What has been (I'm going to get in trouble for using this word) speculated is they are higher on Delane than Tate.
If that's the case, they should stick and pick Delane at 7 rather than trade down and potentially (almost certainly) lose their preferred prospect.
And then go sign every FA WR still available.
You’ve been vocal about not trading down, and I get it, particularly in a vacuum. If we presume the reports that they have Delane over Tate are accurate, my question becomes - does this include weighting (what I think should be) the number one priority for our franchise - supporting Daniels.
Of course there’s so much potential nuance to the debate (Delane vs Tate). Some of which I address below, but also - how different are their grades on these 2? Are they in the same tier or different tiers? Who do they feel is more scheme agnostic considering this staff might be gone next year? I posted earlier about how many guys are either on 1 year deals or are FAs next year, so there’s also factoring in adding picks to (hopefully) alleviate those potential departures. And so much more.
Point being, I don’t see this debate as being as black and white as “which player do we have rated higher?”. Now, if they’ve got Delane rated higher after factoring in all of those nuances, especially if he’s a tier above Tate, then yeah, absolutely take Delane.
If love goes 3 and styles 4 any chance Reece or Bailey fall to us?
I would take the CB before I would take Wr. There are a couple of Wr that are playable on FA market. I dont see any other CB that are unless you think T Diggs has something ledt
Agree with the point about corner vs receiver in FA. I’ve made the same point. On the other hand though, I think there’s a chance that a corner at 71 could present solid competition (and depth) for us. And then of course there’s the idea that 1) the previous scheme didn’t do Sainristil any favors, and 2) corner might be
slightly less important in Jones’ scheme.
Then you add in these factors:
We have Amos, Sainristil and Robertson in the fold next year, whereas at receiver, it might just be McCaffrey and Lane (depending on what happens with Terry).
There are likely receivers at 71 could also provide solid competition (and depth), but our problem is lacking starters (Z and slot), not depth. FA could be the (supplemental) answer, but we’re likely in the same boat next year.
Gotta support our franchise qb, and for a guy that seems to rely heavily on trust in his receivers, changing out receivers every year probably isn’t ideal.
 }})
