What if? Receiver in 1st

[AU-panther]

Even DG said that our second round targets starting coming off of the board really quick at the start of the round and that is why we had to trade up.

They will never admit it but it wouldn't surprise me if they were somewhat disappointed how things fell.

Instead of saying "chasing needs" would it make everyone feel better if I said we were "aggressive in the draft"?

[O-Ther]

OPs point is valid. We basically traded a 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th round pick to take the specific combo of Shaq/Funchess vs just one of them plus a different guy (assuming the other wouldn't be there by our original pick in the second) and Williams in the third. Nobody can predict how the draft will play out and you have to roll with it as it goes, but it's not unreasonable to question whether we could have done things better/more efficiently.

 

It was worth it to me just to jump one spot in front of the Falcons and sn*tch Funchess out of their dirty, grimy claws. Much rather have him facing Robert Alford than Benwikere. Make no mistake, they wanted Funchess. Julio's a UFA next year, Roddy will be 33 this year, Harry Douglas is now a Titan, and Leonard Hankerson is made of glass.

[Fox007]

People and "experts" on TV seem to think that this guy wasn't going in the first....Cowboys and Patriots are two other known teams who were interested in him.

 

 

[rdog157h]

I dont care if every pick turns out to be a bust. At least Gettleman has a plan! Hurney seemed like he just winged it every year. No logic. Just impulse. I respect a man with a plan!

[Cpt slay a ho]

Would have been thrill with Dorset, maybe even funchess but we could have went Randall(good cover safety) in the first then in the second either shaq, funchess, or strong......but we will see how things pan out

[juliosantos]

shaq was not falling past dallas 

[juliosantos]

stop listening to these analysts  they gave us heat for last years draft and when we drafted luke 

[uscgamecocks]

Seems like you don't like the pick of Shaq?

The entire Panthers draft team had him rated as a first rounder - and a higher quality first rounder than Funchess or anyone else on the board. You can't just pass up on him there because he might be available late second (he wouldn't have been). Humphries was the only equivalent talent to Shaq and he was the pick until he went off the board.

Funchess is the pick I think that you could argue against. I think the Panthers trading up that far indicates that he wouldn't have made it (Falcons seemed to really like him). But in hindsight, might Dave have preferred Strong at 57 and keeping the 3rd and 6th? Possibly, although I think some teams might have dropped their grades on Strong because of his wrist injury (and the NFL never liked Strong as much as the media).

But back to your point, you could have used that third on Williams and then kept 4-7. You could have packaged those picks in trades netting you a high 4th and a 5th round picks - let's say Trey Flowers and Grady Jarrett.

So I'm hindsight - would I take Strong, Flowers, and Jarrett over just Funchess? Probably. But I think Funchess is much better than Strong and it's easy to do this in hindsight.

Based on the Intel provided by Igo and Voth, our board got ripped apart from picks 24 - 39. DG adjusted our strategy and got more aggressive - and only time will tell if that was the right approach (it will hinge on Funchess, I think). But what Dave feared, I think, was waiting until 57 and having to reach because the players we liked were gone. In that scenario you would usually trade back - but that wasn't really an option given that we were sitting on nine picks.

[AU-panther]

Seems like you don't like the pick of Shaq?

The entire Panthers draft team had him rated as a first rounder - and a higher quality first rounder than Funchess or anyone else on the board. You can't just pass up on him there because he might be available late second (he wouldn't have been). Humphries was the only equivalent talent to Shaq and he was the pick until he went off the board.

Funchess is the pick I think that you could argue against. I think the Panthers trading up that far indicates that he wouldn't have made it (Falcons seemed to really like him). But in hindsight, might Dave have preferred Strong at 57 and keeping the 3rd and 6th? Possibly, although I think some teams might have dropped their grades on Strong because of his wrist injury (and the NFL never liked Strong as much as the media).

But back to your point, you could have used that third on Williams and then kept 4-7. You could have packaged those picks in trades netting you a high 4th and a 5th round picks - let's say Trey Flowers and Grady Jarrett.

So I'm hindsight - would I take Strong, Flowers, and Jarrett over just Funchess? Probably. But I think Funchess is much better than Strong and it's easy to do this in hindsight.

Based on the Intel provided by Igo and Voth, our board got ripped apart from picks 24 - 39. DG adjusted our strategy and got more aggressive - and only time will tell if that was the right approach (it will hinge on Funchess, I think). But what Dave feared, I think, was waiting until 57 and having to reach because the players we liked were gone. In that scenario you would usually trade back - but that wasn't really an option given that we were sitting on nine picks.

 

I never said either way if I liked the pick of Shaq.  He might turn out to the best pick of the entire draft.  I actually think he can help us a lot, but we really won't know until he plays.

 

My main point of the post was that it felt like the board got always from us.  By that I mean the players did not come off of it in our favor at all.  DG actually alluded to that in one of his press conferences. 

 

Washington picking Scherff at 5 with Williams still on the board didn't help.  The Saint's picking Peat didn't help.  The Bengals picking Ogbuehi in the first was probably a surprise.  3 top players having off the field issues probably hurt.  Also, our second round targets came off of the board quick according to DG.

 

My hypothetical scenario of picking a receiver in the first was just a way to look back and see how things could have gone differently.

