Is Sewell too Good to Pass Up? | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Is Sewell too Good to Pass Up?

j-off-her-doll

Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
19,392
Reaction score
9,905
Location
Dream Songs
You can get WR's later, because evaluating most WR's is hard, and the NFL lets a lot of good talents slip through the cracks, but they slipped through the cracks, because the NFL doesn't know they're that good. In other words, you're buying lotto tickets later in the draft and some hit. Teams aren't drafting 5th RD WR's, saying, This guy is going to be really good. They're saying, IDK maybe there's something there. Buying late lotto tickets is a fine approach for a team already good at WR - TB, for example.

Miami doesn't really have that luxury.
 

Feverdream

Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,912
Reaction score
8,294
The fact you can get WR's in the later rounds is a different thing. I'm saying WR's are the 2nd most important position on offense. If you don't agree with that then I don't know what to tell you. I agree you can get good WR's in any rounds but you're acting as if WR's don't matter and if that's what you think then you're stuck in the 70's NFL
I am NOT saying they don't matter... they are part of the offense, therefore, they matter.

However... they are easier to obtain than a quality QB or a top lineman, so I'd put their priority as equal to a RB... third in order.

Whether this is the 70s or the 20s, you have to first have a QB... then keep him upright and alive.... then he can do something with the ball.
 

MiaFins31

Active Roster
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
562
Reaction score
618
Age
31
Location
South Carolina
Well, you're making some points for me actually. You said TB developed some O-line guys. Well we drafted 3 of those last year, shouldn't we give them time to develop too? The KC O-line is very good but in the SB they were missing both their starting OT's and hence they had all those problems. I'm not saying the O-line is not important. I'm not even saying we should draft at least one O-line guy in this draft and maybe even two. I'm saying we don't have to draft a LT at 3.
I’m saying I agree with you that our 3 guys need time to develop. Where we disagree is that if we stay at 3 you say WR should be the pick bc it’s more important than the OL and I’m saying I don’t think so. It seems like you believe Sewell is a just another top 5 OT and I’m saying he’s not just another top 5 OT. He’s an elite level player that you don’t pass on for any WR not named Randy Moss or Calvin Johnson. CJ and RM everybody pretty much knew what they were and what they were going to do to the league. As good as I think Chase/Smith are they’re body types don’t scream elite level take over a game WR. Now that’s not to say they won’t be bc they very well could and I think at least 1 will be. I’m of the opinion that between Chase/Smith/Waddle that 1 will be great 1 will be average and 1 will bust. More times than not that’s how it goes.

I’m with you that I won’t 1st preference is to take a WR with our 1st pick I just don’t want to do it at #3 bc the value is just not there. You may be 1 of those guys that don’t care about where you draft a guy as long as you get him and that’s fair enough I respect your opinion but I don’t agree with that. I’m heavily against reaching especially in round 1 with a top 3 pick. The chances that 1 of these WRs live up to the expectations of the #3 overall pick are slim. If we take a WR at #3 he better be an annual 90 catch 1300-1400 yards 10 TDs guy and that’s just really really heavy expectations for any WR to live up to. If we take a WR at #3 then we reached and we didn’t get the proper value out of this #3 pick. Whereas if we trade down to 7/8/9 and then take our WR it lowers the expectations just a tad BUT we’re also picking up extra picks likely a future #1 plus something else. That’s getting the maximum potential value out of #3 which is what every GMs goal should be.

I’m saying if we get stuck at #3 you take Sewell bc other than Lawrence he’s the best player in this draft. In our case he fixes 3 positions with 1 selection as I outlined in an earlier post. Even though we wouldn’t be picking up extra picks if we select Sewell at #3 we would be fixing 3 different positions and an entire position unit overall. Again that’s maximizing the potential value of the #3 overall pick. Selecting 1 WR who’s a 50/50 shot at best of working out is not maximizing value.

Also in my last post I was saying I heavily disagreed about WR outranking the OL in terms of importance. Without the blocking and protection it doesn’t matter if your 3 WRs are Jerry Rice Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson bc your QB is going to be on his back all night bc eventually especially in the playoffs you’re going to run into a dominant DL that’s going to outplay you’re “good is good enough OL”. If we get to the Super Bowl only to lose bc we simply have an average OL how bad are all of us going to feel? This is still football and it’s still a line of scrimmage game. Look how Denver who was absolutely terrible beat us up up front all day long. We got into a matchup where we didn’t match up well with there DL and we got worked. Good is good enough is probably good enough... during the regular season but when playoff time rolls around you better be better than “good enough” or you’re going to get exposed.
 

