Steelers can pick receivers, right? Food for thought.

[csx]

6 minutes ago, Lame Duck said:

It's half of the players in question.

[Jackie Lee]

[JawnyBlaze]

2 hours ago, ColumbusCounty said:

Well then if that's an indicator of WR success.... then maybe we should give Mingo more time to develop as they brought him in last year

Of course we should. Anyone who thinks Mingo is a bust after one year with Bryce as his QB and that circus we had running the show needs to just turn in their football card immediately and just watch golf or something. 

[Aussie Tank]

You’ve got an unhealthy obsession with Legette hahaha

[top dawg]

2 hours ago, Jackie Lee said:

 

3 hours ago, csx said:

Walterfootball has a lot more WR listed than that for the Steelers.

My bad, I should've used the technically correct term "Top 30 visit." It was in the linked article.

Edited April 4 by top dawg

[RJK]

Every receiver needy team will visit all these guys. Visit and drafting are two different things 

[Jackie Lee]

12 minutes ago, RJK said:

Every receiver needy team will visit all these guys. Visit and drafting are two different things 

Also visits could mean they're unsure about football iq or health concerns and want to take a closer look. It's not like they're recruiting them like college kids. If all of a teams draft picks were top 30 visits that would be quite a showing of the hand. 

[Lame Duck]

2 hours ago, Aussie Tank said:

You’ve got an unhealthy obsession with Legette hahaha

[MHS831]

I am going out on a limb here....First round teams that are likely to select a WR:

• Arizona
• Baltimore
• Buffalo
• Cleveland
• Kansas City
• LA Chargers
• N Y Giants

 WR is believed to be their #1 need.

WR is also the Panthers' #1 Need--so if we take a WR at #33, it is possible that we are spending our first and most valuable draft pick on the ninth best WR.  Yikes.

  That means WR is the #1 need for 8 teams, according to Mock Draft Database.  Another 9 teams have WR listed as their second need, so if we don't take the ninth best WR (hypothetically) at 33 or 36, we could be taking the 18th best WR at pick #65.   That means that during the first 64 picks, 17 Wide Receivers will be chosen or considered carefully.  (Hypothetically speaking here--could be less, and probably will be).

 

 

 

 

[Ricky Prickles]

7 hours ago, Aussie Tank said:

You’ve got an unhealthy obsession with Legette hahaha

Can't blame him, he has all the makings of a very good receiver at the next level.

[JawnyBlaze]

8 hours ago, MHS831 said:

I am going out on a limb here....First round teams that are likely to select a WR:

• Arizona
• Baltimore
• Buffalo
• Cleveland
• Kansas City
• LA Chargers
• N Y Giants

 WR is believed to be their #1 need.

WR is also the Panthers' #1 Need--so if we take a WR at #33, it is possible that we are spending our first and most valuable draft pick on the ninth best WR.  Yikes.

  That means WR is the #1 need for 8 teams, according to Mock Draft Database.  Another 9 teams have WR listed as their second need, so if we don't take the ninth best WR (hypothetically) at 33 or 36, we could be taking the 18th best WR at pick #65.   That means that during the first 64 picks, 17 Wide Receivers will be chosen or considered carefully.  (Hypothetically speaking here--could be less, and probably will be).

 

 

 

 

Sure on paper that looks like a reasonable expectation but it never works out like that. We could be getting the 6th best receiver if some of those teams in the list have another position higheron THEIR priority list or if a player they deem as better is available so they pass on the perceived top need and address their second biggest need with a player they like more. Or there could be a run on receivers and a team that picks before us in the second addressed their top need in the first and WR is their second need.

