glazeduck

There's a bunch of late rd WRs who are interesting, but this guy has won my heart... https://www.fantasypros.com/2021/04/2021-nfl-draft-profile-wr-jonathan-adams-jr/

Everyone watches sports differently, that's what's so great about them. For me, as a Bills fan and someone who was going to classes WITH Haloti, watching him absolutely destroy triple teams on a weekly basis at Oregon, it was stupidity compounded upon stupidity compounded upon stupidity. Whitner could've been a Hall of Famer and I still would've held being picked over Haloti against him.

You're not wrong, it's not Whitner's fault we made a bad decision. That doesn't change the fact that all I could think about was how awesome it would be to have Ngata in the trenches throughout the Whitner era...

Whitner. That we took him over Haloti will always haunt me (and the franchise).

Isaiah Simmons' snap count was 30ish% and that guys' one of the freakiest athletes to ever get drafted. Better draft capitol than Thompson too. That's not starter numbers.

It doesn't *have* to be a special player -- most players on every roster aren't special players. But when you have a capable nickel DB in TJ already, other more pressing needs and aren't just stocked to the gills with picks, it becomes more of a luxury pick at a point where it's hard to justify taking a luxury pick. That's my 2 cents. Fun idea, obvious benefits when done right, not worth force-fitting.

I feel about the Big Nickel a lot like I feel about drafting a 1T. We could certainly use it, bordering on calling it a need, but unless it's a truly special player (would've LOVED to somehow get Simmons last year), I don't think it's something worth throwing a valuable pick at. I could probably be convinced that JOK is special enough to take at 30, but he's not worth trading up for. Behind him though... Naz in the 3rd (or possibly w/ a trade back from 61) would potentially be interesting (but probably not happening) Mukuamu possibly trading back from our 3? Stephens and Deablo maybe with one of our 5s? The big Nickel is a fun concept that makes a lot of sense as a counter to a lot of the biggest offensive trends in football, and obviously McD is more or less the inventor of the role, so there's plenty of logical connections that are easy to make for why we'd do it. But just because a guy is too small to play linebacker and too slow to be a true safety doesn't mean he's going to automatically be a fit for that role. If a guy we like is at or near the top of the board for one of our picks and there's not a more glaring need for it, by all means let's do it. But I think the hype around here of just assuming it's on the shopping list because we don't have one is maybe getting out over our skis a little much.

Almost posted this same question earlier today. I’d love to take a chance on Hooker.

Devine Deablo

Young player, position of need, elite upside, zero risk, Pro Bowl caliber name. Hard to not absolutely love this one!

Marshall wouldn't be my #1 choice in a vacuum, but I'm a big fan of mining under-appreciated value and this feels pretty likely to be the case. We've seen underrated LSU WRs pop once they get into the pros, and certainly a guy playing behind Jamar Chase and Justin Jefferson would not be getting as much attention/production. Hard to argue with the measurements and definitely feels like the kind of piece that would add another element to this offense. Wouldn't hate it at all!

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.