Danny

Finheaven VIP
Moderator
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
38,537
Reaction score
53,859
Location
Kissimmee,FL
I’m saying I agree with you that our 3 guys need time to develop. Where we disagree is that if we stay at 3 you say WR should be the pick bc it’s more important than the OL and I’m saying I don’t think so. It seems like you believe Sewell is a just another top 5 OT and I’m saying he’s not just another top 5 OT. He’s an elite level player that you don’t pass on for any WR not named Randy Moss or Calvin Johnson. CJ and RM everybody pretty much knew what they were and what they were going to do to the league. As good as I think Chase/Smith are they’re body types don’t scream elite level take over a game WR. Now that’s not to say they won’t be bc they very well could and I think at least 1 will be. I’m of the opinion that between Chase/Smith/Waddle that 1 will be great 1 will be average and 1 will bust. More times than not that’s how it goes.

I’m with you that I won’t 1st preference is to take a WR with our 1st pick I just don’t want to do it at #3 bc the value is just not there. You may be 1 of those guys that don’t care about where you draft a guy as long as you get him and that’s fair enough I respect your opinion but I don’t agree with that. I’m heavily against reaching especially in round 1 with a top 3 pick. The chances that 1 of these WRs live up to the expectations of the #3 overall pick are slim. If we take a WR at #3 he better be an annual 90 catch 1300-1400 yards 10 TDs guy and that’s just really really heavy expectations for any WR to live up to. If we take a WR at #3 then we reached and we didn’t get the proper value out of this #3 pick. Whereas if we trade down to 7/8/9 and then take our WR it lowers the expectations just a tad BUT we’re also picking up extra picks likely a future #1 plus something else. That’s getting the maximum potential value out of #3 which is what every GMs goal should be.

I’m saying if we get stuck at #3 you take Sewell bc other than Lawrence he’s the best player in this draft. In our case he fixes 3 positions with 1 selection as I outlined in an earlier post. Even though we wouldn’t be picking up extra picks if we select Sewell at #3 we would be fixing 3 different positions and an entire position unit overall. Again that’s maximizing the potential value of the #3 overall pick. Selecting 1 WR who’s a 50/50 shot at best of working out is not maximizing value.

Also in my last post I was saying I heavily disagreed about WR outranking the OL in terms of importance. Without the blocking and protection it doesn’t matter if your 3 WRs are Jerry Rice Randy Moss and Calvin Johnson bc your QB is going to be on his back all night bc eventually especially in the playoffs you’re going to run into a dominant DL that’s going to outplay you’re “good is good enough OL”. If we get to the Super Bowl only to lose bc we simply have an average OL how bad are all of us going to feel? This is still football and it’s still a line of scrimmage game. Look how Denver who was absolutely terrible beat us up up front all day long. We got into a matchup where we didn’t match up well with there DL and we got worked. Good is good enough is probably good enough... during the regular season but when playoff time rolls around you better be better than “good enough” or you’re going to get exposed.
Well, we're never going to agree here and that's fine. I get what you're saying but I just don't agree on a few things which is fine. You've at least been very respectful.

Here's a few things. First, when you say that Sewell would make 3 positions better, I didn't read your earlier post but if you mean moving Jackson to another position we don't know if Jackson would be better at another position. I agree that Sewell would make the LT position better while I'd argue that a WR like Smith can make the whole offense better and here's why I say that.
Lets say on any given play Tua goes back to pass and Sewell doesn't allow Tua to get sacked but the RG did. So Sewell did what he's supposed to do and it's not his fault the RG allowed a sack but Sewell didn't make 3 positions better and didn't make the offense better on that play.

Now lets say another play Tua goes back to pass and he's under pressure but gets a 5 yard pass off to Smith who takes it 50 yards. The O-line allowed pressure on Tua but Smith made the offense better because he can take a very simple short pass and take it 50 yards.

I guarantee you one thing, the other team's DC will have to prep for a WR like Tua or Waddle or any top WR that can make plays. The other team's DC won't be telling his player, "we need to worry about keeping their LT under control if we want to win.

I agree with you that we need to have a good O-line in order to win. I'm just saying drafting a LT at 3 is not a must. I also agree that moving down would be great but if we're stuck we'll have to decide do we go for a LT or for a top playmaker that can make big plays and score points for you? You're saying never to the playmaker at 3 while I'm not saying never to a LT......I'm only saying no to a LT in this one draft but don't worry, I don't get to make the decisions and you might get your wish. Regardless of what we do I'll be rooting for it to work out for the best.
 

jimthefin

Club Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
2,256
I love Sewell.

I have been crowing about him since last Draft.

And if Miami can't move down from #3 then he probably is the right call based on talent, need and positional value.

But there will be opportunities to land a quality OT at #18 like Darrisaw for instance and the drop off from WR at that spot is much higher.

Also, how good do you need your OL to be? Are you trying to build an A+ OL? Is that really necessary?

Put it this way, is the team better with a stud WR and Darrisaw in R1, or Sewell and a lesser WR in R1?
 

NBP81

Yippi ka yay mother******!
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
11,819
Reaction score
15,434
Location
Montreal
Well, we're never going to agree here and that's fine. I get what you're saying but I just don't agree on a few things which is fine. You've at least been very respectful.

