Is it Imperative that we get a day-1 starter this draft?

[the butch]

You know what they say, "If you aren't getting better . . . ."  

But really though, at the 30th pick in a weak draft, I don't think we could get a day-1 starter anyway.  It goes hand in hand with the whole draft order:  bad teams get the fist picks.  They are bad because they don't have good players.  The player they draft can come right in and kick off of those bad guys to second string.  The teams that pick last typically have good players, and thus don't have much more room for improvement.  Add back in that they pick 30th for one position that may not be worthy of a 1st round pick [FB].  The only exception I can think of would be losing players in Free Agency, and thus needing a Day-1 starter because the back-up isn't good enough.

As for us, I guess the one position I would go for is DE.  But Getts' philosophy is BPA.  So, if a Todd Gurley type is sitting there at 30, you bet he'd take him.  Get your running back of the future a year early at a cost of needing to make a minuscule upgrade to an already dominant defense.

[Cpt slay a ho]

pretty important our division gets tougher each year, not to mention the nfc itself getting stronger. we need guys who can come in a contribute immediately or down the stretch when home field and playoff positioning is important. 

[the butch]

14 minutes ago, Woodie said:

and Gettleman always seems to find a guy that is technically BPA, but also fills a specific need. 

 

coaching makes that connect

[JawnyBlaze]

The only spots that could realistically see day one starters is SS, WR or maybe possibly OT (though not likely on that last one).

[Bartin]

40 minutes ago, thefuzz said:

Didn't get a day 1 "starter" last year and made the SB.

I doubt that we would get a starter out of this draft for the first half of the season.  Likely spots if no injuries: S, CB, P, KR.

Technically Shaq was a day 1 starter at SLB in our 4-3 base

[KB_fan]

1 hour ago, Riverboat Ron said:

I wonder how quickly this board melts down if we take a DT or Derrick Henry?

The Huddle seems to be melting down a whole lot less these days....  It seems that there's a lot of trust and confidence in Gettleman and his methodical plan. 

I certainly would think people would be happy for a good 3 Tech DT.  We have a roster hole there now with Dwan Edwards having been released, and with a draft so strong in DTs we can probably still get a very good one at #30.

As for Derrick Henry, there seems to be some enthusiasm for him, but not so much at round 1.  I've read a lot of concern about how Alabama backs are beaten up, have too much tread on the tires....  so yeah, if he's the pick at round 1, I would think there would be some folks complaining about it, but not likely a full scale Huddle melt down the likes of losing the SB or when KB was injured. 

Perhaps the only picks that might cause a melt down in round 1 would be Specialist (P, K, LS), QB or MLB.  Even in those strange cases, most of us would probably scratch our heads and go "OK, Gettleman MUST have a plan.  Maybe it's a crazy plan.  But I'll trust he's got a plan!"

[TheNewStandard]

50 minutes ago, Woodie said:

I don't think we're looking for a day one starter.  We're looking for a day one contributor that should be ready to start next year.  The end of the 1st is virtually a 2nd round pick, and as such, should be an eventual starter but give the team immediate value as a reserve. 

It's possible we could look at a TE such as Henry, but I doubt it.  Olsen will be the starter for the next few years, and any TE we bring in will primarily be used as a blocker that could occasionally catch a pass.  So, I don't see us using a 1st on a guy that should be a year one or, at worst, a year two starter.  Olsen and KB will get most of the intermediate attention from Cam, so we won't use a 2nd TE as a receiver enough to justify taking him in the 1st...at least not this year (but we could take one later, though).

 

The only thing about getting a TE in the first is that we...(Is Ed Dickson still on the roster?)...'cause if he is, he's seasoned and entrenched as our 2nd TE in our double-set and knows his role. Adding another TE that high in the draft would just be redundant as it could be unlikely that he could even make the final roster.

i just think there's no way you draft a guy that might be borderline on making the roster. 

A safety, DB, DL, WR or OL would have much greater chances of getting in the rotation off the starting gate.

[shaqattaq]

2 hours ago, pantherclaw said:

If we draft the way that is expected  (de, te, rb), we will not have a day one starter.

