Only because the QB class is weak. Many players put up freakish stats in the combine. The class took a huge leap forward in one short week.
there also isn't the elite top end. most drafts have a few guys with a 7 grade. this has none. we don't have the chase, pitts, bosa, quinnen williams, etc. but it's a really solid depth draft. good draft IMO to have a lot of picks in the middle rounds. I think rounds 2-4 will be stacked
On NFL Radio (Movin' The Chains) yesterday, they were saying that Carolina has taken calls on McCaffrey. He's frequently injured & a luxury pick, but if traded his annual cap hit for the acquiring team is actually pretty reasonable. IF he can stay healthy, he's the ultimate security blanket for a young QB. If I recall correctly, I believe Kirwan was speculating an offer would be a very late 1st & a mid round pick. With high 2nds & a high 3rd, we could easily approach that type of value if we wanted to.
I love McCaffrey, and when Macc passed on Mahomes and Watson, that was the other major mistake he made, and he sort of broke the stereotype of what a RB could do in today's NFL, but no thanks at that price. Too much lost time due to injuries, and even if he's 100% recovered and is injury free for a number of seasons, he'd be expensive to keep while entering the downhill side of his career which is surely going to come quicker based on his past injuries. I'd rather take Barkley for a 4th if they could him him for that.
No way, I'm burning that draft capital on an oft-injured player who has a lot of mileage and hits on his body.
Twitter has a lot of #10 for DK hypotheticals. That's too much in my opinion. I can see a 2nd plus a 3rd or 4th. If we're going to spend #10 on a WR, just draft one of the top two.
For a 2nd and 3rd or likely less you could get Breece Hall for 4-5 years on a rookie contract and 2 good knees.
Yeah big agree. 10 is too rich for my blood, but I would entertain 35 or 38 and wouldn't think twice.
Only for people who care about the combine, of which I am certainly not one. I’ve read it’s deep in certain positions but I don’t think this is a well regarded class overall. Not that it means anything, just saying.
I would say it depends on the player. A very Jetsy move would be Woody walking into Joe Douglas's office and forcing a splasy move like trading a 1st for McCafrey. I would be very hesitant to trade a high pick
We either need to sign a WR in FA or trade for one AND draft one. Presently, we have Moore, Davis, and Mims on the roster. We don't want Tariq Black or Jeff Smith, or the Montgomery kid. Mims may need to go. Hopefully, Berrios re-signs, then we only need two WRs. If he doesn't, then we need to add 3 WRs this offseason. Mims may not be here long. We need at least one more young WR to pair with Moore to be here for 7-10 years or longer.
Neither of the top two are as good as Metcalf. Metcalf is only 24, so he can be here a long time. Zach needs some proven WRs
Why would DK be available? If he's truly worth a 1st, let alone #10, I wouldn't think he'd be available? I'd prefer to use that pick on our own premium player or to trade back for more draft picks to fill more holes.
I doubt he will be available. He is a proven star in the league and something we would be unlikely to duplicate at 10. We may but why take a chance? I like proven young players over draft capital.
I really believe Seattle not trying to trade him, he is up and coming WR1, home grown, and young, deserving of a lucrative 2nd contract. All teams need a legit #1. DK not getting traded! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree that if I can get a proven vet, who has no issues - injuries, attitude, bloated salary - I'd prefer them over an untested rookie, but where do you find such veterans? In my experience, whether talking FA or trade, teams very rarely let really good players leave. Even now with R. Wilson's trade, Seattle obviously is going to rebuild and don't want to have to pay him all that money when they could use it for more resources, but look at the king's ransom Denver had to pay to get him. Time will tell if this was a good deal for either team, let alone one of them. For the hypothetical of Metcalf, if the only reason the Hawks are getting rid of him is to use his money towards their rebuild, and we didn't have to give them a king's ransom, okay I do it, but I really don't think we would get him a t a reasonable cost.
It looks like Seattle is going to be going through a similar rebuild to ours. They traded Russell Wilson to the Broncos and released Bobby Wagner. They added Fant, and still have Lockett and Metcalf, but they're going to be more of a running team and not throwing as much as they did with Russell. They need picks since we fleeced them so badly in the Jamal Adams trade. They could be willing to part with Metcalf. He's only 24 and in his 3 seasons has had 58 receptions for 900 yards and 7 TD, 83 receptions for 1,303 yards and 10 TDs, and 75 receptions for 967 yards and 12 TDs. I don't think there's a single WR in this draft class that could give us that over his first 3 seasons. Metcalf is only 24. We'd have to get him to sign an extension. But with Metcalf and Moore we'd have great speed, route running, and scoring ability. Athletically, he's freakish. He had a vertical leap of 40.5 inches, a broad jump of 134 inches (over 11 feet), ran a 4.33 40, and had 27 reps on the bench press. The only two things he was subpar on were the 20-yard shuttle (4.5 seconds) and the 3-cone drill (7.38), 1/10th slower than Burks.
