(04-27-2023, 11:04 AM)RicoTx Wrote:

(04-27-2023, 10:54 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

How can you not see that this is completely contradictory to every flawed argument that you've been making?  That absolutely is not BPA if WR is the highest ranked on your board.

It's been mentioned 100 times the player has to be able to see the field.   That's the rare times that Baalke was talking about. WR is arguably our best position group and if we drafted a rookie he likely wouldn't even see the field unless injury.  You don't draft a player in the first that won't even see the field.  Most positions we aren't set at and a player would start, take that guy.  G, S, CB,OT, DT, TE,Edge,  take the top guy out of that group.  It's rare that when you pick that every position you are set at is at the top of your board.  If that's the case you might want to re look at your player evaluations.  This has been said for years.

---

(04-27-2023, 11:11 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(04-27-2023, 10:54 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: A WR wouldn't even see the field.  You have to draft someone that would play.   Best player that will be able to get on the field is the best value to me.  RT is a much higher need than a safety to me but I'd still take Branch over all the ta kles that are expected to be there.  That's BPA drafting vs needs drafting.

So you're a needs based drafter now.

Got it. 

LOL

If I was then i wound take a OT 1st, then edge, then DB.  In that order.

---