(05-04-2021, 09:31 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(05-03-2021, 10:26 AM)Bullseye Wrote: Ki-Jana Carter?  Yes, without hesitation.  He was an absolute STUD until he blew out his knee on astroturf behind a horrid OL in Cincy.    Fournette?  Maybe.  He flamed out here in a dysfunctional organization with no QB and a poor OL, but Tampa picked him up and he was a major contributor in their Super bowl run, and they re-signed him.

Yes, look at the player selected.  That applies across the board.  Joeckel played a premium position-LT.  Was HE worth the investment?  Does it change even though there have been plenty of tackles that have been found in later rounds (Michael Roos, Erik Williams, David Bakhtiari, Jon Runyan)?  Jamarcus Russell played QB-the most important position.  There have been great QBs found in later rounds (Brett Favre, Drew Brees and Boomer Esiason in the 2nd round, Joe Montana and Russell Wilson in the 3rd round, etc.)  Does that mean you should never draft a QB high?  Of course not! 

First round busts happen in every position, as do later round successes.

My criticism was more that just because an RB is taken in the first you can't say they are going to be the next Barry or Walter. You can't dismiss arguments from others claiming value lost because one tweet says (shockingly) that RBs taken early tend to be more productive. Just because an RB was taken in the first is no guarantee of their success, nor is it a condemnation of the talent available at other positions where the RB was taken.

It puts the argument of "early draftees tend to perform well" in poor light as well when you just finished a season in which a UDFA easily topped that same standard.

I get that had we waited till the second, we likely would miss out on Etienne. My contention is that a 1000 yard rusher, if that is the standard, could be found later. If we were looking for an RB that could open up the offense and catch passes out of the backfield, we could find those guys later. Would they be the same player Etienne is? Of course not! But if we passed on a franchise tackle, pass rusher, or other key position to take a guy at a position that is easily replaceable or where production can be found later in the draft, that is going to impact the team for years to come. That's the same with every pick, though. It's just less likely you'll find that bookend tackle or shutdown corner in the 3rd. There's probably a tweet out there to support that argument, too.

This makes sense.  No argument with any concepts expressed here.

There is the question of whether a "franchise" LT could have been had at pick 25 in this draft.  Good LTs...possibly.  Franchise LTs are a taller order.

I know UM said he wasn't thrilled with the LTs in this class (though given the selection of Little in the 2nd, I'm thinking he meant the free agency class).

---