Maybe something that the front office already sensed, hence them being OK with trading out of the first: [Peter Schrager] – There’s never been a more lopsided Offense to Defense NFL Draft 1st Round. From convos- I only have 6 “surefire” first round picks on D right now.

6 comments

1. I realize that our draft pick trade set the framework for the Diggs trade, however they had to have come to an agreement among the scouting org and others that there wasn’t a ‘gotta have’ guy in the first. Knowing that our needs now, at least for starters, lie on the defense, this tracks.

2. I mean, most GMs have commented in how weak this draft class is compared to say next years class which will be loaded do to nil/covid year.

3. It makes sense with this and the wanting to add a vet WR. They can trade up from 42 if needed if someone falls

4. I’m fine with everything, but just give diggs like a 2 year contact. That 1 year makes me a little uncomfortable. I get commitment, and diva, etc. but 1 year is not fun to look at

5. I dont think that makes sense. You could just as easily say the first round pick is worth more because offense is worth more?? The team said they ascribe more value to a 2nd round pick this year or in other words pick 25 and pick 40 are about the same so why not collect more pics (and use them to get proven offensive starters it turns out).

6. This is why Texans are fine with 2 2nds and no 1sts.