Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think that while I'd completely agree with you if we needed an LT *right now*, the fact that we have a starter as long as he comes back healthy means we don't draft one at #2 unless he's Orlando Pace level good (or even "guy who be at LT for 10 years" level good). And I haven't seen any analysts say that level of OT is in this draft. Which would make picking an OT#2 slightly less inadvisable than picking a QB #2. For me, though, the "We need to keep Bradford upright so he can throw the ball" argument, while true, doesn't work for replacing a position we are set at for now.Going back to that because it appears that some think it is ok to just pick a second level guy and let Boo coach him up and that would be good enough. LT is one of the premier positions that you don't pass on, much more so than a WR. And that old story about fisher and OL is just that old and has no bearing on what cold happen when/if they are in a position to get the next guy who will be at LT for 10 years.
I like Watkins but not as good as Matthews or Robinson and most of the big boards out there are in agreement. Watkins is good but not #2 good.
I'm hoping we don't get Watkins at #2 either, because he should be there after a trade down. Then if they get an OT at #13, I'd be fine with it, as long as the guy is highest on their boards.
Last edited: