(05-01-2021, 10:03 AM)Bullseye Wrote:

(05-01-2021, 09:19 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Terrible, terrible picks on day 2. The only saving grace was drafting Cisco. He wasn't in my top 3 choices for Safety, but he is a good player and should be a decent upgrade over what we had at the position.

The day started out bad as we had a lot of talent on the board and still decided to take a CB, which makes no sense at all. We had our starters set, so why did we need a 4th CB so early in the draft? Campbell isn't a bad player, but he certainly wasn't the best player on the board or even the best CB. With that said, he should be a contributor, there were just much better choices left on the board, so I will give this selection a C.

The Little selection sent me over the edge. We passed up on some very good OT prospects to select a player that hasn't played football in 2 years. That makes makes absolutely no sense at all. Meyer was preaching taking the BAP, which we now find out is a flat out lie. No reasonable person can explain how a guy that hasn't played football in 2 years can be better than the hundreds of good football players who were left on the board. It just doesn't compute. Not to mention how high the took this guy. You just don't spend that high of a pick on a guy you have no information on. You can't have any scouting information when he hasn't played since Stanford's opening game of 2019. There is no scouting to be had! You can't come to a conclusion about something without having any evidence and there was no evidence, because it doesn't exist. Whether or not this guy turns out to be good is irrelevant. They blindly used a high pick on a guy with nothing to back up the selection. They might as well of thrown a dart at their draft board and selected who ever it landed on. That is totally irresponsible drafting and made me lose any confidence in their abilities to make rational decisions. This guy should not have been selected by any team until the final two rounds of the draft, based upon the lack of a body of work. For that, I give the player a grade of I for incomplete, since we basically know nothing about him since 2018. For the pick itself, I give it an F, due to the incompetence and lack of reasoning by the front office.

As for Cisco, he is by far, the best pick we have made outside of Lawrence. I give this pick a B.

While I wasn't enthusiastic about the Campbell pick, I wasn't necessarily ANTI Campbell.  I wanted Teven Jenkins there, but adding speed and versatility to the secondary is not a bad thing.  But I think that selection triggered a chain reaction, where everyone we discussed at 25 and 33 just about all came off the board after 33 and before 45.  Barmore, Jenkins, Grant, Eichenberg and Moehrig all came off the board in front of usThe only guy remaining among those most frequently discussed was Friermuth, and very few wanted him at 45.  I think once Moehrig came off the board, attention turned to T, and that's when Little came to be the target. Perhaps if their intent was to take Campbell at 33, they would have been advised to try to move up from 45.   I think there was SOME basis by which to make an informed decision on Little.  But the time away due to Covid just added more questions about his rehab and rust.  I'm certainly not going to say there's no basis for concern, but based on what I've seen, he has some size and ability.  A bigger question is can Warhop bring him up to speed, and if so, how quickly?  I know you have no faith in Warhop.  I'm not thrilled with him.  But if Little ends up starting in his rookie year because he actually supplanted one of the incumbents and upgrades that position this year, then all would have to give credit to both Baalke for recognizing his ability and Warhop for getting it out of him.

I like the Cisco pick.  It's been a while since we've had a S who can come up with the INT.

He has no information on him since one game in 2019. That's hardly enough to judge a guy on. An informed decision has to have evidence behind it and there hasn't been a shred of evidence since that time. What has he done since then? Has he improved? Has he regressed? There is simply no way of knowing until he faces real competition in a real game. We might as well of thrown a dart at a bunch of names with this pick. It would've made just as much sense. You cannot rationally select a guy based on what he did in one full season 2 years ago. That's nuts! Even if he does supplant one of the OT's (which I desperately hope he does,) I will not credit the front office for it, because it will be based on luck, not research. There is nothing to research since 2019. I'm not indicting the player, I'm condemning the process in which this selection was made.

---