Reread your sentence. It implies that anyone who sees it differently is just oblivious to the obvious, and isn't thinking logically. Sometimes it isn't what someone says. It's how they say it.
That is true but, whatever the reasons, it doesn't change the reality of the likely outcome. Aren't you expecting a guy drafted that high to come in and make immediate impact as well?
I'm on board with drafting Pitts if available because I can see a unique player that can be used to create physical mismatches from multiple alignments. If he were a typical TE, I wouldn't even consider it. That is exactly how I see the WRs in question, typical. Not bad players, but not anything special either. I don't see that big of a gap between the top three, and the next half dozen to focus on a single, written in stone strategy. When/if Tua becomes a top QB (the game slows down, he makes the reads, executes without hesitation) those chunk plays will come.
We did have issues at WR that need to be addressed, no doubt about it.
First of all, we need a speed guy that can run good routes and can catch. Fuller can be that, albeit temporarily. Wilson is another option. Waddle certainly fits that requirement as well.
I've never said ignore the position, I just question if the best way to go about it is spend #6.
There are two types of teams that lean towards drafting solely for need in the top two rounds. Those that already have a strong overall roster, and those that never will. Anyway, in my first reference, I said "value", not need. I see them as two different things.
A team may "need" a center or gaurd, but it's generally not a good value to take one in the top half of rd1. That was the context of "need". Can you see the subtle difference in terms?
