Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
Presume you mean Ja'Tavion?
Wouldn't be opposed to it. Not sure if he'd be my BPA at the time, but in a thin TE group, he's one of 2 guys that seem to present a possible difference-maker skill-set.
And I think Andy would get a TON of production out of him during that rookie deal.
My question with Sanders is really whether or not we're a year early with him still. Do we NEED to get a guy because he's a turnkey move TE just yet? Because that's still Kelce. Can't we lean more heavily into Gray to take some load off Kelce? And ultimately would a developmental TE like Johnson or Knox be someone who could be turned into a true Kelce replacement in a season or two at the cost of a much later pick?
I'm still not whole-hog on TE and I think LaPorta, who many people cite as a reason we SHOULD'VE gone TE in the first last year, actually shows why we shouldn't. He wouldn't have been that kind of player here this season. Probably not next. But we'd have had to use that sort of capital on him anyway.
Do you get diminishing returns by going earlier than you have to?
Then again, the wall can hit hard. I thought we could afford to wait on a downfield Z like Hyatt because we had MVS for a year and could get that sort of player this season. Then MVS was hot garbage and a rookie with downfield speed might've been nice. Do I think the wall approacheth for Kelce? No, not quite. He'll continue to decline a bit but still be a top 3 TE. Does that truly need a 1st day replacement? Nah, probably not.
|
I agree, and he wouldn't be my first choice, but my thinking is that if the top WRs and DTs are off the board, and there's no LT they love, he might just be BPA.