03-15-2021, 02:48 PM
(03-15-2021, 12:53 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: One website says he's #12, but there are resources that have him as a top 10 prospect. If a player is worth a top 10 (or even top 12) pick, I don't think it's unforgivable to take him at #5, especially if we're talking about a free agency period that did not address the Oline appropriately such that we're spending our top 5 pick on the position. If we still have a need glaring enough on the Oline to still be talking about taking Sewell, we need to be open to Slater as well. For the sake of Joe and the future of this franchise. If we address Oline in free agency, then sure open up the #5 pick to BPA. But if we're looking to draft a day 1 Oline starter in this draft (meaning we didn't properly fix the line in free agency), then the #5 pick is where we have our best chance to secure Joe's health.
As far as scheme versatility goes, I don't think people are properly respecting his strength. He isn't a technique only OT. He's strong, athletic and technically sound. His only weakness is he doesn't have 34 inch arms. If he weren't strong, he would have been plowed over by the likes of Chase Young and other Big 10 DEs that play with a great combination of speed and strength.
I know we were burned by Ogbuehi who was considered a "technical, athletic" OT. It still hurts me too. But just because a prospect is athletic and technically sound does not automatically make them weak, as is the case with Slater.
NFL Mock Draft Database has his average rank at #13. So yeah, there are sources that have him top 10, but others that have him mid-late teens.
To go with what Synric said regarding limited scheme versatility, it's not uncommon to see guys with limited scheme fit to have big fluctuations in their draft rankings like Slater does.
I don't think he's equivalent to Ogbuehi at all. Og was a mediocre college T that had a ton of upside. Slater is a technically sound college T with limited upside. I think he's more like a poor man's Jonah Williams than Og.
