(05-09-2018, 08:39 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(05-09-2018, 07:17 AM)Bullseye Wrote: It is curious that a person who contends RBs should not be taken high because they can easily be found later would then turn around and advocate taking a SS in the top 5.  You can find a good SS anywhere, too.  (See: Chancellor, Kam.  See also: Lynch, John)

Mahomes or Watson?  I would get the argument for QBs.

But not SS under your established draft paradigm.

I think Adams shows enough interchangeability at the safety positions to warrant that pick. Of course you'll also need a FS who is happy to come down and hit/run support to make the pick truly effective. 
(i.e. employing a scheme that truly mixes/disguises the safety roles)

You have a good point though. Adams isn't the best example if you're going to just plug him into a traditional SS role. I just saw his talent level on a tier higher than Fournette's at draft time.

A distinction with little difference, IMO.

FS are draft plentiful, too.

I don't say that to impugn Adams as a player.  I agree with you that Adams is quite the talent, whether you play him at SS, FS, or in a scheme where the Safeties flip.  Heck, at one point I made the argument he should be considered for us at 4 last year

But if we are simply focusing on positional draft value/availability, then how is a S (free or strong) any less plentiful in the typical draft than a RB?  Neither of our safeties on our top three defense were drafted.

---