tukafan21

We have 17 games without our LT and we signed someone who should have been at worst an adequate starter this year. Not a fan of using this pick on someone who will start down the line for us when we could have taken a week 1 impact player like Thieneman. I’ve said it since Ickey went down, a starting LT was my #1 want in the first, but if they weren’t a week 1 starter, I didn’t think the value would be there for it to be a smart pick.

As long as he’s starting at LT week 1 then I love this, if he can’t beat out the guy we signed from the Packers then this will look rough. But now let’s move up a little bit in the 2nd and go get Stukes an I’ll be much happier about passing on Thieneman there.

They might, but I also think McVay wants Stafford's replacement to spend at least 1 season learning behind him, so if they feel strongly enough about someone this year, they're going to take them if possible. And the kid from Alabama is exactly the type of prospect that needs a redshirt year in the NFL to learn from a vet, seeing as he made so few starts in college. If they make a deep playoff run and then Stafford retires, it will be much harder to replace him with a late 1st and needing to start him right away (or sign another gap year starter).

I think the Rams are a very real possibility to see trade into the back end of the 1st to take him. All reports are that they really like him, and Stafford doesn't have all too much longer left in him, if they like him as much as the rumors, I can see them giving up their 1st next year to get back in and take him to sit and learn from Stafford for a year or two before taking over. But all it takes is 2 teams and it can create a trade bidding war to make sure you get back into the 1st before the other does.

Gross If we go OT in the 1st, it NEEDS to be someone who can play LT. Taking a pure RT means they only see the field if Moton gets hurt, and I can never get behind taking a player in the 1st round that you legitimately hope doesn't see a single snap all season long.

It's not about the teams behind us taking a QB, but it would come down to how much the Cardinals like him and if they're afraid of someone else trading into say 22-24 range to take him. SOMEONE will trade into 30-32 to take him at the worst, so I think if a team like the Cardinals or Jets fell in love with him during the pre-draft process, they'd be looking to trade into the early 20's to get him. If both teams think the other have the same plans, 19 is a great place for them to jump up to so they can grab him. I put it at like 1% chance of happening, but that's why I said it's my dream scenario. As if Bryce shows he's not the guy, we have two 1sts next year to fix QB. And if he shocks me and shows he can be the long term guy, it gives us 2 firsts to put some hopefully day 1 impact players out there for a legit SB push.

If I had to pick one player from the draft for us to get, he's the guy, but he's not falling all the way to us. I have said numerous times though, if he finds a way to fall out of the Top 10, Dan should be real aggressive to move up to get him, I'd be fine with anything that doesn't involve next year's 1st.

Oh, and I'll add to mine and be a little greedy. After we get that high 2nd rounder, we then draft Stukes out of Arizona for 2 years in a row of taking a Wildcat with our 1st pick, lol

Kinda crazy they've never taken a Clemson player even in the late rounds (T-Mac was actually the first Arizona player ever drafted by us, we were the last team to have never drafted a Wildcat) And I of course agree, best case scenario and one that honestly doesn't seem too far fetched if the Cardinals are high on the kid from Alabama and are afraid of someone else getting him in the early-mid 20's. I'm absolutely not expecting it, but like I said, if I could pick one way tonight plays out, that's it.

OT is at the top of my want list if we stay at 19, but with a huge caveat being it NEEDS to be an immediate Week 1 starter at LT. Yes, we need OT depth, but with Moton and the guy we signed from GB, realistically we should be set at starting OT going into the season. And there is just no scenario where a team should ever be using a 1st on someone who isn't expected to be a day 1 starter, a QB, or a RB who has an immediate major role in a 2 RB committee. So if the right OT falls to us and we think/know he'll be our Week 1 starter at LT, then I'm good with it, if not and we still stay at 19, I think it should be S, ILB, or TE in that order.

Only one answer allowed, so not a list of players or multiple options. So if you could just pick one thing to happen and it plays out, what would it be? Mine is a team who wants a QB in the 1st gives us an early 2nd and a 2027 1st to move up to 19 to take a QB (maybe Cardinals?)

It would be really interesting to see what kind of trade Burrow would get the Bengals in return. As it's very different than the Goff situation, where the Rams didn't think he was going to take a step to the next level and it was why they moved him for a QB ready to win immediately. If the Bengals move Burrow, it will be because he asked out (which is why they made the trade, they need immediate all pro level impact as they're afraid he'll want a trade if they don't contend soon again), and/or because he just can't stay healthy. Because for as good as Burrow is, of his 6 seasons in the league, half of them he missed significant time which derailed the Bengals seasons. If that happens again in the next year or two, it really could/would limit what teams are willing to give up for him.

He's still in the league?

The Panthers were the only team in the league to have never drafted an Arizona player before T-Mac last year, why not go back to the well a 2nd year in a row and grab Stukes (but not in the first, maybe 2nd)