MHS831

I know he is listed as a nose (0-1) but I see the athleticism.

worth the cap relief alone. I think we will draft (day 3 another qb)

I think--based on value more than need, perhaps, that we will go with a Tackle --either defensive or offensive---early. I think we could trade back--watch the Ty Simpson action--if he gets by 15, a team like the Cardinals or Jets could move up. (Save this post and use it against me after the draft.)

Glad you said this because this is where I am--question--would you call McDonald a 1 or 3? I think he could play the DE and we could use Wharton as a change of pace and passing down guy--but I don't know enough about it in relation to Evero's scheme--what say you?

CB seems to growing as a need--maybe I am just realizing it. I would be happy with an Edge or OT --but that is just me, I assume.

Bingo!! I miss mom's Spam casserole.

I could debate this, but first I must know: Are we talking Black Forest?

Defense and it is not even close--not even based on last year, how we have recently drafted, etc. On D, we could use a starting FS, LB, and DT. Depth at CB. On O, we need our future LT and possibly RT, but neither is likely to start right away. Center? depth and maybe next year's starter. Starting TE.

Good thought and I agree. Nothing about this process compromises that premise. In fact, the process involves meeting more needs so you can do that. If I can get an Edge on a rookie contract when my biggest need is LB, then I have enough $$ saved on the overall cap to get an elite rookie edge in the draft and sign a veteran LB in free agency. If I draft the LB first, my biggest need, then my savings against the cap (when looking at the 53-man roster) is minimal. I have not saved enough $$ to sign the edge in free agency, so I have to try to draft the edge later, getting a lesser player. Even if you draft an edge and the roster is full of them, you have trade capital because a lot of teams need a good edge. This lends credence to the BPA theory if it is aligned with positions that are expensive on second contracts. In the cap era, you have to think it through-it is like a puzzle. That is why I did not like it when Marty was drafting RBs (Willliams and Stewart) in the first round. If you recall, that necessitated moving up for Otah, trading away next year's first rounder to do so. That is the draft we really needed an edge, but since we did not have a first rounder, we took Everette Brown to fill that need. Then it got worse. We had 2 RBs on second contracts, Brown busted, that led to drafting Clausen, etc. If you can get 2 starters for the price of one, that is what I would call smart--not overthinking, if I understand you. I do agree, but that does not mean draft your trench players first. It could mean draft an edge and use the cap savings to sign a trench player.

I am not sure about the TE or CB in round 1, but the rest is spot on. Wonder why he did not mention S? Does he think we are set there with Scott? Wonder why he did not mention DE? Does he think Wharton and D Brown got it? Personally, I do not think Walker prevents us from drafting an OT no more that M. Jackson and Horn suggest that we draft a CB. I would understand it, but with Walker on a 1-year deal and Ickey a question mark (average when healthy), and Moton starting to get SS checks... I think we HAVE to go DT and OT in rounds 1 and 2. That is right. I said it.

I like this. Really like the Stanford TE, McDonald, and Iheanachor --

this made me re-thing a lot of stuff. the S issue is one of them.

then this is likely his last job. (Kidding--long story about ASU and me--still not over it) He was very good last year.