Here's a few things. First, when you say that Sewell would make 3 positions better, I didn't read your earlier post but if you mean moving Jackson to another position we don't know if Jackson would be better at another position. I agree that Sewell would make the LT position better while I'd argue that a WR like Smith can make the whole offense better and here's why I say that.
Lets say on any given play Tua goes back to pass and Sewell doesn't allow Tua to get sacked but the RG did. So Sewell did what he's supposed to do and it's not his fault the RG allowed a sack but Sewell didn't make 3 positions better and didn't make the offense better on that play.

Now lets say another play Tua goes back to pass and he's under pressure but gets a 5 yard pass off to Smith who takes it 50 yards. The O-line allowed pressure on Tua but Smith made the offense better because he can take a very simple short pass and take it 50 yards.

I guarantee you one thing, the other team's DC will have to prep for a WR like Tua or Waddle or any top WR that can make plays. The other team's DC won't be telling his player, "we need to worry about keeping their LT under control if we want to win.

I agree with you that we need to have a good O-line in order to win. I'm just saying drafting a LT at 3 is not a must. I also agree that moving down would be great but if we're stuck we'll have to decide do we go for a LT or for a top playmaker that can make big plays and score points for you? You're saying never to the playmaker at 3 while I'm not saying never to a LT......I'm only saying no to a LT in this one draft but don't worry, I don't get to make the decisions and you might get your wish. Regardless of what we do I'll be rooting for it to work out for the best.
This is exactly it. Great post!
 

macd123

Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Messages
307
Reaction score
307
Age
46
Location
Fla
You have to factor in the rest of the OT class too. For the Browns signing Wills and Conklin (and a good coach) was enough to turn a below average line into the best in the league. Neither are generational but are in the "very good" category. They've had a very close look at Dillon Radunz, so it could be they like what they've seen.

It's hard to overemphasise the importance of a good OL coach. Guys like Scarnecchia and Callahan made a habit of turning late round picks and UDFAs into NFL quality linemen. They also never let the unit fall beneath a certain level (which unfortunately we have). We have to hope Lem does the business but regardless whether it's Sewell or not we're only halfway through the process of building a decent line.
 

Andyman

Canadian Fin Fan
Club Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
2,270
Reaction score
1,739
Location
Ottawa, Canada
I've been in Penei or trade down mode since we earned the 3 spot.

For years, there have been so many threads saying that you NEVER pass on a major prospect for a need... and that's EXACTLY what we would be doing if we took a smallish WR instead of a once in a decade talent-- especially considering that WRs have never been judged as one of the premium positions in the NFL.

If we take Chase or Smith at 3, it will be one of those major mistakes that front offices make from time to time...

Now... trading down is a different animal.
I think that’s quite fair. The caveat is if either receiver has a HOF career. I expect a trade down as well.
 

SF Dolphin Fan

Seasoned Veteran
Club Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
12,998
Reaction score
7,398
I love Sewell.

I have been crowing about him since last Draft.

And if Miami can't move down from #3 then he probably is the right call based on talent, need and positional value.

But there will be opportunities to land a quality OT at #18 like Darrisaw for instance and the drop off from WR at that spot is much higher.

Also, how good do you need your OL to be? Are you trying to build an A+ OL? Is that really necessary?

Put it this way, is the team better with a stud WR and Darrisaw in R1, or Sewell and a lesser WR in R1?
That's a great question.

At #18, Bateman, Moore, Marshall and Toney could be there. I doubt Waddle gets there and he could even go higher than expected.

How much better is Sewell than the next tackle? Probably quite a bit actually. But there's talent at the position.

Another point, maybe Miami really just needs to add a center. Jackson and Hunt should both improve in their second seasons.
 

MiaFins31

Active Roster
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
562
Reaction score
618
Age
31
Location
South Carolina
Well, we're never going to agree here and that's fine. I get what you're saying but I just don't agree on a few things which is fine. You've at least been very respectful.

Here's a few things. First, when you say that Sewell would make 3 positions better, I didn't read your earlier post but if you mean moving Jackson to another position we don't know if Jackson would be better at another position. I agree that Sewell would make the LT position better while I'd argue that a WR like Smith can make the whole offense better and here's why I say that.
Lets say on any given play Tua goes back to pass and Sewell doesn't allow Tua to get sacked but the RG did. So Sewell did what he's supposed to do and it's not his fault the RG allowed a sack but Sewell didn't make 3 positions better and didn't make the offense better on that play.

Now lets say another play Tua goes back to pass and he's under pressure but gets a 5 yard pass off to Smith who takes it 50 yards. The O-line allowed pressure on Tua but Smith made the offense better because he can take a very simple short pass and take it 50 yards.

I guarantee you one thing, the other team's DC will have to prep for a WR like Tua or Waddle or any top WR that can make plays. The other team's DC won't be telling his player, "we need to worry about keeping their LT under control if we want to win.

