(11-09-2022, 11:25 AM)Mikey Wrote:

(11-09-2022, 10:36 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote: Missing on the pick regardless of position would set us back the same.  There is no difference, a miss is a miss

That's oversimplifying it. The difference with the other players was that we had a 1000-yard RB on the roster and had holes practically everywhere else on the roster. THAT is the reason that so many were opposed to the choice. If the roster were in good health, you can afford to roll the dice. It worked out, this time. 

I'd contend that missing regardless of position would have different impact. If you have a decent RB and holes everywhere and miss, you end up with decent RB and holes everywhere. If you miss on other positions, you still have decent RB and a serviceable player where once you had a vacuum.

We could argue in circles as much as you wish, but the truth is there is so much potential butterfly effect after that pick that you can't say whether the risk was worth it or not. For example, take Teven, you don't take Little, you don't shell out FA money on Scherff, we can afford a true #1 receiver, and maybe find someone comparable at RB later; take Barmore, no Tufele, maybe no Fatukasi, Walker and Allen start seeing more sacks.

It's all speculative. Again, we rolled the dice, and it came up in our favor for once. Glad it did. Too often it hasn't.