04-30-2017, 05:27 AM
I may be being a homer, but I went A+ on this draft.
Realistically, if you can get 2-3 starters out of a draft class, you've done well. Ross, Mixon, and either Willis or Lawson will be starters by next year, and whoever loses out between Willis and Lawson will become a key rotation player and still see plenty of PT. Plus, we may have gotten our K, Glasgow could be a solid rotational NT, and we improved our return game.
The people marking this draft down because "We needed OL" just don't seem to get it. This draft was pitiful for OL. People who had pipe dreams about a 3rd round C with only one year of experience at the position from the worst OL class I can remember beating out a 3 year NFL starter with an average grade from PFF for a starting job are simply not being realistic. There are very few colleges putting out pro ready OL. You draft guys and develop them. Why waste picks on guys who weren't as good as prospects as the guys we currently have and don't have the development, either?
Realistically, if you can get 2-3 starters out of a draft class, you've done well. Ross, Mixon, and either Willis or Lawson will be starters by next year, and whoever loses out between Willis and Lawson will become a key rotation player and still see plenty of PT. Plus, we may have gotten our K, Glasgow could be a solid rotational NT, and we improved our return game.
The people marking this draft down because "We needed OL" just don't seem to get it. This draft was pitiful for OL. People who had pipe dreams about a 3rd round C with only one year of experience at the position from the worst OL class I can remember beating out a 3 year NFL starter with an average grade from PFF for a starting job are simply not being realistic. There are very few colleges putting out pro ready OL. You draft guys and develop them. Why waste picks on guys who weren't as good as prospects as the guys we currently have and don't have the development, either?
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
