Originally Posted by O.city:
If I could have Pearsall in the 4th round I'd be super happy.
I'm going to think it's more likely you might get Jermaine Burton in the 4th than Pearsall because some significant concerns are floating around out there about his maturity and given the number of taunting penalties he got in college they might just have some merit. [Reply]
I specifically remember Flowers being much higher than 4.4% coming out last year unless this is a collegiate average and not his final year because that was something like 11% IIRC. He was among the worst at the top, I know that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kccrow:
I don't see how Legette is on this list in the 1st. Maybe the 2nd.
WR:
Troy Franklin, Oregon
Keon Coleman, FSU
OT:
Tyler Guyton, Oklahoma
Kingsley Suamataia, BYU
DL:
T'Vondre Sweat, Texas
Darius Robinson, Missouri (DE/DT)
^If we really wanted to tighten the list up, I think Thomas Jr goes ahead of us and the others could be 2nd rounders. Well, I suppose anyone we don't take IS a 2nd rounder but you guys know what I mean. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Added Mitchell back but going to cut this list down after the combine.
If he runs in the 4.4s, he'll be on the list permanently. I just have a hard time seeing the Chiefs draft a 4.5 contested catch guy.
You’re far ahead of me on the draft as I have barely started looking deeper into the WRs.
Mitchell oozes upside.
Routes, body control, hands.
This also reminds me of the Paris Campbell vs Terry McLaurin draft. All the draft talking heads focused on the slot volume guy, not the boundary WR who was better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
You’re far ahead of me on the draft as I have barely started looking deeper into the WRs.
Mitchell oozes upside.
Routes, body control, hands.
This also reminds me of the Paris Campbell vs Terry McLaurin draft. All the draft talking heads focused on the slot volume guy, not the boundary WR who was better.
I like Mitchell, but again, he just doesn't fit the profile of WR that the Chiefs have gone after. [Reply]