glazeduck

Eskridge is one of a very few (realistic) WRs I'd consider taking with one of our top 3 picks. A guy like him, with the ability to learn from 3 of the best separators in the game could really be special in a few years.

If that...

I maybe agree? We've not seen much of Jaquan Johnson but he's looked *fine* if not reasonably good in the few stretches that we have seen. I'd love to add depth there, I'm just not sure that's how I'd like to see us use one of our premium picks (Duck homer be damned). Based purely on some of these meetings, it does seem like they maybe closely evaluating Taron Johnson and the nickel position. Another guy I've felt has been good enough so far, but perhaps they're wanting more/something different from it? I will say this, Holland is a TON of fun to have on your team.

Yep, any 1T taken before the 5th feels like an unnecessary reach to me...

This is interesting. Played a ton of slot for Oregon -- great ball skills -- probably the best in the class. Happy to wax poetically about him if folks have questions. That said, hard for me to believe we're spending one of our top 2 picks on him -- feels more like due diligence if he falls to the 3rd?

First 4 could very easily be.

Totally fair. It's all make believe anyway. I just think you can replace 80% or more of Tremaine pretty easily (and going forward) more affordably, and what Pitts would bring to the offense is basically an incalculable difference to what Knox brings...

To be clear, I'm not necessarily *FOR* taking a RB early, I just only see so many avenues to improving the position at this point. I've seen all I need to from Singletary to know that he's not it. I saw plenty of Moss in college and now he's coming back from a pretty major injury? I'm skeptical there too. Breida's certainly worth hoping for, but he's not the kinda guy you look at and say "yea, problem solved"... I dunno, there's a lot of different directions I'd rather go than Etienne or Harris at 30, but it does feel like we're starting to get a little cornered at that position. And they made it clear that we need to run the ball better, so something's gotta give. They're running back essentially the same OL from last year, so we'll see. Hard for me to imagine at this point that Cody Ford at a new position is the difference maker in the equation...

Right. Get cute and end up having to reach on Trey Sermon in the second or wind up empty handed (in terms of getting an impact guy) or just bite the bullet, take the RB and figure out how to make the rest of your picks as impactful as possible. That's how I'm starting to look at it. I would be curious to know how available Josh Jacobs is/isn't... Otherwise we're probably looking at a committee that includes Todd Gurley's hobbling corpse as our next-best-case scenario... Woof, you're a braver man (or woman) than I...

To me its about what Pitts does to the rest of the offense as much as what he'd contribute as a stat line: He's a redzone monster -- keeps Allen healthier, more 7s/fewer 3s, allows the defense to play differently He's a seam stretcher -- improves the run game by forcing Ss and LBs to key on him, opens up lanes for the slot receiver which according to many is such an important position in this offense (bonus, more running lanes for Josh, likely) He's a mismatch between the 20s (and everywhere, really) -- who do you roll coverage to? The 6'5 TE with a massive wingspan and elite speed? Or Stephon Diggs? His versatility and mismatchability opens up the playbook even further To me he's a "rises all boats" player.

Seen this sentiment several times in this thread... In a vacuum I agree, but I also think this is playing with fire. The FA pool is pretty thin and/or old, and I count 6 guys in the draft who I think you can argue make an impact on this roster in the semi-immediate future, only 3 or 4 of which are more bellcow types. Additionally, you're looking at very likely the top 3 being gone by our 2nd round pick, maybe more... Just not a lot of wiggle room to get cute, or we'll end up back with Singletary and Moss, which to me is probably an even less exciting prospect than just taking Etienne or Harris in the first...

I tried to answer the guy's question. Is this not a place to have conversations? Or did I get here by mistake? You're more than welcome to stop reading this thread.

Ummm... Well no, maybe reread it? Also, there are others in this same thread who are loling the other way, sooo... maybe that suggests that the middle ground isn't too far off?

I'll try to lay it out for you... I think TE is becoming one of -- if not THE -- biggest position of mismatch opportunities. I think Pitts is a physical freak who, sure, might not be Tony Gonzalez in year 1, but based on talent and physical components alone, would add a different component to the offense. I think our offense could use another big WR AND a better TE -- Pitts is 2 for 1 in that regard. I also think there's an amazing amount of position scarcity at TE, and roster building becomes a LOT easier in the future when you have a franchise QB and a stud TE in the mix. Conversely, I think this is a very good MLB class. I also think MLB is becoming less of a premier position than it was in the ground and pound days of the league. I think Edmunds, while young, and talented, did show some holes in his game. I also think he's going to be VERY expensive soon and cap numbers are going to be tight for a long time. We've seen other franchises struggle to remain competitive once they have to pay their franchise QB non-rookie salaries, so even a reasonable replacement on a rookie deal will help.

