TD alt

I do to (at least I'd like to), I just don't know if we need to do it with our first round draft capital. If they do, I'll be good with it, as I expect them to stick to their board.

I mean, do you stop trying to improve your skill positions when it's obvious that you need to improve them? There really is more than one way to skin a cat, it's just that one way is better than the other when you look at it in a historical and statistical context.

Phillips and Lloyd are "first round" contributors (like that makes all the difference). I'm not arguing anything except that it's not a recipe for success to draft based upon need. To me, and it's just my opinion, I don't know why someone would argue against any first rounder as long as they bring the value because that's actually what we should be looking for. To me, to go into a draft saying that we're going to draft an inferior player at a certain position and skip the player that is superior simply because it would be three times in a row is just silly considering that you still need to shore up the position.

Dude, we just invested in two past first rounders on defense. Sure, we didn't draft them, but we acquired them in free agency. And it's not like Mike Jack is some bum out there.

Nah, dude. The only one that's actually long in the tooth is Not on, and he ain't even done yet. If Icky can't come back, then Walker will be extended. Walker is after all a better pass defender. We're not necessarily at the point where we need to be drafting first rounders who would likely be sitting on the bench; day two or three guys that can be developed could fill that need.

Our O-line is pretty good on paper, and our D-line should be good in theory. We should be able to control the LOS (at least good enough for someone on the team to go off). We have put plenty of resources into the defense the last couple of offseasons.

That flouts everything that free agency, a big board & BPA stands for. I could see if we were set at WR, which we aren't. I could see if Special Teams was set, which it ain't. XL was an apparent bust, and T-mac was a hit (I wonder why...). If I am skeptical about Dan Morgan and Dave Canales, I surely am not yet skeptical of Brandt Tilis. I think his addition and results alone should at least give the FA a little goodwill and some rope. Now whether Concepcion is worth a first (which I am highly skeptical about) is a totally different story.

Only if the OT has the grade. Some of you seem to be forgetting that the value HAS to be there, or what the hell are we doing?

That's why we drafted an LT, paid for starting level OGs and depth, and also got what most are calling an excellent deal on a starting caliber LT this year.

Paying for pass rushers is what it is. Pass rushers have a higher bust rate than many other positions in the first round. Moreover, drafting so-so players because they're what you need is simply nonsensical. Stick to the board!

Roster building is a yearly thing.what you're trying to do is get impactful players every year, not so-so players or busts just because you need a position. That's a recipe for failure, and in a way it just discounts what you're trying to do in FA (which is also roster building).

Not really. It all depends upon perspective. You can draft quality OTs high every year. They have one of the lowest bust rates by position. DTs, less so, but good ones still come along at a regular clip. With WRs, it's simply best to draft one in the first round if you want a legit play maker. Moreover, WR is going to set you back more than OT or DT at really all statuses, meaning JAG receivers are going to make more than JAG OTs and DTs, and elite receivers will make substantially more than elite OTs or DTs. I would also argue that it's much harder to find a franchise level OT or DT that can have an altering impact upon the game. So, if you don't believe they can, you may as well wait for day 2 or 3. That's why sticking to your board is probably the wisest thing to do. If you're not committed that the value is there, then what are you doing? Lastly, I don't think you should necessarily draft in a vacuum, but you must look at each team from year to year. People want to make them the same, but they're different. You have to start over every year and identify where the strengths and weaknesses are. You can't say, "Well we drafted [so and so] last year or two years ago, so we'll just draft this this year." That's not realistic and it can be highly counterproductive, especially in light of the reason that you should be trying to use FA to set up the draft.

We were just in the playoffs for the first time in damned near a decade, and our first round draft pick played a large role in that. Moreover, looking at the costs of receiver these days, it is a premium position where you must control costs, so drafting a legit play maker at receiver is never really a terrible thing. For the offense to be as bad as it was, and for all the investments that we made in the defense last offseason and this offseason, I just don't get how some of you think that an offensive play maker is a bad thing. I just don't get it. We need a legitimate third receiver, and we can't trust that Legette, Metchie, Sanders or Horn are going to suddenly morph into that.

If it's a receiver, so be it!

It's not hard to figure out. We're going BPA. If that's a tackle, then that's what we'll draft. We aren't putting in that card solely based off need. It's not happening.