(04-30-2023, 10:16 AM)RicoTx Wrote:

(04-29-2023, 10:56 PM)Thewitnessofsolinvictus Wrote: Yes. A short-yardage running back coupled with a fullback can negate or mitigate the need of finding a starting defensive back or defensive lineman, but not vice versa. A starting defensive back or defensive lineman won't necessarily negate or mitigate the need for a short-yardage RB or FB. Whether it will be a good pick is yet to be determined. 
Back to the point- a starter at what position?

It's irrelevent.  You don't spend a 3rd on someone that you know is going to be no more than a backup. He has zero potential to be starter with Etienne as the feature back.  Zero.  Get it?  VERY poor value pick.  OG, OT, DT, S, CB, Edge...that's six that I valued more than an RB and have the potential to start or get much more significant playing time than Bigsby.  It was a huge head-scratcher.

I get it. I still disagree (on the Bigsby pick). There's no way for me to prove this to you, but usually I would agree with what you posted. In my mind, the merits of value when it comes to drafting you put forth ring true. Usually. 
 But Trevor Lawrence isn't usual, and I'm sold on the man. Draft whatever it takes to keep him on the field. I can see how a pounder RB could help with that more often, and at a sometimes more crucial juncture than a DT, S, CB, or edge. Hell, the 7th Rd FB could help with that too. I've made half-joking posts about the need for a FB over the past few months, but it's really just a personal desire to see the I-form come back a little.
 I think we agree Baalke took a risk setting aside value to address a specific, situational need. I gather you think the risk should be avoided. I hope the risk pays off. You'll probably end up being right.

---