I'd rather have Pitts and a 2nd round LB both on rookie deals than Freiermuth and Edmunds on a big deal. No question about it. I feel like I addressed the unlikeliness of this happening in about 5 different ways, but... thanks?

Yeah, hence Dallas at 10. We can't pay the freight to get up to 6, BUT I can easily see ATL trading their pick to a team who wants to draft a QB, Sewell going at 5 and Miami being in play to trade down again with at least 1 qb still on the board. I VERY much doubt he slides out of the top 10, but I can at least see a somewhat plausible "what if" scenario where it could...

I'm very much not that guy. I think Tre can still be special and have said as much on this board numerous times. BUT, he's going to start getting expensive, and Kyle Pitts is equally, if not even more special. If we can get Pitts and replace Edmunds with a serviceable replacement at a lower cost, that's a win to me. I'm fairly certain this isn't even the first time you've made that joke lol

I agree with all of this, I think there could be a special player inside Rousseau. The reason I'm not taking him at 30 though, is -- as an opt out -- I have 0 level of comfort around what he's been doing for the last year. Combine/pro day tests are not hard to "study for". That's not to say they're easy, but looking at a guy like Simi Fehoko, who on tape looks like a mid 4.7s guy run a sub 4.4 40, and it's obviously that gains can be made by training for them. It's certainly possible that Rousseau spent the entire year working on becoming a better defensive end -- the combine drills definitely don't dictate professional success -- but the problem is I have no way of knowing or verifying any of that. I don't have game tape from him for the past year, because he didn't play so I also know that he didn't practice in a team setting. The only reliable "test" I have to go by to vouch for his dedication to his career as a pro football player is these underwear workouts and he flunked them. That, to me, is a big red flag. What kind of discipline does this kid have away from football? Is he simply a guy that's always succeeded by being bigger than the other guy (I can't stand Colin Cowherd in general but am a big believer in his JaMarcus Russell theory -- there are just some people who will always be bigger than everyone they're playing against, and because of that, often have less drive/discipline to be great)? I just don't know. If his agent comes out before the draft with workout tapes of him working his butt off every day from opting out until now, learning the nuances of being a complete DE, I'd probably change my tune, but I'd need to see something pretty compelling to dissuade me from being pretty disinterested in a guy who took a year off/had a year to train for it and completely tanked the one thing he had to show for the work he put in over the last year.

Hear me out... I promise I am not high (on anything but a lot of coffee), drunk or huffing any fumes (stronger than the occasional sharpie). This is not even something I'm necessarily advocating for and a complete and totally speculative "what if" based on various draft rumors, an insatiable (probably unhealthy) obsession with getting Kyle Pitts on this roster and the general desire among many around here to move on from Tremaine Edmonds. This is out of leftfield, but here goes... Despite having a Pro Bowl MLB and resigning Milano, Buffalo's been tied to several LB prospects in the draft. It's no secret, however, that said Pro Bowl MLB did not have his best season this past year and he's also approaching a big pay day. The Cowboys at 10 have been tied to Zaven Collins in recent rumors, despite their lofty draft slot, suggesting they're in the market for a big/athletic LB. Dallas is also rumored to be eyeing a number of trade down scenarios. Beane has made no secret that he's open to moving up in the draft to secure the guy he likes. This draft seems fairly deep at LB, so ostensibly a team could potentially find a replacement level starter in the mid rounds (plus a couple interesting names in FA). While certainly no lock, the draft board is setup in such a way that it's possible that Kyle Pitts could fall to the teens. What if, we were exploring the idea of including Edmunds in a package to move up for Pitts, in the event that he did make it to the Cowboys at 10? When KC traded with us for Mahomes, they gave us their current 1, 3 and the following year's 1 to move from 27 to 10. But was also for a QB, so you could arguably expect a bit of a premium there, negligibly offsetting a lot more "make good" in this what-if situation. An offer of 30 + Edmunds -- an established MLB (as opposed to an unknown draft pick) might hold a significant deal of interest, while allowing us to keep more premium picks AND get value from Edmunds without incurring the major financial burden that he will soon be (potential plot flaw: no idea what Cowboys' future cap issues look like). Edmunds + 30 feels pretty even, if not better than a 1, 3 and future 1, but maybe we throw in next year's 3 to grease the wheels. There's likely to be a couple interesting pieces (dream scenario: Jamin Davis, would gladly take it: Jamil Cox, Surratt), and guys like Pete Werner, Tony Fields and Earnest Jones could all probably be had later. Worst case, Avery Williamson or (dare I say it?) Ruben Foster could fill that hole in free agency. I'm not one of the many who's actively wanting to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds, but I believe GMs should always be willing to deal any player when there's significant value to be had, and this deal feels like win/win to me. Am I crazy? Most certainly yes. Is there any chance this could happen? Most likely not. Does it make sense if the draft shakes out the right way? I think so...

