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)

If all you're looking at is his season yardage statistics, then sure, they won't look great, but look a little deeper and the production is clearly there on the field... As an UDFA, the teams #3 WR, and poor QB play, he had 478 yards in only 11 games. If he had that average over a 17 game season he would have had a 738 yard season as an undrafted rookie. This past year he missed the start of the season and clearly took time to get back to form once he was back. But remove his first 4 games getting back to form, and over the final 7 games he had a per game average that would have been a 796 yard season over 17 games. 796 yards this past season would have been 34th in the league overall, and 27th best for a WR. And that was all before he went and dropped a 134 yard game in the playoffs. Pretty sure that's pretty darn good production for a 2nd or 3rd option, no? So again, I think it's wildly unfair to say we only have 1 WR, as if Coker plays a full season this year, he should be good for 800-1000 yards, even with T-Mac next to him getting 1,200+ himself. This is why I don't at all see the need for drafting a WR in the 1st this year, not while still having XL, Horn Jr, and I guess Metchie even though I'm not at all sold on him. Draft a speedy WR in the 3rd or 4th and/or sign a vet (is DHop still out there?) to play in the slot this year, and use that 1st on a position of more need.

I'll also say this, for all the crap we give him, myself included. If we are able to find a solid #3 WR to play in the slot and XL becomes our #4, he might actually be the best #4 WR in the league, at worst, Top 5. I think our WR is being slept on for some reason, yes we need to add one more, but T-Mac and Coker as a 1-2 and XL as a #4 has serious potential, especially as T-Mac takes the next step to stardom this season. I also think if he went to work this offeason, it's not out of the question to see Horn Jr step up and take over the slot role, as he might not be a complete WR right now, but he very well may have exactly what we need from that role with his speed and elusiveness. He does have a nice complimentary set of skills to what T-Mac and Coker bring to the table, it's just a matter if he can sharpen up a few areas and get on the field more to show it (which I think is a real possibility).

And you think teams can build the best possible roster every season without thinking about financial implications into the future? It's precisely what the good franchises do, they make decisions that combine what is best for the upcoming season as well as the long term implications. The other problem with this post is that you say it only is an issue if they all become stars. But that is exactly what you should be hoping/expecting for every 1st round pick you make, they are supposed to turn into players you sign to multiple contracts and are the cornerstone players for your franchise. You shouldn't be drafting a player in the 1st round that you don't think should be getting a big contract in 3 or 4 years, if you don't think that's the case, then you're making the wrong selection in the 1st round (especially in the Top 20, maybe 25-32 is more questionable, but not by much). We know T-Mac is going to be a star, if the expectation is for a WR drafted in the 1st this year is also expected to be as much, that's two huge contracts to give out in back to back years. While at the same time, Coker has already proven to be at minimum, a great #3 in this league IMO. It's not going to be a far leap to see him become a bona fide #2, if not even a high end #2 this upcoming season with some improvement and sustained health.

You really think I don’t want us to use a late 1st round pick on a WR because of my T-Mac fandom? Despite my numerous and detailed explanations of why I think we both need another WR but why using our 1st rounder on it is a terrible idea when you think about it beyond just this next season’s needs? Disagree if you’d like, but have legitimate reasons, not thinking I’m afraid of the reigning OROY losing catches to the 5th best WR in this draft, just an absurd take.

A few reasons, first being that's the length of rookie contracts (not counting the 5th year option for 1st roudners). Also trying to go 5+ years out feels long and 3 or less feels too short for there to be all too much of a change. And you still seem to be arguing for this as if it's the only way to get a WR in that mold and that we don't have bigger problems than WR right now. Just because we need one thing, doesn't mean bigger needs should be ignored to fill that one, especially when that position already has one of our best players on the team. Again, yes, we need that type of WR, but we have other bigger and more pressing needs. It's also wildly unfair to say we have 1 WR right now, I think Coker has shown enough to be considered a solid WR moving forward with how he finished the season.

Nobody is saying we don't need it, just that we have bigger needs elsewhere, and that type of WR is actually something that is often found in the mid rounds, you just have to scout and evaluate properly. Here's another way of looking at why WR in the 1st shouldn't even be considered an option. Looking only at players currently on the team, what position group would you feel strongest about 4 years from now? I'm not sure there is a better answer there than WR, as you have to think T-Mac is our best player on the team in 4 years (Brown is the only current player I think there is even an argument to be made over T-Mac there), with Coker not far behind. Our OL is too old to be considered, my opinions on Bryce is well known, Hubbard will be done by then and the rest of the RB is an unknown, Off-ball LB is maybe our biggest need, we only have 1 legit safety, it's certainly not TE, and our 2nd best CB right now will be 33 by then. Brown should still be a beast as he'll only be 31, but nobody else on the DL projects to be that good in 4 years. Edge rusher with Phillips, Scourton, and Princely is probably the only other possible answer than WR. So yes, that fast/shifty type of WR is 100% a need of ours, but we have so many other bigger needs both in the immediate and future, that to me, taking a WR in the 1st for the 3rd year in a row and having hit on another WR in the same time frame, just makes zero sense both currently and looking into the future.

Hell ya, give me one of those bad teams’ high 2nd rounder along with their 2027 1st and I’d walk away from 19 with a huge smile on my face.

I’ll also say agin, this is why I think we’re in a great spot this year to trade down, and maybe meeting with all these WRs is a smokescreen to try and make a WR needy team over trade to get our pick so we don’t take the guy they want. While at the same time, if Downs falls outside the Top 10, I’d be comfortable with darn near any trade NOT involving our 2027 1st (very well could be needed for a QB), to move up and get him. He’s going to be one of th best Safeties in the game for years to come.

Oh, and it likely becomes an issue in 2 years, not 4. in 2 years T-Mac will be eligible for an extension while Coker will also need a new deal himself, not to mention if he rookie WR pans out, he’ll want a new contract the following offseason himself. So you can’t then pay both T-Mac and Coker while not trading that 3rd WR. Just like you can’t pay one of those two and then have the same problem the next offseason with the younger WR and whichever don’t get the contract the year before. If the front office believes in their ability it judge talent, then you draft with an eye to the future and trust that belief. I again point to the Bengals, it’s not even about paying for two high end WRs, other team get away with it just fine. It’s needing to pay for them in the same offseason that creates big problems.

It should be a facto, because while he needs to perform to keep his job, you still have to build with an eye to the future. Where we will be drafting, there is a more than good chance of there being a player there at a position of more need, such as OT, LB, TE, S, or CB. With all those holes, I just don’t like the idea of taking a player who will ensure one of him, T-Mac, or Coker won’t be here 4 years from now, and we all know it won’t be T-Mac who gets jettisoned. So either believe in Coker or don’t, keep him and draft another position or draft a WR and trade him, don’t straddle the middle and hamstring us by leaving more holes while leaving us a huge problem a couple years from now.