Murphy may well end up a stud but I'm not sold on him being a 1st rounder which should mean All Pro upside. His measurables and stats/production is just not elite. It's a weak DL class and his stock is absurdly high as a result IMO where in most cycles he's a second rounder/very late 1st

Would be a bad pick over a OL/WR or even a top CB

??

It is quite deep for interior linemen. DE/OLB is slim pickens for sure, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say DL is a weakness in this cycle.

Agreed. Murphy, Newton, Sweat, Orhorhoro, Fiske & Jenkins round out a solid top six overall for me. Then you get into other areas where guys with versatility can play inside and outside. Robinson out of Missouri and Hall out of Baylor. LSU has at least three guys this year that can potentially play. 

Your top NT's should be: Sweat, Boyd, Jackson, Murphy, Rodgers & Jefferson. 
Your top 3-Tech's should be: Newton, Murphy, Fiske, Orhorhoro, Smith, Wingo, Carter, David, Randolph Jr, Taylor III.
Your top 5-tech's should be: Jenkins, Robinson, Hall Jr., Dorlus, Hall, Eboigbe & Lee. 

All of those DT's listed above are considered top 200 overall prospects in this draft class and there's I think about 250 - 260 picks in this year's class.

There's at least a solid group of 25 prospects at DT this year in my opinion. Potentially looking at starters for most teams well into the early beginning's of round four this year.

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."

Murphy may well end up a stud but I'm not sold on him being a 1st rounder which should mean All Pro upside. His measurables and stats/production is just not elite. It's a weak DL class and his stock is absurdly high as a result IMO where in most cycles he's a second rounder/very late 1st

Would be a bad pick over a OL/WR or even a top CB

??

It is quite deep for interior linemen. DE/OLB is slim pickens for sure, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say DL is a weakness in this cycle.

I would say there's a lot of athletic penetrating 3-tech DT, but it does lack in the ~6'4 ~315ish monsters/all-around game disruptors (ie. Jalen Carter.)  I think the biggest issue is that productive, undersized DTs from college that use great technique, can sometimes be man-handled by the pro OLmen that are athletic enough to counter the swims/digs/etc.

---

Murphy may well end up a stud but I'm not sold on him being a 1st rounder which should mean All Pro upside. His measurables and stats/production is just not elite. It's a weak DL class and his stock is absurdly high as a result IMO where in most cycles he's a second rounder/very late 1st

Would be a bad pick over a OL/WR or even a top CB

??

It is quite deep for interior linemen. DE/OLB is slim pickens for sure, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say DL is a weakness in this cycle.

Agree to disagree. I count DE/Edge (if they are pass rushers primarily) as DL not just interior guys. There were 11 DL taken last draft in the 1st. 8 in 2022. 

Most mocks seem to 4 to 6 max this cycle. I like Dallas Turner a lot, but outside of him I simply don't see elite DL this cycle comparing to other years. When Verse for example is the number 2 DE this class and Murphy number 1 DT that says a lot IMO

Now watch them become HOFs

---

??

It is quite deep for interior linemen. DE/OLB is slim pickens for sure, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say DL is a weakness in this cycle.

Agree to disagree. I count DE/Edge (if they are pass rushers primarily) as DL not just interior guys. There were 11 DL taken last draft in the 1st. 8 in 2022. 

Most mocks seem to 4 to 6 max this cycle. I like Dallas Turner a lot, but outside of him I simply don't see elite DL this cycle comparing to other years. When Verse for example is the number 2 DE this class and Murphy number 1 DT that says a lot IMO

Now watch them become HOFs

When I see mock drafts with Murphy at #17 to the Jags, I instantly dismiss it. The draftnik hasn't done their homework. Newton is only 6'1 and a cheeseburger over 300. Baalke likes the physical freaks. 

If Nix or Penix are selected above #17, one of the edge rushers or top 4 OTs could fall. I think that's the best approach to #17 -- pick the top talent who falls. In the 25% chance none of the consensus top 3 edges, top 4 OTs, or CB Mitchell are there, entertain trade offers or take Brian Thomas.

In a trade down, some gems await -- more OTs, the Robinsons (Chop and Darius), Cooper DeJean.

---

"I am only an average man, but by George, I work harder at it than the average man." - Teddy Roosevelt

Agree to disagree. I count DE/Edge (if they are pass rushers primarily) as DL not just interior guys. There were 11 DL taken last draft in the 1st. 8 in 2022. 

