Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:Originally posted by mavfd9er:Originally posted by noobie:Originally posted by elguapo:
spiller will be gone by 16 or 17, i would rather take a good OT and a great pr/kr and great rb than a very good OT and ???? at 16 or 17. This way we get a good OT and a great need filled return man not to mention the best rb in the draft. The only problem is we got coffee last year with a 3rd, so i hope we don't shy away from a rb like spiller to take the 2nd rb spot from a high pick last year.
Read that like 4 times and I couldn't tell what you wanted or meant.
Spiller could be there at 16/17. Only team I see possibly taking spiller is Seattle. If we pass on Spiller at 13 for the best OT he probably wont be taken by the Giants or Tennessee.
That was exactly my thought. I really feel there's a good chance Spiller could be waiting at 16/17. But, let's say Seattle does take Spiller. Maybe a B. Graham or trade back could fit the bill? In any event, OT's are a premium in the draft and letting an elite OT pass by at 13 would be a huge mistake IMO.
Seattle needs an OT almost worse than we do. If Seattle doesn't get their OT at #6 and we're sitting at #13 with Bulaga, Spiller and Iupati on the board, and we take Bulaga, I wouldn't be shocked in Seattle took Iupati over Spiller strictly out of need.
Seattle desperately needs a LT though. It's a stretch to think Iupati can play LT. I wouldn't be surprised if they just waited on tackle and then selected Charles Brown in the 2nd.
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Feb 16, 2010 at 08:56:52 ]