Jaybirds

I think this puts a real strain on a draft that was already under pressure. Including the recent cuts, it looks like we'll want depth at wide receiver, both lines, middle linebacker, corner, and maaaaybe TE depending on Pitta. Plus the actual upgrades like pass rusher and at least one play maker. We probably need four starters. Now it feels like we're looking for quantity AND quality at the same time. Not a good predicament. I'm hoping we'll find depth on a budget in free agency. Re-signing Wright seems to go with that, bringing back Aiken would help too. At least we'd be a little less desperate in the first and second rounds of the draft.

But STILL with the ignoring. So I'll try to keep this simple: Everyone acts like the BPA guy is going to be at a position of need for us. I'm saying, bottom line, our worst case scenario is if BPA does NOT align with a position of need. Maybe that's because we have Ragland higher than you think. Maybe that's because we need to replace Osemele in the first round but Bosa fell to us. There's a number of ways it could happen. But that's the worst case scenario, IMO. Best Guy and Guy We Need aren't the same dude.

Well, I do agree it makes sense that we'd interview Ragland as a trade back option. If we were ever discussing a trade with Philly or St. Louis then that's a real concern. I definitely see why we're not on the same page here: draft grades aren't nearly as linear as you're taking them. Nobody ever said the distance between Tunsil and Bosa is the same as the gap between VH3 and Ragland. The further down any draft board you go, the more likely players are going to level off. Everyone in the fifth round is interchangeable for examle. The first round isn't nearly that bad. But it really looks like the difference between #6 and #10 this year is largely subjective. That's partly why we're seeing so much fluctuation on mock drafts. There was a discussion a few weeks ago about using a draft board divided into Tiers instead of just linear ranks. This is exactly why. Ragland, Stanley, VH3, Zeke, and Robinson are all in the same tier (there's some other guys as well). There's no real difference in their ranks using the tier system. TL;DR version: there's waaaay more margin of error in the rankings that you're allowing.

If you take out Jaylon Smith and the QBs, then NFL.com, CBS, and Walter Football all have Ragland with a top 10 grade, and all right around the same grade as Hargreave. Not exactly a perfect fit, but enough that yes it's perfectly reasonable someone in our front office likes him as much, maybe more, than Stanley and VH3. Ezekiel Elliott and A'Shawn Robinson are also in the conversation for the same reasons. That's three guys who aren't an immediate need, that will be there for us, and COULD be the BPA depending our subjective opinions in the room. And we just cut Daryl Smith. It's not the most likely thing in the world, I agree. But yeah, Ragland is definitely plausible. We also met with the guy face to face about a month ago. He's on our radar. I get that you don't like him. But that doesn't mean nobody else likes him. But again, it'd be really helpful if you read everything I wrote before you replied. There are guys who will be available at six, who aren't at a Need position, and who aren't a reach. I just named three. That's my worst case scenario: BPA playmaker, but not at a Need.

I like Ifedi as well; I haven't done too much digging into Kirkland and Dahl. But I guess I wasn't clear: I'm looking for Game 1, 2016 tackles because I don't think Osemele is coming back and Monroe will either be cut or injured. So because of our specific situation, year 2 or year 3 starters are intriguing, but I'm not considering that right now. And from there I think we agree: the immediate impact guys aren't going to be there for us at the beginning of the 2nd. Maybe Spriggs, not a bad thing. But it's hard to build a strategy off of just one guy like that.

Okay, cool. Then you think there are even fewer guys who could play left tackle Game 1 for us than I do. Goes to show it's not a deep position if we end up needing an immediate starter.

I think a lot of people here are looking at who will fall to us in the 2nd, so Cooper gets left out. But I agree with you. I'd love to have him here. And then use the third pick on a guy like Xavien Howard or maybe Will Redmond.

Getting caught up on this thread, in no particular order. I think the two guys DeCosta hinted at are Stanley and Hargreaves. They're typically considered top 10 value, but none of the teams in front of us have been linked closely to either of them. I'm sure we'd be happy to take Bosa, but I get the feeling our front office thinks he won't be there. I really like the tweener/hybrid OLBs around the 4th round: Schobert, Ochi, and Yannick. One of the three should be there for us with at least one of our 4th round picks. I'm sure it's a lower ceiling than Bosa, Buckner, or Lawson. But I don't think the first round is our only chance at a legitimate pass rusher. I like the cornerbacks in the 2nd round, I can see how one of them could get to us. But I also like the WRs, particularly Doctson. I'd rather have VH3 and a 2nd round WR than Treadwell and a 2nd round corner. So it's risky, but I think VH3 probably sets up our best opportunity for the rest of the draft. BUT.... I picked Stanley in the survey because I don't think we'll get a choice. I think KO leaves via free agency, and I don't think Le'Raven Clark falls to us at 2nd. I think we're forced into Stanley.

