Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="OldSchool101" data-source="post: 1096399" data-attributes="member: 10086">Oh I agree.For myself, I’m not sure if it’s my expectations were lowered due to no Day 1? I just felt like this draft was leaning “needs” based. I really feel like we addressed our top 4 most pressing needs. Plus landed the best K in college to light a fire under McManusCB depth     RD2Interior DT   RD3Edge rotation RD4Interior OL    RD5+CB depth     RD6 Teams PK     RD6Now I think we still took a combo of NEED at best prospect available and across several position groups we were focused on. I will say I would never have bet on no RB and no TE. Yet that doesn’t concern me a great deal because it’s lower on the totem pole of needs and easier to attain when ready.</blockquote>

Total: 581 (members: 1, guests: 580)