I agree with you that we need to have a good O-line in order to win. I'm just saying drafting a LT at 3 is not a must. I also agree that moving down would be great but if we're stuck we'll have to decide do we go for a LT or for a top playmaker that can make big plays and score points for you? You're saying never to the playmaker at 3 while I'm not saying never to a LT......I'm only saying no to a LT in this one draft but don't worry, I don't get to make the decisions and you might get your wish. Regardless of what we do I'll be rooting for it to work out for the best.
Thank you for the kind words. I always try to be respectful with everyone unless they’re not with me. It’s just a message board and these are all just opinions. Like you said none of us have the final say we just have to go with what our FO does.

Now to the post... In an earlier post I wrote about if we draft Sewell. I think the plan if we draft Sewell would be to move AJ to the RT and RH to RG. So our OL would look like this...

LT- Penei Sewell
LG- Solomon Kindley
C- Ted Karras or draft pick (Humphrey/Dickerson/Myers)
RG- Robert Hunt
RT- Austin Jackson

My theory behind this is drafting Sewell all but completes this unit for the next 3/4 years at minimum and especially if we draft a Center which I hope we do bc they’re 3 really good ones to be had in Creed Humphrey Landon Dickerson and Josh Myers. Also by drafting Sewell it pushes Robert Hunt into his natural position and while it does move Austin Jackson over to RT and I’ll concede it will be a bit of an adjustment I think AJ would be just fine with practice and reps. Moving from LT to RT is different but it’s not so much of a difference that AJ wouldn’t be capable. I think it’s harder to move from Guard to Tackle than it is to just switch sides and even if AJ struggled we could just move him back to LT and put Sewell at RT bc Sewell is so talented that the transition would be seamless. The reason I prefer PS at LT is because if we’re drafting a guy at #3 it doesn’t need to be for a position change. I know AJ was a 1st round pick but theirs a big difference between pick #3 and pick #18. You put your best 5 on the field anyway you can.

Now my other reason behind PS at #3 is because drafting him makes the entire line better AND with AJ SK and RH all having a full 16 under them they now know what the riggers of a full season are and they’ll be better prepared for this year just on experience alone. Sewell is above where all 3 of those guys were in their rookie year and doesn’t need as much development. All things considered all 3 of our guys this past year played very well for having 3 rookies on a starting NFL OL. Much like TB plugging in Wirfs and how he had a veteran presence around him which allowed him to relax and play I believe the same would hold true in this case for Sewell who is more talented than any Tackle that came out last year or this year. The same thing happened for Cleveland by adding Jedrick Wills in the 1st round last year. Cleveland ranked #1 in the league in PFF OL rankings while TB ranked #5. Only 2 teams that ranked in the top 10 of PFFs OL for 2020 didn’t make the playoffs and that was NE (#4) and SF (#9). I’m saying by adding PS it will make our entire OL better much like Wills to Cleveland and Wirfs to TB. That’s where my theory of 1 selection makes 3 positions and 1 unit better overall comes from. Now that’s my assumption I understand but that’s how good I believe PS is. This is the part of my argument against yours where you say if PS doesn’t give up pressure but the RG does then what does it matter. I’m saying that by adding Sewell it will elevate the play of the rest of the OL bc now AJ SK and RH all have an experience advantage over PS while PS has a talent advantage over them bc PS is further along in his development than they were at the same point PS is at now but the other 3s experience makes up for the talent discrepancy. The combination of the 2 would theoretically make 1 unit overall complete or as close to complete as we can be for next year.

I can’t disagree with you on Smith catching a 5 yard pass that turns into a 20 30 40 50 yard completion. That’s a very good point on your part but saying a DC would not be concerned with a top notch OT I don’t agree with. If a team is reliant on their pass rush to get pressure but they can’t then that’s going to make them change up their game plan and how they attack. A great OL doesn’t allow a 4 man rush to get home. If that 4 man rush isn’t working then teams have to start bringing pressure from different angles and with every man they bring on a blitz that takes 1 away from their coverage which allows more WRs and TEs to get those 1 on 1 matchups. We’re both saying the same thing here but I’m saying theirs more than 1 way to skin a cat. A DC most definitely gameplans for very good OLs as a whole. You’re looking at it as nobody is going to game plan for just PS and while you’re correct I’m saying by adding PS it takes our OL as a whole from very average to very good which in turn makes DC bring more blitzers which in turn gives our skill guys more 1 on 1 matchups. The advantage I have in my argument for OL as compared to your argument for a WR is that my OL also impacts the running game more directly than your WR while also affecting the passing game. It’s a double edged sword with my OL while it’s a single blade with your WR. Now I’ll agree that yes a great WR opens up the running game and allows more space but then I would argue that a WR can only impact the running game if the QB is making those throws while an OL impacts both the running and passing game no matter which way you slice it.

