(04-10-2021, 09:22 AM)Bullseye Wrote: It happens every year.
In advocating a particular draft strategy, fans and experts alike will examine need to help determine where a team will or will not or should/should not go.
However, if Baalke is true to his word that he is a BAP drafter and that he will draft irrespective of need, it may be inevitable that some needs will not be addressed adequately, while positions of lesser needs may get draft attention.
So to the extent a team coming off a 1-15 season could have positions of relative strength, what positions would you not mind or object to the team drafting, especially in the early rounds?
If the team "drafted to strength," under what circumstances would you find it acceptable? What players would you want at the position?
Under what circumstances would you NOT want these strengths to be bolstered further?
I've made it no secret that I value depth along both lines. The trenches will wear a body down, and it's good to have suitable replacements at the ready. As we've raised in other threads, Urbz has publicly expressed confidence in the current OL, but I think that the combination of depth in this darft and the contract situations of our current guys all but demand we grab at least one lineman in this draft. Not necessarily someone expected to plug in day one, but someone that could be a force within a season, as we will likely be rebuilding the line over the next few years. I do not feel a desperation at either position; however, I figure any DL taken the first two days will have a legit shot to start week 1. I wasn't really impressed with our FA signings on that side.
Along with that, UDFA signings that tend to see the field are the receivers, DBs that usually have a glut of depth in any darft. The dropoff from a 4th round tackle to UDFA is significantly greater than that at WR or even RB.
The only way I deviate would be if there's been a run at the position, and the board presents a choice between the leftovers at one of the lines vs. players at other positions that have slipped. I won't ever say "We're good, no more picks at this position." If a guy is that great, take him, and figure out what to do with the surplus later. With 10 picks at our disposal, though, I really believe that we can address nearly every position on the field at the end of the month. It will be a challenge for any GM to blow it, I just hope Urbz and Baalke don't see that as a challenge
(04-10-2021, 11:33 AM)Bullseye Wrote: (04-10-2021, 10:53 AM)TheDogCatcher Wrote: How does Freirmuth compare to past TE prospects with measurables? What are some pro comparisons?
I hate the idea of reaching for any player just because it's a glaring need. That's how you end up with a mediocre/poor roster. The Jaguars aren't going to the Super Bowl and probably not the playoffs next year even if TE is filled. Why not wait another year if there's a better BAP in round 2 or 3 than the available TE?
People have given him the nickname of Baby Gronk, which is unfortunate because Gronkowski is an all time great. Besides, the last guy I remember being called anything with "baby"in it was Mike Pearson, who was called Baby Boselli. Let's just say the name did not fit.
I don't know that I have a ready made comparison to Friermuth because to me he resembles many dependable TEs. Lindy's compared him to Kyle Rudolph. I guess that's a good comp as any. I wouldn't compare him to an elite deep seam attacking guy like Gates or Gonzalez, or a hulking, overpowering guy like Bavaro. But I think he can find spots in the zone and is a good red zone threat.
Glen Davis has a sad. (Big Baby)
