Potential 1st round Targets

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by kozzman555

Legette

Ahh should've known with the Deebo/SC connection. Didn't think about that.

[staylor26]

Just looking at this list, and trying to make one, it's hard not to come away thinking that there will 100% be more late 1st to earl 2nd WRs available than OT and DT.

If Guyton, Murphy, and Newton are gone, I think it's WR or Sanders at 32.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Just looking at this list, and trying to make one, it's hard not to come away thinking that there will 100% be more late 1st to earl 2nd WRs available than OT and DT.

If Guyton, Murphy, and Newton are gone, I think it's WR or Sanders at 32.

As I'm becoming more intrigued by some of the OT options at the back of the 1st, Sanders becomes more and more of a non-starter.

I like the guy. I just can't talk myself into a 1st round TE this year. The immediate returns won't be there and I'm living in the now for at least the next season and very possibly the next 2.

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Just looking at this list, and trying to make one, it's hard not to come away thinking that there will 100% be more late 1st to earl 2nd WRs available than OT and DT.

If Guyton, Murphy, and Newton are gone, I think it's WR or Sanders at 32.

This is exactly what I've been saying and I'm only more convinced of it now. The depth is at WR, we need a WR. That seems the most plausible pick to me and it's not really close, imo

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by JPH83

This is exactly what I've been saying and I'm only more convinced of it now. The depth is at WR, we need a WR. That seems the most plausible pick to me and it's not really close, imo

But it's extremely unlikely, IMO, that there's going to be a line of demarcation near where we pick at WR.

Yes, there's depth at the WR position. But I think there's a solid chance that the person we're looking at at 32 is maybe 5% better than a guy we could get at 64.

Walker vs. McMillan is the sort of example I'd use here.

That's just not going to be the case at OT.

I think there's a really good chance there are D1 contributors in the 2nd or even 3rd round at WR and on the DL. I'm not seeing that at Offensive Tackle.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But it's extremely unlikely, IMO, that there's going to be a line of demarcation near where we pick at WR.

Yes, there's depth at the WR position. But I think there's a solid chance that the person we're looking at at 32 is maybe 5% better than a guy we could get at 64.

Walker vs. McMillan is the sort of example I'd use here.

That's just not going to be the case at OT.

I think there's a really good chance there are D1 contributors in the 2nd or even 3rd round at WR and on the DL. I'm not seeing that at Offensive Tackle.

To be fair, the likelihood of there being a quality OT at 32 is also extremely low. If you want an OT, you're going to have to likely move up for one.

So, pick your poison, I suppose.

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by kccrow

To be fair, the likelihood of there being a quality OT at 32 is also extremely low. If you want an OT, you're going to have to likely move up for one.

So, pick your poison, I suppose.

Yep. There may be Day 1 starters at WR later on, I don't see I'm risking that for an OT that really isn't that in R1, which is what I see. There's a few decent looking athletes with fairly large technical deficiencies and frankly they seem a much bigger risk than punting on a WR that might bust.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by kccrow

To be fair, the likelihood of there being a quality OT at 32 is also extremely low. If you want an OT, you're going to have to likely move up for one.

So, pick your poison, I suppose.

Guys that can plug and play at left tackle almost never drop past 15.

[farmerchief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But it's extremely unlikely, IMO, that there's going to be a line of demarcation near where we pick at WR.

Yes, there's depth at the WR position. But I think there's a solid chance that the person we're looking at at 32 is maybe 5% better than a guy we could get at 64.

I agree with your assessment, plenty of depth. As you mentioned, all the mock drafts Ive been playing around with, theres always something you like about certain players, but they all have something you wish was better. So determing which is the best fit for this offense, is the key when the Chiefs draft. Im sure I wont be too critical of their selection when they draft a WR, and will find something that I like about their selection.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by staylor26

Just looking at this list, and trying to make one, it's hard not to come away thinking that there will 100% be more late 1st to earl 2nd WRs available than OT and DT.

If Guyton, Murphy, and Newton are gone, I think it's WR or Sanders at 32.

Kingsley Suamaitaia really floats my boat at the end of the 1st. Huge, long arms, great athlete, nasty, NFL bloodline.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Kingsley Suamaitaia really floats my boat at the end of the 1st. Huge, long arms, great athlete, nasty, NFL bloodline.

He's the one guy that I could see keeping us from taking a WR if those other guys I mentioned are off the board.