I personally think it’s really odd to have the strength of your team as wide receivers....doesn’t make a lot of since to me to have so much draft capital tied up there but it is....
I can’t recall any good playoffs teams that had the WRs as their best unit
But we didn't make that choice in one bite.
We *first* decided to trade a 1st round pick to get the rights to Cooper for a year and a half. We mortgaged the future to save a season for Garrett.
*That* was where we made the huge incremental commitment to WR. And a questionable one.
Having made that choice, paying Cooper a monster contract was the *best* case scenario. Worst case was finding out we wasted a 1st round pick on a year and a half rental.
Signing Lamb was getting great value with a 1st round pick, particularly where we sat and didn't have a great pick to take instead.
Though the relevant compare would be the trade back value we could have gotten for the Lamb pick. Was there ever word on what that was?
On the bright side, we've got a great receiving crew for next year, can let Gallup walk for a comp pick and not bat an eye in 2022, and can even trade/cut Cooper in 2022 and beyond whenever we want and still have a WR#1 talent on the team.
With Lamb, we won't be thinking about extending Gallup for more cap to WRs, and *can* drop our WR cap hit to tiny levels by moving on from Cooper, though I'm not in a rush to cut Cooper.
If they were really concerned about having too much resource tied up at WR this year when they sat on the clock for Lamb, they *could* have cashed out the value in Gallup's contract this year by trading him but didn't. This year was peak Gallup, after his big 2019. He'll never be thought of as a potential #1 again. May as well just keep him next year, as doubt we could get more in trade value than the eventual comp pick.
Moving Gallup would have been the move to make over not picking Lamb. Lamb was too much value to pass up. Most of that value comes in future years where we *don't* spend more at WR and can transition from Cooper to Lamb as our #1.