I found a combination that made my stomach turn, and this touches on it: Osmele leaves via free agency. Stanley, and either Buckner or Bosa are all there at #6. Buckner AND Bosa is worse still!

Exactly. It looks like all the starting left tackles will be gone in the first round. KO pretty much forces our hand. I think that's what the front office meant when they said they have it down to two guys for our pick. Stanley if KO walks, someone else if he doesn't (guessing Hargreaves).

No idea. I'm crap at player evaluation. But the market value is that big, yes. Stanley is likely to be there for us at #6. Very few people have even imagined Tunsil falling that far. I don't know, maybe if literally every team in front of us went defense or QB? Doesn't seem likely though. From the evaluations I've read, it does seem like Tunsil has a higher ceiling and will make more impact in the NFL. Stanley seems like a safe bet, but a bit boring. I'll gladly defer to others here, though.

With the way free agency is going, I'm not sure we have a choice at #6. I think it's pretty clear we're going to lose KO, and there's rumors we'll cut Monroe as well. If either of those happen, I think we have to take Stanley assuming he's there. I just don't see anyone else who could start Game 1 at left tackle. Well... Tunsil, but we're not that lucky.

I think what VH3 said (during the interviews) was that he intentionally slowed down at the end of the season to avoid an injury. He was more focused on the NFL than the opponents in front of him. Then people compared that to Jaylon, who did get injured at a very bad time for his pro career. So I think people were making the connection in their head. It's a comparison, but not what motivated VH3. Hope that makes sense.

You're assuming we don't have him in the top 10 on our board. I think that's difficult for you to prove. Like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if we have him right around the same ranking as Hargreaves. You can also read the rest of what you quoted: my point is (even if it's not Ragland) is we take a BPA guy and not a high-ranked guy who fills a need.

We pull a "Draft Day" and trade up to the 1st pick giving up the next 3 years worth of number 1's and proceed to select VH3...VH3 no matter what. If Tunsil falls to 5, and we're sitting at 5 right in front of the Titans, I don't think we trade for our picks back. I think we stay with Hargreaves AND Tunsil.

Nobody asked for likelihood, they asked for worst case. And I do think he's on our board somewhere right around Hargreaves. My point is, if the big 5 are gone I'm not going to be shocked if we make a BPA pick and not a positional need.

Worst case scenario is Reggie Ragland. Purely a BPA pick, we could have him ranked higher than Stanley or Hargreaves. He doesn't fill a need, but we end up set at MLB and run defense for years to come. Then we unfortunately miss out on the pass rusher and left tackle we were targeting later in the draft. No where near as likely as picking Stanley or Hargreave, but more negative impact and still not impossible.

They may think they can have both. I mentioned a few days ago there was a rumor that San Diego was scouting Nkemdiche pretty hard. If they really like him, or perhaps Lawson, they can trade down and still get their guy.

I still think Lawson is behind both of them (though obviously ahead of Spence now), if we're just comparing them to each other. BUT if we're talking about trading back, in other words Bosa/Buckner or Lawson + another 2nd round pick, then it gets real interesting.

That's a really good idea.

I'm having trouble finding it. But I thought the Jags were on record saying they would go front 7 instead of DB.

I am moving Lawson up, and Spence down ( a lot). But I don't think it's a perfect swap. I think Stanley or maybe Hargreaves could be more likely for us at six.

That makes sense, too. It seems like a number of linemen helped themselves this weekend. If they think it's a deep position, may as well trade back. I've been expecting them to take defensive help, but that's just a hunch.

I know a lot of us would be okay with Bosa or Buckner. That doesn't seem to be San Diego's opinion. Or maybe they just see Shaq and a few extra picks as good enough? Like I said, I'm reading too much into this. I doubt I'm right. It's just amusing that everyone is meeting with the "top 5" guys in the draft this week, and they announce they're okay taking none of them. Not a vote of confidence.

I'm going to read too much into the timing of this announcement: they don't want Bosa. Maybe it's the interview, maybe it's the stiffness. It sounds like they have a guy like Shaq Lawson as just as promising.