Jump to content

IF QBs go 1,2,3 why wouldn't we take Sewell?


Recommended Posts

Write Lawrence down for the number 1 overall to the Jags in indelible ink, the number 2 pick looks like either Wilson or Fields to the Jets and even if the Fins do not want a QB at 3 it looks like the Panties or the Broncos or even the 49ers may make a trade with the Fins for whomever is left...so if we stay at 4 and do not trade back with someone coveting a WR (Chase, Waddle, Smith), OT (Sewell, Slater), TE (Pitts) or last 1st round QB standing (Lance)...Why wouldn't we take Sewell?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Because Kyle Pitts is still on the board.

I agree if we see him as the best player. It is a premium position that can transform your offense. Look at the Bucs. Everyone wants to talk about Brady and his impact. People forget how awful their l

Write Lawrence down for the number 1 overall to the Jags in indelible ink, the number 2 pick looks like either Wilson or Fields to the Jets and even if the Fins do not want a QB at 3 it looks like the

I agree if we see him as the best player. It is a premium position that can transform your offense. Look at the Bucs. Everyone wants to talk about Brady and his impact. People forget how awful their line was until they drafted Wirfs. He instantly transformed their offensive line and helped keep Brady healthy and upright.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut says that if QBs go 1, 2 & 3 we take Sewell and if Sewell goes at 3 we trade back to someone who will overpay to get the 3rd QB left.  But, nobody really knows.  We have never seen a TF draft before so we have no idea of what his tendencies will be except for what little has been share with the media, and that could all be smoke and mirrors.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, xSICKxWITHxITx said:

Maybe because we don’t need a T. Told people just like we would keep Matt.

It will be interesting to see how AS/TF evaluate McGary. Given what AS said about the importance of depth on the LOS, it's not unreasonable for them to conclude that

a. the best way to get value out of the Ryan extension is to have the best OL possible. 

b. Sewell is superior to McGary

c. none of the other options at #4 are as good a value as Sewell and trade-back options weren't possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kaptain Krazy said:

 

It will be interesting to see how AS/TF evaluate McGary. Given what AS said about the importance of depth on the LOS, it's not unreasonable for them to conclude that

a. the best way to get value out of the Ryan extension is to have the best OL possible. 

b. Sewell is superior to McGary

c. none of the other options at #4 are as good a value as Sewell and trade-back options weren't possible.

Lol McGary is fine. So if Chase is better than Ridley we draft him? Pitts better than Hurst we draft him?

Lol again McGary is fine and was getting better. Dude has played what 2 years? Give him a chance before we bench him. Depth is Gono as the swing T or if McGary did struggle. 

Plus with AS new system the entire online will be better. We need a G not a tackle so it’s all irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, xSICKxWITHxITx said:

Lol McGary is fine. So if Chase is better than Ridley we draft him? Pitts better than Hurst we draft him?

Lol again McGary is fine and was getting better. Dude has played what 2 years? Give him a chance before we bench him. Depth is Gono as the swing T or if McGary did struggle. 

Plus with AS new system the entire online will be better. We need a G not a tackle so it’s all irrelevant.

Your "logic" is not quite as solid as you think. KC had Alex Smith and drafted Mahomes because - guess what - they thought he was better. So yes, sometimes teams draft players at positions for which they have someone on the roster because the increase in talent is too much. This is especially true on the LOS, where - as i mentioned - AS has specifically talked about the need for depth. 

My post - unlike yours - did not presume to know for sure what they might do, but instead recognized the possibility. 

No, drafting Sewell at #4 would not be an 'lol' moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, MattM12 said:

Totally, although I think we would take Slater if we went OL. More versatile and fits a more immediate need by being able to kick inside. Sewell doesn't translate as a guard very well. 

 

I'd take Vera-Tucker over Slater I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, xSICKxWITHxITx said:

Maybe because we don’t need a T. Told people just like we would keep Matt.

You don't draft for need in the top 5. 

17 minutes ago, AustFalcon said:

My concern with Sewell is not that he won't be a good player, but that he's a LT and we have one of those. I'm not convinced you can just put him or Jake at LG and think they will succeed. 

Sewell is a really big guy. He has plenty of size to play RT, too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Brewcrew said:

My gut says that if QBs go 1, 2 & 3 we take Sewell and if Sewell goes at 3 we trade back to someone who will overpay to get the 3rd QB left.  But, nobody really knows.  We have never seen a TF draft before so we have no idea of what his tendencies will be except for what little has been share with the media, and that could all be smoke and mirrors.   

We also have to understand, TF may do something that seems out of right field. The Saints have made some crazy moves or made some unpredicted picks in the past. We should probably expect that.

Understandably certain players will have certain intangibles that the staff covets, and they may chase those intangibles as perfect fits.

Just like their predecessors on every other team of the past, they know what their vision is a lot more than we do.

I'm just trying to be prepared to be optimistic about whomever they pick.

Now hopefully we aren't selecting some punter or kicker in the first or second round, but it's happened. 🤣🤣

Hopefully whomever they decide on is a starter and playmaker for years to come.

I just remember us TAFTers laughing at some of the Saints picks in the past, and then they turn out to be pretty dayum good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the Matthews restructure, I'd say we only take Sewell if we don't see McGary as our RT.

I'm a believer that thinks AS is fine with the OL as is, and will only look to add a G later in the draft or FA.

So Sewell would be out of the picture, and if you have Pitts still there and no trade down option, then Pitts is likely the go to pick here.

Pitts offers a ton of flexibility, both on and off the field. AS gets a stud TE to pair with Hurst in 12 personnel, and use bunch/trip sets in a number of ways. TF gets to now see a future without JJ or possibly even moving on from Ridley depending on how that all works out. 

Quite Frankly, Pitts is the undeniable 2nd best players in this draft, whether you see him as a big WR or a prototypical TE. He's honestly both, and that alone probably means a lot to AS. Match-up nightmare!

I'd love to have Sewell though because he would be a great pickup. I just don't think AS sees him as a need at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all, myself included, suffer from some level of mass delusion that NFL teams don't consider any of the top defenders BPA in the top 5.

Yes, QBs will get pushed up, because teams who need one will always overvalue them. They have no choice but try to fill that need. If you take them out of the equation, because BPA is secondary to need at that position, you're left with a handful of BPA holes to fill. 

Yes, it makes sense that we'd seriously have Sewell as one of the 2-3 BPAs at that 4 spot. It's also just as plausible that they have guys like Surtain, Horn, Farley or Parsons ranked that high, too. 

I guess what I'm saying is, nothing we do should shock anyone on draft day when it comes to that pick. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Kaptain Krazy said:

Your "logic" is not quite as solid as you think. KC had Alex Smith and drafted Mahomes because - guess what - they thought he was better. So yes, sometimes teams draft players at positions for which they have someone on the roster because the increase in talent is too much. This is especially true on the LOS, where - as i mentioned - AS has specifically talked about the need for depth. 

My post - unlike yours - did not presume to know for sure what they might do, but instead recognized the possibility. 

No, drafting Sewell at #4 would not be an 'lol' moment. 

Alex Smith is a game manager. We are not drafting Sewell.

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...