Is there a world in which we move up for Kyle Pitts?
 

Yes, Pitts is a TE, but he's really just a huge-ass WR. Last year there were rumblings that we were very interested in trading up for Ruggs. Veach clearly places an emphasis on surrounding PM with elite talent.

So, that said, if he's available in the 13-16 range, would Veach be willing to move up from 32?

I'd imagine the cost would be #32, a 3rd rounder, and a '22 first-rounder (also probably #32). Basically, the same package we gave up to move from 27 to 10 in 2017.

Note: If EB gets hired by Houston, remember we'll have an extra 3rd this year.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lf0L7tkC5GI" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I dont see them giving up two firsts for a tight end honestly. I think if anything they would try to make a run a Njoku. Dont get me wrong as a former HS tight end i love the idea and what Kelce does for our offense. But with picking late for the foreseeable future i dont see them mortgaging it.

Uh, no. He's going top 10.

For sure; just wondering if we'd be in play should he slip to that 13-16 range. I could see him possibly slipping purely based on positional value.

Before Eric Fisher tore his Achilles’?

Maybe.

Now? No way.

He is Shannon Sharpe Part II. Amazing player. We would rape even more with him.

Fair, and not challenging, but I'm curious on your thoughts here: is it because we now need to take a Tackle at 32? Or trade up for one? Or because we'll need the extra 3rd rounder to address?

Who is the can't-miss T prospect that we need to get if we go that route?

Trading up for anybody is a gamble, on that I agree.

But changing the draft board completely just because of Fisher is a bad idea. That's how you end up overreacting and reaching. We already had a need at OT - there should be OT's on the draft board. Stick with draft board and if one is there, take one. But don't rearrange the draft board just because of Fisher.

We don't need to take anybody at 32.

Zeroing in on one position is a terrible idea, regardless of need.

Carolina and Cincinnati are possible but either way I dont think he gets past NYG. They are desperate need of anyone who can help on offense. That, combined with them not being pumped to pay Engram, makes Pitts a perfect fit.

I'm not saying you change the draft board. I just think their ability to trade up for what might be a luxury is reduced.

I don't think it's 100 percent they take an OT in the 1st by any means. This draft is deep at that spot and they may end up grading all the guys available after the top 10 and before Day 3 as being similar.

It's more of losing some of the flexibility to spend draft capital to move up as much as it would take to grab Pitts.

I shouldn't say "No way." It's possible they would still pay that price to move up for a playmaker they think is worth it.

Maybe they view Pitts or Devonta Smith or Jamarr Chase that way. Maybe if one of those guys slips into the mid-1st they make the move.

Again, I would hope the Fisher injury doesn't affect their flexibility at all because they shouldn't have ever been entertaining trading up from 32 to say 15. That's just too costly, this team needs bodies to fill spots. We don't have unlimited money.

If Rashawn Slater dips a bit due to a run on the QBs and WRs go up and grab him. Sewell and a couple of defenders selected could push him into the teens.

As a general rule, I would trade down, not up. Veach has shown the ability to find quality players in later rounds and even in UDFAs. Why would I limit the number of selections? I would far prefer to give Veach more picks, even if they are outside the 1st round.

I absolutely agree.