DeCastro anyone?

[tredadda]

Now that we have our RT and missed out on the RGIII and Luck sweepstakes, how would people feel about drafting David DeCastro? The way I see it is unless we trade our first this year to someone for their first next year (assuming there is someone willing to do this) who else could we really use at #11? To me

1. Richardson will most likely be gone

2. Tannehill is a horrible idea at #11 assuming he is even there.

3. There are no NTs worth a #11 pick.

Why not get an elite guard and have a young monstrous O-Line with Albert-DeCastro-Hudson-Asamoah-Winston?

I am usually against the thought of drafting O-line in the first, but we are in a spot talent wise where he would be a great pickup since we will miss out on QB (clearly our biggest flaw) this year.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by tredadda

That would be the best solution by far, but a team has to be willing to give up a first next year for our first this year. There is no position that we HAVE to get at #11 this year.

It's a fair point, but I just feel like, with the rookie wage scale, the difference between the #11 pick and the #20 pick is marginal. The only true difference is whether or not you get your guy.

If someone wants to trade up, and we feel like we can still get our guy (like Baldwin last year), then fantastic. I'm 100% for trading down. I'm just doubtful anyone is a willing trade partner.

At that point, you HAVE to draft whoever you like the best, regardless of position. Decastro is a fantastic pick at that point, because you are getting a legitimate first round talent, a day one starter, and at a position of need. Add to that the average length of an offensive lineman's career vs that of a running back, and I'd easily put him in contention with Trent Richardson. I know Richardson is more talented, but the averages suggest he is going to contribute as a starter for half the time Decastro will.

Just my take.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Actually I love Mark Barron and Dre Kirkpatrick, Barron would be a starter for us though, he'd push Lewis to the nickel safety and push McGraw off the field.

Barron and Berry would be an outstanding duo.

Yeah, I know that Lewis would be the depth.

The point is, there is not one good reason to draft a guard at #11.

There is not a single point to be made to justify it.

[Mecca]

David DeCastro is the best guard since Hutchinson in draft rating, you're talking a guy that should be as good as Carl Nicks 5 games into his career for about 1/5 the money.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by milkman

Yeah, I know that Lewis would be the depth.

The point is, there is not one good reason to draft a guard at #11.

There is not a single point to be made to justify it.

Other than to hide Cassel behind the best line ever assembled.

[KurtCobain]

I want decastro as much as I want to chew on Mecca's hair.

[KurtCobain]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Other than to hide Cassel behind the best line ever assembled.

Albert is not that good.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Mecca

David DeCastro is the best guard since Hutchinson in draft rating, you're talking a guy that should be as good as Carl Nicks 5 games into his career for about 1/5 the money.

You can find Carl Nicks, Ben Grubbs, Will Shields, etc.... in the late rounds of every draft.

Guard is the position of least value.

Taking a guard at #11 is every bit as wasteful in positional value as taking a 5 tech #3 overall, if not more.

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by milkman

Yeah, I know that Lewis would be the depth.

The point is, there is not one good reason to draft a guard at #11.

There is not a single point to be made to justify it.

1. We need a guard.
2. He's the highest rated guard in almost a decade.
3. The last two drafts, guards have gone in the first round.
4. There isn't another position of glaring need we can address more effectively with the draft pick.
5. We need a guard.
6. Everyone was jerking off hoping we would sign Carl Nicks to a forty million dollar deal. What's the ****ing difference between financial commitment like that and a first round pick? There isn't. There just isn't.
7. No one is trading up for any of the guys available, so you HAVE to reach on someone. You are reaching the least with a guy who starts from day one.

There isn't a SINGLE REASON to be made for drafting Trent Richardson, yet everyone keeps suggesting that, too.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by milkman

You can find Carl Nicks, Ben Grubbs, Will Shields, etc.... in the late rounds of every draft.

Guard is the position of least value.

Taking a guard at #11 is every bit as wasteful in positional value as taking a 5 tech #3 overall, if not more.