Lastly I’m not saying no never to a playmaker at #3. I’m saying he better have Calvin Johnson’s production AND body type for me to take a WR at #3. He better be as close to a no doubter as Calvin Johnson or Randy Moss was. I don’t think anyone would argue that Chase/Smith has a comparable body type to either of Johnson or Moss and in Smiths case that’s the actual argument against him is his body. I want to trade down with no questions asked that is absolutely my #1 preference. I want to trade down pick up extra picks and then take our WR at 7/8/9. So like I said I’m with you that I want a WR with our 1st pick. I just don’t want a WR at #3. If we get stuck at #3 and have no other option then I’m pounding the table for Sewell bc he’s the safe pick. This #3 pick was an absolute gift from God and well BOB lol but my point is we absolutely can’t mess this up. Would I be upset if we took a WR at #3? No I wouldn’t be upset but would I be thinking we made a mistake? Yes I would at least until Chase/Smith proved me wrong. Whatever they decide to do I will be hoping for the best and I will be pulling like hell for whoever we select.
 

Danny

Finheaven VIP
Moderator
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
38,537
Reaction score
53,859
Location
Kissimmee,FL
Thank you for the kind words. I always try to be respectful with everyone unless they’re not with me. It’s just a message board and these are all just opinions. Like you said none of us have the final say we just have to go with what our FO does.

Now to the post... In an earlier post I wrote about if we draft Sewell. I think the plan if we draft Sewell would be to move AJ to the RT and RH to RG. So our OL would look like this...

LT- Penei Sewell
LG- Solomon Kindley
C- Ted Karras or draft pick (Humphrey/Dickerson/Myers)
RG- Robert Hunt
RT- Austin Jackson

My theory behind this is drafting Sewell all but completes this unit for the next 3/4 years at minimum and especially if we draft a Center which I hope we do bc they’re 3 really good ones to be had in Creed Humphrey Landon Dickerson and Josh Myers. Also by drafting Sewell it pushes Robert Hunt into his natural position and while it does move Austin Jackson over to RT and I’ll concede it will be a bit of an adjustment I think AJ would be just fine with practice and reps. Moving from LT to RT is different but it’s not so much of a difference that AJ wouldn’t be capable. I think it’s harder to move from Guard to Tackle than it is to just switch sides and even if AJ struggled we could just move him back to LT and put Sewell at RT bc Sewell is so talented that the transition would be seamless. The reason I prefer PS at LT is because if we’re drafting a guy at #3 it doesn’t need to be for a position change. I know AJ was a 1st round pick but theirs a big difference between pick #3 and pick #18. You put your best 5 on the field anyway you can.

Now my other reason behind PS at #3 is because drafting him makes the entire line better AND with AJ SK and RH all having a full 16 under them they now know what the riggers of a full season are and they’ll be better prepared for this year just on experience alone. Sewell is above where all 3 of those guys were in their rookie year and doesn’t need as much development. All things considered all 3 of our guys this past year played very well for having 3 rookies on a starting NFL OL. Much like TB plugging in Wirfs and how he had a veteran presence around him which allowed him to relax and play I believe the same would hold true in this case for Sewell who is more talented than any Tackle that came out last year or this year. The same thing happened for Cleveland by adding Jedrick Wills in the 1st round last year. Cleveland ranked #1 in the league in PFF OL rankings while TB ranked #5. Only 2 teams that ranked in the top 10 of PFFs OL for 2020 didn’t make the playoffs and that was NE (#4) and SF (#9). I’m saying by adding PS it will make our entire OL better much like Wills to Cleveland and Wirfs to TB. That’s where my theory of 1 selection makes 3 positions and 1 unit better overall comes from. Now that’s my assumption I understand but that’s how good I believe PS is. This is the part of my argument against yours where you say if PS doesn’t give up pressure but the RG does then what does it matter. I’m saying that by adding Sewell it will elevate the play of the rest of the OL bc now AJ SK and RH all have an experience advantage over PS while PS has a talent advantage over them bc PS is further along in his development than they were at the same point PS is at now but the other 3s experience makes up for the talent discrepancy. The combination of the 2 would theoretically make 1 unit overall complete or as close to complete as we can be for next year.

I can’t disagree with you on Smith catching a 5 yard pass that turns into a 20 30 40 50 yard completion. That’s a very good point on your part but saying a DC would not be concerned with a top notch OT I don’t agree with. If a team is reliant on their pass rush to get pressure but they can’t then that’s going to make them change up their game plan and how they attack. A great OL doesn’t allow a 4 man rush to get home. If that 4 man rush isn’t working then teams have to start bringing pressure from different angles and with every man they bring on a blitz that takes 1 away from their coverage which allows more WRs and TEs to get those 1 on 1 matchups. We’re both saying the same thing here but I’m saying theirs more than 1 way to skin a cat. A DC most definitely gameplans for very good OLs as a whole. You’re looking at it as nobody is going to game plan for just PS and while you’re correct I’m saying by adding PS it takes our OL as a whole from very average to very good which in turn makes DC bring more blitzers which in turn gives our skill guys more 1 on 1 matchups. The advantage I have in my argument for OL as compared to your argument for a WR is that my OL also impacts the running game more directly than your WR while also affecting the passing game. It’s a double edged sword with my OL while it’s a single blade with your WR. Now I’ll agree that yes a great WR opens up the running game and allows more space but then I would argue that a WR can only impact the running game if the QB is making those throws while an OL impacts both the running and passing game no matter which way you slice it.

