Simple Question What's Your Answer and Reason

[BengalsRocker]

(03-20-2021, 11:04 PM)CardCounterChris Wrote: First off, the safer, non bust pick in my opinion is Chase.  Sewell hasn't played much college football.  Lineman can be hit and miss in general.  If you wanted to be safe and say "I didn't waste my pick", I think the answer is Chase.  Even if he doesn't live up to best wide receiver in the class, which I think he is, he'll be a solid producer.

HOWEVER, good lineman are so much rarer than good wide outs!  If you have a choice between an elite lineman or receiver, you jump at the lineman.  I won't be upset with Chase, though once you get past the story and the Burrow connection, I think looking at the roster, Sewell and Pitts both make more sense in checking the boxes for dominant at their position and team need.

This ^ for the most part.

Sewell has lots of promise but is also a slight risk for a day one starter to protect the QB.

By the way...  why are people just saying let's get "3rd WR" oh ho hum that's what we need?

Getting a true dominant wideout(just look at Chase's numbers against the best opponents in NCAA + his physicality)to add to the group, or a highly talented TE that we're severely lacking to challenge the defense is really crucial.

The fact that they can't land either of those types in FA immediately without shelling out tons of cash is reality.

Chase/Pitts add more than just a guy you can get in the later rounds or from another teams late cuts.

"You can't get the guys the ball with Burrow laying on his back".  

It's chicken or egg sometimes too though.  If the QB holds onto the ball too long because your WRs/TE aren't getting open guess what happens?

If the Defense has to play back and be honest to account for receiving threats it takes some heat off the O-line too.

This can be beneficial to the run game as well.

RECAP - Posters shouldn't be trashing on the thought of taking Pitts/Chase so adamantly.  Sewell would help, but he's not a lock for our O-line savior or sole protection of Burrow.