04-26-2021, 09:58 AM
Our choice at #5 comes down to two players that did not play in 2020, both of whom fill a very big need on our team and would improve the offense drastically.
I know that I've been arguing the Sewell direction for the last few months but if we go Chase, I won't be upset. I'd be nervous about a good player dropping to #38, but I wouldn't be concerned about Chase joining this team.
I do think Sewell has transcended his own value in some circles, however. Slater, for months, was labeled "undersized" almost exclusively because of his arm length. The idea of taking Slater at #5 was scoffed at and Sewell was considered this can't miss OT that we haven't seen in a decade or more.
Then they measured his arms, which showed he was not a flawless prospect but, instead of reconciling this, a lot of people doubled down saying he was so good, he could overcome his arm length just like Joe Thomas.
That was when I knew the hype train had gone off the rails. The thing that prevented some people from grading Slater at the same level as Sewell (his arm length) was now a con for both players, yet Sewell still remained the consensus top pick and excuses were being made for him that never would have been made for Slater.
With all that said, I would still likely take Sewell at 5 if given the chance because historical draft data indicates it's better to draft OTs early and WRs later, as well as some historical data on the success of teams selecting WRs in the top 5 (I remember seeing a statistic that no team that has taken a WR in the top 5 has had significant success when that player was on the roster) and there are far more elite WRs from the middle rounds than there are good OTs from the middle rounds but I am not under the delusion that Sewell is a generational talent.
I know that I've been arguing the Sewell direction for the last few months but if we go Chase, I won't be upset. I'd be nervous about a good player dropping to #38, but I wouldn't be concerned about Chase joining this team.
I do think Sewell has transcended his own value in some circles, however. Slater, for months, was labeled "undersized" almost exclusively because of his arm length. The idea of taking Slater at #5 was scoffed at and Sewell was considered this can't miss OT that we haven't seen in a decade or more.
Then they measured his arms, which showed he was not a flawless prospect but, instead of reconciling this, a lot of people doubled down saying he was so good, he could overcome his arm length just like Joe Thomas.
That was when I knew the hype train had gone off the rails. The thing that prevented some people from grading Slater at the same level as Sewell (his arm length) was now a con for both players, yet Sewell still remained the consensus top pick and excuses were being made for him that never would have been made for Slater.
With all that said, I would still likely take Sewell at 5 if given the chance because historical draft data indicates it's better to draft OTs early and WRs later, as well as some historical data on the success of teams selecting WRs in the top 5 (I remember seeing a statistic that no team that has taken a WR in the top 5 has had significant success when that player was on the roster) and there are far more elite WRs from the middle rounds than there are good OTs from the middle rounds but I am not under the delusion that Sewell is a generational talent.
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
