Quote:Some of you have hinted at it, but haven't stated it:

 

The term "overdraft" exists only in the PAST tense.

 

There are many that thought Seattle overdrafted Wilson.  I agree with TMD's assertion that Kaepernick would have been a great pick at 16, and many in Cinci wouldn't have minded if they'd picked him with their first overall pick.  But both teams would have been blasted by their fans and the press for not getting "value".  Seattle, by the way, were blasted for reaching throughout the 2012 NFL draft - including the Wilson pick.

 

Re-do the 2000 draft today, and Brady goes first overall.  I'm totally against pirk's advice:  You like a guy, you take him.  That's what Seattle did, and that's what the Patriots did. 

 

Don't chase "value."  Get a good player.

 

 

Good luck with that. Overdraft also exists in the future, leading up to the draft, and presently when the pick is made, too. Those are the times when it is most pertinent.

 

If you draft Andy Dalton in the first round, you don't draft A.J. Green in the first round. Who are you going to draft in the second round who equals the value of Green/Dalton?

 

Seattle wasn't really blasted for Wilson, as much as you say they were. Only by those who value the draft based on need, not BAP. They didn't need Wilson because they had Flynn, according to them.

 

You want to redraft 2012? Which pick do you want to replace for Wilson: Anger, Blackmon, or Branch?

 

 

The problem with your argument is, there are no re-do's. Drafting Brady in the first 4-5 rounds is overdrafting him, leading up to the 200 draft, during the draft, and even afterwards. Drafting him before that is "chasing value", exactly what you say to not do. The Patriots did not do that. They drafted him in the 6th round.

 

Half of your argument is invalidated by the other half of your argument.

---