And you think keeping drafting OL in the first and second round is the way to go? I mean, If they go the Sewell route, he'll be the 6th OL the Fins draft in a span of 2 drafts. I get not drafting for need but at some point, this OL overkill has to stop, at least until you actually know what you have.
I'm just torn here. I think we'd have Sewell 100% slotted in as our pick if we didn't reach at OT last year and picked a WR. And we don't have to draft a C early if we resign Karras. I would have definitely factor it into my thought process if we entered the draft w a giant hole at center. I agree we can't really afford to use two 1st/2nd rounders on Oline.
You've brought up how many picks we've spent on lineman but Dieter and Prince were busts. They're irrelevant to me. We've actually only come close to hitting on 3, and that's from starting a build from the absolute worst Oline I've ever seen. 100% rebuild there.
And we are very likely going to want to shed Flower's bloated contract next year, which will leave open a spot. We are in a perfect spot to have a line of Sewell, Kindley, Karras, Hunt, Jackson moving forward. We can search for a Karras replacement at some point.
I think adding Bateman and likely another 2nd round WR is enough to add in the draft. I've also been a proponent of adding an established WR like Samuel. I think Bateman is underrated and is not that far off from the "top 3" that most act like we are doomed at WR if we miss out on. But we could potentially add a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd (Bowden) round WR in the past two drafts this way, so don't think I'm advocating to ignore the position.
I just think passing on the superior prospect at OT for WR is the reverse of what we did w Jackson/Jefferson last year (tho not as extreme). Feels like doubling down on our mistake. Maybe I need to get over that, but it was so obvious. I knew we were going OT even if Ceedee magically slipped to us. Not how u draft IMO.
If we go Chase/Smith I don't think it's some sort of terrible mistake. The upside might be higher and the "need fill" is better. I'm ok if we go that direction. How I feel about drafting them at 3 honestly seems to fluctuate from day to day. I read more and watch more tape and try to convince myself that either deserves to be the highest drafted receiver in 14 years.
But I'm also risk averse and don't like drafting for need. I will almost always prefer BPA. I said it before and it bore out with how we handled last draft.
If we stop drafting for need, we'll end up with less needs.
(I do respect ur opinion in the back and forth we've had on this subject. I don't deny our drafts will be corn heavy if we go the route I mentioned. If we do go Chase/Smith, I pray they live up to the pick. I want us to win, don't care if I'm right or wrong)