If we draft Hunter at TE, he'll be a plug and play starter (in 2 TE sets) from day 1. But I agree that we have no need to draft a starter (thank you G-man). I suspect that is why I've seen so much speculation about trading back in the draft. Any DE, RB, or OT we get can take a little time to hone his craft, and not be pressured to produce at a high level from day 1.

[KB_fan]

Re: the question of a TE in the first...

I still keep coming back to what DG revealed at the Combine re: his decision to go after Funchess out of a concern for not having adequate backup for KB.  (In a sense, he partially abandoned a true BPA strategy to go after a guy he wanted/needed whom they'd given a high grade.) 

So I've been asking myself what "fear" might Dave have this year?  Who's a KEY player on the team for whom we have pretty thin backup?  I keep coming back to Greg.  The guy plays darn near every snap and is god-like.  It's hard to imagine him ever unable to play.  But if he were to miss a few games with an injury, it would be a HUGE hole in our offense.  With him being 31 it seems to be the time to begin thinking about possible "what ifs" and making sure we've got better depth at TE. 

Maybe this year since we don't have an OBVIOUS need tor a starter from the draft, we can afford more of a "luxury" pick and get some added insurance behind Greg, a guy we can groom alongside him for the future.... kind of like what we did last year with picking Shaq who looks to eventually be a TD replacement.  (Maybe Greg will announce our round 1 pick this year in Chicago...LOL)

But, whatever.  In Gettleman I trust.

[JakeH]

2 hours ago, Riverboat Ron said:

We don't really need a day one starter, what we need is a high upside rookie who'll flourish in a year or two.

100% this. We're looking at potentially being without Johnson, Stewart, Norman, and Coleman in the near future. We've got to draft to sustain our success now, and that means using the draft to replace players that, while productive, are not core players for one reason or another. Occasionally that means drafting a player at a position that "right now" we're set at. Gettleman is playing the long game. 

 

RB, DE, DT, and DB is where I expect us to do a lot of our shopping. 

[Bartin]

7 minutes ago, JakeH said:

100% this. We're looking at potentially being without Johnson, Stewart, Norman, and Coleman in the near future. We've got to draft to sustain our success now, and that means using the draft to replace players that, while productive, are not core players for one reason or another. Occasionally that means drafting a player at a position that "right now" we're set at. Gettleman is playing the long game. 

 

RB, DE, DT, and DB is where I expect us to do a lot of our shopping. 

Oher and Remmers too. Daryl Williams is the only OT we have under contract after this year excluding whatever practice squad guys we signed to futures contracts.

[L-TownCat]

Imperative? No.

but look at it this way, what if we do?

bam bitch!! We killin it!

[TheNewStandard]

9 minutes ago, Bartin said:

Oher and Remmers too. Daryl Williams is the only OT we have under contract after this year excluding whatever practice squad guys we signed to futures contracts.

I really think Oher will stick with us until he retires. His value is in his price tag and experience while performing at a very high level. No need to go out and use a 1st or 2nd while we have Williams ready to go if an injury hits.

Secondly, I'm looking 3-years down the road at having a LB to replace either Shaq (if he is TD's replacement once TD hangs 'em up,) or for TD himself (if we stay pay with Shaq as WLB for the rest of his tenure.) 

Having the Hebrew Hammer is great to spell relief at all the LB positions but I wouldn't be upset if A LB is high on our draft board. 

I expect a DT/DE will be the highest rated player on our draft board due to the pool of talent along the DL and the specter of the inevitability of only being able to sign only one of our twin DTs and like most of you have noted that we let Dwan walk and are in need of backup DL guys who can get in the rotation from day one...wouldn't even be surprised if Getts does another double-dip with DL guys...especially if one or both are versatile enough to play outside as well.

[TheNewStandard]

14 minutes ago, L-TownCat said:

Imperative? No.

but look at it this way, what if we do?

bam bitch!! We killin it!

If there's a guy DG thinks can start...he'd be the guy to know. 

Love the suspense! The draft can't get here soon enough!!!