(01-17-2025, 02:36 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote:

(01-17-2025, 10:06 AM)Mikey Wrote: Kinda same, I lean more toward Grant in the second to be the beefy nose that needs to unseat Hamilton than toward Graham in the first. I think we're seeing growth out of Smith, but had we taken some line help last year, Graham would have been a slam dunk pick for us.

5 is such a dead zone in this darft unless someone in front of us makes a headscratcher of a pick.

Huh?  If our GM feels this way we have the wrong guy making the pick and he doesn't know what the hell he is doing regardless of who it is lol.  Luckily we are picking 5th and can get blue chip elite talent.

It's dead in the fact that the players that will be there are good, but they don't hit the sweet spot of filling a gaping need, either. Dream scenario is one where you have the best player available AND it's a desperate need on the roster.

Most of the guys that are typically falling to us in mocks are playing positions we've recently built or have established talent-wise:
- Carter: We just paid Hines-Allen a ton, and Walker has multiple double-digit sack seasons now. If you take Carter, I think you have to let Walker test FA or trade, we'd have way too much tied up on one position.
- Graham: We just spent 2 picks on DT last year, a ton on AA, and Smith looked to be finding his game toward the end of the year. It would be odd to again put resources where you've already put resources.
- McMillan: BTJ is killing it, and while McMillan would be nice, I don't know that adding a receiver is the key to unlocking the offensive potential.
- Johnson: injury history scares me, we already deal with a lot of that on the other side with Campbell. 
- Starks: great player who fits need, but positional value probably doesn't fit at 5.
- any of the linemen: way too early to take them at 5, you'd be hemorrhaging value if you reach for need.

So yeah, if our GM isn't thinking that it's a catch-22 where we are (without some big help from picks 1-4), we're not maximizing our pick's impact based on who's likely to be there.

---