 

Like I said earlier we could have drafted Funchess in the first, or several other receivers.  This is a fact because he was on the board at the time.

Maybe Shaq in the second, although unlikely.

In hindsight we could have drafted Williams in the third for sure.  At the time I would think it would have been a pretty safe guess.

 

Even if we go on the assumption we don't get Shaq in the second we still have a 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th.

 

If the option before the draft was either Shaq or those 5 picks what would most people choose?

 

As a fan I don't think it is a bad thing to look back and see how things could have gone differently.  I would guess our front office does. 

 

It amuses me that some fans feel compelled to convince themselves that every decision was the absolutely perfect outcome. 

 

DG has said before that he doesn't like trading away early round picks.  I don't think that was a smokescreen.  Unfortunately with the way the board fell he was forced into it to address our needs.

 

Could we have done something better this draft?  maybe

or

Did DG turn an unfavorable board into a really good draft class by trading up? maybe

 

We will have a better answer in a few years.

 

 

 

 

 

[Carolina Cajun]

A Dallas reporter specifically said they were ready to draft Shaq Thompson two spots below us, so the scenario you imagine couldn't have happened.  It's also impossible to predict that others would have fallen to us as well had things changed.

 

To truly understand and analyze the process though, one thing you have to realize the pick trading was actually deliberate.

 

Gettleman had already stated that it was unlikely nine picks would make the roster, so he used the trades to get guys they really wanted.

 

Seattle actually did the same thing (this was quoted on NFL Network's coverage).

 

Exactly, this is why I've warmed up to the shaq pick.  I've also thought some of this through too and what's cool with the process this year is that with the extra picks available to trade to move up, G-man was given the ability to "wait" until the BPA on the board matched the need he saw we need in receiver and tackle and then go get his man.  In this way, he was able to draft for both "need" and BPA.  There is no doubt in my mind that like Funchess was a round 1 receiver on G-mans board, and Williams was a day 2 Tackle on his board.  

[top dawg]

I think that our draft would have been exactly the same. We would have drafted Funchess, and then had to trade up to draft Shaq in the second.  

[Jmac]

D.G and his scouts put in months upon months of evaluation of these players. They went through the list with a fine tooth comb and knew who they wanted. Couldn't care less what the 'experts' and talking heads say.....they know sh%t.

[MV%doe]

I would have prefered a WR, but those are the breaks.

Ozzie history speaks for itself and he took perriman. Colts had 18 WRs currently on the roster and they took dorsett.

What's done is done, not a fan of this draft class, but I will support them.

[uscgamecocks]

I never said either way if I liked the pick of Shaq. He might turn out to the best pick of the entire draft. I actually think he can help us a lot, but we really won't know until he plays.

My main point of the post was that it felt like the board got always from us. By that I mean the players did not come off of it in our favor at all. DG actually alluded to that in one of his press conferences.

Washington picking Scherff at 5 with Williams still on the board didn't help. The Saint's picking Peat didn't help. The Bengals picking Ogbuehi in the first was probably a surprise. 3 top players having off the field issues probably hurt. Also, our second round targets came off of the board quick according to DG.

My hypothetical scenario of picking a receiver in the first was just a way to look back and see how things could have gone differently.

Like I said earlier we could have drafted Funchess in the first, or several other receivers. This is a fact because he was on the board at the time.

Maybe Shaq in the second, although unlikely.

In hindsight we could have drafted Williams in the third for sure. At the time I would think it would have been a pretty safe guess.

Even if we go on the assumption we don't get Shaq in the second we still have a 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th.

If the option before the draft was either Shaq or those 5 picks what would most people choose?

As a fan I don't think it is a bad thing to look back and see how things could have gone differently. I would guess our front office does.

It amuses me that some fans feel compelled to convince themselves that every decision was the absolutely perfect outcome.

DG has said before that he doesn't like trading away early round picks. I don't think that was a smokescreen. Unfortunately with the way the board fell he was forced into it to address our needs.

Could we have done something better this draft? maybe

or

Did DG turn an unfavorable board into a really good draft class by trading up? maybe

We will have a better answer in a few years.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying here.

I definitely agree that the draft did us no favors. Shaq could do awesome things for our team - and I'm rooting for him for sure - but I did not want him heading into the draft because even if he was the BPA he wasn't filling a critical need - and it seemed like everything was set up to give us a great, BPA guy that filled our obvious OT or WR need.

But after Humphries went we stuck with the board and took Shaq. The consequence, as you pointed out, was Getteman felt compelled to trade up to make BPA fit the needs on the roster (WR, OT).

If I had to guess, the loose plan was to draft a BPA OT in round 1 and to trade up when needed in round 2 to secure a WR that we had a round 1 grade on. The run on receivers probably forced us to trade up earlier than we would have liked to get Funchess - causing us to lose the 3. Then we traded for Williams because BPA met need - but in the end, we lost a ton of draft picks in the process.

Drafting Shaq was a gamble that hopefully pays off in time (and it very well could).

Personally, I was a bit surprised to hear Funchess had a first round grade. When we drafted Shaq I assumed he was one of the last first round grades we had. I'd surmise that we have tiers of grades within the first round based on Funchess having a first round grade - but my question, in retrospect, would be how much difference is there between those tiers? And was if enough to justify trading away those picks?