Lastly I’m not saying no never to a playmaker at #3. I’m saying he better have Calvin Johnson’s production AND body type for me to take a WR at #3. He better be as close to a no doubter as Calvin Johnson or Randy Moss was. I don’t think anyone would argue that Chase/Smith has a comparable body type to either of Johnson or Moss and in Smiths case that’s the actual argument against him is his body. I want to trade down with no questions asked that is absolutely my #1 preference. I want to trade down pick up extra picks and then take our WR at 7/8/9. So like I said I’m with you that I want a WR with our 1st pick. I just don’t want a WR at #3. If we get stuck at #3 and have no other option then I’m pounding the table for Sewell bc he’s the safe pick. This #3 pick was an absolute gift from God and well BOB lol but my point is we absolutely can’t mess this up. Would I be upset if we took a WR at #3? No I wouldn’t be upset but would I be thinking we made a mistake? Yes I would at least until Chase/Smith proved me wrong. Whatever they decide to do I will be hoping for the best and I will be pulling like hell for whoever we select.
All good points but I'll be brief here. When you say that Sewell would be the "safe" pick it reminded me of something. This team has been trying to play it safe for years and years. We took Jake Long #1 with a top QB sitting there(Ryan) and of course that safe didn't work.
We also picked Ronnie Brown with two good/great QB's on the board. that was us playing it safe.

I know passing on a QB is different than passing on a WR but at what point do we go for the playmakers instead of more O-line?

I have a question. Lets just say that we took Smith/Chase with our top pick and then at 18 Slater is still on the board and we take him. Would you be ok with that? That'd give us the the top WR in the draft along with the 2nd top OT.

Now lets say we took Sewell at 3 and by the time we draft again Smith/chase/Waddle/Pitts are all gone.......so now we have the top OT with maybe the 4th or 5th best WR in the draft.

Which combination would you rather have? And no, I don't believe Slater will be there at 18.
 

MiaFins31

Active Roster
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
562
Reaction score
618
Age
31
Location
South Carolina
All good points but I'll be brief here. When you say that Sewell would be the "safe" pick it reminded me of something. This team has been trying to play it safe for years and years. We took Jake Long #1 with a top QB sitting there(Ryan) and of course that safe didn't work.
We also picked Ronnie Brown with two good/great QB's on the board. that was us playing it safe.

I know passing on a QB is different than passing on a WR but at what point do we go for the playmakers instead of more O-line?

I have a question. Lets just say that we took Smith/Chase with our top pick and then at 18 Slater is still on the board and we take him. Would you be ok with that? That'd give us the the top WR in the draft along with the 2nd top OT.

Now lets say we took Sewell at 3 and by the time we draft again Smith/chase/Waddle/Pitts are all gone.......so now we have the top OT with maybe the 4th or 5th best WR in the draft.

Which combination would you rather have? And no, I don't believe Slater will be there at 18.
Well you already used my answer in your post as far as playing it safe. The Jake Long pick was a mistake though not a glorified one. I wanted Matt Ryan as well in that draft and would have totally agreed with you on that but in this years case we supposedly already have the QB. I have my own doubts about that but that arguments been beat to death so we’ll avoid that for now. Anyways selecting a OT to pass on a WR isn’t in the same universe as selecting an OT to pass on a QB. It’s just to much of a difference but again you pointed this out in your post so credit to you for acknowledging that.

As far as your question of would I be ok with taking our WR at #3 and then Slater at #18 I probably wouldn’t be on board with that but that’s because in my own personal opinion. I don’t think Slater is an OT. I know that’s what he’s listed as and what he’s more than likely going to be drafted as but he’s only 6’3 and he has much shorter arms than your normal OTs. So to me he’s a OG and I think whoever selects him is going to regret it if they’re selecting him to strictly be a OT. Now he’s a very talented player and probably the 2nd best OL in this draft. I just think he’s a OG and we don’t need a OG. We need a true OT so that we can slide our actual Guard (Robert Hunt) into his natural position. So I’m more than likely passing on that proposition. However if it were our WR at #3 and we were able to get Christian Darrisaw at #18 then I’m probably pretty happy with that even though I really really doubt Darrisaw is going to make it to #18 and I’d say theirs virtually no shot of Slater making it that far.

If we take Sewell at #3 and ended up with Rashod Bateman at #18 I’m just ok with that to be honest. Not very excited but not very down either just kind of meh. Now if we take Sewell at #3 and for Terrance Marshall at #18 then I’d be through the roof happy but I doubt we’d consider Marshall that high bc most mocks I see have him late 1st/early 2nd but personally I think he’s right there with Jaylen Waddle for 3rd best WR in this draft and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he ended up the best WR out of this draft. I absolutely love him but I also understand I’m higher on him than the media or most others seem to be but that’s just my own opinion.

