Potential 1st round Targets

[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.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

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

Yeah. I did a study on it last year, its floating around her somewhere. Pretty much 23 is your "normal" cutoff point for starting LTs. After that, it's a pure craps shoot with mid-round picks.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Yeah. I did a study on it last year, its floating around her somewhere. Pretty much 23 is your "normal" cutoff point for starting LTs. After that, it's a pure craps shoot with mid-round picks.

Yeah - ultimately my hope is that a little extra depth at the 'top end' of the OT class along with maybe a little more depth at the top end of QB and WR pushes that dividing line down a little more than usual.

If there are 10 blue chippers when there are ordinarily only 5 and there's a lot of depth at other key positions of need, that line could get pushed so that someone like Harrison (who actually sucked last season) goes at 32 instead of 28.

And you hope you hit rather than have him struggle all season like Anton did.

I do think that Guyton has a better tool set than Harrison did, FYI. And he's similarly 'ranked' within this OT class. So I don't think it's beyond consideration that he may slide just a little further than Harrison despite being a little better prospect.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah - ultimately my hope is that a little extra depth at the 'top end' of the OT class along with maybe a little more depth at the top end of QB and WR pushes that dividing line down a little more than usual.

If there are 10 blue chippers when there are ordinarily only 5 and there's a lot of depth at other key positions of need, that line could get pushed so that someone like Harrison (who actually sucked last season) goes at 32 instead of 28.

And you hope you hit rather than have him struggle all season like Anton did.

I do think that Guyton has a better tool set than Harrison did, FYI. And he's similarly 'ranked' within this OT class. So I don't think it's beyond consideration that he may slide just a little further than Harrison despite being a little better prospect.

I think Guyton gets to trade up range, but he won't fall to 32.

If we're counting on a LT falling into our lap, it's Kingsley.

Even he might require a small trade up in front of the 49ers (which would be hilarious).

[O.city]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I think Guyton gets to trade up range, but he won't fall to 32.

If we're counting on a LT falling into our lap, it's Kingsley.

Even he might require a small trade up in front of the 49ers (which would be hilarious).

I just don’t think we have the ammo for a trade up

[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.