You'll probably see it a bit more often now with the lessening of rookie money.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

1. We need a guard.
2. He's the highest rated guard in almost a decade.
3. The last two drafts, guards have gone in the first round.
4. There isn't another position of glaring need we can address more effectively with the draft pick.
5. We need a guard.
6. Everyone was jerking off hoping we would sign Carl Nicks to a forty million dollar deal. What's the ****ing difference between financial commitment like that and a first round pick? There isn't. There just isn't.
7. No one is trading up for any of the guys available, so you HAVE to reach on someone. You are reaching the least with a guy who starts from day one.

There isn't a SINGLE REASON to be made for drafting Trent Richardson, yet everyone keeps suggesting that, too.

That reason is Richardson ****ing owns.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Mecca

That reason is Richardson ****ing owns.

So did Stanford's run game and DeCastro played a major role in that.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

1. We need a guard.
2. He's the highest rated guard in almost a decade.
3. The last two drafts, guards have gone in the first round.
4. There isn't another position of glaring need we can address more effectively with the draft pick.
5. We need a guard.
6. Everyone was jerking off hoping we would sign Carl Nicks to a forty million dollar deal. What's the ****ing difference between financial commitment like that and a first round pick? There isn't. There just isn't.
7. No one is trading up for any of the guys available, so you HAVE to reach on someone. You are reaching the least with a guy who starts from day one.

There isn't a SINGLE REASON to be made for drafting Trent Richardson, yet everyone keeps suggesting that, too.

To your points.

First, we could stand to upgrade at Lilja's spot, but it isn't a glaring need.

Second, I was not one of those that was "jerking off hoping we would sign Carl Nicks" specifically because there's no way in hell you can justify that kind of investment in a guard.

Third, who the hell knows what any team's desires are when draft time comes around, but you have to at least attempt to trade down.

And the reason you draft a Trent Richardson is that he's a difference maker.

A guard, no matter how ****ing good he is projected to be, is not.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by milkman

To your points.

First, we could stand to upgrade at Lilja's spot, but it isn't a glaring need.

Second, I was not one of those that was "jerking off hoping we would sign Carl Nicks" specifically because there's no way in hell you can justify that kind of investment in a guard.

Third, who the hell knows what any team's desires are when draft time comes around, but you have to at least attempt to trade down.

And the reason you draft a Trent Richardson is that he's a difference maker.

A guard, no matter how ****ing good he is projected to be, is not.

If Will Shields and Trent Richardson are sitting there for you to draft at #11, who do you draft?

[saphojunkie]

Originally Posted by milkman

You can find Carl Nicks, Ben Grubbs, Will Shields, etc.... in the late rounds of every draft.

Guard is the position of least value.

Taking a guard at #11 is every bit as wasteful in positional value as taking a 5 tech #3 overall, if not more.

You CAN find a quarterback in the sixth round.

But you don't.

Oh, and Ben Grubbs was a first round pick.
So was pro Bowler Davin Joseph.
So was pro Bowler Steve Hutchinson.
So was pro Bowler Logan Makins

And the ENTIRE idea that you can find these guys in later rounds is misleading for two reasons:

1. That is true of literally every position. It has nothing to do with guard. I can make the same case with running back (arian foster), wide receiver (marques colston), quarterback (drew brees/brady), pass rusher (james harrison), cornerback (brandon carr).

2. Part of the reason why you could find guys like that later is because there was less of a premium on interior linemen a few years ago. However, teams are beginning to realize that the quickest path to the QB is up the middle. You'll notice more guys like:

Maukice Pouncey - pro bowler
Mike Iupati
Mike Pouncey
Alex Mack - pro bowler
Eric Wood
Danny Watkins

All interior linemen drafted in the first round within the last three years. More teams are drafting them higher, so the gems aren't lasting as long. It's the same with QB. You used to be able to get a developmental guy like Tannehill or Weeden in the second or third. Now you HAVE to draft him in the first, because other teams will reach.

A player's value is determined by when other teams will draft him.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by tredadda

If Will Shields and Trent Richardson are sitting there for you to draft at #11, who do you draft?

Trent Richardson.

I am a fan of Shields, and as many might be able to tell you, I watch O-line play.

But the fact remains, guard is the least valuable and easiest position to find in the draft.