The Kony Ealy Gambit

[tiger7_88]

use the first pick on a guy who would be a backup this year while we have huge needs at OT, WR, and CB?

 

makes sense.

 

how about we draft a guy that we could plug into the starting lineup right away?

 

if the goal is to replace either hardy or johnson after this year, why not wait cross that bridge when we come to it and take care of this year, you know...this year.

 

BPA is fine, but lets try to limit the choices to areas of immediate need.

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but waiting to draft next year is the "two in the bush" to the beast (Ealy) you KNOW you could draft as BPA as the "one in the hand".  All with the knowledge that you can draft likely starters at WR and OT in 2nd/3rd rounds because of some of the best depth in a draft at those positions in many, many a year.

 

All hypothetical for discussion, of course. 

[BlackCnqstdr]

use the first pick on a guy who would be a backup this year while we have huge needs at OT, WR, and CB?

 

makes sense.

 

how about we draft a guy that we could plug into the starting lineup right away?

 

if the goal is to replace either hardy or johnson after this year, why not wait cross that bridge when we come to it and take care of this year, you know...this year.

 

BPA is fine, but lets try to limit the choices to areas of immediate need.

 

Obviously those holes need to be filled but waiting to cross that bridge is why those positions are in such bad shape.  If the right value isn't there at 28 why take a lesser talent?

[rayzor]

I understand what you're saying, but waiting to draft next year is the "two in the bush" to the beast (Ealy) you KNOW you could draft as BPA as the "one in the hand".  All with the knowledge that you can draft likely starters at WR and OT in 2nd/3rd rounds because of some of the best depth in a draft at those positions in many, many a year.

 

All hypothetical for discussion, of course. 

 

but can you guarantee that we will draft a OT or WR those rounds?

 

the whole "address needs through FA so you can pick the best player in the draft" thing is fine as long as you are sticking to the FA part, which we aren't.

 

can it be guaranteed that in rounds 2 and 3 that there will be available the quality we hope is still there? what if there is a big run on WRs and OTs before we get there? i think gettleman was thinking that there'd be more good options available at positions of need when the dust settled in FA. if we wait, it's likely we get bit in the ass.

 

waiting to draft DE next year might be "two in the bush", but so would waiting for an area of more pressing need.

 

we are in a hole. we can't pretend that we aren't.

 

for this year we don't need DE. we don't need a replacement for TD.

 

we DO need WRs. we DO need a LT. we DO need CBs. we can't act like we are set there or like we can sit around and wait.

[rayzor]

Obviously those holes need to be filled but waiting to cross that bridge is why those positions are in such bad shape.  If the right value isn't there at 28 why take a lesser talent?

 

so then what's the solution at LT? what's the solution at WR?

 

what's worse than not looking ahead is not addressing what you need now.

 

if those positions are in such bad shape, how do we benefit by not addressing them? we are backed into a corner. we are foolish if we act like we aren't.

 

job number one: fill out the roster with good players.

[Jackofalltrades]

job number one: fill out the roster with the best players available.

This would be DG's take, IMO.

[tiger7_88]

but can you guarantee that we will draft a OT or WR those rounds?

 

the whole "address needs through FA so you can pick the best player in the draft" thing is fine as long as you are sticking to the FA part, which we aren't.

 

can it be guaranteed that in rounds 2 and 3 that there will be available the quality we hope is still there? 

 

 

There are never guarantees.  But I already listed in the OP the kind of players at our positions of need that are LIKELY to be there when we draft in the 2nd and 3rd.

 

As I've said, this draft is especially noted by the experts as being ESPECIALLY DEEP at our positions of need.  So, considering that, *reaching* for a position of need in the 1st round is something I'd rather not see us panic and do.

[BlackCnqstdr]

so then what's the solution at LT? what's the solution at WR?

 

what's worse than not looking ahead is not addressing what you need now.

 

if those positions are in such bad shape, how do we benefit by not addressing them? we are backed into a corner. we are foolish if we act like we aren't.

 

job number one: fill out the roster with good players.

 

It depends on who the FO views as 1st round talents and who they think can help immediately.  If DG thinks the only day one starters at OT are Robinson, Lewan and Matthews and he thinks the only 1st round WRs are Watkins, Evans, Cooks and Benjamin (just for example) and those guys are all gone who do you take?  You're saying he should draft a player just because of the position he plays even if he doesn't believe in that player.

[tiger7_88]

It depends on who the FO views as 1st round talents and who they think can help immediately.  If DG thinks the only day one starters at OT are Robinson, Lewan and Matthews and he thinks the only 1st round WRs are Watkins, Evans, Cooks and Benjamin (just for example) and those guys are all gone who do you take?  You're saying he should draft a player just because of the position he plays even if he doesn't believe in that player.

 

 

And the thing is, there are likely "Day 1 starters" at our positions of need AFTER the 1st round.

[bleys]

It depends on who the FO views as 1st round talents and who they think can help immediately.  If DG thinks the only day one starters at OT are Robinson, Lewan and Matthews and he thinks the only 1st round WRs are Watkins, Evans, Cooks and Benjamin (just for example) and those guys are all gone who do you take?  You're saying he should draft a player just because of the position he plays even if he doesn't believe in that player.

 

yeah, DG's made it pretty clear he's not going to reach just to fill a position..  it's entirely likely this scenario could play out...  

[Future of the Funchise]

if the goal is to replace either hardy or johnson after this year, why not wait cross that bridge when we come to it and take care of this year, you know...this year.

It took about 3 years for both hardy and Johnson to break out.

If we take Ealy now then that's a year he gets to develop in the rotation without the pressure of immediate expectations because we have two studs in front of him.

Sent from my LGMS769 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

[Carl Spackler]

kony 2014

 

Beat me to it, you bastard.

[rayzor]

This would be DG's take, IMO.

 

which is why i can't see us taking a DE this year...or at least why it wouldn't make sense.

 

we aren't getting what we need in FA and that leaves only the draft.

[Captain Obvious]

Interesting that you can see the future.

Isn't that what you are doing when you suggest Ealy will be a backup. Maybe he excels and takes over a starrting position.

[rayzor]

It took about 3 years for both hardy and Johnson to break out.

If we take Ealy now then that's a year he gets to develop in the rotation without the pressure of immediate expectations because we have two studs in front of him.

Sent from my LGMS769 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app

 

that's a fine and good approach when you have more pieces together on your roster than we have.

 

what do we do about areas of immediate need? sit and hope that maybe there hasn't been a run on good prospects that we were looking at and continue to take table scraps to fill needs?