All that’s important is that we take the best player available at a position of need and they are who we think they are. We already spent our first and most valuable pick in this draft on getting Bryce. That’s a sunk cost. For now we just have to focus on improving the team as best we can and if that means spending the first pick we have available on the 9th best receiver then so be it. We won’t be getting a top 5 player at a position of value at #33, and if we do it’s because it’s a weak class and they’re probably not as good a player as the 9th best receiver. It’s not like we have nobody and HAVE to draft a WR like the Bears HAVE to draft a QB now. We have two starter quality WRs and a couple projects. If better players at other positions of need are available at our picks it would benefit the team to take them. I wouldn’t be mad if our second round picks are a C and pass rusher or CB if they’re the better prospects when we pick. 

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, JawnyBlaze said:

Sure on paper that looks like a reasonable expectation but it never works out like that. We could be getting the 6th best receiver if some of those teams in the list have another position higheron THEIR priority list or if a player they deem as better is available so they pass on the perceived top need and address their second biggest need with a player they like more. Or there could be a run on receivers and a team that picks before us in the second addressed their top need in the first and WR is their second need.

All that’s important is that we take the best player available at a position of need and they are who we think they are. We already spent our first and most valuable pick in this draft on getting Bryce. That’s a sunk cost. For now we just have to focus on improving the team as best we can and if that means spending the first pick we have available on the 9th best receiver then so be it. We won’t be getting a top 5 player at a position of value at #33, and if we do it’s because it’s a weak class and they’re probably not as good a player as the 9th best receiver. It’s not like we have nobody and HAVE to draft a WR like the Bears HAVE to draft a QB now. We have two starter quality WRs and a couple projects. If better players at other positions of need are available at our picks it would benefit the team to take them. I wouldn’t be mad if our second round picks are a C and pass rusher or CB if they’re the better prospects when we pick. 

The end to my post:  " (Hypothetically speaking here--could be less, and probably will be). "  So I agree--it never works out like that, which is why I was very clear to state the source of my lists and provide this disclaimer.  I would state, however, that a team with WR as the #1 need will likely grab a WR if a solid WR is available.  If a lesser need is a better value, you have to weigh the overall impact. 

I think I make it clear that the list was based on teams that have WR listed at their #1 need and provide the site, then mention the number of teams that have WR listed as the #2 need. 

We have 2 LBs who are going to be 30 (Shaq and Jewell).  We have a GM who gets the importance of an ILB--based on the information you provide, LB could be as big a need as C, WR, and CB--

I am not sold that they spent $160m on Guards and will go into the season with Corbett and Mays at C.  I am like you--I take a C if one is there.  Long term, great pick.  Short term?  Maybe a great immediate pick.

To your bigger point:  I agree--BPA.  We have so many needs.

Edited April 5 by MHS831

[SCO96]

7 hours ago, MHS831 said:

I am going out on a limb here....First round teams that are likely to select a WR:

• Arizona
• Baltimore
• Buffalo
• Cleveland
• Kansas City
• LA Chargers
• N Y Giants

 WR is believed to be their #1 need.

WR is also the Panthers' #1 Need--so if we take a WR at #33, it is possible that we are spending our first and most valuable draft pick on the ninth best WR.  Yikes.

  That means WR is the #1 need for 8 teams, according to Mock Draft Database.  Another 9 teams have WR listed as their second need, so if we don't take the ninth best WR (hypothetically) at 33 or 36, we could be taking the 18th best WR at pick #65.   That means that during the first 64 picks, 17 Wide Receivers will be chosen or considered carefully.  (Hypothetically speaking here--could be less, and probably will be).

 

 

 

 

On the surface that may sound bad. But, with the exception of our recently acquired pick from Pittsburgh, the 9th best receiver in the draft may still be better than anyone currently on our roster. 

On the flip side, because so many receivers are projected to go in the first, a first round talent is likely going to fall to us at some other position of need. We may be able to wait until #39 to grab a WR or even later as you pointed out. The O-line is already significantly better so I doubt we're taking an O-lineman at 33 or 39. 

No matter what we decide to do, if we don't come away with 2 (and arguably 3) solid starters after day 2 then this draft will end up being a massive disappointment.