(12-27-2021, 12:57 PM)Newton Wrote:

(12-27-2021, 12:43 PM)Mikey Wrote: I think the argument is more that the position of the selection is what makes the pick poop.

The argument "If he turns out to be Kamara, it's a good pick" is flawed because Kamara wasn't taken anywhere near the first round. If he turns out to be Kamara, we spent a first rounder on fourth-round talent!
It's the same argument why Fournette at four was a bad pick, why Bryan Anger in the third was a bad pick, and so many other examples argued here over the years. What if JRob was our Kamara? Did the Saints bother wasting another pick on an RB just because their current RB wasn't a first rounder? Of course not.

We had so many other holes to fill that throwing a premium pick at a role player wasn't necessary. The guy is going to HAVE to be on the level of the league's elite RB to make it seem worth the value we gave up to get him.

While I agree that taking a running back in the first round is typically foolish, I don’t know where to start with this flawed logic. Kamara is not a fourth round talent. In fact, he is someone who outperformed his draft position greatly.

So did JRob, but we sought to replace him almost immediately.

The logic is that if Etienne ends up the next Michael Carter or Kenneth Gainwell or Rhamondre Stevenson, you spent a first rounder on fourth-round talent. Kamara is the exception to the rule. How many RB taken in the 20's outperform Taylor, Henry, Cook, or other guys taken in the 40s? Now if you spent a fourth rounder and they play at the same level as Taylor, or Cook, or even Kamara, you've won the value sweepstakes. If you spent a 25 on what other teams are spending a 45, a 70 or 100 on, you've tossed a bunch of value in the terlet.

Like I said, the team will be pressed to get years of production from Etienne solely due to where he was picked (and that's before he was hurt) to offset the lost value.

---