| DJ's left nut |
09-14-2016 11:58 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud
(Post 12425734)
Without the trade down, the Chiefs don't have at least three, if not four, of the following players:
Ehinger
Murray
Robinson
Hill
White
Nicolas
Let's say they took Jones at #1 and Russell at #2. Based on their draft positions, the draft would have looked like this:
1. Jones
2. Russell
3. ----
4. Eric Murray
5. Kevin Hogan
6. DJ White.
So, no Ehinger (hole at LG), no developmental receiver in Robinson, no speedster in Tyreek Hill and no developmental OLBer in Nicolas, Hogan cut.
Add to that, Russell still may have been cut.
The trade was far from a failure.
|
Why would you assume that not making the Jones trade would've stopped them from making the other trade out of the 2nd? And trying to stretch this exercise into "well they'd have just taken Russell in the 2nd" is obviously just driving an agenda. No, they wouldn't have; there were 15 picks made in between that 2nd rounder and where we took Russell, you really believe none of them were on our board?
They gained all of 2 picks from that deal, how do you figure that it cost us 4 players? If they don't make the deal, it's not Ehinger they lose but Murray (they'd have just taken Ehinger at 106 instead of 105). But if Murray slides to them at 126, they probably take him instead of Robinson. If they don't get Robinson, maybe they take Hill instead of Hogan and then DJ White with the next pick.
Who the hell knows how it would've gone, but it could've just as easily been some chaff that we lost out on.
It's just not worth giving up that year of control for more JAGs, not on a team that's this deep. You have even acknowledged that it's going to be an issue going forward due to roster depth.
Volume of picks isn't as important as quality and maximizing their value. |