If we select Sewell at #3 then at #18 I’m looking at Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah Or Jaelan Phillips and heavily heavily considering both. At #18 I’d also consider a trade down to somewhere between 26-32 to take a tailback. I prefer Travis Etienne but would be more than happy with Najee Harris. I know most say don’t take a tailback in round 1 and for the most part I agree but if we could get down to 26-32 and we’ve picked up extra picks I say go ahead and take the tailback so we can get that 5th year option in the contract since it’s a 1st round pick. That’s in itself is valuable to me. Then look at WRs in round 2. We already have #36 and #50 so theoretically we could double up and if we’ve traded down from #18 we probably have another late 2nd/early 3rd to play with.

But like I’ve said from the get go my 1st preference by far is trade down from #3 to 7/8/9 pick up the extra picks then take our WR. I prefer Chase but would be very happy with Smith or even Waddle. Either way whether it’s Sewell or a WR at #3 or a WR at 7/8/9 from a trade down at #18 I’m leaning defense. So many people just want to go straight offense with our all our premium picks and I think that would be a huge mistake. That #18 pick needs to go to the defensive front 7 or it either needs to get used in another trade down unless somebody is falling bc of a run on QBs early.
 

Feverdream

Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,912
Reaction score
8,294
All good points but I'll be brief here. When you say that Sewell would be the "safe" pick it reminded me of something. This team has been trying to play it safe for years and years. We took Jake Long #1 with a top QB sitting there(Ryan) and of course that safe didn't work.
We also picked Ronnie Brown with two good/great QB's on the board. that was us playing it safe.

I know passing on a QB is different than passing on a WR but at what point do we go for the playmakers instead of more O-line?

I have a question. Lets just say that we took Smith/Chase with our top pick and then at 18 Slater is still on the board and we take him. Would you be ok with that? That'd give us the the top WR in the draft along with the 2nd top OT.

Now lets say we took Sewell at 3 and by the time we draft again Smith/chase/Waddle/Pitts are all gone.......so now we have the top OT with maybe the 4th or 5th best WR in the draft.

Which combination would you rather have? And no, I don't believe Slater will be there at 18.
I want to respond to one thing here, because it is a narrative that I have heard before and I think the narrative is completely wrong.

I remember the 2008 draft, and there was no thought that taking Jake Long was the 'safe' pick. Rather it was thought that NONE of the QBs in that draft were very good. Matt Ryan was considered a meh prospect from a second tier school, and the others were all considered to be career back-up types. Yes Matt Ryan ended up being an average sort of QB... maybe a bit above that, but the others were all bad except Flacco... who ended up being another Meh... sort of QB. ...and Flacco came from Delaware of all places.

...and you have to give Jake his props, he was an All Pro tackle almost immediately. Injuries ruined that man, we was THAT good.

In 2005, we DESPERATELY tried to trade down, but in those days, it was next to impossible because of the rookie signing contracts that those guys got in that era. It was also still in the end of the RB era, 3 RBs went in the first 5 picks... so this was not a 'safe' pick either. One, we had to make a choice there, and two RBs were well worth that choice... then.

This idea that those picks were made to be 'safe' just isn't accurate. It's a sort of sloppy reasoning that applies the trends of today's game and drafts to an earlier time. ...and blaming the current GM/Coach for what a team did in 2005 or 2008 and implying a trend is... a real stretch.
 

Feverdream

Club Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2003
Messages
5,912
Reaction score
8,294
Well you already used my answer in your post as far as playing it safe. The Jake Long pick was a mistake though not a glorified one. I wanted Matt Ryan as well in that draft and would have totally agreed with you on that but in this years case we supposedly already have the QB. I have my own doubts about that but that arguments been beat to death so we’ll avoid that for now. Anyways selecting a OT to pass on a WR isn’t in the same universe as selecting an OT to pass on a QB. It’s just to much of a difference but again you pointed this out in your post so credit to you for acknowledging that.

As far as your question of would I be ok with taking our WR at #3 and then Slater at #18 I probably wouldn’t be on board with that but that’s because in my own personal opinion. I don’t think Slater is an OT. I know that’s what he’s listed as and what he’s more than likely going to be drafted as but he’s only 6’3 and he has much shorter arms than your normal OTs. So to me he’s a OG and I think whoever selects him is going to regret it if they’re selecting him to strictly be a OT. Now he’s a very talented player and probably the 2nd best OL in this draft. I just think he’s a OG and we don’t need a OG. We need a true OT so that we can slide our actual Guard (Robert Hunt) into his natural position. So I’m more than likely passing on that proposition. However if it were our WR at #3 and we were able to get Christian Darrisaw at #18 then I’m probably pretty happy with that even though I really really doubt Darrisaw is going to make it to #18 and I’d say theirs virtually no shot of Slater making it that far.

If we take Sewell at #3 and ended up with Rashod Bateman at #18 I’m just ok with that to be honest. Not very excited but not very down either just kind of meh. Now if we take Sewell at #3 and for Terrance Marshall at #18 then I’d be through the roof happy but I doubt we’d consider Marshall that high bc most mocks I see have him late 1st/early 2nd but personally I think he’s right there with Jaylen Waddle for 3rd best WR in this draft and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he ended up the best WR out of this draft. I absolutely love him but I also understand I’m higher on him than the media or most others seem to be but that’s just my own opinion.

