(04-26-2022, 04:06 AM)Ordar Wrote: Baalke and Pederson both said they haven’t discussed the picks with anyone, so assuming it’s not Khan, where would this information about who likes who be coming from?

Surely they’re going to pick Hutchinson. The only left field pick I could see is Williams, as he would surely be in the conversation if he hadn’t done his acl. There haven’t been any reports I’ve seen about us looking in depth into the injury.

Walker is just too much of a projection pick. He may be fantastic, but we’re not in a position to take that kind of risk.

I’m not picking a guard at 1. If you take Neal (and tag/sign Cam), what was the point of the Little pick. That would be Baalke exposing a failure on his part.

Not saying it is or isn't going to happen, but taking an OL early would be the long term fix. Taking Little may or may not have been Baalke's wish considering last season's org structure.

At the same time, last year we had an OT playing on the tag, and a 2nd-year high pick as our bookends. Why take a tackle early then?

Even if we sign Cam long term and take another OT early this year, the purpose of Little is to give us high quality depth along the line at an affordable price. It gives you leverage if you either don't want to sign Cam long-term, or if you and he disagree on the value a long-term deal should carry. We also don't end up flushing the rest of the season down the commode if either tackle is out for any duration. I don't see how that would be a negative.

If Neal is basically Cam but a few years younger, taking him means you "extend" Cam for about 30-40% of the price tag. How would that be bad?

There's plenty of reasoning behind the pick if they go that route. I don't know if that's the direction we're headed, but it's not like we have the best line in football and are still looking to take a tackle.

---