I'd be wary of players that held out and didn't look REALLY impressive in their pro days. Rousseau stands out there to me. Guys with little to no production scare me too -- count me out on Oweh (though if we traded down... I'd be tempted) I think you avoid drafting players early in deep positions -- that rules out most WRs to me. Given our window, I'm also looking for a guy that can have a more or less immediate impact on the depth chart: that seems to rule out OT, WR, QB, DT, LB and S and highlight TE, CB and RB (though most TEs don't typically do much their first year or two). I'd also make sure draft grade matches value there -- at 30, I'm not seeing a lot of interesting DTs -- even Barmore feels like he's probably "worth" a mid-2nd (probably will go before that, but value doesn't match need for the pick for me)

To me you're taking Ojulari as a PURE pass-rush specialist this year and slowly grooming him to take over for Hughes. A future Ojulari in the 255/260 range could probably at least not be a liability in the run game, and you're hoping that his pass rushing ability -- in a league that's going increasingly pass heavy, gives you a healthy ROI. I don't think he's a great fit in an even front, much better standing up in a 3-4 type defense, but that's the logic that you could take with it...

1. Please read the whole post, particularly this part: "Harris isn't my top choice at 30, but I'm certainly warming up to the idea" 2. If that's your evaluation of Harris, objectively the best back in this class, maybe this isn't the right topic for you?

HARD disagree. Like, as hard as physically possible. The goal is for the offense to score more points than the other team. Period. Full-stop. Our greatest offensive deficiencies were in short yardage and goal-line situations. Currently our FRANCHISE QUARTERBACK is our best goal line back. You want to stop our explosiveness? Get Josh hurt on the goal line because Motor and Moss are our RBs. Look, I get it, it's fun to watch Alvin Kamara do what he does and the Chiefs do what they do and say "that's what I want", but football is a multidimensional sport and there are multiple ways to win. Harris is a balanced back that would bring balance to the offense. He would also help us sustain drives which would keep the defense fresher (extra important with aging pass rushers). If we were just trying to challenge Mahomes and the Chiefs for offensive records, then I'd agree, he's probably not the best fit. But we're trying to win football games. Just because we rolled out 4 WRs and threw the ball over the field more last year doesn't mean we need to lean even more heavily in that direction, it means we had to adjust for a deficient running attack. Harris isn't my top choice at 30, but I'm certainly warming up to the idea, and really think all of your logic is about as wrong as it can get. EDIT: it's also worth mentioning that just because Alabama didn't use him as much in the passing game, doesn't mean he can't be a contributor there, his HS tape shows a player very adept at both running and catching the football. The silly amount of talent on that Bama roster requires some deeper thinking on these Bama targets, and that's one such example.

Freirmuth was more just a devil’s advocate argument, I’m not a fan of taking him in the first. I like Jordan quite a bit too, but think folks are setting themselves up for disappointment with Tremble if those two are drafted in the same area. Honestly I hate this TE class. Pitts is obviously incredible, but other than him I think PF and Jordan are the only other non-JAGs in the draft. If we miss on those 3 I’d just assume address other spots and sign jake butt, Jesse James or a TE that gets cut.

I’d be really interested to know where they see him. Most of the league thinks he’s gonna have to transition to S, which is plummeting his stock, but I think he’d be fine at cb in our system... talented player who fits our scheme at a discount? Yes please. Makes a lot of sense...