I say we go QB eh wutcha guys think can't hurt with our pretty sweet luck in that round over the years... who knows maybe he can pan out for us. or go WR
Man as much as I am opposed to trading up in the draft this year... if Watkins is still avl at 8 we trade up and move ahead of the Bills then grab Boyd in the 4th imagine
It would probs cost us a second and third this year and a second next year which Idk might be a bit much. but its a nice thought.
If the Jets were a contender I'd be cool with trading up to get Watkins. A team in NE's position could afford that kind of move up. The 49es, Seahawks can. We need the depth.
The QB to target is Zach Mettenberger, LSU who should hopefully be there for us in round three (not sure if he is there for our second third rounder. Due to the ACL he may not be 100% during the combine. As a result he may go lower than he should and could be a great value for us in round three.
I would be OK with going QB with our 4th rounder assuming we have used our first four picks to address WR, TE, S, LB. Also depends on free agency, of course, maybe we pick up a veteran QB in free agency so don't need to draft one.
I say we go WR with every damn pick so maybe we actually hit the nail on the head with one of em lol (kidding)
I cannot believe how people on this board over and over say take the position here, or this position there. That is absolutely a recipe for draft disaster - you simply do not go in looking to draft a certain position at a certain spot. The ONLY draft strategy should be to draft the best player available regardless of what position he plays or your needs.
I think it should be a little bit of both... also depending on how big of a need the player/position is
For example if you have 2 great RB'S on the team, and say the top 3 players on the board are RB'S yet you need a guy at say SS or TE I say you go position of need and so on.
I agree. If you draft just by BPA we could be picking up more DL which doesn't help us. I don't think you should say we're picking a WR in the first , a TE in the second and a S in the third because the value may not be there. But I think you can target positions of need and pick the BPA out of those needs at your spot. So if you end up with a TE in the first, S in the second and WR in the third that's fine: you picked up in major areas of need but also got good value for those picks. Plus, once you have the key spots you need in the first three rounds then you can go BPA with picks that are a little less likely to pan out. That way you aren't using a second rounder at a position of strength and a fifth rounder on an area of need.
That is clearly a subjective strategy. Not everyone's board is the same, our BPA may not be Denver's BPA... Do we take 12 D-linemen if that's how it falls? Of course not. If the number 1 on the board is a d-lineman and #2 an impact WR, we clearly need to take #2 on our board. WR is a bigger need for us than another lineman. I do think we stay within reason of BPA, we don't snag what could be 4th round talent in the 1st, but the need base must still be considered.