Most mocks seem to 4 to 6 max this cycle. I like Dallas Turner a lot, but outside of him I simply don't see elite DL this cycle comparing to other years. When Verse for example is the number 2 DE this class and Murphy number 1 DT that says a lot IMO

Now watch them become HOFs

When I see mock drafts with Murphy at #17 to the Jags, I instantly dismiss it. The draftnik hasn't done their homework. Newton is only 6'1 and a cheeseburger over 300. Baalke likes the physical freaks. 

If Nix or Penix are selected above #17, one of the edge rushers or top 4 OTs could fall. I think that's the best approach to #17 -- pick the top talent who falls. In the 25% chance none of the consensus top 3 edges, top 4 OTs, or CB Mitchell are there, entertain trade offers or take Brian Thomas.

In a trade down, some gems await -- more OTs, the Robinsons (Chop and Darius), Cooper DeJean.

Chop Robinson is a gem?  Chop and Guyton are the 2 picks that would upset me the most in the first

---

You guys didn't see the Baalkie/Pederson presser on the draft? Answer their BPP vs Needs

https://www.jaguars.com/audio/press-pass...reparation

it is quite long but worth a listen if you want to know where their heads are at

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

You guys didn't see the Baalkie/Pederson presser on the draft? Answer their BPP vs Needs

https://www.jaguars.com/audio/press-pass...reparation

it is quite long but worth a listen if you want to know where their heads are at

Baalke said what I've been saying for years is standard practice for every GM league wide:

If multiple players have similar grades you select the greater need. Just make sure you don't reach too far.

---

1st Bowers/ top4 wr/ Q Mitchell

2nd DT

3rd Bortolini / slipped Wr

---

Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.

You guys didn't see the Baalkie/Pederson presser on the draft? Answer their BPP vs Needs

https://www.jaguars.com/audio/press-pass...reparation

it is quite long but worth a listen if you want to know where their heads are at

Baalke said what I've been saying for years is standard practice for every GM league wide:

If multiple players have similar grades you select the greater need. Just make sure you don't reach too far.

I thought you would like that. Cool thing is we need only a tackle, guard/center, CB and IDL. None will be required to start due to our FA class. So they can work their way in. Anything else is cake.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Baalke said what I've been saying for years is standard practice for every GM league wide:

If multiple players have similar grades you select the greater need. Just make sure you don't reach too far.

I thought you would like that.  Cool thing is we need only a tackle, guard/center, CB and IDL.  None will be required to start due to our FA class. So they can work their way in. Anything else is cake.

I've said before, there are rare instances you pass up the top guy on your board.  If you don't have a need at a position and the guy won't see the field or even make the team it wouldn't make sense to draft a player.  Right now with Jones and Trevor at QB I wouldn't draft a QB. 

 You could argue LB as well and RB early.  Most years though we have went into the drafts where almost every position is a need like this year.  Even if that need isn't for a starter this year it will be a need for depth and a need next year.  You aren't just drafting for this year.  Do yall think Strange was a needs pick for us or was he the top guy on the board?  What about Bigsby?  
 
A lot of GMs draft differently, some GMs draft for need and just fill in holes, they dont last long.  You could also add edge and WR to our list of needs.  So once again almost every position is a need again.

---

I thought you would like that.  Cool thing is we need only a tackle, guard/center, CB and IDL.  None will be required to start due to our FA class. So they can work their way in. Anything else is cake.

I've said before, there are rare instances you pass up the top guy on your board.  If you don't have a need at a position and the guy won't see the field or even make the team it wouldn't make sense to draft a player.  Right now with Jones and Trevor at QB I wouldn't draft a QB. 

 You could argue LB as well and RB early.  Most years though we have went into the drafts where almost every position is a need like this year.  Even if that need isn't for a starter this year it will be a need for depth and a need next year.  You aren't just drafting for this year.  Do yall think Strange was a needs pick for us or was he the top guy on the board?  What about Bigsby?  
 
A lot of GMs draft differently, some GMs draft for need and just fill in holes, they dont last long.  You could also add edge and WR to our list of needs.  So once again almost every position is a need again.

Strange was taken as Engram was yet to sign where they graded him is not known. The Bigsby choice probably wasn't far off an may be needed depending on how much Etienne costs us.

