Foster Moreau Visits

[CJD]

(03-21-2023, 02:01 PM)Isaac Curtis: The Real #85 Wrote: I think this is sound reasoning. However, I am a bit less fanatical about it. There comes a point where the value of the players available at the higher value positions is lower than that of the value of the players at the lower value positions. 

I'd rather have the stud TE, RB, LB, C, G, or S than reach for a OT, WR, CB, DE whom isn't significantly better than the guys available in Rd2 at those spots. 

If you offered me Creed Humphrey for 5 years at #28, I'd take him. You? I'd haveno problem taking Micah Parsons or Christian McCaffery or Travis Kelcie or George Kittle at #28. 

Plus, we already have stud level guys at QB, LT, WR1, WR2, DE, and NT. My #1 option is always gonna be the stud level guy (all pro/pro bowl level) at a premium position. But I'd rather take the exceptional guy at a lower value position than the average guy at the high value position. Especially if there is no glaring need there. 

I'd take Wright, Van Ness, Kancey, or any of the top 3 CBs (Witherspoon, Gonzalez, Porter) if available. But if it is Banks, Dawand Jones, Keon White, and Bijan Robinson? That is closer. TE value is so good I probably wait, but Washington really has unicorn potential. He is almost like taking a RT. 

Oh yea, my reasoning assumes the players are of approximately equivalent talent level relative to their peers. If there are no 1st round OTs available in the first round I am not advocating reaching for one rather than drafting a TE or RB that you may consider a "generational talent."

But if there's a TE that you believe can be a solid 10 year starter and an OT that you believe can be a solid 10 year starter, I'm taking the OT every time.