If we select Sewell at #3 then at #18 I’m looking at Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah Or Jaelan Phillips and heavily heavily considering both. At #18 I’d also consider a trade down to somewhere between 26-32 to take a tailback. I prefer Travis Etienne but would be more than happy with Najee Harris. I know most say don’t take a tailback in round 1 and for the most part I agree but if we could get down to 26-32 and we’ve picked up extra picks I say go ahead and take the tailback so we can get that 5th year option in the contract since it’s a 1st round pick. That’s in itself is valuable to me. Then look at WRs in round 2. We already have #36 and #50 so theoretically we could double up and if we’ve traded down from #18 we probably have another late 2nd/early 3rd to play with.

But like I’ve said from the get go my 1st preference by far is trade down from #3 to 7/8/9 pick up the extra picks then take our WR. I prefer Chase but would be very happy with Smith or even Waddle. Either way whether it’s Sewell or a WR at #3 or a WR at 7/8/9 from a trade down at #18 I’m leaning defense. So many people just want to go straight offense with our all our premium picks and I think that would be a huge mistake. That #18 pick needs to go to the defensive front 7 or it either needs to get used in another trade down unless somebody is falling bc of a run on QBs early.
No way that Slater plays Tackle in the NFL.
 

Danny

Finheaven VIP
Moderator
Super Donator
Club Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
38,537
Reaction score
53,859
Location
Kissimmee,FL
Well you already used my answer in your post as far as playing it safe. The Jake Long pick was a mistake though not a glorified one. I wanted Matt Ryan as well in that draft and would have totally agreed with you on that but in this years case we supposedly already have the QB. I have my own doubts about that but that arguments been beat to death so we’ll avoid that for now. Anyways selecting a OT to pass on a WR isn’t in the same universe as selecting an OT to pass on a QB. It’s just to much of a difference but again you pointed this out in your post so credit to you for acknowledging that.

As far as your question of would I be ok with taking our WR at #3 and then Slater at #18 I probably wouldn’t be on board with that but that’s because in my own personal opinion. I don’t think Slater is an OT. I know that’s what he’s listed as and what he’s more than likely going to be drafted as but he’s only 6’3 and he has much shorter arms than your normal OTs. So to me he’s a OG and I think whoever selects him is going to regret it if they’re selecting him to strictly be a OT. Now he’s a very talented player and probably the 2nd best OL in this draft. I just think he’s a OG and we don’t need a OG. We need a true OT so that we can slide our actual Guard (Robert Hunt) into his natural position. So I’m more than likely passing on that proposition. However if it were our WR at #3 and we were able to get Christian Darrisaw at #18 then I’m probably pretty happy with that even though I really really doubt Darrisaw is going to make it to #18 and I’d say theirs virtually no shot of Slater making it that far.

If we take Sewell at #3 and ended up with Rashod Bateman at #18 I’m just ok with that to be honest. Not very excited but not very down either just kind of meh. Now if we take Sewell at #3 and for Terrance Marshall at #18 then I’d be through the roof happy but I doubt we’d consider Marshall that high bc most mocks I see have him late 1st/early 2nd but personally I think he’s right there with Jaylen Waddle for 3rd best WR in this draft and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if he ended up the best WR out of this draft. I absolutely love him but I also understand I’m higher on him than the media or most others seem to be but that’s just my own opinion.

If we select Sewell at #3 then at #18 I’m looking at Jeremiah Owusu-Koramoah Or Jaelan Phillips and heavily heavily considering both. At #18 I’d also consider a trade down to somewhere between 26-32 to take a tailback. I prefer Travis Etienne but would be more than happy with Najee Harris. I know most say don’t take a tailback in round 1 and for the most part I agree but if we could get down to 26-32 and we’ve picked up extra picks I say go ahead and take the tailback so we can get that 5th year option in the contract since it’s a 1st round pick. That’s in itself is valuable to me. Then look at WRs in round 2. We already have #36 and #50 so theoretically we could double up and if we’ve traded down from #18 we probably have another late 2nd/early 3rd to play with.

But like I’ve said from the get go my 1st preference by far is trade down from #3 to 7/8/9 pick up the extra picks then take our WR. I prefer Chase but would be very happy with Smith or even Waddle. Either way whether it’s Sewell or a WR at #3 or a WR at 7/8/9 from a trade down at #18 I’m leaning defense. So many people just want to go straight offense with our all our premium picks and I think that would be a huge mistake. That #18 pick needs to go to the defensive front 7 or it either needs to get used in another trade down unless somebody is falling bc of a run on QBs early.
Well, after reading all of that I'll say this, no matter what we do with the draft, half the board will hate it. I'm ok with a RB late in the first round but some people would hate that. Some people like me want a playmaker with our top pick and some people want corn. A few people want defense and most people want offense so it doesn't matter which way we go, you can't make everyone happy.
 
Top Bottom