Being a GM is akin to playing a game of wack-a-mole at Chucky Cheese. Bottom line is during this draft we don't address the tackle, guard/center, CB and IDL positions somehow  we need to hope everyone stays healthy like in 2022.  Hope usually is not a good plan.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

I thought you would like that.  Cool thing is we need only a tackle, guard/center, CB and IDL.  None will be required to start due to our FA class. So they can work their way in. Anything else is cake.

I've said before, there are rare instances you pass up the top guy on your board.  If you don't have a need at a position and the guy won't see the field or even make the team it wouldn't make sense to draft a player.  Right now with Jones and Trevor at QB I wouldn't draft a QB. 

 You could argue LB as well and RB early.  Most years though we have went into the drafts where almost every position is a need like this year.  Even if that need isn't for a starter this year it will be a need for depth and a need next year.  You aren't just drafting for this year.  Do yall think Strange was a needs pick for us or was he the top guy on the board?  What about Bigsby?  
 
A lot of GMs draft differently, some GMs draft for need and just fill in holes, they dont last long.  You could also add edge and WR to our list of needs.  So once again almost every position is a need again.

It's not "rare" 

It's most of the early picks for every single team. They all go after a player they need right away or will need the next year with the vast majority of their early picks. 

And while you've said that before - you've also gone on and on for 20 posts claiming you should NEVER EVER deviate from BAP. And then you always contradict yourself like clockwork. 

Sitting here and debating what picks were about need and what picks were "top of the board" is absolutely pointless. 

Most of the 1-3 round picks are always addressing a need unless your team is stacked. 

The only actual debate worth having about it is which "needs" picks constituted a "reach" too far down their board and which ones were simply smart VALUE moves to take a similarly graded player they needed. 

Debating Strange and Bigsby is also pointless right now because both players could still turn out to be major contributors. Disappointing rookie performances aside.

---

I've said before, there are rare instances you pass up the top guy on your board.  If you don't have a need at a position and the guy won't see the field or even make the team it wouldn't make sense to draft a player.  Right now with Jones and Trevor at QB I wouldn't draft a QB. 

 You could argue LB as well and RB early.  Most years though we have went into the drafts where almost every position is a need like this year.  Even if that need isn't for a starter this year it will be a need for depth and a need next year.  You aren't just drafting for this year.  Do yall think Strange was a needs pick for us or was he the top guy on the board?  What about Bigsby?  
 
A lot of GMs draft differently, some GMs draft for need and just fill in holes, they dont last long.  You could also add edge and WR to our list of needs.  So once again almost every position is a need again.

It's not "rare" 

It's most of the early picks for every single team. They all go after a player they need right away or will need the next year with the vast majority of their early picks. 

And while you've said that before - you've also gone on and on for 20 posts claiming you should NEVER EVER deviate from BAP. And then you always contradict yourself like clockwork. 

Sitting here and debating what picks were about need and what picks were "top of the board" is absolutely pointless. 

Most of the 1-3 round picks are always addressing a need unless your team is stacked. 

The only actual debate worth having about it is which "needs" picks constituted a "reach" too far down their board and which ones were simply smart VALUE moves to take a similarly graded player they needed. 

Debating Strange and Bigsby is also pointless right now because both players could still turn out to be major contributors. Disappointing rookie performances aside.

I've got Higher hopes on bigsby then Strange 

Similar to ETN, if Bigsby fixes his butter fingers I think the sky is the limit

---

I've said before, there are rare instances you pass up the top guy on your board.  If you don't have a need at a position and the guy won't see the field or even make the team it wouldn't make sense to draft a player.  Right now with Jones and Trevor at QB I wouldn't draft a QB. 

 You could argue LB as well and RB early.  Most years though we have went into the drafts where almost every position is a need like this year.  Even if that need isn't for a starter this year it will be a need for depth and a need next year.  You aren't just drafting for this year.  Do yall think Strange was a needs pick for us or was he the top guy on the board?  What about Bigsby?  
 
A lot of GMs draft differently, some GMs draft for need and just fill in holes, they dont last long.  You could also add edge and WR to our list of needs.  So once again almost every position is a need again.

It's not "rare" 

It's most of the early picks for every single team. They all go after a player they need right away or will need the next year with the vast majority of their early picks. 

