(04-08-2020, 09:49 AM)rufftime Wrote:

(04-07-2020, 03:46 PM)Bullseye Wrote: To me, there are myrad ways to approach this.

From a simple numerical standpoint, we have myriad needs.  I count minimally ten (10) needs on this team:

LT
RG
WR opposite Chark
TE-Oliver unproven; Eifert good but always hurt
DE to replace Yan
DT X 2
CB x 2
S

While it is unrealistic to expect all of these needs to be adequately filled in one draft, the more picks we have the better able we should be able to fill a large number  of these needs.  Caldwell has done well in mining the middle rounds for talent, and he has a lot of mid round picks in a deep draft in several positions of need.

We could use a maneuverability approach.  Multiple picks give the team flexibility to trade up if there is a player we want but fear may not be available when we are on the clock at our original draft slot.  While numerically we may not be adequately and completely replenish the roster, the ability to trade up due to the extra picks may put us in a better position to substantially upgrade one or more positions as opposed to simply replacing more positions.

Finally the extra picks could lead future considerations.  As I mentioned in my original post, a 7th round pick last year led to an extra 6th round pick this year.  The more picks we have, the more likely we'll have a team willing to trade into that spot, possibly for a pick or picks in the future.

While there is a limit as to how many picks can reasonably be expected to turn into pro bowl players or even contributors, the benefits of having multiple pick can exceed those base expectations if played properly.

I understand that there are plenty of needs on the team, I would say the needs are tiered though.  Going by your list:

Desperate
NT
CB

Present/ Upgrade
LT
TE
CB
S
G
RB

Future
WR
G
DE
DT

Based on the talent available I wouldn't object to any of these being filled anywhere in the draft.  However, I don't want them to force a position unless those first two are running thin.  If we trade up a bit for need to meet value on those, I don't think anyone would have problems with it (to your point).  We always are surprised by players growing or falling off year to year.  Some of the needs we are concerned with may evaporate, some new needs may open out of nowhere.  

I just don't think we have any reasonable chance of keeping 12 (or more) picks on the opening day roster.  If I can add better ammo next year and set myself up for success, I would sacrifice some of my excess ammo this year.  Perhaps Dave could take both approaches.  Trade back in the first for additional picks this year and convert some of our lower picks into better picks next year.

Absolutely right in that there is, with apologies to Maslow, a hierarchy of needs, although I would move WR opposite Chark to the present category.

I agree we shouldn't force a pick.  But if we were going based on the quality and depth/lack thereof at the positions, NT (D. Brown or Kinlaw) would be the choice at 9, followed by CB.  If somehow we miss out on them, I am hoping for Fotu perhaps in the 3rd.

There is also basis for agreement to be found in your closing paragraph.  Barring an absolutely extraordinary draft, there is little chance of all 12 picks (and possibly more with additional trades making this team, much less upgrading the positions they represent.  Extra picks are as much for maneuverability as picking talent.  My wishful thoughts of the day is making a pick at 9 that not only benefits us but makes it more likely Cleveland or the Jets are willing to trade back, and then we trade up from 20 to get another player we are targeting right behind 9.

---