Quote:
Originally Posted by -King-
I don't think I agree because other teams had different needs than we did. If Veach felt he had to draft a WR because of the Tyreek situation, him getting Mecole instead of DK, or Terry doesn't make sense. If he wanted a WR last year, him trading back and settling for Moore when he could have had Pickens doesn't make sense.
If teams drafted strictly off BPA, then yeah, I'd agree with you. But outside of the top 10 or so, teams usually have target positions they're trying to hit so the Raiders likely targeted improving their DBs over improving their WRs that year while we were looking to draft a WR because we thought Tyreek might be suspended or flat out kicked out the league.
|
Depends on how strictly you define 'needs'.
Because I'd be hard pressed to find any team out there that didn't have use for a 1,000 yard receiver. So if you define it broadly, everyone was in the same boat as us, at least as it relates to McLaurin and Metcalf.
And if you define it narrowly, we 'needed' speed because Jabba's crack reporting skills sure as shit made it look like we were about to lose Tyreek Hill about a week before the damn draft. So defined narrowly, WE didn't need DK Metcalf or Terry McLaurin, neither of whom are burners.
But in the end that's why you just shell game it. And I've said this for probably a half-decade now (often to O.City, IIRC) -- over the life of a rookie deal, EVERY position will be a need at some point. Now we have a franchise QB so you can take that off the list. But we've had people calling TE a dire need for 3 seasons here because eventually Kelce will age out. Anywhere on the OL is a need because guys get expensive. CB is going to be a need because Sneed's about to get spendy.
And then you just shell game the cap space around to backfill as necessary.
No, I've never liked that sort of analysis. It's how bad teams get built. And it's how rearview mirror criticism of relatively benign draft selections like Mecole Hardman take root.