And while you've said that before - you've also gone on and on for 20 posts claiming you should NEVER EVER deviate from BAP. And then you always contradict yourself like clockwork. 

Sitting here and debating what picks were about need and what picks were "top of the board" is absolutely pointless. 

Most of the 1-3 round picks are always addressing a need unless your team is stacked. 

The only actual debate worth having about it is which "needs" picks constituted a "reach" too far down their board and which ones were simply smart VALUE moves to take a similarly graded player they needed. 

Debating Strange and Bigsby is also pointless right now because both players could still turn out to be major contributors. Disappointing rookie performances aside.

Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

---

It's not "rare" 

It's most of the early picks for every single team. They all go after a player they need right away or will need the next year with the vast majority of their early picks. 

And while you've said that before - you've also gone on and on for 20 posts claiming you should NEVER EVER deviate from BAP. And then you always contradict yourself like clockwork. 

Sitting here and debating what picks were about need and what picks were "top of the board" is absolutely pointless. 

Most of the 1-3 round picks are always addressing a need unless your team is stacked. 

The only actual debate worth having about it is which "needs" picks constituted a "reach" too far down their board and which ones were simply smart VALUE moves to take a similarly graded player they needed. 

Debating Strange and Bigsby is also pointless right now because both players could still turn out to be major contributors. Disappointing rookie performances aside.

Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

Nah

None of that makes any sense

a.  it's not rare no matter how many times you type it
b.that tripe about some GMs do it this way and some do it that way is utter horse [BLEEP] - they all move down their board to address need - most just don't admit it (wisely) 
c. no we don't know what their board looks like - doesn't matter to the point being made
d. we also don't know how they rank their needs but here you are acting like you know - you don't
e. they reached a bit for Strange and Bigsby and now they just have to hope the gamble pays off, but I'm OK with GMs doing that if they get the right guys 
f. The negative aspect of those two picks was that HC/GM thought we were good on IOL players when we weren't -- they clearly dis not agree with guard as a primary need last offseason  and they did not respect the red flags from Fortner's rookie year - that has little to do with drafting needs but rather poor roster eval

---

Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

Nah

None of that makes any sense

a.  it's not rare no matter how many times you type it
b.that tripe about some GMs do it this way and some do it that way is utter horse [BLEEP] - they all move down their board to address need - most just don't admit it (wisely) 
c. no we don't know what their board looks like - doesn't matter to the point being made
d. we also don't know how they rank their needs but here you are acting like you know - you don't
e. they reached a bit for Strange and Bigsby and now they just have to hope the gamble pays off, but I'm OK with GMs doing that if they get the right guys 
f. The negative aspect of those two picks was that HC/GM thought we were good on IOL players when we weren't -- they clearly dis not agree with guard as a primary need last offseason  and they did not respect the red flags from Fortner's rookie year - that has little to do with drafting needs but rather poor roster eval

a. yes its rare for some, not for others
b. all GMs dont draft the same as much as you want to think they do
c. it absolutely matters, we could get some answers on if they are taking their top guy or not
d. I have no clue how they rank their needs, I never said i did nor have i acted like it.
e. You have no clue if they reached for Strange or Bigsby, they could have been their top players on their board and they likely were.  I think it was clear they TE and RB were not our top needs and if they had those 2 as our top needs they should have been fired.  I think they just stayd true to their boad even thogh it sucked.
f. That is all speculation on your point that you have no clue about.  All speculation.  Even if they did like the starting oline there was nobody behind them but we dont know all we can do is speculate.

---

You guys didn't see the Baalkie/Pederson presser on the draft? Answer their BPP vs Needs

https://www.jaguars.com/audio/press-pass...reparation

it is quite long but worth a listen if you want to know where their heads are at

Baalke said what I've been saying for years is standard practice for every GM league wide:

If multiple players have similar grades you select the greater need. Just make sure you don't reach too far.

That's it. Fetch me my greasepaint. This clownshow has gone on too long.

---

It's not "rare" 

It's most of the early picks for every single team. They all go after a player they need right away or will need the next year with the vast majority of their early picks. 

And while you've said that before - you've also gone on and on for 20 posts claiming you should NEVER EVER deviate from BAP. And then you always contradict yourself like clockwork. 

Sitting here and debating what picks were about need and what picks were "top of the board" is absolutely pointless. 

