(03-05-2022, 03:07 PM)Bullseye Wrote:

(03-05-2022, 09:34 AM)Caldrac Wrote: Been advocating the idea of not sitting on all of those selections in RD6. Just seems outlandish if they do so. I would personally be willing to part ways with ALL of them if it means moving back up into RD3 or early RD4 to secure a potential starter. There's a lot of talent in this year's class at WR and TE. If, for whatever reason, a run happens at WR on opening night, which, historically it does happen from time to time.

They're probably screwed on day two. Rather than reaching at the WR position with pick 33. They could opt out by selecting probably the best TE to help out in the passing game, or, a promising tackle or guard prospect in the event they go with Hutchinson or Thibodeaux on the opening night and want to add a competitive RT to breath on Taylor's neck this summer or backfill Norwell's position more than likely.

Being able to come back up into RD3 with a 3rd option would benefit them to some degree I am sure. Maybe they find an undersized guy with top speed ability that they like at WR that's available between Calvin Austin, Danny Gray & Khalil Shakir. Maybe a guy like David Bell plummets because of his 40 time and he ends up being a damn good possession receiver that actually catches the football on 3rd downs. Sometimes guys just have "football" speed and that's all that matters. I don't need a 4.3 40 when I have a wide variety of cuts, dips and route running ability to make you miss in coverage by a yard or two.

If you draft Bell in RD3 and you get a Mohamed Sanu (4.67 40) or Muhsin Muhammad (4.64 40) type career out of him? I'll take it. I'll throw Dontario Drummond's name out there as well for the same reason cited above.

I would also be watching Jelani Woods and Greg Dulcich very, very closely at the TE position to see if I could get up and grab either one of them. Also, I am curious about Connor Heyward. The ultimate "tweener" at HB/TE because of his size but he has that NFL pedigree with his name. He would be somebody that could be there in RD6. BUT... maybe you find a unique role or package in particular with Pederson's offense and you can envision him being in a dual role with Robinson and Etienne in a variety of packages. I wouldn't mind him being a Jaguar.

When I first read your post, my initial reaction was "Why would we have to reach for a WR at 33?"  But as I gave it some more thought, it made perfect sense as to why that may be an inssue, and was one of the reasons I made this post in the first place.

I'm not necessarily worried about getting an extra 3rd or 4th round pick, though if the draft played out well, I'd welcome the extra mid round pick.  My concern is the Jets.

I think before we get to 33, there are teams ahead of us in rhe bottom of the first round that could use a WR.

I'm thinking:

18.  New Orleans
19. Philadelphia
21.  New England
22. Las Vegas
23.  Arizona
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffalo
27.  Tampa
28. GB
29.  Miami
30.  Kansas City


If OL is still a need at 33, then these teams could be included:


18.  New Orleans
20.  Pittsburgh
24.  Dallas
25.  Buffahole
27.  Tampa
29.  Miami
31.  Cincinnati
32.  Detroit

As you can see, there are plenty of pentital suitors for guys we may be after at those two positions.  I'm sure we could come up with other teams for other positions as well.

But the Jets pose a different problem.  They drafted right behind us last year and took their franchise signal caller right after we did.  Both of us were at the bottom of the league record wise, and we have many of the same needs-nameley the need to put good pieces around our QB.  But the Jets have two high second round picks at 35 and 38...and that's after having two first round picks in the top ten (4 & 10).

They have the ammunition to move up ahead of us and snatch a guy we may be targeting.

I want to be able to move up back into the bottom of the first round, if necessary, to get our guy.  I don't want the Jets (or anyone else) controlling our board at the top on the 2nd round.

---

(03-05-2022, 11:23 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: As a rule, I don't like trading up. I'm more of a "trade back" type of guy. With that said, there are a few ILB's that I probably would trade up for. I don't like either of our current starting ILB's. Wilson just isn't very good and Jack doesn't fit the scheme and it's very obvious. This is not a deep draft for 3-4 ILB's. If we were to trade up for a guy like Chad Muma, Damone Clark, Christian Harris or Troy Andersen, I wouldn't be opposed at all. I believe we gotta get one of these guys, since premier guys like Devin Lloyd and Nakobe Dean will be gone in round 1. After pass rushing DE/OLB, I believe this is by far, our most pressing defensive need. I

As far as what I'd be willing to give up, it depends on how the board plays out to that point. If some really good WR's and TE's are falling further than projected and we already drafted a good WR early on, I might be willing to part with a couple of day 3 picks. If not, it may be one day 3 pick and a current player. I'm really hoping we deal Myles Jack either before the draft or during. I like him as a person and believe he really needs to go to a 4-3 team to get him back on track and we need two starting ILB's who can actually cover opposing TE's.

I think I might include S in that list of pressing defensive needs.  I can't stomach the idea of Wingard starting again this yearthis year, and Jenkins doesn't make me feel much better.

With the exception of quarterback and something special teams (punter, etc.), I think safety may be the position group that we are most likely to return with the exact same players as last year.  Jenkins was just signed last year.  He would cost us more to cut than to keep.  He'll return as a starter.  I think Cisco is given the chance to start at the other spot.  Ford is a good special teams player and also has versatility including playing nickel.  Daniel Thomas is inexpensive depth being still on a rookie deal.  The one player in doubt would be Wingard.  He's a restricted free agent, so we can pretty much have him back if we want.  I'm no fan of Wingard, but I think there is a decent chance he returns as well.  He plays special teams and would also provide depth and also a fall back option if Cisco were to struggle.  I'm not saying we couldn't upgrade safety, but I see other needs being more pressing.

---