Be prepared for Corner in the 1st

[*wildcats forever*]

(04-21-2016, 02:13 AM)phil413 Wrote: I think a lot of us are beating a dead horse with this, but it makes roster logic ONLY if all players are similar at the pick for a few reasons:

1.  The CB position still has more question marks and potential than the substance that we'd like to have.  Jones was a great band aid, but he's a short term fix that ideally should have a few less snaps given his age and need in returning punts.  Dre is a descent young corner without a long term deal, but he looks more like the type you let someone overpay than someone you throw guaranteed money at to keep them off the market.  Dennard looks solid but is coming off the injury, and Shaw should have his own thread if he doesn't already.  Do they see him as a situational type on bigger targets like they used Hall, or do they trust him to backup the outside and start if needed?  They could stand to take a corner, how high though?  

2.  Even if you don't put CB as the TOP need, the talent pool is deep at other needs like the WR and DL so maybe they get CB out of the way first.  DT is very deep and in general they haven't been drafting DT's in the 1st in recent years.  If you look at any random 7 round mock, you likely get to say the late 4th round and say "I can't believe (insert DT name) is still here".  Depending on what they think of a guy like Braxton, maybe he adds to the say 5 or 6 WR's worth thinking about in the 2nd.  

3.  CB is one of those money positions they tend to draft high.  In the same respect, you may like a certain center or safety high, but they tend to draft them lower.  They draft the corners high because they don't want to be paying a premium on the market and have to throw a rookie in there to fill a need.  Taking a year to groom a 1st round corner gives stability long term to that position.  


DISCLAIMER: I absolutely hate the flawed strategy I hear fans (typically Browns ones) us in calling the round first.  Like "we need to take a OT 1st and then RB in the 2nd and CB in the 3rd.  Those are our needs."  There is a difference between projecting depth at a position and just ranking your needs and taking the best of that position at that pick.  Maybe you fill your need but pass on 20 better prospects at other position.  

Bottom line is that if you think Billings is a true beast you take him no matter how deep the DT position is.  If you see Lee as a star in the making, you take him no matter if you have Burfict at WLB and have done well with late round gems rather than using high picks.  You even take Elliott even if he is at one of your deepest positions if you see him as a rare value at RB.  A stud prospect will trump trying to overthink the draft.  Every time I look at mocks and simulators I think a lot of us see similarities in where the depth is, but it isn't a rule just a forecast.  If Apple or Jackson are "their guy" then they take them.  I'm still debating the Jackson pick.  I love having a player that plays solid man coverage, but I still think they'll have reservations about his support via the run.  Yes we should be prepared to not be shocked by them selecting a corner, but with as many 1st round WR targets that they've looked at it's VERY open.

I believe that this is an intricate part of putting together the best that the team can afford. Especially if a first round pick is used, which gives the team 5 years total in that player, with a sub-market investment. Gives us more money for depth where needed. An eye toward the future with an eye on the present is an artform imho.