not think it is optimal to trade back into the first for a RB, but I'm open to it (preferably if we trade back from #4). If we think there is an OG available at #35 then I say take him. I will always want to take a trench player over a skill guy and its not even a question. We can go Sewell or Slater at #4 and then another O line guy at #35 and I'd still be ok with it 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Clark Kent™ said:

If you have an OG in mind at #35 and a RB to get later then I'm all ears. Like I said, I do not think it is optimal to trade back into the first for a RB, but I'm open to it (preferably if we trade back from #4). If we think there is an OG available at #35 then I say take him. I will always want to take a trench player over a skill guy and its not even a question. We can go Sewell or Slater at #4 and then another O line guy at #35 and I'd still be ok with it 🤣

I’d prefer that over trading up for a back. Haha.  I get what your saying.  Like I said, I haven’t dove that far into it yet.  Even the top guys I wouldn’t take them in the first myself.  I myself hope they go very defense heavy to help with the new scheme.  Offense/run game should see a huge jump on AS alone, so I would prefer a 2-1 ratio at least of defense to offense taken this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...