Safety play is like 1b defense.

When it's exceptional, you notice it. If you have Ed Reed back there or Earl Thomas, that's great. You'd still rather get that exceptional play at a more critical position (literally ANY other position on the defense), but it can make a difference in a big way. It isn't wasted to have a generational level player at FS, though you'd probably rather get that at DE or CB, just as it isn't wasted to have that kind of D at 1st base, though you'd rather see it at SS or CF.

But safety play, like 1b defense, is most noticeable when it's god-awful. Mo Vaughn replacing John Olerud and Todd Zeile ruined arguably the best infield defense of all time with the circa 2000 era Mets. But the step down from Olerud to Zeile did very little. Olerud was a superlative defensive 1b, Zeile was just alright. But the way all those pieces fit together, just alright was fine. It was when just alright was replaced by goddamn abysmal that people realized they had a problem.

I think Lucas/Watts can absolutely give you 'just alright' and even Sorensen, when in a complementary role instead of trying to drag Murray and the corpse of Berry along, can give you credible play there as well. They can be Todd Zeile. They don't need to be John Olerud; they just need to not be Mo Vaughn.

FS, especially in this scheme, is a threshhold position. Even moreso with the addition of Mathieu. It just can't SUCK. Now if it turns out that CGJ is Earl Thomas, then the pick should've been him but that's a simple scouting disagreement, not an execution error. I like CGJ a lot, but I don't think he's Earl Thomas and that's why I'm not gonna put him ahead of a guy in Bradbury that I view as the premier talent at his position in this draft.

I think if Adderley is there, you probably take him. He actually could be and Earl Thomas type player. Or atleast, he could be. I'll take that risk.

The others, i'm not sure. So, that being the case, i'm gonna take the C. It sucks, I admit that. I don't like it and it's not sexy.

But if you have the anchor of your OL for 5 years and he's actually a legit All Pro type C, well, that's pretty ****ing valuable.

There's a chasm of difference between the #3 pick and the #29 pick. If they draft for need at #29, it's not the end of the world.

I wouldn't count on Watts for anything. Dude is a walking emergency room visit.

When you draft for need when there are better players on the board, it is.

The end of the 1st is usually pretty shitty because there isn't much difference in that and the 2nd and it's so much up to each teams board.

What we're arguing here is don't take a C or S just to take one, when there is a need a C and there's a blue chip center sitting there.

Watching the Tyreek Hill highlight video in that other thread, one thing that jumped out at me was how many times Patrick Mahomes II made amazing throws as he was getting tsunami-ed by a pass rusher. It makes me want a wall of offensive linemen who can make sure that he never gets touched.

Admittedly, though, you can watch that video and see the OL getting better as the season goes on. He was getting better protection toward the end of the season. But still...I want a wall, and I want the Raiders to pay for it.

If the board fell like that i'd rather trade that first rounder for someone than overdraft someone.

Which I have also stated. More because of his overarching ability free up Mathieu by playing a similar hybrid role to Mathieu. I just don't see CGJ being quite as versatile and that put him in that high 2nd round tier rather than a true 1st round talent.

And again - he's the top of my 2nd round tier guys because I do like the guy. But I don't have a 1st round grade on him. Truth be told, Bradbury was the last 1st round guy I had and he DID fit a need.

There isn't enough of a need at center to justify it, IMO. Safety is a MUCH bigger need.

Watts is my lotto ticket. I think Lucas can play FS in this scheme and do it quite well. He showed damn good range and a nose for contact. He was raw, but there's just little surprising about that. Sorensen could then be a solid #3 safety (as he has been in the past) with Mathieu being the glue that holds it together.

If Watts can stay healthy and move himself into that mix, all the better. If he doesn't, so be it.

You just get into a tier of guys that don't really separate themselves from guys you think will be there in the end of the 2nd.

That's my issue I have when looking around at the draft. Damn near every one I think I would like at 29, I see another guy and think "eh, I could have him at 61 and I don' t think theres much separation as a prospect". It's what makes it so damn hard picking where we are. There are always wild picks there because each team sets the board differently and it makes the scouting process so important.

Whereas I think Lucas is a better player than Reiter and I think Watts at least offers a lottery ticket that we simply don't have right now at C. I think we have both a better placeholder at S AND a higher ceiling backup option unless you're looking to convert McKenzie (which is a huge ask for a guy just finishing his first year as an OL).

:shrug:

Setting that aside, I simply think Bradbury was the best prospect left on the board.

I don't think I agree. I could be talked into it, but as DJ has said, I feel we could cobble together enough safeties to make it work.

I am terrified of Reiter playing C for 16 games and if Bradburry is what he's projected to be, i'll take an all pro for 5 years.

See, I have a lot more faith in Reiter than Lucas. So that's where we differ.

Yeah, I'm not going to bust your chops. You did what you thought was best. I hope the Chiefs have better options than taking a center. ;)

Reiter started 4 games in a stretch that included the Broncos, Browns, Cardinals, and Rams. All of those teams have decent or better pass rushes. He was plenty good enough in those 4 games.

Lucas barely played at all. You're basically saying you'd trust an unknown more just because you're frightened of Mahomes getting hurt or something.