Most of the 1-3 round picks are always addressing a need unless your team is stacked. 

The only actual debate worth having about it is which "needs" picks constituted a "reach" too far down their board and which ones were simply smart VALUE moves to take a similarly graded player they needed. 

Debating Strange and Bigsby is also pointless right now because both players could still turn out to be major contributors. Disappointing rookie performances aside.

Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

It absolutely is debatable. We may not know what their board looked like, but you can say whether a pick was an excessive reach or not. I can all but say absolutely that Strange and/or Bigsby were not the top guy on their board. But, when their time came to pick, the team saw positional value, roster need, and remaining board strategy as ways to dismiss other players on their board. We have no idea if they attempted to trade back, or had offers from other teams to trade into our picks. Could we have landed either guy if we moved off the picks? Maybe not. Could we have picked more immediate needs that might not have been ranked on our board as highly? Maybe.

Any and all of these factors help shape the argument whether a pick was a reach or not. We don't need the absolute for a debate. If we had a picture of their board, a statement from all the other 31 owners regarding their strategies with respect to each player, and a full foretelling of their future performance it would simply be statement of fact, and not any debate as to whether the selection was a reach or a savvy choice.

---

Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

It absolutely is debatable. We may not know what their board looked like, but you can say whether a pick was an excessive reach or not. I can all but say absolutely that Strange and/or Bigsby were not the top guy on their board. But, when their time came to pick, the team saw positional value, roster need, and remaining board strategy as ways to dismiss other players on their board. We have no idea if they attempted to trade back, or had offers from other teams to trade into our picks. Could we have landed either guy if we moved off the picks? Maybe not. Could we have picked more immediate needs that might not have been ranked on our board as highly? Maybe.

Any and all of these factors help shape the argument whether a pick was a reach or not. We don't need the absolute for a debate. If we had a picture of their board, a statement from all the other 31 owners regarding their strategies with respect to each player, and a full foretelling of their future performance it would simply be statement of fact, and not any debate as to whether the selection was a reach or a savvy choice.

It's not a reach if they had them as the top players on their board when they picked, which I think they were.  That's the only way those picks make sense.  We don't know what their board looked like though so it's not debatable.  If they did pass up other players at different positions that were higher on their board because they thought RB and TE were bigger needs they will be fired in short order if they continue with that draft strategy.

---

Ive said many times there are instances you dont take the top guy, its just rare becuase most teams arent stacked to a point where they wont need a good player at a position this year or next.  Some GM's just fill holes for need and some take the top guy even if its not as big of a need.  There are BPA type GMs and there are needs based drafting GMs.  

Thats bolded isnt debateable either because we dont know what their board looked like and dont know if we took the top guy or not. 

 Im going to believe they took the top guy because neither TE or RB were a bigger need than G.  You could still debate the Strange and Bigsby picks and come back in a year and check it out but we just dont know if they truly were the top guy available on their board.  CB is the biggest need on the team but if Bowers falls im taking him even though i dont think TE is a huge need.  If i have one of the pass rushers available thats higher on my board over a CB ill take them as well or OT etc. even though corner i feel is the biggest need.  Some GMs wouldnt do it because they dont think its a bigger need.  Some on here have said they dont want Bowers because its not a need.  That is needs vs PBA drafting.  Thats the debate.

It absolutely is debatable. We may not know what their board looked like, but you can say whether a pick was an excessive reach or not. I can all but say absolutely that Strange and/or Bigsby were not the top guy on their board. But, when their time came to pick, the team saw positional value, roster need, and remaining board strategy as ways to dismiss other players on their board. We have no idea if they attempted to trade back, or had offers from other teams to trade into our picks. Could we have landed either guy if we moved off the picks? Maybe not. Could we have picked more immediate needs that might not have been ranked on our board as highly? Maybe.

Any and all of these factors help shape the argument whether a pick was a reach or not. We don't need the absolute for a debate. If we had a picture of their board, a statement from all the other 31 owners regarding their strategies with respect to each player, and a full foretelling of their future performance it would simply be statement of fact, and not any debate as to whether the selection was a reach or a savvy choice.

It's not a reach when you take the top player on your board.  That's just your board sucks.  But we have no clue they were the top player left on their board.  I think they were, then the pick makes sense.  Their board was just bad is all.

---