Welcome Shamar Stewart

[XsandOs]

(Yesterday, 04:31 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: I would have taken Harmon.

Harmon and Ratledge in the first two rounds would have completely changed this draft for me.

(Yesterday, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK if I would have taken any listed over Stew but Barron. Harmon. Pearce, Campbell, or even Starks would not have made me mad.

(Yesterday, 04:55 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I probably would have panicked and picked Donovan Jackson because I really wanted Booker and there were 4 OL off the board already.
But we ended up landing Fairchild and Rivers anyways and I feel great about it. Plus we now have Myles Garrett v2.0

(Yesterday, 05:03 PM)Clark W Griswold Wrote: I would not have minded Starks or Campbell (or even Emannwori) at 17.

I would rather have Stewart over Pearce and I did not want them to use another early pick on a CB.  Time will tell if I was right or wrong.

(Yesterday, 08:05 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: Harmon and Ratledge and this draft would've been a A from me. Harmon is perhaps a little similar to Stewart having high missed tackles but being a good chaos creator. I just would've liked that coming from the DT position and not allowing QBs to step up. Plus the DE value was good late and looked as though it would be that way pre draft. 

(Yesterday, 08:11 PM)NUGDUKWE Wrote: I did like Harmon and Jihad Campbell. But I would've taken just about any of the olineman. I especially liked Simmons because even with the risk of the knee he could play guard and was potentially the best tackle in the draft. Those guys aren't found at pick 17 very often and could of set us up for the next decade.

17 was a tough position, especially with Graham and Nolen gone. Harmon is the only other player I could see as addressing a need. I felt Campbell, Starks and Pearce would have been a reach. 

Last year we got lucky with with the RT - albeit; it was a gamble based on the low number of college starts for him. Stewart does seem like a gamble based on low sack production. Hoping this works as well.