Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By
No, but that's a red herring argument.
The team has positions of need at spots where the talent is considered fairly good. Combining them makes sense. Like 2009, this is a draft where you'd rather be trading down into the teens or twenties and getting picks than drafting at the top. Like 2009, most teams will probably be unable to trade down because everyone already knows where the value is.
Again, take a look at 2009, which is the most recent similar draft, except there's not a Stafford available. For all the bitching about Jackson that goes on here, when you look at the top 12 picks
Jackson went pretty much where he should have, among that group (one can argue his exact spot in the top 5, but he's there). The problem is that it was the lower picks that had the better players. This draft appears to be similarly tough to read and similarly likely to see the better players go outside the top of the draft, according to most reports.
|
So once again - if the draft is hard to read, you
keep the young guy that you already know is going to be good and has already been on your team for 5 years.
Then you take a HR swing on the position with the greatest upside - i.e. Quarterback.
This is risk
without reward.
Unless Fisher or Joeckel become All-Pros, in which case the gamble was correct and Reid and Dorsey played the draft well.